Pilot that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima dies at 92

[The Overlord]

I think I have answered that one pretty much like a thousand times regarding this topic.
Japan was already crippled, it was looking for a way to peace but being able to save face.
on principle though, I would've included the mention of the atom bomb, along with a demonstration of it's power with my demands for surrender.
in the end, the US was looking for a way to show it's power to the world.
it had nothing to do with Japan, they KNEW the effects of it's use and they still used it.

INSANE!

That's a very dodgey answer.

Okay, but were they willing to accept an unconditional surrender? Did Japan want to keep some of the turf they garbed during the war and with the soviets now involved, couldn't thery have used their war time status with Japan to annex parts of Asia? Just because Japan was crippled, doesn't mean they would have accepted unconditional surrender. Near the end of war, the nazis were suing for peace with the Western allies, should the allies have just made peace with nazis so no more civilians wouldn't been killed? Should the Allies have not demanded an unconiditonal surrender from the Axis powers or not.

I have studied some japanese history and a lot of the Japanese cainet did want to accept an unconditional surrender, many wanted to fight on no matter what.
So your answer isn't as cut and dry as you would like it think it is.

 

[Diamondhead]

I also find it ironic that the same folks on this board care so much for children but are okay with this............

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

I mean...since we can show photos of Japanese children after the bomb, this is fair game too.

indeed!
they are nothing but a bunch of two face sonofacur

 

[Addendum]

Cabinet members may have wanted to continue the war. They lacked the authority to do so

 

[Mr Sparkle]

No, the U.S. suspected through intelligence that an attack was coming - the same way the U.S. suspected through intelligence that Saddam had WMDs.

Gee, who was right and who was wrong for either taking or not taking action? Sounds like neither to you, in which case there is no right answer and debating with you is about as produtive as eating sh**.

No, actually no.
wrong.
this had nothing to with intelligence.
it had a lot to do with Manchuria and a conflict that had been brewing for the last 10 years. ( you know, rubber, oil supplies) in fact, the US cut off supplies to Japan anticipating the US getting into WWII.
again, the Mccollum memo states this pretty plainly.
good job on the parallel though ( not really I'm being patronizing here, since there is no way that you can compare them and not be mentally ******ed), way to show you have no real knowledge of History, it's nice when someone so readily shows himself to be ignorant, i mean, you really saved me the effort. Kudos on that.

Yeah, Slick Willy had his chance, didn't he?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
yeah man, it was all Clinton.
but then, I wasn't talking about that was I?
i said:

since Osama had declared war on the US in 1996 ( or 98 I think) Wilhelm points out, that the same line of reasoning was used by Osama Bin Laden in the attacks on American interests, and in something you can more closely relate to, which is the attacks on US soil.

so how you can say this:

Yeah, Slick Willy had his chance, didn't he?

to that, is beyond me.
but clearly, not beyond you.

Not a mistake. Osama wasn't running what was considered to be a terrorist organization back then. Things change when you disband from whatever government you're serving and adopt your own vigilante agenda.



What you're doing is attempting to blame the U.S. for taking any action against Osama just because at some point in the past he wasn't seen as a threat. Again, debate with you is like ...

LOL, no, he wasn't considered a terrorist BY THE US. but he did the exact same thing he always did, but to the Russians ( and you know why? for pretty much the exact same reasons LOLt "things change" for the US when it realizes that Al Qaeda would still do the same things it did to the Russians if the US attempted to broaden it's interests in the Middle East.
It did so anyhow.
and don't worry, you're not "debating" me, to debate me, you'd have to at least kind of "know" what you're talking about.
you clearly don't ,you're one of those cats that only realized that there was a world out there AFTER 9-11 and something called "pol-i-ticks" I have been interested in these topics for a long time, so I can see how you could "feel" we're debating. but it's mostly me, laughing at your ignorance.

Tell me, oh wise one, what should the alternative have been?

wow, a question with a question?
well, already answered in a previous post, like 2 posts or one ago, so...go read that.
now, that I have answered yours please answer mine.

do you think that "war" is justification for slaughtering civilians?

