Hiroshima - Crime Against Humanity?

[MrJim]

What do you guys think? Would Japan have remained a powerful and deadly foe if we hadn't gone through with the bombing? Interestingly enough, most people don't know that Hiroshima was the first of two atomic strikes, the other in Nagasaki.

Good background article. (http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm)

[Rise Up]

The Japanese people were brain washed into thinking that we would invade their country, rape their women, and murder their children and elderly. Without this show of force Hirohito would not have ordered the military to stand down.

Nagasaki was a mistake. If they had waited for information to get to the States ANd to the Japanese people before launching the second attack the second bomb might not have had to be used.

[yee-haw]

They got what was comming in a sense, I mean war is war.
There will always be loss of life.

and you know... Well, I'll save that for the rant thread of my own.

[Hammerhead]

well what they did to pearl harbor
and to our military p.o.w.
they got what they got
no remorse in war

[yee-haw]

well what they did to pearl harbor
and to our military p.o.w.
they got what they got
no remorse in war

My thoughts exactly.

[MrJim]

Yeah, I feel that way myself. Reading up on it in more detail is rather disturbing though. It also perplexes me a bit that we showed up with this much gall and force after the harbor was bombed, but after 9/11 which was much worse, we didn't a-bomb the shit out of Afghanistan... but that's how it goes, I guess..

[Hammerhead]

if you guys get a chance
watch battletech 360
it's on the history channel friday nights at 9 i think
anyway they just had the whole series on the grey ghost
the most decorated navy ship in u.s. history

anyone want to take a guess at what ship that is
and jimbo that series showed alot about japan
and how we has a fighting force came together

this friday it starts the series about patton
one mean son of a bitch i would fight for
i highly recomend it

[Hammerhead]

Yeah, I feel that way myself. Reading up on it in more detail is rather disturbing though. It also perplexes me a bit that we showed up with this much gall and force after the harbor was bombed, but after 9/11 which was much worse, we didn't a-bomb the shit out of Afghanistan... but that's how it goes, I guess..

well jim i feel we should have as the same with iraq

load up the stealth bombers and let them loose

[Carrot]

By that time the world had had enough.

Everyoe was sick of fighting and/or had been beaten to a pulp, the one island nation which would require a massive operation to subdue simply refused to surrender when it was all over, you can see the reasons for dropping a bomb.

However, many see it as the U.S treaing it as convenient chance to test their new super weapon, this is confounded by the fact that they chose to drop a second one so soon after the first.

The silver lining to all this is that the world managed ot see how terrible they were at that stage. Better they were used then when they weren't as powerful as todays atomic weapons.

[Carrot]

well jim i feel we should have as the same with iraq

load up the stealth bombers and let them loose


Iraq? Are you off your head? I suppose you think the best plan would be to nuke the whole middle east then?

[yee-haw]

Iraq? Are you off your head? I suppose you think the best plan would be to nuke the whole middle east then?

Most of it anyway.

[Hammerhead]

Iraq? Are you off your head? I suppose you think the best plan would be to nuke the whole middle east then?

nope i was over there i know the bullshit that was going on
the congress has no damn business politizing the war
we are in there to win well guess what
alot of damn good men and women got killed because
of congress being a bunch of damn pussies and letting
the media run the theater by saying all the negative bullshit

[LedZap]

nope i was over there i know the bullshit that was going on
the congress has no damn business politizing the war
we are in there to win well guess what
alot of damn good men and women got killed because
of congress being a bunch of damn pussies and letting
the media run the theater by saying all the negative bullshit

Same as Vietnam

[Carrot]

nope i was over there i know the bullshit that was going on
the congress has no damn business politizing the war
we are in there to win well guess what
alot of damn good men and women got killed because
of congress being a bunch of damn pussies and letting
the media run the theater by saying all the negative bullshit

The Iraq war isn't linked to 9/11 anyway, America and it's allies has no business being there.

The whole region is less secure, and the general population is far worse off and in more danger because of it. It has damaged the world opinion of the U.S and many people have died because of it.

What do you mean when you say you're there to win? Does nuking everything to shit count as a win in your book? America "won". The west is there for (mainly) the oil and trying to save face. "Winning" by wiping out the population with nukes isn't really going to help anyone is it?

[Hammerhead]

exactly zapper

and these assholes they all cry about this and that
blame the military for all our problems
fuck them
they ought to get down and kiss every vet's ass
for protecting them

[yee-haw]

The Iraq war isn't linked to 9/11

Explain please?!?!?

[Carrot]

Explain please?!?!?

Where's te evidence linking Iraq to 9/11?

The main reason was there were apparently WMDs, except there weren't.

[MrJim]

The Iraq war isn't linked to 9/11 anyway, America and it's allies has no business being there.

The whole region is less secure, and the general population is far worse off and in more danger because of it. It has damaged the world opinion of the U.S and many people have died because of it.

What do you mean when you say you're there to win? Does nuking everything to shit count as a win in your book? America "won". The west is there for (mainly) the oil and trying to save face. "Winning" by wiping out the population with nukes isn't really going to help anyone is it?

You're probably right, but I think the mountains where these assholes have been hiding might need a nuke or two.

[yee-haw]

Where's te evidence linking Iraq to 9/11?

The main reason was there were apparently WMDs, except there weren't.

You can't over simplify the situation that esculated the countries into war though.

[Paisleyspeaker]

well what they did to pearl harbor
and to our military p.o.w.
they got what they got
no remorse in war

Pearl Harbor and the POW;s were military men, men who had volunteered with full knowledge of the risks they faced. It wasn't until futher into the war that we began to draft men. Hiroshima killed civilians, women and children. We didn't drop that bomb on a military base, or even the emperors place, we dropped it on an unsuspecting city.

IMO if Hiroshima wasn't the crime, Nagasaki sure was. If you accept the traditional reasons given (citizens would have fought to the last person or commited sucide they were so brainwashed to be afraid of us) then we should have waited longer after Hiroshima for the news to reach the leaders. We didn't give enough time considering the poor communication tech in Japan in the 1940's and the facts 1. we torched what was there and 2 it wasn't until a few days after the true effects of the radiation began to show. The Nagasaki bomb was a crime against humanity.

[Hammerhead]

The Iraq war isn't linked to 9/11 anyway, America and it's allies has no business being there.

The whole region is less secure, and the general population is far worse off and in more danger because of it. It has damaged the world opinion of the U.S and many people have died because of it.

What do you mean when you say you're there to win? Does nuking everything to shit count as a win in your book? America "won". The west is there for (mainly) the oil and trying to save face. "Winning" by wiping out the population with nukes isn't really going to help anyone is it?

you are wrong al-quida was being trained in iraq
we are at war with al- quida

you don't go to war to lose now do ya

and my friend you know how many schools we have built
how much inferstructer we built
the tyranny of saddam is gone
that is a good thing

to be honest in 90 and 91 we should have steamrolled right to baghdad
then and wiped them out

we have lower level bombs that would wipe them out
just as good as a nuke and that region has been lees secure for
thousands of years

[Carrot]

You can't over simplify the situation that esculated the countries into war though.

The bottom line is that Iraq/Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11. You can't go around saying America is defending/avenging itself in that situation.


Originally Posted by MrJim
You're probably right, but I think the mountains where these assholes have been hiding might need a nuke or two.

Sure, I'm all for napalming terrorists in holes. But hearing proclamations about nuking/carpet bombing tactics (courtesy of ann coulter) are ignorant commets which just get on my nerves.

[Hammerhead]

Where's te evidence linking Iraq to 9/11?

