Lucky...

No, I have a brash, in your face style of putting the onus onto them, hence they do as you're doing and talk about the format rather than the substance. As for the many posts, I had to work yesterday and came home to several posts so I addressed them all. IF the other side had answers they would welcome or at least ignore the format.

Do you know what it is to tur your guns away from military members and onto women and children?

Thanks. That needed to be said. And what needs to be answered is that of why the US turn its most awesome weapon on civilians for the cause of effect, to wow the other side and the world. I won't wait for it, it simply won't happen I am going to make the answer simple. We were at war with Japan. Pearl Harbor, does that ring a bell for you? The idea of war is to win. Win at all costs. That is what the US did. Many people died on both sides. It is what it is. If you can't wrap your liberal beliefs around that simple fact that War is ugly and we did what had to be done then it is pointless to debate semantics. >>>>We were at war with Japan. Does that justify turning away from military targets and turning toward large civilian populations? Isn't that what terrorists do? >>>>>>Pearl Harbor, does that ring a bell for you? I think I recall, it's kinda foggy, but wasn't that where the Japanese made a sneak attack on US military personnel and machines? Yea, that's right, it was. Thx for reminding me of that where Japan atacked military targets. >>>>>>>The idea of war is to win. Win at all costs. OH, then why not just drop the bomb at every conflict? Oh, I see, it could lead to world anhilation. So perhaps war isn't about winning at all costs, it's about winning with the least amount of cost. WHat that cost the US was integrity, we showed that we would stoop to levels only terrorists enjoy by killing women and children in suburbia. Patheic rhetotic like, war is hell, win at all costs is what people use to avoid having to discuss the mechanics of what really happened. And if we don't do that then how can we avoid these things in the future? >>>>>>>Win at all costs. That is what the US did. Yes and that cost is that people know the US are murderers. >>>>>Many people died on both sides. It is what it is. Oh thx, I was looking for 2 more pieces of rhetoric. But no, war is hell? Come on, you're slipping. War is hell when cowards beat you by killing your family when you're at war. That's what we did. >>>>>>If you can't wrap your liberal beliefs around that simple fact that War is ugly and we did what had to be done then it is pointless to debate semantics. And if you can't drop the conservative rhetoric long enough to discuss the issue of killing women and children in suburbia, then you are not opening the discussion to intelligent conversation. The US could have showcased the first bomb in a remote area that was visible to the Japanese and then give them ultimatum. They could have attcked military targets and the few civilian casualties could be adressed as collateral damage, but when you avoid military targets and seek suburban areas then you have a whole new game.

At least he got his history correct, unlike his critics from the right who have had to be dragged kicking and nitpicking the whole way in their denial. 1. Hiroshima was a "reserved target" by the Manhattan Project Targeting Committee. The committee minutes show clearly that they wanted a large undamaged target "so that we could more definitely determine the power of the bomb". 2. The US govt (AEC) deliberately exposed thousands of service personnel and civilians to radiation, by a number of methods including injection, exposure to fallout from nuclear detonations, deliberate releases from AEC facilities, and direct exposure to the detonations themselves. The historical record from government documents is absolutely clear on both these points. Hiroshima was a 'reserved target' only from May - Aug 1945...it was NOT a reserved target before that date as your own quotes from MP personnel show. Your *interpretation* of the historical record may be clear in your own mind, but the documentation provided does not support it. We're splitting hairs here. For the sake of this argument, let's assume that the US just didn't bomb several cities becuase they had no military importance or whatever reason you want. Then, at some point after the advent and construction of the 2 bombs, they had the question of where to use them so they chose civilian populations for effect value rather than military targets. They wanted to have huge numbrs of civilian casualties to force the Hirohito to surrender rather than to beat down the military, doesn't this shock you? Will I get an answet to that question? No.

Then how can you denounce the actions of Timothy McVeigh or the 911 terrorists with that logic? You can't. Use emoticons rather than text, I think it works best for you. Must suck to not be able to actually answer issues. I 've never been there. If I see something that sucks from my side I will be the first to point it out.

Thanks. That needed to be said. I second the motion. And you also refuse to answer. Amazing at how the all the people who refuse to answer are the same ones who agree that misdirecting to a character attack is good idea?

