My comment is about what Gen. Wagner and Gen. Pace said about Murtha’s statments damaging morale.

Sure it does, however if you are honestly convinced that the US troops should never have set foot in Iraq in the first place. Like I am. What else are you supposed to say ?

“ I think its a boggus war, fought for stupid and entirely wrong reasons and which case for was manufactured by the CIA like a low budged movie BUT I want to support the troops and their family so HOO-AH boys ! We’ll stay till the job is done ! Dîe terrorist, DIE !”

Common, there is nothing you can do about it, if you think it’s bullshit, like so many million people do, you are goning to have to say it even if it damages morale.

Bull.  Absolute Bull Swiss Boy.

What you say is “I support the troops.” End of sentence.  End of paragraph, end of verbal thought.  That is what you say.  Am I trying to silence your opinion, no.  You are free to sound like Moore, you are free to sound like Murtha.  You don’t have to say I support the war.  You don’t have to say you don’t support the war.  You say, “
I support the troops.” What is so hard about that?

If you don’t want to sound like you are adding morale to the enemy then why sound that way?  This is always where I want to scream at the person on TV who says “I support the troops… but they are dying in a useless war for oil from the imperialistic Bushitler.” Every thing you put after the ... cancels out the things you put before them.  Saying the terrorists are in their right minds and don’t deserve to die breaks a unified front that is necessary to help show we support our troops.  Not we support our troops just not what they do.  Or we support our troops just not really.

See I know you want to voice your opinion.  Good, that is your right.  Just don’t be surprised that if you sound like a person who doesn’t back the troops to be called out on it.

Oh and “that wasn’t a question, that was a comment.  On to the next question.” Should have been followed by the largest chorus of “Booooooos” ever.  That should qualify for biggest cop out ever.

"Common, there is nothing you can do about it, if you think it’s bullshit, like so many million people do, you are goning to have to say it even if it damages morale.”

You might have a different opinion about morale if you knew anything about the military and lived in a country that actually had to defend itself instead of spending its time guarding gold repositories, ensuring those fancy striped uniforms looked good for the Pope and keeping those secret bank account funds for deposed dictators and mafia capos.  Yea, I can see from your attitude what led to those back door deals with Hitler for transporting arms and materiel down to Italy—I bet that was a big morale builder back then.

Sweden let hitler pass too,and gaved them iron to make tiger tanks which was the tank who was nr 1 to american/english/russian tanks.
Should i be ashamed for that?!
What that america never helped or cared for finland when russia invaded them?
Why attack a full army?
Who hasn’t done anything to us.
Same with england to ofc,none would really fight russia/germany to either side has lost,which usa did,i mean coming into ww2 1944,when the war started 1939 and as many saw and consider today was really over 1942 at stalingrad.

I got swedish/italian reletives,allthough im blonde so i dont consider my italian,but atleast my reletives went to finland voulentering to fight of the russian,finlands army and around 10.000 swedish willingly soldiers went to finland to fight off the russian army which they did.
The diffrence between usa and swedish people under ww2,was we acted against our gov cause we wanted to help,usa cause the war was over and their gov forced them.

Ofc you can say,it was a european war.
Which i think is a good explaination to usa not getting involved when it really mattered.

And if you havn’t got it yet,usa was allied with stalin who took eastern europe,and stole land from people including poland/finland,good ally england/usa…

oh btw,im for the iraq war,its embarssing that we have dictators at 2000...UN wake up plz? wtf is wrong with you…
Saddam had lied before about having weapons that UN then found,ofc then saddam never let them expect him again untill he got months to hide his stuff if he had or destroy.

Quez, did you ever have a history class?

Sweden let hitler pass too,and gaved them iron to make tiger tanks which was the tank who was nr 1 to american/english/russian tanks.

Everybody knows the Russian T-34 was the best tank in the war.

