Hiroshima 64 yrs ago

[BIEN_DIESEL]

No.
Native American <> true American.

Their ancestors migrated here too.

Did you know the earliest human remains found in the USA were Caucasian?


Fact.

and jesus invented pizza and brucetta

[JustAnotherUser]

i had no idea today was the anniversary






i feel terrible america was the one to first use a nuke.



It was not called for. The guys killed at peral harbor were americans and 'innocent' but they were also soldiers and the attack was an act of war.

The nuke killed 100,000 innocent people.

Had we nuked a military base, thatd be fine, but there was no reason what so ever to bomb a city full of children and civilians.



People who say ' they sorta deserved it', did the people killed on 9/11 sorta deserve it?

In both cases, the innocent people who dies in ny and hiroshima had no control over what their governments did or the retaliation that came from governmental actions.












****ed up, i wonder if some even is going on in japan. I wonder if obamas gonna say anything.

why the hell would you not kill civilians? In a time where the armies were conscript armies, everyone is fair game. The soldier who fires a bullet is just as responsible for the death he causes as the people who make the gun, bullet, grow his food, transport his food, etc. When an entire nation streamlines their economy for warfare, there are no civilians. Everyone is part of the war effort. Everyone is just as guilty as the death that comes as the soldiers. If i could kill 1,000,000 enemy "civilians" in a wwii setting, i would do it in an instant.

Except for the children, but there's nothing you can really do to avoid that sadly.

123

[DieselRobert1]

I had no idea today was the anniversary






I feel terrible America was the one to first use a nuke.



it was not called for. the guys killed at peral harbor were americans and 'innocent' but they were also soldiers and the attack was an act of war.

The nuke killed 100,000 innocent people.

had we nuked a military base, thatd be fine, but there was no reason what so ever to bomb a city full of children and civilians.



People who say ' they sorta deserved it', did the people killed on 9/11 sorta deserve it?

in both cases, the innocent people who dies in NY and Hiroshima had no control over what their governments did or the retaliation that came from governmental actions.













****ed up, i wonder if some even is going on in Japan. i wonder if Obamas gonna say anything.

We lost innocents as well, do you know the loss of life that would have occurred should have attempted a Land invasion. Japan, unprovoked, attack a fleet in port, the men were sleeping, Japan got every bit of what they deserved.


Why should Obama say something, he going to apologize for America again?

[Brando0331]

I had no idea today was the anniversary






I feel terrible America was the one to first use a nuke.



it was not called for. the guys killed at pearl harbor were americans and 'innocent' but they were also soldiers and the attack was an act of war.

The nuke killed 100,000 innocent people.

had we nuked a military base, thatd be fine, but there was no reason what so ever to bomb a city full of children and civilians.



People who say ' they sorta deserved it', did the people killed on 9/11 sorta deserve it?

in both cases, the innocent people who dies in NY and Hiroshima had no control over what their governments did or the retaliation that came from governmental actions.












****ed up, i wonder if some memorial event is going on in Japan. i wonder if Obamas gonna say anything.

First off Marines/Sailors =/= Soldiers. Innocent? Hardly we nuked areas they had bases/supply warehouse's. Those 100,000 people saved millions of lives. So STFU with this nonsense and learn the facts before you sound stupid, oh wait....

[Illiad]

He's too busy leaching off our country, you can't succeed in third world Vietnam.

he wouldn't be the first to fail in Vietnam.

[TheSarge]

and jesus invented pizza and brucetta

he fuking did bro (srs)

all knowledge comes from god

think about it.....

































fap

[DieselRobert1]

he wouldn't be the first to fail in Vietnam.

If our boys were allowed to kill, and not be hindered by all the bleeding heart, save the earth, hugs for everyone hippies we would have won.

I think some of you can't grasp the concept of war, war is meant for one thing and one thing only, to KILL. Some of you hippies need to grasp that simple concept.

