EPTNuclear Launch Detected... =o - Page 28
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
bahaa
Lebanon29 Posts
| ||
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On November 04 2008 04:58 Savio wrote: The real issue is that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not any different in terms of outcome than the bombing of any other city in WWII. Germans bombed the heck out of London (I'm sure that didn't kill any civilians). Britain and the US bombed Berlin (again, surely there could have been no civilians killed). Gernmany messed up Stalingrad and Leningrad with (I am sure) no civilian casualties. And the US firebombed Tokyo. In any of these, lots and lots of civilians died. The ONLY difference between those and the nukes is that the word "nuclear" is involved and that has more "shock value". So people are basing their opinions on the shock value of the word instead of the outcome which is not that different from the bombing of these other large cities. Its a sad thing to base opinion on. It shows some shallowness. None of the issues you raise in your response bear directly on the point of the post you were responding to. I was commenting on a particular type of argument. | ||
|
siggy
United States39 Posts
| ||
|
.MistiK
Netherlands347 Posts
On November 04 2008 06:25 siggy wrote: hey they started it, its their own fault with this argument, you can justify pretty much anything. "did you just kill your brother because he used your computer?" "hey he started it, it's his own fault!" | ||
|
banged
United States46 Posts
On November 04 2008 02:11 Savio wrote: What I am saying is that Pearl Harbor started a WAR. These 2 bombs did not start a war. In fact, they ended the worst war of all time. Pearl Harbor is worse because it started a war that resulted in millions of deaths including all the deaths caused by the 2 bombs. LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO | ||
|
Flaccid
8896 Posts
On November 04 2008 05:48 bahaa wrote: You don't understand. It never is about the quantity of blood shed. It is always about the identity. Innocent blood. That of civilians. Be it poor people, rich people, Jews, Christians, Muslims, or other. Civilians are civilians regardless and nothing justifies targeting them. As others have pointed out, shit was pretty serious. We're justified in reaver-dropping innocent SCVs because StarCraft games are an instance of total war. Anyways, this has gone on for many, many, informative pages. There is nothing I can add that hasn't been said, so please read the thread before repeating arguments that have already been made. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On November 04 2008 06:31 .MistiK wrote: with this argument, you can justify pretty much anything. "did you just kill your brother because he used your computer?" "hey he started it, it's his own fault!" It's kinda always been America's policy to war we never start it expect once i think the 2nd British war we started due to maritime disputes and enforcement of U.S. mariners into the British navy. Although you can say they started it it's more or less the only war we did the first blood shed kinda... | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On November 04 2008 04:04 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here's the moral issue. Would you kill a single civilian to save 2,000,000 people? How about 2 civilians? 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? Someone has to make that call. I don't know where the hell to draw the line either. But to Truman, this is something that he had to deal with. I doubt it was a hard decision for him. http://trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/ww1/documents/index.php?documentdate=1918-11-11&documentid=1-26&studycollectionid=&pagenumber=1 | ||
|
bahaa
Lebanon29 Posts
We're justified in reaver-dropping innocent SCVs because StarCraft games are an instance of total war. Anyways, this has gone on for many, many, informative pages. There is nothing I can add that hasn't been said, so please read the thread before repeating arguments that have already been made." ROFL 1- SCVs have an attack damage = 5 and they farm minerals USED TO BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF YOU. SCV Rush anyone? You just insulted Boxer by saying innocent scvs lol 2- Starcraft is a game and an e-sport (well and social activity), war isn't. 3- Please see other comments and refer to them when I say something. I never repeated any argument; merely written others' viewpoints in different worms and added a twist, much like most posts here. I don't see why you chose to comment about my post. I might also mention, there's always something for anyone to add. "Everything has been mentioned" is a weak excuse (IMHO). | ||
|
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On November 04 2008 06:41 IzzyCraft wrote: It's kinda always been America's policy to war we never start it expect once i think the 2nd British war we started due to maritime disputes and enforcement of U.S. mariners into the British navy. Although you can say they started it it's more or less the only war we did the first blood shed kinda... As with every other great power throughout the entire history of this planet, the United States has waged war to secure or advance its interests as defined by its rulers. To this end it has started wars or been involved in confluences of circumstances which have led to war or been complicit in engineering wars. In this respect it is hardly better but no worse than pretty much any of the major powers. | ||
|
Faronel
United States658 Posts