Because I'm not against it. It was the right thing to do at the time. War is hell. Japan knew this when they made the decision to bring us into it, regardless of what their reasons were at the time.

so, all the peace feelers can go **** themselves right?
you think it would've been fair to say:

"Every Japanese man is an enemy to us"

Yet another attempt by you to make statements about my viewpoint that are blatantly false. Please find anywhere in my response where I stated that Japanese civilians are 'beasts' or 'inhuman'. You can't. Quit being a jack***.

LOL, you moron, I'm actually paraphrasing Truman, so go play in your corner.

Yep, and it took TWO of them to get Japan to back down. Why did it take two if Japan was the 'victim' here?

OH

MY
GOD!

you can't really mean this right?
so since the world trace center attacks DIDN'T make the US "back down" I guess it is not the "victim" eh?

This time, you've made a statement about something I've said which isn't true, but I don't mind. Terrorists are monsters.

notice how you neatly dodge the point of the post.
( well not neatly, rather clumsily..and obviously)

Perhaps so, but unlike you I don't buy into the point of view of terrorists. They are rogue vigilantes who cause destruction to freedom and security for ALL people. This also explains why the average Iraqi as of late has turned against Al Qaeda (not that you hear about that stuff on the mainstream news, mind you).

LOL "unlike you"? t: actually Wilhelm and I have been showing how it is people like YOU and Celldog-slim who actually "buy into the point of view of the terrorist" "convert to Capitalism or Die!" "accept Christian values! they are the best! now get on top of that pyramid of naked men, while my dogs bark at you and my lesbian friend points to your crotch!"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! one question though.
what does Iraq have to do with this?
you do know that Al Qaeda only got into Iraq after you invaded it right?
the fact that Al Qaeda IS there should be reason enough to know that the US ****ed up.
you understand THAT right?

 

[Kelly]

LMAO @ comparing yourself with Wilhelm....that's funny.

 

[The Overlord]

Cabinet members may have wanted to continue the war. They lacked the authority to do so

Not quite, the emperor was always a bit of puppet then a true player, really now the Japnese military really run the show in Japan, the Emperor was just a figure head, heck the americans used him as puppet after the war. He was the kind leader that let his advisors do all his thinking for him. When the cabinet decided to ignore the Potsdam declartion, the Emperor followed suit.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

That's a very dodgey answer.

Okay, but were they willing to accept an unconditional surrender? Did Japan want to keep some of the turf they garbed during the war and with the soviets now involved, couldn't thery have used their war time status with Japan to annex parts of Asia? Just because Japan was crippled, doesn't mean they would have accepted unconditional surrender. Near the end of war, the nazis were suing for peace with the Western allies, should the allies have just made peace with nazis so no more civilians wouldn't been killed? Should the Allies have not demanded an unconiditonal surrender from the Axis powers or not.

I have studied some japanese history and a lot of the Japanese cainet did want to accept an unconditional surrender, many wanted to fight on no matter what.
So your answer isn't as cut and dry as you would like it think it is.

NO! that's point! that's what I had said before.
it had to be an agreement that allowed them to save face.
as I understand it, they were dead set against occupation forces being in Japan for an extended period of time ( fearing the influence they might have on an empire)
let's say for a minute that the Military would try to wrest power from Hirohito, then the US invading forces would've battled a splintered military ( as many of the military men in Japan would DIE for their emperor and others for their Superior officers) so it isn't as cut and dry as you would make it seem either.
again, why was the bomb, it's effects and it's possible use, left out of the surrender request Truman sent prior to the attacks? ( though the bomb was operational and it's use already pre set)

 

[SentinelMind]

wow, it says that Hirohito was waiting for reports by peace feelers to the Soviets, plus, we know from, you, know...History that Japan had been already badly hurt by the regular bombing campaign ( that was just as Inhuman) and were just waiting for terms of surrender which would've allowed the Emperor to "save face" in front of his people ( these are Japanese people we are talking about afterall)

Are you now suggesting we shouldn't have dropped regular bombs on Japan either? Should we have remained pacifistic...or would your strategy have allowed sacrificing more of our men in uniform?

