|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Was the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Hi anglagard,
anglagard writes: First, I believe that I am not totally without morals or intelligence when I disagree with what I view as an over simplistic interpretation of the events that led to the surrender of Japan. Hmmm. In this specific case, you are FOR specifically targeting and bombing civilians (a lot of them!), that includes women, children and babies. Am I correct? Really? I am curious, what is YOUR definition of a war crime or terrorist act? Seriously. Be specific. Ok . . . I don't see this going too far since you already dismissed my supporting linkS. What more can I do? Here, for the third time, is my list of reasons showing that the bombing of Hiroshima and Negasaki were war crimes and unnecessary. Please SPECIFY EACH ITEM that you disagree: 1. america intercepted messages from Japan to Russia indicating JAPAN WANTED to SURRENDER.2. Japan had already considered surrendering if america would just allow Japan's Emperor to keep his seat on the throne. america said no, but AFTER bombing Negasaki and Hiroshima, america gave into Japan's request. 3. america knew japan would surrender unconditionally when Japan found out that Russia would join the fight. So, america hastened the two bombings BEFORE Japan COULD surrender for an american show of power toward Russia. 4. if ANY regards towards human life was any factor at all, america could have detonated the first bomb over water as a deterent/warning. 5. The second, even more unnecessary, bomb was completely and utterly criminal. All communication was broken in Japan and america gave no time for the Japanese to assess the first bomb's damage before detonating the second. PS: For what it's worth, my father also served in Japan after the war. His OPINION is that it was criminal and unnecessary also. Edited by dronester, : clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Thanks 1.61803 for the well thought-out reply for each item, especially number 5. You have me nearly convinced I am wrong.
Kudos.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Hey F&L,
I received your pm, thanks.
F&L writes: I dont exactly see it as being any different then when we, or our allies, chose to area bomb any other cities, Dresden, Hamburg...ect. C'mon, . . . you certainly heard that two wrongs don't make a right. E.G., if your neighbor raped babies, would that make it allright for you to rape babies? If Hitler* invades Poland on false allegations, is it all-right for Bush Jr. (and Tony Blair) to invade Iraq on false allegations?
F&L writes: A test over water wouldn't have proved anything, Sweet-baby-Jesus!, . . . if someone wanted to show their destructive capability, and then exploded an ATOMIC BOMB for show, I think I would give that person some credibility. Goodness, have you ever seen film of the bombing? It appears kinda impressive to me. * We are already discussing war criminals, thus Hitler examples are fair game, Godwin does not apply. Edited by dronester, : clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Mister Rhavin,
How sad. I usually expect so much more from YOU regarding humanitarian aspects. What happened? I have a project deadline today, so I'll address the other parts in detail later, sorry. But in the meantime, consider this example: If a soldier has his foot on the neck of an infant, and the infant refuses/is unable to declare "surrender", would it be Ok for the soldier to step on the infant's neck and crack it? Japan was a defeated nation before the bombs, fact. america ran out of bombing sites as the sites had been leveled repeatedly over. The invasion numbers were exaggerated out of thin air (now i'll need to find that excellent article I read many months ago about this for support). Your long post didn't sufficiently address the fact the bombs murdered/targeted MOSTLY CIVILIANS. When is targeting and murdering DEFENSELESS civilians part of war? I asked before, what is the definition of war crimes and terrorism? What happened to your humanity dude? I am sad for you. Edited by dronester, : clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Thanks Frako,
Fraco writes: Specific targeting of civilians. Why do only non-Americans (and some non-Britians) get this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Rahvin writes: Do you not understand the word "war?" Do you not understand the word "war crime?" (and, thanks for publicly stating that you are pro-collateral damage. It's all starting to make sense to me now)
Rahvin writes: The cities were targeted for their military significance, "military significance?" Oh puhlease, what were Japanese producing near the end of the Pacific war, thumbtacks, sharpened paperclips? Besides two rowboats and a dingy, what use was Japanese's "military" harbor? Are you kidding me? The vast amount of people targeted were civilians. I'll need to find the paper addressing the false casualties you "researched" regarding your invasion scenerio. And as for as comparing previous island fighting casualties between MILITARIES and possible casualties from defenseless and starving women and children, what sort of absurdity is that? And no, there were more than just two options. C'mon Rahvin. I should not be on EvC today, I am really busy with a deadline. Thanks for all who wrote, I'll get back to you with more details next week. Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Rahvin writes: all you've done is say "nu uh" and "that's ridiculous." Nu huh . . . you may have missed some of my supporting evidence where the topic started fromMessage 128 Rahvin writes: back your shit up with numbers and data Ok, more on the way. Have a good weekend. Edited by dronester, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
I am swamped at work at the moment. Thanks for your patience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Sorry for the delay.
