Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/6/08 04:04 PM, mayeram wrote:

At 3/1/08 07:10 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Japan invaded Australia.

My grandfather defended Australia from the Japanese during the Coral Sea battle. Did they actually invade with troops? I had thought that they had never landed troops in Australia.

They made an advance but were stopped, so the Japanese never reached Australia.

At 3/1/08 01:54 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Japan deserved it, America did not.

Exactly. Japan started that crap with Pearl Harbor. Truman belived that using the bomb would end the war quickly (which it did) and save American solider lives (which it did).

WW2 bombings were way worse than 9/11.

japan bombing a NAVAL BASE compared to 2 bulidings in new york destoryed?

9/11 could of easily been stopped, but on that VERY DAY, dick cheney gave the order to the ai rprotection people that they could NOT shoot down hi jacked planes. just for that day. if dick cheney wasnt such a ho, we would still have the twin towers. The planes were screwed anyway, so if they were shot down, then... yea.... but pearl harbor couldnt of been stopped, and it put us in the world war

At 3/6/08 11:11 PM, asainsalad232 wrote: WW2 bombings were way worse than 9/11.

japan bombing a NAVAL BASE compared to 2 bulidings in new york destoryed?

dont comment on my spelling

At 3/6/08 11:11 PM, asainsalad232 wrote: WW2 bombings were way worse than 9/11.

japan bombing a NAVAL BASE compared to 2 bulidings in new york destoryed?

9/11 could of easily been stopped, but on that VERY DAY, dick cheney gave the order to the ai rprotection people that they could NOT shoot down hi jacked planes. just for that day. if dick cheney wasnt such a ho, we would still have the twin towers. The planes were screwed anyway, so if they were shot down, then... yea.... but pearl harbor couldnt of been stopped, and it put us in the world war

Ok, just understand that I was talking about US boming Japan. How we dropped two a-bombs on them and killed thoooousands of INNOCENT people.

At 3/6/08 04:40 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: They made an advance but were stopped, so the Japanese never reached Australia.

I think you'll find they did actually.

At 3/1/08 03:11 AM, arcansi wrote: u think 9/11 is justified right? No, there arent words to describe how unjustified it was. America had never fired a single missle into the middle east before 9/11, and i dont beleive we have launched one since then.

Oh my god... do you live in a 50 feet deep hole covered with steel plates?

At 3/7/08 02:22 AM, ImFromMars wrote:

Ok, just understand that I was talking about US boming Japan. How we dropped two a-bombs on them and killed thoooousands of INNOCENT people.

So you prefer millions from Operation Downfall?

At 3/7/08 11:04 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 3/7/08 02:22 AM, ImFromMars wrote:

Ok, just understand that I was talking about US boming Japan. How we dropped two a-bombs on them and killed thoooousands of INNOCENT people.

So you prefer millions from Operation Downfall?

Operation Downfall didn't even go in to effect. It was an invasion, not a fucking atomic bombing. Anyways even if Downfall did go in to effect, and it was worse than the A-bombs would have done, it would be that much worse than 9/11, leaving 9/11 in my idea the insignificant event.

What I find worse though, aside from government conspiracy is that 9/11 was Osama's response to us Americanizing Saudi Arabia. As our conquest for oil strengthened there, the holy city of Mecca was in threat of furthering itself from it's purpose which really pissed him off.

Of course, I'm not arguing that since the source didn't have any citations whatsoever. Although just because of that doesn't make this completely non-sensical, it just means there is still the possibility of it being either true or false. Interesting anyways...

At 3/9/08 08:42 PM, ImFromMars wrote:

At 3/7/08 11:04 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 3/7/08 02:22 AM, ImFromMars wrote:

Ok, just understand that I was talking about US boming Japan. How we dropped two a-bombs on them and killed thoooousands of INNOCENT people.

So you prefer millions from Operation Downfall?

Operation Downfall didn't even go in to effect. It was an invasion, not a fucking atomic bombing.

That's why I asked if you prefer the invasion.

