Is North Korea really a problem?

[The Silver Thong]

2 hours ago, Bama13 said:

Do you call your countrymen "Americans"? 

If Thong is calling herself "American" because of the continent she lives on shouldn't she be calling herself "North American" since she lives on the North American continent?

 So i`m a girl now, damn I need a boob job lol  Yes I am a North American, but I do like being called a Canadian.

[Bama13]

3 minutes ago, The Silver Thong said:

 So i`m a girl now, damn I need a boob job lol  Yes I am a North American, but I do like being called a Canadian.

I apologize. Should have read "Gender: Male" instead of going off your profile pic. 

Canadian should be Canadan as you as from Canada, not Canadia. Not picking on you here, just a pet peeve of mine. Just as people from my home state wrongly refer to themselves as Alabamians instead of Alabamans. I'm not from Alabamia. I find it strange that some people feel the need to insert an "i" before the last "a". Some folks get it right. People from Alaska are Alaskan, not Alaskian. People from Iowa are Iowans, not Iowians. People from Angola are Angolans, not Angolians. People from Costa Rica are Costa Ricans, not Costa Ricians (or Ticos).

 

 

[The Silver Thong]

25 minutes ago, Bama13 said:

I apologize. Should have read "Gender: Male" instead of going off your profile pic. 

Canadian should be Canadan as you as from Canada, not Canadia. Not picking on you here, just a pet peeve of mine. Just as people from my home state wrongly refer to themselves as Alabamians instead of Alabamans. I'm not from Alabamia. I find it strange that some people feel the need to insert an "i" before the last "a". Some folks get it right. People from Alaska are Alaskan, not Alaskian. People from Iowa are Iowans, not Iowians. People from Angola are Angolans, not Angolians. People from Costa Rica are Costa Ricans, not Costa Ricians (or Ticos).

...................................................................................................................................................................................

Mi casa es su casa translated as no worries my friend.  To be honest anyone can call me anything they want, damn I don`t even have the name I was born with anymore. I was born as  Jonah my name now is Jeff, it`s complicated but true.

 I have no idea how I was able to edit Bama13 but I ment to quote him. This under the dotted line was me TST

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by The Silver Thong

[+Hammerclaw]

8 hours ago, Yamato said:

That is absolutely false.  The firestorms took hours and even days to do their damage.  Plenty of time for the vast majority to escape if they weren't directly under the path of the falling bombs.  The atomic bomb was fully lit in 0.01 seconds after detonation and there was no escape.

"No one could see how..." that's BS.  The scientists knew.   Everyone who was in-on-it knew since Trinity.

You've got to be some kind of foreigner masquerading as an American because you talk such absolute propagandist doggerel. You never let facts get in the way of whatever twisted point you want to make.              http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/firebombing-of-tokyo

[Merc14]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

You've got to be some kind of foreigner masquerading as an American because you talk such absolute propagandist doggerel. You never let facts get in the way of whatever twisted point you want to make.              http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/firebombing-of-tokyo

The man is unbelievable!  You'd think he would at least take the time to Google it before posting such a ridiculous statement but NOOOOO not yammie, he just forges ahead and posts it and now he'll defend his post. 

[+Hammerclaw]

18 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

The man is unbelievable!  You'd think he would at least take the time to Google it before posting such a ridiculous statement but NOOOOO not yammie, he just forges ahead and posts it and now he'll defend his post. 

Not someone to take serious, anymore. One might find more meaning in the clacking of crows. At that time it was a top secret project known only as the gadget. Only a handful saw the first test explosion. They, of course, were under a strict security lockdown, and couldn't divulge anything. The gadget was then turned over to the military who were greenlighted to use it.

[Yamato]

8 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

You've got to be some kind of foreigner masquerading as an American because you talk such absolute propagandist doggerel. You never let facts get in the way of whatever twisted point you want to make.              http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/firebombing-of-tokyo

Can you explain what the absolute propagandist doggerel is?  

