Lexi Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 Actually, the United States only went against Hitler when their own interests were threatened. But I agree, no one complained when he was gone. Do you really mean it was okay to use atomic bombs in World War 2? You would had won anyway. The way I see it, you really caused alot of unneccisary suffering for innocent people. I don't think anyone has actually complained over your involvement in the World War 2, but that was 50 years ago. I already said this once, but one right doesn't justify two wrongs. On the other hand, the american government has only itself to blame for being attacked by terrorists. Your politics has created a rift between the west and the middle east, and no effort is really made to mend it. There's this saying... What goes around comes around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fear, the Angel's Name Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 I never said anything about why it happened, only that it did, indeed, happen. If America weren't what it is today, I think you, and a ton of other people, would be singing a different tune, and not necessarily a happy one, either. Gonna go be Zrothum and Belegriel and peace out of this thread. I am right, you are wrong, tough cookies. But that's the American in me, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeleeCrazy Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 I don't believe that the death penalty serves as a good deterance for crimes, nor do I believe it degenerates us as a society into further violence. That being said, I do think it is needed, If only to "assauge our anger". We as people, while intelligent and "civilized", are still animals in our own right. We need that "bloodlust" as atonement, not that it will ever cease the pain of loss or bring them back, but for closure from which we can begin to move on. It is human nature to seek reprisal, revenge, JUSTICE. I say Justice as well because I don't see a distinction. I believe that the deliberate killing of some CAN be justified(if anyone ever hurt someone I cared about, they would never get the chance for a "fair trial" And honestly I can't see why that's wrong.) Not all situations are the same and thusly not all can be handled the same way. The system is far from perfect and sometimes it does fail us, but that really isn't the argument here, it's whether or not we as humans have the right to decide if another should live or die...I say YES we do, and it should be exercised, as barbaric as that may be. I will also say that my hypocracy knows no bounds, even as a type I know that I wouldn't want the burden of such deciscions, and how wrong it would be for me to place it on another in my stead, but that doesn't make it any less true ( if only to myself). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 Actually' date=' the United States only went against Hitler when their own interests were threatened.[/quote'] Absolutely not true. Unless you are referring to the people as the interest of the United States. The United States did not want to get involved in the war because there was no real threat at the time and Europe was coping with the situation. When Britain declared war on Hitler the U.S. government began to propose the idea of acting, but the final decision was to keep us out of this war and hope that it could come to a peaceful solution. Then the Zimmer telegram fiasco with germany and Mexico set off the first sparks. After that Hitler allowed his u-boats to attack passenger ships be they british, american, or alien. America took a stand immediately once Japan preemptively attacked pearl harbor. That was why we went into the war. We had no idea of Hitler's screwed up fanaticism with the extermination of jews through death camps. Do you really mean it was okay to use atomic bombs in World War 2? You would had won anyway. The way I see it' date=' you really caused alot of unneccisary suffering for innocent people.[/quote'] If our president didn't have the balls he had unlike you pa---(I am going to refrain from cursing for now) a lot more innocents would have died. Where did we drop the bombs? On japan. Japan was a fortress island where even the smallest baby able to wield a bamboo pole had one sharpened and burned at the tip. Countless more japanese would have died to defend their homeland against the soldiers and countless more soldiers would have died. The estimated total soldiers needed to invade japan was more than those used in Normandy. The two atomic bombs...saved more lives than you can possibly count. On the other hand' date=' the american government has only itself to blame for being attacked by terrorists.[/quote'] I entirely agree with this one statement in your long list of indoctrinated ideas. If clinton had not being a coward and appeased the dam terrorists we would have not have so much trouble with them now. Bush sr. should have took out saddam when he had the chance. Clinton should have killed osama when he had the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 Absolutely not true. Unless you are referring to the people as the interest of the United States. The United States did not want to get involved in the war because there was no real threat at the time and Europe was coping with the situation. When Britain declared war on Hitler the U.S. government began to propose the idea of acting, but the final decision was to keep us out of this war and hope that it could come to a peaceful solution. Then the Zimmer telegram fiasco with germany and Mexico set off the first sparks. After that Hitler allowed his u-boats to attack passenger ships be they british, american, or alien. America took a stand immediately once Japan preemptively attacked pearl harbor. That was why we went into the war. We had no idea of Hitler's screwed up fanaticism with the extermination of jews through death