♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 26, 2012 14:02:10 GMT
^ Yes and why they couldn't give it BEFORE they kill 150k citizens? Its gonna make more sense before. They gave AFTER bcz they liked to use nuclear weapons and teach russia they got some. It was biggest terrorist act in all HISTORY. We have to give allied and axis leaders credit for not using the weapons of mass destruction! Some of Hitler's generals begged him to allow the use of poisoned gas, but Hitler refused because it would have been a war crime.
The atomic bomb clearly falls into the catagory of weapons of mass destruction and it is a great shame that Truman used it! It's also a shame that so many misguided Americans applaud and approve of this unneccesary war crime!
|
|
|
Post by lakshmi on Mar 26, 2012 14:07:55 GMT
I agree with it anna. How sad ppl excuse it.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 26, 2012 15:04:38 GMT
^ Yes and why they couldn't give it BEFORE they kill 150k citizens? Its gonna make more sense before. They gave AFTER bcz they liked to use nuclear weapons and teach russia they got some. It was biggest terrorist act in all HISTORY. We have to give allied and axis leaders credit for not using the weapons of mass destruction! Some of Hitler's generals begged him to allow the use of poisoned gas, but Hitler refused because it would have been a war crime. Well now Anna, Hitler did use poisoned gas on millions of helpless women and children in the death camps. I guess he didn't consider it a war crime if the victims were Jewish, Gypsies, Poles, or Homosexuals. Truman knew that the fanatical Japanese generals controlled the Japanese government and would not surrender without giving them indisputable evidence that they were going to lose the war. He made the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima first, and simultaneously demanded a Japanese surrender. The second bomb was only dropped when the Japanese didn't surrender after Hiroshima. Truman could have dropped the bomb on Tokyo which would have ended the war even sooner. He didn't do that for humanitarian reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 26, 2012 16:59:59 GMT
I think you've put it right in context, BA.
A great post and one that for me sums up how war ain't pretty and you sometimes have to do bad things to stop worse things from happening.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Mar 26, 2012 18:08:45 GMT
In six weeks not in one day. Sorry i for got i better explain it 4u. As if I should have known what you were thinking.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Mar 26, 2012 18:19:48 GMT
Really Wolfie! No court of law in this world would hold the innocent non combattant civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki responsible for whatever Japanese war criminals may have done in Nanking! Anna, where, exactly, did I ever write that non combatant Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were responsible for the actions of Japanese war criminals in Nanking?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 26, 2012 21:17:02 GMT
I think you've put it right in context, BA. A great post and one that for me sums up how war ain't pretty and you sometimes have to do bad things to stop worse things from happening. Thanks Lin -- Nice of you to say that. Even though I disagree with Anna, I do see her side of the argument. A leader like Harry Truman would have been receiving conflicting advice from all sides. He had to make a historic decision affecting many people's lives either way. Sometimes a leader can find himself caught between a rock and a hard place. No matter which course Truman had taken, historians would still be debating the wisdom of his choice today. Suppose he had decided not to drop the A-Bomb but to invade instead. Further suppose that the American military lost 100,000 lives completing the invasion while the war dragged on for the better part of another year. That's certainly not an unreasonable outcome when you consider the horrific losses during the invasion of Okinawa just to the south. Further suppose that the news media gets ahold of the information that we had the bomb and didn't use it. Do you think the parents of those 100,000 lost military personnel might vote for Harry's opponent? Don't you think there would have been a huge national outrage? I think Harry would have gone down in history at 'The Spineless President' who blinked.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 26, 2012 22:32:25 GMT
I think you've put it right in context, BA. A great post and one that for me sums up how war ain't pretty and you sometimes have to do bad things to stop worse things from happening. Thanks Lin -- Nice of you to say that. Even though I disagree with Anna, I do see her side of the argument. A leader like Harry Truman would have been receiving conflicting advice from all sides. He had to make a historic decision affecting many people's lives either way. Sometimes a leader can find himself caught between a rock and a hard place. No matter which course Truman had taken, historians would still be debating the wisdom of his choice today. Suppose he had decided not to drop the A-Bomb but to invade instead. Further suppose that the American military lost 100,000 lives completing the invasion while the war dragged on for the better part of another year. That's certainly not an unreasonable outcome when you consider the horrific losses during the invasion of Okinawa just to the south. Further suppose that the news media gets ahold of the information that we had the bomb and didn't use it. Do you think the parents of those 100,000 lost military personnel might vote for Harry's opponent? Don't you think there would have been a huge national outrage? I think Harry would have gone down in history at 'The Spineless President' who blinked. Dearest BushAdmirer! All Truman had to do was grant Hirohito immunity to get the Japanese to discuss surrender. Hirohito gave the warmongers Togo and co. power and he could have removed them from this power and replaced them with the pro peace Japanese politicans. Since Truman refused to grant Hirohito immunity the pro war faction was left in power and almost stopped the surrender with a putsch!
