*Reply to comment above*

I don't know about self-righteous arrogant douche-bag wanker, but I did find it pretty funny how you actually think America saved every other country in a world war where they didn't even bother to show up until the very end. I mean it's not like America is full of self righteous propaganda, right?
Everyone (except some who live in the US perhaps) know how much Soviet did to stop the Germans. You can take a look at the casualty list of Soviet and compare to the small numbers of America.

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/7920/ghhgffhza8.jpg

Heroes that saved the world according to how they teach it in your classes. Apathic cowards that did nothing until their hand was forced by Pearl Harbor, and showed up at the very end of the war according others. Oh and lets not forget how brave it was to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Another fine achievement for a country that based it's very history on genocide.
It's always the same. Terrorism goes on for decades and nothing is done. But when it affects American soil, suddenly it's war on terror for the good of the world. And they sat idly by while people got slaughtered in WW2, but when Pearl Harbor got hit, then suddenly they came to save *insert country*? Yeah right.

It's not like they didn't participate. It's not like every other country in the world isn't self righteous ##### either. And it's not like the Soviets were colluding with the Germans to start the ##### war and only counterattacked after Hitler double crossed them. But oh, okay, nevermind, we'll measure the effort of the war in how many people died.



Pear Harbor was in 1941. The war started in 1939 and ended in 1945. Do you mean to say that the end of the war was in 1941? Do you think that they didn't partake in D Day, or any of the other major offensives? Do you think they didn't come in to help in the Battle for Britain? Do you think they sat on their ass and took credit while nuking the Japanese and wanking off the whole ##### time? It's just as ignorant to say that the US were cowards in WWII as to say they saved the ##### world, because just as many from the US died on D Day as any country that collaborated. Many of the military victories were planned by Ike, most of the recovery effort after the war was done by the United States (but ##### the Marshall Plan, those guys are #######! It's not like they did ANYTHING in the war! God, ##### US being all self righteous and helping ##### countries! GOD!). It's not it like it wasn't in the country's best interests at the time to keep to yourself when you've just recovered from an economic decline, god no, some ##### in Europe were inefficient enough to deal with an obvious threat by believing talking solves everything with racist psychopaths, we should go over there and fix their ##### mistakes. World war 2 was Europe's mistake, they were the league of nations at the time, and they were the ones who decided to give Hitler more and more chances to attack when he was deliberately provoking LoN to take action - when they didn't, you got WWII. Thank Neville Chamberlain, who got praised on the day when he allowed Hitler to take land that wasn't his and violate the rhineland buffer zone, but no, it's the US that are fickle hypocrites all the time - that's their designated role in the world and ##### the facts.

Look up genocide. Or nevermind, here's the official ##### definition.



Do you think the US killed the Japanese because they were Japanese, or maybe, just maybe, because the US was fighting them in a war, while the Japanese refused to surrender at every opportunity, and thousands upon thousands of men, on both sides, died left and right, and the casualties would be that much higher if the war wasn't immediately stopped - it wasn't genocide, at most a military overreaction, but certainly not ##### genocide. Warnings were given, the threat was there, the refusal came and so did the bomb. And then they refused to surrender again, and the bomb came again. Whatever you think of the bomb, right or wrong, that isn't the point though, calling it genocide is ##### up because there was no desire to destroy nationalities, ethnicities, or religions. It was a military response.



The reason there's no response from the US is because the US isn't involved. If other countries were so goddamn concerned about terrorists they'd have gone on initiatives such as Afghanistan (but not necessarily Afghanistan) as soon as they were attacked, but god, no, if they did that, I guess they'd be hypocrites because that's what the US did. They were just loud about doing it. Is it wrong?

Also, if their actions in WWII didn't save countries, The Marshall Plan certainly did. Don't go around discrediting the whole effort of the US just because they didn't die the most, or enter the war in the very beginning, or go around thinking that 1941 was the end of the war, or that the US wasn't instrumental for winning the war, whether it "saved the world" or not.

But this is for another topic, or some #####, I don't know.

And I didn't ever notice Jerame being a douche or anything.

None like the US of course. To spew war propaganda on it's people is something they always do, even in this day and age. Show soldiers hugging and people giving them flowers, while other news stations show camera footage from just one block down the street showing a completely different side of the war. Disgusting.
If it wasn't for other non bias news stations around the world, we'd think that the Iraquis actually wanted to be bombed, and have their families killed. Brilliant.
Unfortunately that's not how it works with the history books that are taught to children in school. It's harder to keep the truth from the public these days compared to when older history was written. Go further back in time, and the "truth" becomes more and more outrageous. Which is why the Bible describes truth, of course.


If we're talking about who did the most to stop Germany? Then yes.
US put Sadam in his place. And who did the most to remove him? The US. So I wasn't talking about who started it, but who did the most to stop it.
Soviets efforts are more overlooked in American history books which was quite the contrast to what I read over here.


June 6, 1944, Normandie. That's how late they were. What were they doing all that time if they really came to save others?

And it certainly wasn't only US troops involved either, which some people seem to think. It was a collaboration of allied forces. The US had a good part in it, but this was the end of the war. How their efforts have been lifted to the levels of "we saved you" is beyond ridiculous. What about those who stood up to the Germans for years? Why aren't their efforts in keeping half the continent from being renamed to Germany for half a decade described as saving us? Russia was there all the way from beginning to end. If the US had participated from the start like everyone else, then they could call themselves saviors. Not when they come in 1944, five years after it started. Yeah they have assisted in the battle for britain, etc. But it certainly wasn't anything more than that.