camps. If our president didn't have the balls he had unlike you pa---(I am going to refrain from cursing for now) a lot more innocents would have died. Where did we drop the bombs? On japan. Japan was a fortress island where even the smallest baby able to wield a bamboo pole had one sharpened and burned at the tip. Countless more japanese would have died to defend their homeland against the soldiers and countless more soldiers would have died. The estimated total soldiers needed to invade japan was more than those used in Normandy. The two atomic bombs...saved more lives than you can possibly count. I entirely agree with this one statement in your long list of indoctrinated ideas. If clinton had not being a coward and appeased the dam terrorists we would have not have so much trouble with them now. Bush sr. should have took out saddam when he had the chance. Clinton should have killed osama when he had the chance. Saying panda is not swearing, now is it? You actually say it is justified to bomb civilian targets during a war in order to force your opponent to surrender? That's terrorism if anything. You went into war when Pearl Harbor was bombed. You could had stepped in and ended it a lot earlier. But that's all history, anyway, so I don't see why it was brought up in the first place. I am glad that the United States did help overthrow Hitler, but that does not mean that I am grateful to the current american government, or will ignore something I think they are doing wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekky Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 I love it how someone is a pansy because they don't like the idea of nuclear bombs falling on civillians. Are you the kind of guy who would bomb a hostage situation and kill 100 innocent people because killing the hostage takers could technically 'save more lives' in the future? Come to think of it, you should really just drop a few nukes on the Middle East. Sure, there'd be hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties - but think of all the lives you might save if you happened to get bin Laden or something. It's all good to say ends justify the means when it's people thousands of miles away and fifty years ago. I doubt people would be so quick to adopt that approach if it were people they cared about who had to be the ones sacrificed to theoretically save the lives of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 If your father was killed by , your mother raped by , and your eyes blinded by hot pokers by ...would you care if some country drops a bomb on you killing you and the ? I'd thank god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 Saying panda is not swearing, now is it? You actually say it is justified to bomb civilian targets during a war in order to force your opponent to surrender? That's terrorism if anything. You went into war when Pearl Harbor was bombed. You could had stepped in and ended it a lot earlier. But that's all history, anyway, so I don't see why it was brought up in the first place. I am glad that the United States did help overthrow Hitler, but that does not mean that I am grateful to the current american government, or will ignore something I think they are doing wrong. Why are you all referring to america as me anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 So you would have decided to send in our troops to invade japan when they would not surrender? And let the russians invade them as well? The russians were just waiting to take japanese territories in the pacific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 You know what...I'm just going to peace out...there is no putting sense into you people. But I will say one last thing. The reason why America is so much better than any other country in the world is because we... "United and we conquered, we conquered and were united." --me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WagesofSin Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 Japan was practically already ready to surrended before dropping the a-bombs. Many US officials opposed it too and saw it as unnecissary, expecting Japan to give up soon. On the other hand, America already sent a huge firebombing campaign onto Japan which killed more people in total than those two a-bombs. A campaign, I will add, that would have probably continued until Japan surrendered. So maybe, the a-bomb did bring the war in the pacific to an abrupt end rather than keeping it as a long drawn out war which may have brought even more casualties casualties than the A-bombs. Then again there was the whole radiation problem. Bah, I don't even know anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 Japan proposed a conditional surrender before the A-Bombs were used. The Americans rejected it because they wanted to try the Japanese Emperor for war crimes, who was immune in the proposition. The war continues, the bombs are dropped, Russia gets its little revenge for the Russia-Japanese wars, and Japan unconditionally surrenders. The Americans don't try the Japanese Emperor and instead use him as a propaganda tool. The Americans could've done the same thing and accepted the surrender months before the bombs were dropped. Now them Aussies..they just wanted to take the Emperor out back and shoot him. Side note: Firebombing was WAAAAAAYYYYY more devastating than the A-Bombs..they destroyed around 60 Japanese cities with firebombs if I remember correctly. It is so weird to sit in a city of 8 million people, complex superhighways, gigantic industrial/commercial superstructures, and think that 60 years ago, this was all burnt to the ground. Edit: Japan is now the only country with an Emperor. Edit2: Even more amazing is that I, an American, can go to that country and make friends with people. I had a very, very good friend whose grandfather was an officer of the imperial guard for the Emperor during