I didn't deny that bombing Tokyo at 12:15am to create maximum carnage was devastating.  I'm the one arguing with a very unschooled amoral revisionist patriot who can't understand that Japanese industrial centers had been completely destroyed.   Again you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth.   You didn't wag your tongue when I'm the first and only person to explain how devastating the strategic bombing campaign had been. 

But when I point out the difference between that and an atomic bomb blast you come running out of the hole screaming "doggerel!!"  ?

 

8 hours ago, Merc14 said:

The man is unbelievable!  You'd think he would at least take the time to Google it before posting such a ridiculous statement but NOOOOO not yammie, he just forges ahead and posts it and now he'll defend his post. 

What's the problem?   Explain what's ridiculous about it.  Good luck.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Yamato

[Yamato]

12 hours ago, Bama13 said:

From your posts I don't think that I know more than you on this topic, I know that I know more than you. Enjoy your revisionist version of history. I'll stick with what the people that were actually alive during the war said and thought.

Done on this topic. Have a nice weekend.

Yeah LeMay is a know nothing and you're a genius.  Bye.

[Yamato]

9 hours ago, Bama13 said:

I apologize. Should have read "Gender: Male" instead of going off your profile pic. 

Canadian should be Canadan as you as from Canada, not Canadia. Not picking on you here, just a pet peeve of mine. Just as people from my home state wrongly refer to themselves as Alabamians instead of Alabamans. I'm not from Alabamia. I find it strange that some people feel the need to insert an "i" before the last "a". Some folks get it right. People from Alaska are Alaskan, not Alaskian. People from Iowa are Iowans, not Iowians. People from Angola are Angolans, not Angolians. People from Costa Rica are Costa Ricans, not Costa Ricians (or Ticos).

 

 

Floridans?   No.   Floridians.   

Sorry, it's Alabamian whether it's your pet peeve or not.

https://www.google.com/#q=alabamian

The spell checker and the internet must be know nothings like Yamato and Curtis LeMay.

Have a nice weekend.

[DarkHunter]

1 hour ago, Yamato said:

"For another year".  You're speculating.  Your belief has been well established.

"War weariness" could just as well justify the invasion of Japan, and nevertheless, that wasn't necessary either.  All that was necessary was the bureaucratic will to make terms.   The insolent attitude of "unconditional surrender" or its alternative "utter destruction" obviously constipated the bureaucratic peace.   That may not have come in September 1945.  For you hurry warts, yes you did what you had to do to end the war the day you did.   That's not saying much in posterity though.   That you're so intellectually obtuse that you can't even entertain the what ifs shows how frozen some of you peoples' thinking can be.

You only consider production and think that planes produced are planes operable.  That's not even close to being true in the best of circumstances.   Playing with numbers probably isn't a good idea.   You're not "using math" you're using an unschooled opinion thinking that aircraft maintain, service and fly themselves.   You just build them, put them in a closet, and take them out when you're ready to use them?   Using math!

Your credibility was shot the moment you said they had 4 battleships and 5 aircraft carriers.   They had 1 battleship.  They had a light carrier and a training ship.   What historical facts are you lacking not to be able to acknowledge that?   If you can't even see a sunken battleship with your own eyes and acknowledge reality and use "they could have boarded it and fired the guns defensively" as a rationale for dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you will say anything or everything to make your religion seem more palatable.

My tone is condescending?  My "twisted distorted delusional rantings." vs. your atomic religion.  

You're so fanatical with your atomic religion you must also think that Dwight Eisenhower is a delusional know-nothing!

Dwight Eisenhower: “voiced to him [Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives". 

Dwight Eisenhower:  "It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

General Curtis LeMay: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

Admiral Chester Nimitz:  "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan"

Admiral William Halsey: "The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it...they had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.”

So I'm going to go with what history has taught any objective student of this war, not because I think America is evil, but because historians know infinitely more than you, and frankly since you don't acknowledge anything that's presented to you in a discussion and can't learn anything from it, so am I.

