American Sniper has warped peoples minds

[Yamato 13,197]

We didn't kill 100,000 civilians in Iraq. 9/11 is the worst thing that has ever happened in US history. The next worst thing would be the blatant unprovoked attack from Japan. Nagasaki and Hiroshima ....any questions? But that was Japan. We did NOT kill 100,000 civilians in Iraq. That is a complete and total fabrication of the truth and it isn't you who fabricated it. You just are repeating the lie. So...provide some proof...there isn't any.

You think shock and awe was about civillians? No...we dessimated the Republican Guard and the fourth largest standing army in the world...in a matter of days!

In fact, we freed millions of Iraqis from the torture of Sadaam...and we overcame the insurgents in Faluja and other places...and the Iraqi people loved us....until Obama deserted them....

...Bush didn't pull out of Iraq...Obama did...Bush didn't pull out of Afghanastan...Obama did...

Bush did one thing however...he warned us that if we pulled out too soon...exactly what is happening now ...would happen and he was right.

That isn't prophecy that's an admission of failure. Let's get one thing straight about Bush, if you can't start a war and win it with the US military, you are nobody to be admired much less trusted with our soldiers' lives.

And this Bush vs. Obama nonsense about Iraq, no. Obama couldn't even withdraw from Iraq on Bush's own timetable. It's incredible for you not to understand that Bush was withdrawing from Iraq. And you're coming back now with this video telling us Bush was right. Bush was a damned fool, who made a damned mess.

[aztek 24,884]

We killed at least 100,000 directly with the shock and awe campaign. We bombed the living hell outta whole cities. We all watched em do it on live TV. How could anyone denie that?

iirc, stalin used to say, when 1 man dies it is a tragedy, when millions die, it is statistics

[President-Elect Acidhead 12,479]

Dr Drew "doesn't like people flying planes into buildings", so...cut Adam's mic!

Adam's opening sentence was priceless. "The decision to join the military is nothing more than cowardice, ignorance, greed and insanity to start with...." I caught it and immediately thought,"Did he just say what I thought he just said?". Then the Dr. came back to him and asked him if he just said joining the military is a sign of mental illness. Adam began to explain that each person has a moral responsibility comparing using the ptsd excuse for murder to 'just following gov orders excuse to murder overseas' when the woman to the left of him freaked out defending her decision to join the military out of pride and honor Adam cut in and said pride is nothing more than an ignorant sin. I dont think she heard him say it over her freaking out. Ive watched this interview five times. Its priceless. Hopefully it serves to save some young women and men from ignorantly joining in the future.

[preacherman76 14,785]

Adam's opening sentence was priceless. "The decision to join the military is nothing more than cowardice, ignorance, greed and insanity to start with...." I caught it and immediately thought,"Did he just say what I thought he just said?". Then the Dr. came back to him and asked him if he just said joining the military is a sign of mental illness. Adam began to explain that each person has a moral responsibility comparing using the ptsd excuse for murder to 'just following gov orders excuse to murder overseas' when the woman to the left of him freaked out defending her decision to join the military out of pride and honor Adam cut in and said pride is nothing more than an ignorant sin. I dont think she heard him say it over her freaking out. Ive watched this interview five times. Its priceless. Hopefully it serves to save some young women and men from ignorantly joining in the future.

Where can I see it?

[President-Elect Acidhead 12,479]

Where can I see it?

Last post on page 41.

[DarkHunter 2,804]

A simple process of waiting would have resolved all those issues. Japan was under a totally effective blockade, The Japanese could not fight on in any meaningful way and could not re-arm.

The nuclear strikes have been dismissed as strategically unnecessary by practically all military historians and military commanders who studied the issues involved.

There were other motives at play.

