I Hate The G**ks

[El Guapo 8]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic military targets?

They had military strongholds, so yes.

During World War II, the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.[7]

We didn't randomly pick two cities, or we would have blown up Tokyo instead.

[CaneBrain 95]

History does not agree with you here. The bombings put an emphatic end to what would have been a long drawn out conflict costing thousands of more American lives. And before you respond with does that necessitate killing innocent Japanese, at the time yes it did.As far as the Iraq war, you can debate the validity of the war all you want, the point is we are at war, and again the innocent civilians that have died have saved many more Iraqi's in the long run.

I agree that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings prevented a long drawn out Pacific conflict that would have killed more Americans and a lot more Japanese as well.I really really dont think you can support your second statement. Have we really saved more Iraqis in the long run? It is not nearly as cut and dried. (And that is not even getting into how we have handed Iraq on a silver platter to Iranian influence long term.)

[Balloon guy 158]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic military targets?

Production facilities for war making equipment?They were back ups though due to the cloud cover

[LadyGrey 6]

Really?Was it "clearly excessive"?

Don't bother jumping on me for a detail like that, it only distracts from the discussion at hand. I didn't make my post to have a historical debate, and I didn't claim to be any kind of military expert or whatever.

[CaneBrain 95]

Don't bother jumping on me for a detail like that, it only distracts from the discussion at hand. I didn't make my post to have a historical debate, and I didn't claim to be any kind of military expert or whatever.

It aint a detail. It is a hard and fast position on the nuclear bombing of Japan that is wrong. Excessive? you could argue that sure.Clearly excessive? NO.

[El Guapo 8]

I agree that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings prevented a long drawn out Pacific conflict that would have killed more Americans and a lot more Japanese as well.I really really dont think you can support your second statement. Have we really saved more Iraqis in the long run? It is not nearly as cut and dried. (And that is not even getting into how we have handed Iraq on a silver platter to Iranian influence long term.)

You are mistaking the mismanagement of the war until recently with the validity of the war. Throw out the WMD stuff and the blatant continued violations of sanctions, Hussein was slowly committing genocide on thousands of Iraqi's. So yes, removing him from power will inevitably save lives (assuming the mismanagement and the subsequent power established by Iran doesn't bite us in the ass too hard.)

[Nimue1995 1]

This stupid little what-if scenario doesn't matter to anyone, and you won't get an answer you like.

And that should surprise me why?? Lol, I'm done trying to beat my head against the wall that surrounds yours, Copes, 85's & Neretva's minds. It's impeneterable.

[LadyGrey 6]

I couldn't have said it better, but I'd like to hear a response from you here LG.

I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm not going to pander to this assault about Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I made a post about the importance of criticising government, not about whether a specific attack decades ago was strategically necessary. It's not something I feel like discussing right now, as I can openly say I have not read extensively on the subject. My statement was an opinion based on my personal opposition to nuclear armament.

[CaneBrain 95]

You are mistaking the mismanagement of the war until recently with the validity of the war. Throw out the WMD stuff and the blatant continued violations of sanctions, Hussein was slowly committing genocide on thousands of Iraqi's. So yes, removing him from power will inevitably save lives (assuming the mismanagement and the subsequent power established by Iran doesn't bite us in the ass too hard.)

ok maybe. the chaos and instability that will inevitably be a part of Iraq for decades may lead to an equal loss of life that Saddam would have done with his genocide. hard to say.I think the second we leave Iraq for good, Iran will own that area going forward. We may have done right by the Iraqi people but I think it is unlikely this war will advance OUR interests long term.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Production facilities for war making equipment?They were back ups though due to the cloud cover

I'll say this; Truman had balls of steel. I think, based on the situation, as President of the United States he had a duty to protect the lives of American Soldiers and citizens. He was faced with an impossible choice, and he made it. I can respect that.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic military targets?

If I remember correctly, those two cities were choices three and four, the first two cities had bad weather.My History Channel recollection might be rusty.

[El Guapo 8]

ok maybe. the chaos and instability that will inevitably be a part of Iraq for decades may lead to an equal loss of life that Saddam would have done with his genocide. hard to say.I think the second we leave Iraq for good, Iran will own that area going forward. We may have done right by the Iraqi people but I think it is unlikely this war will advance OUR interests long term.

Two things here:1. That area, in our lifetime, will always be unstable, especially with Israel smack dab in the middle. You also have many different sects of Muslims that do not get along, Shiites, Kurds, etc. There will continue to be civil strife and conflicts. We cannot fix or solve that.2. Iran may take a portion of northern Iraq, but they will never get to Baghdad or the other central cities. This goes to the mismanagement of the war, and directly to what LG was talking about with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the media driven world we live in, we have limited effectiveness on war time activities because most will be labeled as human rights atrocities, and they are. But unfortunately, they are necessary to quickly end a war, and innocent lives will be lost.It is the reason we were not victorious in Vietnam, and it is the reason we are seeing what we are now in Iraq. The first time around in GWI we bombed the crap out of Iraq, got their 1 Million strong army to surrender in a matter of weeks, but left too soon, without full resolution.Now we are trying to do this kinda fight thing, and it just does not work. In war, civilians will be killed and most likely at unacceptable number to most peoples standards. I think I have made my point, but I don't want to get to long and drawn out with this.