hey Taz,
Taz writes: I'm sorry, but your view on the situation is very immature. Taz writes: Japanese boys were trained to appear innocent and then go for American crotches. Hypocrisy so hot, it burns like the radiation from an atomic bomb. hey Rahvin,
Rahvin writes: . . . your level of debate thus far has exclusively consisted of mockery . . . Rahvin writes: . . . did you leave your brain at home today? Hypocrisy so hot, it burns like the radiation from an accident-prone nuclear power plant. It seems participants are claiming that it is only with 60+ years hindsight that I am NOW saying that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary and criminal. Check out the quotes from that time, below.
quote: and more from:http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm Ok, in this thread, it appears to be mostly me against . . . the world. I would like a few British participants to weigh in as the British are America's not-so-distant cousins and usually co-imperialists (Mod?, Strag?, Britanica?). Most/all of you in this thread repeated hegemonic-american-talking-points, so I am not gonna waste time and energy replying to duplicated assertions individually. However, if one of you think I missed something, or glossed over something, I am sure you will tap me on the shoulder (or worse, you are pro-atom-bomb, right?). These are my two MAIN arguments. If you reply, please include these two items in your replies (not merely previous hegemonic talking points): 1. The RUSH to drop the first bomb, then the RUSH to drop the second bomb was criminal. Japan WAS beaten and not a threat to the US. america could have "suffered" a few more days or weeks for successful negotiations of VERY SIMILAR eventual surrender terms. Or waited a few extra days after dropping the FIRST bomb so Japan could FULLY (F U L L Y) address Hiroshima's damage (that some of you believe that just a few days was sufficient for a beaten country and the shock of a new doomsday weapon sufficient is absurd). Or simply waited a few EXTRA days after the Russians declared war, . . . all to allow defenseless Japanese woman and children to live. Perhaps 500,000+ people died (no one knows exactly how many by radiation sickness), and they were overwhelmingly civilians. How can any one say a few days, or a few weeks delay, for the chance of 500,000+ people to live is TOO LONG? Especially when it would have cost america relatively nothing to wait? I am surprised by the blood-thirst so far exhibited in this thread. Even for americans.
quote: Page not found | Syracuse Peace Council 2. The reason for rushing to drop the bombs was NOT about preventing an invasion and the casualties resulting. (Some of you listed a possible million US casualties from an invasion. These numbers were certainly exaggerated since the end of WWII to allow americans to sleep easier—as if americans have consciences). No, the real reason for dropping the bomb was all about the Russians.
quote: http://health.dir.groups.yahoo.com/...p/du-watch/message/933
quote: zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.
quote: Page not found | Syracuse Peace Council
quote: zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.
quote: Rahvin writes: Show me that the casualties from an invasion were projected to be lower than the projected casualties of war. Rahvin writes: Given the projected [invasion] numbers at the time of decision . . . Some of you in this thread asserted the mythical number: one million casualties. Pity that I have not so far found my very detailed article about the exaggerated casualty numbers. I still suspect it is from Zinn's book. But I did find a few sites that relates the TRUE numbers. Here is from Howard Zinn (Howard Zinn - Wikipedia) . . .
quote: zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.
quote: http://health.dir.groups.yahoo.com/...p/du-watch/message/933
Rahvin writes: Recognizing that something is inevitable and not necessarily a crime is rather different than supporting it. But that is not what you previously wrote. Your goal-posts have been moved previously from:
Rahvin writes: And while targeting civilians to simply cause death would certainly be a war crime, it is ACCEPTABLE IN WAR . . . that civilians will be killed when the military significant assets they work in or live near are targeted. You go on to write:
Rahvin writes: Destroying a major shipping harbor and weapons manufacturing center is a major military target and is fully legitimate. and
Rahvin writes: the nuclear weapons targeted military and construction facilities in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Comical assertions. Show me that in the FINAL DAYS of the war, with American ships fully BLOCKADING the ENTIRE island nation, that Hiroshima or Nagasaki were a MAJOR SHIPPING harbor (LOL) or a weapons/construction manufacturing center. Back your shit up with numbers and data or concede that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Rahvin writes: The casualties actually inflicted were unanticipated even by the American military . . . Well, no kidding. When Bush Jr. and Chaney invaded Iraq, they told america's military and public to anticipate being greeted by american flags for their "liberators", a short Iraqi war of a few months, and a total military cost of under 10 dollars and change. Believing highly biased american military war projections is both comical and sad.