Br Cornelius

I agree that we could of waited Japan out by continuing what the current process of the blockade and the carpet bombings, but the question is how long would it of taken. I have to disagree partially with the Japanese not being able to put up any meaningful resistance. They where lacking in guns, ammo, explosives, and heavy weapons in general but they still had a large highly dedicated population that would rather die then surrender if ordered by the Emperor. While they would suffer horrible causalities a massive banzai charge of anywhere from 50,000 to half a million, maybe even more, would be able to significantly hurt any army even if the people doing the charge where only armed with bamboo spears and make shift weapons. The only weapon that would be able to stop it would be chemical weapons, which the Japanese actually fear the allied invasion would use. I also completely agree that there where other motives involved also, I have no doubt someone in the military wanted a live weapons test in the field and that some politician saw it as a way to intimidate the Soviet Union.

This would have taken some time, it's not an overnight process. The allies didn't want to invade Japan. That wasn't a part of the "unconditional surrender" we were asking for. Which was nothing but fluff rhetoric. Nobody as it turned out, insisted on "unconditional surrender" that was meaningless bureau language which meant great politics for Democrips.

So the months and weeks they had between the Potsdam Declaration and the first bomb, and the week between the first and second bomb wasn't enough time even though a blockade and continued bombing runs have been going on for an extended period of time already. No one wanted to invade Japan but the allies where prepared and had all the materials ready including a highly detailed battle plan. As for no one insisting on a unconditional surrender, the Soviet Union demanded that the other allies not accept anything less then unconditional surrender when they declared war on Japan, of course the Soviet Union reason for this demand seems to be to buy them time to capture land in Asia from the Japanese, but they still demanded it

[Yamato 13,197]

I agree that we could of waited Japan out by continuing what the current process of the blockade and the carpet bombings, but the question is how long would it of taken. I have to disagree partially with the Japanese not being able to put up any meaningful resistance. They where lacking in guns, ammo, explosives, and heavy weapons in general but they still had a large highly dedicated population that would rather die then surrender if ordered by the Emperor. While they would suffer horrible causalities a massive banzai charge of anywhere from 50,000 to half a million, maybe even more, would be able to significantly hurt any army even if the people doing the charge where only armed with bamboo spears and make shift weapons. The only weapon that would be able to stop it would be chemical weapons, which the Japanese actually fear the allied invasion would use. I also completely agree that there where other motives involved also, I have no doubt someone in the military wanted a live weapons test in the field and that some politician saw it as a way to intimidate the Soviet Union.

So the months and weeks they had between the Potsdam Declaration and the first bomb, and the week between the first and second bomb wasn't enough time even though a blockade and continued bombing runs have been going on for an extended period of time already. No one wanted to invade Japan but the allies where prepared and had all the materials ready including a highly detailed battle plan. As for no one insisting on a unconditional surrender, the Soviet Union demanded that the other allies not accept anything less then unconditional surrender when they declared war on Japan, of course the Soviet Union reason for this demand seems to be to buy them time to capture land in Asia from the Japanese, but they still demanded it

No, our politicians insisted on it they just didn't need it nor did they get it. Because the Soviet Union said something isn't a rational reason for us to say it, nor does it excuse saying it when we didn't care about it. It was rhetoric that stalled peace with Japan until our magic weapon could be put on maximum carnage display for Stalin in all its glory.

[DarkHunter 2,804]

No, our politicians insisted on it they just didn't need it nor did they get it. Because the Soviet Union said something isn't a rational reason for us to say it, nor does it excuse saying it when we didn't care about it. It was rhetoric that stalled peace with Japan until our magic weapon could be put on maximum carnage display for Stalin in all its glory.

How was it rhetoric that stalled the peace process with Japan, until the second atomic bomb was dropped the conditions Japan wanted for surrender where deemed unacceptable. Now if the atomic bombs where needed or not to get Japan to change their conditions to be acceptable is debatable but that is not your position. No matter what is presented you continue to stay on the position that Japan wanted to surrender and that the allies refused to accept it till they could test out the atomic bombs, even though the conditions the Japanese wanted where completely unacceptable.

Mentioning the Soviet Unions demand for unconditional surrender had nothing to do with it being rational or not, it was specifically to counter your point when you mentioned nobody insisted on the unconditional surrender of Japan which is just plain wrong.

