Hiroshima: 57 years

[timmy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 06 2002,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In that case by that logic you think that the WTC attacks were quite legitimate act of wars.<span id='postcolor'>

no, because we were'nt at war with anyone.

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 06 2002,19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Civilians are not to be considered as valid targets. Or perhaps you consider them to be valid targets?

In that case by that logic you think that the WTC attacks were quite legitimate act of wars.<span id='postcolor'>

Industrial centers are valid targets, and civilians work there. Hirsoshima was a huge industrial center, and it also had a large military base.

Denoir, what would you have done if you were the US president?

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

Japan attacked the U.S. and killed civilians, so what happend was their fault.. The U.S. saved many AMerican lives by dropping the bombs, and ended the war alot earlier than an invasion would have. It was not a war crime, but an act of war to save the lives of your soldiers.

[RedRogue 0]

Let me just start by saying that I grow tired of what looks like carefully veiled attempts to agitate selective members of this community by you Denoir.

On the topic on hand you must first look at the problem from all sides and all the variables before you can pass judgment on it, even if you don’t have that true right. First you must look at the structure and function of the Japanese government in this era. The Emperor of Japan at the time was a true figurehead if there will ever be one. The true leaders at the time where the Admirals of the IJN and many Generals of the IJA. Few generals of the Japanese Army paid true loyalty to the Emperor, he was merely a figurehead to talk to the people of Japan into compliance. Even though he rarely addresses the people publicly.

Then you must understand the Japanese mentality, something that you are sorely lacking on. The Japanese of WW2 rarely would admit defeat, and would rather kill themselves than be captured. Diligent use of the suicide plane or kamikaze is an example of their devoutness to this endeavor.

Might I remind you of the end of a famous quote of the time,â€â€¦ we shall fight on the seas, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing sites, we shall fight with ever growing confidence in the air, we shall fight in the fields, we shall fight in the cities, we shall fight in the hills, we will protect our island, we shall never surrender!†If you think the United Kingdom was alone in their resolve to defend their island you are a fool.

What the United States faced with the Japan in the ebbing days of WW2 was either a stalemate with the Japanese holed up in their home island but would never surrender of capitulate to any peace talks that where not favorable to them, or a full scale invasion on a people that where determined to defend their land with whatever weapons they could find. Close to if not greater than a million and greater Americans and Japanese would have lost their lives in the attempt. And these where optimistic calculations on the part of the American intelligence organizations.

When the A-bombs materialized Truman had to face a horrible decision with no real nice choice. He could both stalemate with the Japanese and keep them in suppression indefinitely with who knows how many eventual Japanese deaths, he could do a full-scale invasion that truly horrified him, or he could use these weapons of mass destruction to hopefully capitulate the Japanese people, not government into submission.

When the first atomic weapon was used the Japanese leadership refused to accept that the United States could or would have the resolve to repeat such an operation again. Not only that but in their mentality they would rather be wiped from the earth by such weapons than to surrender. The deployment of the second atomic weapon nick named Fat Boy must have been an unimaginable burden on Truman, and still after that destruction was unleashed a second time the Generals and Admirals and the true leaders of Japan would have rather had the Japanese people obliterated than to surrender. But what they did not account for was the people themselves, rather than see their culture and lives wiped away spoke up and with the support of the Emperor who in one act of his own accord decided that surrender was better than annilation capitulated to the demands of the American government.

I doubt any of these words have had an impact on your view or even your attempt to view things objectively. But you must look at all sides of an event if you want to truly understand it.

But in closing for those that still believe in the chivalry of war I pose this question to you. Is the populace that supports and grants the solders in the field any less of a viable target than the soldiers themselves? Is the person that makes the rifle round that is used by the soldier to kill another human being any less responsible than the soldier himself?

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Your honour..this is not correct!" as I said before (about as noone reads my crap) Stalin was just a pinch away from declaring war on Japan. Also, Japan had just lost its allies from europe, its fleet was heavily destroyed, they were aware that america would now focus all its attention away from europe towards Japan.<span id='postcolor'>

And? The Russians had nowhere near the naval forces required to launch an invasion of Japan, and America and Britain would have been hard-pressed to do so alone, so had little prospect of taking Russian troops with them; particularly when their navies were being decimated by kamikaze attacks.