Same with england to ofc,none would really fight russia/germany to either side has lost,which usa did,i mean coming into ww2 1944,when the war started 1939 and as many saw and consider today was really over 1942 at stalingrad.

The USA officially entered the war in December of 1941.

The diffrence between usa and swedish people under ww2,was we acted against our gov cause we wanted to help,usa cause the war was over and their gov forced them.

The USA did begin a draft in 1940, but tons and tons of men enlisted because they wanted to.  Many even lied about their age to enlist.

Ofc you can say,it was a european war.
Which i think is a good explaination to usa not getting involved when it really mattered.

After World War I, the last thing the majority of the American public wanted to get involved in was another war thousands of miles away in which American soldiers would be killed. 

And if you havn’t got it yet,usa was allied with stalin who took eastern europe,and stole land from people including poland/finland,good ally england/usa…

Yes, the US was allied with Stalin in a limited sense.  They were only allied to defeat a common enemy, which everybody can agree was ruthless in the Nazis.  It was the lesser of 2 evils at the time.

Every country does things, which later on could be considered a bad idea. Your beloved Sweden was not so innocent in the past.  I’m sure you learned about the 30 years’ War where Swedes, among other Catholic peoples killed many German Protestants because the Protestants wanted religious freedom.  Entering a war against someone because they wanted freedom to worship how they choose?  Hardly a noble cause.

oh btw,im for the iraq war,its embarssing that we have dictators at 2000...UN wake up plz? wtf is wrong with you… Saddam had lied before about having weapons that UN then found,ofc then saddam never let them expect him again untill he got months to hide his stuff if he had or destroy.

I couldn’t agree with you more.  Every intelligence agency in the world agreed Saddam had WMD’s, including Syria, Egypt, and Israel.  Not that WMD’s were the only reason for the war.  Everybody seems to forget that the First Gulf War was ended on a cease-fire, which Saddam has consistently violated.  The UN Security Council loves to give ultimatums, but when the nations on the Council are getting oil and money from Saddam in exchange for weapons and such (France, Russia, Germany), they don’t act on these ultimatums and the US has to step in to make it right.  Anyone who says it is an “illegal war” has their head up their ass.

Back to the main point,
I saw the video of those 2 vets laying verbal smack-downs and it was beautiful.  Why is it things like this never ever make it on CBS, CNN, NBC, or PBS news programs?

Ahum…
First of all, the T tank which was remodeld many times may be the nr1 tank.

But anyway...about history class...have you taken one?

Because we swedish people was protestants after Kung karl gustav vasa saved us from the danish after “stockholms blodbad"… he wanted to control and unit sweden so he made the country into protestanism to not have the problem with church interfering in his rule.
Btw he is on our money and is as George washington to us…
Anyway he putted in protestanism into sweden and his grandsonsonsonsonsdaughterson “Gustav II Adolf” in the 30’ war was protestant.
I dont know how you could think we was catholic...we had finland and wanted balticum,that german had control of aka holy roman empire.
Therefor we also joined the battle,to expand our borders and fight for the other people in protestantism.
So you’re all wrong there,we was no cathloic people havne been that for over 100 years at that time.
However a lot of things in that war and later with karl den 12 was wrong doing from our swedish soldiers,as pillage and well executions/slaughters by our soldiers on cilvians,however karl den 12 for ex executued and choped of hands on those people he got caught doing that,and still people in germany told their children eat that oath or the swedish soldier will take you up to 19 centuary,so yes a lot of horrible things happend that i dont wanna discuss.

Anyway back to ww2 yes i know you “joined” the war in 1941 7 december after pearl harbor,and btw that movie was just great :P
Attack the factory and military only!!!
And years later usa dropped 2 nukes on just civilians wtf?!
What did that movie wanted to say?
Anyway i dont consider that as doing anything in ww2,its not like Germany/itlay gained anything by japans crazy attacks or rather being allied with them,expect that they could get some attention from them.

