Still don't believe he's a muslim?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

JFK was as liberal as Obama.

Hahahaha.... that's what you libtard revisionists want everyone to think. The truth is JFK wouldn't even recognize today's Democratic party and he would be driven off the reservation if he didn't flee on his own. Let's not hijack this thread again. Read this and learn (with particular attention to my posts #14, 25 and 27):

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1122802

.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hahahaha.... that's what you libtard revisionists want everyone to think. The truth is JFK wouldn't even recognize today's Democratic party and he would be driven off the reservation if he didn't flee on his own. Let's not hijack this thread again. Read this and learn (with particular attention to my posts #14, 25 and 27):

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1122802

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/R...on-Issues.aspx

.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ne_120791.html


And here's the man himself, admitting he's a liberal.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

[UnderConstruction]

"Certainly, Southern racists and segregationists and Goldwater supporters did not see Kennedy as a conservative. And African Americans all over the South placed his picture on their walls after Nov. 22, 1963."

[lustylad]

I already said let's not hijack this thread again. However, I can understand why you're eager to change the subject after you and shammy had your asses handed to you on the last topic!

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I already said let's not hijack this thread again. However, I can understand why you're eager to change the subject after you and shammy had your asses handed to you on the last topic!

I don't really call finding one author who says a number getting my ass handed to me, but I guess you guys have to take victories where you can find them. It would seem that if the number is correct, you'd have no problem finding multiple sources to back it up. Your buddy, chicken dick, spouts a number, I question it and suddenly the onus is on ME to find the proof. How the fuck does that work? You make the initial call, burden of proof is on you, not me. I said in the other thread, we don't really know what would have happened if we hadn't dropped the bomb. The fact that you guys are claiming absolutely to know what would have happened is horseshit.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

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

Originally Posted by lustylad

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


.

Seems like you can stretch the truth to the size of your giant asshole sometime, LustyFAG.

Same wikipedia article states, by your definition, Deaths (12000) +wounded (38000), comes out to 50,000. Lets forget that you choose to blatanly disregard the fact that it is ALLIED deaths and not AMERICAN deaths like the grubered odumbo minion stated earlier, (WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE ARGUING). Then consider the fact that you regard a battle that lasted closer to 12 weeks (1April- 22 June 1945) and not 10 weeks like you suggest, as a shorter amount to suit your purpose. The death count per week comes out to 4100, almost half the original amount posted by your wanker friend. You have stretched the truth so much that I think even your moms dildo might fit in there. You are digging yourself into a hole that you wont be able to climb out of, so just stop

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I said in the other thread, we don't really know what would have happened if we hadn't dropped the bomb. The fact that you guys are claiming absolutely to know what would have happened is horseshit.

There you go again, weasel... You and shammy are the ones who started the debate by claiming the Japanese would have surrendered anyway without our dropping the bomb. Now you flip-flop and admit "we really don't know what would have happened..." Weasel, weasel, weasel. Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop. Falsely accuse the other guy of doing what you did. Then throw out a strawman:

"... you guys are claiming absolutely to know what would have happened..."

No we're not. You are making shit up again. The closest I came to saying anything like that was to point out that the Okinawa casualty figures were treated by the US military as a good PREDICTOR of what might happen if we had to invade the Mainland. Nothing absolute about predictions, that's why they generally include best case/worst case scenarios.

You know that expression "you fight like a girl"? In your case it's "you debate like a liberal". JFK would eat you for lunch.

.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by lustylad

There you go again, weasel... You and shammy are the ones who started the debate by claiming the Japanese would have surrendered anyway without our dropping the bomb. Now you flip-flop and admit "we really don't know what would have happened..." Weasel, weasel, weasel. Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop. Falsely accuse the other guy of doing what you did. Then throw out a strawman:

"... you guys are claiming absolutely to know what would have happened..."

No we're not. You are making shit up again. The closest I came to saying anything like that was to point out that the Okinawa casualty figures were treated by the US military as a good PREDICTOR of what might happen if we had to invade the Mainland. Nothing absolute about predictions, that's why they generally include best case/worst case scenarios.

You know that expression "you fight like a girl"? In your case it's "you debate like a liberal". JFK would eat you for lunch.

.

Ok... I posted an article citing military and civilian sources saying they felt we didn't need to drop the bomb, but your sources somehow rate higher than mine, I guess because they advance your argument and not mine. Whatever you need to do to feel like you've won is fine by me. I have a feeling you don't have much happiness in your life and who am I to take away the tiny victory you get by thinking you're right.

[UnderConstruction]

Is it NOT an atrocity to use one atrocity to avoid another? Jesus, we're arguing over what is more terrible.

IB Dipshit:

You're a fucking hypocrite sitting in the comfort of your favorite chair typing on a keyboard while existing completely and stupidly oblivious to the fact that civilians were going to die either way, you ignorant, hypocritical jackass. Examine the reality that was Okinawa, shamman. "More than 100,000 Okinawan civilians perish, with over 72,000 American and 100,000 Japanese casualties." In August, 1945, the U.S. was still suffering 7,000 casualties per week in the Pacific, shamman, and yet you have the audacity to stupidly argue that it's an atrocity to bring an end to continuing atrocities. You're an atrocious, fucking moron, shamman

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I don't really call finding one author who says a number getting my ass handed to me, but I guess you guys have to take victories where you can find them. It would seem that if the number is correct, you'd have no problem finding multiple sources to back it up. Your buddy, chicken dick, spouts a number, I question it and suddenly the onus is on ME to find the proof. How the fuck does that work? You make the initial call, burden of proof is on you, not me. I said in the other thread, we don't really know what would have happened if we hadn't dropped the bomb. The fact that you guys are claiming absolutely to know what would have happened is horseshit.

