quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver


If you really believe that I would learn some French and find out the truth about what was said in France about Iraq and I wouldn't rely on the British papers either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

I said Blair, believed in and advocated 'Liberal imperialism'.  He is the only Prime Minister since the war that has advocated imperial policies as far as I'm aware.

Suez?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JustDarkness

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver


If you really believe that I would learn some French and find out the truth about what was said in France about Iraq and I wouldn't rely on the British papers either.

it was in english  lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver


Though no doubt you consider saving one dictatorship from another dictatorship as progress, when  we all really know it was about access to oil by the west.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

No I didn't, it just suited you to say I did.

I said Blair, believed in and advocated 'Liberal imperialism'.  He is the only Prime Minister since the war that has advocated imperial policies as far as I'm aware.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

I've noticed the English media make up what French politicians say. Probably because they can't speak French or if they can, what the French say is inconvenient for English prejudices. 

quote:

Putin will retire with his 24 yr. old ballerina and $40 Billion dollars.

quote:

MC, we dropped the bomb on Japan to warn Russia?  You mean it had nothing to do with ending wwII?  It had nothing to do with avoiding what would have been the longest and bloodiest land battle in world history?  I think I missed something

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

MC, we dropped the bomb on Japan to warn Russia?  You mean it had nothing to do with ending wwII?  It had nothing to do with avoiding what would have been the longest and bloodiest land battle in world history?  I think I missed something

Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur and Admirals Leahy and Nimitz being the most prominent but buttressed by many others have stated publicly in writing that it was unnecessary.
Japan had been trying to surrender since 1943.

H

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

I've noticed the English media make up what French politicians say. Probably because they can't speak French or if they can, what the French say is inconvenient for English prejudices. 

Not remotely interested is nearer the mark. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

No I didn't, it just suited you to say I did.

I said Blair, believed in and advocated 'Liberal imperialism'.  He is the only Prime Minister since the war that has advocated imperial policies as far as I'm aware.

'Surpised you forgot Margaret in a hurry, Meat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

MC, we dropped the bomb on Japan to warn Russia?  You mean it had nothing to do with ending WWII?  It had nothing to do with avoiding what would have been the longest and bloodiest land battle in world history?  I think I missed something

Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur and Admirals Leahy and Nimitz being the most prominent but buttressed by many others have stated publicly in writing that it was unnecessary.
Japan had been trying to surrender since 1943.

H

Could you please cite the source of this information regarding Japan trying to surrender since 1943
A couple of keystrokes to goggle will get you the information you are seeking.



..and MacArthur particularly, of all the generals ever coming out against using the A-bomb.  You do remember that he was the general fired by Truman because he wanted to use the A-bomb against China during the Korean conflict...
You might want to check your facts in a history book.  MacArthur was fired by Truman for insubordination.

I have never heard that the leadership of Japan was trying to surrender.  Do you mean there were elements in the government that had that view?  There were those in Germany that felt the same way and, in fact, tried to kill Hitler...
Perhaps a little research will clear up your misconceptions.

I think it is unfortunate that we did not have the bomb in 1942.
Having the A bomb in 1942 would not have changed anything.  It weighed about 10,000 lbs.  A  B29 was barely able to carry it after its guns and part of its fuel load were removed.



Millions of people would not have been gassed, millions more killed with an estimate of around 70,000,000 people on both sides killed
Actual combat deaths are only about half of this number but if you add in the deaths from famine and disease attributed by the war then this is a valid number.
 
 
 
 
 because of Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini.  How many more were injured physically and mentally by their injustice.  Let scientists and anti-war  college professors discuss and opine on the morality of using the atom bomb.  Maybe they did not lose a loved one in an oven, a grandfather or an uncle in the Pacfic or European battlefields..Again, I only wish we had the bomb AND USED IT...in 1942.  This pontificating morality against use of the bomb is bullshit theory.
The military figures I cited as being against dropping the A bomb on Japan were against it on military grounds and not moral.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

MC, we dropped the bomb on Japan to warn Russia?  You mean it had nothing to do with ending WWII?  It had nothing to do with avoiding what would have been the longest and bloodiest land battle in world history?  I think I missed something

Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur and Admirals Leahy and Nimitz being the most prominent but buttressed by many others have stated publicly in writing that it was unnecessary.
Japan had been trying to surrender since 1943.

