EPTNuclear Launch Detected... =o - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
SpiralArchitect
United States2116 Posts
| ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On November 02 2008 15:38 iPF[Div] wrote: i'm just mad that people don't know wtf they are talking about Difference of opinions does NOT mean idiocy. This is far little different then a debate on politics | ||
|
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
But the fact that, after the devastation of the first one, that japan (government, not the people) still did not surrender leaves little doubt in my mind that we did anything wrong. If there was another way back then, any real american would take it back in a heartbeat. But the only other option was a real war with millions of casualties lost on each side. | ||
|
Spike
United States1392 Posts
On November 02 2008 15:39 Railz wrote: Difference of opinions does NOT mean idiocy. He's talking about ignorance, not idiocy; although, the two often go hand in hand. | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On November 02 2008 15:41 Spike wrote: He's talking about ignorance, not idiocy; although, the two often go hand in hand. No he's talking about not believing what he believes "I really can't believe that anyone that knows the facts would think that the bombings were justified." Saying facts == bombings not justified. Sorry but that isn't how things work. Justified is a completely objective term and can't be proven with facts. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
=O go political ads | ||
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
No. | ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
"We are going to kill your innocent civilians unless you surrender"(except what's worse is I don't even think they gave them that option, they just kind of did it) So like other people said, BM That is so uncool and unfair to do that in a war. It reminds me of movies like Braveheart and Troy and such where the leaders would meet infront of the armies to exchange terms and stuff, no one would just assault the leader. It was a sign of respect. | ||
|
iPF[Div]
Spain572 Posts
The whole reason that the word justified is used is because american textbooks conveniently leave out essential details to the story that cause people to have so many differing views of what went down there. They changed the question from the killing of 200k+ people to, well it prevented further casualties, and etc, when that shouldn't even be discussed because Japan was already in surrender mode, there wasn't going to be more death! | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On November 02 2008 15:52 Grobyc wrote: That is so uncool and unfair to do that in a war. It reminds me of movies like Braveheart and Troy and such where the leaders would meet infront of the armies to exchange terms and stuff, no one would just assault the leader. It was a sign of respect. One problem with this analogy. The allied armies primary objective was too pretty much kill Hitler. Hence a sync'd descent on his bunk. The difference between Hitler at that point and the Emperor of Japan was if you killed him, you'd further be poking the hornet's nest so to speak. | ||
|
Piste
6183 Posts
On November 02 2008 15:52 Grobyc wrote: No, because exactly what baal said, killing innocent civilians who are probably against the war is inhumane, it doesn't affect Japans military strength much when people who aren't involved in the war are killed. To me it just seems like a form of blackmail "We are going to kill your innocent civilians unless you surrender"(except what's worse is I don't even think they gave them that option, they just kind of did it) word. And the question is stupid. It isn't justified to kill anyone. ...unless you're god. | ||
|
iloveBankai
Australia50 Posts
look at it from the americans point of view they have just lots hundreds of thousands of men because some stupid country decided to be aggressive japan was not going to surrender, they were prepared for a fight to the death, you can't think of them as being rational in this sense on previous islands taken by the americans they fought to the death trying to kill as many americans as possible they were estimated casualty reports of 200,000 to 300,000 american deaths if they were forced to invade, which was likely if they didnt nuke all in all it is an easy decision to make, you end the war with no more blood on your side look at the wikipedia article the bombs killed 140,000 + 80,000 japanese and forced a japanese surrender there would have been at least ten times this amount of japanese killed if an invasion occured | ||
|
iloveBankai
Australia50 Posts
On November 02 2008 15:55 iPF[Div] wrote: Yes justified is objective, but if how many people would say that the killing of 200k+ people to prove that they could kill a billion other people is right? Because bottom line, thats what happened. The whole reason that the word justified is used is because american textbooks conveniently leave out essential details to the story that cause people to have so many differing views of what went down there. They changed the question from the killing of 200k+ people to, well it prevented further casualties, and etc, when that shouldn't even be discussed because Japan was already in surrender mode, there wasn't going to be more death! i am interested in where you are getting this from? sure the war was unwinnable for japan, but they were nowhere near surrender | ||