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 26, 2012 22:51:55 GMT
We have to give allied and axis leaders credit for not using the weapons of mass destruction! Some of Hitler's generals begged him to allow the use of poisoned gas, but Hitler refused because it would have been a war crime. Well now Anna, Hitler did use poisoned gas on millions of helpless women and children in the death camps. I guess he didn't consider it a war crime if the victims were Jewish, Gypsies, Poles, or Homosexuals. Truman knew that the fanatical Japanese generals controlled the Japanese government and would not surrender without giving them indisputable evidence that they were going to lose the war. He made the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima first, and simultaneously demanded a Japanese surrender. The second bomb was only dropped when the Japanese didn't surrender after Hiroshima. Truman could have dropped the bomb on Tokyo which would have ended the war even sooner. He didn't do that for humanitarian reasons. Dearest BushAdmirer! No one is saying that the crimes of Auschwitz or Nanking were justified and right! I also find the people who doubt or deny war crimes much more likable than those who support and applaud war crimes!
Truman used the atomic bomb as soon as it was available! It had to be tested and it was used as soon as possible on Hiroshima! The atomic bomb was not available before August 1945, when it was used! Even then some feared it would be a dude and the Japanese would then have this technology to study and perfect!
Tokyo was already destroyed in March 1945 by over 300 B29s, that dropped incendiary bombs to burn people alive. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo More non combattant civilians died in Tokyo from this than in Hiroshima!
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 27, 2012 15:44:54 GMT
Hirohito was as much to blame as Tojo and the rest of them.
IMO he ought to have been hung as a war criminal.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Mar 27, 2012 15:51:23 GMT
Even then some feared it would be a dude and the Japanese would then have this technology to study and perfect! My dear Anna Banana, I am truly shocked that you didn’t know that they were, in fact, both dudes. One was a “Little Boy” and the other was a “Fat Man”. Tokyo was already destroyed in April 1945 by over 300 B27s, that dropped incendiary bombs to burn people alive. Thanks for the history lesson, Anna! I had always been under the impression that B-29s were used in that attack.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 27, 2012 17:17:53 GMT
Thanks Lin -- Nice of you to say that. Even though I disagree with Anna, I do see her side of the argument. A leader like Harry Truman would have been receiving conflicting advice from all sides. He had to make a historic decision affecting many people's lives either way. Sometimes a leader can find himself caught between a rock and a hard place. No matter which course Truman had taken, historians would still be debating the wisdom of his choice today. Suppose he had decided not to drop the A-Bomb but to invade instead. Further suppose that the American military lost 100,000 lives completing the invasion while the war dragged on for the better part of another year. That's certainly not an unreasonable outcome when you consider the horrific losses during the invasion of Okinawa just to the south. Further suppose that the news media gets ahold of the information that we had the bomb and didn't use it. Do you think the parents of those 100,000 lost military personnel might vote for Harry's opponent? Don't you think there would have been a huge national outrage? I think Harry would have gone down in history at 'The Spineless President' who blinked. Dearest BushAdmirer! All Truman had to do was grant Hirohito immunity to get the Japanese to discuss surrender. Hirohito gave the warmongers Togo and co. power and he could have removed them from this power and replaced them with the pro peace Japanese politicans. Since Truman refused to grant Hirohito immunity the pro war faction was left in power and almost stopped the surrender with a putsch!
