Liverpool FC Forum

by **Reg** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:38 pm

Number 9 wrote:3 of the last 8 that died were 18 years old....Fu*king kids!

Really sad..sometimes I think best pull out and let the kunts do what they want!
Other times Im proud of our troops...best in the world,fighting a chicken sh,it army that plants bombs in donkeys and blows kids up for a result..rather than actually fight!

It wont stop though..the government need to understand the basic Taliban mindset and likewise them us..until then,I reckon every life lost is in vain!

It speaks for itself they shouldnt send kids, fighting afghans is a wiley old dogs' fight. Leave the lads at home, they'll get their chance another day.

by **woof woof !** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:44 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
Judge wrote:the germans targeted civilians in WW2, we targeted their civilians in WW2. the japs were warned by the americans in WW2 if they didnt fully surrender .

acts of war, not terrorism

imo

But the war was effectively over and the Yanks knew it. Dropping those bombs was merely a forewarning and a declaration of power. It was like a "don't f*ck with us because we've got these to fire at you" warning.

The war was certainly lost as far the the Japanese were concerned but it was FAR from over. To the very end "hawks" in the Japanese gov't and military believed they could hold out for a negotiated peace treaty. The allied plans for the invasion of mainland Japan were well under way . The casualties on Iwo Jima and Okinawa shocked the US command, close to 50,000 americans and 110,000 japanese military personnel on Okinawa alone.More US casualties than those suffered during the first thirty days of the invasion of Europe.

Operation Downfall (plan for the invasion of Japan) put projected allied casualties at a minimum of 250,000 with some anylsts giving estimates 5-6 times higher.

The Russian declaration of war on Japan Aug 8th 1945 did prompt fears that a prolonged campaign would allow Russia to grab a large slice of the "political cake", (the russians btw did occupy four islands and to this day have not handed them back ) . Whilst the russian entry into the pacific theatre was no doubt a consideration the overiding reason for the use of the bomb as opposed to continued conventional warfare was the preservation of allied lives.

Enter the Revisionists

The central revisionist claim is that the atomic bombs were not necessary and that, even without them, the war soon would have been over. Japan was on the verge of surrender. The United States prolonged the war by insisting on unconditional surrender and dropped the atomic bombs mainly to impress and intimidate the Russians. In any case, the casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan were exaggerated.

A regular part of the revisionist litany is recitation of wartime opinions of Army Air Forces leaders, including Arnold and Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, who thought the war could have been brought to an end by conventional bombing. They ignore LeMay’s later assessment that “the atomic bomb probably saved three million Japanese and perhaps a million American casualties.”

Japan was not ready to surrender prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs. Without them, the war would have gone on. Those who think otherwise seriously underestimate Japan’s residual strength and determination.

Bombing and blockade would have eventually ended the war at some point but were not likely to have done so anytime soon. The B-29 firebombing would probably have resumed, and two nights of it on a par with March 9 would have exceeded the death toll of both atomic bombs.

J T Correll AirForce Magazine

by **metalhead** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:40 pm

I'm agreeing on CHL for this, the same thing I wanted to reply.

Why not go to Darfour and stopping those f*ckers from the mass massacres they are creating.

by **GYBS** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:42 pm

Didnt bomber command bomb cities known to have weapon making and bomb making factories in it - im pretty sure any bombing in ww2 by the british was tactical as opposed to just to bomb german civilians - churchill would never of risked british lives purely to kill civilians .

as for young lads - unfortunatley they are the only people that can go due to lack of manpower in the .forces at the moment

by **Emerald Red** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:42 pm

Reg wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
Judge wrote:the germans targeted civilians in WW2, we targeted their civilians in WW2. the japs were warned by the americans in WW2 if they didnt fully surrender .

acts of war, not terrorism

imo

But the war was effectively over and the Yanks knew it. Dropping those bombs was merely a forewarning and a declaration of power. It was like a "don't f*ck with us because we've got these to fire at you" warning.