The main reason was there were apparently WMDs, except there weren't.


right now they are in syria
and elsewhere
there is documintation of trucks by the hundreds leaving iraq
and going into syria
i don't think they were just going on a sunday drive

[Hammerhead]

to win a war and to save american lives
we should use everything in our arsenal
as a solider my oath is to protect america and it's laws
not u.n. law or europe law but american
and i took that very seriously
and if i had to shoot through a women to kill a terrorist
holding her as a shield because i knew that that man
would not surrender and that by letting him go
could get some of my buddies killed
guess what condem me all you want
but if you have never been there
you don't have a fucking clue
i'm pulling the trigger

[Carrot]

you are wrong al-quida was being trained in iraq
we are at war with al- quida

you don't go to war to lose now do ya

and my friend you know how many schools we have built
how much inferstructer we built
the tyranny of saddam is gone
that is a good thing

to be honest in 90 and 91 we should have steamrolled right to baghdad
then and wiped them out

we have lower level bombs that would wipe them out
just as good as a nuke and that region has been lees secure for
thousands of years

Do you watch the news? Iraquis were far better off before the war. Saddam may have been a tyrant, but he kept the place in order.

The schools and infastructure? How much was destroyed before ay kind of rebuilding went on, regardless the amount standing/in place nw is a fraction of what there once was. In fact the war attracted terrorists to the region making it far more dangerous for everyone involved, and cetified a whole new generation of america hating suicide bombers by giving them even more of a reason to join the cause. Don't kid youself into thinking america is the liberator here saving the poor locals.

Besides, Saddam was a well known opponent of any power which wasn't his, alquida is definately more rampant in that region than it ever was.

When you talk about lower level bombs that would wipe them out, who are you talking about exactly? Isn't bobingthe terrorists the plan already or are you talking about bombing indiscriminantly?

[thememan]

you are wrong al-quida was being trained in iraq
we are at war with al- quida

you don't go to war to lose now do ya

and my friend you know how many schools we have built
how much inferstructer we built
the tyranny of saddam is gone
that is a good thing

to be honest in 90 and 91 we should have steamrolled right to baghdad
then and wiped them out

we have lower level bombs that would wipe them out
just as good as a nuke and that region has been lees secure for
thousands of years

Actually, you are the one that is wrong. Al-queda caused just as many problems and headaches for Iraq as it did us, if not moreso. Al-Queda was a largely extremist fringe group which was unwavering in its attitudes and ideals. Sadaam was a secularist, with complete and total control over his country. Quite frankly, Hussein and Al-queda hated each other just as much as they disliked us. Osama caused a lot of problem for Hussein, and tried whole-heartedly to undermine his control over the country.

Just because they are in the same region, doesn't mean they belong to a hive mind. The political atmosphere of the region, and the varying groups, is tenuous at best, and down-right murderous much of the time.

[Carrot]

right now they are in syria
and elsewhere
there is documintation of trucks by the hundreds leaving iraq
and going into syria
i don't think they were just going on a sunday drive

Oh, I suppose the world leaders who actually initiated the war forgot to tell everyone because then it would look like they had a legitimate reason to go to war right?

[yee-haw]

Dude, You sound like a communist

[Hammerhead]

i'm talking about bombing were their nest are
bomb the living shit out of it

bomb the islam churchs were they are hiding
don't fight them with one hand behind our back


and yes i watch the news it's fox
fair and balance

[Carrot]

to win a war and to save american lives
we should use everything in our arsenal
as a solider my oath is to protect america and it's laws
not u.n. law or europe law but american
and i took that very seriously
and if i had to shoot through a women to kill a terrorist
holding her as a shield because i knew that that man
would not surrender and that by letting him go
could get some of my buddies killed
guess what condem me all you want
but if you have never been there
you don't have a fucking clue
i'm pulling the trigger


To save american lives?

Where does the war in Iraq factor in saving American lives?

The only reason soldiers families can bear the thought of their son/brother/son getting killed abroad is that they died for liberty and freedom. I ahve total respect for the soldiers and what they do.

But the sad fact of te matter istheir lives are needlessly put at risk. If a soldier has to make that descision on the ground I support itwhol hertedly.

I do not support the fucked up political process where the word 'patriotic' is twisted and used to manipulate people into following needless agendas.

[Hammerhead]

Actually, you are the one that is wrong. Al-queda caused just as many problems and headaches for Iraq as it did us, if not moreso. Al-Queda was a largely extremist fringe group which was unwavering in its attitudes and ideals. Sadaam was a secularist, with complete and total control over his country. Quite frankly, Hussein and Al-queda hated each other just as much as they disliked us. Osama caused a lot of problem for Hussein, and tried whole-heartedly to undermine his control over the country.

Just because they are in the same region, doesn't mean they belong to a hive mind. The political atmosphere of the region, and the varying groups, is tenuous at best, and down-right murderous much of the time.

that may very well be i've been wrong before
but they are there now
and we should do whatever we can
to win it for america and the iraqies

[yee-haw]

Needless agendas huh?
Well that's just classic.

[thememan]

to win a war and to save american lives
we should use everything in our arsenal
as a solider my oath is to protect america and it's laws
not u.n. law or europe law but american
and i took that very seriously
and if i had to shoot through a women to kill a terrorist
holding her as a shield because i knew that that man
would not surrender and that by letting him go
could get some of my buddies killed
guess what condem me all you want
but if you have never been there
you don't have a fucking clue
i'm pulling the trigger

We live in a world today where "God and Country" isn't good enough. Frankly, what makes a civilian over there, who has never touched a gun, shot a person, or committed any act of war, any less valuable than my life? Such simple ideas are out-dated, archaic, idiotic, xenophobic, and pretty much racist.

And also, I have a military friend who was over there, was shot, blown up, saw many of his friends and comrades killed, and made it back here alive. Want to know what his feelings are? He doesn't blame the people who fight us one bit. The way he views it, if a foreign group were to come to our country, for whatever reason, occupy the land, kill our brothers and sisters(Claiming "casualties of war" as an excuse), destabilize the political and economic atmosphere of area, and any number of other things, we would fight just as hard, and do exactly the same as they are. They aren't fighting just because they hate, they have their reasons to fight us over there. Very good reasons, really, which are pretty much the exact same reasons we would fight if the same happened to us. He doesn't think we should end the war, though, but instead find a way to end it more passively.

Really, that's the entire point: We can't finish this war by fighting them with guns and steel. It will, inevitably, only bring more to their cause than anything. People's lives are destroyed due to "collateral damage", and we really expect them to smile and be happy? No, of course not. Of course we're not trying to do these things, however anybody would be pissed off to all hell if the same happened to them. So I don't hold a single bad note to those that fight us(Except, of course, those that orchestrate these groups, as they don't give two flying fucks about what happens to the people). Nor do I hold a bad note towards our people over there(Instead saving all of my ill-will towards those that orchestrate what we do). Instead, I believe we should find a way to minimize our damaging affect in the region, which would do far more good than our guns and steel have had in the past six years.

[Carrot]

Dude, You sound like a communist


Do you realise how stereotypical this makes you sound?
I thought you lot had outgrown the Red fear.


i'm talking about bombing were their nest are
bomb the living shit out of it

bomb the islam churchs were they are hiding
don't fight them with one hand behind our back


and yes i watch the news it's fox
fair and balance

Fox news is balanced? No wonder.

Bomb the mosques indiscriminantly? Thank God you aren't in charge.

Why don't you just round up the population, put them to work on the oil plants before gassing them?

[MrJim]

Needless agendas huh?
Well that's just classic.

I don't think our fallen troops would like to hear that they died during a 'needless agenda'. But that's just me. How about during an 'ambitious miscalculation'.

[yee-haw]

I don't think our fallen troops would like to hear that they died during a 'needless agenda'. But that's just me. How about during an 'ambitious miscalculation'.

Sounds more apt than "needless agendas"

[LedZap]

Do you realise how stereotypical this makes you sound?
I thought you lot had outgrown the Red fear.



Fox news is balanced? No wonder.

Bomb the mosques indiscriminantly? Thank God you aren't in charge.

Why don't you just round up the population, put them to work on the oil plants before gassing them?

