Russian attack on country of Georgia

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_...ly_unnecessary

Of which the title is. "Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki".
That tells me historians do not agree

http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-S.../dp/0674016939

He has mined Japanese and Russian literature and documentation and, despite much that is based on surmise, provides fresh insight into the extraordinary inability of Japanese leaders to surrender, and into Stalin's machinations aimed at maximizing Soviet territorial gains in East Asia.

So after 60 years and detailed research into Jap and Red archives, he's come up with this surmise.
Now, you think Truman should have had the same surmise, with access to neither? Get real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_...ly_unnecessary

That's the same link as the first one. Ike was in Europe, hardly in a position to know what was happening in Japan. Don't forget, while we are at war, the military brass are heros. But when the war ends they are yesterdays news, and sometimes unemployed.

The bottom line is, your statement;

Russia and the former USSR have been bitter enemies ever since the end of WWII and the US has shown that it will be willing to do anything to get the upper hand in this war including dropping atomic bombs on already beaten countries and supplying Islamic extremist with weapons to fight against their Soviet invaders.

is preposterous.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The bottom line is, your statement; is preposterous.

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.

Originally Posted by lookout123

OK, so before those bombs were dropped Japan was ready to surrender and there was no expected need for allied forces to land troops in Japan?

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.

Originally Posted by UT

Japan wasn't the sort of nation to fight to the bitter end?

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.

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

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.

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.

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.

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.

"His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland."[13]

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

How is the statement preposterous?

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Historians agree that the war was going to end by the end of the month.

Don't you read your own links?

"Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki".

If historians agree, why is there a debate?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Don't you read your own links?

You're reading the wrong parts, Bruce!

[xoxoxoBruce]

No I'm not. He made the statement;

Historians agree that the war was going to end by the end of the month.

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.