The Japanese of the time would have fought to the bitter end, and the allies were well aware of that; vastly more civilians would have died in an invasion than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki... and, as others have pointed out, those civilians were building the weapons used against the Allied forces. If bombing cities in Europe to destroy industrial production was justified, then the nuclear attacks on Japan were equally justified.

[red oct 2]

red rougue did you watch the documentry "hiroshima"? it was on a while ago and it talked about almost everything you mentioned. i just wish i knew it would be on so i could have watched it from the begining.

[RedRogue 0]

I may have at some point watched that. I read alot and watch alot on history. If you want to know the greatest extent of the truth possible you need to research from both sides of history.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think Einstein was fascinated in trying to achieve a nuclear fusion reaction more than he wanted to build the bomb.<span id='postcolor'>

Einstein was primarily responsible for the atomic bomb program and intended from the beginning that it should be dropped on Germany at the earliest opportunity; he was Jewish, after all, so wasn't particularly fond of Nazi scumbags.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hiroshima still is a gravejard!<span id='postcolor'>

Boy, that'll be news to all those people who live there!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedRogue @ Aug. 06 2002,20:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let me just start by saying that I grow tired of what looks like carefully veiled attempts to agitate selective members of this community by you Denoir.<span id='postcolor'>

And I grow very tired of certain people that because they disagree with me on some points, make an effort to turn every discussion I participate in to a flame war. As I said very early , the intention of this thread was to remember those that were killed and reflect over for what reason and why we should not allow it to happen again.

While these certain people obviously just want to pick a fight I often make the mistake of taking them seriously and start debating. However my patience is limited and I won't tolerate it forever. The constant USA vs. the world flame drivel doesn't make anybody any good. There are a lot provocateurs on both sides and once my patience and the patience of other moderators is gone there will be repercussions

Now, if we return to the topic:

You can try to justify it how you like. It doesn't change the fact that killing civilians in large numbers is bad. You can try to waltz around the issue, but that fact still remains. The vast majority of the people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians. Whether the reason was to pursuade Japan to give up and therefor save the life of allied soldiers or if it was a show for the Soviets... it doesn't matter. They knew that the majority of the people there were civilians and they chose to bomb it. A textbook example of a war crime.

Now, I am willing to accept that the times were different then and that we had a different view on human values etc. That doesn't however excuse those who today think that it was a legitimate act of war.

[red oct 2]

ok suppose if we and maybe brittian had invaded, and the civilians took to arms and attacked soldiers, what than? do they retaliate or do the do nothing? why or why not? just a question.

[timmy 0]

denior, i dont think anyone is flaming, i think we are just discussing an important topic, and i think everyone here is being respectful of other peoples opinions.

[billytran 0]

Okay Denoir, what would you have done if you were the American president at the time?

[nordin dk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 06 2002,17:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">KingBeast,

Let me get this straight... it's okay for three or four millions of soldiers to die, but not for three hundred thousand civilians?  <span id='postcolor'>

I see we are beginning to grasp the ridiculous concept of "War".

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 06 2002,21:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay Denoir, what would you have done if you were the American president at the time?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't know. Simple as that.

I would have probably however gone with the conventional option. Cooperate with the Soviets (who just then declared war on Japan) and force them to surrender. If I knew that the nuclear device would kill so many civilians I wouldn't have used it.

I don't know, but that doesn't make what they did right.

[nordin dk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedRogue @ Aug. 06 2002,20:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let me just start by saying that I grow tired of what looks like carefully veiled attempts to agitate selective members of this community by you Denoir.

On the topic on hand you must first look at the problem from all sides and all the variables before you can pass judgment on it, even if you don’t have that true right. First you must look at the structure and function of the Japanese government in this era. The Emperor of Japan at the time was a true figurehead if there will ever be one.  The true leaders at the time where the Admirals of the IJN and many Generals of the IJA. Few generals of the Japanese Army paid true loyalty to the Emperor, he was merely a figurehead to talk to the people of Japan into compliance. Even though he rarely addresses the people publicly.

