EPTThe bombs kind of missed the military infrastructure in Hiroshima and Nagasaki iirc though.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2132
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
The bombs kind of missed the military infrastructure in Hiroshima and Nagasaki iirc though. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On July 26 2015 11:38 DannyJ wrote: The fact that the US made so many Purple Hearts in anticipation of the invasion of Japan that those medals were still in stock 6 decades after the war ended show just how bloody it could have been. Not to mention the Russian advancement into Manchuria was probably a bit concerning to Western powers. I read an article written by one of the high ranking military men at the time. He said not once did anyone ever mention the morality or need to use the bomb. To them it was just a weapon that cost a massive amount of resources and was really efficient at blowing shit up. There was really nothing to question. It might seem odd to us 70 years later sitting at our computers, but I'm sure it wasn't to people who were actually in charge of trying to defeat an enemy years into the most cataclysmic conflict in human history. Everything everyone did in WW2 was horrible... And 70 years later callously killing civilians as collateral damage just so your own soldiers face less risk has become the norm. More than anything, it shows that every single nation will cross every single line if things look bad enough. It's rather disheartening. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On July 26 2015 14:55 WolfintheSheep wrote: And 70 years later callously killing civilians as collateral damage just so your own soldiers face less risk has become the norm. More than anything, it shows that every single nation will cross every single line if things look bad enough. It's rather disheartening. Um, what? I mean, I get that we still kill too many civilians. But we aren't in anywhere near the same league as WWII. Until we start firebombing civilians in Aleppo because "fuck it" and ordering our fighters to shoot "anything that moves" in sectors of enemy territory, we haven't seen the half of it. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On July 26 2015 15:00 Yoav wrote: Um, what? I mean, I get that we still kill too many civilians. But we aren't in anywhere near the same league as WWII. Until we start firebombing civilians in Aleppo because "fuck it" and ordering our fighters to shoot "anything that moves" in sectors of enemy territory, we haven't seen the half of it. So basically Vietnam, Korea or the first Iraq war? WW2 got bad, but even the bombing raids were mostly on industrial or military areas, villages or cities weren't slaughtered because of guerrilla activity, and even the occupations were done under imperialistic pretenses, and not "we're trying to find all our enemies". Most of the devastation of civilian areas was because of actual armies fighting their way through them. Conduct of nations and their military in WW2 was very much a bridge between the old imperial conquests and the new wars of ideologies. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1041 Posts
On July 26 2015 14:55 WolfintheSheep wrote: And 70 years later callously killing civilians as collateral damage just so your own soldiers face less risk has become the norm. More than anything, it shows that every single nation will cross every single line if things look bad enough. It's rather disheartening. Unless you mean it as a positive step forward for humanity (which seems doubtful based on context), you're seriously not understanding the history of war. For most of human history, civilians were perfectly legit targets for killing, raping, and enslaving. It had nothing to do with being collateral damage, it was about the rights of the conqueror. The conqueror had all the rights and the conquered had none. Even as late as WW2, people expected conquering armies to come in and pillage, rape, and murder civilians as they pleased. The Russians did it to the German people as they headed west. The Japanese did it to the Chinese. The Japanese people expected the US to do it to them. When the United States was taking over smaller Japanese held islands on the way to Japan, the civilian populations on some of those islands committed mass suicide by jumping off cliffs (and other ways) because they assumed the US would torture/rape them and kill them anyways, so they might as well die on their own terms. The US actually treated its captured enemies relatively well in general. By comparison, the Japanese were under orders to execute all POWs in compromised areas. The fact that modern nations don't purposely target civilians is a major step forward for civilization. That's a step that most terrorist organizations have not yet made. There have even been numerous times in modern warfare where the US (or Israel or others) has chosen not to strike terrorist targets because they are mixed into the civilian population and the civilian casualties would be deemed too high. That's not something you'd see during WW2 and is another step forward for humanity. (responding to multiple people now) As for whether or not using atomic weapons were justified. The only real controversy was the entrance of Russia into the war against Japan. There are some historians that believe Japan would have surrendered soon after Russia had entered the war against them and that they weren't given enough time to do so. However, there is evidence that they were still planning to keep fighting even after the announcement of Russia and after the first bomb was dropped. So I think it's a pretty dubious claim by the historians that try to make that point. A US invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost the United States an estimated 500,000 dead soldiers. That estimate came from people who had planned and executed D-Day as well as the invasion of many small Japanese held islands. So they had a pretty good idea of what it would take to invade Japan and weren't sugar-coating it. Japan would have likely lost significantly more people than that between military engagements, bombings, and the suicides. Dropping the two nuclear bombs almost assuredly saved millions of lives. Is there still some controversy? Yes. But it's more like the controversy between Intelligent Design and Evolution than a real controversy. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
Sure, there were historical civilizations that were a lot worse. But most of historical conquest, in Europe and Asia at least, was about gaining more land and people, and most conquered people had just as many rights as everyone else - which is to say very little - and life went on basically the same as always. But really, we're talking modern warfare here, and even the start of WWI was stark difference to any wars going on today. Things like the Christmas Truce happened because war was a formality, soldiers were expected to die and there was no hard feelings across sides about it, and nations wanted war because they wanted to expand - killing people was the method, not the goal. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
