|
On December 11 2008 15:11 the.dude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 15:08 D10 wrote:On December 11 2008 14:10 Kwark wrote:On December 11 2008 14:06 D10 wrote:On December 11 2008 06:48 cz wrote:On December 11 2008 06:46 D10 wrote:
Let me put what I feel this way, I think it was genocide, it was not justified, but I dont blame no one for it, at least not with my limited knowledge about who pushed the decision.
Sometimes, destiny is writen by lines of blood What is your alternate course of action then? Say you are President Truman, and you have to decide whether to go forward with the plan that eventually took place or not. You say no. What do you do next, with regards to the war? Tell the japanese to go to theyr beaches at X set time to watch the display on an atomic bomb and say they have 24 hours to surrender or tokyo is next. w/e Id at least give some warning If they don't surrender you actually level Tokyo? Yea, more in a movement to scare the guys for theyr own lifes but i think i wouldnt really do it and would try to incite the japanese military to surrender because im the best strategist ever, and im gonna think in someway to do that with a shitload of scared man better than with a GG button. how do you scare someone for their own life when they aren't afraid to die.
random comment: for some weird reason, the japs were incredibly afraid of napalm in WW2 for some unknown reason..they could do a banzai charge into machine gun hell while they run away at the sight of an american flamer, screaming. some japanese troops then later were paranoid in staying in bunkers in fear of an american nozzle raining hellfire on them. (when napalm is sprayed through the 'slit" of the pillbox, it bounces and splashes off the walls, cooking everything inside at an exciting 800c).
so much for not fearing death and bushido
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
when your position is something like "we can't leave them be! it is war!" then really, you have disqualified yourself from ever making decisions in wartime.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
while they may have prevented further death... NO
|
On December 11 2008 20:23 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 13:39 BalliSLife wrote:
This is what pisses me off the fact that americans would go to war when they are clearly brainwashed into believing there was WMD in Iraq, now tons of iraqi civilians are dying and nobody could care less. No, you imbecile, people have been opposing this war since the start. What the fuck can we do about our President declaring war when he just decided to start putting people in detainment indefinitely for opposing us? HE SIDESTEPPED OUR CONSTITUTION BY DECLARING WAR. It's not like politics in America is something the people can control. Sure, we have influence, but when our president, the son of an oil tycoon, wants to invade a country that tried to kill his father, and the vice president of our country happens to have been on the chair of a private contracting security organization that will profit immeasurably from it, there's not much we can do to stop political shit from happening. From there, he just says "Iraq has WMDs", and how do we stop him? Huh? We can't vote on the issue. It happens independent of public decision. The only thing we're asked is "how do you feel about this?" and it shows up in a statistic. President Bush has the worst approval rating in the history of the USA, and something like 70% of Americans are opposed to the war.
are you saying the US is like a dictatorship? thats what i inferred from your argument, that the public cant do anything , so how is this different from a dictatorship? where is democracy? and somehow the US is going around the globe fighting for democracy and fighting against other "regimes". so much irony....
|
United States44242 Posts
On December 12 2008 01:33 poilord wrote:
"He knows the young soldier is right. They would never have dropped such a bomb on a white nation."
I found this in The English Patient, which we are currently reading in a seminar and I immediately had to think about this thread and thought I would share it with you.
We created a firestorm in Dresden burning tens of thousands alive and suffocating far more in the firestorm, at the same time as destroying a chunk of European cultural history. War is war, colour isn't important.
As for the pacifists saying it's never justified to take a life, what if someone else disagrees? Appeasement? Good luck with that.
|
So many bong smoking hippies in this thread who haven't realized that there are bad people in the world and talking nicely to them doesn't stop them from causing pain.
