|
On December 10 2008 14:44 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
I grew up 15 minutes from Pearl Harbor, and for 5 years, I lived in Japan. I understand both sides of this very well. Were the bombings of Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? Yes. Were they moral? No.
Morality and war do not go hand in hand.
Let us all just listen to this guy. Apparently out of everyone, he's the only one not getting heated up about the issue and can sympathize with both sides.
So there you have it.
|
On December 11 2008 00:10 FortuneSyn wrote:
I am facepalming myself for having entered this thread.
In case it got lost in all this time-wasting text, the point of my argument is that targeting civilians to win a war is NOT an acceptable strategy. The death of civilians as collateral damage is simply an unfortunate consequence of war.
Generalizing a city as a military target is horseshit. Just because a city provides some sort of production/communications/whatever does not mean the whole city is a military target. There are schools, shops, whatever you name it facilities that have nothing to do with the war. If you want to target military targets in a city, then bomb specific factories/etc, not the entirety of a city. US nuking Japan falls into the category of targeting civilians as a strategy to win a war.
Of course civilians are killed in the Iraq invasion, but that is collateral damage. Civilians bombed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT collateral damage.
there are acceptable strategies/attacks in a war? i doubt it
|
On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that.
I hate comments like this. I think it's to bad they didn't have to do a ground assault, that way Americans would have died and made it all more fair. I hate USA, always have, always will (don't get me wrong, I don't hate the people...well not most of them anyway) Actually it was to bad that Japan didn't have a nuclear bomb to drop or New York or so. But then it would have been a hole other thing wouldn't it? We would not ever hear the end of it and thinking of Japan today would be a whole other thing because of propaganda spread.
When USA kills thousands of people it's in the name of freedom and justice but when terrorists do the same to defend there homes it's really bad. Yes, I don't think all terrorists are bad, and even making a comment like this is going to make people mad cause all of the damn propaganda have really gotten to all of us. There is a reason terrorists hate USA and every country that supports them, the answer is in what USA have done to them. This is what I think, if it is to much for this forum then feel free to delete this post, I don't want to offend anyone.
|
On December 11 2008 02:02 NotSupporting wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that. I hate comments like this. I think it's to bad they didn't have to do a ground assault, that way Americans would have died and made it all more fair. I hate USA, always have, always will (don't get me wrong, I don't hate the people...well not most of them anyway) Actually it was to bad that Japan didn't have a nuclear bomb to drop or New York or so. But then it would have been a hole other thing wouldn't it? We would not ever hear the end of it and thinking of Japan today would be a whole other thing because of propaganda spread. When USA kills thousands of people it's in the name of freedom and justice but when terrorists do the same to defend there homes it's really bad. Yes, I don't think all terrorists are bad, and even making a comment like this is going to make people mad cause all of the damn propaganda have really gotten to all of us. There is a reason terrorists hate USA and every country that supports them, the answer is in what USA have done to them. This is what I think, if it is to much for this forum then feel free to delete this post, I don't want to offend anyone.
Terrorists weren't defending their homes. They came over here and bombed us. Last I remember you don't defend your homes in the enemy territory where you don't even have a home.
So you're basically saying that if Sweden was under attack of another Hitler-like leader you would rather let 1,000,000 of your people die instead of having them bombed (by you or an ally) early on to win the war and lose only 1,000 instead of the million?
How is it hard to understand that concept? No one likes war, we don't either despite what everyone else thinks, which is why we do whatever it takes to end it as soon as possible. To quote Angelina Jolie in Wanted, "Kill 1 and possibly save a thousand."
|
On December 11 2008 02:00 artofmagic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 00:10 FortuneSyn wrote:
I am facepalming myself for having entered this thread.
In case it got lost in all this time-wasting text, the point of my argument is that targeting civilians to win a war is NOT an acceptable strategy. The death of civilians as collateral damage is simply an unfortunate consequence of war.
Generalizing a city as a military target is horseshit. Just because a city provides some sort of production/communications/whatever does not mean the whole city is a military target. There are schools, shops, whatever you name it facilities that have nothing to do with the war. If you want to target military targets in a city, then bomb specific factories/etc, not the entirety of a city. US nuking Japan falls into the category of targeting civilians as a strategy to win a war.
Of course civilians are killed in the Iraq invasion, but that is collateral damage. Civilians bombed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT collateral damage. there are acceptable strategies/attacks in a war? i doubt it
the geneva conventions (go google/wiki)
it was only in 1949 the fourth geneva convention where deliberate mass slaughtering of civilians was prohibited..that's why it seemed to be perfectly legal and "right" to the american government to bomb hiroshima and nagasaki..perhaps the hatred the USA had against japan due to pearl harbor, the americans probably wanted to screw morality and bomb the living hell out of the japs, causing as much damage as possible. government officials and presidents are human too, they can hate
but i still feel it was more of a last-ditch effort to end the war asap and prevent more american casualties and probably hiroshima and nagasaki were the few cities which were less entrenched by the japs (less AA).
you can say that the americans nuked them for
-reducing casualties
-hatred due to pearl harbor
-scaring the reds (USSR) that they were hell powerful (cold war and all)
-nagasaki and hiroshima due to less AA??( i really dont know abt this)
-testing the power of a fission bomb's effect on human populations in real-time
if the geneva conference "war rules" were in place,
they wouldn't have nuked them.
|
On December 11 2008 02:38 Spartan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 02:02 NotSupporting wrote:On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that. I hate comments like this. I think it's to bad they didn't have to do a ground assault, that way Americans would have died and made it all more fair. I hate USA, always have, always will (don't get me wrong, I don't hate the people...well not most of them anyway) Actually it was to bad that Japan didn't have a nuclear bomb to drop or New York or so. But then it would have been a hole other thing wouldn't it? We would not ever hear the end of it and thinking of Japan today would be a whole other thing because of propaganda spread. When USA kills thousands of people it's in the name of freedom and justice but when terrorists do the same to defend there homes it's really bad. Yes, I don't think all terrorists are bad, and even making a comment like this is going to make people mad cause all of the damn propaganda have really gotten to all of us. There is a reason terrorists hate USA and every country that supports them, the answer is in what USA have done to them. This is what I think, if it is to much for this forum then feel free to delete this post, I don't want to offend anyone. Terrorists weren't defending their homes. They came over here and bombed us. Last I remember you don't defend your homes in the enemy territory where you don't even have a home. So you're basically saying that if Sweden was under attack of another Hitler-like leader you would rather let 1,000,000 of your people die instead of having them bombed (by you or an ally) early on to win the war and lose only 1,000 instead of the million? How is it hard to understand that concept? No one likes war, we don't either despite what everyone else thinks, which is why we do whatever it takes to end it as soon as possible. To quote Angelina Jolie in Wanted, "Kill 1 and possibly save a thousand."
I base my argument on the fact that I do not believe USA needed to drop 2 nuklear bombs in order to win the war and keep their country safe.
|
On December 11 2008 02:38 Spartan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 02:02 NotSupporting wrote:On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that. I hate comments like this. I think it's to bad they didn't have to do a ground assault, that way Americans would have died and made it all more fair. I hate USA, always have, always will (don't get me wrong, I don't hate the people...well not most of them anyway) Actually it was to bad that Japan didn't have a nuclear bomb to drop or New York or so. But then it would have been a hole other thing wouldn't it? We would not ever hear the end of it and thinking of Japan today would be a whole other thing because of propaganda spread. When USA kills thousands of people it's in the name of freedom and justice but when terrorists do the same to defend there homes it's really bad. Yes, I don't think all terrorists are bad, and even making a comment like this is going to make people mad cause all of the damn propaganda have really gotten to all of us. There is a reason terrorists hate USA and every country that supports them, the answer is in what USA have done to them. This is what I think, if it is to much for this forum then feel free to delete this post, I don't want to offend anyone. Terrorists weren't defending their homes. They came over here and bombed us. Last I remember you don't defend your homes in the enemy territory where you don't even have a home. So you're basically saying that if Sweden was under attack of another Hitler-like leader you would rather let 1,000,000 of your people die instead of having them bombed (by you or an ally) early on to win the war and lose only 1,000 instead of the million? How is it hard to understand that concept? No one likes war, we don't either despite what everyone else thinks, which is why we do whatever it takes to end it as soon as possible. To quote Angelina Jolie in Wanted, "Kill 1 and possibly save a thousand."
You do not kill a child to save a soldier
On December 11 2008 02:00 artofmagic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 00:10 FortuneSyn wrote:
I am facepalming myself for having entered this thread.
In case it got lost in all this time-wasting text, the point of my argument is that targeting civilians to win a war is NOT an acceptable strategy. The death of civilians as collateral damage is simply an unfortunate consequence of war.
Generalizing a city as a military target is horseshit. Just because a city provides some sort of production/communications/whatever does not mean the whole city is a military target. There are schools, shops, whatever you name it facilities that have nothing to do with the war. If you want to target military targets in a city, then bomb specific factories/etc, not the entirety of a city. US nuking Japan falls into the category of targeting civilians as a strategy to win a war.