Anyway,i still consider Stalin to be the worse scumbag in ww2,however that is probably for what he tried to do with our family and country.
And that our reletvies had to defeat his army in finland when they was actually swedish.
But as you probably know...you taking history classes and all..we been a nation for 100’s of year,and many in finland/sweden consider them Swedish/finnish people.
And learn both language.
In fact the most imigrants to sweden as a class is finish people.,

harbor,and btw that movie was just great
Attack the factory and military only!!!
And years later usa dropped 2 nukes on just civilians wtf?!
What did that movie wanted to say?

Ignorant fuck.  One city was the location of a large amount of the army.  The other was a naval headquarters.  We also told the civilians to evacuate, but the japanese military wouldn’t allow people to leave those cities.  Go look at what Japan did to chinese civilians and the filipino’s before you start that utter crap again.

No usa dropped it because off… $2 billion investment in the Manhattan Project, testing the effects of nuclear weapons, exacting revenge for the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and demonstrating U.S. capabilities to the Soviet Union.
And for being assholes at the time.
Look at what happend,you sick bastard by the nukes.
Anyone defending the nuking to make japan lose the fighting will must be a fucking retard irl.
It would basically be like dropping 2 nukes in new york for what you did in North vietnam.

"If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth.” On August 8, 1945, leaflets were dropped and warnings were given to Japan by Radio Saipan. (The area of Nagasaki did not receive warning leaflets until August 10

2 days late,and btw where was the people gonna go?
You saw what happend when the flooding hitted louisanna,enough said.
rain of ruin? What is that btw?!
Oh did you know that the radioactive toxic left behind last 300 years which cause cancer?
What a great move by the USA.
I mean,they can never go home for 300 years,basically 100 years more then you been a country but thats just fine?
If you dont accept our terms we gonna slaughter the civilians,sounds very much like...ahum nvm...this is just bizzare. :S

You know more Swedish history than I.  I know more about American history.  My 30 years’ war statement was somewhat wrong, but the point still stands.  Every nation does things it later regrets.  I tend to think what we did to the Native Americans was horrible, but I would never regret our involvement and actions in World War 2.  Much as I wouldn’t regret our military takin out Saddam’s regime.

Stalin was a scumbag, I agree.  But what was our alternative?  Fight Hitler and Stalin and Japan at the same time? 

Civilians died because of the nukes. Yes, this is true.  However, it ended a long, terrible war and probably saved more lives than it ended. 

Back to the point of the post: Quez, what did you think of the videos?  I am also curious, how does the media in Sweden report on the Iraq war?

2 days late,and btw where was the people gonna go?
You saw what happend when the flooding hitted louisanna,enough said.
rain of ruin? What is that btw?!

World War 2 Japan and 2005 Louisiana, not even remotely comparable.  I am willing to bet you heard all the initial violence, murder, rape, and mayhem reports but you never heard the reports that were recently released saying most of what was initially reported was bullshit.

“rain of ruin” sounds like good old psychological operations where you try to scare the shit out of the enemy.

I am also willing to bet you never heard about how Mississippi was hit harder and actually had less problems, because the state and local governments were actually competent.

In America, state and local governments respond to disasters, the feds can only be called in at the request of the state governor.

I dont see USA as the bad guys in ww2,dont get me wrong.
However i know USA and the allies could have thought of another way then to nuke…
I mean japan was already done,it would be as nuking berlin before russians attacked the city.

Actually my mom got foxnews(TV8)and i saw that.
She sometimes stay up to 03.00 to see bill oreilly,however she is a dead hard liberal who pay for her cable tv to be able to see foxnews sometimes late at night.
Even though her uncle was a social “landshövding” for stocholm,its basically mayor,and he was it for stockholm,and was in the social parties at the 80’s which they lost later to liberals which my mom was in,but not in the gov.
And she also made me into a MM hater :O

ABout the reporting its been fair and balance,they doesnt talk about Bush lied or whatever the democratcs and left wing media portrait.
Instead they talk about whats happening in iraq at the moment.
They often explained and told us how horrible Saddam was.
I think its because the people has seen and realised that the oil hunting or “operation iraqish liberation"=oil never happend,which many anti-american people was sure of would come.

