Poll
Question:
Should the US nuke Iran to save the lives of 20,000 American soldiers?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 6
Option 2: Only if they have developed a nuclear weapon
votes: 1
Option 3: Only if they have used chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
votes: 6
Option 4: Only if some larger arbitrary number of US soldiers are at risk (please list, 50k, 100k, etc)
votes: 0
Option 5: No, the US can beat Iran under any circumstances without resorting to nukes.
votes: 13
I'm not surprised. People haven't changed at all, and its folly to think so.
The scenario in this poll was quite simplistic though. And doesn't quite warrant using the bomb in reprisal, in my opinion, but I can think of plenty situations that would warrant it.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/would-the-u-s-drop-the-bomb-again-1463682867
QuoteWould the U.S. Drop the Bomb Again?
Public opinion supported the strike on Hiroshima—and if provoked, many Americans might well back nuclear attacks on foes like Iran and al Qaeda
By Scott D. Sagan and Benjamin A. Valentino
May 19, 2016 2:34 p.m. ET
330 COMMENTS
The White House's recent announcement that President Barack Obama will be the first sitting U.S. president to visit Hiroshima has sparked an intense debate among politicians and pundits over what he should or should not say there. The president's advisers insist that he "will not revisit the decision" to use nuclear weapons on that city in August 1945.
But the controversy has focused too narrowly on historical questions. We might instead ask whether the U.S., in similar circumstances today, would drop the bomb again. Our own research has found that the American public is surprisingly open to that prospect.
In the immediate wake of the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Japan's surrender, the American public was firmly behind President Harry Truman's decision to use atomic weapons. In September 1945, 53% of respondents in a nationwide Roper poll agreed that the U.S. "should have used two bombs on two cities, just as we did." Some 14% thought that "we should have dropped one on some unpopulated region, to show the Japanese its power" first. Just 4% of the public felt that "we should not have used any atomic bombs at all." And 23% of respondents agreed that "we should have quickly used many more of them before Japan had a chance to surrender."
In the decades since World War II, U.S. public approval of Truman's decision to use nuclear weapons has declined significantly. In July 2015, just before the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings, we asked YouGov, a leading survey firm, to replicate the 1945 Roper poll, using a representative sample of 840 U.S. citizens.
This time, only 28% of respondents agreed that dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been the right choice, while 32% indicated support for a nuclear demonstration strike. More than three times as many Americans—almost 15% in 2015 compared with 4% in 1945—now said that the U.S. shouldn't have dropped any nuclear weapons on Japan. And just 3% regretted that the U.S. hadn't dropped "many more" atomic bombs before Japan surrendered.
Many observers have pointed to such numbers as evidence of a durable postwar public aversion to using nuclear weapons. In his 2011 book "The Better Angels of Our Nature," the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote of a "nuclear taboo": After World War II, he argued, "it began to sink in that [nuclear] weapons' destructive capacity was a different order from anything in history." More recently, Journal columnist Peggy Noonan wrote that John Hersey's harrowing 1946 book "Hiroshima" had single-handedly created "a powerful moral taboo" that "made the future use of nuclear weapons unthinkable." This taboo has been reinforced, some claim, by ongoing international efforts to ban deliberate attacks on civilians in wartime, a doctrine enshrined in the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
But public-opinion polls looking back at the atomic bombings cannot tell us whether the American public has turned against the use of such weapons or has simply changed its views of Japan, a wartime adversary turned peacetime ally. And they cannot assess the depth of any present-day taboo against using nuclear weapons. Traditional polls do not force the public to contemplate the kind of trade-off that President Truman faced in 1945: between using nuclear weapons on enemy cities, with high civilian casualties, and launching an all-out invasion that could mean the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops.
To explore how the U.S. public might react today to such choices, we asked YouGov last July to survey a representative sample of 620 Americans about a scenario evoking a 21st-century Pearl Harbor. To echo the dilemma the U.S. faced in August 1945, participants read a mock news article in which the U.S. places severe sanctions on Iran over allegations that Tehran has been caught violating the 2015 nuclear deal. In response, Iran attacks a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, killing 2,403 military personnel (the same number killed by Japan at Pearl Harbor in 1941).
Congress then declares war on Iran, and the president demands that Iran's leadership accept "unconditional surrender." U.S. generals give the president two options: mount a land invasion to reach Tehran and force the Iranian government to capitulate (at an estimated cost of 20,000 American fatalities), or shock Iran into unconditional surrender by dropping a single nuclear weapon on a major city near Tehran, killing an estimated 100,000 Iranian civilians (similar to the immediate death toll in Hiroshima). The poll's participants were reminded that Iran doesn't yet have an atomic weapon of its own.
