Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith
I'm saying they were asked numerous times and refused each time. It was only AFTER they were nuked (not once but twice, they still refused to surrender after the first one) that they finally figured out that maybe they better stop their war effort.
I don't think I can dumb it down any further for you. Sorry.
I understand causality perfectly. Do you understand the difference between a real war and an unexpected terrorist attack?
I support the ending of the war (WWII) as quickly as possible. Period. If anyone in the world doesn't like how that goal was attained then I invite you to consider the notion that maybe, just maybe, Japan shouldn't have started the war to begin with.
No war = no need for bomb usage, yes?
They knew the risk, and took it anyway.
Your comparing 9/11 to WWII is awefully weak, and in fact quite lame. But I've come to expect no less than that kind of thinking from you.
|
Sorry that you can't equate one act of murder with another. Both were acts of murder, both served no purpose but to murder. If you think yours is justified for some reason, someone else thinks their attack was justified for another. The point is that murder is wrong no matter what justification you may think you have for it. Especially the kind that kills innocent people that have nothing to do with the war.
Japan surrendered in the end, and they could have surrenedered earlier. You can't say they wouldn't have. And you can't say that there would have been more or less casualties if the bomb wasn't dropped. Point is that you guys murdered tens of thousands of innocent people that had nothing to do with the war so that you could inflict terror into the hearts of your enemy. Sound familiar?