Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: TrapsMcLats on April 02, 2008, 09:25:45 PM
-
It bothers me to no end when i hear people talk about how cruel it was or how it was unnecessary. It might not have been the most politicaly correct thing ever, but it was completely called for and saved the lives of millions of people, american and japanese.
-
No, it doesn't bother me, and it most probably did not save the lives of millions of people. all the scholarship indicates that Japan was going to surrender soon.
the biggest difference it made was in getting an "unconditional" surrender immediately and stopping the reds.
-
Who cares about hiroshima and nagasaki anyway?
-
Who cares about hiroshima and nagasaki anyway?
a whole lot of Japanese people, as well as compassionate people throughout the world.
-
Who cares about hiroshima and nagasaki anyway?
yes it's good to be ignorant.
-
a whole lot of Japanese people, as well as compassionate people throughout the world.
Nobody in my country care for them, so thats about 15 million people, which is a good number if you ask me, im sure the rest of latin america does not care so...we have about 500 million of people which doesnt care so and even supported the bombings.
-
And i almost forget about this great looking man, Mr. Paul Tibbets - An Hero
(http://www.enolagay509th.com/CGP-JPAP-014.jpg)
Farewell my friend, you may rest in peace
-
I still get extremely bothered about WW1 and WW2
How about the IRA bombings in London? Big time. But that's all over.
xL
and the others elsewhere? Thankfully I wasn't in NY the year they bombed there, nor did I watch it on TV.
It can only get bigger.
-
I think it's always easy to play armchair quarterback and second guess the actions of others when we are not the ones getting shot at.
What is done is done. It ended the war, we rebuilt Japan, and they are now an ally.
Does it bother me? Nope. Not one bit. War sucks but it had to somehow come to an end.
-
Guess you didn't live in NY in 2001, London nowadays or Japan in the last two world wars?
You've never been to Ireland or to Palestine or South America, right?
oh I forgot Africa.
-
yes it's good to be ignorant.
Another Americanism
-
Another Americanism
shut up linda, you are sick
-
Whatever. America saved us, right?
-
Whatever. America saved us, right?
it did better than your dad, the english crack smoker
-
Nobody in my country care for them, so thats about 15 million people, which is a good number if you ask me, im sure the rest of latin america does not care so...we have about 500 million of people which doesnt care so and even supported the bombings.
lol wow speaking for 500 million people thats a new one for me ::)
-
Hey Linda how's ur German or Russian....damm Brits. ;D
-
It bothers me to no end when i hear people talk about how cruel it was or how it was unnecessary. It might not have been the most politicaly correct thing ever, but it was completely called for and saved the lives of millions of people, american and japanese.
Not really. The Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The USA, to this day, is THE ONLY country in the history of humanity to use nukes during a war. Worst of all, we dropped them on innocent civilians.
One of the ugliest, darkest and most irrational moments in humanity's history.
It is a day that will ALWAYS live in infamy.
-
Not really. The Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The USA, to this day, is THE ONLY country in the history of humanity to use nukes during a war. Worst of all, we dropped them on innocent civilians.
One of the ugliest, darkest and most irrational moments in humanity's history.
It is a day that will ALWAYS live in infamy.
Sure..they would just hit pearl harbour again and rape a few thousand chineses @ nanking, after that they would do it for sure ::)
-
Not really. The Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The USA, to this day, is THE ONLY country in the history of humanity to use nukes during a war. Worst of all, we dropped them on innocent civilians.
One of the ugliest, darkest and most irrational moments in humanity's history.
It is a day that will ALWAYS live in infamy.
No they weren't. They refused to surrender unconditionally. Considering what the Japanese did in the Pacific Islands, Philippines and China, any other surrender was unacceptable.
Also, more died on the Tokyo fire bombings prior to dropping the A-bombs. and still they refused to surrender. Fact was, many millions would have died if we had to invade them. So that's the argument for dropping it.
The argument for not dropping is good too. It was a hard call that will forever be questioned and second guessed.
But does it bother me when people ask about it? NO.
-
Everyone knows it was done to scare off Stalin...
-
Everyone knows it was done to scare off Stalin...
I think you're right. It did more for American interests than just causing Japan to surrender.
-
No they weren't. They refused to surrender unconditionally. Considering what the Japanese did in the Pacific Islands, Philippines and China, any other surrender was unacceptable.