|
SiegeTanksandBlueGoo
China685 Posts
How do you qualify whether something is justified or not? Logically, you would use morality. Morality is based on our perceived sense of right or wrong. Thus, since it is PERCEIVED, there is never going to be a consensus of right or wrong on something as controversial as this. Morever, I don't think the majority of the people who were affected by the Nipponese Empire were crying over the dead Japanese. I don't see the Korean or Chinese comfort women crying nor the Filipino soldiers form the Bataan Death March, nor the civilians from the Nanking Massacre crying over the Japanese. The Japanese hurt far more than they lost. You know what, America did the right thing in dropping the bomb. They decided to trade Japanese lives for American, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, Indian, British, French, Malaysian, Indonesian and Russian lives. If one country hurt all these other countries nowadays, I'm sure you would be somewhere holding up a banner that screams, "Genocide" or "Free Tibet" or something like that. But Noo, look back to what the AMericans chose back then and all the sudden Japanese lives are worth more than a potshot of other countries civilian and military lives. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
I'm American and Japan didn't really get a raw deal with their defeat. Considering we like help rebuild their country up to competitive standards in the bizz world high encouraging education etc. Few nukes and everyone got the pictures no more nukes cause they really suck! We won the war less American life lost. Japan didn't seem to want to surrender until his back was completely broken anyways. Just saying not to sound mean less lives where porb lost over all civilian or military does it matter? Not every person in the Japanese military pretty sure was 100% till the end and not every civilian was totally innocent. Sure one sided loss but got the job done.ramble ramble ramble next post be about how this makes no scene wtf izzy | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Humanitarian: Of course fucking not. But we're talking about war and war has a tendency to become total war and none of it is justified (besides specific interventions.) Militarily: There were other options on the table, but this was obviously a successful one. It was ruthless, but it was more efficient than the other means. Still, everyone understood (including Truman) that it was not necessary in this regard. Politically: Yep. They got unconditional surrender (which the Emperor and his cabinet did not want to give) from the vast majority of the populace, it was the first major act of deterrence against the Soviet Union (it was first introduced as a diplomatic tool against the Soviets, not Japan), they got an accurate reading on the weapons (minor, but it was taken into consideration), and they ended the war before the Soviets could react. This last point played the major role in the decision, imo. The other options that the US faced at the time involved a Soviet "shock" attack on Japan, and Stalin had already given his pledge to enter the conflict and obviously we didn't want another race for Berlin. So do whatever cost/benefit analysis you want on those three viewpoints, and remember that all the numbers we know today were unknown at the time, you'd be working under enormous pressure, and your advisers were split on its usage. This is why you shouldn't run for President. | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14910 Posts
| ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On November 02 2008 15:55 iPF[Div] wrote: Yes justified is objective, but if how many people would say that the killing of 200k+ people to prove that they could kill a billion other people is right? Because bottom line, thats what happened. The whole reason that the word justified is used is because american textbooks conveniently leave out essential details to the story that cause people to have so many differing views of what went down there. They changed the question from the killing of 200k+ people to, well it prevented further casualties, and etc, when that shouldn't even be discussed because Japan was already in surrender mode, there wasn't going to be more death! My textbook had the detail's, I'm not sure which redneck school textbook you're referring to (probably the same one that says the South won the civil war but alas). My textbook also had the American Internment camps in it. It is up to the student to deem it themselves how they see it; unfortunately, patriotism does create some sort of bias, not necessarily ignorance, just a bias to use the facts to back their own opinion. People use what they know, unfortunately, it is the teacher's that are usually bias'd and force their opinions on children (which recently is actually fighting this whole blind patriotism thing) | ||
|
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
| ||
|
lluvia_0
Australia20 Posts
the.... fuck.... How can anybody justify the bombing of millions of innocent people? There is no argument. No justification. It's fucking murder! | ||
| ||