Rahvin writes: Why did they do it [drop the bombS] in the first place? Rahvin writes: The reason, quite simply, is the threat of an invasion of Japan. Utterly wrong. America wanted to show the world, particularly the russians, that america had numerous big weapons. Re-read the quotes above.
Rahvin writes: Remember the american military had suffered heavy losses while "island hopping". At the end of the war, the Japanese were beat, they had no energy resources or military hardware. That you tried using the invasion of Normandy as a comparable event is comical.
Rahvin writes: WWII had already involved mass-bombings. You are using the same bad argument as others on this thread: since Hitler or Churchill committed war crimes, then everyone else can commit war crimes? Really?
Rahvin writes: As for dropping two, we didn't want to give impression that we only had a single weapon. As I stated before, America could have dropped the FIRST bomb over the water, or at least in the nearby harbor to significantly reduce casualties. THEN, A second bomb could then have been followed up to SUPPOSEDLY show Japan and the world we had unlimited weapons. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Yeah, some Japanese STILL preferred to fight till death, I get it. No matter how many times we firebombed Tokyo with incendiaries (see below) or even dropped a million atom bombs, some Japanese crazies would STILL choose to fight on. Should america murder defenseless woman and children because of some crazy people? If a soldier has his foot on the neck of a defenseless infant, and the infant's family refuses/is unable to declare surrender, would it be ok for the soldier to step on the infant's neck and crack it?
quote: zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.
Rahvin writes: There's talk of surrender, but no surrender had been offered. Until there's a surrender, the war keeps going, end of story. "end of story"? And yet the Korean war has stopped hostilities without surrender. When you state things peremptorily you appear comical. Japan knew they were beaten. They knew after the first 6 months of fighting that if the americans didn't quickly surrender to profitable Japanese terms, america's nearly-infinite resources would eventually turn the tide for america. That is why late in the war the Japanese were asking russia to mediate a surrender for some possible positive surrender terms (before the bombs were dropped). America intercepted these messages. America knew that Japan knew they were beaten. America held ALL the cards. Japan could not attack american targets. A drunken monkey could have negotiated a very SIMILAR outcome of acceptable terms of surrender with Japan withOUT extending hostilities, IF americans cared about human life . . .
Rahvin writes: as for the actual casualties caused by the US of two nuclear weapons, they turned out to be higher than anyone anticipated. Wow, I'm shocked, shocked to hear that dropping an ATOMIC BOMB on a city of mostly civilians could possibly cause high casualties! Who could have known dropping atom bombs on cities was a risky and dangerous activity?
Rahvin writes: The Japanese constructed mass bomb shelters in case of a bombing attack. These shelters were concrete and would have protected the population from harm. More comical assertions. America firebombed Tokyo, repeatedly. The casualties were high because most structures were wooden which aided in the fire-storming. I doubt that Negasaki or Hiroshima had credible concrete shelters that would have withstood an ATOMIC BOMB blast or the radiation aftermath. Back your shit up with numbers and data or concede that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Rahvin writes: Japan did not want to accept terms of surrender set down by the americans, which was the entire issue. Yes, Japan did not originally want to accept VERY similar terms of surrender as theirs set down by americans. That is why they were contacting the russians to hopefully mediate very slightly better terms of surrender.
Rahvin writes: Three full days lapsed between the first and second nuclear weapons-ample time for a declaration of surrender, which was not offered. Ample time?, says you. The nation's communication systems were completely broken, all MAJOR cities were smoldering from repeated airstrikes, there wasn't a radio-operator within miles who wasn't torched, and there was internal japanese fighting themselves for leadership. Japan was a mess. Back your shit up with numbers and data or concede that you have no idea what you're talking about. (BTW, I love it that after the first bomb, you assert that the japanese had ample time to surrender, yet somehow the americans did not have the equally leisure time to investigate the "unanticipated" high casualty rate of the first bomb. IF they cared so highly about human life)
Rahvin writes: When you're at war, and you don't surrender, it's expected that the enemy will continue to attack! More comical assertions. Japan was a completely broken nation before america dropped the bombs. How many times and ways can this be stated? Do you really believe a starving woman with a pitchfork is a credible threat to the US military fleet? Until an american invasion, just how were the japanese going to attack american military? Be specific.
Rahvin writes: You don't waste a weapon by detonating it over water. How proud you must be. Are you related to war criminal Madeline Albright:
Madeline Albright writes: "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Rahvin writes: But in the absence of a surrender or negotiations, the military had two choices. Sheesh, how limited you are. What about a very short delay? America knew Russia would declare war imminently, and the japanese would surrender quickly after. One day after Russia declared war, america detonated the second bomb. For the sake of another 100,00 civilian lives, I think a few more days delay would have been sane/moral. But america didn't want russia elbowing into our party, so we dropped the second bomb quickly. It was fully clear that the terms of negotiations were NEARLY acceptable to both sides, and in the meantime, the japanese could not attack the usa.
