(08-09-2015 12:41 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:29 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 11:58 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  that's an assumption....plausible, but an assumption nonetheless....it was assumed vietnam was a gimmee too....

I would say it's much more likely than unlikely. Also, in WWII we had a different mindset than in Vietnam.

you're right....we fought to win wars up until that point....

and yes, I would agree it was likely....but at what cost?

I really don't understand you libtards......

Well then we're even because I can't understand your English (if that's what it is) most of the time.

It would have been at a high cost but at that point we had so much skin in the game already. Plus, we could seal off Japan, while Vietnam could easily get help from China. Like I said though, the cost would have been enough both for the U.S. and for Japan that dropping the bombs was justified.

having a monday morning qb stance is easy....

the fact you discount cost of dollars/life vs gambling on success/failure is revealing....

hence, the libtard view that doesn't make sense....it's beyond contradiction relative to war.....it's flat out stupid.

So what you're saying is that the bombings were not justified? Or what are you saying?

(08-09-2015 12:00 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 11:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  We killed almost 200 thousand civilians.

Not a single person is disputing this. What you can't seem to get through your melon is the context in which the decision was made.

Want facts in a vacuum? It hasn't rained in three days. It never rains.

That is because he is a Troll. You can't reason with them.

(08-09-2015 12:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:41 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:29 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I would say it's much more likely than unlikely. Also, in WWII we had a different mindset than in Vietnam.

you're right....we fought to win wars up until that point....

and yes, I would agree it was likely....but at what cost?

I really don't understand you libtards......

Well then we're even because I can't understand your English (if that's what it is) most of the time.

It would have been at a high cost but at that point we had so much skin in the game already. Plus, we could seal off Japan, while Vietnam could easily get help from China. Like I said though, the cost would have been enough both for the U.S. and for Japan that dropping the bombs was justified.

having a monday morning qb stance is easy....

the fact you discount cost of dollars/life vs gambling on success/failure is revealing....

hence, the libtard view that doesn't make sense....it's beyond contradiction relative to war.....it's flat out stupid.

So what you're saying is that the bombings were not justified? Or what are you saying?

my stance....
post 39

your stance is gambling on winning using additional lives and dollars to achieve success....

I can't make it any simpler....

you not understanding is not my problem.....

edit: it helps to read through the thread before responding.....unless you want a novel every time (which I'm unwilling to do)

There is never justification for killing innocent women and children. If it's justified for us then it's justified for everyone. Attempting to justify what we did makes us no better than terrorist.

(08-09-2015 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is never justification for killing innocent women and children. If it's justified for us then it's justified for everyone. Attempting to justify what we did makes us no better than terrorist.

The goal of war is to defeat your opponent at the least amount of cost to yourself. That's exactly what we did, thus the use was justified.

(08-09-2015 01:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is never justification for killing innocent women and children. If it's justified for us then it's justified for everyone. Attempting to justify what we did makes us no better than terrorist.

The goal of war is to defeat your opponent at the least amount of cost to yourself. That's exactly what we did, thus the use was justified.

It's like talking to an oak stump.

(08-09-2015 01:55 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is never justification for killing innocent women and children. If it's justified for us then it's justified for everyone. Attempting to justify what we did makes us no better than terrorist.

The goal of war is to defeat your opponent at the least amount of cost to yourself. That's exactly what we did, thus the use was justified.

It's like talking to an oak stump.

Or Troll

(08-09-2015 01:59 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:55 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is never justification for killing innocent women and children. If it's justified for us then it's justified for everyone. Attempting to justify what we did makes us no better than terrorist.

The goal of war is to defeat your opponent at the least amount of cost to yourself. That's exactly what we did, thus the use was justified.

It's like talking to an oak stump.

Or Troll

or el mayate....

(08-09-2015 01:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is never justification for killing innocent women and children. If it's justified for us then it's justified for everyone. Attempting to justify what we did makes us no better than terrorist.

