Posted on 02/28/2022 7:22:13 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
He didn't do it to gain territory. He didn't do it to further the ambitions of the United States.
-PJ
“The Pretty Tall Blondes?”
That’s funny.
FR is full of acronyms because there is a limit on space to type and everyone knows all of the acronyms. SMH
I get it and agree to a point. But we were on the offensive and had two options…invade and lose countless soldiers or drop the bombs. I think it was the right call which would never be made today. We value foreign civilian lives more than our soldiers.
Putin is merely shuffling the card deck right now.
Remember, all this didn’t start until after Biden talked to him. He’s hoping for Puddin’ Head to wiggle his toe across the line and then it’s game on.
Total and complete lie. The Russians are conducting a surgical operation in the Ukraine with fairly good precision. Very little collateral damage. They have destroyed the fuel dumps and radar necessary for the Ukraine army to operate. Larry Johnson’s article on Gateway Pundit today has very accurate Intel. I urge everyone to read it.
Remember the MSM are the mouth piece of the NWO and so are their “contrbutors”.
It's a fine line. I think it's more like "we turned the tide of the war against them."
If the defense in football recovers a fumble or intercepts a pass and runs it back for a touchdown, were they "on the offensive" or did the defense exploit a weakness in the opponent's offense?
If Japan was "on the offensive" by starting the war and pushing all the way to Hawaii, is it defensive to push them back or is it offensive when the push-back weakens them so much that they retreat and we pursue?
But I get the sense that we agree overall.
If Putin were to use nukes, it would be an offensive move to advance the goals of Russia, which would be a first for humanity.
-PJ
I don’t trust the CIA either.
And, making a guy with 10 000 deployable nuclear weapons “run out of cards to play” does not strike me as a particularly wise plan.
If deterrence ever becomes unidirectional, the whole game is over.
Describing the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as “defensive” is going a bit too far, even for me.
-PJ
Currently, Truman is the only person who used nuclear weapons against a foreign country in a time of war. As such, it is a blank canvas for others to characterize.
Once someone else, like as is being suggested about Putin, uses nuclear weapons against another people in a time of war, the characterization becomes relative to the other time(s).
Therefore, in hindsight, how would Truman's use of nuclear weapons stand up against Putin's use of nuclear weapons, or vice versa?
That is the question that I was trying to answer.
-PJ
OK, I would say the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an offensive operation in the context of war provoked (for the most part) by Japan, designed to hasten an American victory and to bring the war to a close.
Until January 20th 2024?
I’m guessing it stands for The People To Blame. Not sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.