[JustAnotherUser]

If our boys were allowed to kill, and not be hindered by all the bleeding heart, save the earth, hugs for everyone hippies we would have won.

I think some of you can't grasp the concept of war, war is meant for one thing and one thing only, to KILL. Some of you hippies need to grasp that simple concept.

And the fact that the people of Vietnam viewed the conflict as generational. And guerilla warfare is basically impossible to beat.

Besides, Vietnam was a stupid war based on commie hate and trade. Shouldn't have ever gotten involved.

And Robert Mcnamara deserved to be shot.

[Illiad]

If our boys were allowed to kill, and not be hindered by all the bleeding heart, save the earth, hugs for everyone hippies we would have won.

I think some of you can't grasp the concept of war, war is meant for one thing and one thing only, to KILL. Some of you hippies need to grasp that simple concept.

So what is the point of killing if that is the only point of war?

War is used to change hands of power, to obtain new land, to stop aggressive regimes, and to win spoils or glory. Killing is a means to this end, it is not the end.

[thelastpolarbear]

I dont think I have the attention span to keep up with some of you guy's arguments, lol. I thought it through and I take back what I said earlier. Though the innocent civilians didnt deserve to die, the bombing was necessary and spared more lives than if a land invasion would of happened. If you think about it, even if the US didnt drop the bomb and invaded Japan every last Japanese soldier would have either fought to the death or killed themselves. I have seen footages of mass suicides and I have even been to where they have taken place, words cant even describe how it feels after you see footage of a whole Japanese family jump of a cliff and a mother throwing her own infant baby hundreds of feet down from a cliff. The atomic bombs did spare a huge amount of lives because the Japanese government even told their civilians to kill themselves rather than be captured by the enemies(Americans). Go watch Letters from Iwo Jima and see the suicide scene, they would rather kill themselves than be captured.

[IronAlex]

Okay this thread took a left turn somewhere back there...

[JustAnotherUser]

So what is the point of killing if that is the only point of war?

War is used to change hands of power, to obtain new land, to stop aggressive regimes, and to win spoils or glory. Killing is a means to this end, it is not the end.

And destabilize countries, making them more succeptable to economic dependence.

[21Classic]

If our boys were allowed to kill, and not be hindered by all the bleeding heart, save the earth, hugs for everyone hippies we would have won.

I think some of you can't grasp the concept of war, war is meant for one thing and one thing only, to KILL. Some of you hippies need to grasp that simple concept.

Not anymore man.


Times have changed. society grows and gets better.

100 years ago it was viewed as ok to murder a black man because he talked to a white woman.


its not acceptable anymore to kill innocents in order to win in a military struggle.

If this was 1950, im sure everyone on here would agree with you, but people are becoming more accepting of each other. we have a black president for example.

they arent hippies or bleeding hearts, just people who have grown morally and intellectually with the times.


look around brah, your in the minority, this blood thirsty mentality is a 3rd world attitude of things.

[deafbrah]

America F uck yeah

[Meskeet]

[stevedarsh]

People need to read up on their history and not believe the crap they see in Hollywood.

1. Was the dropping of the Atomic bombs necessary?

No.

2. Did dropping the Atomic bombs end the war early?

No

3. If the bombs weren't drop, would the Japanese of carried on fighting?

No.

4. If the Americans wanted peace with Japan and were willing to accept peace with Japan, with the one request that the emperor keep his status, when would ww2 have ended?

May-June 1945.

http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

The atomic bombs were dropped for 2 reasons,

1. to see the effects of an atomic blast on a real world target.
2. to show Stalin that America not only had the atomic bomb but also was more than willing to use it.

The Japanese biggest worry wasn't America invading but the Soviet Union invading as they knew that the Soviet Union would destroy Japanese society and way of life, America could at least be reasoned with. They wanted to surrender before the Soviet Union invaded and was relying on the Soviet Union, in the Summer of 1945, to help them get a peace deal with the Allies. The Americans rejected it as it wasn't unconditional and the Soviet Union then entered the war.

wrong. the japanese general called the bombs a "gift from god" that allowed the japanese to end the war with their honor intact. the japanese emperor had to intervene with his advisors several times to end the war even after the bombs were dropped. you need a slap in the face and a history book.