But then you'd be the willfully ignorant jackass who is ignoring how many other authors are citing and quoting Fussell, wouldn't you, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion?

Originally Posted by shanm

Seems like you can stretch the truth to the size of your giant asshole sometime, LustyFAG.

Same wikipedia article states, by your definition, Deaths (12000) +wounded (38000), comes out to 50,000. Lets forget that you choose to blatanly disregard the fact that it is ALLIED deaths and not AMERICAN deaths like the grubered odumbo minion stated earlier, (WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE ARGUING). Then consider the fact that you regard a battle that lasted closer to 12 weeks (1April- 22 June 1945) and not 10 weeks like you suggest, as a shorter amount to suit your purpose. The death count per week comes out to 4100, almost half the original amount posted by your wanker friend. You have stretched the truth so much that I think even your moms dildo might fit in there. You are digging yourself into a hole that you wont be able to climb out of, so just stop

You want to ignore how Iwo, Luzon, Manilla, Borneo, Burma AND Okinawa were happening almost simultaneously, shamman, and that the air war over Japan was one, long and constant battle, as was the sea war. And does your sorry ass really want to equivocate over whether the lives saved by the bombs were American, British, Australian and/or Chinese, you sorry POS? And don't forget the Japanese were typically suffering at least twice that number of casualties, shamman.

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Is it NOT an atrocity to use one atrocity to avoid another? Jesus, we're arguing over what is more terrible.

IB Dipshit:

You're a fucking hypocrite sitting in the comfort of your favorite chair typing on a keyboard while existing completely and stupidly oblivious to the fact that civilians were going to die either way, you ignorant, hypocritical jackass. Examine the reality that was Okinawa, shamman. "More than 100,000 Okinawan civilians perish, with over 72,000 American and 100,000 Japanese casualties." In August, 1945, the U.S. was still suffering 7,000 casualties per week in the Pacific, shamman, and yet you have the audacity to stupidly argue that it's an atrocity to bring an end to continuing atrocities. You're an atrocious, fucking moron, shamman

That's exactly what the fuck you and shamman are doing, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion. Some how you lib-retarded fucks romantically imagine that conventional war is so much more congenial, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But then you'd be the willfully ignorant jackass who is ignoring how many other authors are citing and quoting Fussell, wouldn't you, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion?


You want to ignore how Iwo, Luzon, Manilla, Borneo, Burma AND Okinawa were happening almost simultaneously, shamman, and that the air war over Japan was one, long and constant battle, as was the sea war. And does your sorry ass really want to equivocate over whether the lives saved by the bombs were American, British, Australian and/or Chinese, you sorry POS? And don't forget the Japanese were typically suffering at least twice that number of casualties, shamman.




That's exactly what the fuck you and shamman are doing, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion. Some how you lib-retarded fucks romantically imagine that conventional war is so much more congenial, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.

I don't think anyone, even you, is under the impression that war is congenial. Can you at least admit that's a terrible situation to be in? Having to make that kind of decision? Do you have that phrase in your clipboard or do you type it out every single time?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I don't think anyone, even you, is under the impression that war is congenial. Can you at least admit that's a terrible situation to be in? Having to make that kind of decision? Do you have that phrase in your clipboard or do you type it out every single time?

It's you and shamman who are criticizing and berating the men who had to make that decision, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But then you'd be the willfully ignorant jackass who is ignoring how many other authors are citing and quoting Fussell, wouldn't you, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion?


You want to ignore how Iwo, Luzon, Manilla, Borneo, Burma AND Okinawa were happening almost simultaneously, shamman, and that the air war over Japan was one, long and constant battle, as was the sea war. And does your sorry ass really want to equivocate over whether the lives saved by the bombs were American, British, Australian and/or Chinese, you sorry POS? And don't forget the Japanese were typically suffering at least twice that number of casualties, shamman.




That's exactly what the fuck you and shamman are doing, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion. Some how you lib-retarded fucks romantically imagine that conventional war is so much more congenial, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. The question was whether the atomic bomb caused the Japanese to surrender or not. Whatever wars already happened have absolutely ZERO relevance to this topic. The U.S strategic bombing survey did thorough research and concluded that the war was over and the Japanese were going to surrender anyway. If you want to argue with the official authority on the subject then go ahead and blabber on. See that is the difference between a verifiable study and any that you posted. Any quotes, or whatever you have, do not matter in the slightest.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by shanm

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. The question was whether the atomic bomb caused the Japanese to surrender or not. Whatever wars already happened have absolutely ZERO relevance to this topic. The U.S strategic bombing survey did thorough research and concluded that the war was over and the Japanese were going to surrender anyway. If you want to argue with the official authority on the subject then go ahead and blabber on. See that is the difference between a verifiable study and any that you posted. Any quotes, or whatever you have, do not matter in the slightest.

The study you are citing does not say the war was "over", shamman. It says the war would go on for several more months, shamman; wherein, people -- i.e., soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines AND CIVILIANS -- would continue to kill and be killed and people would continue to die, shamman. The only thing here that rates a "zero" is your intellect, shamman.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The study you are citing does not say the war was "over", shamman. It says the war would go on for several more months, shamman; wherein, people -- i.e., soldiers, air men, sailors, marines AND CIVILIANS -- would continue to kill and be killed and people would continue to die, shamman. The only thing here that rates a "zero" is your intellect, shamman.

This is what the official report says:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

The date of surrender, as it happened, was september 2. And this survey is even discounting the soviet invasion. I don't know where in that wording do you get the ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT that you're making up. But we all know that facts can be changed to fit the opinion of a dumbshit conservative like yourself.