The Unpopular Opinions Thread

[Gwynbleidd 551]

 

Books seriously should not be marketed to genders. If a male wants to read Twilight, fine. If a female wants to read Harry Potter, fine. Books don't have genders, so stop making them have them. People should be free to read what ever they want, not have to pick around what is considered a "male" or "female" series.

 

Could the same be said for games? Edited October 27, 2015 by Recusant Sora

[Philip Ellwell 5,487]

Could the same be said for games?

I suppose

[Kittenz 4,281]

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a disgusting war crime, possibly fuelled by racism, as some have theorised that they wouldn't do it if it were white people they were killing. (One evidence to that is that they moved their position because they didn't want to kill french captives. And all that racist propaganda doesn't help the case.)

 

Basically, How anyone can justify doing this to innocent people, mainly women and children(Statistically, there were barely any men there):

 

 

 

 

 

Is beyond me.

 

What takes the cake is the pilot who did it says in an interview he has no remorse for doing what he did. You killed thousands of animals and human kids and mothers, gave them horrible, painful, disfiguring injuries and firetrucked the environment and you have no remorse for that? Wow.....please go firetruck yourself and your medal that you did not deserve because you talk like a murderer who has no remorse for killing their victim. 

 

 

'''OH but your australian what about darwin and america pearl harbour ge bleh bleh bleh '''

 

Yes, that was very bad, and those events make me very sad as well, But they didn't use the cruellest and most dangerous weapon known to man

Nothing justifies an atom bomb to me. Nothing. It is pure evil.

 

I believe every country in WWII was evil. All did horrible things and there are no ''winners'' in war. Any war. It's not a game. To call yourself a ''winner'' is to spit on the graves of peoples sons and daughters you have killed. There are mothers that will never see them again. Regardless if it was their choice, you have killed somebody's kid, or someones father, or brother...

 

Soldiers may do noble things, but that doesn't stop the fact that they are still murderers. Yes, the people they kill may be ''the bad guys'' but many of the people they kill are simply young and foolish, and were brought up that way. Perhaps brainwashed to think it was the only was the only way to help their families. 

 

But no, apparently everything just has to be seen as black or white.....

 

I believe in forgiveness, especially since it was so long ago, but it angers me when people try to justify doing that to a small child or any innocent person or animal.

 

There are still people living with those horrible injuries today, too, which means for their whole life they have had to deal with that pain. I cannot even begin to imagine the suffering.

To all those who told me it was a ''tumblr'' level argument:

 

''''During the war "annihilationist and exterminationalist rhetoric" was tolerated at all levels of U.S. society; according to the British embassy in Washington the Americans regarded the Japanese as "a nameless mass of vermin". Caricatures depicting Japanese as less than human, e.g. monkeys, were common. A 1944 opinion poll that asked what should be done with Japan found that 13% of the U.S. public were in favor of "killing off" all Japanese men, women, and children.''''

'... and the censorship of photographs that showed corpses and maimed survivors.'''

 

They also mention "Well Japan attacked Pearl Harbour". " Lets analyse some numbers about 2000 Military overall were killed. *And the area was alot smaller* Over 146,000 were killed directly and indirectly as a result of Hiroshima. And 100,000 as a result of Nagasaki., Slight imbalance of numbers there. Its like ''you kill one of us we will kill 1000 of yours''....this is self entitlement and arrogance at its most evil

 

''Those who oppose the bombings cite a number of reasons for their view, among them: a belief that atomic bombing is fundamentally immoral, that the bombings counted as war crimes, that they were militarily unnecessary, that they constituted state terrorism, and that they involved racism against and the dehumanization of the Japanese people. Another popular view among critics of the bombings, originating with Gar Alperovitz in 1965 and becoming the default position in Japanese school history textbooks, is the idea of atomic diplomacy: that the United States used nuclear weapons in order to intimidate the Soviet Union in the early stages of the Cold War.The bombings were part of an already fierce conventional bombing campaign. This, together with the sea blockade and the collapse of Germany (with its implications regarding redeployment), could also have led to a Japanese surrender. At the time the United States dropped its atomic bomb on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, the Soviet Union launched a surprise attack with 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army in Manchuria. "The Soviet entry into the war", argued Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, "played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation"

 

But you know what they say ''History is written by the victors''....