I think thats what Saddam had in mind with the Kurds (you know,the ones that were better off with him in power)

[Carrot]

Needless agendas huh?
Well that's just classic.

My mistake.

We all need oil. Which is why major oil contracts were drawn up as soon as it was possible.

When the war first started I defended it. There were WMDs a tyrant and America would surely sort it out.

I'm a bit older now and I realise they were right, it was basically for the oil, there were no WMDs and everythin is FUBAR.

[Paisleyspeaker]

Hammerhead
You say that Al-quida was being trained in Iraq, but no legitimate news source has proven that. in fact when I looked I found the opposite:
"A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq."Wasington post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html)

Hussien and Bin Laden didn't like each other

Bin Laden didn't like Hussien lack of religion
and Hussien would not have played host to anyone who could threaten his power in any way, and the minor celebrity status that Bin Laden held would have done just that.

[Carrot]

I think thats what Saddam had in mind with the Kurds (you know,the ones that were better off with him in power)

I'm not defending Saddam here. There are plenty of tyrants all over the world, but America makes Iraq their business (and now many people are worse off, not sure about casualties but they must either way iraqis or kurds die), which just happens to have oil it didn't want to share, the fact hat it was ruled by a tyrant gave them a more legitamite excuse, WMDs made sure of it.

[Hammerhead]

To save american lives?

Where does the war in Iraq factor in saving American lives?

The only reason soldiers families can bear the thought of their son/brother/son getting killed abroad is that they died for liberty and freedom. I ahve total respect for the soldiers and what they do.

But the sad fact of te matter istheir lives are needlessly put at risk. If a soldier has to make that descision on the ground I support itwhol hertedly.

I do not support the fucked up political process where the word 'patriotic' is twisted and used to manipulate people into following needless agendas.

well this is all hypothetical since he is dead
but saddam hated us
for good reason we kicked his ass
now after 911 he thought this was great america was hit
americans died saddam was happy

once al-queda hit us they showed we could be attacked
now from the type of person saddam was
i'm sure he put in a call to someone
i have these wmd's lets use them on america
or one of america's intrest

say israel and that would have been alot worse

world intell showed that iraq had wmd's
the congress saw the same info that bush seen
the congress was in on all these meetings
they all believed that they were there

they were up to about a month or so before we attacked

but as i said how saddam reacted is by my own
understanding of how his troops
reacted and by what they said as we held them prisoner

[yee-haw]

I'm not defending Saddam here. There are plenty of tyrants all over the world, but America makes Iraq their business (and now many people are worse off, not sure about casualties but they must either way iraqis or kurds die), which just happens to have oil it didn't want to share, the fact hat it was ruled by a tyrant gave them a more legitamite excuse, WMDs made sure of it.

The lengths some people will go to distort and bend the truth is amazing.

[Carrot]

The lengths some people will go to distort and bend the truth is amazing.

Fine, since I'm bending the truth why don't you straghten it all out.

Why was Iraq invaded?

[Hammerhead]

carrot if what you say about america going to war for oil is true

would it not make more sense to drill our own
there is plenty of oil right here
more then what iraq has

[Carrot]

well this is all hypothetical since he is dead
but saddam hated us
for good reason we kicked his ass
now after 911 he thought this was great america was hit
americans died saddam was happy

once al-queda hit us they showed we could be attacked
now from the type of person saddam was
i'm sure he put in a call to someone
i have these wmd's lets use them on america
or one of america's intrest

say israel and that would have been alot worse

world intell showed that iraq had wmd's
the congress saw the same info that bush seen
the congress was in on all these meetings
they all believed that they were there

they were up to about a month or so before we attacked

but as i said how saddam reacted is by my own
understanding of how his troops
reacted and by what they said as we held them prisoner

He didn't like America. Many countries don't.

At what stage does a pre-emptive attack just become an attack?

The intel was wrong. World leaders have gone to no lengths to prove otherwise since the war started.

[Carrot]

carrot if what you say about america going to war for oil is true

would it not make more sense to drill our own
there is plenty of oil right here
more then what iraq has

Why were major oil contracts drawn up in iraq then?

Why is much of America's oil still being imported from the middle east?

[LedZap]

Why is much of America's oil still being imported from the middle east?

One word.........Democrats

[thememan]

Fine, since I'm bending the truth why don't you straghten it all out.

Why was Iraq invaded?

The problem is, you honestly won't get any specific answer. "To protect America!" some will say. But from what, exactly? "To bring freedom!" others will say. But how exactly? "To fight terrorists!" still others say. But where at, exactly?

The problem is, you will never get anything more than vague answer at best, or superficial and unbacked claims at the least. The problem is, nobody really knows why, exactly, we are there, what exactly we are going to do to end it(A logically follow-up to the first, as we cannot form a plan of ending a war we don't really have a clear idea of why we are fighting), and how we will go about getting to that end. Quite frankly, if this war were about Oil, I would be somewhat relieved, because at the very least it would be some sort of precise reason for the war(However one without an end). The going consensus among most of those I know who have actually fought in Iraq, and who don't just claim to over an anonymous message board is that they honestly haven't the foggiest idea what they are fighting for over there.

[yee-haw]

Fine, since I'm bending the truth why don't you straghten it all out.

Why was Iraq invaded?

Have it how you want it carrot, Fight them there or here.
Thankfully at this junction, It's not a matter of where.

[Hammerhead]

We live in a world today where "God and Country" isn't good enough. Frankly, what makes a civilian over there, who has never touched a gun, shot a person, or committed any act of war, any less valuable than my life? Such simple ideas are out-dated, archaic, idiotic, xenophobic, and pretty much racist.

And also, I have a military friend who was over there, was shot, blown up, saw many of his friends and comrades killed, and made it back here alive. Want to know what his feelings are? He doesn't blame the people who fight us one bit. The way he views it, if a foreign group were to come to our country, for whatever reason, occupy the land, kill our brothers and sisters(Claiming "casualties of war" as an excuse), destabilize the political and economic atmosphere of area, and any number of other things, we would fight just as hard, and do exactly the same as they are. They aren't fighting just because they hate, they have their reasons to fight us over there. Very good reasons, really, which are pretty much the exact same reasons we would fight if the same happened to us. He doesn't think we should end the war, though, but instead find a way to end it more passively.

Really, that's the entire point: We can't finish this war by fighting them with guns and steel. It will, inevitably, only bring more to their cause than anything. People's lives are destroyed due to "collateral damage", and we really expect them to smile and be happy? No, of course not. Of course we're not trying to do these things, however anybody would be pissed off to all hell if the same happened to them. So I don't hold a single bad note to those that fight us(Except, of course, those that orchestrate these groups, as they don't give two flying fucks about what happens to the people). Nor do I hold a bad note towards our people over there(Instead saving all of my ill-will towards those that orchestrate what we do). Instead, I believe we should find a way to minimize our damaging affect in the region, which would do far more good than our guns and steel have had in the past six years.

alot of these insurgents are from iran
now that is our stupidity for not having the border better protected
but you can't be everywhere
so what are we to do let the irainians take control
sorry to hear about your buddy
but for everyone that say's that there are two more
that say's they will go back

now after we toppled saddam alot of this other shit started
we are over there now
if we leave without leaving a strong iraqi government in place
then we utterly failed

[LedZap]

Fine, since I'm bending the truth why don't you straghten it all out.

Why was Iraq invaded?

Iraq was invaded because they possessed WMD's.The worlds intelligence sources cited this. Just because none were found does not "prove" anything.

[Rise Up]

Saddam had mobile chem labs. Now, please prove how THIS pic is wrong and that they don't have a mobile lab in that truck. :rolleyes:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2003/mobile_lab.jpg

[Paisleyspeaker]

http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/jackassfp.jpg

[Rise Up]

http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/jackassfp.jpg

http://theshentontimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/blank-facepalm.gif

[Carrot]

Iraq was invaded because they possessed WMD's.The worlds intelligence sources cited this. Just because none were found does not "prove" anything.