It's nothing compared to the efforts of every other country that stood up to the germans in the war. I don't know why the US participation is lifted up as something above that. When you call yourselves heroes, you will be called cowards by others for waiting until the end to come in.

If they had come in sooner? Things wouldn't have been so easy then, would they? Not when Germany was at full strength.


The facts are what's always against them. The recent war is no different where they cowardly bomb Iraq on false pretences. And a well deserved role looking at how they have always acted in war times. Not to mention how the nation was built, by stealing the land from the natives and killing them. They haven't strayed far from their roots.


That's a good description of the nations history. (Which was what I said)
They stole the land from the natives and slaughtered them for it.


The genocide reference was how America came to be. But regarding the nuking Japan, call it whatever you want, cowardly slaughter, showing off their powers to Soviet and having the Japanese be guinea pigs, it doesn't change what it was.
Yeah they refused to give up, so what? Their aerial forces were obliterated. They had no way to attack the US any more. They had farmers pick up rakes as their weapons. Talk about a big threat. Defending such a shameful act is disgusting. Nuclear weapons should never be used on people.


Exactly. And with every right. But that's also why comments like "we saved your ass" are ridiculous.
They became involved. That's why they got involved. Wold Trade Center and Pearl Harbor.

But that's not the way they want it to sound. With their propaganda they turn it into "liberating the Iraqi people" Please..
That's the same way they make their participation in WW2 sound, and it overshadows the effort every other country did to resist the Germans for all those years that the US were mostly absent.


I didn't say their actions didn't save others. Every effort did. But they were involved because of Pearl Harbor. It wasn't an act of saving others any more than it was to keep themselves safe.

Ignorance can dangerous, and the phrase "we saved your ass in the war" is missleading and inaccurate in many ways. The greatest effort came from all the countries (mainly Soviet) that stood up to the germans for all thsoe years. Put some more of that in the textbooks, rather than putting the US efforts on a pedestal.

Athrun, While I think the number of deaths is an important indicator of involvement in the war. I don't think it would ever be considered the only indicator for involvement in the war.

The US at this time was deeply divided about fascism and socialism. Many people on both sides wanted to enter the war on one side or the other. According to many Conspiracy theorists, of which I do agree, FDR being a socialist let Pearl Harbor happen in a way that would necessitate action against the fascists. Had this not occurred, I do believe the US would have ultimately sided with big business and entered the war on the side of Fascist Axis of Germany, Japan, and Italy.

If we had done so, I do believe the end of the war would have had a much different outcome.

The other day that is important to remember is D-Day with the taking of the French soil from the germans allowing a first installment of ground troops to be able to conteract the German invaders.

But, the true impact of this war was the break through of Technology, Fighter planes, Tanks, Posion Gas, and a plethora of other advancements including the Atomic Bomb.

Again, the number of death's sustained is not the only measure of involvement in a war.

Well the more people resisted Germany, the more people died. If there was no resistance by many countries, the war would have been over in favor of Germany a long time ago. Sweden is a perfect example of a cowardly country that did nothing, but simply allowed Germany to pass through their country. So the causalty list testifies to the very long resistance put up against the germans of these contries. It doesn't mean everything, but it's very important.

Soviet was in this from the very begining to the end. That wasn't the case for the US.
That's why when their efforts are overlooked in favor of what the US did (mainly in the end), I think it deserves to be addressed.

The D-Day invasion wasn't the first time the US did anything in Europe during WWII, dude, what the #####. The US entered the war, on both Pacific and Europe, in 1941. That was ridiculous. You're also acting like I said they were saviors, which I didn't do.



Have you seen American news? Very few stations show positive aspects of the war.

Or here's a poll from Washington Post.


You are ridiculous.



What textbooks, exactly, are you talking about?



It's historian's fallacy to assume this was known at the time. You can look in retrospect and say "This was wrong" but putting into perspective it seemed like an idea that made perfect sense. People were still dying left and right, and the refusal to give up kept both sides fighting, which needed to be avoided. The estimated amount of losses with an invasion of Japan, the other scenario considered, were 7 digit numbers, compared to a whole power level below that came about from the end of the war via atomic weapons.



9/11 was only a tiny justification for the war that didn't even matter in the long run. You realize that while Saddam was kept in power, he had an agreement to allow inspections of his country by the US. While it was wrong of them to sponsor the dictator, and no one will argue that, the fact that he would not allow the inspection to take place was in clear disagreement with the policy and action needed to be taken. I hate to say it, I disagree with the war, but "Saddam had to be taken out" was probably the biggest justification... of course it would've helped to take him out back in the eighties, but whatever dude.

England came into Africa, Myanmar, China and India and killed natives and took their land and enslaved them. They didn't let go of the Middle East or Africa until several years after World War 2.

The French came into Africa, Vietnam and Middle East, and didn't leave until well after World War 2. They did the same thing as the British.

People come into places and kill natives. It's been the history of the world. Saying the US is evil because Indians died is akin to saying The UK is all evil ##### for supporting apartheid by treating South Africa as it did up until 1900s. It's like saying the Japanese are evil for invading Manchuria and Vietnam and Korea all the times they did it. If you like to think in moral absolutes and think the US is that ##### up, take a look at YOUR history books. Any place you go to, and any country that exists now, exists because someone killed all the people that lived there at any given point. Are the Spanish ##### up for killing all of the Aztecs? Should Mexico act apologetic for it for ages?

Requote:



I assume you think the United States is some sort of theocratic Oceania straight out of 1984? I suppose you think that all that is on CNN and C-Span is that "THE WAR IS GREAT SUPPORT THE TROOPS ##### GAYS ##### NON CHRISTIANS IRAQIS LOVES US AND OFFER US THEIR WOMEN WE HAVE LOST NO MAN IN THE WAR AND WE ARE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD." I assume you think that the history books are there to tell us that Benjamin Franklin was the first man to burn books to censor them, I suppose you think that everything here is hedonistic distraction from the horrors of the world. You think TV screens monitor us and tell us what to do or what not to do?