 

 

 

''Oh but nankin and etc'' Yeah those were soldiers who did that, not women and children, nice try though. Allied forces have been accused of shit too concerning their soldiers btw. Even some modern soldier seem become pretty firetrucked up in the head. But I'm talking civilians here.

 

Granted I didn't write my original very well, but im bad with words sometimes. In which I mean im bad at expressing myself and my opinions across. 

Edited October 28, 2015 by Yuno Gasai

[2 quid is good 2,209]

To all those who told me it was a ''tumblr'' level argument:

 

''''During the war "annihilationist and exterminationalist rhetoric" was tolerated at all levels of U.S. society; according to the British embassy in Washington the Americans regarded the Japanese as "a nameless mass of vermin". Caricatures depicting Japanese as less than human, e.g. monkeys, were common. A 1944 opinion poll that asked what should be done with Japan found that 13% of the U.S. public were in favor of "killing off" all Japanese men, women, and children.''''

'... and the censorship of photographs that showed corpses and maimed survivors.'''

 

They also mention "Well Japan attacked Pearl Harbour". " Lets analyse some numbers about 2000 Military overall were killed. *And the area was alot smaller* Over 146,000 were killed directly and indirectly as a result of Hiroshima. And 100,000 as a result of Nagasaki., Slight imbalance of numbers there. Its like ''you kill one of us we will kill 1000 of yours''....this is self entitlement and arrogance at its most evil

 

''Those who oppose the bombings cite a number of reasons for their view, among them: a belief that atomic bombing is fundamentally immoral, that the bombings counted as war crimes, that they were militarily unnecessary, that they constituted state terrorism, and that they involved racism against and the dehumanization of the Japanese people. Another popular view among critics of the bombings, originating with Gar Alperovitz in 1965 and becoming the default position in Japanese school history textbooks, is the idea of atomic diplomacy: that the United States used nuclear weapons in order to intimidate the Soviet Union in the early stages of the Cold War.The bombings were part of an already fierce conventional bombing campaign. This, together with the sea blockade and the collapse of Germany (with its implications regarding redeployment), could also have led to a Japanese surrender. At the time the United States dropped its atomic bomb on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, the Soviet Union launched a surprise attack with 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army in Manchuria. "The Soviet entry into the war", argued Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, "played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation"

 

But you know what they say ''History is written by the victors''....

 

 

Funnily enough, I watched the newsround documentary on cbbc and was actually going to post a thread here linking to it but I never got around to it. I'm glad you did.

 

Also, its totally beyond me, that there are people who can actually justify the bombings. HOW? How can you ever justify such an awful loss of life, and how can you ever sideline the massive after effects, which are STILL happening TODAY?

 

I'm aware that every country involved in the World Wars are far from innocent, yes Germany was responsible for the Blitz, but Britain was responsible for Dresden. But none of them used such a destructive and completely disproportionate weapon.

[Dave 5,715]

Fatal Frame isn't that great of a game, and while I don't want to say "over rated," I don't think it warrants the hype that surrounds it.

[HarLea Quinn 26,501]

To all those who told me it was a ''tumblr'' level argument:

 

''''During the war "annihilationist and exterminationalist rhetoric" was tolerated at all levels of U.S. society; according to the British embassy in Washington the Americans regarded the Japanese as "a nameless mass of vermin". Caricatures depicting Japanese as less than human, e.g. monkeys, were common. A 1944 opinion poll that asked what should be done with Japan found that 13% of the U.S. public were in favor of "killing off" all Japanese men, women, and children.''''

'... and the censorship of photographs that showed corpses and maimed survivors.'''

 

They also mention "Well Japan attacked Pearl Harbour". " Lets analyse some numbers about 2000 Military overall were killed. *And the area was alot smaller* Over 146,000 were killed directly and indirectly as a result of Hiroshima. And 100,000 as a result of Nagasaki., Slight imbalance of numbers there. Its like ''you kill one of us we will kill 1000 of yours''....this is self entitlement and arrogance at its most evil

 

''Those who oppose the bombings cite a number of reasons for their view, among them: a belief that atomic bombing is fundamentally immoral, that the bombings counted as war crimes, that they were militarily unnecessary, that they constituted state terrorism, and that they involved racism against and the dehumanization of the Japanese people. Another popular view among critics of the bombings, originating with Gar Alperovitz in 1965 and becoming the default position in Japanese school history textbooks, is the idea of atomic diplomacy: that the United States used nuclear weapons in order to intimidate the Soviet Union in the early stages of the Cold War.The bombings were part of an already fierce conventional bombing campaign. This, together with the sea blockade and the collapse of Germany (with its implications regarding redeployment), could also have led to a Japanese surrender. At the time the United States dropped its atomic bomb on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, the Soviet Union launched a surprise attack with 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army in Manchuria. "The Soviet entry into the war", argued Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, "played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation"

 

But you know what they say ''History is written by the victors''....

