Is Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

You want me to make a list of what's wrong with their demands?

I really shouldn't have to explain this. But alright.

"Protection for their imperial system of government."
- No. Imperialism is wrong. Democracy ftw.
- Having people blindly follow their leader and bow down to his or her every whim, no matter how stupid it may be, was clearly not the best system of government. It's the worst.

"The right to disarm and repatriate their own troops."
- Again, completely stupid. They started a war America would have kept out of by murdering civilians and military personnel in cold blood. Obviously, the should not be able to keep their weapons. They murdered thousands of people in China, and one of the common ways of killing when it came to women was raping them with a shotgun, and firing while the barrel was inside them. Their weapons should have been confiscated.

"No military occupation of the home lands."
- That's what happens when you lose war. Simple as that.

"No international trials of alleged war criminals."
- I don't need to say anything about this. That's how stupid it is.

"Possible retention of some of their conquered territories."
- That's what happens when you lose war. You lose territory. DUH.

Not a single one of these demands makes any rational sense whatsoever.

One thing, Ace.

They killed millions of Chinese, not thousands.
Also, what they did in China was so bad, Nazis said that they were disgusted by it.

Ace wrote:"Protection for their imperial system of government."
- No. Imperialism is wrong. Democracy ftw.
- Having people blindly follow their leader and bow down to his or her every whim, no matter how stupid it may be, was clearly not the best system of government. It's the worst.

LMFAO. DUDE!! The US has and is imperialistic LMAO. Look at what it's doing around the world. Dude that's their religion.

"The right to disarm and repatriate their own troops."
- Again, completely stupid. They started a war America would have kept out of by murdering civilians and military personnel in cold blood. Obviously, the should not be able to keep their weapons. They murdered thousands of people in China, and one of the common ways of killing when it came to women was raping them with a shotgun, and firing while the barrel was inside them. Their weapons should have been confiscated.

Disarm means to NOT arm. Wth are you talking about?

"No military occupation of the home lands."
- That's what happens when you lose war. Simple as that.

How about Germany?

"No international trials of alleged war criminals."
- I don't need to say anything about this. That's how stupid it is.

Bush the terrorist is still out there.

"Possible retention of some of their conquered territories."
- That's what happens when you lose war. You lose territory. DUH.

Notice the word: POSSIBLE.

the point is that there were talks ... there is never anything mentioned about these terms being nonnegotiable ... but america had to satisfy its thirst for blood and death by nuking twice ...

and Japan still kept its emperor in the end you dopes ...

Phoenix wrote:

"No military occupation of the home lands."
- That's what happens when you lose war. Simple as that.

How about Germany?

wat.
That's all I can really say.

My other points?

Japan has huge military bases today. Germany doesnt.

I'm pretty sure Germany lost some territory in the east.

If Japan disarmed its troops, it would still own the weapons and could easily arm the troops again. That's why America took their weapons.

Phoenix wrote:My other points?

Japan has huge military bases today. Germany doesnt.

I still don't get what you're trying to say.

Okay, your other points.

1) So can you tell me what territories the US has claimed as their own land aside from largely unsettled islands?

2) Look at Ace's post above this one.

3) Look at the first sentence in this post.

4) Your point? You convict whoever you can. Even though he's pretty bad, Bush is hardly a war criminal compared to the Japanese leaders.

5) It was still taken into consideration by the Japanese. You can't have that.

America still has military bases in Japan

Fang wrote:

Phoenix wrote:My other points?

Japan has huge military bases today. Germany doesnt.

I still don't get what you're trying to say.

Okay, your other points.

1) So can you tell me what territories the US has claimed as their own land aside from largely unsettled islands?

2) Look at Ace's post above this one.

3) Look at the first sentence in this post.

4) Your point? You convict whoever you can. Even though he's pretty bad, Bush is hardly a war criminal compared to the Japanese leaders.

5) It was still taken into consideration by the Japanese. You can't have that.

1-You dont need to take land to be an imperialist. You could bully.

2-I replied

3-...

4-His wars lead to over 1 million getting killed and hatred became intense in the world. He's def. a war criminal

5-So you coulve said no. They said PROBABLY.

Bush the killer of millions in the middle east in an unjustified war trying to promote his pompous beliefs that America is the god of the world and has the right to encroach on the rights of other nations.

I wouldn't even piss on his grave

Talwar Khan wrote:Bush the killer of millions in the middle east in an unjustified war trying to promote his pompous beliefs that America is the god of the world and has the right to encroach on the rights of other nations.

I wouldn't even piss on his grave

Japan did exactly the same. Thing is, they killed a whole lot more than America did.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
A pretty good estimate of the casualties.

What Japan did caused over 30 million civilian casualties.

Spoiler:

Ahmed has never heard of the Berlin wall.

I was talking about occupations. Not erecting a wall.

Phoenix wrote:I was talking about occupations. Not erecting a wall.

... I think you need to retake high school level social studies.

I think youre confusing WWI with WWII.

Oh wait...cross that out.

Well w/e they wouldve surrendered even if the US had occupied them.

Fang wrote:

Talwar Khan wrote:Bush the killer of millions in the middle east in an unjustified war trying to promote his pompous beliefs that America is the god of the world and has the right to encroach on the rights of other nations.

I wouldn't even piss on his grave

Japan did exactly the same. Thing is, they killed a whole lot more than America did.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
A pretty good estimate of the casualties.

What Japan did caused over 30 million civilian casualties.

Spoiler:

That site seems to be inactive now ... it makes no mention of Obama and the last thing mentioned is Bush chasing Iran and some house debates ...

Even they admit they don't know the actual number since is so much more VAST than what the media reports ... America has been killing people in THREE countries not just one ... Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan ... so you don't know if more have been killed or not ... no one knows until the end of the war ... the real casualties of the Viet war weren't revealed at the end either ...

Why did Japan enter WW2? Do you even know why?

...Don't forget the occasional raids in Somalia...

Japan entered WWII because we stopped supplying them with oil when they attacked China, our ally.

Somalia shouldn't even exist...

Japan was also hungry for more territory, and they needed the oil to feed their war machine, not to mention saw America as a potential threat against their expansion.

America shouldn't even exist

New Zealand shouldn't exist either

Neither should South Africa

The fateful event of when America employed its nuclear bombs to eradicate hundreds of thousands of innocent lives? The answer to the title is simple...

No.

pretty amazing how butthurt americans get over 9/11

yet nuclear terrorism against others is perfectly ok

Yeah the degree of moral outrage when it comes to 9/11 is far higher than an even greater atrocity that eliminated countless lives and a centralised infrastructure on a scale too high to ignore by any sane mind.

This shouldn't be a debate. At all.