The goal of war is to defeat your opponent at the least amount of cost to yourself. That's exactly what we did, thus the use was justified.

Then don't condemn those who say the same thing on another front. Be consistent.

(08-09-2015 02:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is never justification for killing innocent women and children. If it's justified for us then it's justified for everyone. Attempting to justify what we did makes us no better than terrorist.

The goal of war is to defeat your opponent at the least amount of cost to yourself. That's exactly what we did, thus the use was justified.

Then don't condemn those who say the same thing on another front. Be consistent.

What are you talking about?

(08-09-2015 01:55 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is never justification for killing innocent women and children. If it's justified for us then it's justified for everyone. Attempting to justify what we did makes us no better than terrorist.

The goal of war is to defeat your opponent at the least amount of cost to yourself. That's exactly what we did, thus the use was justified.

It's like talking to an oak stump.

he just shot me a text...."low class private, reporting sir"

(08-09-2015 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is never justification for killing innocent women and children. If it's justified for us then it's justified for everyone. Attempting to justify what we did makes us no better than terrorist.

Interesting flip flop Fit. The U.S. Are terrorists in saving total number of human lives during WWII. But eighty years earlier , Sheridan and Sherman and Company were not??

It's becoming quite clear why you are a monitor in he computer lab now.

(08-09-2015 03:26 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is never justification for killing innocent women and children. If it's justified for us then it's justified for everyone. Attempting to justify what we did makes us no better than terrorist.

Interesting flip flop Fit. The U.S. Are terrorists in saving total number of human lives during WWII. But eighty years earlier , Sheridan and Sherman and Company were not??

It's becoming quite clear why you are a monitor in he computer lab now.

...the janitor is retiring in 6 mos....don't discount the power of demotion....

(08-09-2015 01:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:41 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:29 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  you're right....we fought to win wars up until that point....

and yes, I would agree it was likely....but at what cost?

I really don't understand you libtards......

Well then we're even because I can't understand your English (if that's what it is) most of the time.

It would have been at a high cost but at that point we had so much skin in the game already. Plus, we could seal off Japan, while Vietnam could easily get help from China. Like I said though, the cost would have been enough both for the U.S. and for Japan that dropping the bombs was justified.

having a monday morning qb stance is easy....

the fact you discount cost of dollars/life vs gambling on success/failure is revealing....

hence, the libtard view that doesn't make sense....it's beyond contradiction relative to war.....it's flat out stupid.

So what you're saying is that the bombings were not justified? Or what are you saying?

my stance....
post 39

your stance is gambling on winning using additional lives and dollars to achieve success....

I can't make it any simpler....

you not understanding is not my problem.....

edit: it helps to read through the thread before responding.....unless you want a novel every time (which I'm unwilling to do)

I don't understand what you're writing because you obviously did not read the thread. I said THREE TIMES that the bombing was justified. So I don't know what you're arguing with, unless you simply like to argue, and your perception of me as a liberal completely blinds you to what I actually write in my posts.

Did anybody else on this board not understand that?

I said the bombing may not have been strictly necessary in that we could probably have won the war without that, but it would have been much more costly, to the US certainly and probably to Japan as well. And that's ignoring geopolitical considerations such as the Soviet Union trying to gain territory.

(08-09-2015 05:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:41 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Well then we're even because I can't understand your English (if that's what it is) most of the time.

It would have been at a high cost but at that point we had so much skin in the game already. Plus, we could seal off Japan, while Vietnam could easily get help from China. Like I said though, the cost would have been enough both for the U.S. and for Japan that dropping the bombs was justified.

having a monday morning qb stance is easy....

the fact you discount cost of dollars/life vs gambling on success/failure is revealing....

hence, the libtard view that doesn't make sense....it's beyond contradiction relative to war.....it's flat out stupid.

So what you're saying is that the bombings were not justified? Or what are you saying?

my stance....
post 39

your stance is gambling on winning using additional lives and dollars to achieve success....