The results were startling: Under our scenario, 59% of respondents backed using a nuclear bomb on an Iranian city. Republicans were much more likely to support such an attack, with more than 81% approving, but 47% of Democrats approved the nuclear strike as well. Even when we increased the number of expected Iranian civilian fatalities 20 fold to two million, 59% of respondents—the same percentage supporting the nuclear attack with the lower death toll—still approved of dropping the bomb.
To further echo Truman's choice, we ran a second version of the survey that offered respondents the option of ending the war by allowing Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to stay on as a spiritual figurehead with no political authority. We hoped to mimic an option facing Truman and his advisers, who wrestled with softening the Allies' demand for an unconditional surrender by allowing Emperor Hirohito to retain his throne as a symbolic head of state. Some 41% of our respondents preferred this diplomatic option to either dropping the bomb or marching on Tehran. But virtually the same number (40%) still preferred dropping the bomb and killing 100,000 Iranian civilians to accepting this sort of negotiated peace.
This readiness seems to hold for other present-day adversaries as well. In an earlier survey that we conducted, published in 2013 in the American Political Science Review, we found that about 19% of respondents preferred a nuclear attack on an al Qaeda target even when told that conventional weapons would be just as effective. This number is close to the roughly 23% of Americans who had wanted to drop more atomic bombs on Japan in 1945. When facing our worst foes, a sizable segment of the American public feels an attraction to our most destructive weapons, not an aversion.
Would we drop the bomb again? Our surveys can't say how future presidents and their top advisers would weigh their options. But they do reveal something unsettling about the instincts of the U.S. public: When provoked, we don't seem to consider the use of nuclear weapons a taboo, and our commitment to the immunity of civilians from deliberate attack in wartime, even with vast casualties, is shallow. Today, as in 1945, the U.S. public is unlikely to hold back a president who might consider using nuclear weapons in the crucible of war.
Dr. Sagan is professor of political science and senior fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. Dr. Valentino is associate professor of government at Dartmouth College.
You don't choose to nuke one city. You choose to nuke as many as it takes for the regime to surrender unconditionally. Hopefully it's just one but that cannot be the basis of your decision. If you drop the nuke and the Iranians go "fuck you you mass murdering asshole, we won't quit and we'll raise hell in world opinion!", do you just stop and go "ahem, what now?". The question posed is misleading IMHO.
Luckily public poll results aren't used during the development of the US Nuclear Posture Review.
So is it "if similarly provoked" or "to save lives of 20,000 soldiers"? Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives of way more than 20,000 soldiers.
As usual, Tim is an idiot.
Wasn't the projection something like 500k US casualties? And if the invasion of the Home Islands was anything like Okinawa, millions of armed civilians would have perished as well.
Yup. Now waiting for Tyr to come in to say it is racist to kill the enemy citizens to protect your own citizens from dying in a war.
Quote from: Martinus on May 23, 2016, 01:07:57 AM
So is it "if similarly provoked" or "to save lives of 20,000 soldiers"? Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives of way more than 20,000 soldiers.
As usual, Tim is an idiot.
The attack that kills 2403 American sailors is the provocation.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 23, 2016, 03:44:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 23, 2016, 01:07:57 AM
So is it "if similarly provoked" or "to save lives of 20,000 soldiers"? Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives of way more than 20,000 soldiers.
As usual, Tim is an idiot.
The attack that kills 2403 American sailors is the provocation.
Didn't you guys recently have an attack that killed 2000 Americans?
And then decide two invade two countries with the loss of many more as well as countless civilians?
I don't recall nukes ever having been considered by anyone apart from the usual trolls on this board.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 23, 2016, 03:44:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 23, 2016, 01:07:57 AM
So is it "if similarly provoked" or "to save lives of 20,000 soldiers"? Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives of way more than 20,000 soldiers.
As usual, Tim is an idiot.
The attack that kills 2403 American sailors is the provocation.
Are you talking about Pearl Harbour? That surely wasn't the reason that made the US decide to drop the nukes.
Quote from: Maladict on May 23, 2016, 04:06:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 23, 2016, 03:44:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 23, 2016, 01:07:57 AM
So is it "if similarly provoked" or "to save lives of 20,000 soldiers"? Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives of way more than 20,000 soldiers.
