Would you have used the atom bomb on Japan in WWII if you were Prez?

And everyone one of them but one was against the bomb. We were better than that. We were not who we were fighting

 

That is outright false.

 

That is outright fact and the evidence has been posted

 

Crap. I selected YES, but the page was still loading, & registered NO...

 

No it is outright false and quotes and evidence has been posted.

 

Can you give a source for your claim about "trade deficits at America's expense" with regards to England?

 

Yes they have been posted. You lost this one son

 

On the contrary..
If Japan had not surrendered when they did, we'd continue our strategic bombing campaign; the people that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would die from conventional weapons.
And then, we'd invade. That November.

Given these things, there's no sound argument against dropping the bombs.

 

Like I said, and which you did not deny: The US embargoed Japan because of its war against and on mainland China.
Like I said, and which you did not deny: If Japan chose to end that war in China, the US would have lifted the embargo.
Like I said, and which you did not deny: Instead, Japan chose to go to war with the US.
Your self-defense argument, defeated, in toto.

 

For some there can never be enough genocide

 

We had no right whatsoever as a nation that was totally at PEACE with Japan to conspire with Britain to cut off the vital, absolutely necessary supply of oil and natural resources simply because we didn't like the fact that Tokyo was "horning-in" on our cozy, little China 'smorgasbord'. If you knew anything at all about the history of China, or of Japan, or of the conduct of European countries and the U. S. in China AND Japan since the mid nineteenth century you wouldn't persist in making yourself seem so ignorant and opaque.

Question: Did Japan issue ultimatums against either Britain or the U. S. when we plundered and bullied China, virtually ruling the country? The truth is that both nations thrust themselves into China's affairs during the sixty-year period beginning about 1853? Did Japan threaten to cut off our access to raw materials or oil from the East Indies? Using the SAME mish-mash of interventionist rationalizations that you, Winnie, and Frankie have used, the Japanese would have had every right to do so!

That said (for about the sixth time), had I been Truman, I would have dropped the atomic bomb as many times as needed to end the war, and to do so without getting any more American military personnel killed or wounded. See?! You can defend your country's actions, even when it deliberately conspires to start a war. Frankie and Winnie did it with Japan, LBJ did it with Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin ), "W" Bush (Iraq). I'm a realist, a pragmatist, and something of a student of history, not a prating, shallow absolutist....

 

... to embargo a nation using our materials to engage in war of conquest against it's neighbor ?
Your statement and your position are utterly unsupportable.
Please -- continue to embarrass yourself.

 

Yes we were better then them. That's why we got the bomb first.

 

Truman really didn't have a choice. Military casualty predictions for an invasion were so high that not using the atomic bomb to end the war would have angered the entire US population. I know it saved my father from being switched to the Pacific after the war in Germany ended.

 

You have made no supportable point, quoted no references, and cited no credible precedent. Call my position "unsupportable"... I'm quite comfortable with who has embarrassed himself here, and who has not. Oh, if you're going to play the "I'm-more-educated-than-you" card, you really ought to review the proper use of the apostrophe.

Think! Using your logic, wouldn't the Japanese have been justified in provoking a war with the United States because, for instance, they didn't like the way that we treated the American Indian?! . The position that we and Britain took was simple, but very clever... both Churchill and FDR wanted desperately to get the United States involved in Britain's war against Nazi Germany. The "back door" approach by deliberately provoking a war with Japan was successful. Winnie got a new ally against Hitler, Frankie finally found a way to get America out of the Great Depression, and everybody was satisfied that they had "done the right thing"....

And, yes, I would have dropped the atomic bomb... twice... thrice... as many times as it might have taken to save one (ONE) American soldier's life. So, are we done here...?

 

The statements I made are plain fact to anyone that has any knowledge of pre-PTO WW2 history; I note you do not question the veracity of any of the clams I made or argue against their accuracy.
Says all that need be said.

 

They are arguing that instead of dropping the bombs we should have stopped fighting Japan and let Russia overrun Japan and China, killing tens of millions, and then Stalin/USSR to have Japan and all of Northern and Central China to add to Eastern and Central European countries.

It isn't about preventing death. Tens of millions could die. Rather, that we didn't do the killing. In short, they are claim we should have surrendered to Russia throughout the world and take a totally isolationist policy.

 

Yes. Ending the war saved millions of lives on both sides.

 

I know. Nonsense, every bit of it.

 

Curious morality you have. As an analogy, a drug dealer should stop selling drugs to children because it is immoral. But it also then would be immoral for that drug dealer to not sell drugs to other drug dealers. If the drug dealer refused to sell drugs to his competing drug dealer then he had deliberately provoked the other drug dealer into murdering him.

The essence of your claim is that the USA and Britain has an absolute moral duty to profit from imperialistic Japan's horrific atrocities against the Chinese - and if we refused to fuel and profit from Japan's conquest of China and slaughter of the Chinese we had provoke Japan to attack us too.

That is your logic, isn't it?

Curious view. A gun shop owner may not engage in terrorism. But he also has a duty to sell weapons to known terrorists. If he refuses then he provoked the terrorists into murdering him and steal the guns. Thus the gun owner's death is his own fault. Like I said, a curious moral code you present there.

Do you apply that to politics too? That because Republicans not only support Trump, but also wouldn't contribute to Hilary Clinton's campaign, Republicans had provoked Democrats to attack and kill Republicans for the provocation of not contributing to Hilary Clinton's campaign.

 

You sure sound like an absolutist, just not a shallow one. Rather, you write of complex absolutism in dogmatic terms.

 

We were better than them because when we occupied Japan we did not do what the Japanese did to Naking and, instead, Japanese lives improved to a higher standard than before our occupation. That is how were 1000 times better than the Japanese.

That also is why we had to make a condition of surrender that the military structure of Japan would lose all power and the Emperor would only be a symbolic figurehead endorsing our reforming Japan from its imperial warrior-culture.

An analogy is the US Civil War. The goal was not just to force the South back into the United States, but also to destroy the slavery culture, to literally destroy the social structure of the South. That is why the North burned all plantations - to impoverish the large slave owners (wealthiest people in the country) to strip away their power. We had to destroy the power of militarism and the Japan feudal system.

 

We were better....that is why we should not have bombed them

 

We comitten a genocide. We must never forget that....or we will repeat it. Which is exactly the point of this thread

 

Fortunately the vast majority of Americans were not in favor of surrendering to Japan.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't know what the word genocide means, do you?