"It has sometimes been argued that Japan would have surrendered if simply guaranteed that the Emperor would be allowed to continue as formal head of state. However, Japanese diplomatic messages regarding a possible Soviet mediation — intercepted through Magic, and made available to Allied leaders — have been interpreted by some historians to mean that "the dominant militarists insisted on preservation of the old militaristic order in Japan, the one in which they ruled."[29] They also faced potential death sentences in trials for Japanese war crimes if they surrendered.[11] This was also what occurred in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and other tribunals.

Professor of history Robert James Maddox wrote that "Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman’s top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral’s memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn’t go off.'" "Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. 'This sounds fine,' he told the courier, 'but this is only February. Can’t we get one sooner?'" "The best that can be said about Eisenhower’s memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time." "Notes made by one of Stimson’s aides indicate that there was a discussion of atomic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower’s part."[35]

Maddox also wrote that "Even after both bombs had fallen and Russia entered the war, Japanese militants insisted on such lenient peace terms that moderates knew there was no sense even transmitting them to the United States. Hirohito had to intervene personally on two occasions during the next few days to induce hardliners to abandon their conditions. . . . That the militarists would have accepted such a settlement before the bombs is farfetched, to say the least."[35]

Another argument by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa is that it was the Soviet declaration of war in the days between the bombings that caused the surrender. Other scholars disagree.[36][37][38]

The "one condition" faction, led by Togo, seized on the bombing as decisive justification of surrender. Kōichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisers, stated: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war."[39]"

oh, and **** you and your whiny blood belching vagina self

and we didn't nuke suburbia. we nuked areas dense with warehouses and factories.

[panther1994]

america




WE NEG BACK!!!!!!!!!!!

[DCutch]

wrong. the japanese general called the bombs a "gift from god" that allowed the japanese to end the war with their honor intact. the japanese emperor had to intervene with his advisors several times to end the war even after the bombs were dropped. you need a slap in the face and a history book.

"It has sometimes been argued that Japan would have surrendered if simply guaranteed that the Emperor would be allowed to continue as formal head of state. However, Japanese diplomatic messages regarding a possible Soviet mediation ? intercepted through Magic, and made available to Allied leaders ? have been interpreted by some historians to mean that "the dominant militarists insisted on preservation of the old militaristic order in Japan, the one in which they ruled."[29] They also faced potential death sentences in trials for Japanese war crimes if they surrendered.[11] This was also what occurred in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and other tribunals.

Professor of history Robert James Maddox wrote that "Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman?s top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral?s memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn?t go off.'" "Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. 'This sounds fine,' he told the courier, 'but this is only February. Can?t we get one sooner?'" "The best that can be said about Eisenhower?s memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time." "Notes made by one of Stimson?s aides indicate that there was a discussion of atomic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower?s part."[35]

Maddox also wrote that "Even after both bombs had fallen and Russia entered the war, Japanese militants insisted on such lenient peace terms that moderates knew there was no sense even transmitting them to the United States. Hirohito had to intervene personally on two occasions during the next few days to induce hardliners to abandon their conditions. . . . That the militarists would have accepted such a settlement before the bombs is farfetched, to say the least."[35]

Another argument by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa is that it was the Soviet declaration of war in the days between the bombings that caused the surrender. Other scholars disagree.[36][37][38]

The "one condition" faction, led by Togo, seized on the bombing as decisive justification of surrender. Kōichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisers, stated: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war."[39]"

oh, and **** you and your whiny blood belching vagina self

and we didn't nuke suburbia. we nuked areas dense with warehouses and factories.

