Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: Dari
the nuclear bombs unleashed on japan proved to be a blessing in disguise. Not only did japan evolve to become one of the greatest nations on earth, they continue to tell everyone of the horrors of nukes. That's a lesson they'll never forget.
While I do believe that dropping the two bombs was the right decision, I find it odd to call it a "blessing in disguise". They were horrible weapons to use and hopefully will never be used again.
Would Japan still have evolved into a technological giant if the country was beaten into submission by land invasion rather than the a-bombs? Quite possibly. No one could predict what would have happened if the U.S. decided against using the a-bomb. Japan could have fought it out to the last woman and child or they could have surrendered when Americans made landfall. Historians are conflicted on what would have happened. West Germany turned out very well as well yet didn't have an a-bomb used on it. The successes of postwar Japan and West Germany are more attributed to the excellent US leadership at the time than to the defeated populations.
It is true that the example the US made of Japan has so far deterred the use of nuclear bombs, but to call the use of a weapon so that it would never be used again as a "blessing" seems to sanitize and even lessen the horror experienced by those who lived throught it and died because of it. This is not probably not what you meant, but it comes off that way.
Funny that you mentioned the word "sanitize." That is precisly what the Japanese have done to their history in North and South East Asia. Not only have they refused to apologize on a lot of occasions regarding their actions in those regions, but some of my japanese friends have the audacity to say that they (the Imperial Army) were acting on behalf of all asians. They said that the japanese were protecting asians from evil europeans by re-colonizing them. I have no sympathy for what those two nukes did to Japan. Not only did they attacked us without warning, but their actions in asia was equivalent to what the Germans did to the Jews and others in Europe. Little Boy and Fat Man were the roosters coming home to roost for the Japanese people. If anything, it was sweet revenge for both Americans and East Asians. No sympathy here. They absolutely deserved it. The Germans did too. But the firebombs worked their magic in that part of the world.
The Japanese civilians who were incinerated by nuclear weapons were no more culpible for the actions of their leaders than American civilians are for the actions of the Bush administration in Iraq. If the "chickens come home to roost" in the form of more terrorist attacks here will you be as heartless in your assessment of the current aggressor?
nice of you to get off-topic, but as for the global war on terror, we didn't start it. As with Pearl Harbor, we were attacked. The first thing of any military campaign is to take the fight to the enemy's redoubt.
The difference with terror is that it won't end with a truce, so I'll accept all eventualities.
As for the Japanese civilians, they were being represented by the Imperial Army. So the nuclear attack on them is justified because it was a military conflict. They supported their soldiers in one form or another. And let's not debate this philosophically since all the facts are already written. Again, for what they did to us and the East Asians (millions killed), the japanese were literally begging for a nuke.
The USA has supported dictators and tyrants for decades. Including Saddam Hussein.
We helped in the overthrow of governments around the world and replaced elected leaders with despots. We are more culpible in this than you are willing to admit.
Nice to know you're willing to accept the eventualities. I suggest you let the people who would like to attack our country know you don't mind. Maybe they can limit their attack to you and other people like you who don't mind. The rest of us do mind. I for one did not support the Bush administration's aggression in Iraq. Aggression which has taken the focus off of the war on terror and placed it on a nation, as it now turns out, was and is no threat to the USA.
you and your sunflower wearing hippy cohorts think life is an easy commune away? the world is more complicated than your convulated and pot-induced visions propose. I won't even ask, let alone phantom, what you would do if you were in the shoes of world leaders. Fact is, the world doesn't function on trust, marijuana, and friendship. It takes hardwork and dealings with rogue figures to bring about the ends that you currently enjoy. We live in a world where interests is king. I, for one, am willing to accept all of our history. You are willing to nitpick on policies and actions and pass the blame when it conviently suits you. I accept the realization of what tomorrow may bring, and deal with it. You, on the other hand, choose to bitch and whine, rather than acknowledge that what you currently posess and want future generations to posess, are not always brought about by the cleanest methodologies.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're totally oblivious as to how the world works and are thus innocent. Hence, if that is the case, and you've never voted for anyone that has any blemishes on their record or those that pursue US interests with any means necessary, then I apologize.
