Big News Day

[bradly1101]

• On this day for the first time a biased TV network may decide the next leader of the free world.
• There's a new path at Suez.
• Jon Stewart has his last show.
• And last but certainly not least, today is the 70th anniversary of what many see as the largest of all terrorist attacks where 140,000+ civilians lost their lives.

What's with today?

 

[ivwshane]

Today's is also the anniversary of the signing of the voting rights act. Ironically today is the first major debate in which many presidential candidates supported directly or indirectly the restricting of voter rights.

 

[highland145]

Not really.
This message is hidden because bradly1101 is on your ignore list.
This message is hidden because ivwshane is on your ignore list.

 

[JEDIYoda]

#1 -- Will never happen!! Republicans have no chance in hell!!
#4 --- Now that is funny!! There is no way Japan was ever going to surrender......

Finally you have a convoluted outlook on things!!

 

[bradly1101]

Not really.
This message is hidden because bradly1101 is on your ignore list.
This message is hidden because ivwshane is on your ignore list.

I wear it like a badge of honor.

 

[highland145]

 

[bradly1101]

#4 --- Now that is funny!! There is no way Japan was ever going to surrender......

At least they only attacked our military, at least they kept to a code of warfare, and yes we were desperate. Today we view attacks on civilians as the last refuge of scoundrels. How things change...even when our allies like Israel used a civilian population to try and change military minds like we did at Hiroshima. Does our estimate of Japan's perseverance excuse mass murder? Shameless.

 

[Venix]

At least they only attacked our military, at least they kept to a code of warfare, and yes we were desperate. Today we view attacks on civilians as the last refuge of scoundrels. How things change...even when our allies like Israel used a civilian population to try and change military minds like we did at Hiroshima. Does our estimate of Japan's perseverance excuse mass murder? Shameless.

I don't understand how someone can be so profoundly ignorant about so many topics. The Japanese military tortured, raped, and murdered millions of civilians and prisoners of war. They committed some of the most heinous war crimes in history, with a death toll rivaling that of the Holocaust.

 

[Sulaco]

At least they only attacked our military, at least they kept to a code of warfare, and yes we were desperate. Today we view attacks on civilians as the last refuge of scoundrels. How things change...even when our allies like Israel used a civilian population to try and change military minds like we did at Hiroshima. Does our estimate of Japan's perseverance excuse mass murder? Shameless.

You're an utter raging moron and completely, proudly, shamelessly ignorant of what you post about.

Congratulations on being a complete tool.

 

[HTFOff]

Lol

 

[pcgeek11]

At least they only attacked our military, at least they kept to a code of warfare, and yes we were desperate. Today we view attacks on civilians as the last refuge of scoundrels. How things change...even when our allies like Israel used a civilian population to try and change military minds like we did at Hiroshima. Does our estimate of Japan's perseverance excuse mass murder? Shameless.

Ask the Chinese people what they think about it.

 

[cubby1223]

At least they only attacked our military, at least they kept to a code of warfare, and yes we were desperate. Today we view attacks on civilians as the last refuge of scoundrels. How things change...even when our allies like Israel used a civilian population to try and change military minds like we did at Hiroshima. Does our estimate of Japan's perseverance excuse mass murder? Shameless.

Japan was arguably crueler to their enemies than even Germany was. Some of the things they did to civilian populations, did to surrendering enemies, eclipsed even what their Nazi counterparts were doing.

Kept to a "code of warfare"? It's easier if instead of what you tried to write just wrote "I don't understand much about World War II".

I've seem countless stupid posts on this forum, but sure as shit every now and then a new post makes me seriously question those who frequent this forum. Congrats, you wrote one such post.

BTW, a little history lesson in case you want to educate yourself a little bit (which I doubt will happen)
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/exhibits/ww2/threat/bombs.htm

 

[JEDIYoda]

At least they only attacked our military, at least they kept to a code of warfare, and yes we were desperate. Today we view attacks on civilians as the last refuge of scoundrels. How things change...even when our allies like Israel used a civilian population to try and change military minds like we did at Hiroshima. Does our estimate of Japan's perseverance excuse mass murder? Shameless.

ignorance is bliss!! Or are you a paid Japanese shill??

