[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Stegabot

Because they wanted moral relativism and historical revisionism to enter into the equation.If facts start getting in the way of somebody's ideological beliefs,use those two to dig a hole in an argument.

That is funny as a circular argument...

Facts are always in the way of ideological beliefs; witness the violence of WWII from either side, the propaganda, the lies and the waste of human life on both sides. WWII was not necessary, for the sacrifice of millions to the comfort a few more millions seems like a waste.

[Stegabot]

Simple Life
President Truman was not interested in counting how many people the Japanese killed or will kill,he was only interested on how many american lives he can save by the use of those bombs.He didn't even much care if the Soviets entered the war,all he was concerned about was the potential casualty rates of his troops regardless of service they were in.

[budster101]

Stegabot: He and they don't care. This is their way of tearing down the USA and the WOT. It's not even effective, but hey, it makes them 'feel' better about bashing the USA's decision to END the war with the tool they developed before the Germans. God forbid they didn't use it, what would have happened to the face of Europe.

These armchair 20/20 hindsight quarterbacks just don't see it, but if they do, they are at least being disengenuous.

[SimpleLife]

The Bulletin has a series of reactyions about whether the bomb should have been dropped or not. Both sides are represented. Interesting.

[Stegabot]

WWII would had never happened if the politicians during the treaty of Versailles used common sense and correct judgement in dealing with the defeated Germans.And to add to that,it would had been much better if the French decided to chase the basically harmless German army out from the Rhine in 1936 and proceeded straight to Berlin.
You see,the Politicians,the media,and the intellectuals wanted their peace so much better than they were willing to sacrifice countries that were not to them so important in order to maintain the status quo in the thirties.They were so afraid of another war like WW I that they unwittingly set the table for another global war,a much bloddier and cruel one than what they previously encountered.It was not propaganda,nor militarism that started WWII,it was intellectual arrogance not only of political leaders,but of common folk that lead to this bloody conflict.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Stegabot

Simple Life
President Truman was not interested in counting how many people the Japanese killed or will kill,he was only interested on how many american lives he can save by the use of those bombs.He didn't even much care if the Soviets entered the war,all he was concerned about was the potential casualty rates of his troops regardless of service they were in.

OK.

I do not care. I did my bit by explaining that dropping the bomb was militarily justifiable. WTF do you want more from me? Can't you read?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by budster101

Stegabot: He and they don't care. This is their way of tearing down the USA and the WOT. It's not even effective, but hey, it makes them 'feel' better about bashing the USA's decision to END the war with the tool they developed before the Germans. God forbid they didn't use it, what would have happened to the face of Europe.

These armchair 20/20 hindsight quarterbacks just don't see it, but if they do, they are at least being disengenuous.

Your armchair seems quite deep. Remember to climb out of yours... Need a rope?


I don't understand what I posted that makes you react this way...

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Stegabot

WWII would had never happened if the politicians during the treaty of Versailles used common sense and correct judgement in dealing with the defeated Germans.And to add to that,it would had been much better if the French decided to chase the basically harmless German army out from the Rhine in 1936 and proceeded straight to Berlin.
You see,the Politicians,the media,and the intellectuals wanted their peace so much better than they were willing to sacrifice countries that were not to them so important in order to maintain the status quo in the thirties.They were so afraid of another war like WW I that they unwittingly set the table for another global war,a much bloddier and cruel one than what they previously encountered.It was not propaganda,nor militarism that started WWII,it was intellectual arrogance not only of political leaders,but of common folk that lead to this bloody conflict.

Yes you are right of course; Hitler is the creation of the intellectuals!

Let's blame the Liberals as well shall we?

[budster101]

Stegabot: He and they don't care. This is their way of tearing down the USA and the WOT. It's not even effective, but hey, it makes them 'feel' better about bashing the USA's decision to END the war with the tool they developed before the Germans. God forbid they didn't use it, what would have happened to the face of Europe.

These armchair 20/20 hindsight quarterbacks just don't see it, but if they do, they are at least being disengenuous.

[Stegabot]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

OK.

I do not care. I did my bit by explaining that dropping the bomb was militarily justifiable. WTF do you want more from me? Can't you read?

I would not have bothered if you did not add conditions on your posts.They end up being prominent than the message you were trying to convey.And here is my message for you.I don't give a damn what you think and what you feel,it won't changed the damn fact the bombs were dropped and the killing stopped.That is all that matters.We must learn to live with it and go on from there.