I'm sorry. But you're ridiculous.

Who said you did? I was making the first post to Jareme, not you. And it's still about his remarks such as "we saved Europe in the WW".

And don't take my comments out of context and twist my words, because I aknowledged the US participation in the war on more than one occasion. But definitely nothing on the scale of "we saved you", no.


That's sucha moot point.

Yeah of course polls show up that way now. It's because of non American media showing the truth, at the same time the images of American soldiers being thanked by the Iraqi people was being shown in the US. So now they have no choice but to follow suit. The point is they tried to distort the truth, as usual.


School literature from when I studied in the US and Sweden.


I can't believe you just said that using a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki made perfect sense.



"Saddam had to be taken out" is no justification to bomb Iraq the way they did. Don't be rediculous.
Just because you want someone taken out doesn't justify taking any action you desire, going against the UN and the rest of the world. And the justifications used were that they had proof of WMD, which was complete BS. There are other ways of taking care of Sadam than going in without the rest of the world, and murdering thousands of innocent civilians in the process.

It's people like you who give support to actions such as the ones Bush took by pretending that there was justification for it. There was none. There's a world of difference between justification and reason.


And that makes America's history any better, how?


I didn't say the US was evil, but if you want to discuss that, you might want to take a look at how they built their country after they killed the Indians. By enslaving another race, and forcing them to work.


Is it hard to present your ideas without making condescending remarks like that, or assuming things?
I don't have to assume what's on CNN. I have channels from all over the world, including CNN.


Of course I am, Mr. using-nuclear-weapons-made-perfect-sense.

Well, a-#####-men to Denim. He basically summed all the points I made.

I'd just like to add some further thoughts:

Like Monty said, the US didn' have any interest int entering the war against Germany until they sided with Japan. The Soviets had no interest in being aligned with the allies until Germany turned against them. We were not whimp-ass neutral pansies that sat back until the very end outta fear. We were just weighing our options upon getting mixed-up in a European War that was not our own.

Besides, we didn't have any clue as to the real horrors that were taking place in The Holocaust. American WWII veterans can recount stories of total shock when they saw the concentration camps first-hand. We only took so long as to see how the war was going to play out.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were righteous decisions. We could have launched a full-scale invasion of mainland Japan, but the casualties on both sides would've far outnumbered the injured and killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We had to loose lives one way or another, and I think the US played their trump card very soundly.

And the number of deaths by any country in a war is not just by the length of time engaged, but also by the stupid tactical approaches of the powers that be. A well-tuned and strategic army can fight many battles with minimal casualties.

Because that's all that the American media does. And never the European media.



I did. And I am sticking to it, because it'd be next to historical revisionism to say it didn't make sense. You like to sit in some high tower of criticism by looking at things in retrospect, but things didn't happen the way you look at them. It's like saying that you're a total moron for having trouble with a jigsaw puzzle when it's sitting in front of you assembled - it wasn't assembled, it was a jagged incomplete pile of pieces that you didn't know went where, and you weren't a moron to have trouble with it, it made sense that you did.




Tell that to someone who thinks the UN is doing something that matters on matters that get people killed. You don't remember the sarin gas that Saddam used to commit genocide on the Kurds? Is Sarin Gas not a WMD? I don't like the war, I don't, but there are reasons to be there - well, not any more, either way.

But yes, let's obey the UN. The most passive governing body the world has ever seen since the Jewish community leaders who thought it was alright to trust the nazis. The difference is that while the Jewish community leaders were justifiable in not knowing what awaited them, with globalization, the UN is fully aware of genocides going all over the world and refuses to recognize them. If the UN had done something about Saddam without bothering the Iraqi people, then it sure as hell should've and not let the US ##### things up.

But then again, when the UN decided to deal with things last time, a ##### ton of people died in Yugoslavia, or Kosovo, or whatever they were calling themselves at the time.



It makes it no less despicable than any other nation is my point.



The slavery thing was started by the Dutch. And continued by the Dutch. Slavery continued in Brazil long after it had been ended in the United States. And it wasn't even legal everywhere, and there was a lot of ethical dillemas the country had to deal with and has many times apologized for, but of course, if that carries over to now, then England is a bunch of little babies that cry "MINE!" whenever they see a new land, Germany is a bunch of misanthropic racists, and China is a bunch of ethnocentric antisocial bastards. But that's not how we see things, right?



Yes. Because your whole argument reeks of lack of perspective and I prefer to type my thoughts the way I'd say them to a person who said what you said.



Lack.
Of.
Perspective.

What do you do when you desperately ask for the enemy to stop their foolhardy assaults on your troops and they suicidally refuse? Imagine you and your friends are being plagued by another group of people, and one of you has a gun. You really are tired of fighting and decided, whoever started it, it's over, but the other side doesn't give a ##### that you have a gun and continues to attack you. You point it at them. They aren't phased and continue to beat up on you and your friends (And sure your friends are fighting back, we're not going to pretend anyone's a pacifist). So, in perfect legal definition of the United States, it is legal to shoot someone in self defense. You shoot them. They still aren't phased. You shoot again. Finally they realize you shouldn't be ##### with and give up.

That's how it happened.



And that. Seven digit numbers, or six digit numbers, which one would you rather have in casualties?