None were found.

And the intelligence that detected them somehow failed to find or record where they went. Once the war started no further references were made to them, and no further efforts were made to find them.

No further efforts were made to find WMDs which were "lost" in an unstable region! No efforts were mde to secure them, the "main" reason for attacking! Doesn't that indicate something?

[Paisleyspeaker]

Saddam had mobile chem labs. Now, please prove how THIS pic is wrong and that they don't have a mobile lab in that truck. :rolleyes:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2003/mobile_lab.jpg

okay Rise prove it isn't full of potatoes, or hello kitty dolls, or astroglide and blow-up dolls!!!!

[Rise Up]

None were found.

And the intelligence that detected them somehow failed to find or record where they went. Once the war started no further references were made to them, and no further efforts were made to find them.

No further efforts were made to find WMDs which were "lost" in an unstable region! No efforts were mde to secure them, the "main" reason for attacking! Doesn't that indicate something?

You're a conspiracy theorist aren't you? :cool:

[Rise Up]

okay Rise prove it isn't full of potatoes, or hello kitty dolls, or astroglide and blow-up dolls!!!!

........:rolleyes::mad:

[Carrot]

Saddam had mobile chem labs. Now, please prove how THIS pic is wrong and that they don't have a mobile lab in that truck. :rolleyes:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2003/mobile_lab.jpg

A truck with a sticker on it?

Besides, chemical weapons arent WMDs. Terrible things, but not WMDs.

[LedZap]

Close your eyes and think back. Remember when the Kurds were gassed and killed by 1000's by Saddam? At that time photos showed that he had TONS of that stuff.And during the war , NONE was found. No WMD? BULLSHIT.

[Carrot]

You're a conspiracy theorist aren't you? :cool:

Wow, use the cool face all you want, really contributing there buddy.

I'm pointing out the lack of proof and lck of explanation by world leaders. It's not much of a conspiracy. Maybe it's just a convenient mistake.

[LedZap]

A truck with a sticker on it?

Besides, chemical weapons arent WMDs. Terrible things, but not WMDs.

BULLSHIT !!!

[yee-haw]

On spot zap.

[Carrot]

Event then, what was found? Ziltch, what did the intel do between detecting them and the time we got there?

[Rise Up]

and my friend you know how many schools we have built
how much inferstructer we built
the tyranny of saddam is gone
that is a good thing


Completely true here Hammer. :cool:
Even if we didn't go for WMDs who cares as long as Saddam, a man who dropped tons of NERVE GAS on his own people, is gone and dead. They are getting better educations and they finally have a sense of DEMOCRACY. Is that wrong? Do you hate democracy Carrot? You don't need to answer because from the way you're talking.....it's easy to see how you feel. From now on when you talk about Iraq, I want you to think of the women and children who won't see their husbands, sons, fathers ever again because they went to help another country into Democracy.

[LedZap]

Event then, what was found? Ziltch, what did the intel do between detecting them and the time we got there?

The war started and that type of intel dropped to zero

[Rise Up]

A WMD is defined as a weapon that can kill large numbers of human beings and/or cause great damage to man-made stuctures, natural structures, or the biosphere in general. NOTE THE BOLD LETTERS CARROT. NOTE THEM.

[Montanarchist]

1) The Japs were batshit insane, they would have continued fighting until everyone but the command had starved to death, the United States had to show themselves to be ultimately superior in every way and make it impossible for anyone to willingly support the war from Japan's side.
2) Because of above mentioned insanity, the US counted on that it would take at least six bombs (once a week or something like that) to make them surrender. It was an acceptable miscalculation if they dropped Fat Man to early, before the Japanese had time to signal their surrender, all though I personally believe that they were still undecided on the issue after Little Boy.
3) The fire bombings of Tokyo and various other cities had already killed more civilians, the nukes were put in place partially to save human lives.

So that's why it was not a crime against humanity.

[LedZap]

1) The Japs were batshit insane, they would have continued fighting until everyone but the command had starved to death, the United States had to show themselves to be ultimately superior in every way and make it impossible for anyone to willingly support the war from Japan's side.
2) Because of above mentioned insanity, the US counted on that it would take at least six bombs (once a week or something like that) to make them surrender. It was an acceptable miscalculation if they dropped Fat Man to early, before the Japanese had time to signal their surrender, all though I personally believe that they were still undecided on the issue after Little Boy.
3) The fire bombings of Tokyo and various other cities had already killed more civilians, the nukes were put in place partially to save human lives.

So that's why it was not a crime against humanity.

You're right IMO

[yee-haw]

I agree also, Can't debunk facts.

[Rise Up]

What next? Can we talk about the conspiracies of the 20th century? I'm sure we might get a couple members back. I can tell just by looking at some old posts. Walter Weiss and Conspiracy. I would have had lots of fun with them. :D

[MrJim]

I wonder why conspiracy hasn't been on in so long? He was one of the best posters on the board! Come join us again, man, and bring Loseirdo with you.

[yee-haw]

I wonder why conspiracy hasn't been on in so long? He was one of the best posters on the board! Come join us again, man, and bring Loseirdo with you.

Funny you mention conspiracy, I was just reading one of his threads.

[MrJim]

Funny you mention conspiracy, I was just reading one of his threads.

It was Rise that brought it up, but there are a few members that really brought a lot with them to the forum, it sucks for them to abandon the site.

[yee-haw]

It was Rise that brought it up, but there are a few members that really brought a lot with them to the forum, it sucks for them to abandon the site.

Why is that though?
I've read alot of good post by the no-longer present users.
I really would like to see a few i've never met come back and post also.

[Rise Up]

Well, some of them would be fun to debate with but.....I would probably frustrate them so much that they would just give up. :D




*Oh shit!!! It's the 7th!!! :eek:

[Carrot]

Completely true here Hammer. :cool:
Even if we didn't go for WMDs who cares as long as Saddam, a man who dropped tons of NERVE GAS on his own people, is gone and dead. They are getting better educations and they finally have a sense of DEMOCRACY. Is that wrong? Do you hate democracy Carrot? You don't need to answer because from the way you're talking.....it's easy to see how you feel. From now on when you talk about Iraq, I want you to think of the women and children who won't see their husbands, sons, fathers ever again because they went to help another country into Democracy.

Exactly my point.

I state my case against the war, and even though I say I support the actual soldiers you try to guilt trip me into supporting the war by saying I don't care about the deaths of good men. And why do you do this? Because other than that there isn't much of a case.

I support democracy, but don't pretend this war is for democracy.
Many countries are were in a far worse state than Iraq, why not "help" them out first than make it worse for Iraq?

This goes a long way into revealing where american stereotypes originate from.

I state my case against the war and risking soldiers lives and suddenly I'm a democracy hating communist.

Meanwhile, the people on here who advocate indiscriminate bombing of the people they are "liberating" are freedom loving patriots.

[Hammerhead]

Exactly my point.

I state my case against the war, and even though I say I support the actual soldiers you try to guilt trip me into supporting the war by saying I don't care about the deaths of good men. And why do you do this? Because other than that there isn't much of a case.

I support democracy, but don't pretend this war is for democracy.
Many countries are were in a far worse state than Iraq, why not "help" them out first than make it worse for Iraq?

This goes a long way into revealing where american stereotypes originate from.

I state my case against the war and risking soldiers lives and suddenly I'm a democracy hating communist.

