• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel's End Game


As usual, somebody who has no idea how weapons testing or deployment works has the nerve to play armchair president.

Guess what?

You're wrong. While the bombs were tested those tests DID NOT show the effects of the blast nor the amount of destruction it would cause.

We used the bombs because we knew that an assault on Japan would be a blood bath. Our commanders, chose an option that would spare the military another blood bath.

Again, the long term effects of the bomb were unknown as was the total overall damage caused by the bomb.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Wrong.

You were attacked because of your involvement in the Middle East. It's called blowback.
Click to expand...

Says you.

We were attacked because the Clinton Administration lacked the balls to kill Bin Laden and his band of terrorist ****bags when the opportunity presented itself.

You can preach your rhetoric all you want but that doesn't change ANYTHING. We were attacked because Clinton and his cronies failed to see an OBVIOUS threat.
 

You are partially correct and partially incorrect.

Where you are incorrect is that the bombs were indeed acts of state terrorism by many definitions of the words. State terrorism is "the purposeful act or threat of violence to create fear and/or compliant behavior in a victim and/or audience of the act or threat...snip...It is important to understand that in terrorism the violence threatened or perpetrated, has purposes broader than simple physical harm to a victim. The audience of the act or threat of violence is more important than the immediate victim. (Stohl) Civilians were targeted for the purpose of forcing the Japanese capitulation and avoid a protracted land battle that would have no doubt caused millions of additional casualties on both sides. The Hiroshima bomb was dropped in the center of the city and not on the industrial areas. The Nagasaki bomb was dropped three days later, not out of military necessity, but out of the desire to prevent the Japanese government from minimizing the attack before the populace. It would give the illusion that we had a large number of the bombs on hand and were capable of multiple atomic attacks. The strategy worked as the Japanese military believed we had hundreds of the things and could drop three a day. The minister of war said as much to the political leadership. Despite Truman's wishes that only military and industrial targets would be hit, the overwhelming result was that civilians were slaughtered. No amount of lip service would change that. No amount of rhetoric would change that.

Truman and his military leadership knew full well that those bombs would kill untold numbers of innocent civilians, but it had to be done. It had to be a terrible, terrible thing to have the desired political effect. Clausewitz wrote that war is an extension of politics. And indeed this was. These targets had little actual military value, save that their destruction would stimulate the desired political response in bringing the government of Japan to surrender without further military action. It was us or them. It would be them. It had to be them. Truman expressed sorrow over the catastrophic loss of life in his personal memoirs.

Further, it's been long argued by historians that the atomic bombings served a dual purpose. Forcing the surrender of Japan without a full scale land battle and to send a warning to Russia to stop in Berlin and not go any further. U.S. military leaders were convinced that war with Russia was not far off, in fact some wanted it. It could be argued that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the starting gun of the Cold War.
 
Last edited:

They didn't show the amount of destruction it could cause? It produces a ****ing 15 kilaton blast. What type of destruction do you expect?!

As to avoiding a blood bath, why didn't the US deploy it in North Vietnam? Dropping another one would have spared the US military another blood bath there. Not to mention there was already an invasion plan drawn up to be used after the dropping of the a-bombs (Operation Downfall).

Either way, there's no way you can justify the dropping of the a-bomb on Nagasaki.
 
Hate to be a party pooper here but umm...isn't this thread about "Israels End Game"? Not "USA's End Game"? If we really want to talk about the USA shouldn't a new thread be opened up?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Hate to be a party pooper here but umm...isn't this thread about "Israels End Game"? Not "USA's End Game"? If we really want to talk about the USA shouldn't a new thread be opened up?
Click to expand...

You are right. Sorry, I didn't mean to derail. I just had to step in. I hate it when people selectively decide when terrorism is actually terrorism.

Back on topic.

:3oops:
 

a threat based on blowback for meddling in external affairs.
 
Vader said:
Says you.
Click to expand...
And...many other people including scholars and Middle East experts. While it's not the sole reason, western interventionism in the Middle East is certainly a contributing factor to the current phase of Islamic terrorism. To suggest otherwise is to act in denial or out of ignorance.

We were attacked because the Clinton Administration lacked the balls to kill Bin Laden and his band of terrorist ****bags when the opportunity presented itself.
Click to expand...
This comment is ridiculous. An omission is not responsible for a commission. The same case could be made that Reagan empowered the mujahedeen and then failed to actually follow through in helping Afghanistan rebuild it's government as a modern democracy...thus allowing the Taliban to take control, support Al Qaeda, and give us 9/11. There's much more veracity to what I just said than your in your statement...if were solely looking to place blame for people NOT doing something. I'd say Reagan and George H.W. Bush are first on the list.
You can preach your rhetoric all you want but that doesn't change ANYTHING. We were attacked because Clinton and his cronies failed to see an OBVIOUS threat.
Click to expand...
The only delivering partisan rhetoric here is you. Clinton put much a great deal of effort into countering terrorism. He authorized several plans for renditions, assassinations, and other covert ops but the political in-fighting within the Pentagon stopped almost all of it.

Check out Richard Clarke. He served this nation under Republican and Democrat alike and was central to the counter terrorism effort of the U.S. for a couple of decades. Then come back with your "rhetoric" about Clinton.
 
Off topic...I hate it when I don't proof my posts and miss so many mistakes. I hate it even more then I do proof, miss mistakes, go back and edit, and still miss mistakes.

:3oops:
 

1.) We didn't deploy nukes in Vietnam because doing so was unecessary.

2.) Japan attacked the United States first. Japan was the aggressor and they got beat at their own game.

3.) Stop with your anti-American rhetoric. We bombed Japan because they bombed us. Don't like it? Too bad. Japan didn't have to attack the US ... they chose to do so.

4.) Our attack on Japan is justified because Japan attacked and killed US citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…