Thanks. That needed to be said. And what needs to be answered is that of why the US turn its most awesome weapon on civilians for the cause of effect, to wow the other side and the world. I won't wait for it, it simply won't happen

How lovely, following that lie up with an insult. You're a class act. So, negligence is the same as intentionally exposing them so we could study the longterm effects of radiation, which is what I asked about in the first place? Actually it was me who threw in the obvious fact of negligence, but I think it was deliberate. We knew what it would do so much that we chose Tinian to load them so if something went awry there would be minimal damage. That pretty much illustrates what we knew the bomb would do. What if conventionally bombed civilian populations? No biggy?

Everybody deserves to win at something. Sort of like the family argument where the one who screams loudest and longest is considered the winner. In his case it's the side that has posted citations and made their case beyond a great standard vs your side that has to my recollection posted maybe 1 if any citation and hasn't addressed the contention that we aimed at 100's of thousands of civilians other than to say, "WAR IS HELL."

>>>>>I've separated this out from my last posting because it has nothing to do with this particular discussion, and is not meant to say anything one way or the other in regards to any of the content you've added in any given post. IOW's, you're intentionally tangenting. >>>>>>Likewise, it is not intended to accuse you of being a troll or anything of that nature, I say this meaning all the best. No, no, of course not and there is no way I look at you as a troll either, no way. You are the exact embodiment of a troll, just becuase you post something admittedly totally away from the subject matter, so what. I mean all the best to you to. >>>>>>>Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. And yours is off-topic and defamatory. >>>>>>>You've rapid-fired almost a quarter of the posts in this thread and many contain vast quote blocks only to add a single line response. Really? I bet of bothered to word vount you would find an average of post length greater than most. And you say I've overparticipated? I just answer when addressed, something your side often refuses to do. In fact, I post every single statement and address each on most instances so I don't see your off-topic point. >>>>>>>There's almost always a jungle of bold faced type, arrows, italics, white-space, broken quote blocks, urls, copied and pasted text, and text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name. *Bold face - illustrates emphasis *>>>>>Arrows - establishes the statement I'm answering *Italics - maybe once to show what I've previously written * white space - what white space? *broken quote blocks - never *urls - ok, first you guys want citations, now you don't. I feel like I'm dealing with my GF *copied and pasted text - Not true, I transcribe every word by hand *text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name - HUH? >>>>>>Sometimes it's hard to tell what the heck you even wrote. Here, I'll sum it up for you: THE US FUCKING AIMED IT'S MOST AWESOME, UNTESTED ON MASSES OF PEOPLE WEAPON ON 2 CIVILIAN POPULATIONS NOT LARGELY INVOLVED IN THE WAR. Hope that hepls, becuae I am here to help you. >>>>>When you combine that with statements that you take your opponents' silence to mean concession it's no wonder you "win" so many of your arguments around here. Look up, "acquiescence" and you'll understand. I've heard about this, this is where the people without a way to answer postings will attack the credibility of the author. WOW, first time I've ever seen this.

I sincerely hope I'm missing your sarcasm. MAD does not produce a stable equilibrium, and the more circus performers you add to the balancing act, the more likely it is someone falls off the tightrope and takes others nearby with them. I'm speaking in ideology only, but what makes the US so responsible? We've misused our authority more than we've used it correctly, so what makes us so great with nuclear weapons? In some discussions the polar ideologies of the subject matter serve as useful baselines to aspire to, but in this case I don't think lengthly discussions about how we might or might not some day "get there from here" are worthwhile. I'm not going to go off on a tirade about why the United States is the best thing since sliced bread, and how that means we should be the ones with our finger on the button. As of today, we're one of the countries burdened with the responsibility that comes along with possessing a nuclear arsenal. Thus far we've proven to be "reasonably okay" at it. The more states that have them, the more leadership changes that happen, the more deployment and maintenance plans and facilities you end up with, the more chances you get for something to go wrong. By stating that I don't wish to see nuclear weapons proliferate, I'm not suggesting that we (the United States as a country) are perfect, I'm suggesting that we (humans as a species) are imbeciles. >>>>>>>In some discussions the polar ideologies of the subject matter serve as useful baselines to aspire to, but in this case I don't think lengthly discussions about how we might or might not some day "get there from here" are worthwhile. That's becuase aiming at civilian populations is unjustifyable and you are left trying to as you won't admit that anyone doing so is scum as we were in that instance. Why is it some people refuse to admit that we have been atrocious at times thru history? >>>>>>>>I'm not going to go off on a tirade about why the United States is the best thing since sliced bread, and how that means we should be the ones with our finger on the button. Even though you feel that way. >>>>>>As of today, we're one of the countries burdened with the responsibility that comes along with possessing a nuclear arsenal. Thus far we've proven to be "reasonably okay" at it. Turning them away from military targets and onto civilian targets is OK? BRILLIANT. >>>>>>>The more states that have them, the more leadership changes that happen, the more deployment and maintenance plans and facilities you end up with, the more chances you get for something to go wrong. With that, we should go back to a Monarchy. Let me guess, you vote for Bush to be king. As for, go wrong," I would assert that nothing went wrong, we aimed civilians and everything went as planned.

"Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945 Said quote, however, does NOT provide proof the city was left untouched solely to provide a target for an atomic bomb. Sorry. Unless we pull FDR and Truman out of their graves to testify to you, Mikey, you won't believe what is reasonably established and substantiated by the very acts of the US at that time. If not, why did we bomb a city that we hadn't bombed all during the war and that had very little military importance? It is obvious you haven't a clue as to what is meant by "strategic" and "tactical". There is a HUGE difference. It is also apparrent that many people don't know that for strategic reasons what not to bomb is just as important, sometimes more so, than what to bomb. Hiroshima was left alone for a reason. It was only in May of '45 that it was left alone as a potential nuke drop. Ok, you make inferences to a possible point, but you don't finish them. If you have a point to make, please do. Instead of listing all the things I supposedly don't know, make your point. >>>>Hiroshima was left alone for a reason. It was only in May of '45 that it was left alone as a potential nuke drop. OK and that makes your point how? Was it 3 months or 3 years before th dropping that we decided not to bomb them so as not to scare off the population? Pure semantics; who cares? At some point we found a city of virtually all civilains and dropped the most devastating weapon upon them as opposed to finding a miltary target just so we could hit the most civilians as possible. How is that not a large scale version of 911? Hiroshima did have value as a military target beyond it's civilian population. Just because you never took the time to find out what that was is no reason to blame others for your ignorance. I, for one, am glad we dropped the bombs. My friends who came back from that war alive did so most likely because we dropped the bomb. (Yes, it's speculation. But based on what they had gone through on smaller islands it is well founded speculation.) The Japs started the war by killing millions of civilians in China, etc. We finished it by killing a very small fraction of that. Anyone who compares us using the bomb to 911 is a few fries short of a Happy Meal. >>>>>Hiroshima did have value as a military target beyond it's civilian population. Just because you never took the time to find out what that was is no reason to blame others for your ignorance. It was an a assembly area for some troops and had some assorted, minor role in the military. Essentially it had no real value. I imagine every city played some role, even if supplying food for the troops or some other indirect military significance. >>>>>>>Just because you never took the time to find out what that was is no reason to blame others for your ignorance. And just because you won't address the fact that we intentionally aimed the most devastating bombs of that day onto civilian populous makes you, well, I better not say it. If you want to post the purpose for the city just refer to the citations I posted, it is on there. >>>>>>>>I, for one, am glad we dropped the bombs. Well of course you are, after all, killing 200-300+K civilians in two fell swoops passes a big message the apanese as well as Russia and the rest of the world. KIndof like a kidnapper at a bank dropping out 1 hostage an hour, dead. >>>>>>My friends who came back from that war alive did so most likely because we dropped the bomb. (Yes, it's speculation. But based on what they had gone through on smaller islands it is well founded speculation.) Yep, speculation. >>>>>>>The Japs started the war by killing millions of civilians in China, etc. Of course. Here is an interetsing site that lists the deaths by country and %: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties China lost 16 million civilians and 4% of their total populous. Poland lost >18% of their total populous. Not sure how that justifies the US dropping the 2 bombs on civilians. Comparing atrocous behaviour? >>>>We finished it by killing a very small fraction of that. As I just posed, justification. Nice. >>>>>>>Anyone who compares us using the bomb to 911 is a few fries short of a Happy Meal. Anyone who rationalizes any country turning its weaponry away from military targets and onto the civilian populous is an armband away from being full fledged.

