"The two bombs, in other words, saved many lives on both sides. Yes, it killed many women and children in a matter of seconds, but at the same time it saved countless other Japanese women and children. "

"Bombs" kill many women and children.
fall out from Hiroshima and Nagosaki is killing women and children who arent even part of the culture that was at war with the US any more.

They are indiscriminate weapons, and thats bad enough, but they are also indiscriminate weapons who's repercussions continue to kill maim and damage innocents years after they are dropped.

wave your flags and enjoy your tickertape parades, those bombs weren't dropped for humanitarian reasons, they were dropped because it was a cheep and effective way to beat the enemy.

it worked.
and damn the people who decided to do it to the most fetid hole in hell.

Conventional fire bombs killed more people in Japan than those 2 nukes. Keep on babbling here looking like a fool...

TC, i believe in our right to defend ourselves...it's what is being called defense that i oppose. i make no excuses for Saddam, he's garbage. i just can't call this self-defense. Saddam has never attacked the US, babe. he has no means to deliver these weapons as of yet...we don't even know what he has...inspections are necessary and should continue but regime change is not our concern.

we've gave 90 million tax payer dollars to the Iraqi National Congress in '98 to overthrow Saddam, just to end up spending billions to do it ourselves. goodness sake, how much money are we gonna throw away on this when our focus should be on our economic problems here at home.

i don't believe in murder, i believe in self-defense. killing in Iraq at this point is murder. Saddam isn't OBL, he doesn't believe in jihad and killing americans (when he says it, it's only to incite those fools who do believe that way into fighting to save his sorry butt).

goodness if killing as many americans as possible was his goal he would have used WMD in Gulf War I and went out in a blaze of glory. but no, cause he's all about self preservation...9 to 10 we won't even get him if we do go in. he's Castro with more money and less intellect. inspect him and move on...cause spending in the gulf is doing more harm than good.

ps...i missed you terribly while i was away

Darn it, Saphie, do you really think anyone relishes the idea of any innocent children or women getting killed or maimed? My gosh, do you have any idea how the servicemen feel knowing their actions will probably cause a child to suffer? They can't explain the pain, and I won't disgrace it by trying. But Saddam is part of the problem, not only for us here but also there. He has made a point of thumbing his nose at the U.N. mandates of peace, there is credible reason to believe he supports and sanctions terror, and he has brought pain and suffering to his own people. There's no need in going into the Kurdish issue.
I'd love to know how to allow him to continue his rule, how to force him to abide by U.N. mandates over a decade old so as to meet the requirements that would allow the sanctions to be lifted, and to ensure he no longer supports terror without having to inflict any more pain on the Iraqi people or to lose allied lives and much needed financial assets, but I don't know of any, and if the current administration knows of any they aren't speaking about them.
Gosh, Seetheart, there is no glory in war, and no soldier in his right mind wants to go. But the willingness of an administration to go to war, that is to say the demonstration of a backbone, will go a long way in the deterence of war whereas the sign of cowardice or weakness is a sign to the evil tyrants that all is open to debate and discussion.

i don't think our brave men and women relish in killing kids, no...but like i said war is messy and uncontrollable. that's why it's completely war. even for soliders trained to handle it...

i was talking with a vietnam vet today at work (Tony, great guy) and he was telling me how he felt 19 yrs. old facing death at any moment, facing having to kill to at any moment. i couldn't imagine what our folk go through to put in that situation at such a young age. war is wrong and un-natural.

i hope you don't think i have disrespect for those who serve cause i don't. their lives are just a precious to me as my own. all human life is sacred and should be protected not thrown away in some goaless endeavor to solve disputes between governments.

No, Saphie, I know better, and if I've caused you to think that way, I'm truly sorry. I just see it from a soldier's viewpoint is all, and so I write from that viewpoint. I've been shot at, and I've been scared, but I've known that what must be done must be done. If not, evil is allowed to win, and if that happens, all hope is lost for all concerned.

Originally posted by MT69
Conventional fire bombs killed more people in Japan than those 2 nukes. Keep on babbling here looking like a fool...

Any links to back up your claim???

Any links to back up your claim???

Try a HISTORY book.

The firestorms created by fire-bombing cities like Tokyo killed more people than two nukes. Most Japanese cities were like big piles of firewood with pretty much everything built with wood.

Those people who died instantly from the nuclear blast died more humanely than those caught up in the firestorms that ate entire cities.

[Edited on 21-1-2003 by MT69]

That still leaves us with nothing. I always back up any claim I make here on ATS and I expect it from other posters. The mods expect it too...

Ok, the liberal US university that I attended just lied to me.

This is the same university that was a haven for military personnel that wanted to go AWOL to avoid fighting in the first Gulf War.

This is the same university that led the anti-war movement in the South during Vietnam.

