Another little tidbit the biased left wing media forgot to mention

[RobertE]

Reminds me a bit of the Americans during Pearl Harbour. Sir, they hit us so we have to enter into the war and nuke two islands. Yep, reasonable force was not in use then either. Are you that fucking dim or does everything go over your head. Do you want me to break it down into more manageable parts so you can understand? 

Furthermore, I support Israel, and should more Palestinians die, I don't care. The Jews have the right to be there. Mind you, it amazes me that the so-called most powerful country in the world loves to take it from behind like a bitch from Israel.

Seriously?  You're comparing the PTO to Israel's policy of bombing civilians?  Japan in 1941 was a expanding, powerful empire.  Its policy of conquest in Asia was an existential threat.  Israel, on the other hand, are performing actions that are all out of proportion to what the Palestinians are doing.

The only way you could seriously compare the two would be if the Japanese had snuck into Hawaii and sprayed 'Roosevelt is a Homo' on a palm tree and then run away, at which point the US immediately began dropping bombs on preschools.

Boru

It doesn't alter the fact that whatever the Japanese did, they didn't warrant having a nuclear bomb dropped on them. The Japanese are your equivalent of the Hamas throwing rocks if you will, and your yanks are your Israeli equivalent of lancing rockets.

[Jello]

yeah, the japanese didn't at all send an entire carrier group's worth of aircraft into pearl harbour and blow up a lot of people and ships, That's totally not the entirely valid reason for america to get involved, let alone the insane shit the japanese did in other countries.

[Crossless2.0]

Seriously?  You're comparing the PTO to Israel's policy of bombing civilians?  Japan in 1941 was a expanding, powerful empire.  Its policy of conquest in Asia was an existential threat.  Israel, on the other hand, are performing actions that are all out of proportion to what the Palestinians are doing.

The only way you could seriously compare the two would be if the Japanese had snuck into Hawaii and sprayed 'Roosevelt is a Homo' on a palm tree and then run away, at which point the US immediately began dropping bombs on preschools.

Boru

It doesn't alter the fact that whatever the Japanese did, they didn't warrant having a nuclear bomb dropped on them. The Japanese are your equivalent of the Hamas throwing rocks if you will, and your yanks are your Israeli equivalent of lancing rockets.

"Whatever the Japanese did"? This isn't guesswork. It's well-documented history, and you suggesting that the Japanese in WWII are analogous to Hamas in terms of their opponents' response is simply puerile. Millions died at the hands of the Japanese in the '30s-'40s. Millions. The ethics of dropping those two bombs continue to be debated to this day, but the grave threat the Japanese empire posed to people throughout east Asia and the Pacific is in no doubt. I'm not sure I wouldn't have made the same decision as Truman, had I been sitting in the Oval Office.

Yes, the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan (as well as the fire bombing of Tokyo) were terrible tragedies that largely affected civilians, and those events rightly continue to trouble people. Furthermore, there is good evidence suggesting that the atom bombs were dropped, in part anyway, to end the war before the U.S.S.R. could reach mainland Japan and lay claim to the post-war settlement, as they had in Germany. There's nothing 'pretty' about any of it. But an invasion of mainland Japan would certainly have led to a hell of a lot more Japanese casualties than were suffered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or do you think the U.S. invasion force was gearing up to hand out candy bars and nylons?

And none of this has Jack-shit to do with Israel's over-the-top response to what often amount to little more than petty provocations.

[RobertE]

It doesn't alter the fact that whatever the Japanese did, they didn't warrant having a nuclear bomb dropped on them. The Japanese are your equivalent of the Hamas throwing rocks if you will, and your yanks are your Israeli equivalent of lancing rockets.

"Whatever the Japanese did"? This isn't guesswork. It's well-documented history, and you suggesting that the Japanese in WWII are analogous to Hamas in terms of their opponents' response is simply puerile. Millions died at the hands of the Japanese in the '30s-'40s. Millions. The ethics of dropping those two bombs continue to be debated to this day, but the grave threat the Japanese empire posed to people throughout east Asia and the Pacific is in no doubt. I'm not sure I wouldn't have made the same decision as Truman, had I been sitting in the Oval Office.

Yes, the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan (as well as the fire bombing of Tokyo) were terrible tragedies that largely affected civilians, and those events rightly continue to trouble people. Furthermore, there is good evidence suggesting that the atom bombs were dropped, in part anyway, to end the war before the U.S.S.R. could reach mainland Japan and lay claim to the post-war settlement, as they had in Germany. There's nothing 'pretty' about any of it. But an invasion of mainland Japan would certainly have led to a hell of a lot more Japanese casualties than were suffered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or do you think the U.S. invasion force was gearing up to hand out candy bars and nylons?

And none of this has Jack-shit to do with Israel's over-the-top response to what often amount to little more than petty provocations.

Another dumb heeb who doesn't understand. I am talking about the response. Rocks against rockets, kamikazi planes and nuclear bombs, Napalm against guns, they are not equal responses. If you hit me with a fist and I hit you back with a fist, that is an equal response. If you hit me with a fist and I hit you with a brick, that is not an equal response. Savvy?

[Jello]

An invasion of mainland japan would be insane for whoever attempted it. The japanese home islands had their best weaponry stored up, for one ( See the Kikka jet fighter, a Me-262 essentially, and also the Ohka, a rocket propelled suicide plane, amongst other weaponry.) And the only way to actually fight them on their land would be to kill pretty much every last person on the islands. They had already proven that they didn't care about civilian lives, they used enough of them against the americans on the islands leading up to japan.