Also, more died on the Tokyo fire bombings prior to dropping the A-bombs. and still they refused to surrender. Fact was, many millions would have died if we had to invade them. So that's the argument for dropping it.
The argument for not dropping is good too. It was a hard call that will forever be questioned and second guessed.
But does it bother me when people ask about it? NO.
Don't start a fight you can't finish.
What's done is done.
-
Don't start a fight you can't finish.
What's done is done.
? huh?
-
The men in charge of military operations for WWII thought that use of the atomic bomb in those two instances was not necessary. Adm. William Leahy, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Gen. Curtis LeMay, Gen. Henry Arnold, Brig. Gen. Bonner Fellers, Adm. Ernest King, Gen. Carl Spaatz, Adm. Chester Nimitz, Adm. William "Bull" Halsey, and Eisenhower all disagreed with Truman's call to bomb Japan with nuclear arms.
The heads of all branches of the military did not want to use the atomic bomb on Japan.
-
The men in charge of military operations for WWII thought that use of the atomic bomb in those two instances was not necessary. Adm. William Leahy, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Gen. Curtis LeMay, Gen. Henry Arnold, Brig. Gen. Bonner Fellers, Adm. Ernest King, Gen. Carl Spaatz, Adm. Chester Nimitz, Adm. William "Bull" Halsey, and Eisenhower all disagreed with Truman's call to bomb Japan with nuclear arms.
The heads of all branches of the military did not want to use the atomic bomb on Japan.
I'd be interested to read thier proposed solution to the problem of Japan's refusal to unconditionally surrender.
-
I'd be interested to read thier proposed solution to the problem of Japan's refusal to unconditionally surrender.
Do you know what that condition was?
-
Here are some more quotes to help us flesh out why they were against the atomic bombings:
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, quoted by his widow:
". . . I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life. . . . We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything." And E. B. Potter, naval historian wrote: "Nimitz considered the atomic bomb somehow indecent, certainly not a legitimate form of warfare."
Rear Admiral Richard Byrd:
"Especially it is good to see the truth told about the last days of the war with Japan. . . . I was with the Fleet during that period; and every officer in the Fleet knew that Japan would eventually capitulate from . . . the tight blockade."
Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy:
"I, too, felt strongly that it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning." [The atomic bomb] "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion . . . it was clear to a number of people . . . that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate . . . it was a sin to use a good word [a word that] should be used more often to kill non-combatants. . . ."
Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces.
". . . [F]rom the Japanese standpoint the atomic bomb was really a way out. The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell. . . ."
There are a lot more quotes just like that from some big guns.
-
Has anyone seen "The War" - a Ken Burns film?
http://www.pbs.org/thewar/
Of course the maker of the doc could skew it anyway he'd like but in this he indicated that because of some cultural pride thing the Japanese would never surrender w/o something like the bomb.
-
Do you know what that condition was?
I'm sure Japan wanted to maintain their government and military leadership at the very least.
We wanted unconditional surrender. This surrender worked out well for Japan and the world.
-
I'm sure Japan wanted to maintain their government and military leadership at the very least.
We wanted unconditional surrender. This surrender worked out well for Japan and the world.
Japan wanted its emperor safeguarded after the surrender.
Since all the military leaders of the day (outside of Truman) viewed the Japanese as utterly defeated and the use of atomic warfare unnecessary, who am I to argue?
-
A land invasion would have killed even more people.
It doesn't bother me. I think it's pefectly normal to feel for these things.
-
Japan wanted its emperor safeguarded after the surrender.
Since all the military leaders of the day (outside of Truman) viewed the Japanese as utterly defeated and the use of atomic warfare unnecessary, who am I to argue?
Japan got that with it's emperor.
They also wanted not to pay reparations for the war they started in addition to not having their present government disbanded and their military limited or disbanded. I might wrong about this in detail, but it certainly wasn't just the concern over the emperor.
Also, those military leaders, seem to have been making political motivated statements. More people died in 1 night of Tokyo fire bombings. And many more civilians would have surely died if we had invaded.
-
Japan got that with it's emperor.
They also wanted not to pay reparations for the war they started in addition to not having their present government disbanded and their military limited or disbanded. I might wrong about this in detail, but it certainly wasn't just the concern over the emperor.
Also, those military leaders, seem to have been making political motivated statements. More people died in 1 night of Tokyo fire bombings. And many more civilians would have surely died if we had invaded.
