Still don't believe he's a muslim?

[shanm]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Fuck what you *believe*, shamman. Have your butt-buddy pony up proof to back up his most recent, lying accusation, shamman.

Got it. I believe if you look at I B Wanker right now he would look something like this:

[UnderConstruction]

He still offers no proof. He cites a number, I call him on it and somehow it's my place to prove HIS number?

[shanm]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

True. Considering we were in the war for roughly 4 years. We lost approximately 420,000 people, civilian and military, that's total US deaths. 4 years is 208 weeks. If we lost 7K a week, that totals up to be 1,456,000 so something doesn't add up. You've been grubered, motherfucker.

And let's not forget that he is talking about after the MAJOR war (with Germany) was already over.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

These are the official start and end dates. The surrender documents were signed aboard the USS Missouri on September 2, 1945

September 1, 1939 – September 2, 1945

Major operations were suspended prior to the 2 September date, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

They were numbers YOU provided, therefore the burden of proof rests with YOU

You still need to pony up where earlier numbers were not accurate, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

True. Considering we were in the war for roughly 4 years. We lost approximately 420,000 people, civilian and military, that's total US deaths. 4 years is 208 weeks. If we lost 7K a week, that totals up to be 1,456,000 so something doesn't add up. You've been grubered, motherfucker.

Did your stupid ass even notice how you disingenuously started equating "casualties" as being synonymous with "deaths", you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion?

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Just did, shit for brains. Read 'em and weep.

Cite where, you stupid, "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.

Originally Posted by shanm

Got it. I believe if you look at I B Wanker right now he would look something like this:

That's what you lib-retards looked like when Gruber let it be known Odumbo lied to your dumb asses, shamman.

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

He still offers no proof. He cites a number, I call him on it and somehow it's my place to prove HIS number?

You lyingly claimed that earlier numbers were bogus, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion, and you haven't factually backed up your asinine accusation.

[A]t the time, with no indication that surrender was on the way, the kamikazes were sinking American vessels, the Indianapolis was sunk (880 men killed), and Allied casualties were running to over 7,000 per week. (Paul Fussell)

Originally Posted by shanm

And let's not forget that he is talking about after the MAJOR war (with Germany) was already over.

And you somehow imagine the Pacific War wasn't a MAJOR war, shamman?

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

LMFAO You and chicken dick must be shacked up, with you thinking his obsession for having the last word with anyone is brilliant. Looks like he Grubered you.

You're still perversely fixated on poultry genitalia, Stumpy the Inbred Chimp.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Did your stupid ass even notice how you disingenuously started equating "casualties" as being synonymous with "deaths", you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion?

Bingo! Nailed their stupid asses! And those fools were already taking premature victory laps in this debate! Any good military historian knows the definition of "casualties" includes BOTH dead and wounded. Wikipedia says the US suffered 405k dead, 671k wounded and 30k missing in WW2. The war lasted 3-1/2 years, not 4, and the casualty rates were heavily tilted toward the end of the war since we were busy gearing up (rather than fighting) during the early part.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ualties_of_war

[shanm]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Major operations were suspended prior to the 2 September date, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.



You still need to pony up where earlier numbers were not accurate, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.



Did your stupid ass even notice how you disingenuously started equating "casualties" as being synonymous with "deaths", you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion?



Cite where, you stupid, "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.



That's what you lib-retards looked like when Gruber let it be known Odumbo lied to your dumb asses, shamman.



You lyingly claimed that earlier numbers were bogus, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion, and you haven't factually backed up your asinine accusation.







And you somehow imagine the Pacific War wasn't a MAJOR war, shamman?



You're still perversely fixated on poultry genitalia, Stumpy the Inbred Chimp.

hmmmm lets see here. One Author says, lets stop right there. ONE AUTHOR SAYS, is not legitimate proof for backing up your claim.

Second, even that one author says "allied casualties". Since when did allied casualties equal American casualties? Or did you think you could "Gruber" us and we wont notice.

Thirdly, those are general numbers from the entire ww 2, not after the fight with germany was already over. I think you and Lustyfag need to go back and take a basic arithmetic class because even considering wounded casualties it does not come out to even half the number it should be with "7000 casualties a week"

In conclusion, you have been found lying, you blithering idiot. Now admit and go crawl into a hole and die. And take your cock sucking sidekick, lustyfag, with you.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I read the entire article, undercunt. I could find no such quote by Harry ("the buck stops here") Truman....

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

As for Truman, it's Eisenhower. I misspoke....

Seems to happen a lot with you, eh undercunt?