 

 

 

''Oh but nankin and etc'' Yeah those were soldiers who did that, not women and children, nice try though. Allied forces have been accused of shit too concerning their soldiers btw. Even some modern soldier seem become pretty firetrucked up in the head. But I'm talking civilians here.

 

Granted I didn't write my original very well, but im bad with words sometimes. In which I mean im bad at expressing myself and my opinions across. 

 

Funnily enough, I watched the newsround documentary on cbbc and was actually going to post a thread here linking to it but I never got around to it. I'm glad you did.

 

Also, its totally beyond me, that there are people who can actually justify the bombings. HOW? How can you ever justify such an awful loss of life, and how can you ever sideline the massive after effects, which are STILL happening TODAY?

 

I'm aware that every country involved in the World Wars are far from innocent, yes Germany was responsible for the Blitz, but Britain was responsible for Dresden. But none of them used such a destructive and completely disproportionate weapon.

 

I find these posts hilarious considering that the japanese did this list of war crimes listed below . They were far from innocent victims and as part of the Axis powers were intent on taking over the world and exterminating anyone else they did not see fit. The japanese themselves thought in their culture they were destined to rule the rule and welcomed death and torture to whoever blocked this path. They were far from innocent victims including their civilians who fully supported the war effort as long as they thought they were winning. They did not care what innocent civilians in other countries they killed did they? Ask Asia about that. Why single out America and act like Japan did not bring this on themselves? War is war and bad things happen on both sides but to act like Japan were some innocent victims while America was the big bad bully is ridiculous. There was a reason we used those bombs and at the time was thought to be the best way to do it with the least amount of civilian death compared to say a straight up invasion which was estimated to have cost way more lives. Everyone regrets any innocent life lost in war no matter what. Any negative perceptions of Japan were fueled not only by Pearl Harbor but by their atrocities committed in other parts of the world. Japan killed more than just victims at Pearl Harbor. They killed hundreds of thousands in many countries.

 

Yes please just openly ignore the rape and murder and pillaging of innocent civilians in Asia and the Pacific. That's ok. How inhumane can that get? How about Perfidy? Pretending to surrender to your enemies just to attack and kill them. Sounds kosher there. I'm sure they would've surrendered peacefully. The term Kamikaze directly refers to their win at all costs and sacrifice approach.

 

•  Attacks on Pearl Harbor, Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong
•  Mass killings
• Human experimentation and biological warfare
•  Use of chemical weapons
•  Torture of prisoners of war
•  Execution and killing of captured Allied airmen
•  Cannibalism
•  Forced labor
•  Comfort women
•  Looting
•  Perfidy

[Robbie the Wise 5,050]

I find it incredibly amusing that you claim to not have a bias against America yet have exclusively singled out America in both of these posts.
 

To all those who told me it was a ''tumblr'' level argument:
 
''''During the war "annihilationist and exterminationalist rhetoric" was tolerated at all levels of U.S. society; according to the British embassy in Washington the Americans regarded the Japanese as "a nameless mass of vermin". Caricatures depicting Japanese as less than human, e.g. monkeys, were common. A 1944 opinion poll that asked what should be done with Japan found that 13% of the U.S. public were in favor of "killing off" all Japanese men, women, and children.''''
'... and the censorship of photographs that showed corpses and maimed survivors.'''

If you're going to reference these statistics can you please list your sources otherwise these are just statements that could be said by anyway. Also I love how easy it is for you to point out the your sympathy for the dehumanization of Japan but skate over their dehumanization of everyone else. They were involved in mass genocide and were attempting to take over the world. If you want to talk about arrogance they literally viewed themselves as gods.