 

[bradly1101]

I don't understand how someone can be so profoundly ignorant about so many topics. The Japanese military tortured, raped, and murdered millions of civilians and prisoners of war. They committed some of the most heinous war crimes in history, with a death toll rivaling that of the Holocaust.

Yes all sides in war commit atrocities. Are you saying that their behavior excused ours? We deliberately targeted civilians in a way that we knew would cause tens of thousands of deaths of innocent people. Japan indeed needed to be stopped, I just don't like the way we did it.

Trying to affect political change by targeting innocents is our definition of terrorism, no matter how evil their rulers. We tried the same tactic at Dresden where possibly 25,000 non-combatants were killed. That's quite a combined body count (we still need to add in Nagasaki).

I just don't think we acted with honor. I'm well aware that most Americans see it as clever and heroic. Ask anyone here; I don't often see things politically, militarily, environmentally... like most Americans.

 

[Venix]

Yes all sides in war commit atrocities. Are you saying that their behavior excused ours? We deliberately targeted civilians in a way that we knew would cause tens of thousands of deaths of innocent people. Japan indeed needed to be stopped, I just don't like the way we did it.

Trying to affect political change by targeting innocents is our definition of terrorism, no matter how evil their rulers. We tried the same tactic at Dresden where possibly 25,000 non-combatants were killed. That's quite a combined body count (we still need to add in Nagasaki).

I just don't think we acted with honor. I'm well aware that most Americans see it as clever and heroic. Ask anyone here; I don't often see things politically, militarily, environmentally... like most Americans.

You first claimed that Japan "only attacked our military" and "kept to a code of warfare." Now you claim that "all sides in war commit atrocities." Even an imbecile like yourself should be capable of understanding the blatantly obvious contradiction between those statements.

Whether the attacks on population centers with firebombs and nuclear weapons were necessary or moral is a complex and interesting topic. In other words, it's not something I'm interested in discussing with one of the most disgustingly ignorant buffoons on this forum. Particularly not one who believes that intentionally murdering over 10 million civilians counts as only attacking military targets and keeping to a code of warfare.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yes all sides in war commit atrocities. Are you saying that their behavior excused ours? We deliberately targeted civilians in a way that we knew would cause tens of thousands of deaths of innocent people. Japan indeed needed to be stopped, I just don't like the way we did it.

Trying to affect political change by targeting innocents is our definition of terrorism, no matter how evil their rulers. We tried the same tactic at Dresden where possibly 25,000 non-combatants were killed. That's quite a combined body count (we still need to add in Nagasaki).

I just don't think we acted with honor. I'm well aware that most Americans see it as clever and heroic. Ask anyone here; I don't often see things politically, militarily, environmentally... like most Americans.

Did you know that Japan was also working on a nuclear weapon? Do you think they would use it?

I do.

 

[Sulaco]

Yes all sides in war commit atrocities. Are you saying that their behavior excused ours? We deliberately targeted civilians in a way that we knew would cause tens of thousands of deaths of innocent people. Japan indeed needed to be stopped, I just don't like the way we did it.

Trying to affect political change by targeting innocents is our definition of terrorism, no matter how evil their rulers. We tried the same tactic at Dresden where possibly 25,000 non-combatants were killed. That's quite a combined body count (we still need to add in Nagasaki).

I just don't think we acted with honor. I'm well aware that most Americans see it as clever and heroic. Ask anyone here; I don't often see things politically, militarily, environmentally... like most Americans.

And you're still a blithering buffoon, wholly and proudly ignorant of actual history beyond fleeting glances at Wikipedia entries.

That's fine. But the fact that you form such iron clad opinions while being wrong is what makes you an idiot.

 

[davmat787]

Yes all sides in war commit atrocities. Are you saying that their behavior excused ours? We deliberately targeted civilians in a way that we knew would cause tens of thousands of deaths of innocent people. Japan indeed needed to be stopped, I just don't like the way we did it.

Trying to affect political change by targeting innocents is our definition of terrorism, no matter how evil their rulers. We tried the same tactic at Dresden where possibly 25,000 non-combatants were killed. That's quite a combined body count (we still need to add in Nagasaki).