This topic is ridiculous. For all the Americans wandering why Europeans in general aren't too fond of Americans in general, Denim and Jerame are your answer. They obviously know everything about the war, as they witnessed it themselves. They were there when it happened, screw my grandparents who were only in the middle of it when the Netherlands were bombarded by the Germans, no Denim and Jerame have all the facts...

Oh and Denim, yes, we indeed started the slavery, but you gave it a whole new meaning. How many diffirent nationalities did America enslave? Black Africans, Native Americans, Spanish American, heck even Europeans, such as the Irish.
And sure, we took them out of their countries, but at least we see this as a black page in our history and don't see it as a "reasonable" act, like you see the two bombs on Japan. During that time, the Dutch were in prosperity, our economy grew strong, despite that Golden Age (as we call it) we still consider the WIC a horrible act.

On that note, you thought the nukes made perfect sense. If anyone has a lack of perspective it is you. Why do people that had nothing to do with the war needed to die? You don't seem to understand that the 2 bombs didn't destroyed a few houses, it made cities dead, you nearly whiped out an entire city with 1 bomb. That you even have the nerv to say that it made sense truly baffles me. The majority of people that died were civillians and you call it "perfect sense". Well, no wonder you agree with the American wars, right? Go America, kill some more Iraqi civillians, it is the way to go and it makes perfect sense. America is so pro war, they even kill English troops, who're supposed to be fighting with them, but hey... I guess this makes perfect sense. For the glory of mighty America!

I chuckled.

There's a difference between "right" and "making sense."
There's a difference between seeing reason and agreeing in.
There's a difference between defending a stance and living a life based on that stance

Black Africans were the only true slaves, by the way. The Irish were treated badly, but no one owned them, and they did get paid. The Spanish did quite a bit of the slavery back in Mexico until the revolution, and even after the revolution some of that carried over and stuck due to original customs, even after the US (quite unreasonably) decided to take a ton of Mexican land.

But it's alright, I'm a pro American gung ho ##### who clearly never knows what he's talking about. And clearly he is American despite spending nearly his entire childhood in a part of Europe no one ever gave a ##### about, so he doesn't have any perspective on what's going on in the world. Clearly Denim is just a brainwashed kid from OCNY who doesn't know jack ##### and is a chauvinist for the glory of America.

Go wank over accidental friendly fires in a war I already said I didn't agree with, but found it justifiable to have action taken in. Excuse me while I say it's wrong to be there right now, but when the invasion happened, the action could be seen as correct (and WAS seen as correct by MOST OF EUROPE AND NATO). Excuse me for seeing things not only from the now. God, how many people, my parents included, wanted to go into that war only to change their mind a few years in and completely reverse their ideas and say they've "never" agreed with something simply because they know it to be wrong now. Because if things are wrong now, they could never have been seen as right at any point by anyone in the circumstances of then.

Go ##### yourself, excuse my french, and then go ##### me or something, and bring down the imperialist pig dogs that are the US of A, and while you're at it, revise your history to say that anything seen as unreasonable now was quite obviously an effort by a few isolated misanthropes in pursuit of their own agenda. It could never have been seen as right to punish a person with death, because it isn't seen as right now. It's alright to scapegoat an entire nation of mostly good people who may or may not agree with anything I or Jerame says and make them look like raving lunatics, demonize a mostly split government of at least a few genuinely honest congressmen and senators who truly want to make things better on account of a war that most people don't even like. Because that's justifiable in the just now, I suppose.

Well, I guess that we shouldn't have bombed two whole cities. I guess we should have just invaded Japan with foot soldiers, tanks, warships, and fighter planes? If you think the Japanese people would not have suffered far more causalities across the board in many other different cities, you are wrong. It's unfortunate to say, but we actually did the entire nation of Japan -- sans Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- a huge service. We saved a lot more lives than we killed, and if you could understand the REALITY of the situation, you would see that the bombings made perfect sense. PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DIED EITHER WAY. It's not America's fault that Japan was too ##### stubborn to surrender.

The war in Iraq is #######, but remember that we are under police action. We wouldn't be shooting at Iraqis if Iraqis weren't shooting at us. You'd think the crazy bastards would be grateful for the fall of Saddam, but apparently their warped sheepish extreme Islamic views have blinded them to Saddam's evil.

And where did you hear that Americans were INTENTIONALLY killing British Coalition Troops? Why the ##### would we kill our aid? That makes no ##### sense.

Real patriotic Americans are not arrogant jackasses, they just respect that the USA has kicked some serious ass for this ENTIRE WORLD. We did not become the richest country in the world by backing down or loosing the fight. We earned our respect and its due. The 4th of July is a very big deal here in America for a damn good reason.

Honestly, I think you United-Kingdom folks are just jealous because you lost the international crown of champions. I'm sorry that the reign of mighty Britain had fallen so long before your time. You'd like to have that spot again I'm sure

This part pretty much sums it all up. Especially when you consider the black African to be the "true slave" and the Irish and Spanish Americans just "treated badly". Ok, whatever you call it mate. Obviously you delved into the pro American books.



Here you prove again you know diddly squad. You do know that Japan was already being attacked by Americans and they already had suffer casualities. The 2 bombings basically doubled the amount of suffering they got. The amount of casualities was doubled by only 2 bombs. That you believe the Americans did Japan a favor is truly shocking.
How is it serving the people of Japan, if even months/years after the initial bombing, people were still dying, because of sickness and radiation? Too ##### stupid too surrender? Again, here you prove you don't know anything. I always liked to believe that the stereotypical American didn't exist, that it was simply mockery, but here we are, we truly have one. Japan, a country of pride, yeah good luck getting them to surrender.
Here's a picture for you:





Police action? So, you're not supposed to attack Iraqis, unless they attack you? How can British soldier die by American hands then? Read the bloody news for once!