 

 

They also mention "Well Japan attacked Pearl Harbour". " Lets analyse some numbers about 2000 Military overall were killed. *And the area was alot smaller* Over 146,000 were killed directly and indirectly as a result of Hiroshima. And 100,000 as a result of Nagasaki., Slight imbalance of numbers there. Its like ''you kill one of us we will kill 1000 of yours''....this is self entitlement and arrogance at its most evil.

I find this to be a really weak argument. The fact that it's easy for you to overlook the deaths that happened at Pearl Harbor so you can argue your '' America is the bigger bully point'' is one I find disturbing. Also quit using Pearl Harbor as our sole reason for bombing Japan because it wasn't. It wasn't like Japan bombed Pearl Harbor then two days later we retaliated. Pearl Harbor was merely our personal incentive to finally get involved in the war. You want to talk about numbers but fail to realize how much larger the casualties would have been if we had taken the alternative route and invaded Japan. The bombing of Hiroshima accomplished two major things. It effectively cut the amount of casualties that would have occurred in a full scale confrontation. Japan's most popular tactic the kamikaze was reflective of their ''To the death mentality'' the bombing effectively shut down this mentality. To pretend the Japan were mere victims is absolutely simple minded. At least we went over there and helped clean up and rebuild something that was never done by them.

 

 

 

 

''Those who oppose the bombings cite a number of reasons for their view, among them: a belief that atomic bombing is fundamentally immoral, that the bombings counted as war crimes, that they were militarily unnecessary, that they constituted state terrorism, and that they involved racism against and the dehumanization of the Japanese people. Another popular view among critics of the bombings, originating with Gar Alperovitz in 1965 and becoming the default position in Japanese school history textbooks, is the idea of atomic diplomacy: that the United States used nuclear weapons in order to intimidate the Soviet Union in the early stages of the Cold War.The bombings were part of an already fierce conventional bombing campaign. This, together with the sea blockade and the collapse of Germany (with its implications regarding redeployment), could also have led to a Japanese surrender. At the time the United States dropped its atomic bomb on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, the Soviet Union launched a surprise attack with 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army in Manchuria. "The Soviet entry into the war", argued Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, "played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation"

 

 

Again using very blatantly biased sources to validate your argument makes it very weak. Of course Japan will incorporate views that sympathize and justify their actions that does not make them completely accurate. Also how can you even argue that the US used that bombing as means to intimidate Russia in the early stages of the Cold War when the tensions that sparked it did not occur until after the war. I f you're going to use someone else's argument make sure it applies to what you're saying. Otherwise it's just looks like your'e slapping together a bunch of random points which lessens the credibility of what you're saying.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Robbie the Wise

[Kittenz 4,281]

This isn't a matter of good vs bad, this is just evil and evil. I am not saying one side is better. Both did evil things to civilians. 

 

A civilian supporting something their government does does not instantly make them bad, especially since those in power did not tell them the truth

 

Do you think children deserve to suffer for the crimes of adults? Because I don't. No matter what ''side''

 

That is what I believe. 

[HarLea Quinn 26,501]

This isn't a matter of good vs bad, this is just evil and evil. I am not saying one side is better. Both did evil things to civilians. 

 

A civilian supporting something their government does does not instantly make them bad, especially since those in power did not tell them the truth

 

Do you think children deserve to suffer for the crimes of adults? Because I don't. No matter what ''side''

 

That is what I believe. 

 There were innocent children and military families on base in Pearl Harbor. There were innocent woman and children by the thousands and thousands in Asia murdered by Japan. Do not try to skate over what Japan did and what their intentions were from the start. Not when preaching about dehumanization and human rights.

None of this would have happened to them if they hadn't been trying to rape and murder their way to power. Bottom line they brought this to their own front door.

[Kittenz 4,281]

 There were innocent children and military families on base in Pearl Harbor. There were innocent woman and children by the thousands and thousands in Asia murdered by Japan. Do not try to skate over what Japan did and what their intentions were from the start. Not when preaching about dehumanization and human rights.

None of this would have happened to them if they hadn't been trying to rape and murder their way to power. Bottom line they brought this to their own front door.