This.^^^

Also, you all just need to accept their culture. The "Civilians" would have been armed and it would have been a much longer and bitter fight. You all speak of how guerilla warfare is "Unstoppable", well, how do you think it would have been in Japan. Culturally, the Japanese people would have fought to the bitter end. It was pretty much a decision of: Send our troops in and risk hundreds of thousands of our soldiers lives in addition to possibly near a million "civilian" casualties. Or end it through the bombing of their land, (which, by the way, military installations/facilities were targeted as well) and force them to end the war, with no losses to our forces but hundreds of thousands of "civilians"(Remember, Guerilla Warfare) and soldiers died. Which sounds like the lesser evil of the two?

You all say that it was an atrocity, that no civilians deserved what they got. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's war. Be happy we live in a new day and age where our technology is so precise that we can minimize civilian casualties.

[SoggyDoughnut]

best thing that could have happened for both sides...

Agreed. Back then that was the war to end all wars. It was the war that for everyone involved on the Allied side saw as the final fight between good and evil. Now, obviously, we have grown past that. But if we hadn't used the bomb, someone would have. And I personally think the US has taken a very good stance on nuclear arms. If Russia had developed them and used them on China, do you think they would have stopped? If japan had them, don't try and tell me they wouldn't have been carpet bombing China. And yes, an Allied invasion of Japan would have cost 10-15 times the number of lives. All in all, it worked out well. The world at large sees that these weapons should not be used, and from it Japan and the US eventually come out in a very good relationship.

[IronAlex]

We, at 20, are far smarter than the men who nuked japan.

look around brah, your in the minority, this blood thirsty mentality is a 3rd world attitude of things.

I don't even know where to start with this... Well at 20 no people are not far smarter than the men who made the Atomic bomb, America as a whole is dumb not just dumb but really dumb.

A person is smart (or can be smart) but that isn't the case when you look at it as a whole. And honestly I have no idea what planet your living on but 99% of the people who are against war are either misinformed or naive enough to think that peace is sustainable, its not.

There is a good reason for that though free will someone no matter how "advanced" we get will always want more then what he/she has. It's one thing to say we've grown to be more accepting of a race it's a whole other thing to think that violence will end... ever.

Look around brah, your in the minority, even PETA firebombs buildings, green peace (peace for Christ sake!) firebombs lumber mills and trucks that "aren't Eco friendly" so while you live in a fantasy world my friend you should get out and see just things really are. This blood thirsty mentality isn't just a 3rd world attitude of things.

[CementPizza]

and jesus invented pizza and brucetta

Sorry, bish.

What did you say?

http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/html/kennewick_man.html

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf109/sf109p02.htm


Could be very tall Asians...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...9905-3,00.html


Possibly came from Spain.
Short article
n a radical new view of pre-history, two prominent archeologists say North America's first inhabitants may have crossed the icy Atlantic Ocean some 18,000 years ago from Europe's Iberian Peninsula. The theory, presented at a weekend conference, is at odds with the long-held notion that the continent's first settlers came across a land bridge from Asia. The conventional view is the stuff of college entrance exams and Far Side cartoons _ wandering cavemen wrapped in animal hides and lugging enormous spears, crossing the land bridge from Asia to hunt woolly mammoths. Archeologists say some nomads almost certainly made their way into Alaska and found an ice-free highway down into the continent some 13,500 years ago. Their culture has been named Clovis for their distinctive weapons that have been found in digs nationwide. But according to the new theory, the continent's first inhabitants may have crossed the Atlantic more than 18,000 years ago from Europe's Iberian Peninsula _ the area that is now Spain, Portugal and southwestern France. Belonging to a group known as the Solutreans, these pre-modern explorers are believed to have originally settled the Eastern Seaboard, according to the researchers.

[CementPizza]

We, at 20, are far smarter than the men who nuked japan.

LOL.

This is stupidest thing ever posted on the internet.

[Brando0331]

LOL.

This is stupidest thing ever posted on the internet.