I understood the main point of contention was over the handling of the emperor.
I think the larger issue is being overlooked: The US caused 200,000 casualties in a war that all the major military men considered to be over.
Let the lawyers work out the details in the wording and conditions of surrender.
Using a nuclear bomb to make that decision was overkill....In my opinion.
-
I understood the main point of contention was over the handling of the emperor.
I think the larger issue is being overlooked: The US caused 200,000 casualties in a war that all the major military men considered to be over.
Let the lawyers work out the details in the wording and conditions of surrender.
Using a nuclear bomb to make that decision was overkill....In my opinion.
I hear your thinking
But, it was no where near over otherwise Japan would have surrendered unconditionally. We don't get an unconditonal surrender then they stay in China, and eventually rearm.
Also they still had plenty of offensive capability that would only increase as time went by. Granted they couldn't invade again for a while, but for how long?
-
I hear your thinking
But, it was no where near over otherwise Japan would have surrendered unconditionally. We don't get an unconditonal surrender then they stay in China, and eventually rearm.
Also they still had plenty of offensive capability that would only increase as time went by. Granted they couldn't invade again for a while, but for how long?
I understand your point. But here's what holds sway over my view:
Here are some more quotes to help us flesh out why they were against the atomic bombings:
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, quoted by his widow:
". . . I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life. . . . We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything." And E. B. Potter, naval historian wrote: "Nimitz considered the atomic bomb somehow indecent, certainly not a legitimate form of warfare."
Rear Admiral Richard Byrd:
"Especially it is good to see the truth told about the last days of the war with Japan. . . . I was with the Fleet during that period; and every officer in the Fleet knew that Japan would eventually capitulate from . . . the tight blockade."
Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy:
"I, too, felt strongly that it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning." [The atomic bomb] "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion . . . it was clear to a number of people . . . that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate . . . it was a sin to use a good word [a word that] should be used more often to kill non-combatants. . . ."
Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces.
". . . [F]rom the Japanese standpoint the atomic bomb was really a way out. The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell. . . ."
________________________ ________________
These guys were the military elite leaders of their day.
-
? huh?
What I meant by that, Oz, is that the Japanese started a fight and lost.
The bombs dropped. It was a nasty war - people died. It is what it is.
It's not fair for anyone to second guess the order to drop the nukes. President Truman made a hard decision and it's over.
Was it an act of terrorism? Nope. Did civilians die? Yes but, like I said, it was a war.
Is it fucking lame to dwell over this? Fuck yeah.
-
What I meant by that, Oz, is that the Japanese started a fight and lost.
The bombs dropped. It was a nasty war - people died. It is what it is.
It's not fair for anyone to second guess the order to drop the nukes. President Truman made a hard decision and it's over.
Was it an act of terrorism? Nope. Did civilians die? Yes but, like I said, it was a war.
Is it fucking lame to dwell over this? Fuck yeah.
Yeah, but this is a forum...... that's kind of what we do here! ;D
You point is well taken by the way, however, this will be debated from both sides for ages to come. Decker bring up good points and so does the the proponents for dropping it.
To say it was an act of terrorism is ridiculous.
-
Yeah, but this is a forum...... that's kind of what we do here! ;D
LOL... touchι.
-
What most of what you guys are saying does not matter. What is OBVIOUS is that when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, as bad as it was, they bombed a MILITARY instalation.
We NUKED CIVILIANS.
There is a HUGE difference.
-
What most of what you guys are saying does not matter. What is OBVIOUS is that when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, as bad as it was, they bombed a MILITARY instalation.
We NUKED CIVILIANS.
There is a HUGE difference.
And the Japanese killed plenty of them too.
My mother was in the Philippines when the Japanese invaded. They were not the nicest of people to civilians.
-
Japan was screwed from the start we couldn't possibly fight battles on two fronts and was no way we would ever drop nukes on
white people Germans. Also, we had troops in Germany.
Japan was the 'mouse that roared', essentially. They were never going to have a real (post-war) economy or rebuilding without being attacked by the US. They gambled and won.
-
What most of what you guys are saying does not matter. What is OBVIOUS is that when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, as bad as it was, they bombed a MILITARY instalation.
We NUKED CIVILIANS.
There is a HUGE difference.
Read the rape of nanking
Or stuff on the bataan death march.
Talk to Philippinos who endure and survived Japanese occupation
Talk to american civilians who were put in prison and tortured and or had friends killed.