It is also quite funny how America talks big about the capture and hanging of Saddam. You found an old and battered man in a cave, who America provided with guns in the very first place, very good job. However, the one that truly is the face of evil (according to the American propoganda) is nowhere to be seen.



INTENTIONALLY? Americans OPENED FIRE on them! Why would you kill your aid? God knows, maybe you're so ##### stupid, everything that carries a gun is Iraqi all of a sudden.



You earned respect!? For the fact alone that you actually nuked 2 whole cities, I think the country with the least amount of respect is America. America doesn't give a crap, all they do is promote war. No other country in the world has been in so many wars, so far away from their original location.



And to come back on you not knowing diddly squad. Here again, you prove this. See, if you would actually read my posts, you would know that I am not English, but Dutch. So this entire section made me laugh. In your face.

And international crown of champions? There is only 1 nation that deserves it, the Roman Empire. No other nation had provided so much progress. America? Only war, death and chaos.

I find the comment "America did Japan a huge service dropping nuclear weapons on Japan", then trying to justify the murder of many Japanese civilians and to even believe you did a service to a country by killing their citizens is disgusting. You even came up a with a reason and believed the reasoning justify the action.


The U.S. is not the authority of the world, is it?


Not arrogant jackasses, but you could consider them fanatics and believe their actions of their country is justify no matter the reason. It's not just America, but all countries have their share of fanatics.

Respect? You mean hatred?


All literature in America is Pro-America while all literature outside of America is fact? Is that what you're saying?

Pesmerga, that picture you posted is insulting to all citizens of the U.S. and generalization of all U.S. citizens. What's is the point of debating if you are going to bring up America generalizations and prove your own ignorance of America? It's not the first time you attempt to insult the country of U.S. and all it's citizen. Is your hatred for the U.S. make you ignorant without your knowledge? Will you justify the asking of this question as self servicing and come up with the excuse "I didn't mean it in that way?" instead of acknowledge that you be posting and mocking U.S. and bring up it's negative generalizations?


You have a link to the story?


Any country that has participate in a war has a history of war, death and chaos. Or, does this only apply to America?

I see Pro-Americans that will justify the actions by America, no matter what they might be. I also see other people outside of the U.S. with for hatred for U.S. to point whether they will believe what ever negative news is reporting by their countries' news and even not notice when they insult all people from that particular country with their comments. What is the difference? One side that believes all positive press that's being released by their country and one side believe all negative press that's being released by their country regarding another country? In short, both side believing the press reports from U.S. or non-U.S. reporters.

Is this topic nothing more than elitism?

If Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both military ports instrumental to the Japanese offensives) were not bombed, the United States would have to go in, and fight farmers, women, and children. People were being told to arm themselves, and they were arming themselves. The term kamikaze didn't mean suicide bomber until the second world war, the Japanese showed themselves to have a suicidal fervor for their nation - and they were not going to give up. It would be next to genocide to walk into Japan and attack them. It would be far, far worse than the bombings. Did you want the United States to attack Japan full on and lose a million of its own soldiers while they would be forced to kill the untrained men attacking them? It isn't like farmers with guns or swords can't kill. And then what you'd end up with is not two cities missing off a map, but an entire generation wiped out on both sides, and WWII's economical importance would be nil, as the rebuilding of Japan would take that much more effort, or who knows if the US would even be willing to give assistance after civilians came to attack them. Fact is, the old saying, all's fair in love and war applied back before the Geneva Convention, and it was applied with some sense. I don't see how you can argue that the atomic bombing didn't make sense. How would you handle the situation in a way that got the least people killed?

I mean, yes, it is terrible when people die, but it can make sense that people have to die for the sake of more people not dying. It's basic utilitarianism that the good of the few outweighs the good of the many and it's better to end a war with the projected death count on the two sides in the millions with a death toll in the hundred thousands. Big numbers, but one is clearly smaller than the other. Smaller number is what you aim for. These were the only two solutions. If you suggest "giving up" you're suggesting that not only was the sacrifice of men and women who died in Peal Harbor and all the battles on the Pacific afterward completely useless, you're suggesting that you would choose to live your life and be seen as a coward by every single person in the nation (since the question was what would YOU do), and the United States would also not be respected (oh god, oh god, the US was obviously NEVER respected!!!) as much as it was after World War 2, the imperialistic mindset would really not be all that effected, making England and France and other European nations not give up their colonies at the urging of the US (who would be cowards at that point). Since technically in the case of "giving up" which is the predictable third option, the US would have lost the Pacific War, the Japanese would receive no aid aid from the US as they did when the US won the war, having to make up the destroyed economy and a massive population loss in both China and the pacific until a complete economic collapse.

So if you even considered giving up rather than bombing (bad) or invading (REALLY bad) Japan, congratulations, you just created a world where Japan is an ethnocentric country that is collapsing in on itself, Europeans are still off there colonizing natives, and the United States is completely ignored in the times of the cold war (which I suppose you would love) causing the USSR to develop further. Congratulations, you made Russian communism win.

"Just treated badly" is a ##### ##### thing to say, dude. They weren't technically slaves, and they were treated badly, but let's walk all over it because "treated badly" clearly means "nothing bad happened and everyone was happy." If the books were so pro American they'd say nothing about anyone being treated badly at all.

I have a very good question if bombing Japan is really the only method to stop the war, why drop two? USA could have just dropped one A-bomb and that would already have killed off some hundreds and thousands of people. And I don't agree that USA saved us all because they did not o.o All basically means everyone, right? They did not save Japan o.o Cutting the casualties by killing away milions of people doesn't mean saving and like what I asked, they could have dropped one bomb, why two? And before you start telling me that they were not sure whether Japan would surrender, they could have dropped one first, see how Japan will react then drop a second one. One bomb is already devestating enough.