[Macpilot]

I still think YES.

It ended the war sooner than the invasion would have, and saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives on both sides.

Does anyone actually think the Japanese or Germans would have hesitated one second if they had the bomb? No way.

The Japanese were preparing for an imminent invasion and their fanatic devotion to a holy Emperor was strong. The Kamikazee proved that.

It was a terrible event, no doubt, and hopefully it will never have to happen again.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

I think you misunderstood completely what I posted. I apologize if I was not clear enough. Please see my previous post for more enlightenment.

Sometimes you make me grin!

I still take issue with much of what you say, but...

[Macpilot]

Originally Posted by Moderator

I thought I've been pretty clear, any time a civilian population is targeted I consider it a crime...ethically, morally unjustifiable...on that scale..unthinkable. And I think we ought to be a lot more introspective and acknowledge our contributions to the history of mass murder...Hiroshima makes 9/11 look like a suckerpunch.

You might want to do some research:

"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance. Some military camps were located nearby such as the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force."

This was a civilian population ready and willing to fight for what was left of its homeland, and therefore would have killed many an Allied soldier, most of which would have been Americans.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Now it's you who is a little bit revisionist here. The fire-bombings of cities like Hamburg and Dresden were targeted at civilians.

True, and I never said they weren't. However, just for the record, the US did not deliberately target civilians in Europe. The British firebombed both Hamburg and Dresden by night, due to their reliance on the area bombing strategy. The US bombed by day (far more dangerous) for increased accuracy and specifically targeted only military targets- this includes the Hamburg and Dresden raids. The US never targeted civilians in the European theatre. It did firebomb cities in Japan later in the war- 1944-45.

The point is; Troll et al try to revise history by making it sound as if the overall goal of the UK or the US was merely to bomb and kill people for the sake of doing so. Last anyone looked, the Brits were attacked first. Their use of bombing was geared to make the war too costly for Germany, and to shorten the war. One can argue the morality of area bombing all they like- it was brought on Germany… by Germany. The US used firebombing and atomic weapons to shorten the war against Japan, not just for the sheer hell of killing people as the revisionists want to claim. Ultimately, such was brought on Japan... by Japan.

As I’ve said before, it’s so easy, (and so gutless) to sit back with the distance of 60 years and spit all over the decisions others had to make to end a World War. The history revisionists will never have to make any such decision where literally millions of lives hang in the balance.

The schizophrenia of the anti-US revisionist crowd in particular is so glaring. This week they’re whining that the US fought the war. Next week, LIKE CLOCKWORK, they’ll be back to whining that the US didn’t fight the war soon enough for them! The constant push/pull weirdness of the ‘blame the US’ for everything crowd.

Had WWII dragged on into the 1950’s and millions more people been killed, the very same revisionists would be here whining that the US didn’t end the war sooner. Guaranteed!

It just goes to prove one thing for all to see- no matter WHAT the US does the usual suspects will crow that it was the wrong thing. They fail to realize how transparent they are in this regard, and therefore how pointless it is even addressing them. They’ve invented a little world where they can always pretend to be right, re-write history on a whim to shore up their inane arguments, and pretend everyone else (the US in particular) is always wrong.

[Macpilot]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

As I’ve said before, it’s so easy, (and so gutless) to sit back with the distance of 60 years and spit all over the decisions others had to make to end a World War. The history revisionists will never have to make any such decision where literally millions of lives hang in the balance.

The schizophrenia of the anti-US revisionist crowd in particular is so glaring. This week they’re whining that the US fought the war. Next week, LIKE CLOCKWORK, they’ll be back to whining that the US didn’t fight the war soon enough for them! The constant push/pull weirdness of the ‘blame the US’ for everything crowd.

Had WWII dragged on into the 1950’s and millions more people been killed, the very same revisionists would be here whining that the US didn’t end the war sooner. Guaranteed!

It just goes to prove one thing for all to see- no matter WHAT the US does the usual suspects will crow that it was the wrong thing. They fail to realize how transparent they are in this regard, and therefore how pointless it is even addressing them. They’ve invented a little world where they can always pretend to be right, re-write history on a whim to shore up their inane arguments, and pretend everyone else (the US in particular) is always wrong.