Then you must understand the Japanese mentality, something that you are sorely lacking on. The Japanese of WW2 rarely would admit defeat, and would rather kill themselves than be captured.  Diligent use of the suicide plane or kamikaze is an example of their devoutness to this endeavor.    

Might I remind you of the end of a famous quote of the time,â€â€¦ we shall fight on the seas, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing sites, we shall fight with ever growing confidence in the air, we shall fight in the fields, we shall fight in the cities, we shall fight in the hills, we will protect our island, we shall never surrender!† If you think the United Kingdom was alone in their resolve to defend their island you are a fool.

What the United States faced with the Japan in the ebbing days of WW2 was either a stalemate with the Japanese holed up in their home island but would never surrender of capitulate to any peace talks that where not favorable to them, or a full scale invasion on a people that where determined to defend their land with whatever weapons they could find. Close to if not greater than a million and greater Americans and Japanese would have lost their lives in the attempt. And these where optimistic calculations on the part of the American intelligence organizations.

When the A-bombs materialized Truman had to face a horrible decision with no real nice choice. He could both stalemate with the Japanese and keep them in suppression indefinitely with who knows how many eventual Japanese deaths, he could do a full-scale invasion that truly horrified him, or he could use these weapons of mass destruction to hopefully capitulate the Japanese people, not government into submission.

When the first atomic weapon was used the Japanese leadership refused to accept that the United States could or would have the resolve to repeat such an operation again.  Not only that but in their mentality they would rather be wiped from the earth by such weapons than to surrender.  The deployment of the second atomic weapon nick named Fat Boy must have been an unimaginable burden on Truman, and still after that destruction was unleashed a second time the Generals and Admirals and the true leaders of Japan would have rather had the Japanese people obliterated than to surrender. But what they did not account for was the people themselves, rather than see their culture and lives wiped away spoke up and with the support of the Emperor who in one act of his own accord decided that surrender was better than annilation capitulated to the demands of the American government.

I doubt any of these words have had an impact on your view or even your attempt to view things objectively. But you must look at all sides of an event if you want to truly understand it.

But in closing for those that still believe in the chivalry of war I pose this question to you.  Is the populace that supports and grants the solders in the field any less of a viable target than the soldiers themselves?  Is the person that makes the rifle round that is used by the soldier to kill another human being any less responsible than the soldier himself?<span id='postcolor'>

You are obviously smart, yet you foolishly insist on sacrificing common sense on the altar of objectivism.

Every argument in favor of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings is a petition for more atrocity.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Aug. 06 2002,13:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Pearl Harbour was one of the most brilliant military operations ever, and I fully support what Japanese did to Pearl Harbour and pretty much in every war movie where Japs fight Yanks I support Japs, but Hiroshima was out of hand. There was no point in doing that.<span id='postcolor'>

The estimated casualty figures for Operation Olympic, the invasion of Japan were 1.5 million allied soldiers. That’s considerably more than the casualties caused by both bombs. I happen to agree that in hindsight the deliberate targeting of civilians in war is a crime, but that particular genie wasn’t let out of the bottle by the United States. By the time the Bombs were dropped it was widely accepted as a strategic option by everyone. Using nukes on cities was just a natural extension of that. In that climate, without the benefit of hindsight, what would you have done?<span id='postcolor'>

I somehow missed this post earlier. I agree entirely Wardog. The methods and views on human life and how war is conducted was different.

But we do have the benifit of hindsight now. That is why I find it unbelievable that people today think that it was 'a-ok to a-bomb' the two cities.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But we do have the benifit of hindsight now.<span id='postcolor'>

And, with the benefit of hindsight, your alternative to bombing industrial cities would be, exactly?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is why I find it unbelievable that people today think that it was 'a-ok to a-bomb' the two cities. <span id='postcolor'>

War (outside of computers) is stupid and obscene; it's something that should be avoided when possible, but once you accept that you're going to fight to the death against another nation, arguing about the tactics is pointless. WWII was one of the stupidest wars in history and should never have been fought, but once it began it was an industrialised war which involved everyone in those nations; if you can't understand why we think that that bombing those cities wasn't a "war crime" (a term used solely by the victors to punish the vanquished), then you're clearly unable to put yourself into the position of people who'd been fighting total war for five years or more, seeing their brothers, husbands, fathers and sons killed in large numbers.