A bit off topic:

I don't understand why you keep talking like you are not a part of us, Europeans. You are not "Americans". We, Europeans, created you people. So I don't understand why you keep acting like you're "Americans" while the rest of the world are mere humans.

Do you ever realize how ridiculous you sound, Vincent?

Do you realize how ridiculous it is to see the word "ridiculous" appear 500 times in this topic?

It's almost as ludicrous as your sickening display of bashing American's and having to continually reinforce your European superiority complex in every single topic you post in.

For the same reasons Pakistanis are not Indians. For the same reason that Russians are not Ukrainians, and for the same reason we're not all Africans.



They didn't surrender in three days, which basically could be assumed that they would continue fighting. Really, it's not like they dropped both bombs on the same day or anything, it DID happen the way your last part described it. They dropped one bomb, didn't get a response of surrender, dropped a second one, got a response of surrender. Also the US recovery efforts managed to jump start Japan to a complete economical recovery within 30 years. By the eighties, Japan was thriving, in part thanks to the US relief effort.

I'm not a huge history buff or anything so I don't know how it would have turned out if we didn't use them, but I find it pretty amazing to hear people try to defend the dropping of the atomic bombs. It's one of the most terrible things this country has done. And besides, I don't see why Americans today should have to try and defend it. We weren't around when it happened, it really shouldn't be our burden, it was the burden of the generations before us. The best we can do is learn from past mistakes so that something like it never happens again.

And you guys really need to calm down just a bit. All of the generalizing in this topic is a bit much.

Edit: Wait, I might be wrong on this, but didn't the Japanese surrender not because of the atomic bombs but because the Russians were getting ready to attack? Just an interesting point.

I highly doubt that the Russians were concerning themselves with Japan at the time.

Also the fact that it isn't a burden to carry. It happened, there were good reasons for it happening, people may have died, but it needed to be done to prevent more people from dying. There's nothing burdensome about it.

Every powerful nation makes the story look better in their favour. The same with English books about the war. I had to explain to my girlfriend and her friends that the Netherlands was mostly liberated by the Canadians (yeah, that is right) and thus I consider them to be the saviours of my country. English books tell them about the brave English soldiers and American books do the same about theirs. The Netherlands didn\'t do much, apart from supporting the allies, when we could and spying on the Germans, but we don\'t brag about it, as it wasn\'t much we did. Instead, our point of view is a global view, as we had nothing to really compare us to, to countries such as the ones in the Allied forces did. I am pretty sure that other countries in our situation did the same thing.



Of course the picture is a mocking, I thought it was quite clear by the overall childish drawing and spelling. Can\'t even believe you took that as serious.
And I am not trying to insult anyone, if anyone is insulting, it is Jerame and his extreme outbursts of \"we did Japan a favour\", or other opinions he posts. Yes, that picture was indeed a mock, but who doesn\'t mock in this topic? If you think I was the only one, I think you should read the posts between Denim and Hiku then.
My hatred for the US? Well, first of all, the word hatred should be used carefull no matter what situation, as it is very strong word. Second, I do not hate the Americans, nor America. What I dislike and ticks me off, is when people start praising their own country, as if they are saviours, or better people. Guys that think their country is helping the world, when it is not. Notice that I didn\'t say a specific country here, as there are people in every country that do that.



Of course I have, but I am surprised you guys didn\'t know? I mean, according to Denim the American reportes nowadays show loads of negative aspects about the war, no?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/as...ike-462924.html

Have fun.



The Roman Empire brought civilization, sewers, roads, aquaducts and viaducts, do I need to go on? So, what exactly did the American \"Empire\" do?
Sure, there is war everywhere, even the Netherlands has been in war, one of the longest ones in history, known as the 80 years war. However, most of those countries only fought with their neighbours and not countries far away, such as America and South Korea, or Iraq. America didn\'t brought such a diffirence in this world, as for example the Roman Empire did.



The last line fits to Jerame. I haven\'t seen me, or Hiku post about Europe being better than America. Jerame clearly lets everyone know he thinks his country is the best, which I replied to, for reasons said earlier in this topic.

I also agree with you here, Eva. Every country reports things in their own way and usually in the coutries\' favour, such as Americans claiming they saved Europe. I know that not every American believes this, but some American (Jerame is prove of the existence of these) believe they did.

And Denim, finally a post from you where I can agree with you on several matters. I agree that, if people must die, go for the one that takes the least amount of numbers.
However, dropping an atomic bomb is just insanity. Bombing itself is already bad enough, let alone killing other people, but nuking a place is just beyond any limits. As I said before, it wasn\'t the initial impact that killed people and nearly whiped out two entire cities, it was months and even years after that people still felt the pain from the bomb, due to the radiation and illnesses. That bomb was worse than invading a country, as it effected civillians for many months after the initial impact, causing various illnesses and deaths after.

Now, taking into account, that conspiracy theories might have a clue, such as the one Monty was talking about, then this was a sickening decision.
We all know the famous phrase, every lie contains a truth, so America might be after the whole plot anyway.
It is very possible that Japan announced their attack on Pearl Harbor, which is a common thing and that the American defense simply ignored it, just to provoke a nuclear war. It was quite obvious that they wanted to \"test\" their weapons, as it was a close call in the Cold War, with the Cuban missile base.

Also, Europeans were enslaved in America, during the slavery. This is a common fact, even the Irish themselves agree to it. Being \"treated badly\" is what happened to all slaves.

That's what I'm saying, man.

Someone has to even the odds.

