No More Victims













There's no clear cut answer. I can sit here and say 'Thank god Harry Truman ended WWll' - yet at the same time I know some innocent children were disfigured, maimed & torched in doing so. The difference there is my dad got to come home because he (HT) had the balls to make a tough decision.

Yet as human beings, when we come across children who are victims, it's difficult if not impossible to turn our backs.
 






Vagitarian said:
There's no clear cut answer. I can sit here and say 'Thank god Harry Truman ended WWll' - yet at the same time I know some innocent children were disfigured, maimed & torched in doing so. The difference there is my dad got to come home because he (HT) had the balls to make a tough decision.

Yet as human beings, when we come across children who are victims, it's difficult if not impossible to turn our backs.
Click to expand...

Truman ended WWII by incinerating 200,000 Jap citizens? How so? You do understand that Hirohito had already surrendered verbally....and that negotiations were going on, right?

There are reasons why 5 star generals denounced Truman for carrying out the biggest act of terrorism ever on this planet.

Eisenhower was not the only one.

Your dad should have come home....just as quickly....without dropping A-bombs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


















thehairyfiddler said:
Truman ended WWII by incinerating 200,000 Jap citizens? How so? You do understand that Hirohito had already surrendered verbally....and that negotiations were going on, right?

There are reasons why 5 star generals denounced Truman for carrying out the biggest act of terrorism ever on this planet.

Eisenhower was not the only one.

Your dad should have come home....just as quickly....without dropping A-bombs.
Click to expand...
Friendly negotiations were going on when the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor. Not like they gave Harry much reason to trust their peace negotiations in '45.
 






thehairyfiddler said:
Truman ended WWII by incinerating 200,000 Jap citizens? How so? You do understand that Hirohito had already surrendered verbally....and that negotiations were going on, right?

There are reasons why 5 star generals denounced Truman for carrying out the biggest act of terrorism ever on this planet.

Eisenhower was not the only one.

Your dad should have come home....just as quickly....without dropping A-bombs.
Click to expand...

Negotiations? Like when they sneak attacked Pearl Harbor? Negotiations are always 'going on'. You have no idea where those 'negotiations' would have gone. Sneak attack our navy in our own territory, shit happens.

Case closed, end of story.
 






Walking Eagle said:
Friendly negotiations were going on when the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor. Not like they gave Harry much reason to trust their peace negotiations in '45.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the bombs turned a cocky (negotiating my ass) emporer into a surrendering emporer and turned Japan into a trusted ally.
 






thehairyfiddler said:
What update? I simply showed a link to a guy who coordinates pro bono care for Iraqi kids that have had their arms and legs blown off. I suppose you weren't aware of these things happening, eh boy?
Click to expand...

In July, 1945 the Emporer rejected the Pottsdam Declaration. Do you call an emporer rejecting our proposal and then waiting for us to come crawling back negotiations?

Oh well, what a bummer.

If the shoe fits, wear it....
 
Last edited by a moderator:


















Vagitarian said:
In July, 1945 the Emporer rejected the Pottsdam Declaration. Do you call an emporer rejecting our proposal and then waiting for us to come crawling back negotiations?

Oh well, what a bummer.

If the shoe fits, wear it....
Click to expand...



Yeah Vag...you know more about it than these 4 goof balls.....


1. Dwight Eisenhower - Supreme Allied Commander in Europe

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." - From Eisenhower's memoir "The White House Years"

2. Douglas MacArthur - Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." - From Norman Cousins' (consultant to General MacArthur) memoir "The Pathology of Power"

3. Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." - Quoted in the New York Times (6 October 1945) and from Gar Alperovitz's work "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb"

4. Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." - From Leahy's memoir "I Was There"


In researching this topic I've found that we are often taught that using nukes was militarily necessary. My query is who are "we" to suggest such things when our World War II military commanders disagreed? Surely they knew more than any of us here, including veterans, because at the end of the day wern't these men above some of our top generals?

Especially with Douglas MacAthur - he supported the use of atomic bombs in the Korean War, but was ferociously opposed (along with a number of his colleages) in using atomic bombs against Japan.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100820094234AADoJvJ


Astounding....the lack of knowledge on these events....due to an American myopic view...and how the victors write the history books.
 












thehairyfiddler said:
Yeah Vag...you know more about it than these 4 goof balls.....

1. Dwight Eisenhower - Supreme Allied Commander in Europe

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." - From Eisenhower's memoir "The White House Years"

2. Douglas MacArthur - Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." - From Norman Cousins' (consultant to General MacArthur) memoir "The Pathology of Power"

3. Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." - Quoted in the New York Times (6 October 1945) and from Gar Alperovitz's work "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb"

4. Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." - From Leahy's memoir "I Was There"


In researching this topic I've found that we are often taught that using nukes was militarily necessary. My query is who are "we" to suggest such things when our World War II military commanders disagreed? Surely they knew more than any of us here, including veterans, because at the end of the day wern't these men above some of our top generals?

Especially with Douglas MacAthur - he supported the use of atomic bombs in the Korean War, but was ferociously opposed (along with a number of his colleages) in using atomic bombs against Japan.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100820094234AADoJvJ


Astounding....the lack of knowledge on these events....due to an American myopic view...and how the victors write the history books.
Click to expand...

The Commander-in-Chief made/makes the final decision, get over it. You want a general of the military running our country? Half the wars in the world are fought by military ruinning a country. Mac Arthur wasn't done in Korea either when Truman was done - he wanted to go into China. Later on Eisenhower claimed the military industrial complex to be one of our greatest concerns.

