America committed the worst terrorist acts in world history

[BartenderElite]

And I say this as someone who loves America.

But I don't love parts of our history.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a shameful chapter in our history. No one should ever try to justify these horrific acts by arguing how many might have died in a land war, or using other justifications.

Civilians are never to be targeted in war. Never. Never. Never.

 

[BidenPresident]

And I say this as someone who loves America.

But I don't love parts of our history.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a shameful chapter in our history. No one should ever try to justify these horrific acts by arguing how many might have died in a land war, or using other justifications.

Civilians are never to be targeted in war. Never. Never. Never.

War is war. No morals apply.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

And I say this as someone who loves America.

But I don't love parts of our history.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a shameful chapter in our history. No one should ever try to justify these horrific acts by arguing how many might have died in a land war, or using other justifications.

Civilians are never to be targeted in war. Never. Never. Never.

Should we have just fire bombed those cities like we did say, Tokyo where in a single night the USAAF killed more people than both atom bombs did?

How should we deal with trying to reduce an enemy's ability to fight a war by taking out their means of producing weapons if those means are situated--often deliberately--next to and surround by things like civilian neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, and the like?

How should a nation respond when their enemy bombs their citizens? After all, both Germany and Japan did this well before the Allies (including the US) started retaliating in kind.

 

[IBDaMann]

And I say this as someone who loves America.

Bullshit. You HATE America. You LOVE virtue-signalling.

But I don't love parts of our history.

... and you're about to contradict yourself. You're going to apply heavy negative spin to some of America's best achievements just because it's America, and you HATE America.

Let's take the Geneva Conventions, for example. Americans have always had a conscience. When the atomic bomb was invented, Americans saw a way to minimize suffering when the overwhelming numbers of dug-in Japanese soldiers (who had initiated a war with the US with an unprovoked, surprise attack) would have meant a long, drawn-out war with many, many deaths on both sides. However, after successfully accomplishing that honorable objective, Americans were nonetheless deeply troubled by the suffering that occurs to civilian populations when they are targeted by military forces (also considering events such as the London bombing by the Luftwaffe, British retaliation on Berlin civilians (by the end of 1944, more than 3.5 million German civilians had been killed). Up to that point, all countries considered civilians fair game in warfare, if it would help win the war. Americans were resolute to change that and became drivers for organizing the Geneva Conventions which resulted in, among other things, establishing that civilians are never to be targeted in war. Never. Never. Never.

Fast forward to present day: America-HATING leftists dishonestly omit any and all mention of America driving for this change, in a shitty effort to rob the US of all credit for making the world a much better place. Instead, they point to civilian deaths caused by the US prior to the Geneva Conventions and pretend that the US was the only country to have ever done that. They don't even mention that the US saved hundreds of thousands of lives by dropping atomic bombs on Japan and bringing about an immediate end to the war that Japan initiated. Nope, no mention at all. The leftist intent is to malign the United States with propaganda and to score some virtue-signalling points with other America-HATERS.

This is not something that is done by someone who loves America ... so get on with it. Go ahead and virtue-signal your historically-illiterate America-HATING.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a shameful chapter in our history. No one should ever try to justify these horrific acts by arguing how many might have died in a land war, or using other justifications.

I do justify their use, and I applaud the resulting Geneva Conventions prohibitions against targeting civilians. My country made the world a better place. Go USA! ... and fuck you.

Civilians are never to be targeted in war. Never. Never. Never.

So do you appreciate what the US did or not? You can't bring yourself to praise the US for their accomplishments, can you? The entire world benefitted by the US leading the international community to change warfare.

You can't validly dwell on an impetus for the achievement without crediting the achievement and the bigger picture.

 

[evince]

And I say this as someone who loves America.

But I don't love parts of our history.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a shameful chapter in our history. No one should ever try to justify these horrific acts by arguing how many might have died in a land war, or using other justifications.

Civilians are never to be targeted in war. Never. Never. Never.

The nation announced every Japanese citizen was going to fight


I stand by the decision to use it

 

[BartenderElite]

I said what I said.

If you think those bombings were justified - you support terrorism. There is no spinning that.

 

[BartenderElite]

I have never understood the position that in order to love America, you must not criticize America.

America is a flawed nation, with a flawed history. Who would argue that?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I have never understood the position that in order to love America, you must not criticize America.

America is a flawed nation, with a flawed history. Who would argue that?

All nations are. America has pretty much one of the better records of not being assholes to everyone and everything...

 

[BartenderElite]

All nations are. America has pretty much one of the better records of not being assholes to everyone and everything...

Well, except for the whole vaporizing cities thing.

You know how we would feel about any other country that did that.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Well, except for the whole vaporizing cities thing.

So, smashing them into rubble then setting it on fire creating fire storms that wipe out everything is somehow better?

You know how we would feel about any other country that did that.

You are making a fallacy of presentism. That is, you are projecting current values back on those making decisions at the time in the past. Given the rape of Nanking, bombing of Rotterdam, bombing of London et al., by the Germans and Japanese, the US and allies had little compunction to not return the favor tenfold on their enemies.

Even then, the US was less likely than the Russians or British to just indiscriminately bomb cities. USAAF policy in most, not all but most, cases was to target legitimate military related targets and try to hit those with only misses causing collateral damage. Of course, given the state-of-the-art in the 1940's there were a lot of misses.

