RE: WWII boming debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

bradfordkay -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/20/2008 9:58:33 AM)

No nation whose military committed the Rape of Nanking can make any claim to moral high ground.

First of all, Nagasaki was the center of the Portugese - Japanese trade that started in the 1570's, so to say that Japan was nicely isolated before Perry so rudely forced trade upon Japan is a misleading statement. Aside from his visits, were there ever attempts to actually invade and establish an american base in Japan? Of course not. Trade was what the US was after - preferably in a beneficial ratio for us, but that's not exactly murder is it?


Japan was not forced to invade China, she chose to do so. Recent history shows that she could have purchased the raw materials rather than capture them, but that is not what Japan chose to do. Instead, she started a vicious, murderous campaign to steal the wealth of China - all under teh guise of an innocently named idealistic "Greater East Asia". I'm sure that the people of eastern China were ecstatic under the loving care of their Japanese brethren.

Give us a break, Ike.

I see it as there were three basic choices:

1. Invade Japan. What do you think the casualties would be for the Japanese people from that?

2. Maintain the blockade. If it had lasted another year, how many would have starved? In six months?

3. Drop the bomb. After we dropped the first one, we dropped a warning to evacuate the cities. No, the warning did not name the exact targets, it just said "Evacuate your cities now!"

That the United States was willing to allow the continuance of the imperial family shows how much we were willing to give in an attempt to end the war. Had the Japanese ever actually contacted the west during the late spring of '45 saying that they would surrender with the only condition being the continuance of the imperial family the allies would probably have accepted.

Did they? No... they discussed a fantasy of offering the Soviets territory in Manchuria and the Kuriles in exchange for brokering a peace. They didn't even give the soviets a chance to turn them down, but derailed their own negotiations with an even more fantastic dictum from the Supremem Command: The Fundamental Policy to be Followed henceforth in the Conduct of the War.

"With a faith born of eternal loyalty as our inspiration, we shall - thanks to the advantages of our terrain and the unity of our nation - prosecute the war to the bitter end in order to up hold our kokutai, protect the imperial land and achieve our goals of conquest."

Even in the last months of the war, Japan's leaders were thinking in terms of maintaining their brutal control of Asia. Do you really believe that there was going to be a peace achieved at less cost to Japan than was achieved through the bombing campaign?



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/20/2008 6:30:34 PM)

Ike, while I have some sympathy for you being badly outnumbered on this forum, defending the Japanese decision to go to war and its general conduct during the war seems like misspent energy. While it is fair to remind students of history that the Allied conduct during the war could have been better, the Japanese conduct was so awful that defending it becomes intellectually offensive...Sorry to pile on...

While I am opining, I think the fairest assessment of the Japanese decision to go to war was they saw an opportunity to defeat the colonial powers in a resource rich area and they attempted to take advantage of the situation. Germany had overrun both France and the Netherlands, seemed on the verge of knocking out Russia and was likely to keep Britain's attention for many years. The U.S. was militarily weak for brief window of opportunity. If you were set on conquest, the situation was not going to get any better. They were further encouraged by a string of military successes over the previous 40 years and the high state of readiness of their armed forces. If they had attacked just the British and Dutch to dispossess them of their colonial holdings, it might have worked (at least as well as any military conquest really works in the long run).

As to pride...
At the end of the day, it seems to me that pride in the excellence of the Japanese armed forces during WWII must be tempered by their strong tendancy towards extreme brutallity and the nature of the decision to go to war. Same for the Germans. Regardless of all their positive attributes, they needed to be beaten, and both Japan and Germany (along with the rest of the world) are better for it. This coming from a guy who always played as the Germans while growing up...



ILCK -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/21/2008 1:26:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

Ike, while I have some sympathy for you being badly outnumbered on this forum, defending the Japanese decision to go to war and its general conduct during the war seems like misspent energy. While it is fair to remind students of history that the Allied conduct during the war could have been better, the Japanese conduct was so awful that defending it becomes intellectually offensive...Sorry to pile on...