Read my citations I posted at least twice now and refute something, anything about them. And your cites about the cities being left untouched (at least prior to May 1945, when the selections were made) was (and is) more bullshit. At the very least, these cities were left untouched throughout the entire war. Let's see, not being military targets would be the likely reson. Did we conventionally bomb any cities that had little to no military significance? Not that I know of and why? Because that is the logical thing to do; bomb military targets. Hell, even your POS president did that (bomb only military targets) during this war-hobby now. But, when it came to showcasing our new toy we wanted to hit a city that: 1) Had an urban surrounding 2) Wasn't necessarily military 3) Would yeild great civilian deaths Even if that decision was made the day before the droppings, Aug 6 and Aug 9, 1945, wouldn't it rock your world that we actually intentionally aimed at citizens rather than military? Instead you run behind some semantic game of whether we had this planned at the start of the war or whether any of us said that. IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER, WHAT MATTERS IS THAT AT SOME POINT WE AIMED AWAY FROM MILITARY TARGETS AND AIMED TOWARD THE CIVILIAN POPULOUS. Hell, even the 911 scum aimed at a fisal center and a military adminstrative hdqtrs and probably the white house, an excutive/administrative hdqtr. They had a goal to focus on these issues likely to the fact that they wanted to pass a message that they disliked American greed, American military involvment and hated the president. WHat did we do? We aimed at the civilian outskirts that hadn't been scattered and you want to enter into a game of semantics as to when we made that decision to aim away from the military and aim onto the civilian populous. Nice.

That explains volumes.

Who asserted that? Link please. I'll make you a deal. If you can precisely describe to my satisfaction, and in your own words, how the Presidential Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments defines "Human Radiation Experiment", including how they selected that definition, I will answer your question. Deal? ------------------------- What a joke, this is like dealing with kids. The liberals here just research and post citation, yet the conservatives act like they porttray the french, claim they are being picked upon and play fussy games to get what they want. Has a conservative even once posted a citation in this thread or just continued to demand the we post citation after another. If you have a point to make then make it and quit with the silly games. Hadn't you already retreated from this thread once?

Most intelligent thing you've written yet... GFY. GFY = go fuck yourself I presume. Ahhh, that as opposed to explaining how the US didn't sneak up on a city of 200k+ and drop living hell on them? OK, I guess I'll take that. I'd rather have an argument tho.

Most intelligent thing you've written yet...

"Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945 Said quote, however, does NOT provide proof the city was left untouched solely to provide a target for an atomic bomb. Sorry. Unless we pull FDR and Truman out of their graves to testify to you, Mikey, you won't believe what is reasonably established and substantiated by the very acts of the US at that time. If not, why did we bomb a city that we hadn't bombed all during the war and that had very little military importance? It is obvious you haven't a clue as to what is meant by "strategic" and "tactical". There is a HUGE difference. It is also apparrent that many people don't know that for strategic reasons what not to bomb is just as important, sometimes more so, than what to bomb. Hiroshima was left alone for a reason. It was only in May of '45 that it was left alone as a potential nuke drop. Ok, you make inferences to a possible point, but you don't finish them. If you have a point to make, please do. Instead of listing all the things I supposedly don't know, make your point. >>>>Hiroshima was left alone for a reason. It was only in May of '45 that it was left alone as a potential nuke drop. OK and that makes your point how? Was it 3 months or 3 years before th dropping that we decided not to bomb them so as not to scare off the population? Pure semantics; who cares? At some point we found a city of virtually all civilains and dropped the most devastating weapon upon them as opposed to finding a miltary target just so we could hit the most civilians as possible. How is that not a large scale version of 911?

AFAIK we couldn't conduct major bombing raids until about 1944 because we didn't have the necessary aircraft. It was not (and I'm getting sick of saying this over and over and over again) until after the 10-11 May, 1945 (3 months before dropping the bomb) Target Commission Meeting that a request was sent to the Air Force asking that the four cities selected during the meeting not be bombed. As you know, this whole stupid series of posts stemmed from people asserting/implying that A-Bomb targets were preselected at or near the beginning of the war, which would indicate that the US was just itching to incinerate a few hundred thousand non-whites just to see if their new macho toy would work. You can bet that if they could, they would assert/imply that the US intentionlly went to war with Japan for that purpose. double header time >>>>As you know, this whole stupid series of posts stemmed from people asserting/implying that A-Bomb targets were preselected at or near the beginning of the war, which would indicate that the US was just itching to incinerate a few hundred thousand non-whites just to see if their new macho toy would work. At the very least, the US was itching to smoke 200-300k innocent civilans within 3 months of doing so; doesn't that awake you even a little bit? Isn't it semantic to wonder if it was 3 months or 3 years when the objective wa sthe same; TO INCINERATE 2 LARGE CITIES AND CHECK THE RESULTS OF THEIR DIRTY WORK. >>>>>>You can bet that if they could, they would assert/imply that the US intentionlly went to war with Japan for that purpose. Ridiculous and desperate.

