Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<It saved over ONE MILLION American lives.>> I kind of doubt that. Between 1941 and 1945 the U.S. lost about 400,000 soldiers. It is difficult to imagine that they would lose over twice that many had they invaded Japan. But that is something we will never know. As far as serving as a deterrent, that worked with the USSR. I doubt it will continue to work. We opened Pandora's Box and will not be able to close it again. We have to face the reality that Muslim countries WILL have nuclear force. Pakistan already does.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<"Kooks with Nukes" as Mark Steyn said in his latest article is a formula for the end of the world, which is EXACTLY what Islamic clerics have in mind.>> It's all in the eye of the beholder. There are leaders in many countries, including some of our allies, who think that Bush is an out of control madman. And the fact remains that the U.S. is a far greater potential threat to other countries than they are to us. Iran may get one nuke off and hit Jerusalem, but in response we would wipe them off the map. I'm not completely opposed to nuking Iran. I'm just tired of us STARTING wars like we did in Iraq. Let Iran fire first, and then we go in.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << We have to face the reality that Muslim countries WILL have nuclear force. Pakistan already does >> You sound like the libs back in the cold war who said we have to accept Russia is always going to be there so we may as well get along with them. Lucky for us the best president ever, Ronald Reagan, called the Soviet Union what it was to their face... evil.. and he beat them and knocked them out of business. He rejected the liberal pandering and appeasment that is in their DNA. Man I miss that guy..... Just another example of conservatism working while liberalism is a doomed failure that resluts in death and poverty and misery. We have an option on Iran. That option is.. stop them from having a bomb that will kill millions of people that they have promised to use. Pakistan never threatened to use their bomb and their government is a friend of ours. Not to mention India keeps them in check. But I am dissapointed you are willing to let a madman like the president of Iran and his Mullahs have a nuke that could result in the destruction of Israel or any other country they want to send a radioactive suicide bomber to. It's this head in the sand appeasment RoadTrip that has caused the deaths of MILLIONS. Yet here you are going down that same path even after history shows you in black and white that you are flat our wrong. Bush is a leader that gets it. It's why you voted for him, rememeber? Nothing has changed since the election except the libs being more unhinged and the media cranking up their smear campaign agaisnt the president to get ignorant people to drop his poll ratings. Who should lead the country during war time. Bush / Cheney or Boxer / Kenedy The choice is obvious and you know it.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<I kind of doubt that. Between 1941 and 1945 the U.S. lost about 400,000 soldiers. It is difficult to imagine that they would lose over twice that many had they invaded Japan. But that is something we will never know.>> The libs scream that we have lost 2300 American soldiers in Iraq ( like they really care ), yet you would have been willing to lose hundreds of thousands of AMERICAN soldiers to invade Japan when we could end the war with a massive show of force?? I just watched a show on the History channel about this and they pointed out that if we would have invaded Japan it would have been brutal beyond imagination for our troops. 60 years later Japan is a great friend and they are peacefull plus they have some kick ass Disney parks. Scoreboard again for massive force vs. the liberal sensitive option. Another disconnect from the left.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe You are WRONG Trippy- It is the consensus of historians, both military and non-military that we would have lost ONE MILLION. I've read and studied this stuff since 1965 (over 40 years) and those are the facts. Read some stuff Trippy. Every night the fam, especially Rachel says "Dad not WW11 again" as I watch the history channel, military channel, and on and on. I've read Mein Kampf, Albert Speer, too much for a post. ONE MILLION lives is what we would have lost. If you saw just ONE battle we had with the Japanese in the pacific, you'd understand. No more arguments--ONE MILLION is the consensus of historians.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe TRIPPY--Don't take this personally! I like you and most of your posts, but I know my real estate and I know WW11 a thousand times better than I know real estate.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Beau--Trippy said he'd nuke them (which is maybe even beyond me so our friend should not be labeled as an appeaser! Beau--I like you too, but not every person is a lib or this or that with ONE exception that NO ONE here will argue with -------------CAPE COD JOE is a WACKO! I can't dispute that