P.S. Your ability to cut n paste is awesome, dude.
 






thehairyfiddler said:
Yeah Vag...you know more about it than these 4 goof balls.....


1. Dwight Eisenhower - Supreme Allied Commander in Europe

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." - From Eisenhower's memoir "The White House Years"

2. Douglas MacArthur - Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." - From Norman Cousins' (consultant to General MacArthur) memoir "The Pathology of Power"

3. Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." - Quoted in the New York Times (6 October 1945) and from Gar Alperovitz's work "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb"

4. Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." - From Leahy's memoir "I Was There"


In researching this topic I've found that we are often taught that using nukes was militarily necessary. My query is who are "we" to suggest such things when our World War II military commanders disagreed? Surely they knew more than any of us here, including veterans, because at the end of the day wern't these men above some of our top generals?

Especially with Douglas MacAthur - he supported the use of atomic bombs in the Korean War, but was ferociously opposed (along with a number of his colleages) in using atomic bombs against Japan.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100820094234AADoJvJ


Astounding....the lack of knowledge on these events....due to an American myopic view...and how the victors write the history books.
Click to expand...

Interesting info, Hairy. But not definitive. Truman was probably taking counsel from ALL his top brass, not just the relative few, important though they were, whom you cherry picked.

Two very important points.

We rightfully demanded UNCONDITIONAL surrender.

The soundness of the decision was that it took TWO bombs for the Japanese to come around. If they were so ready to surrender, I think they would have IMMEDIATELY given unconditional surrender within mere hours after Hiroshima. They didn't, what does that say?
 






to thehairyfiddler

As for your thoughts on wether it was right to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman had no other choice. Japan wanted to surrender on their terms, keeping lands that they had conquered, having there own military investigate war crimes that they committed and no occupation from foreign forces. If we didn't drop the bomb and force unconditional surrender we would have invade Japan starting with Kiushu and expected casulaties were 1 mil. +. As for Iraq I can speak first hand about Iraq and Afghanistan. I deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003. It is unfortunated that civillans were injure but it happens in war. The US and NATO are really the only forces that really trys to minimize civillan casulaties. Our enemy that we are fighting dosen't care and will use it to their advantage. I have personally seen insurgents hiding behide woman and children while attacking our forces. So what would you like our troops to do? Also most of the civillan casulaites come from insurgent actions like IED, VBIED, Suicide bombings, etc.. In Afghanistan the ROE( thats rules of Engagement for you who are not from the military) and so restrictive that you can't engage a target till fired upon, you can't call in Air Support even if you are engaged in a fierce fire fight in a village due to the possiblites of civillans being there. We currently have a Policy that wants us to win hearts and minds but that puts our troops at risk as well. It is a double edge sword that I think the politicians don't understand since most of the have never served much less been in the trenches in combat.

I wish we could all get along and there would be no wars but it is human nature. And people here in the States really need to know that there are people in this world that all they want to do is KILL YOU, YOUR FAMILY, AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THIS COUNTRY and will do everything in their power to do that.:mad:
 






to thehairyfiddler

As for your thoughts on wether it was right to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman had no other choice. Japan wanted to surrender on their terms, keeping lands that they had conquered, having there own military investigate war crimes that they committed and no occupation from foreign forces. If we didn't drop the bomb and force unconditional surrender we would have invade Japan starting with Kiushu and expected casulaties were 1 mil. +. As for Iraq I can speak first hand about Iraq and Afghanistan. I deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003. It is unfortunated that civillans were injure but it happens in war. The US and NATO are really the only forces that really trys to minimize civillan casulaties. Our enemy that we are fighting dosen't care and will use it to their advantage. I have personally seen insurgents hiding behide woman and children while attacking our forces. So what would you like our troops to do? Also most of the civillan casulaites come from insurgent actions like IED, VBIED, Suicide bombings, etc.. In Afghanistan the ROE( thats rules of Engagement for you who are not from the military) and so restrictive that you can't engage a target till fired upon, you can't call in Air Support even if you are engaged in a fierce fire fight in a village due to the possiblites of civillans being there. We currently have a Policy that wants us to win hearts and minds but that puts our troops at risk as well. It is a double edge sword that I think the politicians don't understand since most of the have never served much less been in the trenches in combat.

I wish we could all get along and there would be no wars but it is human nature. And people here in the States really need to know that there are people in this world that all they want to do is KILL YOU, YOUR FAMILY, AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THIS COUNTRY and will do everything in their power to do that.:mad:
 






Vagitarian said:
P.S. Your ability to cut n paste is awesome, dude.
Click to expand...

Would you prefer I type all that shit out?

Back to the topic at hand. I didn't want this thing to turn political....although I see why it did.

Hef says this guy who coordinates pro bono services for Iraqi kids in having prosthetic arms and legs attached is a Tokyo Rose clone.

What about the rest here? Is this guy a traitorous scum? Lemme know.
 






macrall71 said:
to thehairyfiddler

I wish we could all get along and there would be no wars but it is human nature. And people here in the States really need to know that there are people in this world that all they want to do is KILL YOU, YOUR FAMILY, AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THIS COUNTRY and will do everything in their power to do that.:mad:
Click to expand...

Why sure there are. You'll have that when foreigners occupy their sovereign lands.

Can you imagine how many foreigners I would kill if they invaded the US? Thousands if not more. And you would be standing right next to me killing the same invaders/occupiers.
 






You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back