Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Lincoln was racist

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 12:04:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"True to its billing, there is hardly a page in Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream (Johnson Publishing Co.; 652 pages; $35) that won't rile Lincoln's defenders. To start with, says Bennett, Lincoln was a crude bigot who habitually used the N word and had an unquenchable thirst for blackface-minstrel shows and demeaning 'darky' jokes. He supported the noxious pre-Civil War 'Black Laws,' which stripped African Americans of their basic rights in his native Illinois, as well as the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled the return to their masters of those who had escaped to free soil in the North. But Bennett's main theme is that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was only 'a ploy' designed to keep as many slaves in bondage as possible until Lincoln could build support for his plan for ending slavery: 'colonization,' a preposterous scheme to ship the black population either to Africa or South America. His fondest dream, Bennett writes, was of a 'lily-white America without Native Americans, African Americans and Martin Luther Kings.'"

Read more: http://www.time.com...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 2:41:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wow, I thought you loved Lincoln. I wish I could tally up the posts you've made condemning Lincoln or the north and then compare that number to the amount of posts you've made condemning the antebellum south or slavery. It would probably be like 30 to 0. I don't really feel like arguing right now since I have way too much work, but this thread has inspired me to consider making a thread detailing American war crimes in WWII. Would you object to such a thread?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:03:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 2:41:01 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Wow, I thought you loved Lincoln. I wish I could tally up the posts you've made condemning Lincoln or the north and then compare that number to the amount of posts you've made condemning the antebellum south or slavery. It would probably be like 30 to 0. I don't really feel like arguing right now since I have way too much work, but this thread has inspired me to consider making a thread detailing American war crimes in WWII. Would you object to such a thread?

What would be wrong with making a thread about American war crimes in WWII?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:06:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:03:20 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/16/2012 2:41:01 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Wow, I thought you loved Lincoln. I wish I could tally up the posts you've made condemning Lincoln or the north and then compare that number to the amount of posts you've made condemning the antebellum south or slavery. It would probably be like 30 to 0. I don't really feel like arguing right now since I have way too much work, but this thread has inspired me to consider making a thread detailing American war crimes in WWII. Would you object to such a thread?

What would be wrong with making a thread about American war crimes in WWII?

A better example would be if I made like 3 of those threads. We have an obligation to present history in an objective manner that does not flaunt the faults of one side to the neglect of the other, especially if we consider the ends aspired to.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:08:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 2:41:01 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't really feel like arguing right now since I have way too much work, but this thread has inspired me to consider making a thread detailing American war crimes in WWII. Would you object to such a thread?

I've made threads about the Allies War Crimes. The destruction of Dresden, the fire bombings and atomic bombings of civilians in Japan, etc.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:11:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:08:05 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/16/2012 2:41:01 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't really feel like arguing right now since I have way too much work, but this thread has inspired me to consider making a thread detailing American war crimes in WWII. Would you object to such a thread?

I've made threads about the Allies War Crimes. The destruction of Dresden, the fire bombings and atomic bombings of civilians in Japan, etc.

atomic bomb was targeting the factories, which were part of the war machine.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:17:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:11:26 PM, DanT wrote:
atomic bomb was targeting the factories, which were part of the war machine.

"Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the U.S. Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage."90 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn't like the idea of killing "all those kids."91 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids.

Moreover, the notion that Hiroshima was a major military or industrial center is implausible on the face of it. The city had remained untouched through years of devastating air attacks on the Japanese home islands, and never figured in Bomber Command's list of the 33 primary targets."

http://www.lewrockwell.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:23:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:08:05 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/16/2012 2:41:01 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't really feel like arguing right now since I have way too much work, but this thread has inspired me to consider making a thread detailing American war crimes in WWII. Would you object to such a thread?

I've made threads about the Allies War Crimes. The destruction of Dresden, the fire bombings and atomic bombings of civilians in Japan, etc.

Great? The allies certainly committed war crimes, but to neglect mention of the far greater Nazi war crimes is doing a great disservice to the reader.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:24:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:23:00 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Great? The allies certainly committed war crimes, but to neglect mention of the far greater Nazi war crimes is doing a great disservice to the reader.