As i said before i say it again,Saddam was a asshole and UN should have dealt with him before,but they never did.
Thank god usa did it,however if you think a free iraq is worth 2000+ american soldiers life thats up to you in USA and the gov,but thats very noble to do that sacrifice for a muslim country who have very wrong ideas about america.

What im glad is that Swedish media never shown Cindy sheehan so far,i mean a women calling the terrorist for freedom fighters has to be sick.
I heard david letterman saying “well if you never lost your child you cant speak about her feelings/thoughts” or whatever he said,well fine but if my mom,said those who killed me and my comrades in war for freedom fighters who knows that if democraty comes to iraq those people will be in jail or consider lunatic and have no power and will have to leave the country if she thinks thats okay,i would have changed my last name…

I watch Fox News myself, but they were just as bad as the other news channels were in regards to hyping everything in the first few days. 

It seems like you get a clearer picture of the Iraq War then we do here.  Too bad there are American idiots who fly to Europe to spread this garbage (MM suddenly comes to mind) about Bush lied for oil, etc.  slight aside here :I have actually come to believe that my political beliefs are more important to me than the music I listen to (heavy metal) and the movies I watch.  With so many of these idiots musicians and actors talking shit, I don’t buy new albums or DVD’s anymore.  The only thing these idiot entertainers understand is money, which is why I will never pay to see F 9/11.

I was in southeastern Germany last summer and talked to several people who hated Bush because he “invaded Iraq illegally against the will of the UN”.  They never said they thought this because of MM or his crap (read movies and books), but almost everything I heard sounded like it came straight from F 9/11. 

O’Reilly is often mistaken as providing news, when in fact he provides opinion and analysis.  Sometimes I agree with him, but after the Letterman ordeal I have a bit more respect for O’R and no respect for Letterman anymore.  If you want to debate something, at least know what the hell you are talking about instead of cracking a few stupid jokes.

In relation to the original subject of this post: I don’t know if anybody else saw this AP article, but General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Mooretha’s comments hurt recruiting and troop morale.  I don’t know about everybody else, but I would listen to a current General over some military guy who last saw service decades ago
Source

What i dislike about media is that,for ex in my gymnasium like your college 95% was for iraq war,and 5& against,and ofc those was later filmed in the protest in stockholm…
And no,i’m sorry but i wont go with a sign saying im for bush. :P

Its funny when does germans talk about UN…
How about our UN rules for people in the world?
Saddam went against every one of them.
Also about having weapons which he wasn’t allowed.

And btw german people will do whatever it takes to make any nation look horrible after ww2,you havn’t got that yet?! >_<

When we had a riot in göteborg 20% of all was germans who flew to GBG just to throw stones at our polices dogs and smashing our windows at every store...thx germany.

Not does..."those" german talks about UN

We also told the civilians to evacuate, but the japanese military wouldn’t allow people to leave those cities.  Go look at what Japan did to chinese civilians and the filipino’s before you start that utter crap again.

Not to mention that a great majority of the Japanese civilian population were conscripted by their government to produce small arms & other assorted war implements in their own homes.  LeMay knew this well...and he was hardly one of provide quarter for the enemy (particularly at that stage in the war).  As far as he was concerned, they were enemy combatants.

Anyone defending the nuking to make japan lose the fighting will must be a fucking retard irl.

Then call me a fucking retard.  It’s so easy for you to pass judgement now....from the comfort of your own home; half a century and half a world away from the reality of the events of 1945.  We all know the difficult choice the US was faced with: stage a mainland invasion, or drop the bomb.  Dropping the bomb saved the lives of countless US servicemen who would’ve undoubtedly perished had we invaded.  At that point, we wanted nothing more than an end to yet another goddamned world war that we didn’t start and we didn’t want.