 Spurred on by a raucous audience of more than 1,000 at a central Iowa high school, Trump said Walker has an advantage in Iowa because he's from a neighboring state but that the edge is undeserved because Walker has mismanaged Wisconsin's budget. "He grew up right next door. A little advantage, right?" Trump said. "Except Wisconsin is doing terribly." Trump faulted Walker, popular for stripping public employees of many of their collective bargaining rights, for falling short of budget projections and changing his position on Common Core education standards. The voluntary state-based benchmarks for achievement in math, reading and language arts are unpopular among a segment of conservatives who view them, if incorrectly, as a federally mandated curriculum. Walker showed tacit support for the standards during his first term when he signed budgets that paid for implementing them. Last year, he called for their repeal and replacement with standards set in Wisconsin. "He was totally in favor of Common Core, which I hate, I hate," Trump said. Walker changed course on the topic, his rival said, when he saw "he was getting creamed." Trump said Walker deserved the criticism because a top fundraiser to the governor referred to Trump in a recent fundraising email as "Dumb dumb." Source | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
 | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 26 2015 18:28 whatisthisasheep wrote: I'm just waiting for the next president to legalize prostitution. If they do that they can have my vote Why ? You want to protitute yourself ? | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
On July 26 2015 15:00 Yoav wrote: Civilians killed by the US since 1945?Um, what? I mean, I get that we still kill too many civilians. But we aren't in anywhere near the same league as WWII. Over 15 million! (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) plus about 10 million by 'US proxies'. Or how about the fact, that the 'West' killed more than 4 million Muslims in the last 15 years in the name of fighting terror. Tell me when exactly do you reach the 'major league' in this category? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18819 Posts
On July 26 2015 23:38 lord_nibbler wrote: Civilians killed by the US since 1945? Over 15 million! (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) plus about 10 million by 'US proxies'. Or how about the fact, that the 'West' killed more than 4 million Muslims in the last 15 years in the name of fighting terror. Tell me when exactly do you reach the 'major league' in this category? Probably when an entire nation tacitly consents to and attempts to carry out the systematic annihilation of a specific cultural/ethnic demographic. But don't let the opinions of a bloodthirsty American stop you from lazily lumping 7 decades of history together in order to make a convenient point. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On July 26 2015 17:25 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, I really, really, really, can't wait for the debates Source One big positive point about Trump is that he's funding the campaign mostly by himself. You don't have to worry about which lobbying groups he owes big favors to as much as you do with Hillary or any of the other Republican candidates. I still don't like him, because he's pretty sleazy, but he's not all bad. | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
On July 27 2015 00:32 farvacola wrote: Probably when an entire nation tacitly consents to and attempts to carry out the systematic annihilation of a specific cultural/ethnic demographic. But don't let the opinions of a bloodthirsty American stop you from lazily lumping 7 decades of history together in order to make a convenient point. Wait, so it all rests solely on the killers feelings afterwards, whether the crime is true 'evil evil' or just, you know, kinda bad? And I am the one making the convenient argument? | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On July 26 2015 17:25 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, I really, really, really, can't wait for the debates Source I am pretty amused by how that top fundraiser guy called trump a "dumb-dumb". Isn't that the kind of stuff you hear in elementary school? That insult is almost adorable. In fact that's the kind of thing you would expect a dumb person to say (no offense to the guy). Its like calling a cow a moo-moo  . | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On July 27 2015 00:32 farvacola wrote: Probably when an entire nation tacitly consents to and attempts to carry out the systematic annihilation of a specific cultural/ethnic demographic. But don't let the opinions of a bloodthirsty American stop you from lazily lumping 7 decades of history together in order to make a convenient point. Well, there were also a couple genocides that the rest of the world tacitly consented to post-WW2, so if that's your line in the sand, we've unfortunately crossed that one as well. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18819 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6192 Posts
On July 26 2015 23:38 lord_nibbler wrote: Civilians killed by the US since 1945? Over 15 million! (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) plus about 10 million by 'US proxies'. Or how about the fact, that the 'West' killed more than 4 million Muslims in the last 15 years in the name of fighting terror. Tell me when exactly do you reach the 'major league' in this category? Do you have a source for that? These numbers look way too high for me. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On July 27 2015 01:45 RvB wrote: Do you have a source for that? These numbers look way too high for me. Yeah, that sounds more like total killed and not just civilians. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Donald Trump has surged to the lead in the New Hampshire GOP presidential primary and virtually erased Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s advantage in the Iowa caucuses, according to new NBC News/Marist polls released Sunday. In Iowa, Walker still tops the field with 19 percent, the poll shows — only two points ahead of Trump, who garners 17 percent. Interviews for the poll began on July 14 — the day after the Walker campaign’s launch event in Wisconsin. The only other candidate in double digits is former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, at 12 percent. Those lagging behind include a number of candidates banking on strong finishes in Iowa. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson is in fourth place, at 8 percent, followed by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 7 percent, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 5 percent, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 4 percent and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 4 percent. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, for whom a super PAC has spent more than $600,000 on ads on Iowa television supporting him over the past six weeks, is at just 3 percent. Bobby Jindal’s super PAC has spent almost $400,000 on Iowa TV ads, but the Louisiana governor only garners 1 percent in the poll. Meanwhile, in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire, Trump is in the lead at 21 percent. Bush, the second-place candidate, is at 14 percent. Source | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
| ||
