Their colossal ego. They bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed hundreds of thousands altogether, yet consider 9/11, with a measly 3,000 count, a crime against humanity.

Shaking my damn head. Thank God I hauled ass out of that country when I could. The land of free, yet we get more freedom in a monarch-ruled country like England.

>>1

we get more freedom in a monarch-ruled country like England.

Which is why we are over run with illegal immigrants.

>>1
Jesus, you're an idiot. We bombed a nation that was trying to take over the entire western hemisphere by force that attacked us without provocation.

Go back to school, moron.

>>3

Go back to school, moron.

Japan never tried to take over the world, it only bombed Perl Harbor, last time I checked wasn't the world.

>>4
We faced them in Bataan and the Pacific. Jesus there are a lot of idiots on this board.

>>5
You would have lost the war had you NOT nuked the civilians. How the hell are you justifying bombing the innocent civilians? You did worse than any Al Qaeda or ISIS related activity

>>6
Wow, you have no historical perspective at all. Every Japanese civilian that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would still be alive if Japan hadn't attacked us first or if their civilian population would have rebelled against their leaders who were trying to end democracy in the western hemisphere instead of letting them get away with it.

As for nuclear weapons, other countries were developing them, too. The only way to stop other countries from developing these weapons and using them against us was to successfully create these weapons and use them first, proving we had both the ability to make them and the will to use them.

To date, no one outside of the US has ever used a nuclear weapon against anyone, 70 years after the first bomb was successfully developed. Mission accomplished, dumbass. You have no idea what you are talking about.

>>7

Wow, you have no historical perspective at all. Every Japanese civilian that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would still be alive if Japan hadn't attacked us first or if their civilian population would have rebelled against their leaders who were trying to end democracy in the western hemisphere instead of letting them get away with it.

So, if Iraq or Afghanistan nukes American civilians for attacking it first, will it be justified?

Ameribald, stop justifying the horrendous war crime you committed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I hope USA gets nuked the same way.

As for nuclear weapons, other countries were developing them, too. The only way to stop other countries from developing these weapons and using them against us was to successfully create these weapons and use them first, proving we had both the ability to make them and the will to use them.

The hell is wrong with you?

I hope North Korea nukes USA That will deter it from trying to take over the world

To date, no one outside of the US has ever used a nuclear weapon against anyone, 70 years after the first bomb was successfully developed. Mission accomplished, dumbass. You have no idea what you are talking about.

So it justifies killing innocent civilians?

I think all of americans should be beheaded by ISIS for having such retarded beliefs

Either way, karma is real, and America will get nuked sooner or later.

9/11 was nothing compared to what's coming next

I wish you would stop blaming all Americans 70 years later.

Your point is if Japan Nuked us first then it would be okay? Second do you think Japan would only aim of said nukes would be military bases and not New York City or LA or Chicago.

You should be wary of posts like this a simple copy and email to Homeland Security. Know what I'm sayin.

Makes no difference it is just a question

I wish you would stop blaming all Americans 70 years later.

I am not blaming any civilians of any nations, now or then. I was just trying to make a point.

Your point is if Japan Nuked us first then it would be okay?

It would still not be OK, but eye for an eye. Civilians getting killed is so wrong. Personally, all human loss via another human is wrong in my eyes

Second do you think Japan would only aim of said nukes would be military bases and not New York City or LA or Chicago.

That didn't happen, but Americans actually bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You should be wary of posts like this a simple copy and email to Homeland Security. Know what I'm sayin.

https://i.imgflip.com/ds2a2.jpg

Implying i have the nuclear bomb to nuke USA

I am not in favor of any war.
But how many wars have taken place without civilian causalities

Implying i have the nuclear bomb to nuke USA

Implying if able you help anyone trying to

I just realized that there were only 200,000 or so civilian casualties because of the bombings. I thought about a million or more died. Nevermind, it wasn't that bad

Nine nations have nuclear weapons, and in the 70 years since one was first detonated by us against a rogue nation, no one else has used them on anyone.