Talk the oppressive islanders all around the pacific who also had to endure Japanese occupation.
You are making it sound like the Japanese were honorable in war.
Just read few history books. Any body knows, in ww2 the gloves came off on both sides.
And as far as Pearl Harbor was concerned, if you talking about fair, war was not declared. It was sneak attack on people who were not harming Japan. People who were just waking up to a beautiful Sunday morning. Might as well have been civilians which part of the many casualties.
-
Japan was screwed from the start we couldn't possibly fight battles on two fronts and was no way we would ever drop nukes on white people Germans. Also, we had troops in Germany.
Japan was the 'mouse that roared', essentially. They were never going to have a real (post-war) economy or rebuilding without being attacked by the US. They gambled and won.
Are you kidding? We would have loved nothing better then to drop a nuke on Germany. We would have had Berlin and had the Russians at our mercy in Europe.
As for the Japanese, they gambled on crippling our fleet at Pearl and then making a huge territory grab followed by suing for peace. it fell apart when our carriers weren't there and 6 months later we caught their carriers at midway changing ordinance. thier whole gambit died in 5 minutes as 3 Japanese carriers were hit and started sinking. (the 4th later that day)
they didn't go into the war with the intention to lose and reinvent their country as an economic power.
-
Read the rape of nanking
Or stuff on the bataan death march.
Talk to Philippinos who endure and survived Japanese occupation
Talk to american civilians who were put in prison and tortured and or had friends killed.
Talk the oppressive islanders all around the pacific who also had to endure Japanese occupation.
You are making it sound like the Japanese were honorable in war.
Just read few history books. Any body knows, in ww2 the gloves came off on both sides.
And as far as Pearl Harbor was concerned, if you talking about fair, war was not declared. It was sneak attack on people who were not harming Japan. People who were just waking up to a beautiful Sunday morning. Might as well have been civilians which part of the many casualties.
Were the Germans much better?
-
Were the Germans much better?
nope, it can be argued they were much worse. But the nuke wasn't operational then and we were dealing with chruchill and stalin for after war spoils.
If in June 1944 it was operational, the war would have been over much sooner.
-
all this discussion, and I don't think anybody's said anything more than I said in the first reply to this thread. :D
-
I find it odd that people say the Japanese were ready to surrender when Marines were hard pressed to get even a few POW's. The fighting on those islands were horrific.
These people were committing suicide rather than fail or be caught. They certainly were'nt running over to be captured like the Germans.
-
Read the rape of nanking
Or stuff on the bataan death march.
Talk to Philippinos who endure and survived Japanese occupation
Talk to american civilians who were put in prison and tortured and or had friends killed.
Talk the oppressive islanders all around the pacific who also had to endure Japanese occupation.
You are making it sound like the Japanese were honorable in war.
Just read few history books. Any body knows, in ww2 the gloves came off on both sides.
And as far as Pearl Harbor was concerned, if you talking about fair, war was not declared. It was sneak attack on people who were not harming Japan. People who were just waking up to a beautiful Sunday morning. Might as well have been civilians which part of the many casualties.
There is a huge difference between invading a country to steal its resources (we do it all the time,) as the Japanese did in southern Asia (and as we're doing in Iraq,) and flying two planes over two large cities in order to drop two nuclear bombs with no other intention but to cause mass murder.
-
There is a huge difference between invading a country to steal its resources (we do it all the time,) as the Japanese did in southern Asia (and as we're doing in Iraq,) and flying two planes over two large cities in order to drop two nuclear bombs with no other intention but to cause mass murder.
It that what you think it was? they just wanted to commit mass murder? No other reason? Simple as that. Truman, said, l"et's commit mass murder. Hmmm who can we do it to? How about the japs? Let's kill them. Hey, look it worked! we killed lots people, that great, i feel good about myself. Oh by the way is there still a war going on?"
Japan didn't just steal resources it brutalize the people they stole them from. They also consider all those people lower species and treated them as such. You should do some home work on the Japanese in ww2. Although i am vehemently against the Iraq war, there's a big difference between what they did and what we are doing now. Part of my family survived Japanese occupation.
-
some say we declined their offer to surrender, and wanted to display what the bomb could do, to scare the russians off. Really depends who ya believe.
-
some say we declined their offer to surrender, and wanted to display what the bomb could do, to scare the russians off. Really depends who ya believe.
they refused to surrender unconditionally.
