|
On December 12 2008 15:10 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2008 15:02 cz wrote:On December 12 2008 14:46 rei wrote:
dude cz i agree with you that signing of the a peace treaty will not work, that's why they choose to nuke japan.
but that doesn't change the fact that you are a hypocrite for saying nuking of japan is justify because of the lives it saved.
I know you are mad right right now and not thinking straight, all you want is to clinch to something to savage your pride, the truth of finding out you are an hypocrite while not knowing it for however many years of your life really hurts. I completely understand how it feels, because it happened to me too. I am wrong so many times, and I admit it when I am wrong and learn from it. Well if you agree that signing a peace treaty won't work because it will lead to more eventual war with the same group in charge of Japan and therefore more death, doesn't nuking Japan lead to less deaths, unless there is a fourth option that is better? No you missed my point, that proposed 3rd option by signing a treaty is to set up a no death situation. Which is theoretical just like the assumption of invading japan cause more lives. The reason it won't work in practice (outside of theorycraft) is not because it won't save lives, it is because (insert whatever theory you have here )WE WANTED VENDETTA.(my opinion)
You are missing my point: that you have not established that the 3rd option is a no-death situation (I have argued that is very likely to be the opposite, a much larger death toll than either other options). Please respond to my arguments regarding that #3 premise, they are in my previous posts.
Also the casualties amounted in the invasion of Japan is irrelevant to this topic as nobody is suggesting it is lower than nuking Japan.
|
United States42694 Posts
|
the most of american people is just blind... they belive 100% what their goverment said...
USA's goverment is just a murder enterprice...
if you think this is justified u are just sick...
|
United States42694 Posts
On December 12 2008 15:21 XenOsky- wrote:
the most of american people is just blind... they belive 100% what their goverment said...
USA's goverment is just a murder enterprice...
if you think this is justified u are just sick...
Tru dat. There aren't actually any real murderers in the US. The Government just hires people to shoot other people to keep the people scared and insisting on their right to bear arms.
|
On November 02 2008 14:56 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 14:50 Amber[LighT] wrote:On November 02 2008 14:47 baal wrote:Only a fucking ignorant heartless redneck would think so. A bomb thrown at fucking civilians??, it was inhumane and its amazing its not classified in history as an horrible crime against humanity like the holocaust was. It wasnt dropped on a military base or something of that sort, it was dropped in the middle of a city full of civlians, women and children being burned alive while they were having a family meal wtf. lol and pearl harbor never happened. Pearl Harbor was a military base you retard, what part of that the bombs were dropped on civilians you dont get?
i agree with you... the people in the army knows they can die every day for his country... civilians is a totally different history
|
If the bombs had not dropped, many more lives would have been lost.
Pluse, I can't remember which bombing raid it was that happened in Europe, but just as many people were killed in it than in Hiroshima.
|
CZ i have answered it, because my belief doesn't have to be the same as my argument,
you can not argue about rather or not the peace treaty = no death, because it is imply in the word phase.
you can argue about rather or not the peace treaty will work in practice, and provide factual evidence or statistical evidence to back up your claim, but you have done neither.
I am arguing against my belief in order to form an argument to call you guys hypocrites. because I belief We should have nuked them. Go read it again, and if you really don't understand it then it's alright.
oh and i'm not a troll, i am serious about this, i see this as an opportunity to learn different point of views on this matter, and so far, pretty disappointing, Only one argument to justify nuking of japan, people can do better than that
|
United States42694 Posts
Lol. That's a great evasion. You attack the saved lives argument with premise 3, people point out premise 3 is invalid, you go 'yup, I know it's invalid and personally I don't agree with it but if it were valid you'd all be wrong'. Well played. This discussion is pretty much over. You've done the classic end game move of agreeing with the opponent.
|
On December 12 2008 15:54 Kwark wrote:
Lol. That's a great evasion. You attack the saved lives argument with premise 3, people point out premise 3 is invalid, you go 'yup, I know it's invalid and personally I don't agree with it but if it were valid you'd all be wrong'. Well played. This discussion is pretty much over. You've done the classic end game move of agreeing with the opponent.
you must understand my personal belief does not equal the argument i am making.
premise 3 is valid because the word phase peace treaty imply no more death.
to prove it invalid, you must have evidence on why a peace treaty will not stop the death counts. I have no yet see any evidence from anybody.
all i got was no evidence, all personal opinion
+ Show Spoiler +On December 12 2008 14:25 cz wrote:
Well I've already mentioned the problem inherent with a peace treaty: You leave the same government in charge. Based on the historical actions of this government and its honor-based motivations it seems reasonable to believe it would continue to be belligerent, IF it even accepted the treaty.