And winners write history.

I wouldn't call it elitism. We're just people who have pride in our country. I understand that my country has made mistakes in the past, and I do not condone it, but the USA still deserves respect for what it has done RIGHT. I mean, do you think the US has done more wrong in the world throughout its history than it has done right? I don't think so.

There really is no way to win this topic war. Maybe we DO need nukes to solve this argument Pes

You know it really amazes me that United ... err .. 'Dutch' zealots would stand up for a nation that was far more brutal and cocky than the USA. WWII-era Japan was a lunatic dive -- literally. Where do you think the mullahs learned the old plane trick? If we had invaded that monkey nation on foot, the casualties would've been far worse.

REMEMBER THIS: THEY STARTED THE ##### WITH US! WHO BOMBED PEARL HARBOR? WHO ##### SIDED WITH THE SICK NAZIS? WHO DECIDED TO STUBBORNLY HOLD ONTO A WAR THAT WAS LOST, BECAUSE THE ALLIES WOULD NOT WITHHOLD OCCUPATIONAL RIGHTS TO MAINLAND JAPAN IF MASSIVELY INVADED? THOSE ####### WANTED A FIGHT, AND WE GAVE IT TO THEM!

Oh yeah, I know this is a little off-topic, but if you're Dutch Pes, what are those coffee-houses like ?

You know Jerame, there is a conspiracy theory floating around about America knowing about the Pearl Harbor attack, but simply ignored it, so that they could test out their weapons of mass destruction.

Also, I am not standing up for Japan, I know how bad the Dutch captives were treated in Japanese slave camps, when they got taken away from Indonesia, but I am standing up against your statement about America doing Japan a favour and all the other nonsense you've been disgusting this forum with.

On the coffeehouse note, we have no coffeehouses. We have cafes and coffeeshops, but no houses. And yeah, for your green smokery, you need to be in the latter.

I want to thank all of you.

I am again realizing why I stopped posting here. This is not a debate. This is one person calling another an idiot, repeatedly.

You guys need to start thinking about your responses before you make them. You need to avoid ad honem attacks, and other logical fallacies. Clever comics are not sources from which to draw conclusions. Source your ideas, and stop acting like you all know everything.

I am talking to everyone who posted in this thread. I will check up in another couple of months. Hopefully these words sunk in.

Horay for Pessy deleting another one of my posts

Well, this might not be the 'formal' kinda debate you enjoy, but I think the opinions are well-expressed. The facts may not be completely supported, but the main arguments are fleshed out well. You don't need an ass-ton of quotes and sources to have a little fun discussing volatile subjects in an entertaining way. I find these debates funny, entertaining, and thought-provoking. I just don't think you and some other members have any sense of humor for odd-ball banter. Just because the subject matter in this thread is not dryly intellectual, doesn't mean that the opinions expressed do not have any comedic or entertainment value. You just gotta be hip to the humor.

I think dry debates get boring and run their course quicker. If you think with some abstract humor, you can have a more engrossing conversation. Taking pot-shots at people in a humorous way just spices up the monotony of serious subjects.

I guess you either have an eye for banter or not ....

I argue on the Internet like argue in real life. Am I expected to carry around binder full of quotes and pages and citations? God, if arguing is anything like writing research papers, then I've been doing something very wrong.

I think the both of you should join the army and actually stand at risk of something, instead of just looking back at an action that could have gone in any direction, and say it was the right thing. Of course that's easy to say in retrospect.

And uh, the whole logic of chopping off fingers until you get what you want is not a humane way. Speaking of which, having "key" military locations in those areas, wouldn't it have just worked to, say, just use a smaller-scale bomb and only wipe out the military part instead of destroying people that didn't have anything to do with it?

Let's hear you say collateral damage is acceptable when it actually happens to you.

You know, I had this promise made that if there's ever a war worth fighting, I would join the armed forces. So yes, I will join the military once there's something worth fighting, since the US has a war on average of every 20 years, we've got some 15 more to go.

Well Loomis, I don't believe in collateral damage unless it is necessary. If you can't talk sense into people, then the only last resort is to take aggressive action. If you have to take aggressive action, then you should take the strategic route that involves the least amount of causalities and the swiftest defeat. In a perfect world, people would not have to war; but this isn't a perfect world. The US did what they had to do. No death is honorable in my eyes, but saving from even more death is at least a notable constellation.

And I already tried to join the armed forces when I was outta work six months ago. They would not accept me because I have a prior record of epilepsy. I don't run my mouth about life-or-death situations because I think I know it all. I put myself in deep meditative thought on subjects, and try to put myself in every role involved. Of course, in war, someone will always play the role of loser and many will be killed. It's a sad reality, but if we can kill one life to save another -- and there's no other way to solve the issue --- then I think it's best to be reasonable and take the cleanest, logical approach.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the cleanest, logical approach to ending the war. Civilians would've died EITHER WAY. Get over the death factor. If the sick-ass fascist Japanese government gave a damn about their OWN citizens; they would've surrender after the fall of Berlin. They were stubborn dicks. This is what happens to stubborn people.

(everyone needs to calm down, that's for sure)

You put yourself in meditation for topics such as this, and THAT is what comes out? Does your meditation process invovle flogging yourself? I just don't understand how you can meditate on a subject and all that biased garbage spills forth from your fingers.


Where the topic started- No, Americans were not the saviors of the allied nations, but you cannot deny that American involvement is what helped win the war. Without American support the allies might not have re-taken France, or perhaps would have but the war would have been extended to a much longer period of time.

Still, America was divided as Monty pointed out. We sold arms to both sides, many Americans supported the nazi cause, namely Henry Ford. Yes, the creator of the Ford Motor Industry personally sent large sums of cash to support Nazi Germany's cause.