Back on topic:

Those videos were awesome.  You could tell that M&M;were caught completely off guard by those comments.  The righteous contempt and anger in the voices of the Sgt. and the Gen. were really a sight to behold.  God bless ‘em.

Oh and “that wasn’t a question, that was a comment.  On to the next question.” Should have been followed by the largest chorus of “Booooooos” ever.

I was thinking the same thing, bluesambas.  If a conservative/Republican politician gave a similar reply to someone challenging them, it’d probably be page one news.

japanese army was destroyed,sending 2 nukes to end a war earlier is just fucked up.
They had no airplanes/ships,how was they supposed to maintain their so called empire?
Dropping those nukes was one of the dumbest thing in history.

japanese army was destroyed,sending 2 nukes to end a war earlier is just fucked up

The Japanese navy and air force were neutered, but they were still capable and willing of staging a all-costs defense of the mainland.  Had we invaded, an equal or possibly greater number of Japanese would’ve been killed as were with the dropping of the A-bombs.

They had no airplanes/ships,how was they supposed to maintain their so called empire?

What the hell does ‘maintaining their empire’ to have do with getting them to surrender?  Do you honestly think that the Japanese would’ve just handed over their mainland and surrendered without a fight, merely because they had lost most of their empire by 1945???

To clarify my statement above:

The Japanese navy and air force were neutered, but they were still capable and willing of staging a all-costs defense of the mainland using their army and their civilian population.

japanese army was destroyed,sending 2 nukes to end a war earlier is just fucked up.
They had no airplanes/ships,how was they supposed to maintain their so called empire?
Dropping those nukes was one of the dumbest thing in history.

You realize that the entire Island of Japan was not taken.  And Japan was not going to surrender without a mainland invasion, where pretty much the entire population was ready to fight and die for their emperor.  We also killed a lot more civilians with the constant bombing of Tokyo than we did with the nukes.  And despite all your statements about reasons we dropped the bombs, it doesn’t change the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets.  And by the fact of our using them it meant the soviets wouldn’t need to or decide to assist in a mainland invasion of japan.  You know the Soviet army right?  The army the Nazi’s ran away from so they could surrender to American and British troops so they might actually have a chance to live.

The dropping of Fat Man and Little Boy prevented more deaths than it caused.  If you don’t realize that then you are a fucking retard and I’m glad you’ll never be in a policy making decision, because you wouldn’t have the balls to make the tough call.

japanese army was destroyed,sending 2 nukes to end a war earlier is just fucked up.
They had no airplanes/ships,how was they supposed to maintain their so called empire?
Dropping those nukes was one of the dumbest thing in history.

Wrong, high school boy.  The Japanese Army was largely intact as witnessed by the repatriation of huge numbers of armed soldiers from China, Formosa and other parts of Southeast Asia after the end of hostilities.  The Japanese had more soldiers under arms in the area than all of the western powers combined.  Ask the Chinese how well they were maintaining large areas of their empire up to the end.

I find saving anywhere from 250,000 to 1 million American casualties and double to triple that in Japanese casualties a smart choice and not one of the “dumbest thing[s] in history.” But then I´ve actually seriously studied the situation and not just based my opinions on a couple of pages out of a gymnasium school book.