Of course civilians are killed in the Iraq invasion, but that is collateral damage. Civilians bombed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT collateral damage. there are acceptable strategies/attacks in a war? i doubt it
This is such a retarded post. We are not discussing whether war is acceptable or not, but what is acceptable given war is taking place.
|
On December 11 2008 03:09 FortuneSyn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 02:38 Spartan wrote:On December 11 2008 02:02 NotSupporting wrote:On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that. I hate comments like this. I think it's to bad they didn't have to do a ground assault, that way Americans would have died and made it all more fair. I hate USA, always have, always will (don't get me wrong, I don't hate the people...well not most of them anyway) Actually it was to bad that Japan didn't have a nuclear bomb to drop or New York or so. But then it would have been a hole other thing wouldn't it? We would not ever hear the end of it and thinking of Japan today would be a whole other thing because of propaganda spread. When USA kills thousands of people it's in the name of freedom and justice but when terrorists do the same to defend there homes it's really bad. Yes, I don't think all terrorists are bad, and even making a comment like this is going to make people mad cause all of the damn propaganda have really gotten to all of us. There is a reason terrorists hate USA and every country that supports them, the answer is in what USA have done to them. This is what I think, if it is to much for this forum then feel free to delete this post, I don't want to offend anyone. Terrorists weren't defending their homes. They came over here and bombed us. Last I remember you don't defend your homes in the enemy territory where you don't even have a home. So you're basically saying that if Sweden was under attack of another Hitler-like leader you would rather let 1,000,000 of your people die instead of having them bombed (by you or an ally) early on to win the war and lose only 1,000 instead of the million? How is it hard to understand that concept? No one likes war, we don't either despite what everyone else thinks, which is why we do whatever it takes to end it as soon as possible. To quote Angelina Jolie in Wanted, "Kill 1 and possibly save a thousand." You do not kill a child to save a soldier
You do not kill a child to prove a point.
Which is exactly what terrorists do. They have no remorse for innocent people. They're just collateral damage for their cause. I never said that either side of the good/bad spectrum is right for their bombings, but as to which is more logical would be ours.
Poll: What do you think..
(Vote): You do not kill a child to save a soldier.
(Vote): Kill one and save a thousand.
|
Soldiers should be forbidden.
Yes you are all brainwashed by propaganda!
|
how deadly can the child get? one child + ak47 = 1000 civilians??
i voted kill one and save a thousand.
|
wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... 
You don't believe in evolution, you voted f-ing bush 2 as president, you shoot the shit out of each other on a daily basis refering to "my right to carry a gun", and now you are saying that nuking a city full of civilians was the best alternativ? :o
And this is the country having most power in the world by far atm... I am seriously scared for how this is going to end. 
|
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote:wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution, you voted f-ing bush 2 as president, you shoot the shit out of each other on a daily basis refering to "my right to carry a gun", and now you are saying that nuking a city full of civilians was the best alternativ? :o And this is the country having most power in the world by far atm... I am seriously scared for how this is going to end.
I agree so much. Plenty of things about USA leaves you thinking....wtf.
|
Yeah, and it gets even better, they need a war to stop another war.. you gotta love they logic...
|
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote:wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution
i'll stop right there and let you know, you're probably the most ignorant person i've ever seen post on these forums
|
On December 11 2008 04:08 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote:wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution i'll stop right there and let you know, you're probably the most ignorant person i've ever seen post on these forums
Haha, thinking the same thing.
|
[QUOTE]On December 11 2008 02:38 Spartan wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 11 2008 02:02 NotSupporting wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that. [/QUOTE]
I hate comments like this. I think it's to bad they didn't have to do a ground assault, that way Americans would have died and made it all more fair. I hate USA, always have, always will (don't get me wrong, I don't hate the people...well not most of them anyway) Actually it was to bad that Japan didn't have a nuclear bomb to drop or New York or so. But then it would have been a hole other thing wouldn't it? We would not ever hear the end of it and thinking of Japan today would be a whole other thing because of propaganda spread.
When USA kills thousands of people it's in the name of freedom and justice but when terrorists do the same to defend there homes it's really bad. Yes, I don't think all terrorists are bad, and even making a comment like this is going to make people mad cause all of the damn propaganda have really gotten to all of us. There is a reason terrorists hate USA and every country that supports them, the answer is in what USA have done to them. This is what I think, if it is to much for this forum then feel free to delete this post, I don't want to offend anyone.[/QUOTE]
Terrorists weren't defending their homes. They came over here and bombed us. Last I remember you don't defend your homes in the enemy territory where you don't even have a home.
So you're basically saying that if Sweden was under attack of another Hitler-like leader you would rather let 1,000,000 of your people die instead of having them bombed (by you or an ally) early on to win the war and lose only 1,000 instead of the million?
LOL dont you see, the reason we have terrorism is because there are unhappy people somewhere. Why are terrorists focusing on the USA, UK, Isreal... these hot spots? because these countries have done something to make some groups unhappy? USA has been spreading its influence across the globe especially in the middle east causing this hatred towards US. 911 killed a few thousand, US respond by going to war with afghanistan and Iraq killing hundred of thousands there, I would assume more than half are civilians, you just can not target soldiers and millitary facilities in cities when you are invading without killing more civilians. You can expect more terrorisms coming to US with the hatred that has been building in those people's heart.
another subjet, the attack on pearl harbor is the same, US lost 1000+ soldiers and that's what started the war in which US killed millions of japanese. I m not saying that japanese were right, I want you to just look at the American side.