Of course there were. and I'm not trying to say that. I'm saying that what the us did is just as evil. But when anyone trys to say that they turn it back as if the us is always the good guys. As if the innocent people in horoshima deserved it

Edited November 1, 2015 by Yuno Gasai

[HarLea Quinn 26,501]

Of course there were. and I'm not trying to say that. I'm saying that what the us did is just as evil

 

The US did what they did in not only self defense but in defense of the rest of the world. Japan did what they did out of evil, greed, power, and ego. At the end of the day we also helped them rebuild. Did they do the same to all those they hurt and destroyed? Nope. They were never the victims in this. When it comes to war it is ugly and sad. But this war was something they not only brought on themselves, they forced it on innocent people who never asked for this and did not have a choice. Japan had that choice. To me that makes them the greater evil in this situation by far. Intentions speak for themselves.

[Shana09 5,769]

Of course there were. and I'm not trying to say that. I'm saying that what the us did is just as evil. But when anyone trys to say that they turn it back as if the us is always the good guys. As if the innocent people in horoshima deserved it

 

You have to realize that innocent people die all the time in wars. Its a war. If you are in war territory, you could die. Its sad but thats just reality. You can make that kind of "argument" with any nation. From Nazi Germany, Vietnam, Middle East, etc.

There are war crimes and then there is just war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb had to happen and it stopped the war, which was the whole point. They wouldn't back down no matter what else we tried so we had to do that. This is why they do not have a military anymore because the nation itself did horrible crimes.

Still regardless, innocent lives are going to be affected no matter what and there is never going to be a war where innocents aren't going to die.

 

US wasn't evil at all in this war since all we wanted to do was to end the World War we tried to avoid entering in the first place. Japan brought upon themselves.

[Kittenz 4,281]

Well sorry but i don't agree. ''Greater good'' is just bullshit. ''Well that is war'' That doesn't make it okay to do it.

Say all you want, what the us did is just as evil to me and that won't change. I don't care what justifications you have because nothing justifies it for me. And there are historians who dispute that it ''ended the war'' as well. Maybe you should talk to them sometime. I don't want to talk to you anymore, clearly, I'm not allowed to have different view

Edited November 1, 2015 by Yuno Gasai

[Shana09 5,769]

Well sorry but i don't agree. ''Greater good'' is just bullshit. Say all you want, what the us did is just as evil to me, I see as murder and that won't change. I don't care what justifications you have been told. And there are historians who dispute that it ''ended the war'' as well. Maybe you should talk to them sometime. I don't want to talk to you anymore, clearly I'm not allowed to have different view

 

And we can't express our view either why?

I don't get how there are historians who say that when it did. That ended Japan's war. I don't see how anyone can dispute that fact.

[Kittenz 4,281]

And we can't express our view either why?

I don't get how there are historians who say that when it did. That ended Japan's war. I don't see how anyone can dispute that fact.

Because there evidence that it may not have been necessary at all.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Yuno Gasai

[Shana09 5,769]

Of course you can but you've been attacking me.

Because they found evidence that is may not have been necessary at all.

 

People also said the earth was flat and laughed when people suggested otherwise. 

 

Don't worry we are not attacking you personally. We just disagree with what you said.

I can say something what others would consider wrong and people would try to argue with me, but not because its me but because of what I said.

What's the source again?

 

The earth being flat and an atomic bomb attack are two separate things and they aren't even in the same topic. So no, its not the same thing.

[Kittenz 4,281]

Don't worry we are not attacking you personally. We just disagree with what you said.

I can say something what others would consider wrong and people would try to argue with me, but not because its me but because of what I said.

What's the source again?

 

The earth being flat and an atomic bomb attack are two separate things and they aren't even in the same topic. So no, its not the same thing.

Well..alright then.

What I meant by the comparison is the myths used as fact

 

http://www.takepart.com/article/2011/08/05/was-bombing-hiroshima-necessary-three-myths-debunked

 

quote: ''In a cable intercepted on July 12, 1945, Hirohito revealed that he was ready to end the war on the condition that the monarchy be granted immunity from war crimes -- conditions which the U.S. only accepted after dropping two atomic bombs on the country.

 

 

In Truman’s own journal he called the message a “telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.” And years later, in his book ''Secret Surrender'', Secretary of State John Foster Dulles said he had relayed a similar message. 

 

"On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo – they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.’"

 

Admiral William D. Leahy, who served as Chief of Staff for both FDR and Truman, was even more blunt:

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.''

