USA - WW2 War crimes never addressed and held accountable!

page: 13
21
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Havick007
It is the civilians that i make an issue of, as should we all!


the "civilians" that worked in the factories producing war material.... that supported their government...

that were warned of the attacks "So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”

"An American-controlled radio station on Saipan was broadcasting a similar message to the Japanese people every 15 minutes. Five days after the fliers were distributed, Hiroshima was destroyed by the “Little Boy” atomic device.

Following the first attack, the U.S. air force dropped even more leaflets: America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet. We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate. We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city. Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan. You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

Three days after Hiroshima, the “Fat Man” bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The distribution of these leaflets, along with the radio broadcasts, does put a dent in the argument that America was unconcerned about the potential civilian deaths as a result of an atomic attack"


edit on 23/1/11 by dereks because: (no reason given)


your argument is weak at best... japan was in the process of surrender. there was no need to use such wepons. it is a crime a again humanity. dont make slight of war plz..

happy days

kx




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by greenfruit
As always when this very question comes up, it is always based on hindsight. When in combat you make decisions that at the time seem right but when looked upon at a later date with hindsight you go WTF was I thinking.

There really was no better or worse solution. Truman made a decision there and then period.


it was the wrong decision. the war was already finished. japen was surrending.....
they wanted to test the wepon and that is all...

kx



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
japan was in the process of surrender.


Care to show us why it was taking them so long to surrender then? What is your source that they were "in the process" of surrendering?
edit on 24/1/11 by dereks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


stay on topic to the thread plz... this is not about what japenese soliders done. it is about droping a bomb on a city..
weak attempt at derailing...

edit on 24-1-2011 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by purplemer
japan was in the process of surrender.


Care to show us why it was taking them so long to surrender then? What is your source that they were "in the process" of surrendering?
edit on 24/1/11 by dereks because: (no reason given)


it is common knowledge where i come from. educated in the uk.



On the surface, it's all very simple. Most of us seem to believe the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime. I certainly do. The Japanese were already talking of surrender. That Caesar of British historians, A J P Taylor, quoted a senior US official. "The bomb simply had to be used -- so much money had been expended on it. Had it failed, how would we have explained the huge expenditure? Think of the public outcry there would have been . . . The relief to everyone concerned when the bomb was finished and dropped was enormous."

www.newstatesman.com...

lot if u look



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
www.newstatesman.com...


Funny how you left this bit out

The Times leader says: The bombings of Hiroshima and, three days later, Nagasaki were a terrible act of war. But they were no crime . . . It seems incredible, but even the destruction of Hiroshima was not enough to force the Japanese cabinet to accept that the war was lost. The xenophobic fanaticism of a powerful constituency within it believed that Japan should resist till the literal extinction of its people. Recent research by Sadao Asada, a historian at Doshisha University, demonstrates beyond reasonable dispute that only the use of the A-bomb -- at Nagasaki as well as Hiroshima -- enabled the "peace party" within the cabinet to prevail . . . President Truman, who ordered the bombings, insisted that his decision had shortened a war and prevented huge casualties. The historical evidence strongly suggests that he was right.

Why leave that out?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by purplemer
www.newstatesman.com...


Funny how you left this bit out

The Times leader says: The bombings of Hiroshima and, three days later, Nagasaki were a terrible act of war. But they were no crime . . . It seems incredible, but even the destruction of Hiroshima was not enough to force the Japanese cabinet to accept that the war was lost. The xenophobic fanaticism of a powerful constituency within it believed that Japan should resist till the literal extinction of its people. Recent research by Sadao Asada, a historian at Doshisha University, demonstrates beyond reasonable dispute that only the use of the A-bomb -- at Nagasaki as well as Hiroshima -- enabled the "peace party" within the cabinet to prevail . . . President Truman, who ordered the bombings, insisted that his decision had shortened a war and prevented huge casualties. The historical evidence strongly suggests that he was right.

Why leave that out?
A star for looking.


purplemer:


lot if u look



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


The historical evidence shows that...but we will never be sure.

Also once again, i am trying to point out the civilian loss of life. I dont think it should be looked over so easily and swept under the rug so to speak just because that act won the war.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 

i am not here to educate you nor did i leave anything out on purpose. The japanese had for a period of time tried to negotiate there surrender. There was no need to drop a bomb on the people
As i said this is common knowlege. I even learnt it in school. Maybe the reason you dont know about its because your country was the purpetrator of the crime....

kx



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by purplemer
the japenese where already in the process of surrender when this bomb was dropped...


changing history again, Japan was NOT in the process of surrender, they even refused to surrender after the first bomb was dropped, it took the 2nd bom and the intervention of the Emperor himself for Japan to surrender.

Anyway, what is the "process of surrender" - all you have to do is state "We surrender" and inform your troops to stop fighting.


Also funny how all the Japanese apologists ignore the Potsdam Declaration!
edit on 24/1/11 by dereks because: (no reason given)



WRONG!...

they did not want an unconditional surrender... that is what the bomb caused..
there was no need to drop it...words would have worked
but
if you want to blindy stick up for the good old usa.. go ahead my son..

ignorance is bliss...

kx



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I am not going to keep repeating myself. If you want to delude yourselves into thinking that uncle sam wouldnt go dopping real wepons of mass destruction on cities for no reasons other than to test them...go ahead... believe the lies...




the U.S did not need to drop the little boy 20kt bomb on Hiroshima a uranium 235 implosion device. Nor did they need to drop the fatman plutonium bomb on Nagasaki. Japan was in the process of negotiating surrender anyway, and historians even MacArthur believed the Japanese would have surrendered within weeks.


wiki.answers.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Havick007
 

My opinion of the bombing of North Vietnamese in Laos?

I loved it.

It was our candiass President Johnson who decided he would select targets himself, instead of following the most basic principle of warfare which requires you to destroy your enemy where you find him.

Meaning: North Vietnam.

We see how the Christmas bombing and mining of Haiphong harbor brought the North Vietnamese to the peace table very quickly.

Here's the deal.

Those who would use force to obtain their goals - respond best to ruthless force when used against them.

It's a universal principle. Benefit or harm.

It's human nature.

No right, no wrong.

Absolute, ruthless force will compel those who prefer using force to alter their behavior.

There is no substitute.





top topics
 
21
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join