-
they refused to surrender unconditionally.
I wonder what they were holding out on. I remember reading we gave them one final warning "surrender or be destroyed", then we cooked them.
I guess those leaders knew more about military events and geopolitical planning than we do. I sure wouldn't want that on my conscience... I would happily execute ten rapists, ten terrorists, then make mysepf a nice omelette... but killing 100k innocents to scare russia? ouch.
-
I wonder what they were holding out on. I remember reading we gave them one final warning "surrender or be destroyed", then we cooked them.
I guess those leaders knew more about military events and geopolitical planning than we do. I sure wouldn't want that on my conscience... I would happily execute ten rapists, ten terrorists, then make mysepf a nice omelette... but killing 100k innocents to scare russia? ouch.
There was more to it than that 240. They had run rough shot all over the pacific. The Japanese people had a strong loyalty to their emperor. so much so that they felt honorable to kill themselves for it. We had to end that, for those reasons and others. Unconditional surrender for the Japanese as well as unconditional surrender for the Germans. They surrender with terms and a few years later we have to deal with it again. That country's culture was set up to encourage war like and militaristic behavior. They should have heeded the warning and surrendered. And they knew they were depleded and done with. But they refused to surrender. Why? Because of what i said, they were fanatical about dying for their emporer.
The way some of you guys write about it is silly. Pick up a book on ww2 and read it.
-
good points. I wonder if 1 bomb would have done it then. Did we ask them after bomb #1? Or just wait 3 days and drop another to scare them more?
-
good points. I wonder if 1 bomb would have done it then. Did we ask them after bomb #1? Or just wait 3 days and drop another to scare them more?
Read about it. No response from them.
-
It that what you think it was? they just wanted to commit mass murder? No other reason? Simple as that. Truman, said, l"et's commit mass murder. Hmmm who can we do it to? How about the japs? Let's kill them. Hey, look it worked! we killed lots people, that great, i feel good about myself. Oh by the way is there still a war going on?"
Yes, the intention was to kill as many people as possible. Why does it come as a surprise? I mean, if they wanted to prove a point all they had to do is drop the 2 bombs in front of Tokyo bay, kill no one and scare the shit outta everyone (without actually killing them).
Japan didn't just steal resources it brutalize the people they stole them from. They also consider all those people lower species and treated them as such.
Ohhhh! How quickly we forget! Us and our "noble intentions".
(http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/colored-only-sign.jpg)
You should do some home work on the Japanese in ww2. Although i am vehemently against the Iraq war, there's a big difference between what they did and what we are doing now. Part of my family survived Japanese occupation.
Look, I'm in no way saying that the Japanese did good. In fact my opinion is exactly the opposite. The problem is that, most of the time, and this is a rule that survives the passing of time, the so-called liberator is just as ruthless and the oppresor. So, for example, although your family benefited from the arrival of the American army, it is obvious that the Japanese civilians didn't. Take Vietnam, Iraq, the USSR, you name it. Pancho Villa was a villain on this side of the border. Go to Mexico and you'll find out he's regarded as a national hero.
Our argument that we had to drop the 2 nukes in order to stop the war from dragging on and on is laughable at best. We dropped the bomb on innocent civilians, and that's that. Well, I shouldn't say WE, I should say THEY, because I sure as hell know that had the American public been informed of the nukes and Truman's terrible intentions I'm pretty sure Americans would've told him to go fuck himself.
End of story.
-
Yes, the intention was to kill as many people as possible. Why does it come as a surprise? I mean, if they wanted to prove a point all they had to do is drop the 2 bombs in front of Tokyo bay, kill no one and scare the shit outta everyone (without actually killing them).
Actually not. Remember the Japanese people were fiercely loyal to the emperor. If america drops the bobmb in tokyo bay then the Japanse government informs it's peopel they were testing a new weapon. End of story.
Additionally, We didn't have a supply of A-bombs built at hte time. We only had 2. they had to count.
Ohhhh! How quickly we forget! Us and our "noble intentions".
Look, I'm in no way saying that the Japanese did good. In fact my opinion is exactly the opposite. The problem is that, most of the time, and this is a rule that survives the passing of time, the so-called liberator is just as ruthless and the oppresor. So, for example, although your family benefited from the arrival of the American army, it is obvious that the Japanese civilians didn't. Take Vietnam, Iraq, the USSR, you name it. Pancho Villa was a villain on this side of the border. Go to Mexico and you'll find out he's regarded as a national hero.