But when things went very right, the USAAF did what they advertised as they did here:

That's a shot of the USAAF in late 1943 bombing an about to open aircraft factory in Marienburg Germany. They smashed the factory with nearly 100% hits as the conditions for bombing were perfect. The factory never opened, and Hermann Göring who was scheduled to give a speech at the factory's opening the next day never got to...

The Luftwaffe extracted a heavy price shooting down over 80 bombers (800 + kia, wia, pow) between the four raids on the factory, but the factory was finished.

The only thing nuclear weapons did different was they did it in one shot at far less cost to the attacking side. Own losses were minimized, enemy losses were maximized. Seems like a good idea to me. In 1945, nuclear weapons were just a bigger, better, bomb.

Here's an interesting one. In early 1944, the US tried out for the first time using the GB-1 glide bomb against the German city of Cologne.

Over 100 were dropped miles from the city. The idea was to allow the bombers to evade being shot down by flak defending the city. The results of the attack proved so indiscriminate that the USAAF dropped the use of the weapon entirely for the rest of the war.

 

[BartenderElite]

So, smashing them into rubble then setting it on fire creating fire storms that wipe out everything is somehow better?



You are making a fallacy of presentism. That is, you are projecting current values back on those making decisions at the time in the past. Given the rape of Nanking, bombing of Rotterdam, bombing of London et al., by the Germans and Japanese, the US and allies had little compunction to not return the favor tenfold on their enemies.

Even then, the US was less likely than the Russians or British to just indiscriminately bomb cities. USAAF policy in most, not all but most, cases was to target legitimate military related targets and try to hit those with only misses causing collateral damage. Of course, given the state-of-the-art in the 1940's there were a lot of misses.

But when things went very right, the USAAF did what they advertised as they did here:

That's a shot of the USAAF in late 1943 bombing an about to open aircraft factory in Marienburg Germany. They smashed the factory with nearly 100% hits as the conditions for bombing were perfect. The factory never opened, and Hermann Göring who was scheduled to give a speech at the factory's opening the next day never got to...

The Luftwaffe extracted a heavy price shooting down over 80 bombers (800 + kia, wia, pow) between the four raids on the factory, but the factory was finished.

The only thing nuclear weapons did different was they did it in one shot at far less cost to the attacking side. Own losses were minimized, enemy losses were maximized. Seems like a good idea to me. In 1945, nuclear weapons were just a bigger, better, bomb.

Here's an interesting one. In early 1944, the US tried out for the first time using the GB-1 glide bomb against the German city of Cologne.

Over 100 were dropped miles from the city. The idea was to allow the bombers to evade being shot down by flak defending the city. The results of the attack proved so indiscriminate that the USAAF dropped the use of the weapon entirely for the rest of the war.

Would you be in favor of using nukes against civilians again if it ended a war more quickly?

I just believe the U.S. needs to stand for something greater. How can we claim any kind of moral superiority when we've done one of the most immoral things a nation can do?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Would you be in favor of using nukes against civilians again if it ended a war more quickly?

It would depend on the scope of the war. If it were a limited war like everything since WW 2 has been, I'd say no. If it were an all-out war between major powers, nuke the fuck out of them before they nuke the fuck out of us.

I just believe the U.S. needs to stand for something greater. How can we claim any kind of moral superiority when we've done one of the most immoral things a nation can do?

I'll leave you with this, and I firmly believe it: The only REAL war crime is LOSING Quite frankly, I don't care if we're morally superior if we lose. If we win, we can debate the niceties of how we did it. But winning is everything, moral debates about war mean nothing.

 

[BidenPresident]

No such thing as a polite war.

 

[ptif219]

And I say this as someone who loves America.

But I don't love parts of our history.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a shameful chapter in our history. No one should ever try to justify these horrific acts by arguing how many might have died in a land war, or using other justifications.

Civilians are never to be targeted in war. Never. Never. Never.

Then don't vote Democrat since they are the ones that did it

 

[BartenderElite]

It would depend on the scope of the war. If it were a limited war like everything since WW 2 has been, I'd say no. If it were an all-out war between major powers, nuke the fuck out of them before they nuke the fuck out of us.



I'll leave you with this, and I firmly believe it: The only REAL war crime is LOSING Quite frankly, I don't care if we're morally superior if we lose. If we win, we can debate the niceties of how we did it. But winning is everything, moral debates about war mean nothing.

I think the vast majority would agree w/ your POV on that. I just really struggle w/ the fact that we're the only nation that has used nukes against civilians.

 

[Matt Dillon]

And I say this as someone who loves America.

But I don't love parts of our history.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a shameful chapter in our history. No one should ever try to justify these horrific acts by arguing how many might have died in a land war, or using other justifications.

Civilians are never to be targeted in war. Never. Never. Never.

Your thread is bad, and you should feel bad.

 

[Flash]

War is war. No morals apply.

I had an international law professor who would say "all is fair in love." When people added "and war" he would respond "no, we have international law for war."

 

[BartenderElite]

Your thread is bad, and you should feel bad.

For what?

Opposing the idea of vaporizing innocents?

 

[BidenPresident]

I had an international law professor who would say "all is fair in love." When people added "and war" he would respond "no, we have international law for war."

Yes, nothing worse than violating morality when killing someone.

 

[Matt Dillon]

For what?

Opposing the idea of vaporizing innocents?

For not loving the America that has given you so much opportunity and freedom, and for not respecting the veterans who gave life and limb to make your level of dumbassery

possible without you getting arrested for it.