I believe that America's government did in fact know about the approaching assault on Pearl Harbor and let it happen so they could enter the war. (the theory stated that they allowed the attack in order to drop the A-bomb I find ludicrous however).

This unified the feelings of a divided nation allowing the U.S. government to enter the war on the side of the allies.

To the feelings by some that the Atomic Bomb was necessary in order to force the Japanese into surrender, I call #######. It wasn't necessary, they simply wanted to test their new weapon in action.

"I don't believe in collateral damage unless it's necessary"

Do you know the definition of collateral damage?

Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack


The deaths resulting from the atomic bombs were by no means "collateral damage" as they were obviously intended.

It is also genocide no matter which way you try to cut it.

How can you prove that more life would have been lost had we not used the bombs?


The United States are no saints, in fact it's government is corrupt and ruthless. However it is my belief that nearly every government is corrupt. As it is, for an average person the United States despite it's faults is still one of the better places in the world to live.

Well, I do meditate. What's biased about it? You don't expect me to blame the USA for taking action against a national threat do you? Japan had to be dealt with.



We could have entered the war at any time. This is just a conspiracy theory, and I don't believe it.



It wasn't 'necessary', because we could've taken other routes to victory -- which was guaran-damn-teed. It was just the swiftest way we could bring about the end.




I was talking about invading mainland Japan. The collateral damage from an amphibious assault on Japan would've been unnecessary. That's why I stand behind the decision to drop the atomic bombs.




GENOCIDE?!? Take a look at The Holocaust for that. Nuking two cities in Japan was nothing compared to the systematic murders taking place in Nazi-Germany and Stalin-Russia. I don't think the size of the crimes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were enough to label it as outright ##### genocide.



Hmmm ... well ... the combined total of deaths and injuries in both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were around 310,000 people in total. Seven months prior to the atomic bombings, the allies were already bombing the ##### outta several other Japanese cities. The total deaths in that LONG stretch of combat was over 500,000 people. How many more people would've died had we not dropped the atomic bombs?

The allies were planning to invade Japan much the same way that they did in D-Day against the Nazis. 1,000,000 troops were to be deployed. Since Japan is much smaller in size, the fight wouldn't have lasted as long, but would have been extremely intense reaching the shore.

How many of these 1,000,000 troops do you think were American? Should we have let our people go in and die if there was a quicker alternative? The move to drop the nukes was to save American and Japanese lives, and bring the war to hasty end. By 1945, and you can ask any REAL WWII vet who saw combat, the war had become very ##### tiring.

Japan was not nazi Germany, why should their country pay for the sins of Germany? Before you say that they supported Germany look into the fact that the United States ALSO supported Germany at one point.

It's not that Japan wouldn't surrender, the just wouldn't surrender unconditionally

The excuse that they wouldn't surrender, and would forever take up pitchforks against us, to use the A-Bomb is a pitiful one. Go and do some real research into the topic.

With Russia and the U.S. closing in, surrender was inevitable. The bombs were not necessary.

You're actually implying that the US Army would do massive amounts of damage that'd kill innocents by doing a normal attack? With an attack like that, people usually evacuate their cities.



Are you serious? You're actually saying that just because it wasn't as big as the holocaust, then it should be dismissed as genocide? That's disgusting.

Jerame, please get your numbers straight. I know you simply made those numbers up, as on various websites I read, all the numbers differ from yours.
Please, use the internet for you information, not your alcohol and so called meditation.

And no, please do not blame your country. Your own country never did something wrong, like killing many Japanese people, or Vietnamese even.
At least I have the guts to accept the mistakes my country made and face the truth.

Good point on that one. That's why when I jump into an arguement, I just go off what the person before me just said

Well folks, this is why I hate history. I think it's fascinating, but I could NEVER be a history major (first off, they get paid CRAP to do nothing with their lives other than argue much like we are about the past.) for this reason. Why did the USA drop the A-bomb on Japan. Answer: They just friggin did it. There's a lot of explanations, coverups, and other wishy-washy reasons why we did it, but we, today, just do not know. The only way to get the real answer is to either:
A. build your own time machine, break into the White House and demand to know the answer first hand BEFORE they launch the A-bomb or:
B. Find them in the afterlife and torture them till they confess the real answer.

Until then, speculation is still speculation.

Yup, that's why I think bringing up reasons as absolute fact here isn't really a smart thing to do, especially when you're still generally making a rough guess to exactly why.

As for the "I argue on the internet like I argue in real life", I bet people love to not be able to get anywhere in a discussion since you're busy insulting him instead. (Not directed at you Ferrell, but just trying to find the logic in ad hominem in a debate, since it is not productive at all).

I'm not gonna get too involved with this topic, but try living in Japan for a while and you won't be saying that, heh.

Well, fight back. The idea isn't picking a winner. It's building entertaining drama with opinion. Insults add spice.

But is in the end utterly pointless since it's counter-productive to anyone that is easily intimidated. And thinking that the insults work will only bring it to a slower pace of getting the actual argument over with.

So yeah, pointless.

Honestly, I usually "win" because I'm willing to go much louder than the person I'm doing it with IRL.

I guess I care more =).
Or less.

Depends on what it is the caring is about.

Oh hey, happy 4th of July everyone:
http://www.break.com/index/america-rules-england-sucks.html

*Eats an American Warcake*

What the hell is he saying? "British came to our land." That old bastard doesn't look Native American to me, so what does "our land" stand for?

Absolutely hilarious parody of America. Damnit all lol

It was quite laughable, especially what you saw on the background, like mcdonald's, chopped trees etc etc =P