 

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm The quotes on this page are from the real people invloved, from their accounts/books, etc

 

After reading what they felt about it, I agree with them, after all, they were the ones who were part of doing the act

Edited November 1, 2015 by Yuno Gasai

[HarLea Quinn 26,501]

Well..alright then.

What I meant by the comparison is the myths used as fact

 

http://www.takepart.com/article/2011/08/05/was-bombing-hiroshima-necessary-three-myths-debunked

 

quote: ''In a cable intercepted on July 12, 1945, Hirohito revealed that he was ready to end the war on the condition that the monarchy be granted immunity from war crimes -- conditions which the U.S. only accepted after dropping two atomic bombs on the country.

 

 

In Truman’s own journal he called the message a “telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.” And years later, in his book ''Secret Surrender'', Secretary of State John Foster Dulles said he had relayed a similar message. 

 

"On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo – they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.’"

 

Admiral William D. Leahy, who served as Chief of Staff for both FDR and Truman, was even more blunt:

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.''

 

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm The quotes on this page are from the real people invloved, from their accounts/books, etc

 

After reading what they felt about it, I agree with them, after all, they were the ones who were part of doing the act

 I see a bunch of thrown together quotes prolly taken out of context or manipulated to further a cause very similar to other examples you used previously.

 

Honestly it does not matter if it was true or not true whether it was the only way to end it. You are still missing the point. Japan brought this situation upon themselves by creating the very situation that brought their demise.They also forced other innocent countries to suffer due to their ego, greed, and narcissism. No one wants to see innocent people hurt and killed but during war it is inevitable. Japan wanted war and forced it on others who did not have a choice. I am not just referring to just America. The atrocities in Asia were beyond reprehensible and there are just no words to describe the scope of human suffering involved there. Once again they would have never been in the situation had they not created it. Their innocent victims never had a choice in being involved unlike Japan. To me that makes them way more evil just like it made Hitler way more evil bc they started this war with the most evil and abhorrent intentions. Yet here you are acting like the US is the monster. Not buying it. Sorry.

 

 

I was not personally attacking you. I responded to your biased and unfair points. People have a right to their opinion too and you have got to expect that when posting such things. 

[Kittenz 4,281]

 I see a bunch of thrown together quotes prolly taken out of context or manipulated to further a cause very similar to other examples you used previously.

 

Honestly it does not matter if it was true or not true whether it was the only way to end it. You are still missing the point. Japan brought this situation upon themselves by creating the very situation that brought their demise.They also forced other innocent countries to suffer due to their ego, greed, and narcissism. No one wants to see innocent people hurt and killed but during war it is inevitable. Japan wanted war and forced it on others who did not have a choice. I am not just referring to just America. The atrocities in Asia were beyond reprehensible and there are just no words to describe the scope of human suffering involved there. Once again they would have never been in the situation had they not created it. Their innocent victims never had a choice in being involved unlike Japan. To me that makes them way more evil just like it made Hitler way more evil bc they started this war with the most evil and abhorrent intentions. Yet here you are acting like the US is the monster. Not buying it. Sorry.

 

 

I was not personally attacking you. I responded to your biased and unfair points. People have a right to their opinion too and you have got to expect that when posting such things. 

The quotes are in context actually, they are talking about this very topic :I You probably didn't even read the web pages. The quotes are from things such as their personal journals. What they wrote down there is probably alot more true that what the public was told

 

US isn't the monster but they aren't saviors. And if anyone's biased here it's you as an american who has been taught history a certain way. Why would I be biased, I see all countries the same, in that I don't truly love or hate any of them. I don't love any one country, so I can't be biased based on that, if that's what you are saying. I didn't mention the others because I'm talking about one event. I could just as easily pick any other, but it would be the same as the popular opinions. My opinion of this event differs from what is generally thought about it.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Yuno Gasai

[HarLea Quinn 26,501]

The quotes are in context actually, they are talking about this very topic :I You probably didn't even read the web pages

 

US isn't the monster but they aren't saviors. And if anyone's biased here it's you. 

Just like how you cited what propaganda Japanese school books used to validate what they did to other countries as evidence? Nope. All self serving and manipulative and for good reason. Of course they will try to say whatever to save face. It does not erase what they did.