I just don't think we acted with honor. I'm well aware that most Americans see it as clever and heroic. Ask anyone here; I don't often see things politically, militarily, environmentally... like most Americans.

Your viewing the issue with the benefit of 70 years of hindsight and analysis. The decision makers didn't have that benefit, and were well aware of how many death notices the War Department sent every day to parents all over the country.

On top of that was the cost in blood and treasure paid for the defeat of Nazi Germany from Scandinavia to northern Africa, and the U.K. to just outside Moscow.

You can't ignore the state of the country at the time the decision was to be made for dropping Fat Boy and Little Boy.

You need to place yourself in 1945 and use that periods sensibilities and politics while ignoring any subsequent knowledge to fairly analyze the issue. Otherwise your opinion is regarding using those weapons today.

 

[Sonikku]

I think we should have used the bomb. But we handled it poorly. Instead of giving ultra vague threats of "Surrender or face utter destruction" we should have told them we had a bomb of unparalleled power. From there we only would have had to use it once to prove the point. Instead we kept them in the dark, bombed a city and before their government could drive out and report the destruction, bombed them again.

To think they actually only thought they had lost contact with the city at the time. They didn't have a clue. Attacking civilians directly was also terrible. Surely a mushroom cloud over a military base would have driven just as hard a point as a mushroom cloud over a civilian city, wouldn't it?

 

[cubby1223]

Yes all sides in war commit atrocities. Are you saying that their behavior excused ours? We deliberately targeted civilians in a way that we knew would cause tens of thousands of deaths of innocent people. Japan indeed needed to be stopped, I just don't like the way we did it.

blah blah blah idiot speaking here.

You said:

At least they only attacked our military, at least they kept to a code of warfare, and yes we were desperate.

You have no fucking clue what occurred during World War II. You have absolutely no standing to make any moral judgments. Learn what happened, then come back and try to have a discussion. But right now you're woefully ignorant of a lot of things. Go away and don't come back until you have learned what happened throughout the war.

 

[cubby1223]

I think we should have used the bomb. But we handled it poorly. Instead of giving ultra vague threats of "Surrender or face utter destruction" we should have told them we had a bomb of unparalleled power. From there we only would have had to use it once to prove the point. Instead we kept them in the dark, bombed a city and before their government could drive out and report the destruction, bombed them again.

To think they actually only thought they had lost contact with the city at the time. They didn't have a clue. Attacking civilians directly was also terrible. Surely a mushroom cloud over a military base would have driven just as hard a point as a mushroom cloud over a civilian city, wouldn't it?

Prior to dropping the bomb on the city, the U.S. gave multitudes of warnings that a bomb was going to be dropped there. The people ignored the warnings. Do you know just how militarized their civilian population was at the time? Do you know just how devoted they were to their God, Hirohito?

When the U.S. took control of the strategic island Saipan, emperor Hirohito ordered the civilian population to commit suicide rather than be taken captive... and they did, the U.S. forces could only watch as the population committed suicide, in mass they walked to the cliffsides and jumped off.

Part of the ingrained culture in their population was that it is everyone's duty to die for the benefit of the nation if that time should ever come. It was believed to be cowardly and dishonorable to allow oneself to be captured. They believed it, they acted on it.

There was always going to be massive civilian causalities regardless of the method of stopping Japan.



As for the decision to use the bomb - the scientists on the Manhattan project had serious reservations about its destructive power. I think it was Oppenheimer who ultimately made the argument that the U.S. needed to use the bomb. If the U.S. didn't use it, other nations will develop the technology (hell, the Soviets had spies within the Manhattan project, that's how they developed their bomb so quickly afterwards). He had come to the conclusion the U.S. needed to use the bomb so that everyone in the world knows exactly what it's devastating power is before other nations have the technology at their disposal to use. Right or wrong, we haven't had another bomb used against another in the 70 years since WWII.

Germany, Japan, Russia, all three of these nations were already committing genocide on massive scales.

 

[Greenman]

You're an utter raging moron and completely, proudly, shamelessly ignorant of what you post about.

Congratulations on being a complete tool.

We should be able to quote without comment, as there is nothing I need to add to this.