Anyways even if Downfall did go in to effect, and it was worse than the A-bombs would have done, it would be that much worse than 9/11, leaving 9/11 in my idea the insignificant event.

What I find worse though, aside from government conspiracy...

I stopped reading from there.

The bombing of Japan was justified. What they did to China, Korea, South-East Asia and POWs was just evil and they needed to be taught a lesson.

* If Japan refuses to surrender, have the better insight NOT TO FUCKING KILL 140,000 INNOCENTS. The first bomb was dropped without warning of it's power. Japan recieved an order to surrender, and that order did not hint of a nuclear bomb and the radiation fallout effects. So America just took 140,000 lives just like that, without thinking, without properly warning. The second bomb was dropped, partly to Japan's fault, I acknowledge that. But man, let them access the situation before dropping another. That's just ruthless.

The reason America didnt warn Japan the first time because they weren't sure whether or not it would work or do the damage they thought it would do. But it is still pretty fucked up.

I'm sorry I didn't have time to read every ones post. MY THOUGHTS: did you know several japanese men were executed by the United States, for practicing a torture method known as water Boarding (invented by the Catholic Church). We recently have been performing the same kind of torture. However when the issure is brought up, we say "We're only doing it to avoid a large disaster". I Guess an atomic bomb doesn't count as a large disaster. And now I'm off Fo shizzle in the nizzle for rizzle yo, up in da hiz ouse

-Snoop Dawg

I agree with the poster. Japan was our enemy, but was also on the verge of surrender. What we did was more than just the war, it was to test our shiny new toy; the nuclear warhead. It was uncalled for, the Japanese didn't plan on moving off their island, they were ruthless infantry, and that's why no one on the Allies side cared to try to invade them. If we had left them alone, they would not have stood in the war without Germany.

At 3/13/08 06:02 PM, ASHero wrote: I agree with the poster. Japan was our enemy, but was also on the verge of surrender.

Oh please. Japan was fully prepared-and willing- to defend the homefront. Probably would've caused more casualties on both sides because Imperial soldiers (and citizens, too) would rather die than surrender.

If we had left them alone, they would not have stood in the war without Germany.

Bull. Literally the day before they bombed Pearl Harbor they were making buddy-buddy with us. Do you honestly think that if we did nothing after Pearl Harbor they would just leave us alone?

Pearl Harbor was unrelated to the bombings...Pearl Harbor was the event that drew us into the war, the bombings were an attempt to end the war.

They were willing to defend the homeland tooth and nail, arming both women and children. That's why it was a military quagmire, but the thing was we didn't have to make a move on them at all. They were on the verge of surrender, they would've withdrawn from the war even if we had held off on the nuclear attack.

At 3/13/08 05:43 PM, ThePretenders wrote: The [nuclear] bombing of Japan was justified. What they did to China, Korea, South-East Asia and POWs was just evil and they needed to be taught a lesson.

^See, what you're proposing is no different than perhaps if Osama said 9-11 was justified as minor payback for all the women and children who got raped, shot, and carpet bombed in Vietnam by the American military.

So I'll say it again. You cannot justify slaughtering in a moment 100,000 women and children in Japan, simply because the rape, pillage, torture, and slaying the Japanese military had done in China and Korea. There's not even a hint of eye-for-an-eye in such logic. However, if China had the bomb, and decided it was by some measure justified, then that's their decision! However, America doing that to Japan (essentially on behalf of another country by your own admission) was in no way justified.

There's a multitude of better ways to 'teach a lesson' (as you put it) to a defeated nation than nuking whole cities of innocent people.

.

i think that killing innocent civilians for any reason is wrong, if youre going to bomb a military base sure do that,however there could have been much better ways to end the war.

At 3/13/08 06:01 PM, KingsHighway wrote: I'm sorry I didn't have time to read every ones post. MY THOUGHTS: did you know several japanese men were executed by the United States, for practicing a torture method known as water Boarding (invented by the Catholic Church). We recently have been performing the same kind of torture. However when the issure is brought up, we say "We're only doing it to avoid a large disaster". I Guess an atomic bomb doesn't count as a large disaster. And now I'm off Fo shizzle in the nizzle for rizzle yo, up in da hiz ouse

-Snoop Dawg

It would help if you would provide some source, it shouldn't be difficult since all you have to do is post some links.