|
On December 11 2008 12:29 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 08:26 rei wrote:One argument i see people making here is: if continue with invasion of japan, then it will cause more lives (than nuking japan) based on statistical evidences of World War II provided by the experts. Therefor, Nuking Japan is morally permissible, base on the # of lives saved. This argument is a fallacy. First fallacy committed here is "Appeal to Authority" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_authority.htmIn this case, the evidence are not clear, I have yet see anyone provide any statistical evidence to support the number of live saved by nuuking Japan. All we have here is Appealing to the Authorities. second fallacy committed here is "False Dilemma" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_dilemma.htmIn this argument there are only 2 choices, nuke or invade, where not invading japan is not consider an option. Third fallacy commited here is "False Cause" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_cause.htmThis argument is constructed as such that, A causes B A = reduce death count B= nuking Japan A causes B then becomes reduction of death count cause nuking of Japan This casual relationship between A and B never existed to begin with, because A is not a fact, A is merely an educated guess. There you have it, never make the argument to justify the lives it saved by nuking Japan, Because that argument is full of Fallacies. You are making three points here: 1. That it is not established that using nukes as they were used would result in less casualties (or American casualties). 2. That there are other options 3. Not sure about your third point. Seems redundant to the first one. Anyway, I'll start by responding to the first: 1. Looking at the history of the war and the way in which the Japanese conducted themselves, the fact that they were conserving kamikazes and moving underground I think it's very reasonable that at the time American leadership believed that proceeding with what actually happened with respect to nukes would minimize American casualties and/or total casualties/deaths. The Japanese were known to be training civilians, massively conscripting and conserving their kamikaze force. The usual quoted number is 1 million American casualties, by the way. If that's not acceptable as its methodology is not given, you can consider how many planes and army units the Japanese had at their disposal for the defence of Japan, and consider the likely casualties as when compared to previous battles. ie if fighting 4 divisions brought about 20 000 American casualties, and we can conclude from 1945 data that the Japanese had at 120 divisions, then we can guess at what American planners must have considered their casualties to be. There are of course kamikazes/suicide ships/etc to be factored in, but I'm pretty sure the data comes out for a very large estimated American casualties. 2. The other options so far given have been discounted as likely being viewed as less effective with respect to minimizing American and/or total casulaties/deaths.
rei, you seem to have conveniently skipped over my response to your argument. Please respond to it.
|
Hey. Leave hippies out of this. Just dont go there. Leave weed out of it too, weed never did nothing to no one!
|
On December 12 2008 12:32 SpiralArchitect wrote:
Hey. Leave hippies out of this. Just dont go there. Leave weed out of it too, weed never did nothing to no one!
Little known fact about WW2 is that Gandhi sent Hitler a "dear friend" letter, convinced talking nicely to him peacefully would stop him.
Ask the Jews how that worked out.
|
On December 12 2008 11:51 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2008 01:33 poilord wrote:
"He knows the young soldier is right. They would never have dropped such a bomb on a white nation."
I found this in The English Patient, which we are currently reading in a seminar and I immediately had to think about this thread and thought I would share it with you. We created a firestorm in Dresden burning tens of thousands alive and suffocating far more in the firestorm, at the same time as destroying a chunk of European cultural history. War is war, colour isn't important. As for the pacifists saying it's never justified to take a life, what if someone else disagrees? Appeasement? Good luck with that.
Exactly. It seems as though these "killing/war is never justified or allowable" people haven't come to terms with the fact that there are people who won't follow those rules.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 12 2008 11:51 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2008 01:33 poilord wrote:
"He knows the young soldier is right. They would never have dropped such a bomb on a white nation."
I found this in The English Patient, which we are currently reading in a seminar and I immediately had to think about this thread and thought I would share it with you. We created a firestorm in Dresden burning tens of thousands alive and suffocating far more in the firestorm, at the same time as destroying a chunk of European cultural history. War is war, colour isn't important. As for the pacifists saying it's never justified to take a life, what if someone else disagrees? Appeasement? Good luck with that.
I'm don't claim to be an expert, but according to Wikipedia the civilian casualties in the Dresden bombing were "between 24,000 and 40,000".
The casualties for Hiroshima (according to Wikipedia) are 140,000 and for Nagasaki 80,000.
|
United States44242 Posts
On December 12 2008 12:44 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2008 11:51 Kwark wrote:On December 12 2008 01:33 poilord wrote:
"He knows the young soldier is right. They would never have dropped such a bomb on a white nation."
I found this in The English Patient, which we are currently reading in a seminar and I immediately had to think about this thread and thought I would share it with you. We created a firestorm in Dresden burning tens of thousands alive and suffocating far more in the firestorm, at the same time as destroying a chunk of European cultural history. War is war, colour isn't important. As for the pacifists saying it's never justified to take a life, what if someone else disagrees? Appeasement? Good luck with that. I'm don't claim to be an expert, but according to Wikipedia the civilian casualties in the Dresden bombing were "between 24,000 and 40,000". The casualties for Hiroshima (according to Wikipedia) are 140,000 and for Nagasaki 80,000.
Even so the point stands. The Allies were still willing to bomb thousands of white civilians. His suggestion that we were somehow more willing to kill Japanese civilians because they were Asian ignores our willingness to kill whites.