You wasn’t saving 250.000-1 million americans lives.
Japanese empire was over,get it,over.
The only reason why they tighten their defense was to mayby get a truce that worked for them,instead of what they got after the nukes.
It was all about revenge and try out their 2 billion investment into manhattan project get it.
JAPAN WAS NO THREAT TO USA IN 1945 OR THE REST OF THE WORLD,READ A HISTORY BOOK IF YOU DONT BELIVE ME.
Feel free to tell me about all their ships/airplanes or their trops in other countries or in their own home country cause there was none,you talking about some soldiers in a town,what a great idea to nuke it then,i wonder what happend to the civilians…
Saying that you saved people with nuking is just BS.
You could have saved iraq by blowing baghdad ever thought about that?
Cause their own leader who was dictator,much as the japanese king was,had invaded other countries,and used biological stuff on people they took.
But you dont use that argument today do you?
Or at the gulf war,cause i did not see any nuke at the time,when saddam putted mustard gas on innocent people and executed kuwait people,and when he tried to take iran/kuwait,saudiarabia,why did you guys not nuke their homw town?
Cause UN was established,and the rest of the world never wants to see such a dumb misstake ever done again as nuking people.

And btw,when dropping a nuke you make sure people will get cancer there and babies will die for over 300 years.
I wondered what those japanese people had to do with ww2,that is born today and 240 more years…
You wasn’t just hurting the people that lived that day,but none of you here get that.
Radioactive toxic…

And btw,when dropping a nuke you make sure people will get cancer there and babies will die for over 300 years.

That would be a good point if it were true, but again you use the standard leftist emotional appeal despite it being factually wrong.

According to Hiroshima International School and the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, you are 100% wrong. I quote:
“Question 11. Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki still radioactive?
No................In both cases, the residual radioactivity is far less than the dose received from background radiation; hence, there are no detectable effects on human health.”
Source 1
Source 2

Saying that you saved people with nuking is just BS.

It ended the war, which certainly saved many more lives. With no nukes, who knows how long the Japanese would have gone on fighting.  Get it?

READ A HISTORY BOOK IF YOU DONT BELIVE ME.

That’s hilarious coming from a little high school boy who makes the completely erroneous statements and conclusions that you have.  Did you know that arguments have no weight when their premise is not based on facts?  You should trying letting facts form your opinion instead of making facts up to fit your opinion.

In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army had around 5 million men on active duty.  The Japanese Defense Army had approximately 2 million men.  Civilians (men, women and children) were being armed and trained.  Have you ever seen the plans for the defense of Japan?  Of course not, or you wouldn´t have made such imbecilic statements.

The only reason why they tighten their defense was to mayby get a truce that worked for them,instead of what they got after the nukes.
It was all about revenge and try out their 2 billion investment into manhattan project get it.

This was my favorite—one of the most ignorant and idiotic things I´ve seen in a while.  You obviously have no clue about the state of affairs in Japan at the end of the war.  There could have been no truce because unconditional surrender was unacceptable to the Japanese—they had shown from day one of the war that they would fight to the death and not surrender.  As for the “investment,” the US didn’t have try it out because they had already done that in New Mexico.

What’s really going on here is that you have no clue about what you are talking about.  Get it?

I really do not want to get drawn into a silly off-topic debate but I thought I would just mention that there seem to be a lot of historians recently who have come to belive that it was less to do with the use of nuclear weapons and more to do with the Russians declaring war on them that caused the Japanese to surrender when they did.

Of course it’s the winners who write the history books so it is quite understandable that from a US point of view it was the bomb which did the trick. Undoubtably it contributed but it appears less cut & dried than many people believe… Fire bombing of (the mostly wooden) Japanese cities was absolutely devastating to almost the same extent so why did this not get the same effect?

but I thought I would just mention that there seem to be a lot of historians recently who have come to belive that it was less to do with the use of nuclear weapons and more to do with the Russians declaring war on them that caused the Japanese to surrender when they did.

And of course these historians wouldn’t have an objective of rewriting history so they can go “SEE AMERICA IS EVIL!  They didn’t need to drop the bombs to end the war.” Afterall they wouldn’t attempt to rewrite history would they?