Originally Posted By cape cod joe fyi--I just googled japan 1945 with a bombs, etc. and the very first figure was 1,000,000 American lives would have been lost with an invasion. I was just trying to find a simple way to explain this after my decades and dozens of books that I've read studying this stuff. I think this is pithy. Emperor Hirohito was a God in japan The entire civilian population was getting ready to die. IRONIC or what with the terrorist? Statistics have been extrapolated from the battles of Iwo Jima and other battles. At IJ, 110,000 Japanese died, and about 10000 Americans to round it off. With an invasion, TENS OF MILLIONS of Japanese were READY to die not just willing so I personally think one mill is low balling is as did Truman himself. Truman >>>>>>>>>yes Beau, a DEMOCRAT is a great American hero to drop the bombs. Everyone has to do their own R and D on this as I don't have the time to go through all this.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The libs scream that we have lost 2300 American soldiers in Iraq ( like they really care ), yet you would have been willing to lose hundreds of thousands of AMERICAN soldiers to invade Japan when we could end the war with a massive show of force??>> I'm a lot more willing to make the sacrifices necessary when the war is one that we didn't start.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh We didn't start the Iraq War. Saddam did. He invaded Kuwait, and he caused us to remove him because he refused to comply with the cease fire he signed after we kicked him out of Kuwait. He could have honestly dismantled his WMD programs and given up their pursuit, treated his people differently, ended his support of terrorism, and stopped being a threat to his neighbors. But he didn't.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Dropping the 2 bombs on 8/6/45 and 8/9/45 were two of the greatest singular acts done in U.S. military hisory." Ah the old "we had to drop the bomb to save American lives" myth. Actually, research has shown that the Japanese were far more inclined to surrender after the Russians joined the war against them, not because of the nuclear bombs. We firebombed Tokyo and killed nearly 100,000 people in one evening of bombing, long before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even after both bombs were dropped, the council at Tokyo remained deadlocked, unable to decide if they should surrender. No doubt the bombs played a role, but plenty of other factors were at play. As for the 1,000,000 men, that's just pure guesswork and completely unsubstantiated. In fact, with the entry of the Russians, had the bomb not been dropped, the casualties would have been significantly lower.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe ec--and the world in flat the curves are a myth begun by Magellan You substantiated me by stating that they WOULDN'T surrender after the firestorms (you are correct on that). Let's just rewrite history All my studying and hanging out with vets in the 60's was for nothing? Ec--One of the reasons the bombs were dropped was exactly because of the Russsians so we could control the geopolitical theater in post WW11 Japan. I took an entire course on that ONE subject at U Dayton from a Prof (Albert Rose) who wrote the book for our course study. On topic----George, it seems, is just keeping his options open. I hope?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Let Iran fire first, and then we go in.> That's a dangerous policy if the first thing they have to fire is a nuclear weapon.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe I think surgical air strikes to take out the nuke plants in progress is a palatable compromise and I think that could be George's strategy i.e. to scare the world with his bellicose tone and then to back off and just do the minimum. It worked before so I think it can work again. Iran is actually playing into our hands with their defiance and is creating some global backing for George's possible strategy.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<One of the reasons the bombs were dropped was exactly because of the Russsians so we could control the geopolitical theater in post WW11 Japan.>> So why did we decide to make the USSR our enemy instead of continuing to be allies? I haven't studied that period of history and would truly like to know. It would seem that both countries would have been far better off if they didn't have to invest billions in an arms race.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So why did we decide to make the USSR our enemy instead of continuing to be allies?> We didn't decide to make the USSR our enemy. Their ideology made them that.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<We didn't decide to make the USSR our enemy. Their ideology made them that.>> Did it have to be that way though? We've learned to co-exist with China; why couldn't we have done the same with the USSR? I know... coulda, shoulda, woulda are useless discussions.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Did it have to be that way though?> No. The USSR didn't have to blockade Berlin. They didn't have to build an "Iron Curtain" around eastern European countries, and force them to live under communist rule. They didn't have to starve millions of people to death, and force them to work in Siberian Gulags. They didn't have to roll tanks into Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968. On the other hand, we didn't have to stand up to their aggression. We could have let them bring more and more countries under their dominion, until most of the world was united under their tyranny. I don't think that would have been the wise thing to do.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe I had a post all written and ready to send but you took the words right out of my mouth Douglas