Meanwhile, the people on here who advocate indiscriminate bombing of the people they are "liberating" are freedom loving patriots.

you have every right to believe what you believe carrot
you questioned me when i stated that al-queda was being trained in iraq
were i made the mistake was in lumping the problems over there
into a few words
i was over there during 90 and 91

even thou i didn't personally destroy these weapons
there was weapons of mass destruction over there
and we destroyed them.

i have come to my own views from the american
government failing the u.s. solider
and when things are said that i deem are against the
solider i get mad and alot of times
i ramble out shit that has either happened latter
or does not have anything to do with the topic being discussed

so if anything i said made you think that i think you are a commie
or worse then i apologize
for that was not my intent
i was enjoying our debate and look forward to more in the future

plus i was being influanced by budweiser no excuse
but the truth

[Carrot]

you have every right to believe what you believe carrot
you questioned me when i stated that al-queda was being trained in iraq
were i made the mistake was in lumping the problems over there
into a few words
i was over there during 90 and 91

even thou i didn't personally destroy these weapons
there was weapons of mass destruction over there
and we destroyed them.

i have come to my own views from the american
government failing the u.s. solider
and when things are said that i deem are against the
solider i get mad and alot of times
i ramble out shit that has either happened latter
or does not have anything to do with the topic being discussed

so if anything i said made you think that i think you are a commie
or worse then i apologize
for that was not my intent
i was enjoying our debate and look forward to more in the future

plus i was being influanced by budweiser no excuse
but the truth

Don't worry, I'm not taking anything personally. I'm enjoying the discussion.

But when it boils down to if you don't fully support the war you must be a commie (yee-haw) or hate democracy and don't give a shit about soldiers (rise up) then you can't have much of a discussion or take them seriously.

I may be mostly against the war but poorly equipped soldiers or not treating them wth respect is unacceptable. But it is an entirely seperate issue to the reasons or the methods for the war.

[Hammerhead]

i personally feel and think that when the u.s. first invaded iraq
we invaded with the right idea
world intel was saying about wmd's being in iraq
now were i feel the u.s. screwed up was
they could see all these trucks leaving iraq and going into syria

now would you not think that something was fishy about
all this truck traffic

and as far as equipment for our military
we have alot of good stuff
but through coruption of many sources
some of this is defective and in others
the soldiers never recieve it

now there we agree the soldier should have alot
more then what they get
america should be ashamed of how
the troops almost have to beg for stuff

[Carrot]

i personally feel and think that when the u.s. first invaded iraq
we invaded with the right idea
world intel was saying about wmd's being in iraq
now were i feel the u.s. screwed up was
they could see all these trucks leaving iraq and going into syria

now would you not think that something was fishy about
all this truck traffic


But on that point why wasn't a bigger issue made?

Why weren't syria confronted?
Wasn't enough being moved to use as evidence and justify the invasion?
Were there any?
Or did it not make much difference to those in power either way?

If the issue was saddam having WMDs, and intel shows he's getting rid of them then why go to war? Why not go after the weapons?

Even an american led survey group could find no evidence to pointing to the fact that Iraq had done any development in WMDs since 90-91. Could a whole program hae been moved by some trucks that were deemed to insignificant to pursue?

But one very real benefit is the oil, and control in that area in general.

The first gulf war was prompted by the invasion of kuwait, but no such prompt existed here.

[Rise Up]

Can we please get back on topic? If you want to debate this I'll make a fucking thread for it in Politics I guess. :rolleyes:

[LedZap]

riseup owns the thread

[Carrot]

Oh I'm sorry, suddenly posts have to be on topic?

The dicussion evolved to where it is now. If you want to say anything on topic say it and I'm sure people will respond. If not then we can post what we like, it is related and not beingrepeated in other threads.

[Rise Up]

Oh I'm sorry, suddenly posts have to be on topic?

The dicussion evolved to where it is now. If you want to say anything on topic say it and I'm sure people will respond. If not then we can post what we like, it is related and not beingrepeated in other threads.

When I say things have gotten off topic they have. The title of the thread clearly says Hiroshima-Crime against Humanity?
That DOES NOT SAY Iraq War Discussion does it?

[Carrot]

When I say things have gotten off topic they have. The title of the thread clearly says Hiroshima-Crime against Humanity?
That DOES NOT SAY Iraq War Discussion does it?

Ants in your pants?

Look around the forum a bit. Besies, you continue to keep this thread off topic, if you really want to get it on topic then actually post something on topic, make a point, pose a question or air an opinion and I'm sure people will respond.

[LedZap]

When I say things have gotten off topic they have. The title of the thread clearly says Hiroshima-Crime against Humanity?
That DOES NOT SAY Iraq War Discussion does it?

Wassamatta? You get beat up at school today ?

[Rise Up]

Wassamatta? You get beat up at school today ?

No, if I had you would be hearing about me. I don't go down easy. When I'm angry....shit. Off topic.

Okay. Opinions on the building of the atomic bomb? Should it have been built and used or should it have been left alone?

[LedZap]

But on that point why wasn't a bigger issue made?

Why weren't syria confronted?
Wasn't enough being moved to use as evidence and justify the invasion?
Were there any?
Or did it not make much difference to those in power either way?

If the issue was saddam having WMDs, and intel shows he's getting rid of them then why go to war? Why not go after the weapons?

Even an american led survey group could find no evidence to pointing to the fact that Iraq had done any development in WMDs since 90-91. Could a whole program hae been moved by some trucks that were deemed to insignificant to pursue?

But one very real benefit is the oil, and control in that area in general.

The first gulf war was prompted by the invasion of kuwait, but no such prompt existed here.

There's also the issue of the Russian military airlifting stuff out of Bagdad as the war started.

[Montanarchist]

Okay. Opinions on the building of the atomic bomb? Should it have been built and used or should it have been left alone?

We would have won the war without it, it would just have been a more painful process for the japs.

We couldn't have left it alone, it was a new technology that was bout to be discovered. Delaying it a few years wouldn't have done much, the US were the only ones at the time with the capacity to construct one at the time either way.

[Rise Up]

We could have built it then set limitations as to how many nukes could be owned at one time by any one country.

As for using it, that could've been avoided. All the Japanese could have been starved into submission. Even the hardest of minds can't stand up to starvation. The US Navy, Royal Navy, AND the Soviet Pacific Fleet could have blockaded the coast of Japan completely and launched non-stop air raids with bombers to destroy food and industrial plants. Ship cannons could have been used to bombard targets miles inland with more accuracy than bombs could have and eventually the Japs would've been beaten.

[Carrot]

There's also the issue of the Russian military airlifting stuff out of Bagdad as the war started.

Haven't hear of that.

I'm sure if that was the case then an issue would have been made of it. And I don't see wy russia would help out Iraq purely by hiding WMDs especially when it could be easily detected.

Still doesn't explain why there was no evidence of anything going on since 91.

[Rise Up]

Haven't hear of that.

I'm sure if that was the case then an issue would have been made of it. And I don't see wy russia would help out Iraq purely by hiding WMDs especially when it could be easily detected.

Still doesn't explain why there was no evidence of anything going on since 91.

Hey Carrot, look beneath this text. :rolleyes:


No, if I had you would be hearing about me. I don't go down easy. When I'm angry....shit. Off topic.

Okay. Opinions on the building of the atomic bomb? Should it have been built and used or should it have been left alone?

[Carrot]

We could have built it then set limitations as to how many nukes could be owned at one time by any one country.

As for using it, that could've been avoided. All the Japanese could have been starved into submission. Even the hardest of minds can't stand up to starvation. The US Navy, Royal Navy, AND the Soviet Pacific Fleet could have blockaded the coast of Japan completely and launched non-stop air raids with bombers to destroy food and industrial plants. Ship cannons could have been used to bombard targets miles inland with more accuracy than bombs could have and eventually the Japs would've been beaten.

A couple of nukes is an incentive for countries to start building. And in the cold war noone would have stuck to any limitations or expected the oter side too.

Blockading an entire island on the other side of the world with thei own military into starvation would be impractical at best, disasterous at worse. You overestimate the instant winness* of the US army. It would have been a long and hard fought war.

[Carrot]

Hey Carrot, look beneath this text. :rolleyes:

I was getting to that.:rolleyes:The world doesn't revolve around you.