Exactly.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Stegabot

I would not have bothered if you did not add conditions on your posts.They end up being prominent than the message you were trying to convey.And here is my message for you.I don't give a damn what you think and what you feel,it won't changed the damn fact the bombs were dropped and the killing stopped.That is all that matters.We must learn to live with it and go on from there.

1) if you don't care about what I think and what I feel, why in Hell are you bothering answering me???

2) what have any of the conditions I put in my post triggered you? I have a right for an opinion; I merely said that militarily it made sense, but morally it did not. Of course your generals will want to protect their soldiers; they need them for the next fight! You don't sacrifice grunts for no reason!

3) Of course the whole thing is past. Did I suggest it should all be changed???

And about stuff being prominent, the atimic bombs are still prominent and we are still at risk of extinction. That is prominent, we apparently cannot change anything about it and we are doomed simply because the Human Race is stupid that way...

Prominent enough I tell ya..

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Sometimes you make me grin!

I still take issue with much of what you say, but...

You make your dentist a proud man I suppose...

[Stegabot]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Yes you are right of course; Hitler is the creation of the intellectuals!

Let's blame the Liberals as well shall we?

Where in my post,Simple Life, did I start blaming Liberals? Maybe I wasn't clear enough,but here it is,it meant of all ideological persuasions.I f I want to say Liberals,I will damn post it.But on my damn posts,I generalized it to include all spectrums including communists and far right wingers.Don't be so damn touchy.
Hitler would had never been chancellor if the Allies were generous enough to give Germany some leeway during the early part of the Great Depression.But well educated diplomats and politicians could never stop overcompensating their stupidity ,do they.
Hitler's rise to power would not had been possible without the support of numerous german intellectuals from different sides of the political spectrum.Of course, many of them saw their mistake too late to change the course Germany was going.

[Stegabot]

People can survive nukes,only a few can survive tailor made diseases used for biological warfare.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Stegabot

People can survive nukes,only a few can survive tailor made diseases used for biological warfare.

Speculation.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Stegabot

Where in my post,Simple Life, did I start blaming Liberals? Maybe I wasn't clear enough,but here it is,it meant of all ideological persuasions.

Maybe you could have been more specific; once intellectuals are blamed, Liberals also get down the drain...

I f I want to say Liberals,I will damn post it.But on my damn posts,I generalized it to include all spectrums including communists and far right wingers.Don't be so damn touchy.

Fair enough.

Hitler would had never been chancellor if the Allies were generous enough to give Germany some leeway during the early part of the Great Depression.But well educated diplomats and politicians could never stop overcompensating their stupidity ,do they.

Let's stop voting for those bastards.

Hitler's rise to power would not had been possible without the support of numerous german intellectuals from different sides of the political spectrum.Of course, many of them saw their mistake too late to change the course Germany was going.

True. But then again, it is always to late to change our mind is it not?

[Stegabot]

How many did the Great Influenza Pandemic kill in 1918? Care to check it out? A modified ebola virus,a modified strain of smallpox or SAR used as a weapon could really wipe out a third of the world's population in days and weeks.If the damn bug is versatile,bye,bye human race.

[Stegabot]

You never know who are the bastards and who are statemen because sometimes they have both characteristics.I learned my lesson once,never vote for a candidate who loves being in front of the camera and never vote for one who already stayed in office for so long.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Stegabot

How many did the Great Influenza Pandemic kill in 1918? Care to check it out? A modified ebola virus,a modified strain of smallpox or SAR used as a weapon could really wipe out a third of the world's population in days and weeks.If the damn bug is versatile,bye,bye human race.

Again, speculation. Please remembe this thread is about the appropriateness of the Hiroshima bombing.

[budster101]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both necessary and appropriate at that time in history.

[Stegabot]

I know the thread and I realized you are afraid of nukes,so do all of us.But working in health care,I realized that there are more dangerous things than nukes.You can post speculations all you want,but why do you think that the Japanese were interested in biological warfare in WWII,because it is cost effective and very deadly.The bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a good chance of being a dud,weaponized microorganisms,once tested on a small set of subjects can effectively be used against your enemy right away with far deadlier results due to various mode of transmission.If you think it's all speculation,then think real hard why the US is developing smallpox vaccine for a disease that was wiped out thirty years ago.
In this note,the only thing that seperated the Japanese from delivering their own version of WMD to the continental US during WWII was this,they had no delivery system to bomb the US with biological weapons while the Americans have long range bombers that can drop atomic bombs on Japanese cities.Imagine the consequences if Germany just held out until 1946.Allied powers dropping Atomic bombs and German and Japanese unleashing dirty bombs and biological weapons with V2 rockets.
Common wisdom was that if Germany held the Allies in France and stopped the Russian advance in the UKraine and had them stalemated until 1945.Some German city possibly Berlin would had been the target of the first atomic bomb not Hiroshima.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Speculation.