Lastly if your premise is correct and that the only reason we didn't accept the surrender with Japan till we could use our atomic weapons to "put on a maximum carnage display for Stalin" as you put it then why where the cities targeted based on military importance and not on civilian population. We could of targeted cities with higher populations that would of drastically increased the death toll and showed far more carnage then what was picked.

[Br Cornelius 6,437]

I agree that we could of waited Japan out by continuing what the current process of the blockade and the carpet bombings, but the question is how long would it of taken. I have to disagree partially with the Japanese not being able to put up any meaningful resistance. They where lacking in guns, ammo, explosives, and heavy weapons in general but they still had a large highly dedicated population that would rather die then surrender if ordered by the Emperor. While they would suffer horrible causalities a massive banzai charge of anywhere from 50,000 to half a million, maybe even more, would be able to significantly hurt any army even if the people doing the charge where only armed with bamboo spears and make shift weapons. The only weapon that would be able to stop it would be chemical weapons, which the Japanese actually fear the allied invasion would use. I also completely agree that there where other motives involved also, I have no doubt someone in the military wanted a live weapons test in the field and that some politician saw it as a way to intimidate the Soviet Union.

So the months and weeks they had between the Potsdam Declaration and the first bomb, and the week between the first and second bomb wasn't enough time even though a blockade and continued bombing runs have been going on for an extended period of time already. No one wanted to invade Japan but the allies where prepared and had all the materials ready including a highly detailed battle plan. As for no one insisting on a unconditional surrender, the Soviet Union demanded that the other allies not accept anything less then unconditional surrender when they declared war on Japan, of course the Soviet Union reason for this demand seems to be to buy them time to capture land in Asia from the Japanese, but they still demanded it

I am sorry but you are simply ignoring the fact that there were motions to surrender over the seven months prior to the final surrender. America was specifically cold shouldering any meaningful negotiation by stone waling with total surrender. the real issue was that the Diplomatic wing of the Government had been sidelined by the Military and the military commanders had different perspectives and objectives. To say that the civilian force were prepared to fight on when they had nothing to fight with and the Emperor was seeking peace negotiations is simply more of the same militaristic wrong headedness.

Br Cornelius

[DarkHunter 2,804]

I am sorry but you are simply ignoring the fact that there were motions to surrender over the seven months prior to the final surrender. America was specifically cold shouldering any meaningful negotiation by stone waling with total surrender. the real issue was that the Diplomatic wing of the Government had been sidelined by the Military and the military commanders had different perspectives and objectives. To say that the civilian force were prepared to fight on when they had nothing to fight with and the Emperor was seeking peace negotiations is simply more of the same militaristic wrong headedness.

Br Cornelius

I admit there where motions, but those motions had terms there where simply unacceptable to the allies, even then the Japanese government still rejected the Potsdam Declaration before the atomic bombs where dropped. First you are making mistakes about how well supplied Japan was by the time the atomic bombs where dropped. They where able to prepare 10,000 planes for kamikaze attacks on the allied landing fleet along with hundreds of small kamikaze boats. They also managed to field 65 divisions for the defense of Japan. Reports indicate that they didn't have the material to supply all of them but only roughly 40 divisions with enough ammunition to properly supply 30. Even then that is a significant amount of combat effective soldiers. As for the civilian force being prepared to fight, the Japanese military mobilized all men between the ages of 15 to 60 and all women form 17 to 40 to defend Japan for a total of 28 million. How well they would of fought is questionable, but judging from the militaristic Japanese culture of that time period it is safe to say that a significant amount would of fought against any invasion attempt no matter what they where equipped with. Lastly you mention the Emperor seeking peace, he only actively started seeking peace after the atomic bombs where dropped, before then he went along with the decisions of the big 6, which up to the dropping of the atomic bombs was still favoring fighting and after the first atomic bomb became split on whether to surrender or not.

[third_eye 52,070]

See the immense area destroyed by a nuclear firestorm

created by the explosion of one nuclear weapon

Choose a city or location (type in an address) and select the size or type of nuclear weapon to be detonated. Depending on the weather conditions, the size of the certain and probable area of the nuclear firestorm, created by the nuclear explosion, will vary.

