A military strike against North Korea


#61

Both parties have supported our gratuitous wars which have caused death and destruction across the ME and NA, and no good has come of it save the military industrial complex has been enriched by trillions, as the TIC himself has correctly pointed out. Nothing conspiratorial about it, just Washington politicians pandering to the deep pockets of defense industry lobbyists. And you know this.


#62

Perhaps you should ask your leftist media and the democons and progressives.


#63

And yet you defend the fact that the US dropped atomic WMD on two civilian targets in Japan . And how was it that the US came into possession of Guam and why.


#64

Who is this question directed towards?


#65

Someone used a cannon the first time… a gatling gun… a V2 rocket… Their has never been a technology developed that hasn’t yielded a weapon that someone didn’t feel the urgency to use on an enemy… The US is not the original sinner in mass extermination of life… or indeed slavery for that matter… Defending its use is irrelevant. At that time in history someone felt it was the lesser of evils and the fact that we used it then rather than after the development of a thermonuclear device developed by the Russians may have in fact save the world less destruction. I love people who try to frame yesterdays history in todays terms… so much holier and wiser that those illiterate bastards of yesteryears…


#66

If that’s based upon treaty, the same would apply to Syria and Iran with regard to Russia. Nations defend their allies, not just the US.


#67

Of course Japan, while conquered in war was not a proxie… Syria most certainly was… from the beginning.


#68

Monte, Did you ever believe that President Truman’s decision was the best at that time to spare the loss of more U.S. soldiers lives and their families grief and their sons being burried thousands of miles away???That would be real closure for them wouldn’t it!!! How soldiers do you think would’ve been killed, wounded or disabled if the US would’ve invaded Japan and long do think it would take to succeed??? How would you like to have son burried thousands of miles away, not being able to see them one last time ???
Despite what your opinion of President Trump maybe , he wouldn’t make a hasty decision and would give careful thought of the ramifications of his decision based on his advisers input.


#69

No I did not, nor did everybody involved at the time.


#70

That would be awesome, save McMaster, (who appears to be on his way out) I feel pretty good about Trumps advisors.


#71

Again, not everybody agreed that a US invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been necessary. Russia was closing in from the north. Japan was finished. When secretary of war Stimson visited General Eisenhower at his headquarters in Europe and told him that we had perfected the A-bomb and that two would be dropped on two civilian targets, Eisenhower did his best to convince the secretary that it was COMPLETELY unnecessary. That Japan was ready to surrender, and was just looking for a way to do so with dignity. This is readily available information from both the secretaries and the generals personal journals at the time which have been made public. And, after retiring from the presidency, in an interview with Newsweek magazine, Ike again declared his disappointment that we had used the atomic bombs on Japan, both on the merits that it was not necessary, and he didn’t want the US to be the first country to use that awful weapon that he declared had no military value. And indeed it didn’t as it witnessed by its use, and the tragedy of the couple hundred thousand civilian lives instantaneously obliterated by them, and the thousands and thousands of others that were far enough away from the epicenter to survive, but suffer horably the rest of their lives.


#72

At least you see some light at the end of the tunnel. I hope its not a train coming.


#73

Trumps advisors are the very ones pushing the time proven foreign policy that you seem to loath… make up your mind…


#74

Of coarse you would have loved to have seen a race to Tokyo as we saw in Berlin… Some people restrained MacArther in Korea and we have an iron curtain their… some people just seem to gravitate towards policies that favor Russia and its oppression…


#75

Truly you are not a person that has read the history of the time.

The main concern for the Americans was the potential for huge casualty rates. Nearly every senior officer involved in the planning did his own research regarding American casualties – this was based on the experience America had fighting the Japanese since Pearl Harbour.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that Olympic alone would cost 456,000 men, including 109,000 killed. Including Coronet, it was estimated that America would experience 1.2 million casualties, with 267,000 deaths.

General Marshall, in conference with President Truman, estimated 31,000 in 30 days after landing in Kyushu. Admiral Leahy estimated that the invasion would cost 268,000 casualties. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties. The ‘Los Angeles Times’ estimated that America would suffer up to 1 million casualties.

Regardless of which figures were used, it was an accepted fact that America would lose a very large number of men. This was one of the reasons why President Truman authorised the use of the atomic bomb in an effort to get Japan to surrender. On August 6th, ‘Little Boy’ was dropped on Hiroshima and on August 9th, ‘Fat Man’ was dropped on Nagasaki. On September 2nd, Japan surrendered and America and her allies were spared the task of invading Japan with the projected massive casualties this would entail.

Once again proving your lack of knowledge and opinion based information is biased at best.


#76

Indeed with regard to North Korea anyway. If the TIC can keep his pie hole shut, boot McMaster and listen to Mattis and Tillerson, perhaps we’ll avoid another unnecessary war and break a bit from our destructive foreign policy. :crossed_fingers:


#77

#78

Liberals simply love to use President Eisenhower’s term, “military[-]industrial complex,” as it suits their own ends.

It is, however, a bit trite by now.

I do find it quite instructive that you (apparently) believe that receiving lobbyists’ money is more important to politicians than pleasing their constituents–without whose votes, they could not possibly win re-election…


#79

Oh don’t misunderstand, once the constituents have been sufficiently scared with “Do we have to wait for the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud” they too are pleased with the increases that benefit the defense industry.

Btw, Ike was a conservative republican, a General during the Second World War and then as president saw first hand the permanent war economy and the evolution of the military industrial complex, that’s why he opposed it as he did. Your ridiculing of it is irrelevant.


#80

Do you actually think we would ever play war in NK

You are clearly delusional