I have no sympathy and his bombing question is a legit debate but now he's gone so far as to be a Japanese apologist? Sorry, the WWII Japanese gov't would be recalled as king scumbags of history except that Hitler and Stalin have been busy sucking up all the historical bad karma. The Japanese invaded, w/o provocation, China. Killing 20-35 MILLION Chinese - most of them civilians. The Japanese "Kill All", "Burn All" and "Loot All" policy in 1942 alone enslaved 10m Chinese and killed 2.5m. Hirohito authorized more than 300 specific uses of chemical weapons,

They enslaved millions more Asians - 10m in Indonesia alone and the death rate was 75 of every 100 slaves so do the math on that casualty rate. They subjected millions of Indonesians and Vietnamese to starvation and death during a preventable famine in 1944. They had the same sort of awful racial hierarchy that the Nazis had. They tortued PoW's, subjected them and civilians to chemical and biological experiments all that in addition to being a grotesque totalitarian system at home.

The overall body county of Japanese imperialism is even greater than Nazi Imperialism and reflected a deliberate and systematic policy of aggression, racism and violence.



tocaff -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/21/2008 2:50:32 AM)

To bad, he's back and the tranquility has been upset again.  People, he doesn't answer questions and has a deep hatred of the USA, Great Britain and who knows what other countries.  Nanking?  Hell, we all know the western powers forced Japan to invade China so Nanking was probably the USA's fault somehow.  Maybe the green button was created with a certain someone in mind?  



GaryChildress -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/21/2008 3:59:18 AM)

Obviously two wrongs don't make a right but it appears the Allies were not alone in strategic bombing in Asia.

quote:

The Japanese strategic bombing were done independently by the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service and the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service. These were mostly done against large Chinese cities, such as Shanghai, Wuhan and Chonging, with around 5 000 raids from February 1938 to August 1943 in the later case.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

Did strategic bombing have any effect on the outcome of the war in the Pacific? It looks so.

quote:

Emperor Hirohito's viewing of the destroyed areas of Tokyo in March 1945, is said to have been the beginning of his personal involvement in the peace process, culminating in Japan's surrender five months later.


Source: Ibid.

I think if the Allies had simply stuck to bombing ships and tanks on the battlefield the war quite probably could have gone on forever. I don't think Japan would have surrendered even if they were down to their last tug boat. Why surrender? Japan was preparing it's civilian populace for a fight to the death if the US invaded.

quote:

In October 1945, Prince Fumimaro Konoe said that the sinking of Japanese vessels by U.S. aircraft combined with the B-29 aerial mining campaign were just as effective as B-29 attacks on industry alone[28], though he admitted that "the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s." Prime Minister Baron Kantarô Suzuki reported to U.S. military authorities that it "seemed to me unavoidable that in the long run Japan would be almost destroyed by air attack so that merely on the basis of the B-29s alone I was convinced that Japan should sue for peace."


Source: Ibid.

I don't know. Tough decision. Bomb the enemy into submission from the air or send close to 1 million US soldiers to invade Japan on the ground where surely many would be killed. If I were a US G.I. in 1945 I would be thankful that the war ended without me having to fight my way through the streets of Tokyo.

EDIT: Typo.



Ike99 -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/21/2008 4:48:34 AM)

quote:

People, he doesn't answer questions and has a deep hatred of the USA, Great Britain and who knows what other countries.


Tocaff, I do not have a deep seated hatred for USA & Britain. Why do you say this and how would you know anyways?

Maybe you have a grudge against me because of the signs against USA you see where you live so you assume everyone puts up these signs?

But in these topics here you seem to have a very polarised view of things. One side was very good and did nothing wrong while the other side was very bad and did everything wrong.

And if you scroll up you´ll see I asked you ¨What Questions¨ and you didn´t reply.

ILCK & Wirraway_Ace. What do you mean ¨apologist¨?
I´m not exactly sure what this word means. I looked up a definition and it doesn´t seem to fit here. You´re saying I aplogise for everything Japan did?