I said mine,i would just repreat what i said,if you think japan against the whole world with no fleet/airship was a threat,and you could not leave them alone while just having their country then thats your thought,if you think it was a okay to nuke them for pearl harbor then its up to you.
And btw,yeah there is no source about what the radioactive toxic did or do today,no no.
thousands of villagers and their children have died from cancer,including rare forms of tongue and eye cancer, as a result of exposure to radiation.
Those who was alive who got,burn damage etc,and got children and grandchildren passes on the genes which has a higher amount of chance to become cancer then on a normal person.

Still i got no answere why you guys did not nuke IRAQ in the gulf war.
Untill then i still belive in what i said about why you nuked japan.

Alright quez, this is my fun for the day.

I am currently a history teacher in the United States, North Carolina to be specific.  I was educated at one of the US’s better teaching schools.  I teach history and civics.  I have a bachelors in Social Studies Educations with minors in history and political science.  I studied under three completely different trains of thought on WWII, all of which have been discussed on this thread. I know the history books because I teach and review them.  I know the history because I paid alot of money to learn it.  I can tell you that there are several of your comments that are just wrong.  And on top of that most of your other comments about WWII do not look at history from the correct perspective.
The important part about learning history is learning it from the perspective of the time.  Applying today’s standards to decisions made in 1942 is not only wrong it can be quite silly.

The only reason why they tighten their defense was to mayby get a truce that worked for them,instead of what they got after the nukes. ....
JAPAN WAS NO THREAT TO USA IN 1945 OR THE REST OF THE WORLD,READ A HISTORY BOOK IF YOU DONT BELIVE ME.

The world at the time did not want a truce.  It did not want the possiblity of dealing with the problem of unchecked totalitarian states again for quite some time.  The only option left for Japan and Germany was unconditional surrender.  Neither of the world’s superpowers were going to accept a truce.  Japan’s military / society was set up to not surrender or agree to a truce.  It has changed quite a bit since the time. So it didn’t matter if Japan wasn’t a threat at the current time (which they were to their area of the world) what mattered the most was they had been a huge threat earlier.  It also mattered that they would defend their homeland until their death.  Which they did.

See quez you keep applying today’s standards to yesterday’s decisions.  That is like you saying you wouldn’t have killed Jesus of Nazereth.  How do you know, were you there?  No; and applying today’s religion to what was a relativily small religious cult at the time is not historically correct.  Please do not compare our decisions today (Iraq) to previous and not comparable situations of the past(Japan).  When you do that you not only show your lack of understanding of American History, but also your basic lack of understanding of the study of history in general.

It was all about revenge and try out their 2 billion investment into manhattan project get it.
JAPAN WAS NO THREAT TO USA IN 1945 OR THE REST OF THE WORLD,READ A HISTORY BOOK IF YOU DONT BELIVE ME.

It’s interesting how some folks rewrite history just to discredit the U.S. 

Quez, BOTH Germany and Japan were given one option . . . unconditional surrender.  They started the war.  Now what sane country is going to negotiate a peace with the leaders of Germany and Japan after they caused the death of 80 million people?  The goal was to remove the despots in power and occupy those countries to ensure they would not rebuild their military.  To that end, there could be no compromise.

Isn’t it funny that both of those countries have limited military capabilities even to this very day?  Why do you think that is?  Quez, WWII was fought because Germany rebuilt its military after WWI.  That’s not what they agreed to at Versailles.  Now, why don’t you explain to us how Germany wasn’t a threat to the world after WWI. Fact is, you can’t.  And you cannot say Japan wasn’t a potential threat either.  If we had left that government in tact, it is likely we would have had to face them again sooner or later.

While the Japanese Navy was all but destroyed, they still had limited air power.  And mainland Japan still had a considerable defensive capability with a standing army of over 50 divisions and nearly 2 million men.

In case you didn’t know it, U.S. Marines attacked Japan. They first landed on Japanese soil in February of ‘45 and fought for 45 days to secure a mere 8 square miles.  For the Marines it was the bloodiest battle they ever experienced. We lost almost 7,000 Marines on Iwo Jima, with over 20,000 wounded.  During the entire War in the Pacific only 22,000 Marines were killed. 

