quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

While I can understand the use of the one on Hiroshima as a means of saving American lives, the Japanese were suing for peace through the Swiss and the United States refused to meet with them until they tested the plutonium device on Nagasaki.  So the logic of using nuclear weapons to save American lives breaks down when you apply it to Nagasaki.  That was an the US government using Japanese civilians as guinea pigs in a freakish experiment.

Would you mind sourcing this bit of history?

FirmKY

FirmhandKY:
Actually it was in mid 1943 that the Japanese first started trying to surrender via the Russians.
If you were to avail yourself of John Tolands "The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire" you will find ample documentation of this.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: tetherboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: ladysekhmetka

Bwa ha ha ha, a threat to World Peace? Sure, he's that and a threat to so many of our other rights ::glares at Patriot Act::

I mean, the last I knew, having taken American Gov. and what not in high school, is that a President has to ask permission from Congress to declare war. The whole checks and balance thing

Wanted to clear up a little misunderstanding on this.  The president has the power to wage war for 90 days without permission from Congress.  To continue from that point, would require a formal declaration of war via the Congress.  Correct me please if I am wrong, but Congress did consent to the military action.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

FR:

To correct a few mis-understandings about the US entry into WWII:

The American people didn't want anything to do with any of it, and it took some statesman on our side of the pond to try marginally to prepare for it.
Actually they were politicians trying to make a buck not statesmen.

In particular, the Lend Lease program was started by a *horror* strong President who went against the popular will, and the political winds within the US.  There were talk of *gasp* impeachment because of many of the blatantly illegal methods used by Roosevelt to give some aid to the UK prior to the US's entry.
Roosevelt did not give anything to the UK....it was sold to them and a handsome profit made.

The draft was passed by a single vote in congress, before Pearl Harbor, by a statesman who voted against his own desires, and popular opinion on his district.

And *gasp*, even though it was the Japanese that attacked us, Roosevelt made the obviously wrong decision to put the bulk of American war effort against  Germany - who hadn't really done much to us.  Certainly they hadn't attacked us - it was the Japanese, damnit!
Actually it was the U.S, who attacked Japan.  Remember Claire Chenault and the flying tigers. 
The term "isolationist" came from this period of American history, and so, yes, I think it's quite appropriate to say that the US was dragged kicking and screaming into the second world war.
Actually it was the politicians who manufactured  a climate that would overcome the isolationist.

If it hadn't been for a strong, visionary President who was accused of being a dictator, and if it wasn't for the suprise attack at Pearl Harbor that woke up the major of the American citizens to the danger, then we would have certainly taken a "miss" on that little European scuffle.
Pearl Harbor was hardly a surprise.  Roosevelt had ample knowledge of the impending attack.  The Japanese codes had been broken and no less than the U.S. ambasador to Japan sent Roosevelt official documents stating clearly Japans intentions to bomb Pearl Harbor.
What you refer to as "that little European scuffle" was several orders of magnitude greater than the war in the pacific.  For example the Germans lost about as many  men in the battle for Moscow (which they lost) as the U.S, lost during the whole war in both theaters.

Substitute "Bush" for "Roosevelt" and "Iraq" for "Germany", and there seems to be a lot of similarities to me.
Other than dead bodies I don't see any similarity
thompson

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation
 How did you win that war?

       Manufacturing.  Our factories had oceans to protect them against bombing and we built stuff a lot faster than it could be destroyed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Missturbation, I love you madly, but you are  allowing your emotions to lead you astray. If at the time  the US had got itself into position to launch a ground strike on Japan, your decision, and you saw estimates of the likely casulties to your own troops, and an alternative  ie Nuclear Weapons existed....what would you do ?

Incidently, to get close enough to Japan had cost enormous loss of life, fighting for the islands in the Pacific.

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

How about you answer my question i have now asked three or four times?
 
Would you care to state and prove how you were dragged into world war two?

It's just a guess here, but I'd surmise that it wasn't exactly a joyous and enthusiastic decision to join the war considering the fact that it took the bombing of Pearl Harbor, where the Japanese killed 2402 people, injured at least 1238 others, sank or severely damaged 18 ships, and destroyed 161 American planes, for the people of the United States to change their mind about staying out of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

Hey, no laughing at the thick girl
Oh to it being draw, no can do. I get high of the smell, giggle a lot, get twinkie and want to do nothing but watch porn and have sex !!

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

No, Bush shouldn't be tried.

"Public opinion" is not necessarily either a reliable measure of morality, nor legality nor of possiblity.  It's often a reflection of who has the loudest microphone, and who can most effectively manipulate the emotions.

Not to mention how the questions are asked.

You won't get any kind of reasoned discussion about this issue here, for the simple fact that on one side, you have enough emotionally involved people who will scream at the top of their voices about every other emotional issue, and they attempt to shout down and shut out opposing viewpoints.

But good luck.

FirmKY

This is just the opposite of one of your previous post in which you mention the "national zietgiest"  ie: public opinion as ample justification for waging war.  You even cited constitutional justification for international facism and thugery.  It appears that you are a little inconsistant in your opinions.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Actually it was in mid 1943 that the Japanese first started trying to surrender via the Russians.
If you were to avail yourself of John Tolands "The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire" you will find ample documentation of this.
thompson

Thank you, thompsonx.  The source materials I have from it, apart from ones you can find googling, involved the Japanese trying to go through the Swiss delegation.

quote:

 Missturbation:  I get high of the smell, giggle a lot, get twinkie and want to do nothing but watch porn and have sex !!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rumtiger

Nope, just was repeating what I learned in 8th grade. You talk about Ancient Civs and i'm your man though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

My apologies emperor.
I truly believe though that the only topic worthy of discussion left in this thread  is getting high, twinkie, porn and having lots of sex!!
 
missturbation:
I am unsure of your use of the word twinkie....are you speaking of the little cakes filled with whipped cream or is there a more lacivious meaning that I am not aware of?
thompson