The model used to approximate the size of the firestorm is accurate in the range of 10 to 20%. The simulator can produce this degree of accuracy for explosions that range from 15 kilotons to 2000 kilotons (2 Megatons or 2 MT).

• nuclear explosion simulator link
  

Just choose a city then click on 'Click Here To Detonate' ...

`

[joc 19,226]

That isn't prophecy that's an admission of failure. Let's get one thing straight about Bush, if you can't start a war and win it with the US military, you are nobody to be admired much less trusted with our soldiers' lives.

And this Bush vs. Obama nonsense about Iraq, no. Obama couldn't even withdraw from Iraq on Bush's own timetable. It's incredible for you not to understand that Bush was withdrawing from Iraq. And you're coming back now with this video telling us Bush was right. Bush was a damned fool, who made a damned mess.

Wow~

Obama created a Vaccuum...not Bush...all the lives lost and all the wounded...for what? We should still be in Iraq. But no....Your boy the Bamster pulled out of a war we were winning...Bush didn't lose the war...Bammie did...

You cannot play both sides of the fence Yamato. I know, you think you are playing your own side of the fence...all that means really is that you are ON the fence...which is no place to be found in a war.

[President-Elect Acidhead 12,479]

Wow~

Obama created a Vaccuum...not Bush...all the lives lost and all the wounded...for what? We should still be in Iraq. But no....Your boy the Bamster pulled out of a war we were winning...Bush didn't lose the war...Bammie did...

You cannot play both sides of the fence Yamato. I know, you think you are playing your own side of the fence...all that means really is that you are ON the fence...which is no place to be found in a war.

In a war you were winning? Bush set the timetable for withdrawal. Obama followed through with the directive. Never forget that fact.

[Yamato 13,197]

I admit there where motions, but those motions had terms there where simply unacceptable to the allies, even then the Japanese government still rejected the Potsdam Declaration before the atomic bombs where dropped. First you are making mistakes about how well supplied Japan was by the time the atomic bombs where dropped. They where able to prepare 10,000 planes for kamikaze attacks on the allied landing fleet along with hundreds of small kamikaze boats. They also managed to field 65 divisions for the defense of Japan. Reports indicate that they didn't have the material to supply all of them but only roughly 40 divisions with enough ammunition to properly supply 30. Even then that is a significant amount of combat effective soldiers. As for the civilian force being prepared to fight, the Japanese military mobilized all men between the ages of 15 to 60 and all women form 17 to 40 to defend Japan for a total of 28 million. How well they would of fought is questionable, but judging from the militaristic Japanese culture of that time period it is safe to say that a significant amount would of fought against any invasion attempt no matter what they where equipped with. Lastly you mention the Emperor seeking peace, he only actively started seeking peace after the atomic bombs where dropped, before then he went along with the decisions of the big 6, which up to the dropping of the atomic bombs was still favoring fighting and after the first atomic bomb became split on whether to surrender or not.

If you leave everything we did politically the same, and then not drop the bombs too, you can make these kinds of arguments. But Potsdam Declaration was the bureaucratic language conjured up amidst a lot of in-fighting between the US and UK about how to handle their final enemy. If we accept it as sacrosanct then it can be justified that the bombs were necessary. If the only difference we make is not dropping the bombs instead of dropping two of them on Japanese cities, then I would agree Japan wouldn't have surrendered as quickly. But if we make meaningful bureaucratic changes that were honest and rational Japan would have no reason not to surrender. Their cities were already being destroyed from the air, in some cities it was estimated they were nearly 100% destroyed by strategic bombing from B-29s where the combination of our bombs and their buildings were an inferno.

They were an island that couldn't sail their ships out of Kure harbor because they were out of juice. The thought of Japan having 10,000 operational aircraft, let alone fuel, is utter fantasy. Sounds like a maximum estimate on the border of implausibility that gets thrown around in discussions like this one. The worst case scenario is a very good reason to drop the bomb, I can agree with that. Some historians weigh the Soviet entry into the war to be the hastening factor. I'm pretty sure both mattered to a degree, but the Soviet declaration of war must have come as a shock. They were hoping for that to be their bridge to peace with the US. Having their cities destroyed and 100,000 people killed in the fire was already old business by August 1945.

