On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 6:21:37 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 17:57:08 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> >On 2019-12-07 5:38 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> On 12/7/2019 2:53 PM, Bruce wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 14:15:24 -0500, Dave Smith
> >
> >>>> Yep. It was not just an attack on the US. That was just a side show to
> >>>> their well coordinated invasions across the Pacific. The US had been
> >>>> hassling the Japanese about their aggression on China and Mongolia and
> >>>> tried to force them to stop by means of embargoes on steel andÂ* oil.
> >>>> They thought the US lacked the will to actually fight and that they
> >>>> could knock the war spirit out of the Americans by destroying their
> >>>> Pacific fleet.Â* So we can celebrate Tora Tora Tora as the countdown to
> >>>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> >>>
> >>> Can you just stick to boring posts and not foray into disgusting ones?
> >>> Those bombs on civilian populations were the 2nd biggest atrocity of
> >>> WW2, after the Holocaust.
> >>>
> >> If that did not happen they estimate that a million lives would have
> >> been lost, mostly Japanese.Â* They were not giving in until every last
> >> person was gone.Â* No matter, you'd not accept anything about it.Â* You
> >> are welcome to second guess decisions make in the 1940s.
> >
> >We may have to cut some slack for the Dutchman. They like to think of
> >themselves as victims of the German aggression, but there were a lot
> >more of his countrymen who joined the Nazis than the Resistance.
>
> That, true or not, also doesn't justify throwing atomic bombs on
> civilians. It's quite shocking that you 2 can't see that because of
> your huge bias.

It's futile to argue with bigots. They don't wish to learn and are stuck in their own moronic version of history. I remember watching a doc on the bombing of German cities. The preacher said that it was necessary in order to shorten the war. Shorten the war? At whose expense. Did murdering civilians actually shorten the war?