Russia Is Only Down 75 Percent YTD
- Thread starter libertad
- Start date
OK, you obviously don't know about history so I'll enlighten you.
Japan had surrendered before the bombs were dropped, the only discussion was about the conditions of surrender. Consider that it was an attack on civilians not an attack on a military target.
I wish Iraq would be technologically more advanced, the U.S. attacked Iraq (started a war) therefore Iraq has the right to drop a nuke on Houston and Los Angeles. This is all fine according to your logic. Considering how much unnecessary pain the U.S. has caused, my reaction to 9/11 is "so what, you had it coming" (if it happened as the US gov't says it did).
Waiting for you to post a link to the document authenticating your claim that the Japanese surrendered prior to Little Man and Fat Boy.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
"In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting."
"In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)
This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
Doesn't fly. That piece tries to stretch comments into an official surrender, which never came pre-nuked Japan. Any one of our liberal Generals could have said things like that on their own, in Iraq. In fact, some in the military did make such overtures about what happened. Same thing in early-to-mid Vietnam. The commander of the Japanese armed forces never surrendered. Japanese failed to surrender until after they met both Little Man and Fat Boy. And even then, the military still did not surrender. Their Emperor did, on the deck of an American aircraft carrier.
This is completely OT but I don't see how americans would be stupid for apologizing for the atomic bombs. This was most probably unnecessary but some scientists without conscience had built a bomb and then some politicians and the military wanted to try it on live humans. So that's what happened .
History is just politics anyway. I will venture to say that the truth is rarely told. Consider this : just as almost noone holds the US responsible for ushering the nuclear age and killing thousands of innoncent Japanese civilians, Bush and Blair and their clique will never be potrayed in history books as the war criminals and incompetent they are and they will never be held accountable for thousands of victims on both sides.
They japs started the war - we ended - anyone who apologizes for ending that war that way is ignorant.
If you want to get into legal theory - you are allowed to step up force in the defense of life. They launched a navy at us killing a peace time navy on our homeland - essentially civilians. They opened the door for a massive attack on their homeland and thats what they got.
You're a bit thick aren't you?
Pearl Harbor was a harbor full of military equipment, it wasn't an attack on civilians. Basically you just agreed again that Iraq has the right to obliterate Houston and Los Angeles (for example) by nuclear means and the civilians killed would deserve what they get (since the U.S. is the aggressor).
I can see that you are the type of person who has no understanding of international law or the reality of the situation. I suppose you get your arguments from nuevo pinko websites.
its funny that you could be so ignorant and so bombastic.
Someone less obtuse might have made some useful arguments and it might have been fun.
1. try thinking about what it means to be at peace.
2. try learning about international law and operating under international law or the color of international law.