[Yamato 13,197]

How was it rhetoric that stalled the peace process with Japan, until the second atomic bomb was dropped the conditions Japan wanted for surrender where deemed unacceptable. Now if the atomic bombs where needed or not to get Japan to change their conditions to be acceptable is debatable but that is not your position. No matter what is presented you continue to stay on the position that Japan wanted to surrender and that the allies refused to accept it till they could test out the atomic bombs, even though the conditions the Japanese wanted where completely unacceptable.

Mentioning the Soviet Unions demand for unconditional surrender had nothing to do with it being rational or not, it was specifically to counter your point when you mentioned nobody insisted on the unconditional surrender of Japan which is just plain wrong.

Lastly if your premise is correct and that the only reason we didn't accept the surrender with Japan till we could use our atomic weapons to "put on a maximum carnage display for Stalin" as you put it then why where the cities targeted based on military importance and not on civilian population. We could of targeted cities with higher populations that would of drastically increased the death toll and showed far more carnage then what was picked.

They were chosen because they were virgin cities not yet touched by the firestorms of American bombs. Which was another example of what I'm talking about, in this case, for maximum psychological damage.

Mentioning the Soviet Unions demand for unconditional surrender had nothing to do with it being rational or not, it was specifically to counter your point when you mentioned nobody insisted on the unconditional surrender of Japan which is just plain wrong.

I never mentioned anything about the Soviet Union's demand for unconditional surrender.

How was it rhetoric that stalled the peace process with Japan, until the second atomic bomb was dropped the conditions Japan wanted for surrender where deemed unacceptable.

And how things were deemed is sacrosanct? Again if you just just play the exact same political game and not drop the bombs, your argument for dropping the bombs can make some sense. The rhetoric stalled the surrender obviously, by using language like "unconditional surrender".

[Space Commander Travis 50,164]

Wow~

Obama created a Vaccuum...not Bush...all the lives lost and all the wounded...for what? We should still be in Iraq. But no....Your boy the Bamster pulled out of a war we were winning...Bush didn't lose the war...Bammie did...

You cannot play both sides of the fence Yamato. I know, you think you are playing your own side of the fence...all that means really is that you are ON the fence...which is no place to be found in a war.

But Mr. Obama came to power in 2009. That little tubby fellow who was in office before him bellowed Mission Accomplished in 2003. How do you explain this discrepancy, if the war was still in progress, (but on the way to being won, comrades! ) five years later? Surely the Bush didn't lie, did he?

[Space Commander Travis 50,164]

We didn't kill 100,000 civilians in Iraq. 9/11 is the worst thing that has ever happened in US history. The next worst thing would be the blatant unprovoked attack from Japan. Nagasaki and Hiroshima ....any questions? But that was Japan. We did NOT kill 100,000 civilians in Iraq. That is a complete and total fabrication of the truth and it isn't you who fabricated it. You just are repeating the lie. So...provide some proof...there isn't any.

You think shock and awe was about civillians? No...we dessimated the Republican Guard and the fourth largest standing army in the world...in a matter of days!

In fact, we freed millions of Iraqis from the torture of Sadaam...and we overcame the insurgents in Faluja and other places...and the Iraqi people loved us....until Obama deserted them....

• 
  

• Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461000 - BBC
  www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24547256
  
  • 
    

  16 Oct 2013 - About half a million people died in Iraq as a result of war-related ... It exceeds the 112,000 violent civilian deaths reported by Iraq Body Count.

And this was 2013, before the lovable scamps at ISIS popped out of the woodwork. But of course you'd say it was just lies, because you only believe what the Neocon press tells you, don't you. And why do you then go on on a complete non sequitur about 9.11 being the worst thing that ever happened in Mercan history ever? What's Iraq got to do with that?

Edited February 17, 2015 by Valdemar the Great