Happy Hiroshima anniversary thousands sacrificed to save millions!

[caserio1]

and still the right has no hesitation about using it again

even putin shows more restraint

[sine-qua-non]

and still gassadio lies here again without any proof

proving again that the Bull Shit the ole pervert posts here are just fig newtons of

the POS's magnification



Btw, doesn't it bother you that Putin took away Barry's inherited title of "leader of the Free World".   I think it's hilarious you sad sad dumbfuck !  ;-)

[D2D]

Yet, Caserio you have the modern equivalent of the Imperial Japanese, Fascists, Communists and Nazis in ISIS and Iran but demand (like the League of Nations in the 1930s) we do absolutely nothing to stop them!

[jst-the-fax]

So how soon will kerry have a peace prize and Iran have a nuclear weapon? My guess is 6 months after dictator obama leaves office!

[KensanIV]

There is one undeniable fact about US behavior in World War II.

IT WAS THE LAST TIME OUR COUNTRY FOUGHT A WAR TO WIN IT.  Since then we have tried to fight wars and be politically correct as the same time.

Which may explain why WWII was the last one that we won. 

[1965hawks]

No, KensanIV. Here's the undeniable fact: You're trying desperately to change the subject by introducing a red herring.

Red Herring: a logical fallacy (and fallacy of argumentation and debate) that occurs when an arguer introduces an irrelevant topic into an argument to divert the listener or reader from the original argument. When the topic of the argument has been changed, the arguer who introduced the red herring carefully avoids bringing up the original topic again. The intent, of course is to lead the argument off on a wild goose chase--an irrelevant discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with the original issue. And, of course, in addition to that, the arguer who introduced the red herring is conveniently relieved of the task of defending the position that she or he took on the original position.

You wrote, "IT WAS THE LAST TIME OUR COUNTRY FOUGHT A WAR TO WIN IT.  Since then we have tried to fight wars and be politically correct as the same time. Which [sic] may explain why WWII was the last one that we won."

That's a red herring. At issue here is not whether World War II was the last war the US fought to win, whether the US fought "politically correct wars," or whether World War II was the last war the US "won."  A issue here is whether it was really necessary for the US to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Needless to say, I'll remained focused on the original issue and not be distracted by your irrelevant diversion--your red herring.
 

   

[KensanIV]

No, KensanIV. Here's the undeniable fact: You're trying desperately to change the subject by introducing a red herring.

Red Herring: a logical fallacy (and fallacy of argumentation and debate) that occurs when an arguer introduces an irrelevant topic into an argument to divert the listener or reader from the original argument. When the topic of the argument has been changed, the arguer who introduced the red herring carefully avoids bringing up the original topic again. The intent, of course is to lead the argument off on a wild goose chase--an irrelevant discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with the original issue. And, of course, in addition to that, the arguer who introduced the red herring is conveniently relieved of the task of defending the position that she or he took on the original position.

You wrote, "IT WAS THE LAST TIME OUR COUNTRY FOUGHT A WAR TO WIN IT.  Since then we have tried to fight wars and be politically correct as the same time. Which [sic] may explain why WWII was the last one that we won."

************************************************************************************************
That's a red herring. At issue here is not whether World War II was the last war the US fought to win, whether the US fought "politically correct wars," or whether World War II was the last war the US "won."  A issue here is whether it was really necessary for the US to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Needless to say, I'll remained focused on the original issue and not be distracted by your irrelevant diversion--your red herring.

Red Herring my Ass. 

Okay, Simply (using your red herring) What wars have we won since then ?    Korea? Viet Nam?  Cambodia? The First Gulf War? Invasion of Iraq? Afghanistan? Iran? drawing a line in the sand in Syria? Al Qaeda? ISIS??   

Take you choice, and choose your bullshit remarks regarding red herrings.   We (with the A Bomb) ended the war against Japan... and since then they have been our allies... Can you say that about any of the other conflicts where we lost the war by pulling out, being politically correct and NOT WINNING EVEN THE PEACE?  Korea, Vietnam, the First Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Al Qaeda, ISIS.  I am puzzled how you libs even think there is any other scenario  other than losing or a stand-off. 

Please, Let us NOT change the subject.
 