|
On December 11 2008 08:03 oneofthem wrote:and do you find generalizing the opposing position from one ridiculous guy credible? i mean, the time of the pull-out could be anywhere between pearl harbor and n years after the war in actuality ended, provided that america was satisfied with a less dramatic ending. keep in mind that the bombs would not have worked immediately had the emperor been overwhelmed by hardcore militarists. the outcome of that internal struggle, so critical to the supposed effectiveness of the bomb, was a toss up. as for change in government and social reforms, with sufficient measures it would still happen. ironically, the japanese have learned far more from the bomb than americans seem to have. bombing for shock value is just a crude argument. where is the shock value per life lost analysis done by the u.s.? given the magnitude of the chosen option, i guess they must have done extensive work on how best to induce the japanese into surrendering. be creative, just because you have a truck does not mean you have to crack walnuts with it. the fire bombings somehow make the atomic bombs more tolerable for some, but they are part of the same problem. the decision to make for a quicker end, in service of geopolitical objectives, and without any clear and immediate threat to your own civilians. a supposed land invasion is a similar choice between quick and advantageous ending, and unfamiliar territory of not fighting for victory. except the choice there was done with the sacrifice of your own soldiers. in any case, presenting the possibility of an full out invasion does not exclude a more gradual approach. Show nested quote +
How do you decide what constitutes a person, though? What if a country attacks you, and acts cruelly (ie to prisoners)? Doesn't that country constitute an entity that should be brought to justice?
this is just terrible. problem of collective identity is precisely the reverse, that a situation clearly framed in the collective terms breaks down once you go into the actual people. of course, part of the reason why wars happen is because nobody bothers with asking the question. if it is asked, then war would seem like a ridiculously inefficient response.
I wasn't generalizing, I was specifically listing what had been offered so far. Reading what he wrote I believe that he suggested pulling out of the War immediately after Pearl Harbor.
I'm not sure what you are talking about with respect to a pro-war takeover by Japanese officials. It's a possibility but I don't see how it is specifically relevant to this.
What's wrong with using the nukes as they were done for, instead of in a slow, demonstrative manner, for shock value? How is it a crude argument? They probably did think about how to best induce surrender, yes...
Whether or not the nukes were used for larger geopolitical objectives is irrelevant if that course of action paralleled the least damaging and just course of action. In other words, until you can establish that the geopolitical motivations behind nuking japan caused more deaths or more injustice than the other courses of action were the point is irrelevant to the discussion. As for a gradual approach, I have shown the weaknesses in it. You can continue to debate them if you want; I'll respond.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 12 2008 12:33 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2008 12:32 SpiralArchitect wrote:
Hey. Leave hippies out of this. Just dont go there. Leave weed out of it too, weed never did nothing to no one! Little known fact about WW2 is that Gandhi sent Hitler a "dear friend" letter, convinced talking nicely to him peacefully would stop him. Ask the Jews how that worked out.
Ghandi was an idiot. He also said that Jews should offer themselves up as martyrs. Of course, in practice the Jews did not put up a serious organized resistance, with few exceptions like in the Warsaw ghetto.
|
On December 12 2008 12:51 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2008 12:33 cz wrote:On December 12 2008 12:32 SpiralArchitect wrote:
Hey. Leave hippies out of this. Just dont go there. Leave weed out of it too, weed never did nothing to no one! Little known fact about WW2 is that Gandhi sent Hitler a "dear friend" letter, convinced talking nicely to him peacefully would stop him. Ask the Jews how that worked out. Ghandi was an idiot. He also said that Jews should offer themselves up as martyrs. Of course, in practice the Jews did not put up a serious organized resistance, with few exceptions like in the Warsaw ghetto.
Well I'm using his actions and results as representative of the realities behind functioning with the belief that "all killing is unjust".
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 12 2008 12:47 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2008 12:44 HnR)hT wrote:On December 12 2008 11:51 Kwark wrote:On December 12 2008 01:33 poilord wrote:
"He knows the young soldier is right. They would never have dropped such a bomb on a white nation."
I found this in The English Patient, which we are currently reading in a seminar and I immediately had to think about this thread and thought I would share it with you. We created a firestorm in Dresden burning tens of thousands alive and suffocating far more in the firestorm, at the same time as destroying a chunk of European cultural history. War is war, colour isn't important. As for the pacifists saying it's never justified to take a life, what if someone else disagrees? Appeasement? Good luck with that. I'm don't claim to be an expert, but according to Wikipedia the civilian casualties in the Dresden bombing were "between 24,000 and 40,000". The casualties for Hiroshima (according to Wikipedia) are 140,000 and for Nagasaki 80,000. Even so the point stands. The Allies were still willing to bomb thousands of white civilians. His suggestion that we were somehow more willing to kill Japanese civilians because they were Asian ignores our willingness to kill whites.
I guess I agree with you. But it doesn't strike me as altogether implausible that the USA would not have nuked a white country in a similar situation.
|
Best case scenario - you die instantly.
If you're one of the unlucky survivors, the radiation will get you. And if you're unlucky enough to survive even that, there's all types of cancer waiting for you, leukemia for example.
The effects of radiation can follow the affected people into the next generation and on with reproductive mutations.