This is the same university that requires incoming freshmen to study the Koran to understand muslims after 9/11.

This is the same university where the national media went to get TV shots of anti-war protesters right after 9/11 as soon as we talked about getting Usama Bin Ladin.

By the way, there's no need for me to find a link for you regarding a FACT that is taught in grade school. Conspiracy theories on this board aren't the same thing as something that has been debated/analyzed by historians as a FACT.

[Edited on 21-1-2003 by MT69]

Originally posted by TheBandit795

Originally posted by MT69
Conventional fire bombs killed more people in Japan than those 2 nukes. Keep on babbling here looking like a fool...

Any links to back up your claim???

If you aren't into reading books, Bandit, the History channel will mention this fact from time to time.

Amazing, in the desire to demonize the atomic bomb, some teachers seem to have skipped over the part of history depicting the horrors of the firestorms created by the incendiary bombs. Seems the Japanese structures were perfect for creating Hell on Earth, what with all the wood and paper. The fires caused great windstorms, sucking in air like a huge animal heavily breathing. The damage was incredible, but was a conceivable horror, therefore tolerable to the emperor. After all, he intended on slaughtering women and children by throwing them into combat against the American serviceman. The atomic bomb, however, was beyond his imagination. The power was inconceivable, with destruction and death that came in an instant. He knew there was no beating such an enemy with this power. He knew, also, that the next bomb could very well be destined for his neighborhood, for him, his family. It became more personal.

I don't have History channel... Damn cable company...
Anyway, the whole point is that he shouldn't of posted that without backing it up.(something he could've easily done in less than five minutes with google)

But, my last queston posted for him, still remains...

Originally posted by MT69
By the way, there's no need for me to find a link for you regarding a FACT that is taught in grade school. Conspiracy theories on this board aren't the same thing as something that has been debated/analyzed by historians as a FACT.

[Edited on 21-1-2003 by MT69]

So you got it in grade school... I didn't...
You can see by my custom title and by my avatar that I'm not American.
Don't think that all non-Americans got that in their history books.

MT69,ok

You still haven't aswered my question: Who dropped those fire bombs over Tokyo which caused a higher death toll than Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Originally posted by MT69
By the way, there's no need for me to find a link for you regarding a FACT that is taught in grade school. Conspiracy theories on this board aren't the same thing as something that has been debated/analyzed by historians as a FACT.

I suppose that your use of all capitals in the word "FACT" is intended to ensure we also believe as you?

Mr. 69, you have been bounding all over this fine community, stomping on those who don't believe as you. What a shame. I believe you may actually have something to contribute (Mr. Crowne, see what happens when rampant conservatism is allowed to flourish unchecked), but your extreme attitude places all us week-kneed lilly livered liberals in a defensive posture.

You seem to forget that so-called historical facts may, and often are, distorted through successive retellings.

Yes, indeed, as Mr. Crowne has pointed out, Japan was tortured by the fire bombing campaigns that were horrific. A more subtle and successful re-calibration of the thread's historical perspective. You, on the other hand, simply shout. So you see, your message wasn't wrong, merely your attitude.

Listen People I've seen so much crap being posted on this topic. Just take a chill pill!

We all know who are kids on this web site, and we know who actually is intelligent. So respond to the topic not to kids who think they now everything.

1. No one is claiming responsibility because their sh#@ing their pants after they realised what they did.

2. Of course it's for Oil and the protecting of US allies (Israel).

Itís not about Oil itís about a nuclear war, which was averted. And interactions made to determine who was at fault. The US apparently has looked into this issue, considered all the options and is certain of who is to blame.

Why has Russia joined NATO an organization meant to deal with the Communist threat? Does Russia feel that to some extent China supported Moslem interests in relation to Chechen rebels, attempting to take control of what is known as the Belly of Russia?

If they do then what would have been there response, to the issue of Moslems in China supporting (with aid an comfort). Hostilities between the newly formed Russian Republic. And those Chechen rebels controlling parts of what is there country.

The technology needed to support a city underground with men and materials, is something only China can do. But with 100 million Moslems within there borders I can consider they gained access to tunnel technology and shared it with Iraq (the Moslems in China). The US is obliged by treaty to protect China against the former Soviet Union. So no alternative would have existed if the Newly formed country/ nuclear power had concluded that it was Chinas fault.

Good Post! Leave it to a Limey to cut through all the bull and get to the crux of the matter. You'd make a fine American. I salute you.

You still haven't aswered my question: Who dropped those fire bombs over Tokyo which caused a higher death toll than Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The US did in response to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan's Bataan Death March, Japan's EVIL behavior towards its Asian neighbors....

You've got some major problems acting as if Japan was innocent and that they didn't bring their death/destruction upon themselves.