the war. I can still talk to that man's daughter and grandson, and even talk about the political events surrounding what happened. Very, very, very amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 As Celerity said, firebombing was far more devastating than the nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More died in one night in Dresden than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. The major impact of the nuke drop was to prove that there would be no honorable defeat. America would just annihilate them a city at a time with a single bomb each. It'd require no major raids, no massed attacks. A single bomber can destroy a city. There's no way to fight back against that. That's why it caused Japan to agree to an unconditional surrender. In all honesty, I agree with the use of the nuke. They didn't know the severity of the radiation affects, the military's estimates for an invasion were 6 million Allied and Japanese deaths, the war needed to be ended, and a statement needed to be made to the Soviet Union about how far the US would let it push. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 If you visit the wax museums of Hiroshima, you will change your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Let me repeat what I said about the use of nukes: Japan WANTED to surrender, just not give up the Emperor to be executed. US wanted the Japanese Emperor to be tried for war crimes. Bombs used. Japan gave in and surrendered the Emperor also..the US didn't put him on trial. Therefore, they could've just as easily accepted the surrender EARLIER and avoided the nukes all together. There was absolutely NO need to use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 The first bomb was to prevent an ungodly ammount of casualties that an assault would cause, which would have been worse than D Day. The second wasn't necessary at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtsoShex Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 The second wasn't necessary at all. Well, maybe it was like when you double-click something, and you only need to click it once, and it launches zMUD twice or something? Maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Arrrgh, comeon people! They could've avoided the casualties anyways AND gotten everything they did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 I could see the second being necessary in that using another just three days later proved that the U.S. not only had the capability to build this weapon, it had the capability to build multiple. Using more than one proved that it could pepper Japan with them should it choose to, that the first wasn't simply some super-expensive single-shot idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 It would have been a good bluff then, cosidering that was the last of the original three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 The point Celerity is trying to make is that everything the United States got after dropping the two bombs, was already offered to them before they dropped them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Ok..I can't resist putting down clerity again... Let's put it into perspective... Let us say we don't drop the bombs right? Russia was the second greatest world power after America. Russia would have attacked us if we had not shown them that we were willing to drop bombs on a city, if necessary. THAT is what stopped the real casualties. The real issue was not the japanese, they were through, hanging on to their pride. The real threat was Russia, Stalin was ready to pounce on us if he saw weakness. Dropping the bombs showed them that they had better get some bombs or they wouldn't stand a chance in a war against us. Therfore the cold war. Fortunately the cold war turned out to be....cold. Pray to god tonight as you are playing fl that you can play freely, instead of being a communist citizen, no life of your own, the government practically watching you 24/7. Yes...I agree with you clerity that we could have accepted the Japanese surrender...however we needed to show the commies that we were ready to brandish our power if they went out of line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekky Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Top Web Results for "terrorism" 4 results for: terrorism View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source ter‧ror‧ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. I'm not calling the U.S. a terrorist organisation, but dropping nukes on civilian targets in Japan to coerce the Commies into submission? You've got to admit there are some similarities there. Al Qaeda probably say the same thing about what they're doing: We need to show the government that we were ready to brandish our power, so we bombed a train station. Once again, not calling the U.S a terrorist or anything, but when you're justifying the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people maybe you should choose your justifications a bit more carefully. I'm sure there were many reasons why the U.S. dropped the bombs on Japan, but you shouldn't justify it by saying you did it to prove a political point to the Russians - that's the same kind of reasoning used by people who commit terrible acts of terrorism around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Terrorism is when there is no aggravated conflict going on such as a war. I'm pretty sure that world war 2 was still in affect before we dropped those bombs.. but meh...I can't reason with you all. Manana! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 So all the things in Iraq which are going on aren't terrorism, right? And if someone attacked the United States, which is in a 'war on terror', then it wouldn't count as terrorism, because there's an 'aggravated conflict' going on? Your logic is compelling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.