US bombing of Hiroshima Nagasaki was it a act of terrorism?

How you know that if you even don't know how old I am?!?

Yet again the claim that war would last forever without using nukes is still pure lie and you admit it.

Keep with name calling. It's all you have left after we disscus all facts.

I didn't expect from you to understand anything in first place.

 

cowards and .... fight?

now..

 

@ Moreplayerz.com:

The Japanese refused to surrender. This would cause the war to go on and on. If you can not see that....
There is no lie, so, therfor, nothing for me to admit. You are wrong, plain and simple.

I don't have to know how old oyu are to know that I have more life experiance than you. You see, I haven't sat behind a computer my entire life. I went out and did things that made a differance for people. Not just in the military, but, both before and after I got out.

@ imad:

Yes, the way the COWARDS fight. Cowards can fight. Or, are you incapable of understanding that? Way to jus tsingle out a small portion of a sentance. But, just like all supporters of radical islam, you will pick apart anything that is said and try to get it to fit into your narrow viewpoint or into some sort of propaganda.

It takes a man to go out and fight. It takes a man to rely on training and skill. It takes a coward to hide behind innocent civilians. *ehem palestinians, ehem taliban, ehem al queda, whem insurgents in Iraq*

 

like those..?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rRrZlYN2xw

 

Nope, you are wrong but you are not man enough to admit it. Claim that war wouldn't be over without using nukes is a lie and just excuses for supporting killing innocent civilians. You do support that when suits your goals. YOu showed that clearly in this thread.

You are funnier with each single post lol
You don't know even how old I am yet you know what I do and what I have done in my life lol. Seriously, whats the point to have nay kind of disscusions with you when you know more about me than me anyway?
I don't recall what I have doing say 20 years ago so can you remind me about that please?

 

I'm sorry for any personal attacks I made on you...I have discovered that the need for a breathalyzer to be attached to your keyboard is a must to prevent you from typing while drunk and speaking out your ass

On the Japan thing. I'm not saying it wouldn't be over now. I'm saying the war would have drawn out quite a bit of time, causing the loss of life to reach HUGE numbers. The nukes were an attempt to keep that from happening. I'm not saying there wasn't alterior motives behind them as well. I think there were motives the same as when an animal makes itself larger as well.

 

They may have been a bunch of pusses, but, at least they weren't hiding behind innocent civilians.

lol @ them.

 

lol I was talking about the ehem "insurgents in Iraq" they do not seem like hiding behind civilians... or under bed..

but anyway, I have mentioned this earlier here and will repeat it lol, only because I like you hostlonestar (I m not being sarcastic here)

assuming they truly hide behind civilians (which is not true because they always choose mountainous empty areas to launch there attacks from), from so many incidents it seems that U.S. army do not hesitate to bomb them even if they hide behind civilians,

so it would be logical that they understand after so many times that hiding behind civilians does not work, and try something else like hiding under bed like those soldiers in the clip

 

Hey, I was a soldier and not once did anyone in my unit hide under the bed

It's them dang marines that were scared.

I was in Baghdad each time I went there, and Afghanistan....too many mountains, I hated it worse than Iraq lol. I actually didn't do much fighting in Afghanistan, I was on customs duty for 10 out of the 12 months. The other 2 months I was on border patrol....but they didn't attack us much, we had tanks with us lol.

In Baghdad though, shootings always came from crowded markets or houses with people in them. IED strikes come from someone hiding far away lol.

And the airstrikes occur because Americans are tired of the hiding behind the civilians game. The terrorists use it because then they can claim "America killed civilians, wah wah wah" when, they are the reason they died.

 

I see, that's how it differ...

 

I've read that more people died in one night's fire bombing of Tokyo than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Consider Dresden, a beautiful city in Germany. It was kept free from any military targets because the Germans wanted to preserve that beautiful city. But it was attacked nevertheless. There were absolutely no military targets in Dresden. The entire city was carpet bombed. 500,000 civilians were killed.

Nuclear bombs also have a side effect, radiation destroys the genes of survivors forever. You become a mutant, and your generations would never be normal.





I believe similar side effects happened due to use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and use of Depleted Uranium in Iraq.'

Here is a "Depleted Uranium Baby"

 

Then maybe, and this is just comming from the top of my head, maybe you shouldn't invade their country? I know this might be stunning to some people, but sometimes peace is the solution.

 

Very disturbing pictures.... You could have given the link rather than posting the images here....

 

Well, when you harbor terrorists, things are going to happen. I know that might be stunning to some people .

Peace is all fine and dandy, but, when you are dealing with people who's goal is to destroy your country, peace just isn't an option. That may be stunning to you, but, you're tucked safely away in Denmark, so I wouldn't expect you to understand. HAve the same viewpoint when you're attacked.

 

You need reading lessons. In fact the the point I was making was about the definition of the word.