It is not comparable to israel and palestine.

[Crossless2.0]

"Whatever the Japanese did"? This isn't guesswork. It's well-documented history, and you suggesting that the Japanese in WWII are analogous to Hamas in terms of their opponents' response is simply puerile. Millions died at the hands of the Japanese in the '30s-'40s. Millions. The ethics of dropping those two bombs continue to be debated to this day, but the grave threat the Japanese empire posed to people throughout east Asia and the Pacific is in no doubt. I'm not sure I wouldn't have made the same decision as Truman, had I been sitting in the Oval Office.

Yes, the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan (as well as the fire bombing of Tokyo) were terrible tragedies that largely affected civilians, and those events rightly continue to trouble people. Furthermore, there is good evidence suggesting that the atom bombs were dropped, in part anyway, to end the war before the U.S.S.R. could reach mainland Japan and lay claim to the post-war settlement, as they had in Germany. There's nothing 'pretty' about any of it. But an invasion of mainland Japan would certainly have led to a hell of a lot more Japanese casualties than were suffered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or do you think the U.S. invasion force was gearing up to hand out candy bars and nylons?

And none of this has Jack-shit to do with Israel's over-the-top response to what often amount to little more than petty provocations.

Another dumb heeb who doesn't understand. I am talking about the response. Rocks against rockets, kamikazi planes and nuclear bombs, Napalm against guns, they are not equal responses. If you hit me with a fist and I hit you back with a fist, that is an equal response. If you hit me with a fist and I hit you with a brick, that is not an equal response. Savvy?

I'm talking about the response, too. Your fist-for-fist analogy fails. It's more like, "If you hit me with a fist, then punch my wife and kids, then go around punching all of my neighbors, and eventually make it around to punching everybody you can get to in my town, and you refuse to stop . . . then I take a baseball bat upside your fucking head."

Savvy?

Oh, and dumb heeb?    

[RobertE]

Another dumb heeb who doesn't understand. I am talking about the response. Rocks against rockets, kamikazi planes and nuclear bombs, Napalm against guns, they are not equal responses. If you hit me with a fist and I hit you back with a fist, that is an equal response. If you hit me with a fist and I hit you with a brick, that is not an equal response. Savvy?

I'm talking about the response, too. Your fist-for-fist analogy fails. It's more like, "If you hit me with a fist, then punch my wife and kids, then go around punching all of my neighbors, and eventually make it around to punching everybody you can get to in my town, and you refuse to stop . . . then I take a baseball bat upside your fucking head."

Savvy?

Oh, and dumb heeb?    

Why does it fail? If a cop shoots a black man because the black guy tried to get away with robbing from a Korean foodstore, I'd definitely say it was well deserved and equal response.

[Mister Agenda]

What?

[Crossless2.0]

I'm talking about the response, too. Your fist-for-fist analogy fails. It's more like, "If you hit me with a fist, then punch my wife and kids, then go around punching all of my neighbors, and eventually make it around to punching everybody you can get to in my town, and you refuse to stop . . . then I take a baseball bat upside your fucking head."

Savvy?

Oh, and dumb heeb?    

Why does it fail? If a cop shoots a black man because the black guy tried to get away with robbing from a Korean foodstore, I'd definitely say it was well deserved and equal response.

Let's leave your wet dreams out of this, shall we?

Your fist-for-fist analogy fails because it was offered in the context of my responding to this idiocy, which you wrote: The Japanese are your equivalent of the Hamas throwing rocks if you will, and your yanks are your Israeli equivalent of lancing rockets. I pointed out that the decision to drop those bombs in the midst of a world war against an enemy that was responsible for the deaths of millions and the enslavement and dispossession of millions more is not the same thing, in any reasonable sense, as armed reprisals or bombings conducted in response to rock throwing -- unless, of course, you wish to expose yourself as a complete cretin by suggesting that what the Japanese did in the '30s and '40s was little more than 'rock throwing' on the international stage.

If that's actually your position, then I'm sure the relative handful of still-living victims and the descendants of victims of Japanese depredations in several countries would like to have a word with you.

[RobertE]

Why does it fail? If a cop shoots a black man because the black guy tried to get away with robbing from a Korean foodstore, I'd definitely say it was well deserved and equal response.

Let's leave your wet dreams out of this, shall we?

Your fist-for-fist analogy fails because it was offered in the context of my responding to this idiocy, which you wrote: The Japanese are your equivalent of the Hamas throwing rocks if you will, and your yanks are your Israeli equivalent of lancing rockets. I pointed out that the decision to drop those bombs in the midst of a world war against an enemy that was responsible for the deaths of millions and the enslavement and dispossession of millions more is not the same thing, in any reasonable sense, as armed reprisals or bombings conducted in response to rock throwing -- unless, of course, you wish to expose yourself as a complete cretin by suggesting that what the Japanese did in the '30s and '40s was little more than 'rock throwing' on the international stage.

If that's actually your position, then I'm sure the relative handful of still-living victims and the descendants of victims of Japanese depredations in several countries would like to have a word with you.

Again, you have taken my post out of context. I have pointed this out to you twice now, so, I am not going to repeat myself for a third time.