What else would you do? Pull the navy and troops back and let Japan rebuild its military? It's not as though they could just sit there and wait while their ships were being sunk in large numbers by kamikaze attacks.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Aug. 06 2002,20:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think Einstein was fascinated in trying to achieve a nuclear fusion reaction more than he wanted to build the bomb.<span id='postcolor'>

Einstein was primarily responsible for the atomic bomb program and intended from the beginning that it should be dropped on Germany at the earliest opportunity; he was Jewish, after all, so wasn't particularly fond of Nazi scumbags.<span id='postcolor'>

You see, this is something you will never understand. No matter how often you kick your dog he will still return to you and consider your house as his home. Einstein had jewish roots but he still considered himself as German. And no, his idea was not about using the first occasion to throw it on his motherland!   (anyway he played a minor rule in the developement )

[RedRogue 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 06 2002,13:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedRogue @ Aug. 06 2002,20:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let me just start by saying that I grow tired of what looks like carefully veiled attempts to agitate selective members of this community by you Denoir.<span id='postcolor'>

And I grow very tired of certain people that because they disagree with me on some points, make an effort to turn every discussion I participate in to a flame war. As I said very early , the intention of this thread was to remember those that were killed and reflect over for what reason and why we should not allow it to happen again.<span id='postcolor'>

In my mind every person that fought in WW2 should be honored. I honor German, Japanese, Russian, Britian, and American sacrifices in this conflict the same. You should see the annual reuninon of the Battle for Iwo Jima, Japanese and American survivors standing side by side in honor to those that faught and died there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><snip>

This was one of the worst war crimes ever committed in human history. We have seen the horrific effects of nuclear weapons, yet a world-wide nuclear ban is nowhere in sight.

Perhaps we should have listened more to the stories of the survivors of Hiroshima?<span id='postcolor'>

I do not understand your use of the English language but in my part of the world a statement like that in bold is acusatory and derogative. Maybe there is a misunderstanding on some level here but I would doubt it because you evidently are well educated and fluent in English.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While these certain people obviously just want to pick a fight I often make the mistake of taking them seriously and start debating. However my patience is limited and I won't tolerate it forever. The constant USA vs. the world flame drivel doesn't make anybody any good. There are a lot provocateurs on both sides and once my patience and the patience of other moderators is gone there will be repercussions.<span id='postcolor'>

Should I take this as a threat?

[RedRogue 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nordin dk @ Aug. 06 2002,14:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are obviously smart, yet you foolishly insist on sacrificing common sense on the altar of objectivism.

Every argument in favor of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings is a petition for more atrocity.<span id='postcolor'>

Thank you I try to be well informed, but I like everyone have many faults. One is indeed a lack of common sense in day to day life.

I can see how my post can be toward the view to comitting attrocity, but really I see this event was the effect of a decision made between evils with the lesser evil choosen. Or more of a lose/lose/lose situation for all sides.

And I would hazard to say that in my view a war between two industrialized nations and maybe any war in general is total war. There are no true innocent, there are no true war crimes because I realize that those terms are applied to things of the Victor's choosing. I can just imagine the trials and "war crimes" that would have occured in Germany had won WW2.

[nordin dk 0]

ooooh  

The tension is mounting...

(referring to RedRouge vs. Denoir - in which Denoir is the Neuclear Superpower - and he is not afraid to drop the bomb)

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> And no, his idea was not about using the first occasion to throw it on his motherland! (anyway he played a minor rule in the developement ) <span id='postcolor'>

Einstein not only renounced his German citizenship, but was instrumental in starting the Manhattan Project to create bombs to use against Germany; without his letter of support to Roosevelt, the odds are good that the nuclear weapons program would have been delayed until much later in the war, if it ever started at all.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedRogue @ Aug. 06 2002,22:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do not understand your use of the English language but in my part of the world a statement like that in bold is acusatory and derogative. Maybe there is a misunderstanding on some level here but I would doubt it because you evidently are well educated and fluent in English.<span id='postcolor'>