HAHAH qft.

[humblegenius]

This bombing can not be compared to other bombings, due to the ill health and side effects still felt 50 years later after the event.

The grandchildren of this event are still living with it. How many of those that have said "dont F with us" would be happy knowing their chances of cancer have increased 100 fold due to the actions of people 65 years ago.

The use of atomic weapons is always wrong.

[CementPizza]

This bombing can not be compared to other bombings, due to the ill health and side effects still felt 50 years later after the event.

The grandchildren of this event are still living with it. How many of those that have said "dont F with us" would be happy knowing their chances of cancer have increased 100 fold due to the actions of people 65 years ago.

The use of atomic weapons is always wrong.

And... It caused Godzilla.

[CantStopNow]

Hey Hiroshima!

[thorton]

I would just like to point something out.


Japan inflicted 8,000,000 to 16,000,000 Civilians deaths on China. Japan itself had only roughly 580,000 deaths civilian deaths.

Does this justify it? No, of course not, but it does shed some light on what kind of war this was. Over 60 million civilians lost there lives in this war. It was called a Total war for a reason.

The reasoning behind was it justified or not ect do not really matter. For this reason only. You are arguing about strategy from a moral standpoint on an action that occurred in a war that did not take morality into consideration due to it's very nature as a total war. If the war was one of restraint, as we saw recently in the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq 2, than we could argue the morality, since as a directive civilians are not targeted, but this was was a free for all by every side.



For even better number games, 1% of civilian causalities in WW2 were the result of the Atom bombs.

[21Classic]

I don't even know where to start with this... Well at 20 no people are not far smarter than the men who made the Atomic bomb, America as a whole is dumb not just dumb but really dumb.

A person is smart (or can be smart) but that isn't the case when you look at it as a whole. And honestly I have no idea what planet your living on but 99% of the people who are against war are either misinformed or naive enough to think that peace is sustainable, its not.

There is a good reason for that though free will someone no matter how "advanced" we get will always want more then what he/she has. It's one thing to say we've grown to be more accepting of a race it's a whole other thing to think that violence will end... ever.

Look around brah, your in the minority, even PETA firebombs buildings, green peace (peace for Christ sake!) firebombs lumber mills and trucks that "aren't Eco friendly" so while you live in a fantasy world my friend you should get out and see just things really are. This blood thirsty mentality isn't just a 3rd world attitude of things.

LOL.

This is stupidest thing ever posted on the internet.

MORALLY smarter, not intellectually.

I didnt think id have to explain that.

[vref]

This bombing can not be compared to other bombings, due to the ill health and side effects still felt 50 years later after the event.

The grandchildren of this event are still living with it. How many of those that have said "dont F with us" would be happy knowing their chances of cancer have increased 100 fold due to the actions of people 65 years ago.

The use of atomic weapons is always wrong.

Maybe you should ask some of the children and grand children of vets whose parents/grandparents lived through events like Iwo Jima and Tarawa if they would like to take their chances of never even having been born as a result of the millions of people that would have died from a land invasion. I pray to God that none of you idiots are ever my Commander in Chief and responsible for my life.

[Jattfusion]

interesting virew from the family of the us soldier posted there after the war.
----------------
404.

My paternal grandfather was sent to Japan as part of the occupation forces shortly after the bombs were dropped (after serving in SE Asia). For the rest of his life, he had pretty severe mental health problems and shook incessantly. My father and uncle once found photos he had taken of Nagasaki (where he was posted) under the house and my grandfather flew into a rage such as they had never seen before. He destroyed the worst ones (my father said that they were of burnt corpses etc) but many of those that he left are terrible enough. They show a completely flattened city. Whilst the rest of my grandparents generation hated the Japanese, especially those who did not fight, my grandfather did not. I think this is because he actually got to see ordinary Japanese people.
Posted by Miriam Seshadri (nee Wells) August 6, 09 11:09 PM
-------------


this is from the link posted by OP