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/21/2008 5:36:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

People, he doesn't answer questions and has a deep hatred of the USA, Great Britain and who knows what other countries.


Tocaff, I do not have a deep seated hatred for USA & Britain. Why do you say this and how would you know anyways?

Maybe you have a grudge against me because of the signs against USA you see where you live so you assume everyone puts up these signs?

But in these topics here you seem to have a very polarised view of things. One side was very good and did nothing wrong while the other side was very bad and did everything wrong.

And if you scroll up you´ll see I asked you ¨What Questions¨ and you didn´t reply.

ILCK & Wirraway_Ace. What do you mean ¨apologist¨?
I´m not exactly sure what this word means. I looked up a definition and it doesn´t seem to fit here. You´re saying I aplogise for everything Japan did?



And that, gentleman, is Ike's troll for the day.

Throw out a bunch of B.S. and watch the great-unwashed respond. [sm=00000280.gif]

Very manipulative.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



tocaff -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/21/2008 1:43:53 PM)

I don't know what he posted as I green buttoned him and I don't care so if it concerns me he should save the key strokes knowing I won't see it.



HansBolter -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/21/2008 2:28:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:


But in these topics here you seem to have a very polarised view of things. One side was very good and did nothing wrong while the other side was very bad and did everything wrong.





Take a very, very long hard look into the mirror. You are the one claiming the Japanese did nothing wrong and were merely protecting themselves from the imperialistic world powers by launching an imperialistic drive of their own.

No one here has ever claimed the Allies were paragons of virtue. You need to stop embarrassing yourself with such hollow baseless claims.

Tocaff, Ike seems to suffer from the same "anti-western powers" malady commonly found amongst the populations of third world countries. Granted, during the ages of imperialism of the European powers many third world countries were exploited economically and many of the peoples of those countries were denied what many in the world today have finally come to recognize as a fundamental right - self determination.

Even the USA made an ill considered (from my point of view) foray into imperialism driven by Teddy Roosevelt's desire for America to "step up onto the world stage". However, by the time of WWII American policy had already moved back towards our countries roots of "anti-emperialism". Teddy's cousin (or is it nephew) Franklin consistently worked to thwart what he and Marshal saw as attempts by Britain to drag America into supporting operations to regain Britian's lost "colonies". There were already plans to release the Phillipines from American administration and give them their freedom before the war started.

Instead of pursuing the noble course of freeing Asia from the bonds of imperialism, the modern Japanes state, modeled on the western powers by the way, chose a course of imperialism for itself. The main difference between the imperialsim of the western powers and the imperialism of the Japanese was that the main drive of the imperialism of the western powers was for economic purposes...ie...markets for their goods, while the unique brand Japanese imperialism was the complete and total subjugation and domination of the peoples of the region. The Japanese didn't want to force trade on soutrheast Asia the simply wanted to rape it wholesale. The brutality and sadism with which they pursued this goal guarantees they will be reviled for it forever.

What Ike persists in demonstarting that he is completely blind to is the difference between a Brit treating an Indian like a second class citizen in his own country and a Jap raping and slaughtering a Chinese for the mere sadisitic pleasure of it!



Joe D. -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/21/2008 5:00:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

... ILCK & Wirraway_Ace. What do you mean ¨apologist¨?
I´m not exactly sure what this word means. I looked up a definition and it doesn´t seem to fit here. You´re saying I aplogise for everything Japan did?


Ike, "apologist" is a noun, not the verb "apologize" or asking forgiveness.

apologist: A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist or an "apologete". The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning defense of a position against an attack ...

In your case, Ike, you are perceived to be an apologist for the institutional policies and practices of Imperial Japan.



Ike99 -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/21/2008 5:26:33 PM)

quote:

bradfordkay-First of all, Nagasaki was the center of the Portugese - Japanese trade that started in the 1570's, so to say that Japan was nicely isolated before Perry so rudely forced trade upon Japan is a misleading statement.


I need to correct you on a couple of factual points Bradford. Nagasaki was not the center of Portugese trade. There had been no Portugese trade in Japan for over 200 years. There had been no European trade in Japan except for the dutch and they were only allowed one ship to port a year.