As usual, Tim is an idiot.
The attack that kills 2403 American sailors is the provocation.
Didn't you guys recently have an attack that killed 2000 Americans?
And then decide two invade two countries with the loss of many more as well as countless civilians?
I don't recall nukes ever having been considered by anyone apart from the usual trolls on this board.
The nations we invaded were not capable of any significant conventional resistance. Even their insurgencies were not that impressive compared to Vietnam.
War with Iran would be the most serious conflict that the US has been involved in since the Korean War.
Quote from: Maladict on May 23, 2016, 04:06:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 23, 2016, 03:44:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 23, 2016, 01:07:57 AM
So is it "if similarly provoked" or "to save lives of 20,000 soldiers"? Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives of way more than 20,000 soldiers.
As usual, Tim is an idiot.
The attack that kills 2403 American sailors is the provocation.
Didn't you guys recently have an attack that killed 2000 Americans?
And then decide two invade two countries with the loss of many more as well as countless civilians?
I don't recall nukes ever having been considered by anyone apart from the usual trolls on this board.
There was some talk about "bunker busting" nukes floated by the administration back in 2004 I think. Didn't go anywhere though.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 23, 2016, 03:44:55 AM
The attack that kills 2403 American sailors is the provocation.
No. The belief that Hitler was building his own bomb was the provocation.
The rationale for using the bombs on japan was that it would end the war more surely and with less total loss of life than an extended blockade or an invasion.
Quote from: Maladict on May 23, 2016, 04:06:52 AM
Didn't you guys recently have an attack that killed 2000 Americans?
Nope. That was Paris, and involved a lot less than 2,000 killed. In fact, it was one American killed, if you only think Americans should be counted.
Quote from: grumbler on May 23, 2016, 08:19:34 AM
Quote from: Maladict on May 23, 2016, 04:06:52 AM
Didn't you guys recently have an attack that killed 2000 Americans?
Nope. That was Paris, and involved a lot less than 2,000 killed. In fact, it was one American killed, if you only think Americans should be counted.
The context of that post wasn't clear enough as to which event I was referring to? *rushing movement and sound*
Quote from: Maladict on May 23, 2016, 08:41:40 AM
The context of that post wasn't clear enough as to which event I was referring to?
You were being very opaque about everything except "recent." If you mean something that happened 15 years ago, then "recent" doesn't mean what you think it does.
Quote*rushing movement and sound*
I am sure that this made sense in your mind, but it makes no sense when typed out. "Rushing" is a verb or gerund, neither of of which can be used like this. Are you practicing being opaque again?
I assumed Maladict was originally referring to 9/11, and the *rushing movement and sound* comment referred to an obvious point going over grumbler's head.
Unless I was wrong (I think highly unlikely), I must just have better reading comprehension skills than grumbler. :)
Quote from: grumbler on May 23, 2016, 08:54:11 AM
Quote from: Maladict on May 23, 2016, 08:41:40 AM
The context of that post wasn't clear enough as to which event I was referring to?
You were being very opaque about everything except "recent." If you mean something that happened 15 years ago, then "recent" doesn't mean what you think it does.
As an archaeologist everything in living memory is recent to me.
And I wasn't aware there had been more recent attacks that killed thousands of Americans followed by the invasion of two countries.
Quote from: grumbler on May 23, 2016, 08:54:11 AM
Quote*rushing movement and sound*
I am sure that this made sense in your mind, but it makes no sense when typed out. "Rushing" is a verb or gerund, neither of of which can be used like this. Are you practicing being opaque again?
You're the one who introduced it. I went with exclamation, which I assume is the use you intended.
Quotewhoosh
/(h)wo͞oSH,(h)wo͝oSH/
verb
verb: whoosh; 3rd person present: whooshes; past tense: whooshed; past participle: whooshed; gerund or present participle: whooshing; verb: woosh; 3rd person present: wooshes; past tense: wooshed; past participle: wooshed; gerund or present participle: wooshing
1.
move or cause to move quickly or suddenly with a rushing sound.
"a train whooshed by"
noun
noun: whoosh; plural noun: whooshes; noun: woosh; plural noun: wooshes
1.
a sudden movement accompanied by a rushing sound.
"there was a big whoosh of air"
exclamation
exclamation: whoosh; exclamation: woosh
1.
used to imitate a rushing movement and sound.