All you ever hear about is Nazi war crimes. No one ever has the balls to talk about the Allies war crimes.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:30:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:24:40 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:23:00 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Great? The allies certainly committed war crimes, but to neglect mention of the far greater Nazi war crimes is doing a great disservice to the reader.

All you ever hear about is Nazi war crimes. No one ever has the balls to talk about the Allies war crimes.

Also were there really that many more war crimes on the axis side? The holocaust comes to mind but after that is there much more worse than nuking two cities?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:31:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:17:21 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:11:26 PM, DanT wrote:
atomic bomb was targeting the factories, which were part of the war machine.

"Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the U.S. Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.

A.) The attack on Pearl Harbor was a War crime; it was a sneak attack, under the guise of peace.
B.) You just said "Hiroshima...contained military elements"

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage."90 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn't like the idea of killing "all those kids."91 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids.

He was hesitant in dropping the 1st too as well. The only reason a 3rd bomb was not dropped, was because the Japanese surrendered.

Moreover, the notion that Hiroshima was a major military or industrial center is implausible on the face of it. The city had remained untouched through years of devastating air attacks on the Japanese home islands, and never figured in Bomber Command's list of the 33 primary targets." Hiroshima was part of the war machine; even though the bombs did not destroy the majority of the factories, as expected, it still was a viable target, and prevented further use of the factories.

http://www.lewrockwell.com...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:38:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Back on topic. Lincoln was racist, and the only reason I keep posting anti-Lincoln threads is because I hate historical revisionism.

FDR was a horrible man, who in the name of winning WWII committed many atrocities against US citizens. Yet historical revisionism changes the light FDR was painted in, and even when some of those atrocities are recognized, the people recognizing it commits historical revisionism to leave out key facts.

Lincoln was a racist, and a Nationalist, who oppressed the North. Yet historical revisionism paints him as a hero.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:39:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:38:29 PM, DanT wrote:
Back on topic. Lincoln was racist, and the only reason I keep posting anti-Lincoln threads is because I hate historical revisionism.

FDR was a horrible man, who in the name of winning WWII committed many atrocities against US citizens. Yet historical revisionism changes the light FDR was painted in, and even when some of those atrocities are recognized, the people recognizing it commits historical revisionism to leave out key facts.

Lincoln was a racist, and a Nationalist, who oppressed the North. Yet historical revisionism paints him as a hero.

Is it not historical revisionism to paint the south as innocent victims? They were eager to fight.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:42:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I get so sick of people bringing the Atom bomb up as a war crime.

You do realize it SAVED Japanese lives, correct?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:47:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:39:47 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:38:29 PM, DanT wrote:
Back on topic. Lincoln was racist, and the only reason I keep posting anti-Lincoln threads is because I hate historical revisionism.

FDR was a horrible man, who in the name of winning WWII committed many atrocities against US citizens. Yet historical revisionism changes the light FDR was painted in, and even when some of those atrocities are recognized, the people recognizing it commits historical revisionism to leave out key facts.

Lincoln was a racist, and a Nationalist, who oppressed the North. Yet historical revisionism paints him as a hero.

Is it not historical revisionism to paint the south as innocent victims? They were eager to fight.

It may be a case of historical revionism that may be justified by new discoveries (though it appears that Lincoln's racism was well-known among scholars, though they emphasized it as little as a footnote augments a message) or simply a case of bias...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:52:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:42:27 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I get so sick of people bringing the Atom bomb up as a war crime.

You do realize it SAVED Japanese lives, correct?

That makes sense.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:53:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:31:02 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:17:21 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:11:26 PM, DanT wrote:
atomic bomb was targeting the factories, which were part of the war machine.

"Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the U.S. Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.

A.) The attack on Pearl Harbor was a War crime; it was a sneak attack, under the guise of peace.

The United States baited the Japanese into attacking first so as to have a pretext to pt an end to the anti-war sentiment among Americans, especially as expressed by the Old Right and the America First Committee.

B.) You just said "Hiroshima...contained military elements"

Some on its periphery, yes. New York City contained military elements. Would it have been okay for the Japanese to drop an atomic bomb on New York City? And besides, the bomb wasn't even targeted on the major factories and they escaped most of the damage.

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage."90 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn't like the idea of killing "all those kids."91 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids.