I'm going with Eisenhower, Nimitz, Halsey and LeMay, not unschooled anonymous clowns pumping their religion on the internet about how vital two atomic bombs were to the exclusion of all else

Just because you refuse to accept facts and data doesn't mean what I am saying is speculation, it just means you prefer to live in your own world that is detached from reality.

What conditions were you fine with accepting to bring about peace.  Maybe you were fine with no foreign occupation of Japan, or maybe no foreign oversight of their disarmament.  Perhaps you have no problem with the Imperial Japanese government handling the trials of Japanese accused of war crimes.  I suppose its possible  you were fine with Japan being allowed to hold onto some of the land it conquered from its Asian neighbors or maybe you particularity liked that Japan wanted the European countries to grant Independence to their colonial holdings in exchange for Japan returning them.  Or maybe you would of rather of just continued the blockade of Japan along with the carpet bombing and killed millions of Japanese instead of a few hundred thousands.  Tell me which one would you of preferred, agreeing to some or all of those conditions or prolonging the war, since according to you nuclear weapons were the worse possible option.  Since you tend not to like taking definite stands on issues such as these I doubt you will actually answer anyway.

When American forces began the occupation of Japan they found that the Japanese had 12,700 aircraft in the home islands.  I normally don't like to cite wikipedia but that have all of this cited so its safe to use.

"US military intelligence initially estimated the number of Japanese aircraft to be around 2,500.^[56] The Okinawa experience was bad for the US—almost two fatalities and a similar number wounded per sortie—and Kyūshū was likely to be worse. To attack the ships off Okinawa, Japanese planes had to fly long distances over open water; to attack the ships off Kyūshū, they could fly overland and then short distances out to the landing fleets. Gradually, intelligence learned that the Japanese were devoting all their aircraft to the kamikaze mission and taking effective measures to conserve them until the battle. An Army estimate in May was 3,391 planes; in June, 4,862; in August, 5,911. A Navy estimate, abandoning any distinction between training and combat aircraft, in July was 8,750; in August, 10,290.^[57] By the time the war ended, the Japanese actually possessed some 12,700 aircraft in the Home Islands, roughly half of them kamikazes.^[58]" 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Air_threat

You can choose to deny that Japan had over 10,000 planes if you want but the historical record shows that you are blatantly wrong and refuse to admit it no matter how much evidence is shown to you.  The only explanation is that you are completely and utterly delusional.  Just cause you are completely and utterly unable to understand or use figures to help back up what you try to claim are facts doesn't mean that others are incapable of using numbers also.  I'm sure in your classic fashion you will try to find some way to weasel out of this new information also.

Just cause you refuse to accept reality doesn't mean that it isn't the case, the Japanese still had 4 battleships and 5 carriers no matter how badly you want to deny it,  While the Nagato was the last floating battleship Japan had it doesn't mean it was their last battleship, but I can understand how with your delusional mind nuisances with the English language can prove extremely difficult.  While they may not of been mobile they were still a threat to invading Japan.  As for the aircraft carriers no source says they had zero at the time of surrender, the number various as different sources count what they consider the carriers differently but the number is generally between 4 and 6 carriers.

So you found some generals/president and admirals who were against the atomic bombing, that doesn't prove much at all.

Since you want to play the quote game I can do that also

Truman: "Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans." 

General George Marshall: "There is one point that was missed, and that, frankly, we missed in making our plans. That was the effect the bomb would have in so shocking the Japanese that they could surrender without losing face. ...we didn't realize its value to give the Japanese such a shock that they could surrender without complete loss of face."

 

General Curtis LeMay; "We’re at war with Japan. We were attacked by Japan. Do you want to kill Japanese, or would you rather have Americans killed?"

"As far as casualties were concerned I think there were more casualties in the first attack on Tokyo with incendiaries than there were with the first use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The fact that it's done instantaneously, maybe that's more humane than incendiary attacks, if you can call any war act humane. I don't, particularly, so to me there wasn't much difference. A weapon is a weapon and it really doesn't make much difference how you kill a man. If you have to kill him, well, that's the evil to start with and how you do it becomes pretty secondary. I think your choice should be which weapon is the most efficient and most likely to get the whole mess over with as early as possible."