What better way to find out FOR CERTAIN than to "biolate*" hiawatha or hidartha or wherever those jerks are killing our marines.

*FIRST USE OF THE TERM?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Yes you are right of course; Hitler is the creation of the intellectuals!

Let's blame the Liberals as well shall we?

No one is blaming liberals or intellectuals for anything. If anything, we're only pointing out that avoiding unpleasant but necessary business often leads to even more unpleasantness. It is entirely possible that most of World War II -including the Holocaust itself- could have been completely prevented if Europe had been willing to fight Hitler sooner, when he was still relatively weak. But the governments of the time were conservative in nature, and conservatives of the time were still scared by what was then called the Great War. It was fear of war which kept them from doing this, and this was a fact openly admitted by many at the time. Appeasement was the rule of the day, and this was the very term used for it at the time.

War is a vile thing. It is to be hated, and it is to be shunned when it can. But it is not to be feared, because fear leads to paralysis, and we all know what happens when good people do nothing. When modern conservatives accuse modern liberals of fear and appeasement, they are doing little more than referring back to the times just before World War II, when the conservatives of the time made the mistakes of fearing war and appeasing evildoers for the sake of avoiding war. Modern conservatives learned from the mistakes of their forefathers, which is why they now prove so resistant to repeating them.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Maybe you could have been more specific; once intellectuals are blamed, Liberals also get down the drain...

Lessons from the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution? The Khmer Rouge?

True. But then again, it is always to late to change our mind is it not?

Once things get into the hands of the masses of natural men, these rabid people hungering to realize their most sinful dreams will kill anyone who would wake them.

I ask that you remember this. High ideals are all well and good, but in certain instances their expression may not be well tolerated.

[Myrkridia]

Originally Posted by budster101

Do you know what the Japanese did to our soldiers and prisoners of war?

- Beheadings
- Run over with tanks while alive

Just to name two.

When has Japan ever even thought of doing anything like what they did again? Lesson Learned.
Do you realize Japan invaded China? Do you know what they did then?

Go learn some history, before making any sort of poll with a leading question such as that.
I'm glad we bombed them TWICE. They didn't give up after the first bomb, and it took another to make them give in.

You realize they were working on an 'A' bomb themselves right? Why should we have given them and the germans time to do so? We didn't start the war, we just FINISHED IT. So, stopy your panty-waste bull-sh!t.

Berlin would have been a better target.

Yeah I know history. I know that after the battle of Midway Japan lost the offensive and NEVER got it back. We just didn't feel like fighting an up hill battle with a ground invasion of the country.

And to say "I'm glad" at something so horrific.....way to show your love of humanity.
Ugliness happens in this world on a day to day basis and to champion certain kinds of ugliness simply because, "the other guy did it too" just makes you a hypocrite.

In war there is no "Good guy" or "Bad guy" there are only two or more sides doing horrible and disgusting things to their fellow human beings.

If America wants to justify it I say fine, then strip away this facade of being a country based on
freedom, compassion, and upholding the sanctity of life.
This incident in our history has only strengthened my belief, that whatever America does no matter how distasteful, or illegal, it was the right thing to do, and "We had no other choice"

It does not equate us to being the same as OBL and his ilk. He has twisted a religion to suit his desire to commit the same autrocities of Hitler by wishing to eradicate all that is the WEST....

The motives behind the results are of no consequence.
When you are willing to use the same tactics as the enemies you despise to forward your own goals, then you are no better than they are.

OBL killed civilians because he believes his cause is righteous.
We killed civilians in Japan because we believed our cause was righteous.
What's the difference?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Myrkridia

(...)The motives behind the results are of no consequence.
When you are willing to use the same tactics as the enemies you despise to forward your own goals, then you are no better than they are.