He was hesitant in dropping the 1st too as well. The only reason a 3rd bomb was not dropped, was because the Japanese surrendered.

Japan was willing to negotiate peace but Truman decided it would be fun to kill some more Japs first.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:53:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:42:27 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I get so sick of people bringing the Atom bomb up as a war crime.

You do realize it SAVED Japanese lives, correct?

You're incredibly ignorant.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:54:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:52:30 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:42:27 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I get so sick of people bringing the Atom bomb up as a war crime.

You do realize it SAVED Japanese lives, correct?

That makes sense.

I can see a warrant behind this. The Japanese likely would have fought to the death if faced with an invasion of their homeland. No doubt it was a horrifying thing, but that is the doctrine of total war--there is no distinction between combatants and civilians.

It's a waste, a stupid cruel waste, but that's what we've come to.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:56:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:53:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:42:27 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I get so sick of people bringing the Atom bomb up as a war crime.

You do realize it SAVED Japanese lives, correct?

You're incredibly ignorant.

No sir, you are.

The Japanese would NEVER have surrendered if we invaded them, until we reached the Emperor.

Called Bushido Code. Learn it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:56:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:54:31 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:52:30 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:42:27 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I get so sick of people bringing the Atom bomb up as a war crime.

You do realize it SAVED Japanese lives, correct?

That makes sense.

I can see a warrant behind this. The Japanese likely would have fought to the death if faced with an invasion of their homeland. No doubt it was a horrifying thing, but that is the doctrine of total war--there is no distinction between combatants and civilians.

It's a waste, a stupid cruel waste, but that's what we've come to.

Ya it's a plausible but to state it as an obvious fact is out of line.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:57:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:54:31 PM, thett3 wrote:
I can see a warrant behind this. The Japanese likely would have fought to the death if faced with an invasion of their homeland. No doubt it was a horrifying thing, but that is the doctrine of total war--there is no distinction between combatants and civilians.

THERE WAS NO NEED TO INVADE. The Japanese had offered terms of peace, but Truman refused to meet with them.

"[T]he Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight Eisenhower

http://whatreallyhappened.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:57:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:53:20 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:31:02 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:17:21 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:11:26 PM, DanT wrote:
atomic bomb was targeting the factories, which were part of the war machine.

"Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the U.S. Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.

A.) The attack on Pearl Harbor was a War crime; it was a sneak attack, under the guise of peace.

The United States baited the Japanese into attacking first so as to have a pretext to pt an end to the anti-war sentiment among Americans, especially as expressed by the Old Right and the America First Committee.

B.) You just said "Hiroshima...contained military elements"

Some on its periphery, yes. New York City contained military elements. Would it have been okay for the Japanese to drop an atomic bomb on New York City? And besides, the bomb wasn't even targeted on the major factories and they escaped most of the damage.

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage."90 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn't like the idea of killing "all those kids."91 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids.

He was hesitant in dropping the 1st too as well. The only reason a 3rd bomb was not dropped, was because the Japanese surrendered.

Japan was willing to negotiate peace but Truman decided it would be fun to kill some more Japs first.

If you want to discuss WWII start your own thread stop derailing this thread, simply because you cannot refute it.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:58:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:56:15 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:53:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:42:27 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I get so sick of people bringing the Atom bomb up as a war crime.

You do realize it SAVED Japanese lives, correct?

You're incredibly ignorant.

No sir, you are.

The Japanese would NEVER have surrendered if we invaded them, until we reached the Emperor.

Called Bushido Code. Learn it.

We have ourselves a mind reading, time travelling historian.
Would have never surrendered until we reached the emperor eh? I'll have to remember that.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:58:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:57:12 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:54:31 PM, thett3 wrote:
I can see a warrant behind this. The Japanese likely would have fought to the death if faced with an invasion of their homeland. No doubt it was a horrifying thing, but that is the doctrine of total war--there is no distinction between combatants and civilians.

THERE WAS NO NEED TO INVADE. The Japanese had offered terms of peace, but Truman refused to meet with them.

"[T]he Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight Eisenhower

http://whatreallyhappened.com...

Stop asserting that as a fact. That Eisenhower, commander of the WESTERN front stated that is meaningless--there is a legitimate argument for both sides.