The previous two quotes being from General Curtis Lemay's autobiography 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb'.

"Apply whatever force it is necessary to employ, to stop things quickly. The main thing is stop it. The quicker you stop it, the more lives you save."

"Actually I think it's more immoral to use less force than necessary, than it is to use more. if you use less force, you kill off more of humanity in the long run, because you are merely protracting the struggle."

These two quotes are from 'Mission with LeMay; My Story'.

Doesn't really sound like General Curtis LeMay was that against using the atomic bomb.

You are not going with what history has taught.  I have brought up evidence that proves all of your points wrong, Japan was producing oil, Japan did have large number of aircraft in Japan, that Japan was still able to defend itself from any invasion, and that the Japanese were planning on making a bloody final stand to be able to make favorable demands in peace negations.  Yet no matter how much evidence is brought forward you still desperately cling onto your belief that Japan was utterly helpless and defenseless and that the atomic bombing was completely unnecessary.  

Lastly what have you presented at all, you have brought no facts, data, or evidence to this discussion.  All you have done is bring in a list from a homemade site that has no sourcing and quite a few inaccuracies on it, you have presented nothing more then your own personal ideas and beliefs which are contrary to all the historical records.

It good to see that you are resorting again to personal insults, the unschooled and clown comment, as you clearly are unable to bring any fact based evidence to back up your delusional world view.

2 hours ago, Yamato said:

A meaningful military force: The US military.   Disprove my "complete and utter nonsense" then by informing me which battle their army won against the US so I can go inform the historians of this revelation!

Their army lost every battle fought against us.   But I guess holding out for a few months on an island is another dumb **** reason to drop two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.   sigh

Battle of Guam (1941), Battle of Wake Island, Philippines Campaign (1941-1942), and Dutch East Indies Campaign.  If you want to expand it to increase the British, French, and Dutch then it was about every campaign between 1941 and 1942 involving the Japanese ending in a victory for Japan.

Given how little you know of history not surprised you didn't know the Japanese actually won quite a few battles against America.

I'm sure you try to find some way to worm you way out of being proven wrong again.

[seeder]

On 15/04/2017 at 0:47 AM, SNR said:

What would be the end game if Trump blew the crap out of North Korea?

Would Iran be next on his list?

 

Dont know if this gets posted later on, but for now.....its a interesting read
 

Quote

 

What the N. Korean “Crisis” Is Really About

Paul Craig Roberts

The North Korean “crisis” is a Washington orchestration. North Korea was last at war 1950-53. N. Korea has not attacked or invaded anyone in 64 years. N. Korea lacks the military strength to attack any country, such as South Korea and Japan, that is protected by the US. Moreover, China would not permit N. Korea to start a war.

So what is the demonization of N. Korea by the presstitutes and Trump administration about?

It is about the same thing that the demonization of Iran was about. The “Iranian threat” was an orchestration that was used as cover to put US anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia’s borders. An anti-ballistic missile (ABM) is intended to intercept and destroy nuclear-armed ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and prevent them from reaching their targets.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/05/03/n-korean-crisis-really/

 

DO cont reading the article

[Yamato]

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

Just because you refuse to accept facts and data doesn't mean what I am saying is speculation, it just means you prefer to live in your own world that is detached from reality.

What conditions were you fine with accepting to bring about peace.  Maybe you were fine with no foreign occupation of Japan, or maybe no foreign oversight of their disarmament.  Perhaps you have no problem with the Imperial Japanese government handling the trials of Japanese accused of war crimes.  I suppose its possible  you were fine with Japan being allowed to hold onto some of the land it conquered from its Asian neighbors or maybe you particularity liked that Japan wanted the European countries to grant Independence to their colonial holdings in exchange for Japan returning them.  Or maybe you would of rather of just continued the blockade of Japan along with the carpet bombing and killed millions of Japanese instead of a few hundred thousands.  Tell me which one would you of preferred, agreeing to some or all of those conditions or prolonging the war, since according to you nuclear weapons were the worse possible option.  Since you tend not to like taking definite stands on issues such as these I doubt you will actually answer anyway.