:lol: Yeah, let's get a consistent definition of what "recent" means. Just for today, not even an historically-consistent definition. Obviously, 15 years is over-long. How about 12? 10?
EDIT: I don't know about the rest of the country or world, but FWIW, 9/11 feels pretty damn recent for a lot of New Yorkers.
Quote from: Maladict on May 23, 2016, 09:04:26 AM
As an archaeologist everything in living memory is recent to me.
And I wasn't aware there had been more recent attacks that killed thousands of Americans followed by the invasion of two countries.
That definition is fine with me, but that means that America recently dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, Germany's leaders recently conspired to ill six million Jews, and Rwanda's army and militias conspired to kill almost 800,000 people. Given recent events, i don't know why you think 9/11 even rates.
QuoteYou're the one who introduced it. I went with exclamation, which I assume is the use you intended.
Quotewhoosh
/(h)wo͞oSH,(h)wo͝oSH/
verb
verb: whoosh; 3rd person present: whooshes; past tense: whooshed; past participle: whooshed; gerund or present participle: whooshing; verb: woosh; 3rd person present: wooshes; past tense: wooshed; past participle: wooshed; gerund or present participle: wooshing
1.
move or cause to move quickly or suddenly with a rushing sound.
"a train whooshed by"
noun
noun: whoosh; plural noun: whooshes; noun: woosh; plural noun: wooshes
1.
a sudden movement accompanied by a rushing sound.
"there was a big whoosh of air"
exclamation
exclamation: whoosh; exclamation: woosh
1.
used to imitate a rushing movement and sound.
You need to use a better source than tumblr as your guide to writing in English. "Rushing sound' doesn't even make sense.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 23, 2016, 08:58:47 AM
I assumed Maladict was originally referring to 9/11, and the *rushing movement and sound* comment referred to an obvious point going over grumbler's head.
Unless I was wrong (I think highly unlikely), I must just have better reading comprehension skills than grumbler. :)
You like to assume a lot more than I like to. :lol:
grumbler check out the definition under exclamation
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/whoosh?q=woosh
In a stunning turn of events grumbler entered the thread and suddenly everyone is linking to dictionary definitions. :lol:
grumbler loves beating up on non-native English-speakers with English semantics, it's one of his specialties.
Quote from: sbr on May 23, 2016, 09:42:13 AM
In a stunning turn of events grumbler entered the thread and suddenly everyone is linking to dictionary definitions. :lol:
he likes to play obtuse to get under people's skin. At least I think he plays at it, would be kind of sad if that was his natural state. Ask him about tiny boats if you really want a laugh.
katmai is being wilfully obese. Film at 11. :rolleyes:
The US would massively benefit from all those weapons vanishing overnight. They undermine the global security and stability we strive to uphold. Using them ourselves would be worse than a crime, it would be a mistake as Talleyrand would say.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 10:57:09 AM
The US would massively benefit from all those weapons vanishing overnight.
The only realistic way to do that is by detonating them.
Quote from: The Brain on May 23, 2016, 11:09:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 10:57:09 AM
The US world would massively benefit from all those weapons vanishing overnight.
The only realistic way to do that is by detonating them.
And getting rid of the whole middle east in the process. Perfect solution for all. I like it, lets do it, do it now.
Quote from: grumbler on May 23, 2016, 09:35:11 AM
Quote from: Maladict on May 23, 2016, 09:04:26 AM
As an archaeologist everything in living memory is recent to me.
And I wasn't aware there had been more recent attacks that killed thousands of Americans followed by the invasion of two countries.
That definition is fine with me, but that means that America recently dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, Germany's leaders recently conspired to ill six million Jews, and Rwanda's army and militias conspired to kill almost 800,000 people. Given recent events, i don't know why you think 9/11 even rates.
I never said those events were not recent.
The reason they don't rate and 9/11 does is the premise (not mine) that modern day Americans are placed in certain conditions similar to those of Pearl Harbor, namely 2000 American deaths as a result of a foreign strike. I alluded to the fact that, in this sense, they had been not too long ago.
My example would have been easily countered incidentally, Tim for one made a fair point.
Instead you centered on the admittedly vague meaning of recently (but to you apparently the only word that was not opaque) and, ignoring the very specific (not opaque) meaning of 2000 American deaths and the subsequent invasion of two countries, claimed that it must be about Bataclan.
And now that you've stated my definition of recent is fine (contradicting your earlier statement btw) I'm puzzled as to why I should have mentioned the Nazis or the Rwandan genocide.
