How is the statement preposterous?

Japan was an already beaten country* and whether the use of the atomic bomb is debatable or not; Japan was beat. My other statement, the US giving weapons and money to Islamic extremists to fight against Soviet invaders, is correct as well. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan shows that.

I'm not trying to pull off the "America is all evil and everything bad now is a result of its policies" statement, because that is bullshit, but we are in no way the good guys either. We are just watching out for our national interests (or corporate if you wish).


* - For Japan ready to surrender, if Truman changed his stance from "unconditional" to "conditional", the Japanese probably would have surrendered because from what I understand, their were seven people making the decisions on whether Japan surrendered or not: 3 military advisers, 3 other advisers, and the emperor. The three military advisers did not want to surrender, the three other advisers did, and the emperor didn't because he would then lose the ability to rule for himself and his lineage. So it was a very close decision at the moment and changing "unconditional" to "conditional" would have changed the emperors vote.

They surrendered after the dropping of two atomic bombs. I really doubt a full scale invasion would be needed since we had them blockaded, they knew they were beat, and they had the best two armies in the world coming at them from both sides. Germany didn't stand a chance and neither did Japan. Everyone was just delaying the inevitable.

Of course, and that is why the Japanese have been erased off the face the Earth...

The Japanese were prideful, but a few insane military leaders don't necessarily mean the whole population thinks a certain way. Even though it is on a much smaller scale, the pride in defending "Islam" has many similarities and I can guarantee that Muslims won't fight to the very end. The majority will adopt western culture the first chance they get. I can't see how the Japanese were that much different since they are VERY westernized nation at the moment.

What? Is it your age that is giving you these inacurate, and ridiculous ideas? Is it your teachers at the university? Is it that you are an American? Reread history about Islam. The majority in many geographic areas of the world will most certainly not embrace western culture, at any cost.

Yes many people of Japan would have fought to the what we would see as the "bitter" end. Yes, even in light of what we might call the invevitable victory. They were not cowards, in any sense of the word. They did not have your intelectual surrender in mind, you know, when you can see the end is near so you quit. I don't think that was going to happen.

What effort? You are so wacko extremist as to post insults (ie twit) and never a fact. classicman has been exposed again not knowing about current events even posted in the Cellar in March 2007. It was only a secret to those who post profanity due to shortage of knowledge.

Posted were numerous facts about a potential American attack on Iran complete with four attack carriers, Marine amphibious units, and the rhetoric from Cheney. Adm Fallon said he stopped an American attack on Iran. Those are the facts no matter how often a wacko extremist posts profanity and insult.

classicman - do you even learn from sources other than wacko extremist talk show hosts? You don't even deny listening to them. You did not even know about the American military deployment to the shores of Iran? That would require sources other than extremist talk show hosts and less time posting UG style insults.

I disagree. I am seeing a very conservative Islamic society turn Western, or at least pick up many Western influences, as we speak. I used to live in a Somalian neighborhood and I also had some Somalian friends, all of whom were Muslim. You would NEVER see any of them drink, smoke, or do any drug in public but once they had privacy I only saw them follow one Islamic "rule" and that was not to eat pork. They smoke, they drank, they watched porn, they did every vice Western children, especially African American (that is the culture they are picking up), did. They reason why they never did any of those vices in public was because of the tremendously strong social forces. If one of them got caught they would be ostracized. Once they did not have to follow their parent's and culture's rules they acted no different than non-Muslims do. Many women, the ones with that cover their heads, would be very sexually active as well. Some of my friends actually tried to hook me up with a Somalian woman.

Western culture, both "white" and "African American/others", is tremendously attractive to many non-westerners but their culture and social forces prevent many of them in fully participating in it. If Iraq does become stable and westernized, I would expect to see them start to embrace Western culture or their own version of it whether they like the United States and the West or not.

Three of the seven main deciders in Japan were for surrendering and Japan did surrender in the end. And yes, many Japanese would have fought to the bitter end and many Muslims will blow themselves up to fight imperialism but that doesn't mean the majority will. If you would read up on the Pacific War you would see that Japan went the Soviet Union to try to negotiate peace. It wasn't the "fight to the bitter end" that kept the Japanese fighting but the conditions we gave them if they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrend...e_Soviet_Union

I see, you are basing your assumption on your experience with a Somali neighborhood, here in the states. Get a plane ticket and try that on for size on the Arabian Peninsula, or Pakistan. Yes, there are young muslim men, smoking and drinking, and looking at porn. Isn't that great? Wow, western influence at it's best. You think the older generation of Muslims are going to be o.k. with that? You think they will give up their youth to our "western culture" without a fight of some kind?

Unconditional surrender for a war that the Japanese started, with an unprovoked attack. I agree with the terms. If I were Japanese it would have taken a couple of atomic weapons to seal that deal as well.

You can't read remember you only know how to write. Well this post certainly exemplifies that. The on "facts" were references of you by you. Hardly anything worth repeating. You didn't cite anything at all, except yourself. That counts for zero, nothing at all.

I need not deny anything, why is it you feel that I have to justify myself or anything else for that matter to you? You give me all this crap after I voted you the most loved cellarite too - WTF?

Don't you read your own links?If historians agree, why is there a debate? :rolleyes:

Yes I am. I am not saying that every Islamic culture is at the same point as the Somalis, but that will most likely follow in a similar fashion.



Read this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6463059&&CM=EmailThis&CE=1

No, I do not think they will give up their youth to our "western culture" without a fight and I don't blame them in any way for it. I just believe they will lost that fight, big time.

I never stated my opinion in the matter and I made sure of it. The decision to drop the atomic bomb or not can be more or less justified based on the goals of the United States. If the US wanted to just end the war then they would not need to drop the bomb. If they wanted unconditional surrender or end the war before the USSR could get further influence in the region and possibly split the country like Germany then the bomb was most likely needed. That brings me back to my original point that we would drop an atomic weapon on an already beaten country to get an upperhand with the USSR. It may not be the only or main reason we dropped it, but that is most definitely a factor.

You're reading the wrong parts, Bruce!

No I'm not. He made the statement;That is total bullshit. Historians do not agree, and his very own links prove it.
The Wiki link is titled, "The DEBATE....", and goes on to present both sides. Just because he has chosen one side to believe, doesn't make it so, nor does it make his statement, "Historians agree...", any less bullshit.
He then goes on to make further assertions based on that bullshit, which makes them also bullshit.

sounds like a lotta bullshit going on somewhere

The historians agree part, ok, but what other parts are complete bullshit?

Remembered this ph45 discussion when recently Jon Stewart labeled Truman a war criminal. At the righty pjtv, Bill Whittle replies to Stewart with a very interesting 15 minute history lesson on what it took for Japan to surrender.

Our comprehension of real wartime is confused by the nature of modern war. We have not experienced a fight for the existence of the country in four generations. (Did you know the Manhattan Project required one sixth of all the electricity generated in the entire US?!) So the video is long, and gets too moralistic in the last minute, but it's worth the watch, if you have the time.

And, required viewing for ph45.

Historians agree pfffff. You're making the same mistake with the Somalis too. You never ever ever ever take one piece of evidence and attempt to describe an entire set of historical circumstances with it. Any halfway decent historian would laugh at you for doing so. Take a philosophy and writing of history course before you open your mouth about history again because it's obvious you don't have any concept of what good historical discourse involves.

Doing a little back reading. Wikipedia would never be allowed as a vetted source of information, at least not by my teachers. Neither would the internet. We have to crack books.