I can't make it any simpler....

you not understanding is not my problem.....

edit: it helps to read through the thread before responding.....unless you want a novel every time (which I'm unwilling to do)

I don't understand what you're writing because you obviously did not read the thread. I said THREE TIMES that the bombing was justified. So I don't know what you're arguing with, unless you simply like to argue, and your perception of me as a liberal completely blinds you to what I actually write in my posts.

Did anybody else on this board not understand that?

I said the bombing may not have been strictly necessary in that we could probably have won the war without that, but it would have been much more costly, to the US certainly and probably to Japan as well. And that's ignoring geopolitical considerations such as the Soviet Union trying to gain territory.

not disagreeing with that part....

c'mon man....

you offereed a division to true.....that's what we're agruing about....

that's not how wars are won......we are the first culture that acknowledged 'dogs can think'....

that is the argument....

damn libtards that can't acknowledge that is said behind the doors......fk that when it comes to war....

it's war.....it ain't spin the bottle and one 'walks in or out of the closet' speak....jfc

(08-09-2015 05:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 05:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:41 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  having a monday morning qb stance is easy....

the fact you discount cost of dollars/life vs gambling on success/failure is revealing....

hence, the libtard view that doesn't make sense....it's beyond contradiction relative to war.....it's flat out stupid.

So what you're saying is that the bombings were not justified? Or what are you saying?

my stance....
post 39

your stance is gambling on winning using additional lives and dollars to achieve success....

I can't make it any simpler....

you not understanding is not my problem.....

edit: it helps to read through the thread before responding.....unless you want a novel every time (which I'm unwilling to do)

I don't understand what you're writing because you obviously did not read the thread. I said THREE TIMES that the bombing was justified. So I don't know what you're arguing with, unless you simply like to argue, and your perception of me as a liberal completely blinds you to what I actually write in my posts.

Did anybody else on this board not understand that?

I said the bombing may not have been strictly necessary in that we could probably have won the war without that, but it would have been much more costly, to the US certainly and probably to Japan as well. And that's ignoring geopolitical considerations such as the Soviet Union trying to gain territory.

not disagreeing with that part....

c'mon man....

you offereed a division to true.....that's what we're agruing about....

that's not how wars are won......we are the first culture that acknowledged 'dogs can think'....

that is the argument....

damn libtards that can't acknowledge that is said behind the doors......fk that when it comes to war....

it's war.....it ain't spin the bottle and one 'walks in or out of the closet' speak....jfc

I don't know what that means.

(08-09-2015 05:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 05:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 05:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  So what you're saying is that the bombings were not justified? Or what are you saying?

my stance....
post 39

your stance is gambling on winning using additional lives and dollars to achieve success....

I can't make it any simpler....

you not understanding is not my problem.....

edit: it helps to read through the thread before responding.....unless you want a novel every time (which I'm unwilling to do)

I don't understand what you're writing because you obviously did not read the thread. I said THREE TIMES that the bombing was justified. So I don't know what you're arguing with, unless you simply like to argue, and your perception of me as a liberal completely blinds you to what I actually write in my posts.

Did anybody else on this board not understand that?

I said the bombing may not have been strictly necessary in that we could probably have won the war without that, but it would have been much more costly, to the US certainly and probably to Japan as well. And that's ignoring geopolitical considerations such as the Soviet Union trying to gain territory.

not disagreeing with that part....

c'mon man....

you offereed a division to true.....that's what we're agruing about....

that's not how wars are won......we are the first culture that acknowledged 'dogs can think'....

that is the argument....

damn libtards that can't acknowledge that is said behind the doors......fk that when it comes to war....

it's war.....it ain't spin the bottle and one 'walks in or out of the closet' speak....jfc

I don't know what that means.

an alternative path that can yield false.....psy301....17 yrs old....sorry, not my problem....

people like you are becoming one though......

....nothing I can do about that,....