On November 04 2008 06:31 .MistiK wrote: with this argument, you can justify pretty much anything. "did you just kill your brother because he used your computer?" "hey he started it, it's his own fault!" Kill me now, but I believe that different situations require different resolutions/justifications. Stop trying to fit one argument to every possible situations, nothing works like that. This is a valuable life lesson, nothing is black and white  | ||
|
Zinbiel
Sweden878 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On November 04 2008 07:09 Zinbiel wrote: just a question out of curiosity, without taking stance for any of the opinions, how many of the people in this thread who are arguing that it was justified would have been ready to pay a much smaller price for the war to end; killing off all of their family and friends? that would probably just be at most 1000 people, it would be a cheap cost, wouldn't it? I don't think anyone on either side of this debate would agree to that.. "Gee, I see you guys bombed the crap out of our military base when we weren't expecting it and killed thousands of our soldiers, but if I kill all my friends and family, will you surrender? kk ^^ please?" | ||
|
khersai
Poland366 Posts
Amerifags could't deal with Japs the other way, so... by whatever means necessary etc. that's wxactly how terrorists think nowaydays | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
On November 04 2008 00:34 Boonbag wrote: I guess most of you would support any war as long your country provides sufficient propaganda to fill up your empty skulls and the latter history books. Do you have anything to offer this thread besides insults? On November 04 2008 01:35 HnR)hT wrote: Moreover, there is a MAJOR difference between spontaneous minor atrocities committed by soliders who are literally fighting for their and their comerades' lives, and a top-down POLICY of mass murder. What about those ordering artillery strikes from a relatively safe place, or the person directing air strikes miles and miles behind the front? Is it a war crime to target civilians, or not? And if it is okay to kill civilians to preserve the lives of you and your comrades, why is it not okay to kill civilians to save the lives of your soldiers or civilians elsewhere? Certainly the mass murder of civilians is horrific, as is blanketing a fortified city with nalpalm or firing artillery shells of which it is likely at least one will blow a civilian family to bits. I don't see a bright line in the sand between targeting civilians with bullets, artillery, high explosives, nalpalm, and nuclear weapons - consider that out of all of these, the last probably killed the least. continued WHY was the unconditional surrender of Japan so necessary that it was worth it to destroy innocent human life on an unprecedented scale? The scale was not unprecedented. The rationale was that peace with an aggressive power could not be sustained - the Allies learned in WWI that if you allow a nation bent on murderous expansion survive with the legitimacy of the government and with it the legitimacy of the "supreme international crime" intact, you get a second or third world war. Consider the unconditional surrender demand on Nazi Germany - could you see a peace treaty signed with the government intact? It is admittedly debatable. On November 04 2008 04:17 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: All other arguments aside, the one which really grates is the following: anything goes in war. It is stated by some with such confidence, as if it is reporting an obvious truth. As far as I am concerned it is an illegitimate abdication of one's responsibility as a moral agent, as a human being. The idea is not that during war, that morality must go out the window - but it must inevitably seem like moral rules are relaxed when all the decisions you have to choose from are horrific. Firebomb German civilians, or watch the war drag on longer because the German war machine is still being supplied? Nuke Hiroshima, or accept the hundreds of thousands of casualties that would have resulted otherwise had the war dragged on? On November 04 2008 06:34 banged wrote: LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO The principle established at the Nuremberg trials was that the crime of aggressive war was the crime from which all other tragedies of war stem, and thus was the "supreme international crime." Say what you will about the legitimacy of said trials, the principle is not trivially dismissable. On November 04 2008 07:09 Zinbiel wrote: just a question out of curiosity, without taking stance for any of the opinions, how many of the people in this thread who are arguing that it was justified would have been ready to pay a much smaller price for the war to end; killing off all of their family and friends? that would probably just be at most 1000 people, it would be a cheap cost, wouldn't it? Suppose you had the chance to end the war by dropping the bomb and if you didn't, all your friends and family would be raped and killed. This argument really doesn't hold up very well. | ||
|
alphafuzard
United States1610 Posts
As a side note, the carpet bombs and the subsequent firestorms on Tokyo and Kyoto killed many more people than the two nukes combined. | ||
|
LordofToast
United Kingdom250 Posts
Dramatisation of the bomb impact. Looks like hell on earth... My Father once told me that while he was at university he met a Lecturer who used to study in Hiroshima. He was ill the day the bomb fell so couldn't cycle into Hiroshima to goto school. That day all of his friends died. | ||
|
TheOvermind77
United States923 Posts
On November 04 2008 06:47 Frits wrote: I doubt it was a hard decision for him. http://trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/ww1/documents/index.php?documentdate=1918-11-11&documentid=1-26&studycollectionid=&pagenumber=1 Touche salesman, touche. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
| ||