OBL killed civilians because he believes his cause is righteous.
We killed civilians in Japan because we believed our cause was righteous.
What's the difference?

"Them or us".

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Stegabot

I know the thread and I realized you are afraid of nukes,so do all of us.But working in health care,I realized that there are more dangerous things than nukes.You can post speculations all you want,but why do you think that the Japanese were interested in biological warfare in WWII,because it is cost effective and very deadly.

I am not afraid of nukes: I am afraid oh the human hand over the trigger.

Biological warfare was theoritically feasable, but beyond the distribution of smallpox infected blankets, I doubt there were such efficiency.

Btw, being "interested in in biological warfare" does not make yuou able to do; mankind has been interested in Flight from the beginning; it took them more then 40 000 years, and even then, I am not too clear how efficient that is...

The bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a good chance of being a dud,

I don't think so. A low chance maybe, but not a "good chance".

weaponized microorganisms,once tested on a small set of subjects can effectively be used against your enemy right away with far deadlier results due to various mode of transmission.If you think it's all speculation,then think real hard why the US is developing smallpox vaccine for a disease that was wiped out thirty years ago.

The speculation is about attributing the Japanese and the Germans the readiness to do so then; you will have to substantiate your claims.

In this note,the only thing that seperated the Japanese from delivering their own version of WMD to the continental US during WWII was this,they had no delivery system to bomb the US with biological weapons while the Americans have long range bombers that can drop atomic bombs on Japanese cities.Imagine the consequences if Germany just held out until 1946.Allied powers dropping Atomic bombs and German and Japanese unleashing dirty bombs and biological weapons with V2 rockets.

Give me a break; more speculation, and totally unsubstantiated.

Common wisdom was that if Germany held the Allies in France and stopped the Russian advance in the UKraine and had them stalemated until 1945.Some German city possibly Berlin would had been the target of the first atomic bomb not Hiroshima.

More speculation; the Germans were defeated long before Berlin was brought down.

I will repeat, for emphasis;

The bombing of Hiroshima was appropriate from a military point of view; the number of civilians involved in the war effort required the bombing either way. But to bomb non-combattant is nnot acceptable. This is the dilemma that has been flowing around this thread but none of you can accept because it has to be one or the other, whilst it is both. Then comes the moral relativism; bombing Hiroshima was morally acceptable for the sake of the US soldiers, and to some extent, the sake of the rest of the population of Japan, which could have (speculation) turned in to a see of blood.

These points of view are not mutually exclusive; they are part of the dilemmas that language, culture and context provide us. To make a final point, there is no way to get an agreement from anyone about Hiroshima's bombing simply because people will choose a moralistic point of view which is totally defendable, whether you are against or for it.

As for the speculation regarding rthe nuclear capabilities of Japan and Germany, there were no such things; the first needed at least 10 years of efforts witht he support of their government (which they did not have) whilst the second, Germany, were so far behind and out of resources that it is doubtful they would have made one in the following 5 years; the US had the greatest advantage of resources.

Speculation regarding the availability of biowarfare is still speculation, even if plans were drafted to do so. We can a long way with "if". Nevertheless, and that is part of the dilemma, it is clear that it pays to be paranoiac, and I'd prefer a paranoid President (or Prime Minister) than an easy going Joe.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Millennium

No one is blaming liberals or intellectuals for anything.

Nice sugarcoating; did you read the post below yours?

If anything, we're only pointing out that avoiding unpleasant but necessary business often leads to even more unpleasantness. It is entirely possible that most of World War II -including the Holocaust itself- could have been completely prevented if Europe had been willing to fight Hitler sooner, when he was still relatively weak. But the governments of the time were conservative in nature, and conservatives of the time were still scared by what was then called the Great War. It was fear of war which kept them from doing this, and this was a fact openly admitted by many at the time. Appeasement was the rule of the day, and this was the very term used for it at the time.

I also think that since none of us was there at the time, we are clearly all in a very confortable position to speculate at lenght. At that time, I doubt everyone knew for sure something really bad was to happen. Certainly many felt Germany had not been punished enough then, but that was no garantee of a disaster looming as it did.

War is a vile thing. It is to be hated, and it is to be shunned when it can. But it is not to be feared, because fear leads to paralysis, and we all know what happens when good people do nothing. When modern conservatives accuse modern liberals of fear and appeasement, they are doing little more than referring back to the times just before World War II, when the conservatives of the time made the mistakes of fearing war and appeasing evildoers for the sake of avoiding war. Modern conservatives learned from the mistakes of their forefathers, which is why they now prove so resistant to repeating them.

Yeah, conservatives of pre-WWII had to evolve...

Look. All I was saying is that War should be a last resort. I dono't believe one bit I could have faired better than any of the decision makers of the time, or of the present. I am only using my judgement from the things I know and I certainly do not know everything, unlike some think they do here. There is a long way between the fear of something and rthe actual facts leading to an action. I just want to make sure we get all the facts straight before we go to any war. Unfortunately, we'll never get the satisfaction.

[Y3a]

The Nukes both caused teh Japanese to stop fighting, and to show the USSR etc that we mean business. It was a lesson to the world.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Y3a

The Nukes both caused teh Japanese to stop fighting, and to show the USSR etc that we mean business. It was a lesson to the world.

And the USSR decided to reply in kind. 40 years of useless Cold War in which with went close to trigger the end of the world numerous times.

I am not blaming anyone for this; I am just stating the fact that with the escalation of the means, safety is never garanteed.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

One can argue the morality of area bombing all they like- it was brought on Germany… by Germany. The US used firebombing and atomic weapons to shorten the war against Japan, not just for the sheer hell of killing people as the revisionists want to claim. Ultimately, such was brought on Japan... by Japan.

Interesting argument - because Germany was the aggressor, the US was entitled to do anything it wanted to Germany and woe betide us for making any moral judgement in retrospect! Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians by carpet bombing Dresden or nuking Hiroshima was okay because they attacked us not the other way around. Now where have I heard that logic before?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!

(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) ... The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.
(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq.
(c) Also the American army is part of the American people.
(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.
Osama Bin Laden

“Which religion considers your killed ones innocent and our killed ones worthless? And which principle considers your blood real blood and our blood water? Reciprocal treatment is fair and the one who starts injustice bears greater blame.”
Osama Bin Laden

Targetting civilians is never okay. Never. Not when it might mean ending a war quicker, not when the other side has also targetted civilians. Never. That belief is what separates us from terrorists.

[von Wrangell]

[Y3a]

And BEFORE any civilization..Safety is never garanteed either.

Safety is never garanteed anywhere.

How would it be accomplished?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Amazing you idiots actually pay lip service to bin Laden. Why not quote Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, or Jeffrey Dahmer and try to justify their actions using freakin’ WWII as their excuse while you’re at it. Just as ‘logical’.

And once again, that’s what this all boils down to. Another attempt by knuckleheads to justify the actions of terrorists.

You revisionists could care less about who was killed in WWII and for what reason, your real agenda is excusing the actions of Islamic terrorists.

[Myrkridia]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

"Them or us".

Interesting, probably the same thing OBL believes.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Amazing you idiots actually pay lip service to bin Laden. Why not quote Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, or Jeffrey Dahmer and try to justify their actions using freakin’ WWII as their excuse while you’re at it. Just as ‘logical’.

And once again, that’s what this all boils down to. Another attempt by knuckleheads to justify the actions of terrorists.

You revisionists could care less about who was killed in WWII and for what reason, your real agenda is excusing the actions of Islamic terrorists.

ummm, reading comprehension is obviously not one of your strongest points.

We've been condemning the attack on civilians no matter who does the killing. You are the ones defending it when your side does it but condemning the other side. You(collective) are the only ones in this thread justifying attacks on civilians.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

ummm, reading comprehension is obviously not one of your strongest points.

We've been condemning the attack on civilians no matter who does the killing. You are the ones defending it when your side does it but condemning the other side. You(collective) are the only ones in this thread justifying attacks on civilians.

No, you're just making stupid apples to oranges comparisons, as usual. And you have a history of making excuses for terrorism, as well as revising WWII.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

No, you're just making stupid apples to oranges comparisons, as usual. And you have a history of making excuses for terrorism, as well as revising WWII.

Okay, so explain the difference to us. Using argument instead of just calling people names. Just explain to me why, "They attacked us so we were entitled to kill their civilians," works when you're talking about Hiroshima but doesn't work when you're talking about 9/11?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

No, you're just making stupid apples to oranges comparisons, as usual. And you have a history of making excuses for terrorism, as well as revising WWII.

I have?

I guess your reading comprehension is lacking again. I've explained why terrorists do what they do. I've never excused it. As you might have noticed in this thread, if you were able to understand what you read, I am condemning all attacks on civilians. Something that you obviously disagree with. You only condemn it when it's your side that's being attacked. If it's the other side it's always "collateral damage" or "sh*t happens" or some other excuse you have ready (mostly depending on what the government has said about the situation).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Troll

Okay, so explain the difference to us. Using argument instead of just calling people names. Just explain to me why, "They attacked us so we were entitled to kill their civilians," works when you're talking about Hiroshima but doesn't work when you're talking about 9/11?

It’s been explained to you a dozen times or more in this thread, and probably before that.

Hiroshima bears no comparison to 9/11 any more than Charles Manson butchering up a house full of people bears any comparison to the French Revolution.

Bin Laden et al aren't trying to end a war and cease bloodshed, they aren’t liberating anyone, they haven’t rebuilt anything or helped anyone- they've tried to START a war and increase bloodshed. They are only about destruction and chaos, never creating anything or order. If anything, the actions of terrorists only compare to the Axis starting wars for insane 'master race’ reasons, and bringing the retaliation upon their countries.

Get off your high horse with your pious bullcrap about 'killing civilians is never justified'. The gutless way you’re using that to make useless comparisons gives you no high ground. Compounding that, you've actually made insane claims in this thread to the effect that the Axis didn't officially target civilians, and given your game away as knowing virtually NOTHING about WWII. Your goal is to US bash (as usual) and make excuses for Islamic terrorism by comparing it to historic events that you don’t having even a basic understanding of.

Isn't it time for you to go back to harping that US involvement in WWII wasn't soon enough for you? Why is it you choose to politicize the anniversary of Hiroshima to shift gears to harp on US involvement in WWII? You couldn’t care less about civilians in Hiroshima, any more than you could care less about the far larger number of civilians killed by the Axis side that you’ve proven yourself blissfully unaware of.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I have?

Revise WWII? Many times. Make excuses for terrorism? Yes- I think this whole tact of yours is yet another attempt at that. It's your ilk saying "Well you can't blame bin Laden, because after all, that whole Hiroshima thing... blah de blah."

It's gutless to dredge up unrelated events from the past, (and completely stripping out context as you do) and use these to try and excuse acts of terror for no other purpose other than terror, that bear no relation.

I guess your reading comprehension is lacking again. I've explained why terrorists do what they do. I've never excused it. As you might have noticed in this thread, if you were able to understand what you read, I am condemning all attacks on civilians. Something that you obviously disagree with. You only condemn it when it's your side that's being attacked. If it's the other side it's always "collateral damage" or "sh*t happens" or some other excuse you have ready (mostly depending on what the government has said about the situation).

You seem incapable of understanding that civilian casualties in massive numbers were going to occur in ending WWII no matter what. It's been explained to you a dozen times or more that the decision to use the bomb more than likely resulted in far fewer civilian casualties than an extended house-to-house, street by street fight for mainland Japan would have. You're just being cowardly to ignore this fact, and harp on only the negative aspects of using the bomb.

No one is saying it wasn't a horrible thing killing thousands of people with a bomb. But killing many thousand more with more conventional bombs, ground forces, street-to-street combat would be better? Either way, it was a horrible decision that had to be made. There is ONE guaranteed constant however- you'd be whining about either outcome.

And either way, it will NEVER be you that had to make the decision. It's easy and gutless for you to sit in judgment of those who had that choice to make with so many millions of live at stake. Your endless crowing and whining solves nothing, and will never change anything. Others DID solve the problem of ending WWII, and saved millions of lives that years more of extended war would have brought.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Wondering what the consensus is these days........it seems, to me, difficult to justify the killing of 140,000+ innocent cilvilians..but I hear it done all of the time...prevented an invasion, saved American lives...

Yet my understanding is that Japan had practically no defense left at the time, the US knew Japan wanted to surrender, we specifically chose a city that hadn't had any previous damage inflicted so as to demonstrate the full power of the technology , and dropped it largely for the purpose of sending a message to the Soviets..not necessarily to knock Japan out.

Does anyone here regard the decision to drop those bombs morally acceptable?

I'll just add my 2 cents here though others have expressed the same sentiments.

The bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both reprehensible and necessary. The Japanese civillian population had grown weary of war but the government was controlled by the military faction which still possessed some 2 million men under arms.

Iwo Jima was the first native Japense soil invaded by US forces in WWII. It is approx. 2miles long and 4 miles wide, much of it with no cover but exposed lava fields. The battle comprised a force of 60,000 American Marines, Naval personal and Army troops against 20,000 Japanese soldiers.

In four days of fighting US casualties were 7,000 killed, 20,000 wounded, the Japanese, who in their culture find it dishonorable to surrender to the enemy suffered 20,000 killed. Only 200 were captured.

It doesn't take a genius to extrapolate those numbers into how many casualties the US would have taken invading the Japanese mainland. And though 250,000 civillian casualties is horrendous it is certain that the number of civillians who would have been killed through a US invasion would easily have topped 1 million.

The two cities bombed:

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance. Some military camps were located nearby such as the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force.

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

[budster101]

Thanks for taking this thread into the realm of reason once again. I enjoyed reading your well reasoned post, as you obviously have a strong handle on this historical information.

Was it horrid? Yes.
Was it necessary? Yes.
Is it anywhere comparable to what OBL and his ilk intend to do? NOT EVEN CLOSE. No way.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Bin Laden et al aren't trying to end a war and cease bloodshed, they aren’t liberating anyone, they haven’t rebuilt anything or helped anyone- they've tried to START a war and increase bloodshed. They are only about destruction and chaos, never creating anything or order. If anything, the actions of terrorists only compare to the Axis starting wars for insane 'master race’ reasons, and bringing the retaliation upon their countries.

Cheese and rice. Once you strip away all the insults and crud that you fill your posts with, there isn't really very much to go on at all. Why don't you just cut it out and we can have an intelligent debate?

First off, you might notice that I've dropped the history discussion. Not because I agree with your point of view but because I referenced experts who I agree with and who disagree with you and I think that, at the very least, proves that my version of the way it happened is not "insane." Anyway, as I've said, let's agree to disagree on that and discuss the more interesting point of whether purposefully targetting civilians is ever justifiable. You've amended your argument slightly to say that it is justified to purposefully target civilians when the intent is to end a war, cease bloodshed and/or (I'm not sure which you meant) liberate people.

Your interpretation of history is that the US was trying do those things when it dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Bin Laden wasn't when he attacked any of his targets. I think you can probably see why that's problematic. Bin Laden says that Al Qaeda is trying to liberate the Palestinians and the Arabs generally from Western domination. He says he is trying to cease the bloodshed in Palestine, the death in Iraq (before the US invasion at least) and end the wars that the US and others have been waging or sponsiring in the Middle East for the last 50 years. Now I think Bin Laden is pretty cooked myself and I don't entirely agree with his assessment of the facts. I don't want to evaluate his claims. I just think we need a slightly better test for determining when you can kill civilians than you've proposed. Because the one you've proposed can be used to justify virtually anything.

At the end of the most traumatic and violent period of war that the planet had ever known, people sat down and posed exactly the question we're asking here. In fact, they asked that question a lot earlier. Only a year after England started area bombing, it was acknowledged in Parliament as being a terror campaign and there were calls to end what was considered an immoral practice. At the end of the war, the conclusion that the parties came to was that it should never be justified to kill civilians. Let's imagine for a moment that some of those people were at least as well versed in history and intelligent as you are/ Clearly they had a more direct knowledge of the suffering and loss that war meant. I think the test they approved of is not only morally defensible in a way that yours is not, but I think it has the benefit of simplicity. Civilians are not fair game. That's easy for dumb soldiers to implement.

The result is that if Hiroshima happened today, it would be a war crime and globally morality would condemn it. I'm not saying that to cast a shadow on the allies (the entire allied force was behind the use of nukes). I fall on the allied side and would have fought for them had I been around at the time. But I think that we made some mistakes in the war and I know we committed some war crimes. We recognised after the war that targetting civilians was a mistake that shouldn't be repeated. Your country recognised that and signed up to the new doctrine of not attacking civilians. I just don't understand why you second guess the morality that was behind that decision today.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Y3a

And BEFORE any civilization..Safety is never garanteed either.

Safety is never garanteed anywhere.

How would it be accomplished?

The end of attribution of power by proxy and full disarmement. I know, it is an utopy.