[Jeepster80125 0]

And that should surprise me why?? Lol, I'm done trying to beat my head against the wall that surrounds yours, Copes, 85's & Neretva's minds. It's impeneterable.

Nimue, I would be happy to see you try to change my mind on certain issues. It's apparent to me though, that you lack an elementary knowledge on the subjects I wish to discuss with you.I've asked you multiple times to either address a point made by myself or someone else. It's almost like you don't even read or refer to it, you ignore it and continue on whatever narrow minded rant you've got yourself on. Ignorance is bliss and all that.

I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm not going to pander to this assault about Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I made a post about the importance of criticising government, not about whether a specific attack decades ago was strategically necessary. It's not something I feel like discussing right now, as I can openly say I have not read extensively on the subject. My statement was an opinion based on my personal opposition to nuclear armament.

Thanks for saying this.Using nuclear weapons is not 'clearly excessive'. You made a statement about a subject you don't know very much about. I just want to make sure you're not calling yourself an 'expert' here.Sometime, that debate would be a colorful one to have.

[CaneBrain 95]

Two things here:1. That area, in our lifetime, will always be unstable, especially with Israel smack dab in the middle. You also have many different sects of Muslims that do not get along, Shiites, Kurds, etc. There will continue to be civil strife and conflicts. We cannot fix or solve that.2. Iran may take a portion of northern Iraq, but they will never get to Baghdad or the other central cities. This goes to the mismanagement of the war, and directly to what LG was talking about with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the media driven world we live in, we have limited effectiveness on war time activities because most will be labeled as human rights atrocities, and they are. But unfortunately, they are necessary to quickly end a war, and innocent lives will be lost.It is the reason we were not victorious in Vietnam, and it is the reason we are seeing what we are now in Iraq. The first time around in GWI we bombed the crap out of Iraq, got their 1 Million strong army to surrender in a matter of weeks, but left too soon, without full resolution.Now we are trying to do this kinda fight thing, and it just does not work. In war, civilians will be killed and most likely at unacceptable number to most peoples standards. I think I have made my point, but I don't want to get to long and drawn out with this.

I think you have a made a great case for why we should NEVER EVER have gone in their in the first place. (Particularly statement 1.)I agree that we cannot easily judge war-time activities and that Monday Morning Quarterbacking on them is unfair. At best, we can say which actions were reasonably justified (Hiroshima) and which actions were clearly regrettable (internment camps for Japanese-Americans).

[El Guapo 8]

I think you have a made a great case for why we should NEVER EVER have gone in their in the first place. (Particularly statement 1.)I agree that we cannot easily judge war-time activities and that Monday Morning Quarterbacking on them is unfair. At best, we can say which actions were reasonably justified (Hiroshima) and which actions were clearly regrettable (internment camps for Japanese-Americans).

Just because there are different cultural and religious factions does not mean the war was not justified. Obviously if we could go back in time we would do things differently.

[timwakefield 68]

Dresden?

Po-tweet.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Po-tweet.

I get this joke!

[YonYonson 156]

I get this joke!

So it goes.

[MovingIn 0]

I'm Asian and assorted people have called me a gook to my face my entire life, dating back to childhood and as recently as this year.The term is not exclusive to war. It is a denigrative racial slur just like the n-bomb.

[LadyGrey 6]

Po-tweet.

I don't get it. If it said "Poo-tee-weet?" I would get it, but po-tweet doesn't register.

[YonYonson 156]

I don't get it. If it said "Poo-tee-weet?" I would get it, but po-tweet doesn't register.

Well yeah, but its the thought that counts.

[timwakefield 68]

I don't get it. If it said "Poo-tee-weet?" I would get it, but po-tweet doesn't register.

I lose . Hey you're the internet wizard, right? Can you find for me where KV is buried and what his grave says? As far as I can tell it's a mystery.This, of course, is what it looks like in my head -

[BigLebowski 0]

You are mistaking the mismanagement of the war until recently with the validity of the war. Throw out the WMD stuff and the blatant continued violations of sanctions, Hussein was slowly committing genocide on thousands of Iraqi's. So yes, removing him from power will inevitably save lives (assuming the mismanagement and the subsequent power established by Iran doesn't bite us in the ass too hard.)

Gee, you just described the situation in several African countries. Why are we leaving them out in the cold? I can't believe there are still people trying to validate the invasion and occupation of Iraq. To think it was for any of the aforementioned reasons is refusing to pull your head out of your ass.

[Loismustdie 0]

No it's not. Just because it was a term of war doesn't mean it isn't still a racial slur. Have you never heard anybody except a veteran call somebody a gook???? It's a term used the same way as fag or nigger or spic or kike. The fact that it came into existence during wars against Asians is immaterial to the abuse and offense that you can cause people by using that word.

McCain shouldn't have said that. It was wrong. In my mind there is no excuse for it. Won't stop me for voting for him, because the other guy wants to make the majority reliant on government. See how easy that is? I don't need any of the bullshit to know that Obama is well polished shit.

[Mercury69 3]

McCain shouldn't have said that. It was wrong. In my mind there is no excuse for it. Won't stop me for voting for him, because the other guy wants to make the majority reliant on government. See how easy that is? I don't need any of the bullshit to know that Obama is well polished shit.

Nothin' but the rough truth from that maverick McCain, however...He's a straight shooter.