[jst-the-fax]

hawk,

The real question is: would the japs have come to the surrender table w/out the use of the two bombs? I know you'll have some insulting comment, rather than a well thought out response...but give it a try anyway.

[D2D]

1965hawks will insist the Japanese were willing to surrender despite all the evidence being against him!

The fact is the Japanese believed they could bleed the allies white during an invasion of Japan proper forcing a withdrawal!

Their buildup in preparation for invasion proves that!

Sadly, 1965hawks cannot imagine such a mindset therefore for him it cannot exist!

[1965hawks]

KensanIV:

Red Herring my Ass.

Yep. A RED HERRING. That's what you're trying to interject into this discussion, KensanIV: a RED HERRING--an irrelevant distraction away from the original issue.

 Apparently you're hoping to "win" this debate by propping up a straw man to attack and then claim victory after "refuting" a claim that I never made--claiming victory after you refute your own argument. Go right ahead, Kennie. But that fallacious tactic won't work with me. I won't be distracted by your red herring. I won't go flying off on a wild goose chase, arguing irrelevant issues that have nothing to do at all with the original issue; and I certainly won't be fooled into entering and becoming lost in that smokescreen you've begun to blow out your ass at this point in our discussion. I always remain focused on the issue at hand. I'm not easily distracted by RED HERRINGS.

Okay. Simply (using your red herring) What wars have we won since then ?    Korea? Viet Nam?  Cambodia? The First Gulf War? Invasion of Iraq? Afghanistan? Iran? drawing a line in the sand in Syria? Al Qaeda? ISIS?

You're confused again, Kennie. Your asking me about wars won by the United States is a RED HERRING; that's not the issue here! At issue here is whether America's use of atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary. During the course of this thread I've provided more than enough evidence to support the argument that the use of atomic bombs against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was completely unnecessary.  Needless to say, your pointless (and rather silly) babbling about post-World War II US military history neither refutes nor debunks any argument I've made or any evidence I've provided. Truth is, what you're blabbering is nothing more than an irrelevant distraction away from the original issue. You know, a RED HERRING. Isn't that right, KensanIV?

Take you choice, and choose your bullshit remarks regarding red herrings.   We (with the A Bomb) ended the war against Japan... and since then they have been our allies... Can you say that about any of the other conflicts where we lost the war by pulling out, being politically correct and NOT WINNING EVEN THE PEACE?  Korea, Vietnam, the First Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Al Qaeda, ISIS.

Kennie, explain how what you posted above supports the claims made by you and your supporters have made so far in this discussion. Explain how your babbling about Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Irak, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Al Qaida, ISIS (and any other irrelevant thing you can think of) justifies America's use of atomic weapons against Japan during World War II. Truth is, all the malarkey you posted above has absolutely no relevance at all to the original issue. Truth is, everything you posted above is, in actuality, nothing more than a RED HERRING. Isn't that right, Ken?

 
I am puzzled.

I know KensanIV. That's why you should take a seat and shut the fuck up.


Please. Let us NOT change the subject.

Practice what you preach, kennie. Stick to the original issue and stop your laughable attempt to interject a RED HERRING into this discussion. Stop your irrelevant babbling about Korea, Vietnam, Irak, Afghanistan, ISIS, etc. It's an inane attempt to justify America's unnecessary use of atomic bombs against the already defeated Empire of Japan in 1945 and even a dimwit like you should realise that it's a pointless and fallacious waste of time and effort.

[sweetwater5s9]

Operation Downfall

The Invasion of Japan, November, 1945

"An Invasion not found in the history books"

http://www.oocities.org/athens/acropolis/8141/downfall.html

[KensanIV]

Of course there had to be plans to invade Japan... What the hell kind of military do some people believe we had... There is a whole sector in DC who did nothing but play "What if?" It was known as Intelligence... A thing that seems to be lacking in Hawks world of thought.

There is little or NO doubt that the use of the A bombs hastened the end of WWii.  Of course we could have continued taking island by island until we finally reached Tokyo.. that may have taken until at least 1947.  And how many thousands more Americans and Japanese as well native islanders would have been killed by prolonging this war.

The Japs had no intention of surrender until after the two bombs were dropped.  That is history.  Hawks can't change it by playing his red herring excuses rather than debating.