When American forces began the occupation of Japan they found that the Japanese had 12,700 aircraft in the home islands.  I normally don't like to cite wikipedia but that have all of this cited so its safe to use.

"US military intelligence initially estimated the number of Japanese aircraft to be around 2,500.^[56] The Okinawa experience was bad for the US—almost two fatalities and a similar number wounded per sortie—and Kyūshū was likely to be worse. To attack the ships off Okinawa, Japanese planes had to fly long distances over open water; to attack the ships off Kyūshū, they could fly overland and then short distances out to the landing fleets. Gradually, intelligence learned that the Japanese were devoting all their aircraft to the kamikaze mission and taking effective measures to conserve them until the battle. An Army estimate in May was 3,391 planes; in June, 4,862; in August, 5,911. A Navy estimate, abandoning any distinction between training and combat aircraft, in July was 8,750; in August, 10,290.^[57] By the time the war ended, the Japanese actually possessed some 12,700 aircraft in the Home Islands, roughly half of them kamikazes.^[58]" 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Air_threat

You can choose to deny that Japan had over 10,000 planes if you want but the historical record shows that you are blatantly wrong and refuse to admit it no matter how much evidence is shown to you.  The only explanation is that you are completely and utterly delusional.  Just cause you are completely and utterly unable to understand or use figures to help back up what you try to claim are facts doesn't mean that others are incapable of using numbers also.  I'm sure in your classic fashion you will try to find some way to weasel out of this new information also.

Just cause you refuse to accept reality doesn't mean that it isn't the case, the Japanese still had 4 battleships and 5 carriers no matter how badly you want to deny it,  While the Nagato was the last floating battleship Japan had it doesn't mean it was their last battleship, but I can understand how with your delusional mind nuisances with the English language can prove extremely difficult.  While they may not of been mobile they were still a threat to invading Japan.  As for the aircraft carriers no source says they had zero at the time of surrender, the number various as different sources count what they consider the carriers differently but the number is generally between 4 and 6 carriers.

So you found some generals/president and admirals who were against the atomic bombing, that doesn't prove much at all.

Since you want to play the quote game I can do that also

Truman: "Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans." 

General George Marshall: "There is one point that was missed, and that, frankly, we missed in making our plans. That was the effect the bomb would have in so shocking the Japanese that they could surrender without losing face. ...we didn't realize its value to give the Japanese such a shock that they could surrender without complete loss of face."

 

General Curtis LeMay; "We’re at war with Japan. We were attacked by Japan. Do you want to kill Japanese, or would you rather have Americans killed?"

"As far as casualties were concerned I think there were more casualties in the first attack on Tokyo with incendiaries than there were with the first use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The fact that it's done instantaneously, maybe that's more humane than incendiary attacks, if you can call any war act humane. I don't, particularly, so to me there wasn't much difference. A weapon is a weapon and it really doesn't make much difference how you kill a man. If you have to kill him, well, that's the evil to start with and how you do it becomes pretty secondary. I think your choice should be which weapon is the most efficient and most likely to get the whole mess over with as early as possible."

The previous two quotes being from General Curtis Lemay's autobiography 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb'.

"Apply whatever force it is necessary to employ, to stop things quickly. The main thing is stop it. The quicker you stop it, the more lives you save."

"Actually I think it's more immoral to use less force than necessary, than it is to use more. if you use less force, you kill off more of humanity in the long run, because you are merely protracting the struggle."

These two quotes are from 'Mission with LeMay; My Story'.

Doesn't really sound like General Curtis LeMay was that against using the atomic bomb.

You are not going with what history has taught.  I have brought up evidence that proves all of your points wrong, Japan was producing oil, Japan did have large number of aircraft in Japan, that Japan was still able to defend itself from any invasion, and that the Japanese were planning on making a bloody final stand to be able to make favorable demands in peace negations.  Yet no matter how much evidence is brought forward you still desperately cling onto your belief that Japan was utterly helpless and defenseless and that the atomic bombing was completely unnecessary.  