I agree, History is written by the victors. But there is enough truth in what was going at the time to justify why. Now we can debate on "what" forever. But the Bombss did accomplish one thing: It stopped the war. A war that would have look edlike Iwo Jima for 3 more years.
Our argument that we had to drop the 2 nukes in order to stop the war from dragging on and on is laughable at best. We dropped the bomb on innocent civilians, and that's that. Well, I shouldn't say WE, I should say THEY, because I sure as hell know that had the American public been informed of the nukes and Truman's terrible intentions I'm pretty sure Americans would've told him to go fuck himself.
End of story.
Like i said, you should pick a book on ww2 and read the whole thing. You obviously know nothing of the state of the American public in ww2 and state of the war in the pacific at the time and what led to that point.
You are taking a idealistic approach to this question/judgement of using the A-bombs without any real knowledge of the many factors involved int he decision. I commend you for your moral view of the wrongful killing of innocent people. Just remember, millions and millions (20+) more innocence died leading up to those 2 bombs. After Iwo Jima, I'm convinced we saved far more Japanese civilians by dropping those bobmbs and ending the war than inviding Japan. Don't forget: More people died in one night of fire bombings from conventional planes in one bombing raid over Tokyo.
-
Actually not. Remember the Japanese people were fiercely loyal to the emperor. If america drops the bobmb in tokyo bay then the Japanse government informs it's peopel they were testing a new weapon. End of story.
Do me a favor, don't insult everyone's intelligence by posting such an moronically imbecile argument.
I agree, History is written by the victors. But there is enough truth in what was going at the time to justify why[...]
There isn't a justification in the world for killing hundreds of thousands of people. None.
Like i said, you should pick a book on ww2 and read the whole thing. You obviously know nothing of the state of the American public in ww2 and state of the war in the pacific at the time and what led to that point.
What is "state of American public"? OMG.
You are taking a idealistic approach to this question/judgement of using the A-bombs without any real knowledge of the many factors involved int he decision.
And of course, you've got all the knowledge in the world. I know enough to know that nuking innocent civilians is not OK.
I commend you for your moral view of the wrongful killing of innocent people. Just remember, millions and millions (20+) more innocence died leading up to those 2 bombs.
I know. And? You see, you're trying to make it seem OK for us to have killed hundreds of thousands of people. The problem is it is not OK, now, during the Pleistocene period, here or in Burkina Faso.
After Iwo Jima, I'm convinced we saved far more Japanese civilians by dropping those bobmbs and ending the war than inviding Japan.
It's not a matter of convincing. It's a matter of right and wrong. And what we did was wrong. And the fact that other people did even more wrong than us is inconsequential. And we didn't "save" Japanese civilians, they SURVIVED us.
Don't forget: More people died in one night of fire bombings from conventional planes in one bombing raid over Tokyo.
But that does not matter you... Look at the title! If you want to discuss the raids over Tokyo I'll be happy to add to the subject, but please, you're all over the fucking board. You're mixing apples and oranges.
-
Do me a favor, don't insult everyone's intelligence by posting such an moronically imbecile argument.
There isn't a justification in the world for killing hundreds of thousands of people. None.
What is "state of American public"? OMG.
And of course, you've got all the knowledge in the world. I know enough to know that nuking innocent civilians is not OK.
I know. And? You see, you're trying to make it seem OK for us to have killed hundreds of thousands of people. The problem is it is not OK, now, during the Pleistocene period, here or in Burkina Faso.
It's not a matter of convincing. It's a matter of right and wrong. And what we did was wrong. And the fact that other people did even more wrong than us is inconsequential. And we didn't "save" Japanese civilians, they SURVIVED us.
But that does not matter you... Look at the title! If you want to discuss the raids over Tokyo I'll be happy to add to the subject, but please, you're all over the fucking board. You're mixing apples and oranges.
Like i said: Pick up a book on ww2 and read it.
Your ignorance is more than obvious on the subject.
-
It's not a matter of convincing. It's a matter of right and wrong. And what we did was wrong. And the fact that other people did even more wrong than us is inconsequential. And we didn't "save" Japanese civilians, they SURVIVED us.
Well, what wold be your answer to the problem? Let them surrender and keep there leadership and rearm?
War is wrong. We agree there.