Rahvin writes: Japan's ability to make war on the us and its allies were significantly degraded by the August of their surrender, yes. Wrong, they were COMPLETELY degraded. Japan was a beaten nation. This can't be over-stated. Re-read the quotes from the military people WHO WERE THERE, above. Then re-re-read them again.
Rahvin writes: That's the whole point of war, to force certain concessions through surrender to force of arms. Wrong, when it includes war crimes, such as the unnecessary targeting of civilians, war is called terrorism.
Rahvin writes: The civilian deaths were the result of massive overkill, not deliberate targeting. So you seem to concede that civilians were MASSIVELY OVERKILLED? "Overkill" meaning a disproportionate number of civilians over military personnel? In other words, a war crime of targeting civilians. At the very least, the second bomb was criminal, because america had previous knowledge of the OVERKILLING destructive capabilities of the first bomb.
Rahvin writes: it would seem that your definition requires that all acts of war are war crimes. Ok, Crashfrog, nice strawman. Where did I write that attacking only military targets is a war crime. Be specific.
Rahvin writes: Given that hostilities were going to continue, there were TWO options, invasion or nuclear weapon. Comical assertion. Hostilities from a starving woman with a pitchfork? Japan was a beaten nation. This can't be over-stated. Re-read the quotes from the military above. There were many options at the time before the first bomb was dropped. Just a few common-sensical/moral ideas (some repeated from the american military above):a. negotiate VERY similar terms of surrender b. use the first bomb as a warning, or at least a non-direct hit in the harbor c. investigate the horrible first bomb's effects BEFORE dropping the second to reduce casualties d. use the second bomb as a warning, or at least a non-direct hit e. Delay a few dayS/weeks AFTER russia joining the war to prompt a Japanese surrender f. Having blockaded the islands, america could have slowly starved the inhabitants to prompt surrender (Given the choice, I'll take my chances with starvation rather than a direct ATOM BOMB BLAST to the face) g. ? 1. Considering that other options WERE AVAILABLE, the RUSH (like the rush to invade Iraq based on lies before an ignorant and blood-lusting public could catch on) to drop both bombs on Japan was CRIMINAL.2. The show of american strength toward Russia and the quickness to keep Russia out of the war's outcome was the paramount reason for dropping the bombs. Human life (american or Japanese) was hardly a consideration. Edited by dronester, : typo: replaced "second bomb" with "first bomb"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Hey Modulous,
A million apologies for asking your two cents. It seems I stuck you in an american briar patch. As payback, I'm willing to trade places with you next time you are stuck in another apoplectic "debate".
Mod writes: When discussing the moral path to take, you must account for all possibilities. It is not a dichotomy. So sure, one might conclude that an invasion might have been worse for civilians than two nuclear bombs dropping on them, but if doing neither results in less lives lost and the goal of Japanese surrender - it seems a pertinent point in a moral discussion as to what course of action the US should have taken. Thanks Mod, it appears only non-americans get this.
Caf writes: To be fair, the topic of the thread is 'Was the use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified', and the arguments given in the opening post all essentially rest on the imminent surrender of Japan. I'd say the discussion as to whether nuclear weapons or invasion were the preferable option is a secondary issue. The more important question is whether an invasion would have been necessary, had nuclear weapons not been used. I've got no idea, personally, but it seems to me that this is the question that should be settled first. Thanks Caf, it appears you fully understand this thread's argument too. Another non-american?, go figure. It's like my long post was neither read, nor comprehended. It's as if I didn't show any supporting evidence that "In fact, the bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not forestall an invasion of Japan because no invasion was necessary."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Rahvin writes: You didn't. sigh.