H

Could you please cite the source of this information regarding Japan trying to surrender since 1943
A couple of keystrokes to goggle will get you the information you are seeking.



..and MacArthur particularly, of all the generals ever coming out against using the A-bomb.  You do remember that he was the general fired by Truman because he wanted to use the A-bomb against China during the Korean conflict...
You might want to check your facts in a history book.  MacArthur was fired by Truman for insubordination.

I have never heard that the leadership of Japan was trying to surrender.  Do you mean there were elements in the government that had that view?  There were those in Germany that felt the same way and, in fact, tried to kill Hitler...
Perhaps a little research will clear up your misconceptions.

I think it is unfortunate that we did not have the bomb in 1942.
Having the A bomb in 1942 would not have changed anything.  It weighed about 10,000 lbs.  A  B29 was barely able to carry it after its guns and part of its fuel load were removed.



Millions of people would not have been gassed, millions more killed with an estimate of around 70,000,000 people on both sides killed
Actual combat deaths are only about half of this number but if you add in the deaths from famine and disease attributed by the war then this is a valid number.
 
 
 
 
 because of Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini.  How many more were injured physically and mentally by their injustice.  Let scientists and anti-war  college professors discuss and opine on the morality of using the atom bomb.  Maybe they did not lose a loved one in an oven, a grandfather or an uncle in the Pacfic or European battlefields..Again, I only wish we had the bomb AND USED IT...in 1942.  This pontificating morality against use of the bomb is bullshit theory.
The military figures I cited as being against dropping the A bomb on Japan were against it on military grounds and not moral.

quote:



Gen. MacArthur wanted to go into China and, if you read the "newspapers" of the day...he would have used THE bomb if necessary.  Truman did not want him to cross the Yalu River...and so the "hordes" kept coming..and the joke..some joke..was "how many hordes in a chinese platoon".  You are right in that the charge against MacArthur was insubordination to orders from the  Commander in Chief because he did  not believe Truman had a grasp on the strategic need to stop the Chinese from pouring into Korea.
You really should try google.  The insubordination that MacArthur was fired for was going to congress to override the president.  In this country the president is the Commander and Chief.  MacArthur is lucky Truman did not have him court martial ed.  As a soldier you do not have the same "democratic" freedoms that a civilian does.
The Chinese were invited by a country that was being invaded by the U.S.
 


And so we lost one of our greatest generals
Dougout Doug was hardly a "great" general.He got the Medal of Honor for the defense of the Philippines which he did miserably and lost it to the Japanese whom he could have beaten if he had been a "great" general even if he had been an "adequate" general he could have repulsed the Japanese.
Please do a little research.


and set the stage for IndoChina to convulse, the French to be thrown out..and Kennedy putting in advisors...and the rest...we all know.
You do not seem to know...It was Eisenhower who put the advisors in Viet Nam.  It was Eisenhower who used the Marines for air support for the French at Dien Bien Phu.
Do you think the French should have been kept in Viet Nam in spite of the will of the indigenous people?   

As far as "delivery" of the A-Bomb to Japan....I would think a few things might be different if we had an earlier start to the Manhattan project.
Really???when might we have started it.  It was my understanding that Roosevelt started it pretty much as soon as Einstein talked to him about it.
The military would have worked at a different speed to develop a bomber capable of delivering the ordnance as they routinely do in a weapon development program.
A quick trip to google would have informed you that the B 29 project was started as a delivery system for the A bomb.
We will never know the answer to that one..but I would bet on american ingenuity.  And it would have changed a great deal..there was talk, actually, that instead of bombing Japan we could have given them a "test" of the bomb as a show of the power we had...but it was obviously turned down.  One of the arguements against it was that if we set up such a "show" if it proved a dud...which was possible...we would lose a lot of face and probably prolong the war even on conventional grounds.
Not so.  The "trinity" test in New Mexico proved that it would work