Or maybe you misread, but I'm sure you would have said so by now if you did.
Quote from: grumbler on May 23, 2016, 09:35:11 AM
You need to use a better source than tumblr as your guide to writing in English. "Rushing sound' doesn't even make sense.
Oxford, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster and Collins are good enough for me, thanks.
Although to be honest I was just winging it, I did not consult any of them when writing the sentence.
Hope you will get some :lol: out of this, you seem to enjoy doing that.
A "Rushing sound", kind of like the sound DGuller makes when he talks.
Do ICBMs make a "rushing" sound?
Quote from: The Brain on May 23, 2016, 10:52:30 AM
katmai is being wilfully obese. Film at 11. :rolleyes:
:lol:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 23, 2016, 09:43:32 AM
grumbler loves beating up on non-native English-speakers with English semantics, it's one of his specialties.
Indeed. When people say things that make no sense and can't be parsed from the context, I question it. Some see that as "beating up," some don't. Feel free to interpret my actions as you please.
Quote from: Maladict on May 23, 2016, 11:31:36 AM
I never said those events were not recent.
The reason they don't rate and 9/11 does is the premise (not mine) that modern day Americans are placed in certain conditions similar to those of Pearl Harbor, namely 2000 American deaths as a result of a foreign strike. I alluded to the fact that, in this sense, they had been not too long ago.
Okay, so someone made a bad analogy to Pearl Harbor and you made a bad analogy to 9/11. Congrats, I guess.
QuoteMy example would have been easily countered incidentally, Tim for one made a fair point.
Instead you centered on the admittedly vague meaning of recently (but to you apparently the only word that was not opaque) and, ignoring the very specific (not opaque) meaning of 2000 American deaths and the subsequent invasion of two countries, claimed that it must be about Bataclan.
I'm not going to chase you down this rat hole. If you want to allude to 9/11, the term is "9/11."
QuoteOxford, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster and Collins are good enough for me, thanks.
Although to be honest I was just winging it, I did not consult any of them when writing the sentence.
You should have consulted them, if you really wanted to use some obtuse definition rather than using the word.
Quality thread. :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on May 23, 2016, 11:58:04 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 23, 2016, 09:43:32 AM
grumbler loves beating up on non-native English-speakers with English semantics, it's one of his specialties.
Indeed. When people say things that make no sense and can't be parsed from the context, I question it. Some see that as "beating up," some don't. Feel free to interpret my actions as you please.
How come every one else can figure it out? Why is it you are the only one who has trouble understanding written English? I mean, Marty figures this shit out, and his native language is essentially barking.
Quote from: mongers on May 23, 2016, 12:06:17 PM
Quality thread. :cool:
And grumbler rode it all the way down from the bomb bay, hat waving in the air.
We know what nuclear bombs do in great detail now. No need for further live tests.
And everyone already knows America could glass them if need be. No need to show off to the soviets.
So in a Hiroshima 2 scenario of course not.
Quote from: grumbler on May 23, 2016, 12:04:55 PM
If you want to allude to 9/11, the term is "9/11."
If I used the term "9/11" I wouldn't be alluding to it. Don't make me post the definition again.
You assholes, everybody knows you're really referring to Rescue 911 with William Shatner.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 23, 2016, 01:55:05 AM
Wasn't the projection something like 500k US casualties? And if the invasion of the Home Islands was anything like Okinawa, millions of armed civilians would have perished as well.
I've read 1,000,000 US casualties, of which 100K (200K?) dead.
Quote from: Tyr on May 23, 2016, 12:37:56 PM
We know what nuclear bombs do in great detail now. No need for further live tests.
And everyone already knows America could glass them if need be. No need to show off to the soviets.
So in a Hiroshima 2 scenario of course not.
What qualifies as "as need be"?
Why is this still been discussed? Valmy, The Brain and I already decided what needs to happen earlier in the thread. Let's do this already and stop the useless blabbering.
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 23, 2016, 02:03:08 PM
stop the useless blabbering.
Cue the end of Languish. :(
So apparently Obama just comes short of apologising for Hiroshima, pledging that the US shall never "repeat the evil" of dropping a nuke again.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/obama-first-serving-us-president-to-visit-hiroshima-a3258316.html
You guys have asked me if I have concerns about Poland's international safety if Trump gets elected. I have much bigger concerns about this guy - his term cannot end soon enough.