As for the subject at hand, the Japanese people deserved to get nuked because of the immense and wonton tragedies they caused their neighbors. As for comparison of that to 9/11, the difference here is that a stateless enemy with
no representation attacked us without warning.
It's very difficult to fathom the mind of a person who makes ridiculous claims about someone they have no knowledge of. I can only surmise you attack me because your position is indefensable.
Your world view is, surprise, much like the world view of the neo-cons who have hijacked the simpleton Bush and caused the very type of aggression you rail against - when the aggressor is Japan. There is not nor was there ever proven any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. So how do you justify our aggression there? Why do you insist on using this as your defense? Are you the intellectual equivalent of Bush? Can the neo-cons influence you as easily as they do that idiot?
As for a state that causes the wanton suffering of its neighbors our policies in Central and South America alone qualify us in that respect. And as for the stateless enemy that attacked us without warning, they weren't stateless, they were overwhelmingly Saudis. And there were myriad warnings which were ignored by our intelligence community and by Bush himself.
Perhaps it is you who is living in a pot induced fantasy. I know that people become what they do. In our dealings with "rogues" we have become them. Outside our shores it is we who are considered the center of the axis of evil.
Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq? Saudis Arabia spends millions in support of terrorism. They supported members of Al Qaeda. Can it be their business partners in the USA, current and former members of our leadership, are protecting their interests at the price of terrorism?
You think you have a handle on how the world works. You are a babe in the woods. You and your lubricant.
You mis-read me. I never mentioned Iraq and Al-Qaeda in this topic and I haven't a clue where you got it from. In reference to al-qaeda, I was talking about 9/11. Now go back and re-read my statement.
Second, I admitted I couldn't understand your hippy ways because they were oblivious to reality.
Third, your comparison of US policy to the americas with that of japan and her neighbors is incredibly stupid and doesn't warrant an answer.
Fourth, including iraq and SA here only underscores my belief that you really don't pay attention to what you're reading.
Fifth, Al-Qaeda is a stateless terror network, despite the fact that it was 15 saudis that attacked us on 9/11, it was 4 egyptians at the head. Furthermore, the terror network has recruited all over the muslim world. It is not supported by the Saudi government. They want to overthrow the latter. Get a damn clue.
Sixth, I see my KY joke has found a following. How sad.
First, you say were talking about 9/11, "nice of you to get off-topic, but as for the global war on terror, we didn't start it. As with Pearl Harbor, we were attacked. The first thing of any military campaign is to take the fight to the enemy's redoubt." Remember saying that? You were referring to Iraq and 9/11. A country and an event which had no connection.
No, I was not referring to iraq. I haven't a clue how you got that insinuation
Second, you are an utterly confused and naive individual. Your insistence on labeling me a "hippy" proves my point.
you are the one being naive. Check further down to see why
Third, why is a wrong committed by the USA acceptable but wrongs committed by any other nation not? From Iran-Contra to the School of the Americas to Salvatore Allende and the list goes on and on and on. But we're the USA so whatever we do we have good reason to do. The ends justify the means. The ends do not justify the means. Read "Crime and Punishment."
First you compare our actions to those of the japanese. Now you're backtracking and calling on moral philosophy to prove your point.. Remember when I told you not to get philosophical on this debate? The problem with philosophy debates is that it is always on-going, never-ending.
Fourth, the world is a large place but it's all connected. Iraq, South America, the middle east, Africa - the fingerprints of the USA are all over the planet and more often than not our policies are concerned with expediency instead of long term good.
Care to prove that point?
Fifth, Al Qaeda is supported by nat
ions
chief of which is Saudi Arabia. But, as I said, the royal family there has close business ties with the royal family here so no worry, we'll attack Iraq instead and ignore the true threat.
Please prove that. I'm waiting for your proofs.
Sixth, your KY joke was so stupid it really is sad.
Then why mention it?
