So your original point is that the US has committed ethically worse war crimes than the Japanese has?

No one here is calling either country pure in their acts against other countries. However the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't ruthless in any way. It was a strategic move that had to be done to end a war that had been going on for nearly 7 years.

That's 7 years of killing, 7 years of lives lost, 7 years of homes never to be seen again, 7 years of tears that the world should never have seen. Yea the bombings were a huge sacrifice and a lot of innocent lives were lost. You can't deny it was a crucial point of stopping 7 years of constant bloodshed.

Everyone who's damning the US and glorifying Japan in this topic (mind you we seem to have gone a little bit away from if US forces should be in Japan or not) really needs to read up a little. It's getting fucking ridiculous.

Now people here are trying to claim the dropping of the bombs in 1944 as some horrible inexcusable act committed by the US government and claim that the US has done soooo many more horrible things over the course of history compared to other countries. Calling the US army ruthless, and full of rapist yanks. Utterly fucking ridiculous.

You're either purposely ignoring other countries wrong doings or you guys are legitimately ignorant. Did you know that the war the US played a key part in ending was basically started due to Japanese conflict? More importantly that conflict makes Nagasaki and Hiroshima look like mercy killing in comparison.

A few months following the Second Sino-Japanese War (Wasn't just Germany) here's what the pure innocent Japanese army was up to. Not pretty, huh? Don't read it if you're one of those sensitive types.

Actually, the Nagasaki bomb was a mistake--due to cloud cover, the pilot of the plane couldn't find his original target. It's not like they sat down and plotted to kill the Christians...that doesn't make sense. Also, at first one of the targets was Kyoto, but enough American higher-ups protested and so it was spared. So you see, American leaders were in agony over this, and there were plenty of them involved who had great respect for Japan.

It was well known to the Japanese government by the spring of 1944 that they had irretrievably lost the war. But did they endeavor to save what was left and pick up the pieces by surrendering? No. They drove their people to a frenzy with propaganda campaigns to convince them they were winning. Japanese civilians (yes, the women, children and old people) were trained and ready to fight to the last in the event of an Allied invasion. If the U.S. had not dropped the bomb and ended things where it did, it is my belief that the U.S. would be charged with the genocide of the Japanese people, as the years of war would drag on and the dead pile up until America's superior firepower and economy would have at last annihilated Japan. Japan is a very proud country and not used to surrendering. It's sad that it took an atom bomb to convince the government that surrender was the way to save their country.

This is still a very sensitive issue to many with a lot of hurt still behind it...it's something that should never have happened...but I think it saved lives, and I don't think Japan would be the successful country it is today if the bombing and subsequent surrender had not occurred.

Wow.

In war 2 wrongs do make a right. History proves this. Espcially in World War II. Drastic measures had to be taken.

So you are justifying their actions. I hope you are not from US because this is the most cliched response from their public if such a topic ever turns up. This is no different from the way they acted or are acting in Afghanistan and Iraq. They bomed the hell out of these countries, killing thousands upon thousands of civilians for their own agendas. If you think that this is justified then I am sorry I think you justify blood-shed at that level. I have nothing more to say.

Where have you decided to not read me saying it was horrible? Fuck you just don't get it at all. Never have I said it was right. I'm saying it had to be done, and I'm saying that it ended one of the most horrible wars this world has ever seen.

In war two wrongs do make a right. All nations fall right? So in a war we're (we as in humans) just supposed to wait year after year in attrition until everyone's hands are covered in blood? Japan's stance in the war had to fall.

You're not even trying to listen though. You see that I'm justifying a horrible action (in a horrible war) and just ride with that I'm all for tyrannical actions and slaying the innocent when I'm so far against needless killing and for freedom that couldn't possibly be true.

The whole problem you have is that you want it to be an ideal world. Hell I want to it be an ideal world but it's not. There's going to be fighting, and there's going to be dying. That will never change.

However dropping that bomb did make change. That war had to end. There's no other way of looking at it. It.had.to.end.

Fine though. If you can't look past stereotypical hate for a country fueled by the media and look at something for what it really is.
No one is justifying boodshed. Stop reading only what you want to.

What I was saying is the US isn't the only country that had done bad things over the course of history and that when someone brought up the bombing that ended Japan's involvement in World War 2, yet saying the US is a big bad meanie pants because of it.

It was sad, yea. Horrible. War should never happen but that's living in an idealistic world. It ended a war that had been going on for over 7 years. It wasn't just pointing it at a major city and dropping a bomb then going "YEYYYYHAAWWWWW!!!!" and hoping to hit as many innocent as possible. It was meant to wipe out key Japanese military institutions, in fact vaporize them.

Any other more peaceful action would have been ineffective. The Japanese would have hid it from the public and moral wouldn't have died at all. Maybe you should blame the Japanese though for placing key military establishments in major cities since everyone here just loves to toss blame around.

I still like how no one has commented on what Japan did right around the start of World War II that makes Nagasaki and Hiroshima look pathetic in comparison. It makes me wonder if my posts aren't actually being read and those who comment just read what they want to read, or people are actually ignoring it. Maybe no one cares because it was the Chinese? Yea that'd probably make sense too.

And yet it does not change the fact that US is repeating the same things all over again. May I remaind you that Us has a history of killing innocents on a massive scale, disregarding the basic concept called humanity. I am sure the torture pictures which surfaced and then disappeared just as quickly are proof enough how well they are handeling the civilians in Iraq and Afg. This is no different the way they acted in WWII. So ending the war for a so-called greater cause= nuking, using chemical weapons for the mass-murder of the civilians. I don't understand your logic.

There is no justification, because such things are never "fair". I don't think we are trying to justify the U.S.'s actions, but provide the reasons for why they were unfortunately necessary. You can't beat your swords into plowshares if everyone else is still swinging swords at you. What would you rather the U.S. have done? Invaded Japan and slowly wiped out its people as they all fought to the bitter end? Would you like that better?

Sure, the bomb was made and dropped by the U.S., but the cause behind it was the Japanese government. They knew they were losing a year before. If the government had been willing to surrender at that point, the bomb would not have been used. The U.S. dropped the bomb because the Japanese government was unwilling to stop and surrender--not because they hated Japanese civilians, or wanted to try out this cool new bomb, or any other stupid reason.

A mainland invasion wasn't necessary. Japan was finished. The Allies however a)- Wanted an UNCONDITIONAL surrender
b)- Had a new weapon which they eagerly wanted to test out on some "yellows"
c)- What better warning shot to fire at the Soviets than a live demonstration of the A-bomb.

Defeat of Japan would have come via suffocating the islands eventually... Japan had next to nothing to throw back at the Allies at that stage.

You must be a little confused. Not to mention you have so much unconditional stereotypical hate for something you really know nothing about to even attempt to argue this fairly.

A mainland invasion was necessary. You can't just bomb a country in a war like that then not do nothing. You have to bring troops in to tie up all the lose ends.

Your comment about early wanting to test out a new weapon is not only racist but discriminatory against an entire country.

I think you've proved you have given up any rights you have about input in this conversation.

they should withdrawl the forces in japan, but, they should make like, a nearby base or something (not in japan)