Originally Posted by shanm

Like I said before. Harry Truman, defending the actions of Harry Truman does not provide credibility to any argument....

Surely you jest, sham the scam. You are the one who hijacked this thread in the first place by SPECULATING on what was behind the US decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Harry Truman is the man who made the call after hearing advice from many sides. Some of it carried weight in his mind. Other advice he dismissed or discounted. What would a REAL historian (as opposed to a libtard revisionist dilettante like you) rely on to prove his case? What Harry Truman wrote and said before, during and after he made his decision. Or should we rely on your posthumous Harry Truman mind-reading skills instead?

.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Harry Truman is the man who made the call after hearing advice from many sides. Some of it carried weight in his mind. Other advice he dismissed or discounted. What would a REAL historian (as opposed to a libtard revisionist dilettante like you) rely on to prove his case? What Harry Truman wrote and said before, during and after he made his decision.

.

Lets put that in perspective regarding Obamacare, keystone pipeline or any other policy you wish:

Barack Obama is the one who made the call after hearing advice from many sides. Some of it carried weight in his mind. Other advice he dismissed or discounted. What would a REAL historian (as opposed to a libtard revisionist dilettante like you) rely on to prove his case? What Barack Obama said before, during and after he made his decision.

Doesn't sound that convincing to you, does it? Didn't think so

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by shanm

....those are general numbers from the entire ww 2, not after the fight with germany was already over. I think you and Lustyfag need to go back and take a basic arithmetic class because even considering wounded casualties it does not come out to even half the number it should be with "7000 casualties a week"

In conclusion, you have been found lying, you blithering idiot. Now admit and go crawl into a hole and die. And take your cock sucking sidekick, lustyfag, with you.

Calm down shammy. Take a deep breath. I know you are having your ass handed to you here, but that's no reason to melt down and spew epithets.... Here is a wiki quote on the Battle of Okinawa which lasted 10 weeks:

"The battle is considered one of the bloodiest in the Pacific. Based on Okinawan government sources, mainland Japan lost 77,166 soldiers, who were either killed or committed suicide, and the Allies suffered 14,009 deaths (with an estimated total of more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds). Simultaneously, 42,000–150,000 local civilians were killed or committed suicide, a significant proportion of the local population. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki together with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria caused Japan to surrender less than two months after the end of the fighting on Okinawa."

Should I walk you through some "basic arithmetic"? Hmmm... divide 65k casualties by 10 weeks and you get - 6500 a week! Did I do that right? Go ahead and say I am conflating allied with US casualties, we bore the brunt of that number, shammy. And Okinawa was just one battle raging in the Pacific theater at the time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa


Oh, and don't forget shammy - those heavy Okinawa casualties were considered a good predictor of what would happen if we had to invade the Japanese Mainland! Unlike you, I can't read Harry Truman's mind but I would surmise those casualty numbers were pretty compelling in swaying his A-bomb decision!


.

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by shanm

Lets put that in perspective regarding Obamacare, keystone pipeline or any other policy you wish:

Barack Obama is the one who made the call after hearing advice from many sides. Some of it carried weight in his mind. Other advice he dismissed or discounted. What would a REAL historian (as opposed to a libtard revisionist dilettante like you) rely on to prove his case? What Barack Obama said before, during and after he made his decision.

Doesn't sound that convincing to you, does it? Didn't think so

Thank you Spahm.
We can take that, the credibility, and the intellectual capability of the BastardBoyKing and buy another bucket of swill for the trough you drink from. That is unless you prefer to just nurse straight from the man- teat like Yssup

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Bingo! Nailed their stupid asses! And those fools were already taking premature victory laps in this debate! Any good military historian knows the definition of "casualties" includes BOTH dead and wounded. Wikipedia says the US suffered 405k dead, 671k wounded and 30k missing in WW2. The war lasted 3-1/2 years, not 4, and the casualty rates were heavily tilted toward the end of the war since we were busy gearing up (rather than fighting) during the early part.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ualties_of_war

Actually, the number I stated was military and civilian deaths. Even with your new numbers, that adds up to a little over 5K a week. And that's an average. And we were technically in it for 3 years and 8 months, but I wouldn't expect facts to be important to you.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by shanm

hmmmm lets see here. One Author says, lets stop right there. ONE AUTHOR SAYS, is not legitimate proof for backing up your claim.

Second, even that one author says "allied casualties". Since when did allied casualties equal American casualties? Or did you think you could "Gruber" us and we wont notice.