Yes, Japan was very much an isolationist nation. 250 years of it.

BTW, First time I ever heard of a foreign power sailing into any port threatening they would shell their capital if they didn´t comply to their demands as a ¨visit¨ Give me a break.

Do a little more research on the topic and not put out false information.

quote:

ILCK-They enslaved millions more Asians - 10m in Indonesia alone and the death rate was 75 of every 100 slaves so do the math on that casualty rate. They subjected millions of Indonesians and Vietnamese to starvation and death during a preventable famine in 1944.


And how many millions upon millions upon even more uncounted (estimates only) died and were enslaved under the British Empire? How about you study the revolt in Irak where the British used posion gas and killed 10,000 people from 1915-1920 (same guy who organside Dresden BTW) How about we mention Batang Kali in Malaya, The Bengali Famine in 1943-44 that killed 4 million people.

I can go on and on ILCK but don´t have all day. The British Empire was about, subjugation, humiliation and exploitation. Period. Have no illusions. Any resistance was met with brutal reprissals described as ¨glorious victories¨ in the propaganda.

Then you can study how the Phillipines revolted against the US for independence up until 1913. Estimate, about a million dead. Result, the Phillipines become an American territoy.

Yes, do a little more research. Get some nice, well rounded information. Then come back to me and try to throw a Nanking guilt trip on me. A little more historical research and a little less ¨Victory at Sea¨ watching can go a long way.


quote:


Prince of Eckmühl-And that, gentleman, is Ike's troll for the day. Throw out a bunch of B.S. and watch the great-unwashed respond.


No I was just trying to find out what this persons problem is. He keeps talking about me me on threads I´m not even on. Now he is saying I hate this country and that country.

Why?

Because I don´t think strategic bombing was not that effective and think Japan was going to surrender Atomic bomb or no Atomic bomb?

He said he saw posters in Brazil that suprised him and made him angry. Is he venting on me? I didn´t put them up.



Joe D. -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/21/2008 5:29:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

... Perry returned to Japan with more ships and more guns. Japan again refused. So Perry threatened he would shell Tokyo if they didn´t open up their country and harbors to them.

So under threat of violence Japan was forced to sign a treaty with the US. This treaty forced them to provide provisions for American ships that docked in Japan.


Yes, Perry threatened to shell Edo, but the result was a peace treaty that provided for:

Peace and friendship between the United States and Japan.
Opening of two ports to American ships at Shimoda and Hakodate
Help for any American ships wrecked on the Japanese coast and protection for shipwrecked persons
Permission for American ships to buy supplies, coal, water, and other necessary provisions in Japanese ports.

... Commodore Perry broke down barriers that separated Japan from the rest of the world. Today the Japanese celebrate his expedition with annual black ship festivals. Perry lived in Newport, Rhode Island, which also celebrates a Black Ship festival in July. In Perry's honor, Newport has become Shimoda's sister city.

So it's all not as dark a picture as you paint it, Ike; today Japan actually celebrates Perry's arrival.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
You kicked in their door. You started the fight with them. The Japanese didn´t sail into San Francisco and make demands with cannon and threaten. They didn´t sail across the ocean and attempt to undermine your Sovereignty. This was done to them and they reacted.


The US didn't actually start a fight, but threatened to. By definition, as an isolationist nation, Japan wouldn't sail anywhere to demand anything from anyone -- although that drastically changed just prior to WW II -- so your argument isn't a valid comparison.

And don't forget this:
Another big reason the United States wanted to open Japan was to make sure shipwrecked sailors in Japan got good treatment. A whaling ship called the Lagoda was shipwrecked in Japan many years before and many of the sailors had been treated very badly. Also, some Japanese sailors that had been shipwrecked wanted to return to Japan but hadn’t been allowed passage.



bradfordkay -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/21/2008 7:22:55 PM)

Ike:"There had been no European trade in Japan except for the dutch and they were only allowed one ship to port a year. "

So, you agree that Japan conducted trade with foreign nations, just that they didn't want to conduct trade with America. They didn't want to do it so badly that they would fire upon any vessels trying to enter their ports. Yes, such a peace loving people. I don't blame Perry for threatening the Japanese; after all, his ships were threatened (fired upon) by Japanese guns as soon as they arrived.



