willard

Hiroshima was more than just a departure point for troops. I could try to explain the reasons it was left untouched but that would be merely wasting my time. Let's see...The Japanese militery kill 16 million Chinese civilians for no reason other than they were Chinese. We drop two bombs and kill 250,000 to stop them and you say we're the ones who were in the wrong? Holy Shit!

"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 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.

Perhaps a history class next semester might help you understand that we did not have the capability to bomb the Japanese homeland until very late in the war. We did a moral booster with the Doolittle raid with B-25's in 1942.. it was not until June of 1944 that a FEW raids were launced against Japan from China. The logistics of supplying a bomb wing where everything had to be flown over the Himalaya's were just too ineffective. It was not until Nov of 1944 that raids started from the bases of Guam and Saipan and Tinian after they had been taken from the Japanese holding them. Hiroshima had been SELECTED months before..hence it was left untouched after Groves SELECTED it as one of the four cities on which to demonstrate to the Japanese the power of the new weapons. I am well aware of the timeline of the bomber raids over Japan. Maybe you...and others...should indulge in a history lesson yourselves and learn the real reason why some of these cities were not bombed until the end of the war. No, I'm not going to give you that information. You can do a bit of digging and find out for yourself. I will steer you clear of the wrong direction, however, and tell you it had nothing to do with nukes or the ability to reach them with bombers.

For Fuck's sake I agree with you! Address your post to someone who doesn't.

"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.

"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?

Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that. You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical.

Statistics, numbers, claims, counter-claims, suspicions, blah, blah, blah...... It don't mean shit. I know two men, both good friends and respected elders in my community, who were on an island in the Pacific getting ready to invade the Japanese mainland. Neither of them thought they would live through it. Neither did any of their fellow soldiers. They both said they felt the same thing when they learned the bomb had been used, that they felt like God had given them another chance at life. Say what you want, what those men told me is all the proof I need to know that the decision to drop the bomb was the right one.

Should the US? Why? .jim Q: Should the U.S. have nukes? A: Hell yeah! Q: Why? A: Because I said so. Isn't it past your bedtime?

You're pissed off because he is stating what everyone agrees upon-that Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Why does that piss you off? Oh yeah, dumb question. You get pissed at anything Bush says. Want some cheese?

And the left will still pander those who are to lazy to actually work for a living and take money from the middle class to support them. At the same time they will allow other our countries defense fall into such a state of disrepair that when it is needed we will have nothing to protect us. And those on the left will still bitch and whine about what the right does wrong while doing nothing to solve any of it.

A similar situation took place near where I grew up. After several cars had slid off the curve and into their yard and house the homeowners went to the state highway department (state owned road) and easily convinced them that a guardrail was needed. You may have luck giving that route a try.

No, you just need to grow up and learn the difference between a debate and a Q&A session. Maybe when you get into 5th grade you'll learn what that difference is.

For what? Telling some little faggot I don't like the way they refer to cops? Fucking punk can post all day so-called song lyrics about killing cops, call them pigs, etc., but I tell him he's lucky he don't live around here and you blow a gasket.

I'll try to explain it one more time, a little plainer so you can understand it. I'll even try to use very short words. Debate: People discussing and telling their views on a subject. Politicians do this all the time. It's their job. Q&A session: A chance for people to ask questions, not for them to present their views unless asked. If you can't understand the difference then I don't know what to tell you other than to attend a few of each and try to compare them.

You can find video of any politician running over their allotted time, etc. But you won't find video of them getting tasered. Why not? Simple. This was a Q&A sesion, not a debate. According to reports he had made several outbursts already leading up to his turn at the mic, then tried to take over the session by grandstanding. This wasn't the venue for that, he was told to ask his questions, he decided to instead rant on and on, and he was then escorted away from the mic. When he tried to resist the cops they used what force they felkt they had to use to remove him from the area without harm to themselves or others standing nearby. When politicians get in an uproar at the mic and are told to tone it down, they do. When they are told that their time is up they may go on for a few more moments but they do stop. They are generally allowed to do so because it is a debate, not a Q&A session. Debate vs Q&A session. Big difference that this kid obviously couldn't see. They were cops doing their job the best they could. Not pigs. Good thing you don't live around here.

That video is so flippin' stupid i feel like an idiot just commenting on it. Somebody needs to get a life.

Agreed 100%. But they weren't using "sometimes lethal" force on an obnoxious speaker. They were using it on someone who had refused to do what a LEO lawfully ordered to do, had swung his arms at them (watch the videos, it's very clear), and had aggressively resisted cooperating in any way with the police.

Yeah, let's do something, anything, even if it's wrong. No thanks.

Do you feel so strongly about having the pesky mandatory car insurance? How dare the government get involved with my car! Isn't this plan similar to the plan in Massachusets? The government owns the roads we drive on. Driving on them is considered a privilege, not a right. If they want to require insurance to cover damages you may cause while driving on their roads they are not imposing on any right in any way. Well, you're basicaly owned by the government. Why shouldn't they require you to have insurance. They require so many other things of us. If a program can make us a healthier nation, why not implement it. If there is room for change in it, it's a start. So far nothing is being done. As for car insurance. We were never required to have it until sometime around 91-92. I agree that it is a good thing to have and see nothing wrong with it being mandatory. It forces us to be responsible for our actions and the same would be for mandatory health coverage. You may be owned by the government, but I'm not.

How's that going to ruin the book, Harry doesn't die! He definitely didn't seem quite 'right' though. I wouldn't know since I never read any of the books.

The right to free speech does not include the right to disrupt a public forum! What part of that don't you understand???? He had his time at the mic but wouldn't stand down and allow Kerry the opportunity to answer or others in the room the chance to ask their questions. Remember, your right to swing your fist ends where the other guys nose starts. He took his right to speech to far and imposed on the rights of others. A Q&A session is not meant to be a place for someone to stand on their soapbox and make a speech of their own. It is for people to ask questions in a civil manner, not by being an ass and demanding people listen to one's political grandstanding. There are plenty of other venues for that.

He wasn't done talking. Hard to say how long he would have continued to dusrupt the forum if the police had not cut his act short. This isn't the first time he has done something like that. When the last Harry Potter book was released he stood out on the street holding a big sign that read "Harry died" just to ruin the book for those who wanted to read it but hadn't yet. The guy is an ass, plain and simple.

I don't think he was playing. I think he really is that dumb.