USA total casualties in WW2 (including in europe and the war with japan) = about 400000
those two nukes combine more than that.
USA is the one that lost the least compared to any other country during WW2 (20 mil for both China and USSR, 7 M for germany, 3M for japan)
I always had a question why was the USA even afraid of the USSR, after they have been decimated by germany and losing more than 20 mil people?
|
On December 11 2008 03:16 Spartan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 03:09 FortuneSyn wrote:On December 11 2008 02:38 Spartan wrote:On December 11 2008 02:02 NotSupporting wrote:On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that. I hate comments like this. I think it's to bad they didn't have to do a ground assault, that way Americans would have died and made it all more fair. I hate USA, always have, always will (don't get me wrong, I don't hate the people...well not most of them anyway) Actually it was to bad that Japan didn't have a nuclear bomb to drop or New York or so. But then it would have been a hole other thing wouldn't it? We would not ever hear the end of it and thinking of Japan today would be a whole other thing because of propaganda spread. When USA kills thousands of people it's in the name of freedom and justice but when terrorists do the same to defend there homes it's really bad. Yes, I don't think all terrorists are bad, and even making a comment like this is going to make people mad cause all of the damn propaganda have really gotten to all of us. There is a reason terrorists hate USA and every country that supports them, the answer is in what USA have done to them. This is what I think, if it is to much for this forum then feel free to delete this post, I don't want to offend anyone. Terrorists weren't defending their homes. They came over here and bombed us. Last I remember you don't defend your homes in the enemy territory where you don't even have a home. So you're basically saying that if Sweden was under attack of another Hitler-like leader you would rather let 1,000,000 of your people die instead of having them bombed (by you or an ally) early on to win the war and lose only 1,000 instead of the million? How is it hard to understand that concept? No one likes war, we don't either despite what everyone else thinks, which is why we do whatever it takes to end it as soon as possible. To quote Angelina Jolie in Wanted, "Kill 1 and possibly save a thousand." You do not kill a child to save a soldier You do not kill a child to prove a point.Which is exactly what terrorists do. They have no remorse for innocent people. They're just collateral damage for their cause. I never said that either side of the good/bad spectrum is right for their bombings, but as to which is more logical would be ours.
Terrorists use civilian targets as a strategy to win. how fucking hard is that to understand? They do not kill a child to prove some point they have in some argument, they believe in a cause and their strategy to accomplish this cause includes killing civilians, exactly like what your country did when you decided to nuke two cities.
Concerning that poll, it is a pretty fucking stupid poll because that assumes 1) you have direct proven information that killing 1 civilian will save 1000 and 2) the odds were not even close to that during the war. even if it was 10 to 1 assumption, it does NOT give you the right to kill a child because in your head you came up with a complete non biased calculation on the best way to save lives.
|
On December 11 2008 04:08 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote:wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution i'll stop right there and let you know, you're probably the most ignorant person i've ever seen post on these forums
On December 11 2008 04:10 Spartan wrote:
Haha, thinking the same thing.
See, that's one thing that in my opinion (and the opinion of a great majority of Sweden and plenty of other European countries) is weird about USA. Evolution is the way to world has been made to look like it does today, THERE is no god. To education students in school about a god creating the world is imo considered being brainwashing and that might belong in the middle-east but not in a developed country. Guns and Americans are just another f--ked up thing.
|
Baltimore, USA22259 Posts
On December 11 2008 04:11 [Crimson]Bason wrote:
I always had a question why was the USA even afraid of the USSR, after they have been decimated by germany and losing more than 20 mil people?
Because USSR was macroing off of like 20 gateways while we only had 3 factories, and we had no scanners to see what they were up to.
Essentially, they were just emerging as a world power at that time, they were vast with a huge population, unknown technology, and a batshit insane leader. That was always how I figured it, anyways.
Btw Cascade; if you think that accurately describes most Americans, especially the ones on this forum, then you're by far more brainwashed by propaganda than anyone else here.
|
Baltimore, USA22259 Posts
On December 11 2008 02:00 Qwertify wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2008 14:44 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
I grew up 15 minutes from Pearl Harbor, and for 5 years, I lived in Japan. I understand both sides of this very well. Were the bombings of Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? Yes. Were they moral? No.
Morality and war do not go hand in hand. Let us all just listen to this guy. Apparently out of everyone, he's the only one not getting heated up about the issue and can sympathize with both sides. So there you have it.
Haha, I actually agree, even if your post was a bit sarcastic. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
