I read the quotes

Very interesting but i consider only the individuals who part of the war

The generals listed had their way of warfare and this new bomb was not part of it. Patton especially.

He loved war he was a war scholar ate drank slept war.  So his opposition was not because he thought it was to brutal it was just not how he liked killing people   

I think it was the second, if not the most disgusting attrocity to happen in human history. i've seen interviews of some of the pilots (or whoever) involved in the bombing, and they show no remorse for what they've done. i suppose what you guys have said about the Cold War is true, but imo their will never be any excuse to justify it.

one of the things i can use actully is from Star Trek, in one of the original episodes Spock says that as humans we find it easier to comprehend the death of one rather than the death of many. i think this is true actully, theres simply no way its possible for me to comprehend what thousands of people went through. but i can imagine the human sufferring of completely burned man barley walking away from the fires, their flesh unrecognisible as human, or seeing black rain fall from the sky - my point is on an individual level it must have been absolutly horrific!!

I don't justify it at all. I don't justify war or any form of racism, period.

that's an interesting interpretation to say the least.

I just don't understand what's so deceptive about it. The commander in chief, the major generals, and lots of other higher ups were against it and said the war was already over. It was only the air-force leader that was really pro-bomb.

While that is a reason, that is not the ONLY reason, nor is it even the biggest one.

So many of you are forgetting that the USSR was in the midst of grabbing entire countries of Eastern Europe and was starting to march hardware east so they could land-grab China, Japan, and various other southeast Asian countries.

Truman could NOT allow that to happen. It sounds morbid but you're arguing that we should have killed MORE people and ultimately still lost parts of at least China (who was in the midst of almost collapsing) to the USSR. Truman needed the war to end RIGHT THERE, no questions asked. The world is a lot better place for it and though it sounds cruel, the Japanese are probably in a better place because of it (unless you believe that fighting with Northern Japan through the 50s-90s sounds like fun).

The "sit and wait out Japan" approach never would have ended the war in time to keep Russia out of the conflict. And the second the Russians got there, they would have landed on the coast and started invading. The Russians have never given a damn about their soldiers and they'd eagerly sacrifice them for more land.

you are saying that every japanese person has the fault of the 17 million chinnese dead, the majority of the dead of the bomb were not soldiers, they were civilians who has no fault about the dead of the chinnese.

what would happen if Iran drop a bomb on the city of the USA,  will the same person who say it was justify to drop the bomb in Japan will they think the same about USA.

The only way to truly defeat an enemy is to crush their will and soul so completely that they can never strike back. THat's what the bombs did. I support them 100%.

This may sound harsh, but my family's been a family of warriors and kings of France and Gaul since ancient times (America more recently). We know war, it's built into us. Whether it was one of my ancestors as a king sending his armies to fight for him, or he was fighting himself, or a prince of Gaul plucked up into slavery by the invading Romans, war is a part of life, and civilians are not exempt from it's horrors. 

so the americans get the credit.

You're missing the point that avoiding conventional invasion also (most likely) minimized the number of civilian causalities. Looking at the civilian casualties faced during the other military campaigns, it is not that outrageous to suggest that Japan could have faced between 500,000 to 2 Million civilian casualties due to a conventional invasion; and preventing the deaths of hundreds of thousands/millions of civilian casualties through an act that will kill tens of thousands of them is justifiable.