And you still avoided the main point of my post: that there was a huge difference between the allies conduct of the war and Japan's. Did the western allies rape and murder hundreds of thousands of civilians? No.

Answer my earlier question: Do you really believe that there was a quicker and less damaging to the Japanese people method of ending the war than the bombing campaign? Back up your answer with some information.

Your earlier comment about the US needing to abrogate their agreement for no seperate peace is invalid, because the Japanese government made no overtures for us to consider. We had made demands for surrender, and there was no response. The ball was in the Japanese court and we were waiting for a return...



tocaff -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/21/2008 7:46:03 PM)

Please, nobody needs to tell me what he's posting anymore because after this I don't care.  The posters were of Bush when Iraq was invaded.  How many years ago?  There are none anymore, not current, not relevant.  Good bye Mario.



Ike99 -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/21/2008 10:50:29 PM)

quote:

So, you agree that Japan conducted trade with foreign nations, just that they didn't want to conduct trade with America. They didn't want to do it so badly that they would fire upon any vessels trying to enter their ports. Yes, such a peace loving people. I don't blame Perry for threatening the Japanese; after all, his ships were threatened (fired upon) by Japanese guns as soon as they arrived.


No don´t agree. I don´t say Japan conducted trade with foreign nations, just that they didn´t want to conduct trade with America.

[:D][:D][:D]



Terminus -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/21/2008 11:02:47 PM)

Do you think typing in that ugly font gives your strange ideas more gravitas?



DEB -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/22/2008 1:15:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Do you think typing in that ugly font gives your strange ideas more gravitas?


Maybe he wishes us to think he is mad ?



Terminus -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/22/2008 1:25:58 AM)

He convinced me of that a good while ago...



tocaff -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/22/2008 1:30:02 AM)

They loved him in the WITP forum too.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/22/2008 1:37:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Do you think typing in that ugly font gives your strange ideas more gravitas?


I am going to find a way to use the term 'gravitas' during happy hour. It will be difficult, but nothing will stop me.



DEB -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/22/2008 2:27:30 AM)

quote:


The British Empire was about, subjugation, humiliation and exploitation. Period. Have no illusions. Any resistance was met with brutal reprissals described as ¨glorious victories¨ in the propaganda.


The British Empire was mainly about trade. ( We also set most of it free eventually. ) Subjugation etc. came with Empire; as almost all white men ( Non-British included ) felt themselves superior to the "natives" and that they needed to set "modern" / Western laws/standards.
In a similar way the Samurai felt themselves superior to the Ashigaru; this was common in Britain also between the upper/middle and lower classes and it's therefore not much of a suprise that it was exported.

Resistance/rebellion has always met with brutal reprissals throughout history. Britain was no different here to anyone else, Japan included.

If the British Empire was as BAD as you suggust, why do you think most of our old colonies want to be part of the Commonwealth?

By the way, why is your FROM stated as "Tojo's Loins"?
If I was Japanese ( or picking something Japanese ) I certainly would not pick Tojo as anything to admire! Why not Yamamoto ( like the picture?) ?



Joe D. -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/22/2008 2:27:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Do you think typing in that ugly font gives your strange ideas more gravitas?


larger type = bigger, better argument? Or is Ike just yelling at us?



DEB -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/22/2008 2:36:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

larger type = bigger, better argument? Or is Ike just yelling at us?



I think it's the typing equivilent of yelling.



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/22/2008 6:33:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Do you think typing in that ugly font gives your strange ideas more gravitas?


larger type = bigger, better argument? Or is Ike just yelling at us?


I can forgive the large font. Some of Ike's ARR graphics are priceless...



pasternakski -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/22/2008 11:30:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
I am going to find a way to use the term 'gravitas' during happy hour. It will be difficult, but nothing will stop me.