Yeah, I can use smileys to look cool too.:cool:

:rolleyes:

[Montanarchist]

We could have built it then set limitations as to how many nukes could be owned at one time by any one country.
How were they supposed to go about that? The US hadn't developed a general interventionist policy at the time, the isolationists were still very strong.

As for using it, that could've been avoided. All the Japanese could have been starved into submission. Even the hardest of minds can't stand up to starvation. The US Navy, Royal Navy, AND the Soviet Pacific Fleet could have blockaded the coast of Japan completely and launched non-stop air raids with bombers to destroy food and industrial plants. Ship cannons could have been used to bombard targets miles inland with more accuracy than bombs could have and eventually the Japs would've been beaten.
Why would you avoid the simplest, cleanest, quickest and cheapest solution when it's made available by complicating everything and end up killing more people over a much longer time span?
Yeah, there's no doubt that the US would have pwned the japs no matter what, but the nukes were just best solution in every way. The only negative side seems to be blame from hippies twenty years later.

[Rise Up]

A couple of nukes is an incentive for countries to start building. And in the cold war noone would have stuck to any limitations or expected the oter side too.

Blockading an entire island on the other side of the world with thei own military into starvation would be impractical at best, disasterous at worse. You overestimate the instant winness* of the US army. It would have been a long and hard fought war.

The US Marines were over there and they were willing to be patient. They'd gone through Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They knew what would happen. The Pacific Campaign was under the jurisdiction of the US Navy and the Marines.
You also forget the atrocities they were performing on OUR POWs. I think that would have been the least of their worries. Want to see want they did? Look!! A beheading!! :eek:
http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/behead-us-pilot.gif

[Carrot]

The US Marines were over there and they were willing to be patient. They'd gone through Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They knew what would happen. The Pacific Campaign was under the jurisdiction of the US Navy and the Marines.
You also forget the atrocities they were performing on OUR POWs. I think that would have been the least of their worries. Want to see want they did? Look!! A beheading!! :eek:
http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/behead-us-pilot.gif

How is that relevant?

Surely that makes more of a case for using the nukes and ending it quickly?

[Rise Up]

How were they supposed to go about that? The US hadn't developed a general interventionist policy at the time, the isolationists were still very strong.
The isolationist cause had been destroyed after Pearl was attacked. The most staunch isolationist all knew that the US couldn't stay out of world affairs anymore.
Why would you avoid the simplest, cleanest, quickest and cheapest solution when it's made available by complicating everything and end up killing more people over a much longer time span?
Yeah, there's no doubt that the US would have pwned the japs no matter what, but the nukes were just best solution in every way. The only negative side seems to be blame from hippies twenty years later.
Well, if you want to cause massive radiation poisoning then sure go along with it. Plus the Japanese military was FORCED to surrender by their Emperor, their God.

Think about that for a second. :cool:

[Rise Up]

How is that relevant?

Surely that makes more of a case for using the nukes and ending it quickly?

Or, we could have gotten revenge for the war crimes they perpetrated. We could argue about this all day. Which sounds interesting to me. :cool:

[Carrot]

Or, we could have gotten revenge for the war crimes they perpetrated. We could argue about this all day. Which sounds interesting to me. :cool:

Wait, so what exactly is your case for not using nukes.

That the radiation piosoning of generations could be avoided by not using nukes, and hopefully the number of civilian casualties wouldn't be so great.

Or.

Starve them out, and have them suffer through a long war and inflict more casualties on them hence taking your revenge even if it puts more american lives at risk too? That's what your last post seems to insinuate.

[Rise Up]

Starve them out, and have them suffer through a long war and inflict more casualties on them hence taking your revenge even if it puts more american lives at risk too? That's what your last post seems to insinuate.

How does it put American lives at risk if the Japanese have no aircraft to attack the Navy? I didn't say invade Japan. I said BLOCKADE JAPAN.

[Montanarchist]

Think about that for a second. :cool:
Okay...


The isolationist cause had been destroyed after Pearl was attacked. The most staunch isolationist all knew that the US couldn't stay out of world affairs anymore.
No, no, no, absolutely not.

Isolationism doesn't mean pacifism, it just means "don't start shit". The Japs started shit and isolationists were all for defending the country. FDR exploited this (with ease due to the German alliance) to get involved in Europe too.
The United States could stay out of world affairs beyond Japan as much as they pleased. The were the strongest, most powerful, most stable and not to mention that their geographical location placed them far away from everyone else. Nothing forced them to enter WW2.


Well, if you want to cause massive radiation poisoning then sure go along with it. Plus the Japanese military was FORCED to surrender by their Emperor, their God.
The option is worse, the option would have caused much more damage and/or been a billion times more expensive.

[Montanarchist]

Or, we could have gotten revenge for the war crimes they perpetrated. We could argue about this all day. Which sounds interesting to me. :cool:

Yeah because the situation ended horribly when we actually decided to stay close allies with Japan and rebuild their country, look where that brought them...

[Rise Up]

Okay...

No, no, no, absolutely not.

Isolationism doesn't mean pacifism, it just means "don't start shit". The Japs started shit and isolationists were all for defending the country. FDR exploited this (with ease due to the German alliance) to get involved in Europe too.
The United States could stay out of world affairs beyond Japan as much as they pleased. The were the strongest, most powerful, most stable and not to mention that their geographical location placed them far away from everyone else. Nothing forced them to enter WW2.


The option is worse, the option would have caused much more damage and/or been a billion times more expensive.

Isolationists didn't want to start shit because they were fucking pussies. Defend the country? Shit, they defended the country that's for sure. But what happened to them AFTER WW2? Did they reappear saying leave Europe to it's fate, don't start an arms race? NO. They had been caught up in Red Fever too.

[Montanarchist]

Isolationists didn't want to start shit because they were fucking pussies. Defend the country? Shit, they defended the country that's for sure. But what happened to them AFTER WW2? Did they reappear saying leave Europe to it's fate, don't start an arms race? NO. They had been caught up in Red Fever too.

So you're saying that isolationism is stupid because the isolationists chose not to be isolationists?

Soviet never was a threat to the US, if they would have gone about as usual with free trade policies as before the war communism would have surrendered naturally in a few decades.

[Carrot]

How does it put American lives at risk if the Japanese have no aircraft to attack the Navy? I didn't say invade Japan. I said BLOCKADE JAPAN.

You think it would be a simple matter of sticing a few ships there and it'd be hunky dory?

It's generally accepted that going to war would have resulted in many casualties on both sides, I think if it was a simple and safe matter of stationing some ships there then the generals at the time would have done so.

[Rise Up]

So you're saying that isolationism is stupid because the isolationists chose not to be isolationists?

No I'm just stating that they did not decide to continue with the isolationism. If they had, they might have prevented the cold war but that's like fishing for a turkey in the Pacific.

[Montanarchist]

No I'm just stating that they did not decide to continue with the isolationism. If they had, they might have prevented the cold war but that's like fishing for a turkey in the Pacific.

Uhu, so going with the side that wanted war would have kept us out of it...

[yee-haw]

lol, What the hell rise?
Montanarchist- you made me laugh out loud.

[Carrot]

Well, to be fair, attacking *would* have ended the cold war alot sooner...

[Hammerhead]

it was all bush's fault

[yee-haw]

It was the one armed man.

[Hammerhead]

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'rielly , Ann coulter,
Michael Savage, Matt Drudge, Glenn Beck
Dick Cheney , George Bush 1 & 2, Ronald Reagon
Tom Sellick , A.C. Watts,
and many others are all to blame
for the problems of the world:D

god help us all

[Montanarchist]

Most of the issues of the 20th century (and thereby, the state of the world) can be traced back to the Treaty of Versailles.

It's just general politics that fucks everything up, no person or group of people or any specific ideology is to blame for it.

[Rise Up]

You think it would be a simple matter of sticing a few ships there and it'd be hunky dory?

It's generally accepted that going to war would have resulted in many casualties on both sides, I think if it was a simple and safe matter of stationing some ships there then the generals at the time would have done so.