quote: quote: I'll tell ya what: In addition to Dwight Eisenhower, ADMIRAL William Leahy, HERBERT HOOVER, GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR, JOHN McCLOY, Assistant Sec. of War, BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE, . . . I'll walk with ALBERT EINSTEIN, and you can walk with Madeline Albright. (And I don't envy Madeline Albright)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5
|
Hello,
Just saw the movie "Oppenheimer" last week. I found it interesting except for one thing [SPOILER ALERT follows]. . . In the beginning of the war, Robert Oppenheimer was supposedly somewhat pro-atom bomb because his Jewish kin were being murdered by Hitler in the ongoing war, and reasoned he and his scientists would be greatly more ethical than Hitler if Oppenheimer should invent the bomb first. But as the German war concluded, and then the Japan war was nearly concluded, he supposedly felt anti-atom bomb. The ending showed Oppenheimer with great shame because he thought the bomb was needlessly used. My irritation of the movie . . . Written and directed by Christopher Nolan, Nolan didn't show ANY Japanese footage of the destruction because he wanted the audience to ONLY see Oppenheimer's POV. I thought this was a cop-out. Oppenheimer was a smart guy (duh) he surely could listen to the radio, see the news-film's destruction, read about the casualties. Surely his POV would be of full realization. So why did Nolan go out of the way to FULLY hide it. A movie about the atom bomb, and not show one mili-second of its intended destruction? What? I think it was because showing Japanese destruction would have hurt the movie sales to have the audience "feel bad" about the USA killing innocent Japanese civilians. US citizens get angry when being "woke," as shown in this thread. Comments?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Hi Diomedes,
Thanks for the reply. I'm not gonna rehash my lengthy argument Message 47. You will note throughout the thread that Mod thought my evidence I presented was worthy. Mod has always been my gold standard in the forum, so I'm good. However, IF you want to discuss/debate my last post . . . I recently wrote:
A movie about the atom bomb, and not show one mili-second of its intended destruction? I think it was because showing Japanese destruction would have hurt the movie sales to have the audience "feel bad" about the USA killing innocent Japanese civilians. So, regarding your reply . . . 1. IF, the use of the bomb was FULLY justified, THEN why not show the horrific suffering of innocent Japanese civilians, including woman and children, in the movie. Afterall, as you wrote, since Japan made horrible attrocities first, then why isn't america JUSTIFIED to make horrible atrocities too. Whoever said two wrongs don't make a right was apparently, . . . wrong. Errr, am I right? 2. And IF, if even just ONE soldier somewhere in the world wanted to continue fighting, doesn't that especially JUSTIFY that america should kill ALL innocent Japanese civilians, including woman and children. And no one anywhere would say this JUSTIFIED action was based on racism. That would be just crazy, as there's no racism in america. Sooo, why not be proud of america's JUSTIFIED actions, show it on the big screen. USA! USA! USA!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Dio writes: I can't speak to Christopher Nolan's decisions as to why or why not he didn't show the aftermath of the bombs. You will have to ask him. As I previously wrote,
Drone writes: “Nolan didn't show ANY Japanese footage of the destruction because he wanted the audience to ONLY see Oppenheimer's POV. I thought this was a cop-out.” Dio writes: The German Nazis and the Japanese considered themselves superior so the civilians of other nations were irrelevant to them. They were just vermin in their eyes. Hmm. You are sure that no american viewed or propagandized or forced internment of Japanese citizens as vermin stereotypes. You are equally confident that no one who asserts the bombs were justified are actually racists then or now?
Dio writes: Uh, no. The operative word that you yourself used was 'soldier'. The civilians did not exhibit the same tenacity that the core soldiers exhibited. Hmm, it seems I misunderstood your previous reply, you are actually saying that IF only soldiers wanted to continue fighting, then Americans should NOT punish the civilians by dropping an atomic bomb which indiscriminately and disproportionately killed civilians. That would NOT be justified. Okay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Hi AZPaul3,
Thanks for the reply. Yes, the reasons you and Diomedes supplied, might support using atom bombS on innocent civilians, including woman and children. HOWEVER, the lengthy post I created here Message 47 describes why there were much much much better reasons NOT to use atom bombS on innocent civilians, including woman and children. However, as I previously wrote and am writing again, I don't want to rehash that debate again, especially if people refuse to read my original post the first time. You all complain that Phat is repeatedly given posts that he refuses to read or learn from. Now you know how I feel. Sometimes creating a lengthy and multi-evidenced post here is pointless. ____
Drone writes: US citizens get angry when being "woke," Perhaps I should have created a new thread, but as I wrote in Message 114, it was about the movie Oppenheimer and why it COMPLETELY ignored the death of the Japanese civilians. I proposed the reason is that 'half' the american people are angry and anti-woke (70 million voted for tRump). Showing scenes of non-white people suffering would hurt the box office of the movie because people don't want to consider their own country's actions to be horrifically flawed. Same reason anti-wokes don't want to talk about slave reparations, or any of the other awareness of injustices that 'some' republicans rally against. Knowing that knowbody on this forum is a racist, and furthermore, I am not acccusing anybody on this forum of being a racist, let me ask a question: if, IF, you were an angry racist, would you be MORE LIKELY to agree with a limited amount of reasons to drop multiple atom bombS on innocent Japanese civilians, including women and children? Edited by dronestar, . Edited by dronestar, : typos, typos, typos
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024