-
Cant we just stop discussing and agree LITTLE BOY was a funny name for such a wonderful bomb??!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!
-
What is "state of American public"? OMG.
some evidence of your ignorance on the subject.
You are unaware of the hatred of the Japanese after pearl?
-
But that does not matter you... Look at the title! If you want to discuss the raids over Tokyo I'll be happy to add to the subject, but please, you're all over the fucking board. You're mixing apples and oranges.
More evidence of your ignorance
The Tokyo raids are related to the decision to drop the bomb because the "death" toll wasn't impacting Japan's refusal to surrender. A bomb that can wipe out a city was impacting.
-
And of course, you've got all the knowledge in the world. I know enough to know that nuking innocent civilians is not OK.
More evidence of your ignorance.
No kidding. nuking civilians isn't ok.
-
I know. And? You see, you're trying to make it seem OK for us to have killed hundreds of thousands of people. The problem is it is not OK, now, during the Pleistocene period, here or in Burkina Faso.
Are you trying to make yourself look smart now?
Look SLAPPER. I agree. It was wrong.
But at the time I can see how and why they decided to do it.
HONESTLY, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD HAVE. AND FRANKLY, I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE THE ONE TO MAKE THE DECISION.
-
Oh! My! God!
For starters: The title of the thread is "Does it bother you when people question the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki?". That is a moral question open to personal opinion. Can't you understand that what the Japanese did is inconsequential when answering the question? It's not about what the Japanese did, it's about what WE did.
And to be honest with you, right outta school, my first job was with a Japanese trading firm. 95% of the staff was Japanese (in the middle of New York) and you could just imagine what a shock it must've been. BY US standards these people are weird beyond belief. They take ethnocentricity to another level. But I guess that is what happens when you live in an archipielago, in a very closed society based on warmongering.
Now, going back to the question, does the nuking of innocent civilians at Hiroshima or Nagasaki bother me? You betcha! Why does it bother me more than what the Japanese did in the Philipines or Malaysia? Because it's what WE did that bothers me. You see, I think that when a government is poised to invade someone, cause a lot of killings and else, it is that society's job to mobilise, go out on the street and protest.
I guarantee you that the majority of human beings here, in China, or Lesotho is against what a minority did or is doing in their name.
One of the worst things you can do to a center of power is to take away their ability to CREATE warfare. Without it they're like fish outta water.
He dicho.
-
Oh! My! God!
For starters: The title of the thread is "Does it bother you when people question the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki?". That is a moral question open to personal opinion. Can't you understand that what the Japanese did is inconsequential when answering the question? It's not about what the Japanese did, it's about what WE did.
The title spurs the debate or discussion in what ever direction it leads. If a person is supportive or not supportive of the bombings they might or might not be bothered by it. so as this discussion leads to the things we are discussing it does relate to the initial question.
And to be honest with you, right outta school, my first job was with a Japanese trading firm. 95% of the staff was Japanese (in the middle of New York) and you could just imagine what a shock it must've been. BY US standards these people are weird beyond belief. They take ethnocentricity to another level. But I guess that is what happens when you live in an archipielago, in a very closed society based on warmongering.
How nice of you to be honest.
But you still are absent of any real knowledge of Japan's role in ww2 on your part and now you've brought up a comment on more modern Japanese culture and society that you conclude is that way because they live on an archipelago.... ::)
Honestly, this tells me you are really talking out of your ass. ;)
Now, going back to the question, does the nuking of innocent civilians at Hiroshima or Nagasaki bother me? You betcha! Why does it bother me more than what the Japanese did in the Philipines or Malaysia? Because it's what WE did that bothers me. You see, I think that when a government is poised to invade someone, cause a lot of killings and else, it is that society's job to mobilise, go out on the street and protest.
I guarantee you that the majority of human beings here, in China, or Lesotho is against what a minority did or is doing in their name.
One of the worst things you can do to a center of power is to take away their ability to CREATE warfare. Without it they're like fish outta water.
He dicho.
I agree, again, the innocent victims of Hiroshima and Nagasiaki are regrettable. My point is that i don;t see we really had a choice. It was either that, invade, or let the regime rearm and not pay for all the damage it had done.
I can't get too caught up in the innocent people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasiaki by our hand based on your way of thinking. We killed far more through the course of the war all of which was wrong and regrettable but in most cases unavoidable.
And that's that! ;D