The war was NOT effectively over, the US was actively planning the invasion of Japan that would have cost additional 10's of thousands of allied deaths and millions of USD. THAT was not an option, hence the bomb was dropped. I have NO sympathy for the Japs as the atrocities in Nanjing, Pearl Harbour and later in the jungles of asia would bear out.

Like I said, the Japs were more or less beaten. So, rather than sacrafice the lives of US soldiers who's job it is to fight in a war, they decided to kill a quarter or a million Japanese civilians instead. Bravo, America! Oh, lest I forget, the Yanks were skint and could barely afford an assualt, that is to say they even could have in the first place.

by **GYBS** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:44 pm

metalhead wrote:I'm agreeing on CHL for this, the same thing I wanted to reply.

Why not go to Darfour and stopping those f*ckers from the mass massacres they are creating.

anywhere else do people want to send the already over burdened and stretched to the max armed forces - lads already spend nearly 9 months of the year away.

by **metalhead** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:45 pm

s@int wrote:Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Truman told his diary on July 25, 1945, that he had ordered the bomb used.
Emphasis has been added to highlight Truman's apparent belief that he had ordered the bomb dropped on a "purely military" target, so that "military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.

Anyway we "think" we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.

This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...

link

Oh come on, your dropping an Atomic Bomb for FFS.

by **woof woof !** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:50 pm

Emerald Red wrote:Like I said, the Japs were more or less beaten. So, rather than sacrafice the lives of US soldiers who's job it is to fight in a war, they decided to kill a quarter or a million Japanese civilians

And how many d'yer think would have died if "conventional warfare" had continued ? In March 1945 Tokyo was bombed the resulting firestorm killed over 100,000 people.

by **metalhead** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:54 pm

woof woof ! wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:Like I said, the Japs were more or less beaten. So, rather than sacrafice the lives of US soldiers who's job it is to fight in a war, they decided to kill a quarter or a million Japanese civilians

And how many d'yer think would have died if "conventional warfare" had continued ? In March 1945 Tokyo was bombed the resulting firestorm killed over 100,000 people.

I do understand your point, think of the long term effects of the atomic bomb anyways, the area is inhabitable and will stay for another 1000 years because of the radiation caused by that bomb. Even its affecting future generations of Japanese civilians living near the areas affected, the radiation is affecting health (creating more disabilities, cancers, infections, etc...). Furthermore its affecting society and future generation of new children.

by **dawson99** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:55 pm

so what are we saying? just nuke each other til the planet ends?

too late for atomic bombs now people

my can 'o whoopa$$ idea actually sounds like the most civilised

by **metalhead** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:57 pm

dawson99 wrote:my can 'o whoopa$$ idea actually sounds like the most civilised

DAMN RIGHT!

by **Big Niall** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:08 pm

Both sides in ww2 committed terrorism. Germany started it by dropping bombs in London (which I don't believe was where the bombs were made - correct me i am wrong) although bombing coventry which made weapons is okay.

Britain bombed German industrial centres knowing it would kill civilians which is also okay. i believe on some flights when they got lost they just dropped bombs anywhere - which is terrorism but probably popular with British folk who were being bombed themselves - a natural feeling.

i think the fact that the yanks told the japs that they would drop this bomb if they didn't have an all out surrender, makes it okay.

Blowing up your enemies weapon making knowing that it will kill civilians is okay.

Complicated stuff - but that is my view.

by **dawson99** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:22 pm

Bollox, that is not terrorism. Al Qeada is terrorism, the IRA were terrorism.

Destroying industrial centres killing civilians is a world away from suicide bombings and plantnig bombs in places where there is nothing but civilians

by **Big Niall** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:34 pm

dawson99 wrote:Bollox, that is not terrorism. Al Qeada is terrorism, the IRA were terrorism.

Destroying industrial centres killing civilians is a world away from suicide bombings and plantnig bombs in places where there is nothing but civilians

I think you misread me. I agree with your post 100%

by **dawson99** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:36 pm

oh

sorry, read that first bit and the red mist fell lol

my bad

(ps - that embaressed icon is soo gay)

Liverpool FC Forum

War in afganistan - What you think!

Who is online