|
United States42694 Posts
On December 12 2008 16:04 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2008 15:54 Kwark wrote:
Lol. That's a great evasion. You attack the saved lives argument with premise 3, people point out premise 3 is invalid, you go 'yup, I know it's invalid and personally I don't agree with it but if it were valid you'd all be wrong'. Well played. This discussion is pretty much over. You've done the classic end game move of agreeing with the opponent. you must understand my personal belief does not equal the argument i am making. premise 3 is valid because the word phase peace treaty imply no more death. to prove it invalid, you must have evidence on why a peace treaty will not stop the death counts. I have no yet see any evidence from anybody.
And what about my argument that death count alone is not the only goal? A viable solution needs to create a stable peace as well. Which invalidates 3.
Furthermore the Cold War was the only time in human history two superpowers have coexisted and not gone to war until only one remained. It was simply not worth it in a nuclear world. Stalin was a fairly insane guy but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a clear message in the only language he understood. In 1945 the Soviet Union did not push their luck in Europe.
|
United States42694 Posts
rei, what would you have us do? Phone up the authority on 1940s Japan and ask him what would a humiliated Japan with the same leaders as it had during the war do? We've explained Japan was a very militaristic society and it's leaders were expansionist, nationalistic and willing to kill, exploit and pillage the mainland for anything they might require. This isn't opinion. This is based upon their actions during the 1930s and the war. However the theory that the same men would continue to act in the same way simply cannot be proved. So yes, we're saying in our opinions nationalist, expansionist bastards who are obsessed with pride aren't generally improved in temperament by a humiliation. You're right, this is an opinion. It's one I am willing to base my judgement on. You're insisting you need evidence on a hypothetical and that's a total straw man. "Provide me with real evidence of what would happen in a situation that did not take place and can never be replicated and I'll accept your argument". You're still being an ass. You can't possibly be stupid enough to really be waiting for us to give evidence that you know cannot exist.
|
On December 12 2008 16:12 Kwark wrote:
And what about my argument that death count alone is not the only goal? A viable solution needs to create a stable peace as well. Which invalidates 3.
Furthermore the Cold War was the only time in human history two superpowers have coexisted and not gone to war until only one remained. It was simply not worth it in a nuclear world. Stalin was a fairly insane guy but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a clear message in the only language he understood. In 1945 the Soviet Union did not push their luck in Europe.
Oh wait, but didn't you just argue about how you can justify nuking of japan with saved lives? and now you are adding more into your argument?
Another viable solution needed? but didn't even say which viable solution.
and in what way would that invalidate 3?
3 says peace treaty in theory cause no death. (the premise itself doesn't even mention japan)
you say death should not be use to used to argue about rather or not nuking japan is justifiable.
you see what you are saying here?
by the way that viable solution you talked about is "The nuke" (factual evidence that it happened and created a stable peace)
|
United States42694 Posts
That made absolutely no sense. Try again with meaning.
|
I think the name of the thread is describing what will happen to a bunch of users icons if they continue to "debate" in a tl.net thread more so then about the content.
|
Pointless thread-- obviously there were pros and cons. And it happened.
|
It ended the war.
I win after all,
Thank you.
|
It's pointless because people aren't arguing anything all they are doing is saying what they may believe and blindly ignoring any of the other people points and just attacking people if they don't agree with them.
|
i love how people focus only on the 2 atomic bombs and forget about fire bombing (which at the time was doing around the same amount of damage) was going on in all of the other cities. A lot of people also have to realize that even though u are a civilian your are still in effect aiding the military through arms/vehicle production, it is a harsh reality but in such a war in the end you really have to do what will let you win.
also Japan would NEVER surrender , unlike most other cultures Japan was unique in the sense , at least back then, that it was a society which did not tolerate defeat and saw it as an embarrassment. There was a reason why the Americans never killed the emperor because it was only he who could stop the war, unless he gave the order the Japanese would have fought to the last soul.
How do you think the American people would feel if they find out later that instead of losing thousands of their sons in battle that America could have ended the war with 1 to 2 bombs?
|
On December 12 2008 17:02 scooby wrote:
How do you think the American people would feel if they find out later that instead of losing thousands of their sons in battle that America could have ended the war with 1 to 2 bombs?
How do you think the Japanese felt about the Americans being too cowardly to finish the war by neutralizing the Japanese army and instead slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people in an attempt to scare the Japanese into submission?