 

No one said the US is perfect or 'saviors'. What we are saying is the intentions and goals of Japan and Germany and Italy were beyond reprehensible and by choice and completely disgusting bc it never had to happen if these said countries had not tried to take over the world and kill and torture their way to do it. They are not victims in that right.

 

Yet here you are demonizing the US. That's unfair and biased. This is not even the first time on these forums I have seen posts of a similar nature. Yet if people disagree with your opinion we are not allowed opinions.

 

When it comes to politics and world affairs we all know every country will want to not appear in the wrong and will want events to be shed in the best light possible for them. We see this time and time again and everybody is guilty of that. Not one country and not just the US or Japan. And in this case this is certainly no different in that regard.

[Kittenz 4,281]

The quotes are in context actually, they are talking about this very topic :I You probably didn't even read the web pages. The quotes are from things such as their personal journals. What they wrote down there is probably alot more true that what the public was told

 

US isn't the monster but they aren't saviors. And if anyone's biased here it's you as an american who has been taught history a certain way. Why would I be biased, I see all countries the same, in that I don't truly love or hate any of them. I don't love any one country, so I can't be biased based on that, if that's what you are saying. I didn't mention the others because I'm talking about one event. I could just as easily pick any other, but it would be the same as the popular opinions. My opinion of this event differs from what is generally thought about it.

 

Just like how you cited what propaganda Japanese school books used to validate what they did to other countries as evidence? Nope. All self serving and manipulative and for good reason. Of course they will try to say whatever to save face. It does not erase what they did.

 

No one said the US is perfect or 'saviors'. What we are saying is the intentions and goals of Japan and Germany and Italy were beyond reprehensible and by choice and completely disgusting bc it never had to happen if these said countries had not tried to take over the world and kill and torture their way to do it. They are not victims in that right.

 

Yet here you are demonizing the US. That's unfair and biased. This is not even the first time on these forums I have seen posts of a similar nature. Yet if people disagree with your opinion we are not allowed opinions.

 

''The quotes are in context actually, they are talking about this very topic :I You probably didn't even read the web pages. The quotes are from things such as their personal journals. What they wrote down there is probably alot more true that what the public was told

 

US isn't the monster but they aren't saviors. And if anyone's biased here it's you as an american who has been taught history a certain way. Both american and japanese text books have been accused of being incorrect so that would not surprise me. Why would I be biased, I see all countries the same, in that I don't truly love or hate any of them. I don't love any one country, so I can't be biased based on that, if that's what you are saying. I didn't mention the others because I'm talking about one event. I could just as easily pick any other, but it would be the same as the popular opinions. My opinion of this event differs from what is generally thought about it.''

 

I have a habit of posting before im done then editing to be faster since i'm a slow typer. Sorry. You probably think i edited this after now : I 

 

I'm arguing my point, or trying to, not saying you can't have one. I'm sorry if it comes across that way.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Yuno Gasai

[HarLea Quinn 26,501]

''The quotes are in context actually, they are talking about this very topic :I You probably didn't even read the web pages. The quotes are from things such as their personal journals. What they wrote down there is probably alot more true that what the public was told

 

US isn't the monster but they aren't saviors. And if anyone's biased here it's you as an american who has been taught history a certain way. Both american and japanese text books have been accused of being incorrect so that would not surprise me. Why would I be biased, I see all countries the same, in that I don't truly love or hate any of them. I don't love any one country, so I can't be biased based on that, if that's what you are saying. I didn't mention the others because I'm talking about one event. I could just as easily pick any other, but it would be the same as the popular opinions. My opinion of this event differs from what is generally thought about it.''

 

I have a habit of posting before im done then editing to be faster since i'm a slow typer. Sorry. You probably think i edited this after now : I 

 

I'm arguing my point, or trying to, not saying you can't have one

 

Context meaning they might have been said but not in the way presented or meant. I can provide a link in the same fashion as yours that says the opposite of what your link claims. All the things mentioned in your link were addressed/debunked in the link provided below and so who is to say what your link said was the truth.

 

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/japan-surrenders

 

When it comes to politics and world affairs we all know every country will want to not appear in the wrong and will want events to be shed in the best light possible for them. We see this time and time again and everybody is guilty of that. Not one country and not just the US or Japan. And in this case this is certainly no different in that regard..