And the closer we got to the mainland the bloodier it got. At Okinawa we lost 19,000 killed and 38,000 wounded, and over 750 of our planes were shot down.  How would you explain to those brave Americans who died during these two battles that the Japanese were not still a threat?

It took almost 3 months to capture Okinawa.  During that time 76,000+ Japanese soldiers lost their lives.  So did 27,000 Japanese Militia.  And I want you to pay close attention to this next fact, quez, because it’s you who needs to understand how devastating an invasion of Japan would have been:  Over 150,000 Japanese civilians lost their lives at Okinawa.  That’s far more than either atomic weapon killed on the mainland.

Are you aware that the last Japanese soldier from WWII didn’t surrender until 1972?  Do you not understand just how tenacious the Japanese were? On Iwo Jima 21,800 Japanese soldiers were killed.  Only a handful surrendered.  On Okinawa they lost 103,000 men.  Only 4,000 were captured.  Maybe the rest of the world didn’t notice, but the Japanese fought to the death.  Island after island after island in the Pacific they proved surrender was not an option they were willing to take.  They proved that again on their own soil at Okinawa and Iwo Jima.

If the Japanese were willing to lose over 275,000 people (150,000 civilians included) during these two battles, just how many do you think they would have been willing to lose during a mainland invasion?  Better yet, just how many more Americans needed to be sacrificed to get Japan to surrender?

Here’s the news, quez.  After the Battle of Okinawa which ended on June 21, 1945, we did not engage the Japanese in any more major conventional operations.  We dropped 1 bomb on 1 city and they did not surrender.  Get it?  On August 7, 1945 the Japanese government was still willing to sacrifice their citizens in a futile attempt to negotiate their way out of the war . . . and still remain in power. That simply was not acceptable. 

We dropped another bomb and only then did they surrender.  All total the Japanese lost about the same number of civilians by atomic weapons as they did on Okinawa by conventional weapons.

Only a fool would think an invasion of mainland Japan wouldn’t lead to millions of dead Japanese.  Plainly put, the Japanese were damn lucky we didn’t invade.  More importantly, we did not lose any more American soldiers.

Perhaps you might be interested to know just how many civilians were killed in countries that were invaded during WWII.  Germany lost 2 million.  Poland lost 2.5 million.  Yugoslavia lost 1.3 million.  Russia lost 19 million.  China lost 9 million.  Every one of those countries was invaded by air and ground forces.

Well, it seems Japan got off pretty damn light . . . they lost about 350,000 civilians total.  Are you getting the picture here?  Had we invaded the mainland, millions would have died.

This may come as a shock to you, quez, but it’s the responsibility of the American Government to protect Americans.  That’s why our government was formed.  It was not formed to protect the population of nations who engage in unwarranted attacks on our citizens. Whether you accept it or not, the American government did its job under extremely trying circumstances.

You folks in Europe can keep on re-writing history, but it will be Europe who once again pays the price for not understanding certain realities.  It happened twice in the last century.  It was Europe who said WWI was the war to end all wars.  It seems foresight has never been one of Europe’s endearing traits, has it?

And that bullshit about revenge is just that.  Revenge knows no limits.  When Japan surrendered we didn’t seek revenge.  We sought to establish a Japanese government that could be a part of a peaceful world.  Just look at Japan today.  Why our intent is not obvious to you isn’t a mystery to me . . . you’ve been reading propaganda and not history. 

Think about it quez.  Why is Japan what it is today?  If all we had wanted in 1945 was revenge, Japan would be a third world nation . . . that is, if it still existed.  Use your head.  You don’t pump billions of dollars into rebuilding a country you just defeated because you want revenge, and you certainly don’t want to increase the cost of rebuilding after a war by destroying more than you have to.

You need to rethink what you posted.  You aren’t making sense.