In the battle of Okinawa, almost TEN TIMES as many Japanese soliders were killed as there were american soldiers killed, so all the talk about americans losing so many soliders life in the war, was nothing compared to the casualties the Japanese suffered, even before the nuclear bombings.
I'm glad the war ended when it did for the sake of the survivors, but ending it at the cost of a over a hundred thousand civilians' lives - that can never be justified.
|
On December 12 2008 17:16 GinNtoniC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2008 17:02 scooby wrote:
How do you think the American people would feel if they find out later that instead of losing thousands of their sons in battle that America could have ended the war with 1 to 2 bombs? How do you think the Japanese felt about the Americans being too cowardly to finish the war by neutralizing the Japanese army and instead slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people in an attempt to scare the Japanese into submission? In the battle of Okinawa, almost TEN TIMES as many Japanese soliders were killed as there were american soldiers killed, so all the talk about americans losing so many soliders life in the war, was nothing compared to the casualties the Japanese suffered, even before the nuclear bombings. I'm glad the war ended when it did for the sake of the survivors, but ending it at the cost of a over a hundred thousand civilians' lives - that can never be justified.
Your arrangement show casing nothing but fail can never be justified. You just fucking pointed out a major point that the opposing idea has been saying over and over again. JAPAN WAS NOT GOING TO SURRENDER god sakes people fucking read more then 1 page of the thread before posting. Also you have no fucking scene of nationalism or pride in your nation obviously you rather have people from your own place die then have other people die you are talking about a nation not an idea Truth be told people don't like it when their people die, if it's some guy i don't know or don't like let them die over people we care about.
Points for it
Avoid heavy casualties according to American intelligence at the time the death toll for invading japan and the subsequent months or year it would talk to bring japan into submission was far greater then the deaths caused by atomic bombs.
American decided to spare their own peoples lives alot more then japan did this is a nation not some fucking hippy about love and peace this is a war if you can find ways to do shit without risking more of your peoples lives they will do it.
It brought the war to an end. As History has shown Japan was not willing to surrender they still believe if they could drag it out they can convince America to go to a bargaining table. America along with all the other nations on their side had a stict unconditional surrender for this war not just with japan this was followed with every nation allied with the axis except with itality because they back stabbed Germany in the last few months you know the whole revolt thing and kill Mussolini.
Points against it
It is an crime against humanity that could have been avoided if America decided to win using conventional weapons.
They were already winning the war at that point there was no need to use such a display of force, it was more of a stunt to display the nations power into intimidating Russia. Even though it may have been effective in ending the war if the intention was thus then that only furthers the things that are wrong with the nuking of japan.
Common agreement
We should avoid as much as possible in using the atomic bombs ever again.
Stupid shit people say
IT CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED
AMERICA FUCK YA
YOU SHOULD NEVER KILL CIVILIANS WHEN YOU CAN KILL SOLDIER ( I MEAN WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU A LIFE IS A LIFE YOU SAYING THAT SOME PEOPLE DESERVE LIFE MORE THEN OTHERS. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THERE WAS HONOR IN THAT WAR HONOR THAT SAID LET PEOPLE NOT SIGNED TO FIGHT IN THIS WAR ONLY DIE. IT'S WAS FUCKING TOTAL WAR EVERY SIDE KILLED CIVILIANS THIS IS NOT SOME FUCKING WE ARE ABOVE THIS SHIT)
LET THIS THREAD DIE.
OBVIOUSLY THE SIDE SAYING IT IS JUSTIFIED ARGUMENT IS MORE WELL THOUGHT OUT AND LONGER FOR THE OBVIOUS FUCKING REASON
THIS IS LIKE ABORTION
ONE SIDE TRYS TO REASON
THE OTHER SIDE HAS A OBVIOUS BIAS
THIS IS HOW AN ARGUMENT ON ABORTION GOES
BUT IT'S TO SAVE THE MOTHERS LIFE
YEAH BUT ITS KILLING A BABY
ALOT OF OF PEOPLE AREN'T READY TO BE A PARENTS
YEAH BUT ITS KILLING A BABY
SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS LIFE CHANGING AND SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE MOTHER TO DECIDE
YEAH BUT ITS KILLING A BABY
OMFG WILL YOU SHUT UP
YEAH BUT ITS KILLING A BABY
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/fm_victim.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.warchat.org/pictures/hiroshima_and_nagasaki_victims_nuclear_bombing.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.japanfocus.org/images/UserFiles/Image/2642.kuznick.tibbets.abomb/hiroshima_afterbomb.jpg)