Mission accomplished, dumbass.

Nuke the whole planet. End all conflicts. I totes agree with you, brah

>>14
Rogue nation? Who are you tell others which nation is a rogue nation and which isn't? I bet the Chinese consider USA to be a rogue nation, you stupid jackass.

Go back to school, moron.

Since you favor education and facts, you should know that there was no strategic military advantage to nuking Japan, considering that Japan was actually already in the process of trying to surrender and the war in the Pacific was rapidly coming to an end anyway.

The real reason the US used nukes was to threaten the USSR. The US was looking beyond the end of the war, which they knew was over anyway, and realized that their next big enemy was going to be Russia, so they used their nukes as a show of strength designed to intimidate the USSR. Basically, the US killed tons of innocent civilians just to threaten a country that they were actually allies with at the time. Pretty sick, when you really think about it.

More like an interesting fact.

The standard American arroagance comes from their being an empire. I will admit that roal foar them.

Nah! I like you and agree with you most of the time, but just like there are facts and opinions in film criticism there are facts and opinions in historical analysis.

Well, I'd be willing to concede that it's only a "theory" if we're using the word according to its scientific definition. A theory in science is essentially a fact as far as we can determine at a given time. The standard for being a 'theory' is a lot higher than just a hypothesis you happen to think up, it means that you basically know it for a fact. That's what this Japan/nuke situation is like. Obviously it's a complex situation, but the facts that we know allow us to see the real motivation of the US wasn't so much to end WW2, but more accurately it was to fire the first shot in the Cold War.

Okay, fair enough. Precision is crucial. Don't give your enemies any crack in the armor like a vague, misused (or misconstrued) word.

Although I generally agree with your interpretation of the history, there are indeed some very convincing arguments by academics in supporting the bombings. I do not personally agree with them, but they are certainly out there.

I do not personally agree with them

How convincing could they be then? If they're wrong, they're wrong.

The insinuation was that this perception of history is factual. Not necessarily.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here. You've already said you actually agree with my point, so why are you trying to use alternative historians you don't even agree with to discredit me?

>>26
I'm not discrediting your interpretation. I'm disagreeing that it is unequivocally and empirically true, as opposed to just one interpretation. The debate about the bombings is a very contentious discussion in academia.

This is why I can't stand mainstream liberals. Even when you agree with a radical you have to do something to distance yourself. Just say you agree and own it. Don't hedge your bets just so you can come off looking more "fair" or "reasonable." The truth is the truth. Sure, some people might still disagree, but those people are wrong, and it's okay to say so rather than being like, "well maybe they have a point". Ughhh.

The point isn't radical. The claim that it's the ONLY reasonable interpretation is what's just obviously, in this case, not true. For people who even have any remote interest in history and intellectual discussion, this is the problem.

This is pretty much why no one takes you seriously.

That's ok though. We all know this is your internet persona. We know damn well you wouldn't bet uttering a quarter of this stuff in "real life."

No, that is the only reasonable interpretation of what happened. The evidence is overwhelming. It was all about the US asserting itself as the dominant world power. That is as close to a fact as can be.

That's ok though. We all know this is your internet persona. We know damn well you wouldn't bet uttering a quarter of this stuff in "real life."

Oh, I absolutely do talk about this stuff in real life. Just about everyone I socialize with knows I'm a communist and, because of me, has a different perspective to consider than the ones that are shoved down their throats all the time. And, believe it or not, even if they don't entirely agree, all my friends actually appreciate my perspective. That's not to say we don't get in heated arguments sometimes, but they recognize the value in having people like me around as a counterpoint to everything else. That's something you could take a lesson from. It's one thing to disagree, it's another to try to tear me down and discredit me and attempt to make me look unreasonable.

Are you threatening him? You are going to label him a commie or sommat in real life?