Thirdly, those are general numbers from the entire ww 2, not after the fight with germany was already over. I think you and Lustyfag need to go back and take a basic arithmetic class because even considering wounded casualties it does not come out to even half the number it should be with "7000 casualties a week"

In conclusion, you have been found lying, you blithering idiot. Now admit and go crawl into a hole and die. And take your cock sucking sidekick, lustyfag, with you.

That one author -- the award winning historian, Paul Fussell, trumps your sorry ass every day of the week, shamman. You demanded A fucking source, shamman. You and the "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion as much as fucking said there was no such source, shamman. You and the "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion had your words shoved up your collective asses with proof that there was a source, shamman. Hence, there is no fucking lie, shamman, other than your weak and enfeebled attempt to claim the source is invalid, shamman. But the reality, shamman, is that "Paul Fussell (22 March 1924 – 23 May 2012) was an American cultural and literary historian, author and university professor... Fussell served in the 103rd Infantry Division during World War II and was wounded in fighting in France. Returning to the US, Fussell wrote extensively and held several faculty positions, most prominently at the University of Pennsylvania. He is best known for his writings about World War I and II, which explore what he felt was the gap between the romantic myth and reality of war; he made a 'career out of refusing to disguise it or elevate it'."

BTW, shamman, Kennedy and Churchill pegged your pathetic and disingenuous ass without even having met you.

In general, the principle is, the farther from the scene of horror the easier the talk. One young combat naval officer close to the action wrote home in the fall of 1943, just before the marines underwent the agony of Tarawa: “When I read that we will fight the Japs for years if necessary and will sacrifice hundreds of thousands if we must, I always like to check from where he’s talking: it’s seldom out here.” That was Lieutenant (j.g.) John F. Kennedy. And Winston Churchill, with an irony perhaps too broad and easy, noted in Parliament that the people who preferred invasion to A-bombing seemed to have “no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves.” (Fussell)

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

BTW, shamman, Kennedy and Churchill pegged your pathetic and disingenuous ass without even having met you.

In general, the principle is, the farther from the scene of horror the easier the talk. One young combat naval officer close to the action wrote home in the fall of 1943, just before the marines underwent the agony of Tarawa: “When I read that we will fight the Japs for years if necessary and will sacrifice hundreds of thousands if we must, I always like to check from where he’s talking: it’s seldom out here.” That was Lieutenant (j.g.) John F. Kennedy. And Winston Churchill, with an irony perhaps too broad and easy, noted in Parliament that the people who preferred invasion to A-bombing seemed to have “no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves.” (Fussell)


+1


We already knew shammy and undercunt are libtard revisionists. Winston Churchill and JFK would call them libtard revisionist CHICKENHAWKS!

.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by lustylad

In general, the principle is, the farther from the scene of horror the easier the talk. One young combat naval officer close to the action wrote home in the fall of 1943, just before the marines underwent the agony of Tarawa: “When I read that we will fight the Japs for years if necessary and will sacrifice hundreds of thousands if we must, I always like to check from where he’s talking: it’s seldom out here.” That was Lieutenant (j.g.) John F. Kennedy. And Winston Churchill, with an irony perhaps too broad and easy, noted in Parliament that the people who preferred invasion to A-bombing seemed to have “no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves.” (Fussell)


+1


We already know shammy and undercunt are libtard revisionists. Winston Churchill and JFK would call them libtard revisionist CHICKENHAWKS!

.

JFK was as liberal as Obama. He's a Democratic icon. You're a chickenshit, how's that.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by lustylad

In general, the principle is, the farther from the scene of horror the easier the talk. One young combat naval officer close to the action wrote home in the fall of 1943, just before the marines underwent the agony of Tarawa: “When I read that we will fight the Japs for years if necessary and will sacrifice hundreds of thousands if we must, I always like to check from where he’s talking: it’s seldom out here.” That was Lieutenant (j.g.) John F. Kennedy. And Winston Churchill, with an irony perhaps too broad and easy, noted in Parliament that the people who preferred invasion to A-bombing seemed to have “no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves.” (Fussell)


+1


We already knew shammy and undercunt are libtard revisionists. Winston Churchill and JFK would call them libtard revisionist CHICKENHAWKS!

.

The truth of the matter is that it's all speculation. We don't know how many more would have died versus how many actually died. Why would you think I would want one more person to die that didn't have to? Do you honestly think that's what I'm about? We're talking about people's lives here. You're just like the politicians in DC. You sit around debating and bullshitting, all the while, you're decisions affect real people. Citizens' lives are affected by the choices they make. It's not some exercise where you delight in who won. Regardless of who wins, we all lose.