(08-09-2015 05:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:41 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Well then we're even because I can't understand your English (if that's what it is) most of the time.

It would have been at a high cost but at that point we had so much skin in the game already. Plus, we could seal off Japan, while Vietnam could easily get help from China. Like I said though, the cost would have been enough both for the U.S. and for Japan that dropping the bombs was justified.

having a monday morning qb stance is easy....

the fact you discount cost of dollars/life vs gambling on success/failure is revealing....

hence, the libtard view that doesn't make sense....it's beyond contradiction relative to war.....it's flat out stupid.

So what you're saying is that the bombings were not justified? Or what are you saying?

my stance....
post 39

your stance is gambling on winning using additional lives and dollars to achieve success....

I can't make it any simpler....

you not understanding is not my problem.....

edit: it helps to read through the thread before responding.....unless you want a novel every time (which I'm unwilling to do)

I don't understand what you're writing because you obviously did not read the thread. I said THREE TIMES that the bombing was justified. So I don't know what you're arguing with, unless you simply like to argue, and your perception of me as a liberal completely blinds you to what I actually write in my posts.

Did anybody else on this board not understand that?

I said the bombing may not have been strictly necessary in that we could probably have won the war without that, but it would have been much more costly, to the US certainly and probably to Japan as well. And that's ignoring geopolitical considerations such as the Soviet Union trying to gain territory.

Then the bombings were necessary.

(08-09-2015 05:32 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 05:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 05:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 05:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  my stance....
post 39

your stance is gambling on winning using additional lives and dollars to achieve success....

I can't make it any simpler....

you not understanding is not my problem.....

edit: it helps to read through the thread before responding.....unless you want a novel every time (which I'm unwilling to do)

I don't understand what you're writing because you obviously did not read the thread. I said THREE TIMES that the bombing was justified. So I don't know what you're arguing with, unless you simply like to argue, and your perception of me as a liberal completely blinds you to what I actually write in my posts.

Did anybody else on this board not understand that?

I said the bombing may not have been strictly necessary in that we could probably have won the war without that, but it would have been much more costly, to the US certainly and probably to Japan as well. And that's ignoring geopolitical considerations such as the Soviet Union trying to gain territory.

not disagreeing with that part....

c'mon man....

you offereed a division to true.....that's what we're agruing about....

that's not how wars are won......we are the first culture that acknowledged 'dogs can think'....

that is the argument....

damn libtards that can't acknowledge that is said behind the doors......fk that when it comes to war....

it's war.....it ain't spin the bottle and one 'walks in or out of the closet' speak....jfc

I don't know what that means.

an alternative path that can yield false.....psy301....17 yrs old....sorry, not my problem....

people like you are becoming one though......

....nothing I can do about that,....

Maybe you should try speaking English next time, like everyone else on this board does.

(08-09-2015 05:43 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 05:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:41 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  having a monday morning qb stance is easy....

the fact you discount cost of dollars/life vs gambling on success/failure is revealing....

hence, the libtard view that doesn't make sense....it's beyond contradiction relative to war.....it's flat out stupid.

So what you're saying is that the bombings were not justified? Or what are you saying?

my stance....
post 39

your stance is gambling on winning using additional lives and dollars to achieve success....

I can't make it any simpler....

you not understanding is not my problem.....

edit: it helps to read through the thread before responding.....unless you want a novel every time (which I'm unwilling to do)

I don't understand what you're writing because you obviously did not read the thread. I said THREE TIMES that the bombing was justified. So I don't know what you're arguing with, unless you simply like to argue, and your perception of me as a liberal completely blinds you to what I actually write in my posts.

Did anybody else on this board not understand that?

I said the bombing may not have been strictly necessary in that we could probably have won the war without that, but it would have been much more costly, to the US certainly and probably to Japan as well. And that's ignoring geopolitical considerations such as the Soviet Union trying to gain territory.

Then the bombings were necessary.

No, if we could win without them, then they weren't necessary.