Then how can you denounce the actions of Timothy McVeigh or the 911 terrorists with that logic? You can't.

The Target Committee had its second meeting 10-11 May, 1945. http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html#E EDITED to show previous posts from Amazon which I had left out. But since Amazon insists on making childish comments like "Follow along here...." and "....which if when I look at a calendar...." in response to polite replies by me, they might be best left in. . I see Amazon makes sarcastic remarks to let those who wish to run, run. I guess she is like me, allows for an exit strategy for her opposition. So you are posed with a great post like Amazon's, find yourself unable to answer it and so you defer to being hurt by sarcasm once again..... sad I have an idea, answer her points.

I have posted citations as has Kallaend, but all you guys on that side have yet to take any of these assertions and attemot to disprove them, not to mention you admitted you were wrong to Kallend.

>>>>>It is aisnine to debate the morality of war. One more thing, the WTC attacks were an act of war as per your president, so that mans we shouldn't debate the morality of 911. Nice

I know god damnit, please PM me so you can impart that logic upon me. I mean, I want to be a real American like you, I just keep getting hung up on little distractors like murdering 200-300k civilians, counting those who died after the bombs were dropped from radiation sickness. For fuck's sake people, dissent is BS, America is always right and liberals keep confusing things with factsand history. For fuck's sake, we enslaved people, fuck, sorry. We didn't allow women to vote until 85 years ago, for fuck's sake, they can now, so what's the big deal, let's go over it and never talk about it again. I have just one more thing to say and that's...... FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!! >>>>>We could've nuked Tokyo, but we didn't because we didn't want a political nightmare. Tokyo was already conventionally smoked and the civilian populous had left. AGAIN, WE WANTED A TARGET RICH IN CIVILIAN CASUALTIES, ONE THAT HAD NOT BEEN BOMBED BEFORE. You know, like terrorists do, look for civilian pockets of people to exterminate rather than going after military targets.

"Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945 Bzzzzzz... Wrong answer! Being picked as a target because it was untouched is one thing, being intentionally left untouched for the purpose of studying the effects of an atomic blast is something entirely different. To difficult to understand? Try this... I drove my car in the left-hand lane this morning because it was empty. Does that mean it was empty just so I could drive there? I wish! Care to try again? Please pay attention. See the rest of the thread. Hiroshima was "reserved" by the targeting committee. "Reserved" in May '45. After 3 1/2 years of war it was still untouched and yet, because it was left untouched for the next 3 month, you conclude the reason was so it could be used as a test bed. Read your own postings and you will understand two things: 1) It was chosen because it was untouched, not untouched because it was chosen (except for the last 3 months) and, 2) The reasons listed for bombing an untouched city were so the maximum damage could be sustained and emonstrated to the Japanese. To have dropped the bomb on a city that was already a pile of smoldering ashes would have not had the same impression upon the Japanese leadership. Nowhere have you or Lucky shown anything that points to Hiroshima being left alone for the entire war just so the effects of an atomic bomb could be tested on people and structures. >>>>1) It was chosen because it was untouched, not untouched because it was chosen (except for the last 3 months) and, OK, and why was it untouched? Perhaps.....uh, cause it had virtually no militayr significance? YEA, exactly, no reason to bomb it, hence left untouched until we wanted to provide some collateral damage and document the evidence. >>>>>>2) The reasons listed for bombing an untouched city were so the maximum damage could be sustained and emonstrated to the Japanese. I'm sorry Willard, did you mean to write the maximun number of innocent civilians would be smoked so we could count the damage? Demonstrated to the Japanese? Uh, demonstrated to the world, esp the Russians. >>>>>To have dropped the bomb on a city that was already a pile of smoldering ashes would have not had the same impression upon the Japanese leadership. Really good point, so we'll do the Ameican thing and bomb a city of 200k innocent civilians. Perhaps we could have found a coullection of Japanese troops or Japanese war machines and dropped them there? Nah, that's no fun and that's not.....American. >>>>>>Nowhere have you or Lucky shown anything that points to Hiroshima being left alone for the entire war just so the effects of an atomic bomb could be tested on people and structures. It was left alone becuase it had no military significance, bombed with the A bombs because it was unmollested and there was collection of civilian victims to be murdered.