Japan is looking out for itself. It was sending out peace feelers to Soviet Union, who was our ally but future enemy in order to discourage their commitment to the war, had been sending treaties to America, (which the Nazis had done earlier as well) in order to discourage us from allying....and furthermore, regardless of whether Japan was "crippled" according to your history book, that does not mean they were not still resolvent in fighting. You heard of kamazi soldiers.....keep fighting until your last breath? This is the enemy we're up against....shifting around, using any tactic necessary to decieve, dedicated to fighting to the very last breath....and you want to trust any message their propoganda machine was putting out? Please...

 

[Mr Sparkle]

LMAO @ comparing yourself with Wilhelm....that's funny.

LMAO at you thinking that saying "wilhelm and I" is a comparison.
I guess when you say "My dog and I" you are comparing yourself to your dog.
weird on your part.

oh, and LMAO at you asking me a question, me answering it and showing that you kind of don't know history and you getting really, really silent.

LMAO.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

You also know that at Yalta the Soviet Union was making the same deals with Japan that they were with Germany and other countries of Eastern Europe....correct? No, Japan was not on its last leg by a long shot.

I will agree with those that say one of the 3 reasons the bomb was dropped was to see what it would do, which is not a good reason by any stretch. But, to say that Japan was a zombie by this time is a statement made out of igorance. There was much going on behind the scenes far beyond what any textbook could put out there. To discount what the Soviet Union was doing under the table would have been just as ignorant as how France and Great Britain treated Germany during the Treaty of Versailles.

I certainly do not know if the bomb was the option to go with, but I am almost intelligent enough to know that making sweeping statements as a Monday morning quarterback is the height of ignorance.

No.

sorry, but you don't know history.
not at all.


just saying "to say that Japan was a zombie by this time is a statement made out of ignorance" is not proof.
however, historical records are.
for a simple fact, the US knew that Japan would be a shambles in engaged in a long battle and that it's supplies were already running low BEFORE Pearl Harbor.

so.

no.

read more.

 

[Diamondhead]

Anyways
They had to end this war one way or another!
I think the Nazi deserved a couple of A bomb dropped on their head as well!
Thank God it didn't happened
Because it would have wipe out the remaining Jewish survivors
Thus, granting Hitler’s whishes to exterminate the German Jews.

And perhaps Germany would’ve been considered victim of this war
And shunt their responsibilities towards the cruelties they inflicted to other nations
Just like the Japanese did because of the “little” bombs.
Boo freaking hoo !

 

[Mr Sparkle]

The claim that Hiroshima is not a military target is a false statement, regardless of whether there are other intended benefits or reason for choosing that location to bomb.

it's not a claim.

there were purely military targets that they could've chosen, but they didn't.
why?
because they wanted "psychological impact" they consciously chose to kill as many japanese as possible military or not.

it's INSANE that you can defend that.
insane!

 

[The Overlord]

NO! that's point! that's what I had said before.
it had to be an agreement that allowed them to save face.
as I understand it, they were dead set against occupation forces being in Japan for an extended period of time ( fearing the influence they might have on an empire)
let's say for a minute that the Military would try to wrest power from Hirohito, then the US invading forces would've battled a splintered military ( as many of the military men in Japan would DIE for their emperor and others for their Superior officers) so it isn't as cut and dry as you would make it seem either.
again, why was the bomb, it's effects and it's possible use, left out of the surrender request Truman sent prior to the attacks? ( though the bomb was operational and it's use already pre set)

So we shouldn't have asked for unconditional surrender, despite the fact that's the Chinese were pushing for in Potsdam because they scared ****less by the Japanese? Should the Japanese have been allowed to keep some of the countries they gained control of in the war? Do you really think after all the Chinese went though during the war, that they would want anything less than unconditional war. Your solution wasn't feasible.

What about with the Nazis, they were suing for peace, should we have given them a deal less than unconditional surrender so they could save face and there would fewer civilian deaths?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Anyways
They had to end this war one way or another!
I think the Nazi deserved a couple of A bomb dropped on their head as well!
Thank God it didn't happened
Because it would have wipe out the remaining Jewish survivors
Thus, granting Hitler’s whishes to exterminate the German Jews.