Quote from: Martinus on May 27, 2016, 06:01:46 AM
You guys have asked me if I have concerns about Poland's international safety if Trump gets elected. I have much bigger concerns about this guy - his term cannot end soon enough.
Don't be such a ninny.
Quote from: Martinus on May 27, 2016, 06:01:46 AM
You guys have asked me if I have concerns about Poland's international safety if Trump gets elected. I have much bigger concerns about this guy - his term cannot end soon enough.
Lighten up, Francis.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2016, 06:04:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 27, 2016, 06:01:46 AM
You guys have asked me if I have concerns about Poland's international safety if Trump gets elected. I have much bigger concerns about this guy - his term cannot end soon enough.
Lighten up, Francis.
:cheers:
People at Hiroshima didn't run around screaming with their hair on fire as much as Martinus does on a Tuesday.
Quote from: Martinus on May 27, 2016, 06:01:46 AM
So apparently Obama just comes short of apologising for Hiroshima, pledging that the US shall never "repeat the evil" of dropping a nuke again.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/obama-first-serving-us-president-to-visit-hiroshima-a3258316.html
You guys have asked me if I have concerns about Poland's international safety if Trump gets elected. I have much bigger concerns about this guy - his term cannot end soon enough.
He did not apologize at all, just expressed hope nuclear weapons would not be needed anymore.
"We shall not repeat the evil" is written on the monument. You know, the one set up by the Japanese.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2016, 06:15:11 AM
People at Hiroshima didn't run around screaming with their hair on fire as much as Martinus does on a Tuesday.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2016, 06:15:11 AM
People at Hiroshima didn't run around screaming with their hair on fire as much as Martinus does on a Tuesday.
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on May 27, 2016, 06:01:46 AM
So apparently Obama just comes short of apologising for Hiroshima, pledging that the US shall never "repeat the evil" of dropping a nuke again.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/obama-first-serving-us-president-to-visit-hiroshima-a3258316.html
You guys have asked me if I have concerns about Poland's international safety if Trump gets elected. I have much bigger concerns about this guy - his term cannot end soon enough.
Well both Trump and Obama are Hitler and last I checked Hitler was bad for Polish safety.
Don't worry, Marti; your surrogates here are hard at work.
QuotePost Politics
Sarah Palin assails Obama for Hiroshima visit
By Philip Rucker May 27
Washington Post
SAN DIEGO – Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, savaged President Obama here Friday for what she termed his "apology lap" in Hiroshima, a Japanese city destroyed by a U.S. atomic bomb during World War II.
Addressing a large Donald Trump campaign rally in downtown San Diego, Palin accused Obama of "dissing our vets" with his visit to Hiroshima — the first by a sitting U.S. president and one designed to honor the memory of all who were lost in the war.
Palin said Obama's visit suggested that the president believes that "the greatest generation was perpetuating the evil of World War II." She added, "Our commander in chief suggesting – actually, lying in suggestions – to the world that we were wrong to prove that we would eradicate evil in World War II."
Thousands of Trump supporters cheered Palin and booed the president. The former Alaska governor-turned-reality TV star and tea party heroine said Trump would be a president "who knows how to win."
"You mess with our freedom," she said, "we'll put a boot in your ass. It's the American way." At that, the crowd chanted, "USA! USA! USA!"
Palin was the warm-up act at Trump's large rally, speaking on stage before the candidate arrived in San Diego. She took issue with Obama's statement overseas this week that other world leaders have been "rattled" by the rise of Trump.
"Rattled, are they now?" Palin said. "Well, maybe it's time that things get rattlin'." She pointed out that the yellow Gadsden flag flown at tea party rallies depicts a rattlesnake "coiled, prepared, ready to strike."
"So, yeah, rattlin' – it's a good thing," she said. :lol:
Palin took aim at Trump's critics, including in the Republican Party.
"You know that tent that the GOP operatives have at least claimed for so long now that they really wanted to enlarge?" she asked. "They're really freaked out now that we all came in and demolished their tight-knit tent."
Turning to look at the television cameras and journalists on the press riser, Palin lambasted the "sheep in the media."
"Their head is still a-spinnin'," she said. "Do you know how thoroughly distrusted you are, mainstream media? ... He is now we the people's nominee, so suck it up, cupcake!"
These read like Onion articles.
Quote from: Martinus on May 23, 2016, 01:07:57 AM
So is it "if similarly provoked" or "to save lives of 20,000 soldiers"? Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives of way more than 20,000 soldiers.
As usual, Tim is an idiot.
This comment was really uncalled for.