It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by chebob
You cannot justify dropping an A-Bomb on a city of civilians. IM oh so Humble O
Originally posted by chebob
We would have had enough international support to stop anything Japan could try...
...and there was no imminent threat of destruction to us as a society
Originally posted by chebob
I cannot fathom that someone would see the A-Bomb as a justified means to end the war. It's beyond my perception that we could perceive such an act as acceptable.
as posted by chebob
I cannot fathom that someone would see the A-Bomb as a justified means to end the war. It's beyond my perception that we could perceive such an act as acceptable.
Originally posted by consprtrkr
For the pro-bomb people: How come we couldn't live with a conditional surrender from a largely decimated Japan?
1. The war in Iraq was a war of choice that should never have been fought. That being said, the purpose was specifically to unseat Hussien, so of course it would make no sense to allow Hussein to remain in power once war commenced. 2. Accepting for the sake of argument that the official account regarding 9-11 is accurate, Omar was part of a conspiracy to attack the mainland of the U.S; the war against Japan was the outcome of a long term Imperial rivalry with the U.S in the Pacific. It is admitted by most mainstream historians that F.D.R took steps to nudge the Japanese towards war. I don't see an attack by one Imperial power upon the military base of another, as being analgous to the destruction of two buildings full of thousands of civilians. 3. My whole point in bringing up the Liberty was to illustrate the arbitrary nature of the entire debate. The Liberty was only an incident because the government decided that it would be hushed up. We can't continue to allow the elite to dictate to us in this way.
Originally posted by FredT
Originally posted by consprtrkr
The Japanese terms were not acceptable to the Allies. The overtaures were aimed at preserving Imperial rule in Japan and the emperor wanted veto power over cahnges in the post war period. Not acceptable then, not acceptable now. What if Saddam or say Mullah omar of the Taliban wanted the same deal? WOuld that be acceptable now?
The Liberty incident is a whole nother can of worms, but was an "incident" not a owrld war. (Im not condoning what happened to the Liberty and have started a few threads about it here)
Originally posted by twitchy
You guys are pretty twisted. At least if we had invaded Japan we would have been killing Japanese Soldiers, hundreds of thousands of civilians died horrificly, and genetic mutations persist to this day. Japan offered a conditional surrender weeks before we dropped not one, but two atomic bombs on CITIES. Cities where Kids, Families, and Old People live, like this kid...
Originally posted by chebob
Unfortunately, I oppose firebombing equally. Evil does not justify evil. IS it so that, because I oppose war in the first place, I have no right to comment on the blatant vulgaritys that occur in it? Not true, I have every right to express my disgust at what I see as the ultimate accumilation of war, total destruction.
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Yeah the Japs were really trying to take over the world were'nt they? I love it,
Originally posted by FredT
The term 'Japs" esp. in this contex is a derogatory one.