 

Just bc someone is neither American or Japanese does not mean their opinion is not biased. There are many countries that hold biases against the US. I do not pretend my country is perfect and believe me I have my own criticisms of it. You do not want me to get started on Obama. However when you make posts demonizing the US and preaching about dehumanization in defense of a country who during that same chain of events committed horrendous crimes against humanity it completely undermines any point you are trying to make. Japan was NOT a victim in the situation of their very own making. They not only brought these events on themselves by starting these events but also forced these events on others who never asked to be involved. This cannot be ignored that none of this had to ever happen if certain countries were not trying to take over the world and committing mass genocide to do it. They were willing to torture, maim, and ruthlessly murder along the way to their goal. To me that will always make them the bigger evil.

[Robbie the Wise 5,050]

This isn't a matter of good vs bad, this is just evil and evil. I am not saying one side is better. Both did evil things to civilians. 

 

A civilian supporting something their government does does not instantly make them bad, especially since those in power did not tell them the truth

 

Do you think children deserve to suffer for the crimes of adults? Because I don't. No matter what ''side''

 

That is what I believe.

 

This some cop out logic here in all honesty and isn't even accurate. Japan prides itself on the honor of it's people and country. It's not a simple matter of Japan lying to their people and them being misguided. Their people believed themselves to be gods and that they were destined to rule the world. Also again I find it amazing that you once again will point out the wrong doing of America but skate over the fact that Japan did not care about innocent civilians period. America tried to cut the amount of lives lost while Japan clearly showed that at as long as they were winning they didn't care. 

Of course there were. and I'm not trying to say that. I'm saying that what the us did is just as evil. But when anyone trys to say that they turn it back as if the us is always the good guys. As if the innocent people in horoshima deserved it

I've never once in all my studies and research have I ever seen US glorified or portrayed as an act of heroism. It's always been portrayed as an ends justifies the means scenario. They wanted to risk the least amount of lives on both size while sending a message to an enemy who made it crystal clear that quitting was not an option.  

Well sorry but i don't agree. ''Greater good'' is just bullshit. ''Well that is war'' That doesn't make it okay to do it.Say all you want, what the us did is just as evil to me and that won't change. I don't care what justifications you have because nothing justifies it for me. And there are historians who dispute that it ''ended the war'' as well. Maybe you should talk to them sometime. I don't want to talk to you anymore, clearly, I'm not allowed to have different view

Yet if we had chose to to stand back and not get involved as Japan and Nazi Germany continued to onslaught the world we would have totally been looked on as heroes. That's the biggest problem with Anti-America arguments is that we're criticized if we intervene and we're criticized if we choose not to intervene. I'm sure you have had the same mentality if we had stepped back and let them come to Australia and slaughter you guys considering that was one of the next moves they would have made. Again you're clearly only willing to point out the flaws in what America did while being a complete hypocrite by downplaying what Japan was doing and why they had to be stopped. I find it highly disturbing that you're so dismissive of the horrible war crimes Japan committed that led to dropping of the atomic bomb so that you can make some. Also please list your sources I would love to read these historians who claim those bombings didn't end things. 

The quotes are in context actually, they are talking about this very topic :I You probably didn't even read the web pages. The quotes are from things such as their personal journals. What they wrote down there is probably alot more true that what the public was told US isn't the monster but they aren't saviors. And if anyone's biased here it's you as an american who has been taught history a certain way. Why would I be biased, I see all countries the same, in that I don't truly love or hate any of them. I don't love any one country, so I can't be biased based on that, if that's what you are saying. I didn't mention the others because I'm talking about one event. I could just as easily pick any other, but it would be the same as the popular opinions. My opinion of this event differs from what is generally thought about it.

Those people might have felt that it was unnecessary to the surrender of Japan but they were proven wrong. Remember it took two bombings before Japan surrendered not one. That means after witnessing the devastation caused by one atomic bomb Japan was still willing to fight. That does not at all sound like a people who had already accepted defeat and were preparing to surrender.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Robbie the Wise

[DemyxIsBest 367]

The US might not've been bad in WWII, but Vietnam on the other hand....

 

Anyways my unpopular opinion for today is (I think everybody knows this)

 

Angel Beats is the worst anime of all time and should be removed from all

Okay that's a bit of an exaggeration but in all honesty it's terrible and a genuine 2/10

Edited November 1, 2015 by DemyxIsBest

[Ghost 1,857]

blueberries firetrucking suck