At 3/13/08 10:04 PM, ASHero wrote: They were willing to defend the homeland tooth and nail, arming both women and children. That's why it was a military quagmire, but the thing was we didn't have to make a move on them at all. They were on the verge of surrender, they would've withdrawn from the war even if we had held off on the nuclear attack.

"ready to surrender" and "willing to fight to the death" are two different things, hero.

Well, since both acts were committed by the same government, I'd say they're about equal.

At 3/14/08 09:00 PM, kahncccp wrote: Well, since both acts were committed by the same government, I'd say they're about equal.

Shaggy has left an lasting impact.

At 3/14/08 10:32 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 3/14/08 09:00 PM, kahncccp wrote: Well, since both acts were committed by the same government, I'd say they're about equal.

Shaggy has left an lasting impact.

Huh?

Having read the link, and having studied history; I can understand the comparison between the two. I must however note a number of blaring things here....
Item One-Japan started the war with a surprise attack. The nuke was just a return of the favor, as it were...
Item Two-Japan had a "no surrender policy" during the WWII. The only other alternative would have been an American landing on the Japanese mainland-with an estimated death toll of well over a million dead on BOTH sides. The U.S. military is still issuing Purple Hearts that were ordered for the invasion before the bombs were dropped.
Item Three-The author of this article is BLATANTLY anti-U.S.
Item Four-The text and content of the article, as well as how it was written, make it unusable as a source of any validity and therefore must be ignored.
Item Five-I REALLY freaking HATE the author of that article. Where the HELL did you dig that up?

At 3/13/08 05:43 PM, ThePretenders wrote: The bombing of Japan was justified. What they did to China, Korea, South-East Asia and POWs was just evil and they needed to be taught a lesson.

A lesson? Really? Is over 300 people killed from the bombings and years and years of radiation fallout was A LESSON? Two wrongs don't make a right, and especially when human life is involved. The bombings on Japan were far worse than 9/11. Think about it from the Japanese perspective, juxtapose it into today's view point. What if Iraq dropped a nuke on us because we've invaded their country and cause mass turmoil in not only their state but the entire Middle East? What if? I'm betting you'd continue to posses the same patriotic zeal that you do now. We're not always in the right, we're not always the knights in shining armor. We can do wrong, and we have.

Yeah, but the atomic bomb killed more Japanese innocents than saved American soldiers, and on that note, we all know that all the axis powers had dictatorships. It wasn't something that could have been voted on and the innocents payed for their unwanted leader's conquests.

At 3/14/08 10:32 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 3/14/08 09:00 PM, kahncccp wrote: Well, since both acts were committed by the same government, I'd say they're about equal.

Shaggy has left an lasting impact.

Ahahaha, ha.

The Uranium they used in the bomb was of Japanese origin. The japanese were in joint efforts with Nazi Germany to develop nuclear weapons. When the Admiral of the German fleet ordered all U-Boats to surrender one was found to be transporting 1/2 ton of Uranium Oxide.

This uranium was used in the US nuclear program.

At 3/20/08 10:51 AM, DingoTheDog wrote: The Uranium they used in the bomb was of Japanese origin. The japanese were in joint efforts with Nazi Germany to develop nuclear weapons. When the Admiral of the German fleet ordered all U-Boats to surrender one was found to be transporting 1/2 ton of Uranium Oxide.

This uranium was used in the US nuclear program.

;
Ive never seen this before ?

I am of course familiar with this, as it was taught in school.

http://www.ccnr.org/uranium_in_bombs.htm l

At 3/20/08 01:27 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

Ive never seen this before ?

I am of course familiar with this, as it was taught in school.

http://www.ccnr.org/uranium_in_bombs.htm l

Was watching "Last days of World War 2" Today on the Discovery Channel.