And perhaps Germany would’ve been considered victim of this war
And shunt their responsibilities towards the cruelties they inflicted to other nations
Just like the Japanese did because of the “little” bombs.
Boo freaking hoo !

weren't you the one saying that fit people are normally "mentally fit"
excuse me if your opinion is not really that important.
though the feeling should not be all too unfamiliar to you.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

So we shouldn't have asked for unconditional surrender, despite the fact that's the Chinese were pushing for in Potsdam because they scared ****less by the Japanese? Should the Japanese have been allowed to keep some of the countries they gained control of in the war? Do you really think after all the Chinese went though during the war, that they would want anything less than unconditional war. Your solution wasn't feasible.

What about with the Nazis, they were suing for peace, should we have given them a deal less than unconditional surrender so they could save face and there would fewer civilian deaths?

I don't think "save face"means "keep the **** you got in war" and I distinctly addressed "occupation forces" and their influence as part of the concerns of the Japaneses empire.
so perhaps my solution isn't feasible, because what you just mentioned was never part of "my solution"

 

[SentinelMind]

it's not a claim.

there were purely military targets that they could've chosen, but they didn't.
why?
because they wanted "psychological impact" they consciously chose to kill as many japanese as possible military or not.

it's INSANE that you can defend that.
insane!

So you now agree with the assertion that Hiroshima was a military target. Yes, they also wanted other psychological and symbolic impact on the people, so they chose Hiroshima amongst other military targets because they wanted to end the war quicker.
Curious, which other military targets would you have dropped the atomic bomb on...

 

[Mr Sparkle]

So you now agree with the assertion that Hiroshima was a military target. Yes, they also wanted other psychological and symbolic impact on the people, so they chose Hiroshima amongst other military targets because they wanted to end the war quicker.
Curious, which other military targets would you have dropped the atomic bomb on...

Hiroshima was PRIMARILY a civilian target.
I agree with that "assertion"

 

[Diamondhead]

weren't you the one saying that fit people are normally "mentally fit"
excuse me if your opinion is not really that important.
though the feeling should not be all too unfamiliar to you.

What do you mean man?!
Everybody knows that the Japanese used that “Hiroshima and Nagasaki collateral damage excuse” to avoid their responsibilities to this war.

I don’t think the Japan of today would’ve been so well off (even though they are hard working people) if they had to pay compensation like the German people.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

see?

 

[teseract]

Jesus christ. What the **** was he supposed to do? Die instead? Are you serious? You do know thats the penalty he pays if he disobeys orders. I mean the way you people go on with this him going to hell business, is his crew going to hell too? Because they were accompanying him and helped. Hell he may not have even been the one who technically "pushed the button" as it were to actually drop the bomb, he was the pilot. What about the people at the airbase from which they took off from, the air traffic control men, are they going to hell because they should have stopped them from taking off? Stop with that bull****. You believe in that kind of a god?

I believe in no god but according to some brands of religion you kill one innocent person no matter what the circumstances you go to hell.

And yes, I would have chosen to disobey orders and die instead of killing hundreds of thousand of men, women and children. That is a guilt I could have never shouldered. I might be dead then but at least I'm not a mass murderer.

Personally, I hope wherever he is he's, he is with the people who died because of his actions and that they will give him what he deserves, let his victims hold judgement over him. That is all the justice needed.

 

[SentinelMind]

^I love when people who don't believe in hell hope that their enemies are there.....

Do you think the entire U.S. military that condoned this action, up into the White House...are in hell, too?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

lol, there is no hell. people that do horrible things die and go into nothingness, that's why it's so important to NOT do evil things.

 

[Sandman138]

So, I'm a little late. but these more or less encapsulate my feelings on the matter.

[YT]JgHSDa2Jwqc[/YT]

[YT]wxrWz9XVvls[/YT]

 

[Manic]

Sitting on top of the bomb, swinging a cowboy hat. It's the only way to go.

 

[teseract]

^I love when people who don't believe in hell hope that their enemies are there.....

Do you think the entire U.S. military that condoned this action, up into the White House...are in hell, too?

I would hope so! (if there is such a thing) However, in a lesser level since they were not directly involved with the action.