Assuming you're correct, then why did Truman choose to drop it? Fun?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:59:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:56:15 PM, OberHerr wrote:
The Japanese would NEVER have surrendered if we invaded them, until we reached the Emperor.

"January 1945 - MacArthur forwarded to the President a Japanese offer to surrender to which was exactly what we accepted 7 months later. Had it been accepted when first offered, there would have been no heavy loss of life on Iwo Jima (over 26,033 Americans killed or wounded, approximately 21,000 Japanese killed) and Okinawa (over 39,000 U.S. dead and wounded, 109,000 Japanese dead), no fire bombing of Japanese cities by B-29 bombers (it is estimated that the dropping of 1,700 tons of incendiary explosives on Japanese cities during March 9th-10th alone killed over 80,000 civilians and destroyed 260,000 buildings), and no use of the atomic bomb (200,000 killed)."

http://whatreallyhappened.com...

You're an apologist for the mass murder of innocent men, women, and children.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:59:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:56:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:54:31 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:52:30 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:42:27 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I get so sick of people bringing the Atom bomb up as a war crime.

You do realize it SAVED Japanese lives, correct?

That makes sense.

I can see a warrant behind this. The Japanese likely would have fought to the death if faced with an invasion of their homeland. No doubt it was a horrifying thing, but that is the doctrine of total war--there is no distinction between combatants and civilians.

It's a waste, a stupid cruel waste, but that's what we've come to.

Ya it's a plausible but to state it as an obvious fact is out of line.

How is it out of line?

And, if your going to say that the Atom Bomb was a war crime, then you should know the reasons for why we dropped it first.

Here is a quote from a WWII US Soldier: "You could surround 50,000 Germans, and they would surrender, but if you surrounded one wounded Japanese soldier with no weapons, he would still fight to the death."
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 5:00:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:59:08 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:56:15 PM, OberHerr wrote:
The Japanese would NEVER have surrendered if we invaded them, until we reached the Emperor.

"January 1945 - MacArthur forwarded to the President a Japanese offer to surrender to which was exactly what we accepted 7 months later. Had it been accepted when first offered, there would have been no heavy loss of life on Iwo Jima (over 26,033 Americans killed or wounded, approximately 21,000 Japanese killed) and Okinawa (over 39,000 U.S. dead and wounded, 109,000 Japanese dead), no fire bombing of Japanese cities by B-29 bombers (it is estimated that the dropping of 1,700 tons of incendiary explosives on Japanese cities during March 9th-10th alone killed over 80,000 civilians and destroyed 260,000 buildings), and no use of the atomic bomb (200,000 killed)."

http://whatreallyhappened.com...

You're an apologist for the mass murder of innocent men, women, and children.

Tell me, why would Truman just kill several hundred thousand Japanese for no reason?

Also, I'm checking the facts on that website.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 5:01:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:58:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
Stop asserting that as a fact.

These are the facts:

"11 July 1945 - Japan offered to surrender unconditionally, with one exception - they wished to retain their monarchy. They didn't insist on retaining Emperor Hirohito. They were willing to replace him with his small son, for example. The US wouldn't even talk to them - the bomb was dropped on them without the US ever responding to any of their peace feelers. Since we let them keep their monarchy (they never unconditionally surrendered - the US offered assurrances to the Emperor on August 11 after both bombs were dropped, when they had the assurrences they surrendered), there was no difference between this offer and what happened on August 14. Every death after July 11, both US and Japanese, was a war crime committed by Harry Truman."

http://whatreallyhappened.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 5:03:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 5:01:09 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/16/2012 4:58:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
Stop asserting that as a fact.

These are the facts:

"11 July 1945 - Japan offered to surrender unconditionally, with one exception - they wished to retain their monarchy. They didn't insist on retaining Emperor Hirohito. They were willing to replace him with his small son, for example. The US wouldn't even talk to them - the bomb was dropped on them without the US ever responding to any of their peace feelers. Since we let them keep their monarchy (they never unconditionally surrendered - the US offered assurrances to the Emperor on August 11 after both bombs were dropped, when they had the assurrences they surrendered), there was no difference between this offer and what happened on August 14. Every death after July 11, both US and Japanese, was a war crime committed by Harry Truman."

http://whatreallyhappened.com...

start your own thread. Stop derailing this one.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle