[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Amazing you idiots [/B]

Name calling makes you look absolutely stupid. Bravo, keep it up!

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Myrkridia

Interesting, probably the same thing OBL believes.

It's a classic. I mean, people are confronted over a prize, whether it is an idea, a piece of land, a group of people, vital resources or else. If discussions do not resolve the issue then, its the survival type of nehavior that will come out, and usually this is done by the application of some form of power and control.

From the point of view of the belligerants, they feel they are right, whether they feel they are acting for the good of humanity or not, it starts with their own sake first. Anything else is unecessary, unless there is an advantage in keeping the enemy functional.

What the nuclear age has brought is the idea that a whole nation can be eradicated with only a few of these devices. Things get easier now; destruction comes from the touch of a button by which complete countries can be eliminated.

Them or us indeed; harnessing a part of the power of the Sun has brought almost God-like powers (or Evil-like?) powers to protect the "us" and eliminate the "them".

It is also a power that does not discriminate; are we to kill the pastors or religious representatives who pray for peace and have gathered a minority of pacifists to fight against the war lead by their own government simply because they are in a city with weapons plants?

As I said before, from a military perspective it makes sense. Morally speaking it is reprehensible.

In the exemple of OBL, bombing WTC may have been for political reasons, but that has not been proven to me yet, even if it seems easy to rationalize his actions that way. The benefits are still elusive. Bombing Hiroshima was accelerate the process of ending the war. Since it was a military operatyion, it was successful. Politically it was a failure; the US stood on a different moral ground, for which many nations had confidence in its habilities to keep up. But the turn of events happened with the Cold War, with the confrontation with the USSR.

Suddenly, no one was safe anymore, as the gathering of so many weapons fro these protagonists and the development of warfield between the 2 nations (i.e. Europe and Canada) created more insecurity. That is without counting the fall offs of the eventual bombardment from which the survivors would be counting the days towards the end of humanity.

The atomic bomb bought some momentary military peace, but not much peace of mind as time goes by, especially with concerns over the possession of nuclear weapons from unaligned countries.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

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

lol

I THINK I know what you mean. But I must admit I really do enjoy having to ponder it because it seems to be a really profound statement you are making.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

1. Doesn't matter if they knew it or not. They were innocent civilians.
2. Doesn't matter if they knew it or not. They were innocent civilians.

Absolutely it matters, especially when you are claiming that OBL and the US are the same.

You can't even answer basic yes or no questions. At this point, debate is useless.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

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."

Could you provide examples of the above?

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.

Again, show me an example of where I excused terrorism.

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, I know fully that innocent civilians would die in a war. The thing is that you never gave innocent children the chance to make that decision. You just slaughtered them. They never had a chance to decide if they wanted to fight or not. All you are doing is justifying targeting innocent civilians. If I'm stupid, ignorant and a coward like you say then so be it. I will never accept the deliberate targeting of civilians. And to me it doesn't matter who does the killing. For you it obviously does.

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.

It would have been better if it wasn't the direct target of the attack. Even if I hate "collateral damage" it is still better than deliberately targeting civilians. You obviously disagree.

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.

Do you think there is a chance you'd skip the personal attacks? My argument is a simple one and everyone should be able to understand it if they want to. It's the argument that deliberately targeting civilians is never acceptable. You seem to believe deliberately targeting civilians is OK under such and such circumstances. And that is why I say your argument is the same as OBL uses. You find justification for the most horrible act there is. To kill an innocent civilians. And you spend most of your post in personal attacks on me (and Troll) when my argument is simple.

It's never OK to deliberately target civilians no matter what.

Now, bring on the next batch of personal attacks.

[mojo2]

Although supporters of the bombing concede that the civilian leadership in Japan was cautiously and discreetly sending out diplomatic communiques as far back as January of 1945, following the Allied invasion of Luzon in the Philippines, they point out that Japanese military officials were unanimously opposed to any negotiations before the use of the atomic bomb.

While some members of the civilian leadership did use covert diplomatic channels to begin negotiation for peace, on their own it could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire. Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and this cabinet was dominated by militarists from the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Navy, all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal.

A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan with the military increasingly determined to fight despite the costs and odds.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson points to the increased Japanese resistance, futile as it was in retrospect, as the war came to its inevitable conclusion.

The Battle of Okinawa showed this determination to fight on at all costs. More than 110,000 Japanese and 12,000 American troops were killed in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan's final surrender.

When the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945 and carried out Operation August Storm, the Japanese Imperial Army ordered its ill-supplied and weakened forces in Manchuria to fight to the last man, an order which it carried out.

Major General Masakazu Amanu, chief of the operations section at Japanese Imperial Headquarters, stated that he was absolutely convinced his defensive preparations, begun in early 1944, could repel any Allied invasion of the home islands with minimum losses.

The Japanese would not give up easily because of their strong tradition of pride and honor: Many followed the Samurai code and would fight until the very last man was dead.
After the realization that the destruction of Hiroshima was from a nuclear weapon, the civilian leadership gained more and more traction in its argument that Japan had to concede defeat and accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

However, even after the destruction of Nagasaki, the Emperor himself needed to intervene to end a deadlock in the cabinet.

According to some Japanese historians, Japanese civilian leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender. Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisors, stated: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war."

Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." According to these historians and others, the pro-peace civilian leadership was able to use the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to convince the military that no amount of courage, skill and fearless combat could help Japan against the power of atomic weapons.

Akio Morita, founder of Sony and Japanese Naval officer during the war, also concludes that it was the atomic bomb and not conventional bombings from B-29s that convinced the Japanese military to agree to peace.

Supporters of the bombing also point out that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option. The conventional bombardment was killing tens of thousands each week in Japan, directly and indirectly.

The submarine blockade and the U.S. Army Air Force's mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan's imports. A complementary operation against Japan's railways was about to begin, isolating the cities of southern Honshu from the food grown elsewhere in the Home Islands.

This, combined with the delay in relief supplies from the Allies, could have resulted in a far greater death toll, due to famine and malnutrition, than actually occurred. "Immediately after the defeat, some estimated that 10 million people were likely to starve to death", noted historian Daikichi Irokawa. Meanwhile, in addition to the Soviet attacks, offensives were scheduled in southern China, and Malaysia.

As a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month.

The Americans anticipated losing many soldiers in the planned invasion of Japan, although the actual number of expected fatalities and wounded is subject to some debate and depends on the persistence and reliability of Japanese resistance and whether the Americans would have invaded only Kyushu in November 1945 or if a follow up landing near Tokyo, projected for March of 1946, would have been needed.

Years after the war, Secretary of State James Byrnes claimed that 500,000 American lives would have been lost - and that number has since been repeated "authoritatively", but in the summer of 1945 US military planners projected 20,000-110,000 combat deaths from the initial November 1945 invasion, with about three to four times that number wounded.

Many military advisors held that a worst-case scenario could involve up to 1,000,000 American casualties.

In addition to that, the atomic bomb hastened the end of the Second World War in Asia liberating hundreds of thousands of Western citizens (including about 200,000 Dutch) and 400,000 Indonesians ("Romushas") from Japanese concentration camps. In addition, Japanese atrocities against millions of Chinese were ended.

Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944. The order dealt with the disposal and execution of all Allied POW's, numbering over 100,000, if an invasion of the Japanese mainland took place. (It is also likely that, considering Japan's previous treatment of POWs, were the Allies to wait out Japan and starve it, the Japanese would have killed all Allied POWs, and Chinese prisoners.)

In response to the argument that the large-scale killing of civilians was immoral and a war crime, supporters of the bombings have argued that the Japanese government waged total war, ordering many civilians (including women and children) to work in factories and military offices and to fight against any invading force.

Father John A. Siemes, professor of modern philosophy at Tokyo's Catholic University, and an eyewitness to the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima wrote:
"We have discussed among ourselves the ethics of the use of the bomb. Some consider it in the same category as poison gas and were against its use on a civil population. Others were of the view that in total war, as carried on in Japan, there was no difference between civilians and soldiers, and that the bomb itself was an effective force tending to end the bloodshed, warning Japan to surrender and thus to avoid total destruction. It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of war against civilians." [11]
Some historians have claimed that U.S. planners wanted to end the war quickly, to minimize potential Soviet acquisition of Japanese-held territory.

[mojo2]

Here is the information you have to work with. What do you do, nuke em or not?


Estimated cost in lives waiting for Japan to MAYBE surrender between August 1945 and the November planned invasion: 200,000/mo. X 4 mos. = 800,000 non-combatants in Asia

Estimated cost in lives of US combat deaths in an invasion: 20,000 - 110,000 (some estimates said 1,000,000 US casualties)

Estimated Allied POW deaths resulting from Japan's 8/1/44 disposal order: 100,000
At risk Allied civilians: Dutch 200,000, Indonesian 400,000 = 600,000
Persecuted Chinese suffering Japanese atrocities = 1,000,000's

Numbers of precious Japanese civilians estimated to be lost in continued conventional bombing (including those near military targets in cities like Hiroshima & Nagasaki): 10,000+ per week dead X 16 weeks between Aug + Nov 1945 = 160,000 dead

Numbers of noble and revered Japanese warriors expected to die in the planned invasion:_____________

Numbers expected to die on both sides of conflict in offensives in Southern China and Malaysia:____________

Estimated costs in lives lost on both sides resulting from planned Soviet offensives:________________

Estimated numbers of honorable japanese civilian and military expected to die from starvation following an invasion induced surrender: TEN MILLION estimated dead.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Absolutely it matters, especially when you are claiming that OBL and the US are the same.

You can't even answer basic yes or no questions. At this point, debate is useless.

I know it's useless. It's useless because you won't even understand the very simple argument.

I say: "It's never acceptable to deliberately targeting civilians"
You say: "It's OK to deliberately target civilians under certain circumstances"

The reason behind deliberately targeting civilians doesn't matter. Every single person who tries to justify the murder of civilians is following the line OBL holds up today, Pinochet held before that and that all sides in WWII held before that. You all share the same idea that under certain circumstances killing civilians is OK.

But perhaps the reason for you not wanting to understand my easy to understand argument is that you have no worthwhile answer to it. You cannot show what the difference is between the people who decided to kill innocent civilians in Hiroshima and WTC. And the simple reason for you not being able to show the difference is that there is none.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I know it's useless. It's useless because you won't even understand the very simple argument.

I say: "It's never acceptable to deliberately targeting civilians"
You say: "It's OK to deliberately target civilians under certain circumstances"

The reason behind deliberately targeting civilians doesn't matter. Every single person who tries to justify the murder of civilians is following the line OBL holds up today, Pinochet held before that and that all sides in WWII held before that. You all share the same idea that under certain circumstances killing civilians is OK.

But perhaps the reason for you not wanting to understand my easy to understand argument is that you have no worthwhile answer to it. You cannot show what the difference is between the people who decided to kill innocent civilians in Hiroshima and WTC. And the simple reason for you not being able to show the difference is that there is none.

In all out war, which is what was happening in WWII (BOTH sides were waging all out war) the most merciful thing to do was to bring it to a close as quickly as possible. The A-Bomb forced this to happen.

We are not in an all out war with OBL, yet he is doing everything he can to have us escalate our actions against the terrorists so that he might gain the momentum. If we resort to the kind of all out war he is engaging in the result will probably not be the same as in WWII. We could very possibly lose by using a staggering amount of force, nuclear force, that is. If we found a DIFFERENT kind of awesome power then maybe that could work.

OBL, is trying to coerce his own constituency into SUBMISSION. He's trying to erode support for US military action amongst our own people and trying to lessen morale.

The US is a freely chosen government representing 200,000,000 people.

OBL represents a small faction of a radical muslims who are using strong arm tactics to force their enemies to submit AND using that same tactic to force the people to submit to their rule.

I'd say your sig clearly shows support for OBL's actions, btw.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I know it's useless. It's useless because you won't even understand the very simple argument.

I say: "It's never acceptable to deliberately targeting civilians"
You say: "It's OK to deliberately target civilians under certain circumstances"

The reason behind deliberately targeting civilians doesn't matter. Every single person who tries to justify the murder of civilians is following the line OBL holds up today, Pinochet held before that and that all sides in WWII held before that. You all share the same idea that under certain circumstances killing civilians is OK.

But perhaps the reason for you not wanting to understand my easy to understand argument is that you have no worthwhile answer to it. You cannot show what the difference is between the people who decided to kill innocent civilians in Hiroshima and WTC. And the simple reason for you not being able to show the difference is that there is none.

In all out war, which is what was happening in WWII (BOTH sides were waging all out war) the most merciful thing to do was to bring it to a close as quickly as possible. The A-Bomb forced this to happen.

We are not in an all out war with OBL, yet he is doing everything he can to have us escalate our actions against the terrorists so that he might gain the momentum. If we resort to the kind of all out war he is engaging in the result will probably not be the same as in WWII. We could very possibly lose by using a staggering amount of force, nuclear force, that is. If we found a DIFFERENT kind of awesome power then maybe that could work.

OBL, is trying to coerce his own constituency into SUBMISSION. He's trying to erode support for US military action amongst our own people and trying to lessen morale.

The US is a freely chosen government representing 200,000,000 people.

OBL represents a small faction of a radical muslims who are using strong arm tactics to force their enemies to submit AND using that same tactic to force the people to submit to their rule.

I'd say your sig clearly indicates a tacit endorsement of OBL's actions, btw.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

In all out war, which is what was happening in WWII (BOTH sides were waging all out war) the most merciful thing to do was to bring it to a close as quickly as possible. The A-Bomb forced this to happen.

We are not in an all out war with OBL, yet he is doing everything he can to have us escalate our actions against the terrorists so that he might gain the momentum. If we resort to the kind of all out war he is engaging in the result will probably not be the same as in WWII. We could very possibly lose by using a staggering amount of force, nuclear force, that is. If we found a DIFFERENT kind of awesome power then maybe that could work.

OBL, is trying to coerce his own constituency into SUBMISSION. He's trying to erode support for US military action amongst our own people and trying to lessen morale.

The US is a freely chosen government representing 200,000,000 people.

OBL represents a small faction of a radical muslims who are using strong arm tactics to force their enemies to submit AND using that same tactic to force the people to submit to their rule.

I'd say your sig clearly shows support for OBL's actions, btw.

There is nothing merciful about deliberately killing civilians. Nothing merciful about it at all.

And I don't care what theory you have about OBL. For this discussion all that is needed is that he tries to justify the murder of innocent people just like people in the thread have tried to justify slaughtering civilians. There is no difference between the two.

[budster101]

Let's see. How long can this circular argument go on? You've been shown how over 1,000,000 Japanese were spared from an invasion as well as countless American lives. I'm not sure what else anyone can say to you.

The plus side of incinerating 100,000 people? We ended the War. Saved 1,000,000 in the process and many of our own. Conventional bombing would have been more devastating and had drawn out the war even longer. America was fed up as it was with the war. We wanted it to end, and our troops to stop dying because the JAPANESE and the GERMANS that started this nonsense.

Horrific? Yes.
Necessary? Yes.

I feel like I'm arguing with a 2 year old.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by budster101

Let's see. How long can this circular argument go on? You've been shown how over 1,000,000 Japanese were spared from an invasion as well as countless American lives. I'm not sure what else anyone can say to you.

The plus side of incinerating 100,000 people? We ended the War. Saved 1,000,000 in the process and many of our own. Conventional bombing would have been more devastating and had drawn out the war even longer. America was fed up as it was with the war. We wanted it to end, and our troops to stop dying because the JAPANESE and the GERMANS that started this nonsense.

Horrific? Yes.
Necessary? Yes.

I feel like I'm arguing with a 2 year old.

I was going to spend some time explaining my point (again) to you but then you had to throw in yet one personal attack. Do you think there is a chance that you might be able to discuss this without the personal attacks?

[budster101]

Stop acting like a two-year-old then.

No matter how many ways you attempt to twist the argument to suit your definition, it isn't going to work. Your constant attempts to put a square peg in a round hole, isn't going to look good, even if you manage to jam it in there... it doesn't fit.

I'm sure you were going to "Spend some time" explaining it. I think you just figured out you were wrong.

[AKcrab]

Two people with two opinions. No right, no wrong.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by budster101

Stop acting like a two-year-old then.

No matter how many ways you attempt to twist the argument to suit your definition, it isn't going to work. Your constant attempts to put a square peg in a round hole, isn't going to look good, even if you manage to jam it in there... it doesn't fit.

I'm sure you were going to "Spend some time" explaining it. I think you just figured out you were wrong.

It seems impossible for you to discuss this in a decent way. Therefor I'm going to make this very simple for you.

1. I believe it is never acceptable to deliberately target civilians.

2. Do you believe it is sometimes acceptable to deliberately target civilians?

[budster101]

Well, that's not entirely true. It's not just my opinion, but quite right. At the time there were no feasable solutions except to go ahead with dropping the bombs. There are no two ways about it.

100,000 incinerated. v. 1,000,000 killed by conventional methods, and risk Germany getting the "A" bomb as well... Second guessing something over 60 years ago and then applying an already previous bitter disposition towards anything US doesn't make what they did then wrong.

I think it's horrible, but then again, didn't Japan bare that responsibility along with Germany?

Let's simplify this a bit just to be pedantic some more if that is possible:

Do you also blame victims for being attacked by criminals? what about the person who steps in and evicerates the criminal in the process of saving the person being assaulted? That poor bad guy, had a family to raise, a dog, a bird, and, and... what?

When all the information is digested, it was correct to drop the bombs on Hiroshima. In typical Japanese Shogun Fashion, the did NOT surrendor. They instead chose to do something else. Stall, what have you, but it was not the prudent thing to do. We then assembled and dropped another bomb over Nagasaki, and forced them into submission or utter anhiliation. See how that works? They would never have given in, until millions had died on both sides.

It's a tragic and emotional event that should never have to be repeated.
Yet now we have today, with this thread and the comparison of the USA 60 years ago and OBL.

Absurd. How can one make the comparison?
What have we done to him and his people again? Have we wiped them out, death camps, what?
He (OBL) has taken a religion (Well it's most violent parts) and made them real. He has begun a jihad against the west and will not rest until dead or he has successfully completed his task of wiping out every non-psycho-islamic-militant he can find. 9/11 was only a training video for this guy to get more people to join his insane quest. Problem is, not so many are finding his side of things to be the one they would support.

Personal Note:

Would I have hoped they did not drop the bomb and had alternative means?
Sure. I also would have hoped the proud Japanese leadership did not fall into the partnership with Nazi Germany and begin their own quest to destroy and conquer all that was not in agreement with them...

OBL is more like Hitler and Emperor Hirohito than anyone.

"No right, no wrong".
Well there is a wrong here, but I understand his being passionate about the incineration of so many people. It's hard to stomach, but then it would be harder to stomach 1,000,000 shot, bombed, etc. to death instead. How many Americans would not be here today if we had not dropped the bombs? How many great tormented Jewish and others would not be here? I shudder to think at the possibility that Germany gain a foothold again back then and then gain a weapon like the A-bomb and it's jet fighters that were in the finishing stages of develpment.

There are far too many possibilities that could have gone against the allies had we not dropped the bombs. Looking back now, who knows, but after the poker game is over and the cards are turned over, everyone is an expert and "could have won"... only if.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by budster101

100,000 incinerated. v. 1,000,000 killed by conventional methods, and risk Germany getting the "A" bomb as well..

Germany had already surrendered. At least get the most basic facts straight.

Absurd. How can one make the comparison?
What have we done to him and his people again?

Support of brutal dictatorships. Support for the continued occupation of Palestine. And the list goes on of things he uses to justify killing innocents. Sort of like you do about Hiroshima.

OBL is more like Hitler and Emperor Hirohito than anyone.

More than whom? But yes, OBL will go down in history with them. Hopefully he will not be as "successful" at killing people but he will still be remembered in a way similar to them.

How many great tormented Jewish and others would not be here? I shudder to think at the possibility that Germany gain a foothold again back then and then gain a weapon like the A-bomb and it's jet fighters that were in the finishing stages of develpment.

Again, Germany had already surrendered.

If you fail at such basic facts how do you expect people to take your opinion seriously? You are failing on one of the most basic facts. Not something that can be argued about as our two opinions. Please tell me how people should take you seriously when you don't even know such basic facts.

[budster101]

You were talking about if's right? If we don't drop the "A" bomb on Japan and they surrender, what happens with Germany? They only surrendered 3 months after Japan. What gets me is you have to parse my sentences and posts in order to be petty and deliver ignorant statements as if I don't have any idea of the timeline through the War. I was assuming you did, to my mistake, as you took this opportunity to add nothing to the discussion except a personal attack.

OBL Doesn't care about Palestine or anything but his hatred for the West, just like HItler justified his hatred of all Jews etc. to gain power and conquer.

Answer this question: If we don't drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and begin another land assault in the Pacific Theater... Does Germany surrender 3 months later?

You've got all the answers so I'll wait....

[budster101]

http://www.dannen.com/sounds/truman.au

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by budster101

You were talking about if's right? If we don't drop the "A" bomb on Japan and they surrender, what happens with Germany? They only surrendered 3 months after Japan. What gets me is you have to parse my sentences and posts in order to be petty and deliver ignorant statements as if I don't have any idea of the timeline through the War. I was assuming you did, to my mistake, as you took this opportunity to add nothing to the discussion except a personal attack.

OBL Doesn't care about Palestine or anything but his hatred for the West, just like HItler justified his hatred of all Jews etc. to gain power and conquer.

Answer this question: If we don't drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and begin another land assault in the Pacific Theater... Does Germany surrender 3 months later?

You've got all the answers so I'll wait....

Dear God.

Germany surrendered before the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not after!

Germany surrendered the 7th of May 1945.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed 6th and 9th of August 1945.

Please get these very basic facts straight. OK?

[TETENAL]

.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Germany surrendered the 7th of May 2005.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed 6th and 9th of August 2005.

Please get these very basic facts straight. OK?

[budster101]

I think he's actually turning red. 2005 eh?

Tweak.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

.

OOOOOPS!!!!!!!!!!!





:tries to remember to never post when tired again:

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by budster101

I think he's actually turning red. 2005 eh?

Tweak.

oops.

At least I got the order right. Something you didn't.

[budster101]

I can be tired too right?

Let's call it a day, cool?
Later.

[Myrkridia]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

As I said before, from a military perspective it makes sense. Morally speaking it is reprehensible.

I agree completely. From a tactician's point of view both Pearl Harbor and the two atomic bombs as well as 9/11 were brilliant.

Each served a function whether it was to destory a valued military target, end a war much more quickly, or create mass panic and confusion while at the same time massive loss of life. Though ethically I disagree with them.

The problem I have is the fact that America is constantly getting up on it's moral high horse.
Constantly making itself the exception to every rule. While other countries admit breaking geneva convention codes of conduct or refusing to abide by them, America starts searching for loops holes to exlplain their transgressions, but are the first to scream "foul" when someone else does it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Name calling makes you look absolutely stupid. Bravo, keep it up!

You just named called.

Anyway, I call idiocy where I see it. Paying lip service to bin Laden qualifies.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

If you fail at such basic facts how do you expect people to take your opinion seriously? You are failing on one of the most basic facts. Not something that can be argued about as our two opinions. Please tell me how people should take you seriously when you don't even know such basic facts.

Basic facts like not knowing the Axis officially killed civilians, or the very reasons they started the war in the first place? Basic facts such as the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands and the huge casualty estimates?

Exactly why I find it hard to take your side of the argument seriously.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Basic facts like not knowing the Axis officially killed civilians, or the very reasons they started the war in the first place? Basic facts such as the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands and the huge casualty estimates?

Exactly why I find it hard to take your side of the argument seriously.

I don't recall saying the first two you list. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else?

And about the latter. I don't care. For the thousandth time, I don't care. You never gave the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the chance to decide. You never gave them a chance to live.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

There is nothing merciful about deliberately killing civilians. Nothing merciful about it at all.

And I don't care what theory you have about OBL. For this discussion all that is needed is that he tries to justify the murder of innocent people just like people in the thread have tried to justify slaughtering civilians. There is no difference between the two.

SIGH!

von Wrangell, when all you have to hang onto is one simple, flimsy little truth the winds will blow and the rain may beat upon you but in the end it is only that truth that could save you and when you have nothing else it is often enough.

I see you clinging to your flimsy little truth against which the rains and winds may assault and you remain bloodied but unbowed and still clinging to that raggedy assed flimsy little truth.

Nothing we can say will defeat your truth. The best that we can do is to argue the validity of our own desperately held truth that after the storm it, too will be seen standing tall amidst the ruins.

Yes, there is mercy in the way death is delivered. As a warrior need I remind you that a quick end is a blessing when compared to a long, slow, painful torturous dispatch?

And, yes, there is a difference between the US and OBL. We are the only force which represented the hopes and dreams of the greatest numbers of people and we stood up for freedom.

No one else did what we did in WWII and with all our faults or flaws, no one else represents the capacity for good that we do, today. For whatever the reasons with the dangers and evils and uncertainty in the world in this day and age we must fight fire with fire.

We are the world's bodyguard and we HAVE to do some morally unpleasant things so that people like you can uphold the IDEAL of non-violence for ALL to hear. But, until the other side is willing to buy into your ideals it is we who must dirty ourselves to keep you free to hold up your raggedy assed truth.

Targeting civilians or not, what is your suggestion?

[Johnnyboysmac]

Von Wrangell said:

I don't care. For the thousandth time, I don't care. You never gave the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the chance to decide. You never gave them a chance to live.

Er, sorry to be pedantic, but who is the 'YOU' you are addressing?

Personally, I would have thought that by seeing themselves as Japanese, aligning themselves with the government of the day, and supporting the war effort by whatever means possible, and given that the Japanese paradigm was 'Total War' that the Japanese civilians were no more 'innocent' than their enlisted soldiers.

I fail to see your distinction between soldiers and so-called innocent civilians - or rather that it is somehow morally acceptable to kill the soldier, and morally reprehensible to kill the (theoretical) 'innocent' civilian. Certainly from a political point of view, the days of your enemy making declarations of war, wearing uniforms etc seem to be over - these days your enemy is likely to be an otherwise seemingly innocent civilian, who lives amongst you, and is 'innocent' right up until the time he drops a bomb in your lap.

IMHO war is immoral and reprehensible, period - this is of far greater importance IMV than getting hung up on who it's OK to kill, and who its not to kill - war is immoral and insane behaviour period. To suggest it's anything otherwise, and that you can have 'good' and 'bad' killing is equally insane IMV.

Having said that, if I personally was in a situation where my life, the life of my friends or family and loved ones was being threatened, directly or indirectly, and it was in my power to do something about that re protecting them, and that meant killing, do you think I would hesitate for one second to kill the 'enemy' and all around him in any way possible?

Absolutely Not. Last man standing and all that. As I said, it's insane IMHO - unfortunately it's a situation mankind has been in before, and probably will be again - only next time we may not be so lucky - there may be no survivors at all.

Only IMHO of course, and it goes without saying that YMMV

Best regards

John...

[Y3a]

Von Wrangle - You attempt to ignore the "Apples and Oranges' problem with YOUR arguement. This is why you loose.

Your out of context examples also demonstrate that you don't yet understand the history of WWII in context. Again this is why you loose.

Your absolutist viewpoint is also incorrect.

[Johnnyboysmac]

mojo2 said:

No one else did what we did in WWII and with all our faults or flaws, no one else represents the capacity for good that we do, today. For whatever the reasons with the dangers and evils and uncertainty in the world in this day and age we must fight fire with fire.

We are the world's bodyguard and we HAVE to do some morally unpleasant things so that people like you can uphold the IDEAL of non-violence for ALL to hear. But, until the other side is willing to buy into your ideals it is we who must dirty ourselves to keep you free to hold up your raggedy assed truth.

Speaking as an Australian, I'd agree with you one hundred percent.

No system of government, or indeed country is totally free from mistakes or corruption, however I'd far sooner have the US today as the leading 'superpower' than contemplate the alternatives.

I realise that we all like to be idealistic, but we have to live with the reality of the world as it is, and few countries would be as stable and reasonable in their dealings with other countries and their citizens as the US.

It's easy to criticize, but what sort of world do you think we'd live in if the Japanese had won? Do you think you'd have the personal freedom you have now? Could openly discuss this topic on an internet forum perhaps? I think not, no, not even slightly close.

In the light of the London bombings, the govenment here is having a summit to bring in tougher laws regarding the deportation of people from other countries inciting hatred of the West here with their teaching. As usual, civil libertarians complain. But as the leading politician stated, to deport someone who is inciting hatred and possibly terrorist acts, is a blow FOR civil liberties, NOT against them, as ultimately it is the governments responsibility to protect the civil liberties of the citizens by ensuring their basic safety.

So yes, dropping an A-bomb was reprehensible, as is ALL war IMHO, (red-herring debates about 'guilty' soldiers, and 'innocent' civilians notwithstanding) but when it comes to survival, a you v's them scenario, one does what one has to do, horrible as it is - if you want to survive that is.

Best Regards

John...

[Troll]

All of this argument is really irrelevant because the decision was taken after World War II to outlaw the targetting of civilians. Hiroshima is water under the fridge and we're not going to change events by condemning or exonerating those behind the decision. We all have different opinions about it.

But no matter what some of you may think is desirable, today it is considered barbaric and illegal to target civilians. If Hiroshima happened today, it would be a war crime.

[Troll]

Oops.

[budster101]

If Hiroshima had happened to day.... (It would not have been by the USA, as it now is illegal)

OBL had done this post the illegality of targeting civilians.

The comparison of the USA to OBL by Von Wrangel is therefore false.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

You just named called.

Anyway, I call idiocy where I see it. Paying lip service to bin Laden qualifies.

Yeah, I understand; I am like you, except no one has paid lip service to Bin Laden in this thread.

Sorry!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Johnnyboysmac

mojo2 said:

Speaking as an Australian, I'd agree with you one hundred percent.

No system of government, or indeed country is totally free from mistakes or corruption, however I'd far sooner have the US today as the leading 'superpower' than contemplate the alternatives.

I realise that we all like to be idealistic, but we have to live with the reality of the world as it is, and few countries would be as stable and reasonable in their dealings with other countries and their citizens as the US.

It's easy to criticize, but what sort of world do you think we'd live in if the Japanese had won? Do you think you'd have the personal freedom you have now? Could openly discuss this topic on an internet forum perhaps? I think not, no, not even slightly close.

In the light of the London bombings, the govenment here is having a summit to bring in tougher laws regarding the deportation of people from other countries inciting hatred of the West here with their teaching. As usual, civil libertarians complain. But as the leading politician stated, to deport someone who is inciting hatred and possibly terrorist acts, is a blow FOR civil liberties, NOT against them, as ultimately it is the governments responsibility to protect the civil liberties of the citizens by ensuring their basic safety.

So yes, dropping an A-bomb was reprehensible, as is ALL war IMHO, (red-herring debates about 'guilty' soldiers, and 'innocent' civilians notwithstanding) but when it comes to survival, a you v's them scenario, one does what one has to do, horrible as it is - if you want to survive that is.

Best Regards

John...

Cheers, mate!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

nevermind.

[Macrobat]

Well, well, well. The difference a few days make in the amount of knowledge we have to draw upon on this subject.

Seems the Japanese were WAY further along in the own nuclear weapons program than previous posters in this thread have allowed. Seems the Japanese Navy actually detonated a test device in Korea (where their weapons research facility was located) according to recently discovered and declassified Japanese Naval documents. The History Channel aired a very interesting program about it just last night (a world premiere), even interviewing one of the key scientists involved in the program, named Kegoshi.

All of you bleeding hearts should be made aware that the plan was to load a device onto one of the type 400 submarines (the largest built in WWII) and "kamikaze" it in the middle of San Francisco Bay.

Amazing how you think you are on the moral high ground and can pontificate about what Harry S Truman should have done, then you find out he was aware of something extremely frightening that none of you even knew existed.

Anyone care to re-evaluate their thinking after the revelation of this new data?

http://www.historychannel.com/global...&page=listings

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Well, well, well. The difference a few days make in the amount of knowledge we have to draw upon on this subject.

Seems the Japanese were WAY further along in the own nuclear weapons program than previous posters in this thread have allowed. Seems the Japanese Navy actually detonated a test device in Korea (where their weapons research facility was located) according to recently discovered and declassified Japanese Naval documents. The History Channel aired a very interesting program about it just last night (a world premiere), even interviewing one of the key scientists involved in the program, named Kegoshi.

All of you bleeding hearts should be made aware that the plan was to load a device onto one of the type 400 submarines (the largest built in WWII) and "kamikaze" it in the middle of San Francisco Bay.

Amazing how you think you are on the moral high ground and can pontificate about what Harry S Truman should have done, then you find out he was aware of something extremely frightening that none of you even knew existed.

Anyone care to re-evaluate their thinking after the revelation of this new data?

http://www.historychannel.com/global...&page=listings

Ahh, but the American media only serves it's master's wishes. This History Channel can't be trusted to tell the truth.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Well, well, well. The difference a few days make in the amount of knowledge we have to draw upon on this subject.

Seems the Japanese were WAY further along in the own nuclear weapons program than previous posters in this thread have allowed. Seems the Japanese Navy actually detonated a test device in Korea (where their weapons research facility was located) according to recently discovered and declassified Japanese Naval documents. The History Channel aired a very interesting program about it just last night (a world premiere), even interviewing one of the key scientists involved in the program, named Kegoshi.

Saw it. It was pretty eye-opening. The previous night had a documentary on "X-Day", the *ahem* invasion of mainland Japan that had been in the planning since early 1943. The revisionists that insist using the bomb was a foregone conclusion are just using blurred hindsight as usual- they forget that the majority of people didn’t even know the bombs existed and therefore of course plans for conventional invasion were drawn up. Tons of calculations were made about casualty numbers and all one had to do to know their accuracy was look at the number of casualties in past and current fighting.

Amazingly, X-Day would have been something like 10 times the size of the Normandy invasion, easily the greatest invasion force in world history.

I’ve seen other pretty amazing documentaries on the types of weaponry that would have come into play had the Pacific war dragged on- just as the Allies encountered ahead-of-their-time German weapons toward the end of the European war (ballistic missiles, jet fighters, rocket planes, intercontinental bombers that could reach New York, etc.) the Japanese had any number of incredible weapons on the drawing boards as well. Now we find out that includes atomic weapons.

The history revisionists can keep pretending, but as usual, history doesn’t change just because they don’t know it, and seek to write their own version of it. Had WWII dragged on years longer, the death toll would have climbed drastically. Putting a decisive end to it in 1945 saved untold millions of lives, period.

[Macrobat]

Amazing the absolute silence all the pontificators are now generating with the revelation that historical facts bring, isn't it?
President Truman had access to classified information making the use of the bomb an urgent matter. Just because all the "holier-than-thous" didn't have all the information, but they damned sure thought they had it all.
The Japanese not only had the weapon, they had a plan to use it.
Sort of helps explain why their military leaders were so adamantly opposed to surrender, in what seemed at first glance to be a hopeless situation, too, eh?
They hoped to deliver their bomb first, forcing the US to deal with them on their terms.
Just goes to show you that nearly 4 years after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese still didn't have a clue how the American psyche worked.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Well, well, well. The difference a few days make in the amount of knowledge we have to draw upon on this subject.

Seems the Japanese were WAY further along in the own nuclear weapons program than previous posters in this thread have allowed. Seems the Japanese Navy actually detonated a test device in Korea (where their weapons research facility was located) according to recently discovered and declassified Japanese Naval documents. The History Channel aired a very interesting program about it just last night (a world premiere), even interviewing one of the key scientists involved in the program, named Kegoshi.

Correction:

A revealing look at the untold story of Japan's atomic bomb, and how they may have detonated a nuclear device just two days before surrender. Since the end of WWII, conventional wisdom claimed that Imperial Japan was years away from building an atomic weapon--this special shatters this view. Using once secret Japanese wartime documents, we provide evidence that Japan had world-class nuclear physicists, access to uranium ore, and cyclotrons to process it. They devised an innovative way to deliver the bombs using 400-foot long Sen Toku submarines, capable of carrying and launching airplanes. Most startling--just six days after Hiroshima, Japan tested its own atomic device on a small island 20 miles off the Korean coast. The sobering conclusion is that Japan may have been just weeks behind the US in the race for the bomb.

I have not seen the documentary, but I still stand by my position that they were in no way near to create a nuclear device of the efficiency of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb.

Sobering fact: if the Japanese were able to create such a device, and no traces of manufacturing plants made public about it, I suppose the Japanese were just far more efficient than the International consortium of scientists attached to it at Los Alamos in the U.S....

Here is more on the topic:

Japanese Atomic Program
San Diego Union

A documentary from a populist TV channel in need of publicity is not a scientific reference. And please do us the honour of quoting accurently; as I emphasized, they may have tested a device. Many devices were tested in the desert at Los Alamos as a way to create the triggers as well.

[Macrobat]

Correction:

Right back at you. The evidence was confirmed that the Japanese had, indeed, managed to create and contain U235 gas. The evidence had recently surfaced and was a History Channel exclusive.

The may you delight in pointing out is simply an advertising ploy to get people to twatch the show. The radioactive residue from the device was confirmed by the Russians, who occupied the area in what is now North Korea where the test took place.

In other words, the information we are drawing from is newer than your links.

Crash and I both watched the show, we both hear and saw the same thing. I suggest perhaps you should either purchase the DVD or wait for it to be rerun before resuming your "I know more than you" attitude.

According to the Japanese scientist who was interviewed for the show, the Japanese had two separate groups pursing the bomb. One financed and backed by the Army and the other (the one in Korea) by the Navy. The Army group was the first to come up with the successful containment vessel and create the U235 gas, the Navy group, being in Korea, were never touched by the war, so when the Army group was shut down by the firebombing of Tokyo, all their research was transferred to the Korean site.

[spacefreak]

And there you have it.

[mojo2]

It is EASY to figure out the ideal philosophy. Few people have any problem figuring THAT out.

Duh!

Killing is bad. Nukes are bad.

The difficult part is trying to weave that ideal philosophy into a PRACTICAL and effective policy that serves our wants, needs and goals (short & long term) and protects and preserves us as well as all innocent life as best as possible.

The people who believe we were wrong for nuking Japan are being childish in ONLY considering the IDEAL of not killing and not using nukes.

They fail to consider, whether because they are incapable of advanced thought or because they are intentionally obfuscative, how their idealism would fail the test of serving our wants, needs, goals and preserving or protecting our people or the Japanese.

It's like the opponents were introduced to Kindergarten and they feel comfortable with that level of thought and decide to make Kindergarten their home.

"Let other people be adults and do the tough adult thinking. I'll just whine and cry and provide an obstacle to progress without offering any workable solutions."

MEH

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Correction:

Right back at you. The evidence was confirmed that the Japanese had, indeed, managed to create and contain U235 gas. The evidence had recently surfaced and was a History Channel exclusive.

The may you delight in pointing out is simply an advertising ploy to get people to twatch the show. The radioactive residue from the device was confirmed by the Russians, who occupied the area in what is now North Korea where the test took place.

In other words, the information we are drawing from is newer than your links.

Crash and I both watched the show, we both hear and saw the same thing. I suggest perhaps you should either purchase the DVD or wait for it to be rerun before resuming your "I know more than you" attitude.

According to the Japanese scientist who was interviewed for the show, the Japanese had two separate groups pursing the bomb. One financed and backed by the Army and the other (the one in Korea) by the Navy. The Army group was the first to come up with the successful containment vessel and create the U235 gas, the Navy group, being in Korea, were never touched by the war, so when the Army group was shut down by the firebombing of Tokyo, all their research was transferred to the Korean site.

'twould have been nice to put that information in the first place rather than assuming everyone has the History Channel.

I will investigate for sure. Thank you for the information.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

If it wasn't about revenge then why do you bring up Pearl Harbour or all the massacres committed by the Japanese? If it isn't revenge those events are irrelevant.

You seem to care so much for the Koreans and Chinese people the Japanese government massacred but for some reason you don't care about the Japanese civilians your government massacred.

People are still today suffering from the effects of the Bombs. Cancer rates are higher with the survivors. You can continue to try to justify this but IMO the deliberate slaughter of civilians is unacceptable no matter who does the killings. It doesn't matter to me if it's AQ, SH, USA or Sweden. Killing innocent civilians isn't acceptable.

I just watched a National Geographic special called "Inside 9/11" and a companion show I failed to note the name.

Anyway, these shows are terrific and no, you haven't seen them before because they include mentions of the London and Sharm al Sheikh bombings.

One of the things clearly pointed out in the show was that on TWO separate occasions OBL was targeted and all that was needed to KILL him, before 9/11 was for the order to be given.

The orders were not given.

Why not?

Both times he was surrounded by civilians who would have likely been killed, too.

I wonder if your campaign to sensitize us here to the evil of indiscriminant killing has ANYTHING to do with your realization that hiding amongst civilians is a tactic many terrorists and OBL himself are likely to employ.

Here's an interactive page with many interviews and a very nice GUI.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ch...teractive.html