Lastly what have you presented at all, you have brought no facts, data, or evidence to this discussion.  All you have done is bring in a list from a homemade site that has no sourcing and quite a few inaccuracies on it, you have presented nothing more then your own personal ideas and beliefs which are contrary to all the historical records.

It good to see that you are resorting again to personal insults, the unschooled and clown comment, as you clearly are unable to bring any fact based evidence to back up your delusional world view.

Battle of Guam (1941), Battle of Wake Island, Philippines Campaign (1941-1942), and Dutch East Indies Campaign.  If you want to expand it to increase the British, French, and Dutch then it was about every campaign between 1941 and 1942 involving the Japanese ending in a victory for Japan.

Given how little you know of history not surprised you didn't know the Japanese actually won quite a few battles against America.

I'm sure you try to find some way to worm you way out of being proven wrong again.

Translating 12,700 aircraft in the home islands to "10,000 suicide planes" ready for action as a rationale that the atomic bombs were necessary, is all kinds of Stoopid.

LeMay was absolutely right.  His strategic bombing campaign was so effective, the atomic bombs were completely unnecessary.   And since you're using Wikipedia to restock your kool aid bowl, you'd know we were bombing Japan with leaflets announcing what cities were going to be destroyed beforehand giving people the opportunity to escape.    This could have been done with the atomic bombs as well, but then internet trolls like yourself would show up and desperately explain that all those civilians that we killed were also necessary to achieve surrender.   There's obviously no end to the BS you're willing to spew to ramrod your religious faith in revisionist nonsense so we should probably leave you here.

[Space Commander Travis]

10 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Just because you refuse to accept facts and data doesn't mean what I am saying is speculation, it just means you prefer to live in your own world that is detached from reality.

 ..... 

I'm sure you try to find some way to worm you way out of being proven wrong again.

You're another one who can't seem to resist disagreeing with people by insisting that they're "stupid" or they "live in their own world that is detached from reality". Have you ever thought that people might know these things - this knowledge that you claim to be in superior possession of - but have their own opinion about them? For instance, even if all this supposed might that Japan was able to line up - despite having virtually no fuel - could have been used in a last ditch attempt to resist an invasion, why would an invasion have been inevitable at all? Surely only to reinforce the sheer vindictiveness of Roosevelt's position, which Truman inherited and magnified even more, that their enemies must be utterly crushed into the dust, and no kind of negotiation would be countenanced? To demonstrate to Uncle Joe Stalin, "don't mess with America's Military Might, or we will crush you too"? Japan was no danger to any other nation by 1945, surely you must accept that, it could easily have been contained until it just ran out of the resources to enable it to fight any more, and the elements within the government that were already pressing for surrender with some kind of honour prevailed? 

Edited May 7, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[Space Commander Travis]

 

10 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

I can understand how with your delusional mind nuisances with the English language can prove extremely difficult.

There's a rather amusing irony in that sentence. I wonder if anyone can spot it?

[Space Commander Travis]

9 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

No point arguing with the lying little yammer heads. They're just foreigners masquerading as Americans so they can get away with trashing America. Nothing but trash, themselves.

Do you know that smug head-in-the-sand, I-refuse-to-listen-to-any-opinions-that-differ-from-mine attitudes such as this don't actually make you look superior, and in fact have just the opposite effect ? 

[+Hammerclaw]

7 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Do you know that smug head-in-the-sand, I-refuse-to-listen-to-any-opinions-that-differ-from-mine attitudes such as this don't actually make you look superior, and in fact have just the opposite effect ? 

Do YOU know what stick it where the sun don't shine, means? I'd use more color language but it would, appropriately, be deleted. The mindless mutterings of foreign devils mean nothing to me.

[RoofGardener]

Last time I checked, North Korea wasn't in Japan. Or Canada, for that matter. 

What purpose does this thread serve ? 

[+Hammerclaw]

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Last time I checked, North Korea wasn't in Japan. Or Canada, for that matter. 