Anna - I believe the Japanese Emperor was fully complicit in the war. It is false to believe that he was tucked away in an ivory tower and innocent of any evil doing. All you have to do is read a bit about Saipan and the mass Japanese suicides there that were ordered by the Emperor. The Americans had captured the island and were treating the locals nicely. The Japanese leadership didn't want word to filter back to the Japanese mainland that Japanese captives in Saipan were well treated. Quite the opposite. They wanted the citizens to believe that the American invaders were cruel and heartless. So to solve the worries about word leaking back, Hirohito ordered the citizens of Saipan to commit mass suicide. They complied. Truman of course knew Hirohito was no angel. He was reluctant to give him a pass, just as I would have been if in Truman's shoes. It is good that the war ended when it did but sad that the Emperor was spared the same fate as his generals.
|
|
|
Post by lakshmi on Mar 27, 2012 19:49:13 GMT
Tiki - What is the difference between the Shah and the mullahs? There's no freedom with any of them. At least Iranians could enjoy a good economy, life and culture when Shah was around. Now, the mullahs are wiping out out 4000 years of culture and existence for a religion. Iran could have had nuclear power and economic independence by now under the Shah. The Shah was a heck a lot better than the mullahs. Unfortunately many people are too ignorant to admit that. Some Iranians can be their own worst enemy. The same people who are protesting now started the revolution only on false pretenses and leadership. And they are doing it again. Get rid of the mullahs and then you got something to live for in Iran. So much repression simply because the people questioned Ahmadinejad's fraudulent election. Now they have a "crime" unit to control internet access as they beat women and old men in the streets. This regime is taking the country back to the 7th century. He was better only for american oil except u can not accept it bcz only u can see what fox news told u to see. U thot butcher of tehran had HONEST ELECTIONS?? ROFL!! Ya u better go read history and then go back to here and im gonna discuss it to u. Wow i donno why do some ppl think americans are ignorant and arrogant.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Mar 27, 2012 22:56:34 GMT
LONEBONE...it's easy to see why you have no flesh-and-blood friends and live on the computer. OH GEE WHIZ! Please don’t say such terrible things about me Mr. Gay; I’m very sensitive and you’re hurting my feelings.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 27, 2012 23:33:48 GMT
If the tone of this thread doesn't improve rapidly it's going to be headed for Vendetta.
Try and keep on topic - attack the post, not the poster.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 27, 2012 23:44:41 GMT
Agree completely with Lin. This is a very interesting debate topic. No reason to turn it into an insult contest.
|
|
|
Post by lakshmi on Mar 27, 2012 23:48:50 GMT
^ Its not insult if u say religious ppl are stupid?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 27, 2012 23:55:51 GMT
Look, please take a look at my rules.
I try to let borderline things go but lately a tiny handful of members are crossing the line.
Now let me make this clear.
I might be tolerant, patient and anxious NOT to stifle debate.
But - read my lips - attack the POST and NOT the POSTER.
I rarely use my disciplinary tools but I can give members warnings - three strikes and your'e on an automatic suspension of posting rights for three days; I can also ban a member from posting for a longer period if necessary; and in the worst case scenarios I can suspend or ban a member.
I don't want to have to take ANY of these steps.
It's not hard to keep on topic and just debate the issues.
Believe me, you DON'T want to see me when I lose my temper!
Let's have some common sense and common courtesy, please.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 28, 2012 0:05:54 GMT
Tiki - I believe the Muslim religion is entirely bogus. It has zero legitimacy. Mohammed was never a prophet, he was a con man. Allah doesn't exist nor did he ever. The entire Islamic religion is a scam.
Having pointed out the obvious about Islam, let me go on to say......
Ditto for Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc. All are bogus. All are scams.
Note that this post is not a personal attack on you. It is simply a statement of my views on religion.
Islam simply happens to be the worst of the worst, but they're all ridiculous nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 28, 2012 0:18:54 GMT
I've known BA for a long time and he has always been an excellent poster with strong opinions, a lot of knowledge on a range of subjects and one of the few members I've never had to ask to restrain themselves. He is an open atheist and he believes that religion is superstitious, unscientific nonsense. I admit I'm a Christian but I'm not one of the type that thinks that the Bible is literally true or that my faith should outweigh certain knowledge. I actually disagree that Islam is any more irrational or morally dubious than Christianity or Judaism; I'd say they all had pretty poor track records when they've been in power. On the other hand, so have plenty of atheist regimes, such as Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and similar nasties. Once again I find I'm having to remind a MINORITY of members NOT to make personal remarks. If this doesn't stop I'll have to start imposing the first stage of the disciplinary procedure. And you WON'T want me to get my cane out, would you?
|
|