I would say it is your interpretation of it. Read USSoldier11B's comment. If he would have percieved it as anti-American, you can bet that he would have jumped me directly. IMO the bombing of Hirosima and Nagasaki are one of the worst war crimes ever. Until today I thought that everybody agreed on that, but apparantly and unfortunately I was wrong on that account. Perhaps it is a difference between countries. In Sweden saying that bombing those two towns was good is about as acceptable as to say that the holocaust was good.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While these certain people obviously just want to pick a fight I often make the mistake of taking them seriously and start debating. However my patience is limited and I won't tolerate it forever. The constant USA vs. the world flame drivel doesn't make anybody any good. There are a lot provocateurs on both sides and once my patience and the patience of other moderators is gone there will be repercussions.<span id='postcolor'>

Should I take this as a threat?<span id='postcolor'>

If you feel in your heart that you are one of those people that starts flaming and fighting without any reason: Yes

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Denoir @ Aug. 06 2002,17:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (paste hungry @ Aug. 06 2002,16:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if you ask other Asians about Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, they would say JPN deserved it. I find it hilarious that while Denoir has time to criticize use of A-bomb, he can't see millions other who approved it.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, and millions of Germans approved the Holocaust. That doesn't make it right, now does it?

<span id='postcolor'>

something tells me i didn't get through you correctly or you are using a bad logic. Germans were presecutors. the Asians I mentioned were VICTIMS, persecutors were JPNese. The exploitation of colonial citizens by JPN is as bad as Holocaust, if not worse. JPN systematically exploited their colonial resources. They even had guts to take many colonists women to their brothel and make them their sex-slaves, and abandon them when they were retreating.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So it is a tooth for a tooth that you advocate? Because they did some monstrous things, does that mean that it is ok for us to do that to them too? Even if you think so, there is one little flaw in your logic. Those civilians that were nuked in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with the atrocities that the Japanese military comitted.<span id='postcolor'>

correct. but how do you justify bonjai and kamiaze? the time were brainwashed into thinking that should white beast cannot be overrun, they should eiher 1) kill themselves, 2) or kill enemy with you. with that logic, they would have committed mass attack should US attack mainland, and US would undoubtly suffer heavy casualty. and that's worse of two evil(at least for US).

and JPN pretty much called the fate upon themselves. They took Phillipines and US didn't care.(they even had a pact) but when JPN broke it, then they asked to be treated such.

yes, the citizens were not DIRECTLY involed in atrocities, but they were also not stopping them. with your logic, no German who lives now, should be associated with Holocaust, and should not be demonized even if he/she lived in that period.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can't begin to say how indescribably furious I am over the comments I hear here. Such blant insensitivity and lack of respect for those who suffered. It is beyond my belief that there are people who think that bombing two cities full of civilians is 'ok' because 'it had to be done'. And to top it all it comes from people that usually say 'my condolences to the family of that brave cat' when a cat gets run over by a car.<span id='postcolor'>

and you don't know other side of JPNese imperialism in SE.Asia. JPN has been looked down upon by many Asian countries in ASEAN meetings and other occasions, and there's reason for it. THEY DESERVED IT. There action towards other Asian nations bred hostility.

and if you are criticizing my 'my condolences...' attitude, it's because they don't attack, or have attacked me. I don't know a thing they did to me in harmful reason.

and did I say ok? no. i said somewhere along the lines of 'it's inevitable' i did not say it was ok. i said there were worse choice and had to make one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We are soon coming to 9/11/2002 and I am betting we will get a thread where everybody will share how horrible that was. I am normally tip-toeing around not to offend anybody in WTC discussions, but I can tell you this: I am through with that. I have no obligation to be sensitive towards people who think that mass-murder of civilians is ok as long as they are not Americans. <span id='postcolor'>

you never were.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This thread was not meant to be a critique of Americas bombing, because I never thought that anybody sane could defend it. I wanted to remind us of a horrific event that I hope that we as humans have learned something of and learned not to repeat it. Truly, the result is sad and I am really sorry for you people who are trying to defend the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki <span id='postcolor'>

study about JPN's atrocities during 1900-1950. then see how they act with regards to their past deeds. then think why many Asian countries and US have little respect when it comes to this subject.

Denoir, you are unknowingly helping an Imperial rapist.(by looking only one way)