What purpose does this thread serve ? 

It's just another Eurotrashing the USA thread, now.

[Space Commander Travis]

The classic default setting of rightwing "patriots": "Take issue with the way America takes it upon itself to be the Global Law Enforcement Officer (as long as it's its "laws" that are being enforced)? You just hate America^(TM)." Y'know something, Hammerclaw, people from the rest of the world do have a stake in this, y'know , since what America does has a very big influence all around the world. If it didn't, no one else would really take any more interest than in, say, what Brasil does. So therefore perhaps if you're tired of people trashing the USA, perhaps you ought to be campaigning for the USA not to have such an influence in everything that goes on everywhere around the world. 

[Space Commander Travis]

4 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Do YOU know what stick it where the sun don't shine, means? I'd use more color language but it would, appropriately, be deleted. The mindless mutterings of foreign devils mean nothing to me.

Some people might regard your ramblings as becoming increasingly deranged, but not me, because I treat you with the respect with which you treat everyone else and their views on matters.

big hig  

Edited May 7, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[Space Commander Travis]

^ That should've been hug, but you can have a hig as well, hey, why not 

[+and-then]

On 5/5/2017 at 1:32 AM, Hammerclaw said:

No one, not even the military and much of the scientific community understood what the "atomic" in atomic bomb actually meant. Only a relative handful had even seen one detonated. Radiation and all it's horrors were unknown and not even contemplated. No one could see how it could be a worse way to die than the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese population centers where tens of thousands perished. It was just the gadget, a mighty big bang. The Japanese people would have fought for every square yard as we worked out way up the archipelago, not just the military. We would have had to virtually annihilate most of the civilian population. Scaling the casualty figures of Okinawa up proportionately showed what price we would have exacted and paid. Not a question of whether we would win, but in the cost of human suffering. 

 

Ultimately, this is the point for most here who argue this decision.  They don't give a damn how many more would have died.  Especially if they were Americans.  In their scales of justice we were and always will be wrong and evil for what we did and as such, there is no winning an argument on this point so the hell with them.

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, and then said:

Ultimately, this is the point for most here who argue this decision.  They don't give a damn how many more would have died.  Especially if they were Americans.  In their scales of justice we were and always will be wrong and evil for what we did and as such, there is no winning an argument on this point so the hell with them.

No one was in any mood to grant the Japanese an "honorable surrender" anymore than the Allies were the Germans. The terms were unconditional surrender and the path to that was through the Emperor. The use of the Atom Bomb was, perhaps unfortunate--in hindsight.

[+and-then]

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

No one was in any mood to grant the Japanese an "honorable surrender" anymore than the Allies were the Germans. The terms were unconditional surrender and the path to that was through the Emperor. The use of the Atom Bomb was, perhaps unfortunate--in hindsight.

 

The removal of the Mikado and humiliating the power structure that led to such carnage in the world was ABSOLUTELY justified.  The Japanese military behaved bestially in that war and were at least as evil as the Nazis.  If the US shares in the dishonor it was in our pardoning the guilty of unit 731 so that we could get the data they gained on human experimentation.  That, in itself, was criminal, imo.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

My guess is that the Norks are carrying on that tradition today.  It will be a human tragedy if millions die on that peninsula but it will not be a conflict the US ever wanted.  It's in China's hands now.  Hopefully, Xi believes some of the press about Trump being mentally unstable.

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, and then said:

The removal of the Mikado and humiliating the power structure that led to such carnage in the world was ABSOLUTELY justified.  The Japanese military behaved bestially in that war and were at least as evil as the Nazis.  If the US shares in the dishonor it was in our pardoning the guilty of unit 731 so that we could get the data they gained on human experimentation.  That, in itself, was criminal, imo.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

My guess is that the Norks are carrying on that tradition today.  It will be a human tragedy if millions die on that peninsula but it will not be a conflict the US ever wanted.  It's in China's hands now.  Hopefully, Xi believes some of the press about Trump being mentally unstable.

Reminiscent of the Meiji Restoration, isn't it?