Your speaking of Japan's Navy aren't you? Their navy was destroyed around the same time as the Yamato. IF they had carrier ships they would have been light carriers. They had barely any battleships. Their subs? Gone, destroyed by escort destroyers and aircraft. We used BLIMPS to destroy them they had such shitty defenses.

[Rise Up]

Most of the issues of the 20th century (and thereby, the state of the world) can be traced back to the Treaty of Versailles.

It's just general politics that fucks everything up, no person or group of people or any specific ideology is to blame for it.

World War 1 fucked us up. Damn British and French. :mad:

[Montanarchist]

World War 1 fucked us up. Damn British and French. :mad:

I said "Treaty of Versailles", not ww1.

[Rise Up]

I said "Treaty of Versailles", not ww1.

The Treaty of Versailles was direct result of WW1. It was inevitable. The Brits and French didn't want to pay their war debts AND they were stronger than Germany with us on their side.

They could have had whatever they wanted. If Wilson hadn't let his friend continue the negotiations for a good treaty the Treaty of Versailles wouldn't have come about. Wilson's friend gave the other Allies what they wanted and Wilson was in no position to get it fixed after his stroke.

[Montanarchist]

The Treaty of Versailles was direct result of WW1. It was inevitable. The Brits and French didn't want to pay their war debts AND they were stronger than Germany with us on their side.

They could have had whatever they wanted. If Wilson hadn't let his friend continue the negotiations for a good treaty the Treaty of Versailles wouldn't have come about. Wilson's friend gave the other Allies what they wanted and Wilson was in no position to get it fixed after his stroke.

The Germans surrendered in November 1918 because they had been proposed to a peace based on Wilson's Fourteen Points which were nothing like the ToV.
It was an unfair trick, the Germans were screwed, that's the main reason many were eager to stat shit with Britain and France again.
They didn't want revenge, they wanted to be redressed.

[Rise Up]

The Germans surrendered in November 1918 because they had been proposed to a peace based on Wilson's Fourteen Points which were nothing like the ToV.
It was an unfair trick, the Germans were screwed, that's the main reason many were eager to stat shit with Britain and France again.
They didn't want revenge, they wanted to be redressed.

AND because they couldn't deal with Britain's blockade anymore.....:rolleyes:
Oh.....that's a good topic for a post in this category.

[Montanarchist]

AND because they couldn't deal with Britain's blockade anymore.....:rolleyes:
Oh.....that's a good topic for a post in this category.

Be my guest.

[General Septem]

We killed as many people in the firebombing of Tokyo as we did in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was necessary at that point to end the war. It was a horrible thing, but the entire war was horrible. But it was necessary.

Over 70 million died in WWII. Another 220,000 doesn't seem like that big of a deal if such an act ended the war (which it did).

[Montanarchist]

Hugo Chavez weighs in on the issue. (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=90708&sectionid=351020704)

[Rise Up]

Fuck you Hugo Chavez. Fuck you. You'd have used the bomb if you'd seen what THEY had done to us.

[thememan]

Fuck you Hugo Chavez. Fuck you. You'd have used the bomb if you'd seen what THEY had done to us.

Or, conversely, what we had done to them.

War isn't pretty, and you find that there are very few good heroes in war. No matter what the side.

[Hammerhead]

sounds like a pacifiest to me

[yee-haw]

Or, conversely, what we had done to them.

War isn't pretty, and you find that there are very few good heroes in war. No matter what the side.

Your point?

[Rise Up]

Or, conversely, what we had done to them.

War isn't pretty, and you find that there are very few good heroes in war. No matter what the side.

Bullshit. What about Blood and Guts? MacArthur? Chesty Puller? Presley O'Bannon? George Washington? Jefferson? Please don't saw that there are few heroes in war. I could go on for AGES. Any man who serves his country in a cause he sees as just is a hero.

[Oralloy]

Pearl Harbor and the POW;s were military men, men who had volunteered with full knowledge of the risks they faced. It wasn't until futher into the war that we began to draft men.

That POWs are military men does not change the fact that torturing them to death was a horrific war crime.

Also, it was a war crime to go to war with us without justification, and another war crime to attack Pearl Harbor before war was declared.





Hiroshima killed civilians, women and children. We didn't drop that bomb on a military base, or even the emperors place, we dropped it on an unsuspecting city.

Actually, no. Hiroshima was certainly a city, but that city was a major military center. It certainly counted as a military base.

Nagasaki was an industrial center that was manufacturing weapons.




IMO if Hiroshima wasn't the crime, Nagasaki sure was. If you accept the traditional reasons given (citizens would have fought to the last person or commited sucide they were so brainwashed to be afraid of us) then we should have waited longer after Hiroshima for the news to reach the leaders. We didn't give enough time considering the poor communication tech in Japan in the 1940's and the facts 1. we torched what was there and 2 it wasn't until a few days after the true effects of the radiation began to show.

In war you keep pounding the enemy as hard as you can until they give up. You don't hit them a little bit, then pause and let them get their bearings, then hit them a little more, etc.

Also, Japan knew the next day that Hiroshima had been entirely destroyed by a single bomb, and that Truman had claimed it was an atomic bomb.





The Nagasaki bomb was a crime against humanity.

To be a crime against humanity, it would have to have targeted civilians. The second A-bomb was actually aimed at arms manufacturing.

It may well have been a war crime, but certainly no worse than the war crimes Japan was committing.

[Oralloy]

As for using it, that could've been avoided. All the Japanese could have been starved into submission. Even the hardest of minds can't stand up to starvation. The US Navy, Royal Navy, AND the Soviet Pacific Fleet could have blockaded the coast of Japan completely and launched non-stop air raids with bombers to destroy food and industrial plants. Ship cannons could have been used to bombard targets miles inland with more accuracy than bombs could have and eventually the Japs would've been beaten.

There are a couple problems with the blockade option. One was that it was likely to kill hundreds of times more civilians than the A-bombs did. If the objection to the A-bombs is the loss of civilian life, blockade doesn't really offer an attractive alternative.

Another problem is that blockade did not hold out much promise of ending the war in a timely manner. If we came to December 1945 without Japan surrendering from the blockade, our troops would have started landing on Japan's beaches, in a bloodbath that was projected to be worse than what we later suffered in the Vietnam and Korean Wars combined.

It is true that the use of the bombs could have been avoided. But at the moment the bombs were dropped, avoiding the use of the bombs seemed to be the worse option.

[Oralloy]

The Pacific Campaign was under the jurisdiction of the US Navy and the Marines.

That would have been news to MacArthur....

[Montanarchist]

Bullshit. What about Blood and Guts? MacArthur? Chesty Puller? Presley O'Bannon? George Washington? Jefferson? Please don't saw that there are few heroes in war. I could go on for AGES. Any man who serves his country in a cause he sees as just is a hero.

That's a pretty wide definition though.

[Carrot]

I could go on for AGES. Any man who serves his country in a cause he sees as just is a hero.

Hitler, Saddam, Korean fuckface etc etc, you get the idea.

[freakazoid]

Crime Against Humanity?

Yes - The way the people died was too horrible.
No - We had to show them we meant business after Pearl Harbor.

BOTH are true except the "too" part. Is there a "nicer" way to die in war? Did the US sailors that died trapped in the US Arizona die in a nicer way? The Japanese that died in the Atom bomb raids were victims of the Japanese government of their day.

[MrJim]

Crime Against Humanity?

Yes - The way the people died was too horrible.
No - We had to show them we meant business after Pearl Harbor.

BOTH are true except the "too" part. Is there a "nicer" way to die in war? Did the US sailors that died trapped in the US Arizona die in a nicer way? The Japanese that died in the Atom bomb raids were victims of the Japanese government of their day.

I rescind the word "too"...

I should have put, "Yes - The way the people died was fuckin' horrible, dude." and found a little pot smoking emoticon to put at the end of all that. :D

But I was just taking a poll, after all. You're right, consequences of supporting a bad government, etc.