I'm gonna stop here. This is not a weapon we're talking about, it's a doomsday device. It only worked that one time cus the japanese didn't have it on their side.
|
cz, you're like a retarded wall with a sign "shit on me"
since shit is ALL OVER IT not like anyone else finds it cool anymore
and theres a huge difference between a-bombs/napalm and "regular" weapons
thats why theres banned shit and shit you allowed to use, its inhumane to use napalm on people or radioactive shit that makes u suffer for 10 fucking years slowly rotting alive while your children become mutants in generations after, just like its inhumane to skin living people and do whatever the fuck else. And retards saying that Japan deserved it don't wana know what some people might do to them in return for what they did in iraq/afghanistan/yugoslavia/vietnam/doesnt fucking matter. They cut the balls off and put them in your mouth and mail it to your mother for shooting their mothers. Then u start smelling like shit, because u just fucking SHIT yourself. Its all fun until your own fucking relatives come back home in plastic bags, THATS WHAT THEY DESERVED ISNT IT. And i love some piece of shit losers judging lives of good 1/4 of a million people like they were all ready to die anyways FUCK YOU bastards you are not worthy to be walking this earth and judging shit for anyone else. Luckily u aint going to make it anywhere, because you're THAT SORT OF LOSERS that never makes it anywhere. If shit like u got into government one day this world would become this much sadder.
only because retards outbreeding everyone else theres international regulations that applied to every conflict. Yes, US walks all over those half the time, but they exist for a reason, so that SHIT LIKE YOU doesnt have a chance to judge anything but their own insecure little self.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 12 2008 13:07 food wrote:
And i love some piece of shit losers judging lives of good 1/4 of a million people like they were all ready to die anyways FUCK YOU bastards you are not worthy to be walking this earth and judging shit for anyone else. Luckily u aint going to make it anywhere, because you're THAT SORT OF LOSERS that never makes it anywhere
This is very naive. History is full of examples of people like that who DO make it very far indeed :O
|
On December 12 2008 12:32 cz wrote:
rei, you seem to have conveniently skipped over my response to your argument. Please respond to it.
Alright since you put it nicely
first you defend the first fallacy by providing methods on how the number of casualties was derive.
I am not going to dispute these numbers( i would if it is a real debate), because I agree we will lose a lot more lives if we did not nuke and invaded.
on the second fallacy defense, you said "The other options so far given have been discounted as likely being viewed as less effective with respect to minimizing American and / or total casulaties/deaths"
Here you did not support your claim with evidence, I don't see any statistical comparison of other options. You said "as being viewed as less effective" you must provide what options and who discounted them as being less effective. you have committed the fallacy of Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to masses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority
all i need is one fallacy to stick and your argument is destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
gogo cz, you need it, your next post better not have any fallacies, hopefully you don't try and use fallacy to defend another fallacy.
my opinion on this issue
+ Show Spoiler +
Some one asked me my standing on this issue since I had only been pointing out logical faults in others arguments.
I believe in a war you do whatever it takes to win, as soon as you enter a war, morality seize to exist. Therefor you don't justify your actions in war as righteous, you can only give a strategic reason of why that action must be done to win the war effectively knowing it is not moral.
I am not a mother fucking hypocrite like many of you guys trying to justify an immoral act as righteous because it saved lives,
My insult to all your ignorant illogical hypocrites who still thinks you need to justify nuking of japan by the number of lives it saved. (Damn right I proved you all are hypocrites, the true hurts)
+ Show Spoiler +
Here is my argument:
premises:
1) your argument makes the decision on whether to nuke japan or not by the amount of lives it saves( Less death = better)
2) your argument contains two options to choose from which both cause deaths(nuke, or invade).
3) a seize fire peace treaty aims to stop the war which leads to no death.
4) base on the method of decision(choose the least life lost), the 3rd option is the best choice.
5) the choice made was "nuking of japan"
6) Hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.
Conclusion: Your argument says that the decision is made base on the number of lives it saved, but nuking japan was not justified by the number of lives it saved because of premise #4.
By preaching the belief of making the decision base on least death caused, but in fact(nuked japan) not making the decision base on least death caused is Hypocrisy. (Supported by premise #1, #2, #5 and #6)
Nuking of japan is a valuable lesson for mankind, we paid many lives for this lesson so that people will remember never to repeat history. And if you are trying to justify nuking of Japan with the righteousness of it saved people you have wasted all those lives we paid for the lesson, because the next nuke which starts WW3 will be also justifiable.
PS. for those of you guys actually read my bullshits with the intention of prove me wrong. In the process of logical construction of your argument you will learn 2 things, 1) how to construct a logical argument, and 2) learning is not merely reading, you actually have to think logically, This is what educators call metacogntion, this is where true learning take place. Once you are able to construct a logical argument you will be a more likable person to argue with and you will see how stupid it is to constantly insulting the other guy as you argue with him.
personal insults over the internet doesn't hurt. But getting owned in logic will make you rethink on your believes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
