The indespensable 'Was the use of the A-bomb in Japan justified' thread

Former Member

Woodsman, spare that tree!! I know he'll come to the point eventually...

Former Member

Globe wrote:

The Japanese were quick to surrender, after Hiroshima, weren't they? Nagasaki was necessary to press the point that it would not be an isolated instance, but that the attacks would continue until either Japan surrendered, or the land mass ceased to be.

Yet it does seem to have been isolated, doesn't it? All the conflicts since, including Vietnam, and all those A-bombs, and they haven't found a good excuse to use them again... kind of makes you wonder if the will is not there anymore, after seeing the aftermath in Japan? But that arsenal does cost such a lot to maintain...

Globe wrote:

And if you cannot differentiate between a military battle against Japan, and a battle between a terrorist force in Iraq, then join Blagsta amongst the hopelessly inane.

Is it not a 'War' against Terror, now?

Former Member

Globe wrote:

If you are such a fucking moron as to be unable to devine the difference between the Vietcong targeting and murdering the population in a terror campaign, and the reaction of the National Guard against a riotous mob hurling rocks and broken bottles - with a history of arson - then you are undeserving of commentary, because your mind is already sealed by your prejudices, and you wish nothing more than the opportunity to continue your inanities.

Comparing four individuals killed during a riot to tens of thousands murdered simply for going about their non-involved lives, is the act of a simple minded imbecile.

Christ, your grasp of history is tenuous to say the least.

Former Member

Globe wrote:

The Japanese were quick to surrender, after Hiroshima, weren't they? Nagasaki was necessary to press the point that it would not be an isolated instance, but that the attacks would continue until either Japan surrendered, or the land mass ceased to be.

And if you cannot differentiate between a military battle against Japan, and a battle between a terrorist force in Iraq, then join Blagsta amongst the hopelessly inane.

see above

Teh_Gerbil

Remember: Because he fought on the ground in one area, he knows everything about war, ever. Even the stuff he never saw.

No disrespect, but just because you were in Vietnam, what do you know about Japan? Or Iraq? Or infact, the parts of Vietnam you were not involved in? Were you there, murdering civilians? I hope not. You were probably busy fighting the war. So what do you know of raped women and killed kids by the US too, not just the Vietcong?

Former Member

If, as you say Globe, the US went into Vietnam on some kind of humanitarian mission, what was the US support of mass murderers like Pinochet and Suharto about?