No more so than you. The difference of course, is that the UN and most other nations agree with my definition, where as yours is held by a much smaller group of people who like to strap bombs to their chests. The majority can often be wrong, but in this case, looking at how people run their lives in America vs. how things are done in Gaza, Palestine, Iran, and Pakistan, yeh, I'm going to take a chance that the majority is right.

Nice strawman. I never said that. I said that at the rate Japan was committing genocide, the time saved bringing the war to a rapid end saved lives. That is indisputable.

How many lives were saved is up for debate and we will never know because we can't change history and let the war drag on. If the war in Palestine is any indication of how long a conflict can drag out that does not end by overwhelming force, regime change, and occupation, I'd say we saved 10s of millions of lives.

Actually... I don't. I've been to many places on this planet, and American's are well received. They love us all the more since our new president. There is a reason why people risk life and limb swimming rivers, climbing fences, etc to get into America. You trying to tell me Afghanistan has those types of immigration problems?

Were you referring to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor, invasion of most countries in Asia, or Germany's invasion of most European nations? Please clarify.

 

I didn't say war allows to do anything. I said that was the biggest war crime because it was happened during WWII. I never said the war crimers are better than terrorists. Don't fucking change my words, dude.

 

In all fairness, I dont think the word "Warcrime" works either. War crimes generally apply to actions committed that did not further the war effort. Ethnic cleansing (Kosovo, Germany), POW rape, killing, mutilation. These things do nothing to further the cause of one side or the other.

Of course there would have to be a war to have war crimes, and considering terrorists are not claimed as combatants by any Nation, it leaves them in curiously uncharted waters. They aren't really POW's since they are not uniformed enemy combatants. They are not US ciitizens or criminals on US soil. It is one of the reasons Gitmo detainees get to lunch on such big sh*t sandwich. They are not protected by the Geneva convention or the laws of the United States of America. We could probably do pretty much anything we want with them(within the US military code of behavior) and still be within the boundaries of the law. That includes shipping them off to other people who have no hangups about torturing, mutilating, or killing them.

These uncharted waters should make for some interesting legislation to come down the pipe on exactly what will be done with them in the future.

 

You guys say that since Im from Denmark I don't know shit about war - which you are probably right about. But I do know something about the european contries hate towards America. And trust me, you can't imagine it. It came to a point where not even news reporters from our public service news station were hiding this (which says a lot in my country, where things aren't like Fox News). Not that the hate is gone, but ofcource, it is been better since Obama was elected. But the hate isn't towards americans as individuals, so of cource people treat you well when you travel.

And you know that you can't compare this with the mexico-america situation.

 

News reporters expressing contempt for America is no surprise. fox News is an anomaly in America, with most American news stations doing exactly what you describe, even more so on US broadcasts abroad (CNNI0. Journalist contempt for the Bush administration was seething. It had the desired effect in the U.S. where we got a sweeping victory for the Democrats in 2008, but unfortunately it had undesired and widespread effects abroad. Our goal was never to tarnish the American brand, but only George W. Bush and the Republicans. Still, if we had to tarnish America a little to win an election, so be it. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

I agree, Americans were never hated and treated well for the most part. It certainly didn't slow the pace or desirability of immigration to the US. Your statement regarding the the easing of the hatred now that Obama is president shows you where your hate was really supposed to be pointed. Now that we have control of both houses of congress and the white house, I doubt you'll see too much overtly "seething" news coverage, even though we will be ramping up the war in Afghanistan and not breaking from the Bush plan for disengagement from Iraq. Its a glorious new day and we are all thankful the whole "Bush" chapter is behind us.

 

Our use of nuclear arms in the Second World War to bring an end to the four year conflict (for the U.S. - war had been raging years before we finally got hit, in an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor) and probably a bit out of revenge for how the war started. Was it deplorable? Of course it was. Did it kill many people? It certainly did. Was it known at the time it would irradiate the earth and cause defects and cancer? It was not that well known in 1945. Was it necessary? Yes.

How was it necessary?
Japan would have been a Vietnam with urban combat, holdouts across many islands, and would have devolved into guerrilla warfare, and we would have lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers to death, disease, and wounds. For the United States it was the quickest and most devastating way to end the war. If we had the nukes a year earlier, we would have bombed Germany with them and Japan.

You realize this, right? We were ready to use them on Germany. Germany capitulated before we could. If we had developed the technology and had it ready in 1940, and were attacked in 41, we would have started the war out by just nuking everyone's shit. The war would have ended in 1942. It may have, through the use of these terrible weapons, been less costly in the long run for the United States, and would have pretty much expedited the Cold War. We might have even defeated Russia if we beat Germany before they broke their agreement with the Russians.

At that time we were the first with this terrible new weapon, and we made it for the sole purpose of ending the second world war, and possessing a weapon so powerful that we would have the advantage in any conflict.