"O caritas" is a chick killer, too, along with such other infinitesma as "plenitude," "Descartesism," and "oblonji-blonja."



pasternakski -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/22/2008 11:35:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB
"Tojo's Loins"

Great restaurant on the Ginza modeled after American A&W root beer stands, featuring the deep fried breaded pork sandwich that is reputed to have killed more Americans through coronary disease than Long Lance torpedoes ever did through hull penetrations..



tocaff -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/22/2008 2:08:38 PM)

Lends new meaning to being porked to death.  



ILCK -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/22/2008 4:42:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

And how many millions upon millions upon even more uncounted (estimates only) died and were enslaved under the British Empire? How about you study the revolt in Irak where the British used posion gas and killed 10,000 people from 1915-1920 (same guy who organside Dresden BTW) How about we mention Batang Kali in Malaya, The Bengali Famine in 1943-44 that killed 4 million people.

I can go on and on ILCK but don´t have all day. The British Empire was about, subjugation, humiliation and exploitation. Period. Have no illusions. Any resistance was met with brutal reprissals described as ¨glorious victories¨ in the propaganda.


This is almost sad and now I really have lost all respect for you - both intellectually and morally. You are an apologist in the worst way.

The British Empire was not a soft and fuzzy bunch by any means but even your sad little list is pathetic:

10,000 in 5 years, the Japanese could do that in about 5 hours.
Batan Kali was 26 guys (and also disputed), the Japanese wouldn't even put that body count in a daily report
The Bengal Famine was awful but it was a food panic created by the war started by the Japanese so I'm not sure you want to go there.

There was nothing about life under the British or French or American Empires that ever approximated the level of cruelty and stupidity that you saw under the Japanese Empire and especially since you can play with hundreds of years of the British Empire and I've got less than 20 on Japan and still can't get to my level of death and violence.

The great 20th century totalitarian states (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China and Imperial Japan) are on a whole other level of brutality than that which came before them because of the technological and ideological weapons at their disposal.



Ike99 -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/22/2008 10:13:12 PM)

quote:

The Bengal Famine was awful but it was a food panic created by the war started by the Japanese so I'm not sure you want to go there.


Oh yes I want to go there. Only in this forum would one read the Bengal Famine was caused by the Japanese!

Out of their own mouths they said it was caused by them. So much so the whole thing was hidden away and hopefully would dissapear. There was no rice shortage or rice panic.

The British had rice stockpiled and were even exporting rice out of the country. They tried to lie and say they weren´t. It was very much caused by them.

I´m an apologist in the worst way? What does one call an apologist who calls another an apologist?

Just a little known fact on this, when tens of thousands of starving people fled to Calcutta in 43´ the British officials had them forcibly removed to die out in the countryside. Out of site out of mind.

Yes the Bengal Famine was caused by the British. Very much so. And besides, there were about two dozen other famines in India that killed millions before this one that had absolutely nothing to do with Japanese. Had quite a bit to do with the British Empire though.[;)]

So the Bengal Famine was nothing new in how the
British took care of Indians as they exploited India.

Ahhh...interesting little fact here for you to try and spin away.

Sence 1948 and Indian independance from the British
Empire there have been no famines in India.

NONE. Not a single one.

Should give you a clue mate as to who was causing all the famines in India and it wasn´t the Japanese.

quote:

This is almost sad and now I really have lost all respect for you - both intellectually and morally.


You must be joking. I´m debating people who say the Japanese threatened Perry so he should have shelled Tokyo and the British Empire was primarily about trade.

Very Cromagnum. Kind of like the people who rape women while convincing themselves they really want it.

“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”Winston Churchill 1942



Dixie -> RE: WWII boming debate (2/22/2008 10:44:36 PM)

[sm=nono.gif] Why? Why was it taken from us so soon? [:(]

[image]local://upfiles/20142/088C405A0E714E16BCF73EFBDD1245AE.gif[/image]



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.577148