[Oralloy]

I rescind the word "too"...

I should have put, "Yes - The way the people died was fuckin' horrible, dude." and found a little pot smoking emoticon to put at the end of all that. :D

But I was just taking a poll, after all. You're right, consequences of supporting a bad government, etc.

Technically, the question of whether or not this was a crime against humanity does not depend on whether the deaths were horrible or whether they were to show we meant business after Pearl Harbor.

A crime against humanity generally means a large-scale or widespread attack against civilians for political reasons.

It would not include an attack designed to exterminate a race or culture, as such an attack would be counted as the worse crime of genocide.

And if the attack was simply because someone liked to kill people, or if the underlying motive was robbery or something like that, that also would not count as a crime against humanity. It would just be a bunch of regular murders.

---

I'd say that the A-bomb attacks did not meet the definition of crime against humanity because they were aimed at military targets, not aimed at civilians.

However, the laws of war require the expected collateral damage from an attack not be excessive compared to the military gains expected to be achieved from the attack.

In this case, the expected collateral damage was probably excessive compared to the expected military gains, so the A-bombs should probably be considered war crimes.

(Although they weren't nearly as bad as the war crimes Japan was committing.)

[WhiteRaven]

"People die in war"- Mandalore Canderous Ordo.

The expected military gains were to end the war, and prevent a lot of worse catastrophes I'd say that was a big enough military gain to justify the collatoral damage.

[MrJim]

Technically, the question of whether or not this was a crime against humanity does not depend on whether the deaths were horrible or whether they were to show we meant business after Pearl Harbor.

A crime against humanity generally means a large-scale or widespread attack against civilians for political reasons.

What is considered a crime against humanity may be subjective, but I chose to stir this pot because it is frequently brought into political discussions, usually to attempt to illustrate America's double standard when it comes to war. To me the question fits because I'm asking, did America commit an injustice (crime) against a group of people (who represent humanity), or not?


It would not include an attack designed to exterminate a race or culture, as such an attack would be counted as the worse crime of genocide.

Genocide is a crime against humanity, correct?


And if the attack was simply because someone liked to kill people, or if the underlying motive was robbery or something like that, that also would not count as a crime against humanity. It would just be a bunch of regular murders.

Well that depends on whether the attacks were carried out by an individual or an organization/government. This instance doesn't exactly fit into the case at hand, but yes, it could be an exception in another case.


I'd say that the A-bomb attacks did not meet the definition of crime against humanity because they were aimed at military targets, not aimed at civilians.

However, the laws of war require the expected collateral damage from an attack not be excessive compared to the military gains expected to be achieved from the attack.

In this case, the expected collateral damage was probably excessive compared to the expected military gains, so the A-bombs should probably be considered war crimes.

(Although they weren't nearly as bad as the war crimes Japan was committing.)

Very good. Now do you consider a retaliatory attack a crime or simply fighting fire with fire? In this instance, I would definitely consider the Pearl Harbor attacks a war crime whereas the retaliatory attacks I would consider a result of the first crime rather than a crime itself.

[Rise Up]

"People die in war"- Mandalore Canderous Ordo.

The expected military gains were to end the war, and prevent a lot of worse catastrophes I'd say that was a big enough military gain to justify the collatoral damage.

LOVE the KOTOR quote. :D

[ShadoWolf]

The world is just damn unjust... Unjust bullshits have been created by the people itself, for stupid reasons.. I think it was horrible, like many things on this planet, but probably necessary, but maybe I don't know what I'm talking about...

[MrJim]

Fuckin' spammers piss me off :mad: ....

[Rise Up]

Yeah, I feel that way myself. Reading up on it in more detail is rather disturbing though. It also perplexes me a bit that we showed up with this much gall and force after the harbor was bombed, but after 9/11 which was much worse, we didn't a-bomb the shit out of Afghanistan... but that's how it goes, I guess..

Sorry to bump but I have to answer this.

The reson we didn't A-Bomb the Afghans, the Iranians, the Saudis, and the rest of the Muslim world is because of our reliance on Middle Eastern Oil. And the fact that several countries have missiles pointed at us in case we attempt to hit them with nukes also prevented that. We could have nuked the Middle East, but Russia, China, uh....other countries would have launched right away because most of our missiles would fly OVER THEIR COUNTRIES.

[Carrot]

That, and there's no actual body to surrender, and using nukes would make it much, much worse for America.

[ballzack]

Agreed, Carrot.
Unfortunately, in the Nuclear World, the enemy is WAR itself.
Any launch and you've got anarchy.

Also, I fully expect a nuclear flash or at least a dirty bomb somewhere within the continental U.S.S.A. (United States Socialists America).
And according to many (not my opinion), the current administration is bracing for this, and some within the administration actually appear to look forward to it. Marshal law may ensue. IF NOT, it will be the final catalyst for the current administration to put in ANY laws it sees fit based on the new national protection plan post nuclear attack.

Let's hope not, but I fully expect an attack within the next 3 1/2 years based on our new "policies".

[MrJim]

Sorry to bump but I have to answer this.

The reson we didn't A-Bomb the Afghans, the Iranians, the Saudis, and the rest of the Muslim world is because of our reliance on Middle Eastern Oil. And the fact that several countries have missiles pointed at us in case we attempt to hit them with nukes also prevented that. We could have nuked the Middle East, but Russia, China, uh....other countries would have launched right away because most of our missiles would fly OVER THEIR COUNTRIES.

But then we have this 'need for oil' paradox, Rise. And we will have it until we are forced to change the structure of our energy-dependent economy...

BTW, we won't see that in our lifetime.

[Rise Up]

But then we have this 'need for oil' paradox, Rise. And we will have it until we are forced to change the structure of our energy-dependent economy...

BTW, we won't see that in our lifetime.

We have oil in Alaska, in Texas, in the Gulf that we can't touch because of the fucking environmentalists.

[freakazoid]

Pearl Harbor was a crime against humanity.

[Rise Up]

Pearl Harbor was a crime against humanity.

That it was. A horrible crime launched by the Japanese military government.

[Carrot]

Well, in isolation one was a conventional attack against a military base, the other was two nuclear bombc on cities, whose after effects would cause deformities for several generations.

Just saying.

[Mr. Knight]

The A-bomb attack was horrible. Then again, America doesn't care about the loss of life. Just ask George W. Bush.

[Montanarchist]

I've been thinking about this lately, and I'm starting to think that it may not have been that good of an idea.

This article is worth considering: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html

[Pau Diaz]

It all comes down to a question of how many Japanese followed the Imperial Regime. Did all Japanese concieve the attack on Pearl Harbour and endorse it? Was it by democratic vote that the place be attacked and ransacked. If so then the atomic bomb was justified.

Or was it a decision made by the Japanese leadership government and military, seperate from public interest? In that case it would have been better to drop bombs with less destructive yield on the government and military facilities.

[Phoenix]

The invention of the nuclear bomb itself was a crime against humanity imho.

[Montanarchist]

The invention of the nuclear bomb itself was a crime against humanity imho.

The nuclear bomb has spared us another international conflict.

[MrJim]

...America doesn't care about the loss of life. Just ask George W. Bush.

*yawn*

Remember Hitler and the Holocaust? :rolleyes:

[Montanarchist]

*yawn*

Remember Hitler and the Holocaust? :rolleyes:

The holocaust was not known until the camps were entered, and FDR was allied with Stalin who killed a lot more people than Hitler.

[freakazoid]

okay Rise prove it isn't full of potatoes, or hello kitty dolls, or astroglide and blow-up dolls!!!!

That is HIGHLY unlikely...oh, sorry, I forgot, Rise Up imploded and had to executed. :D

[Oralloy]

What is considered a crime against humanity may be subjective, but I chose to stir this pot because it is frequently brought into political discussions, usually to attempt to illustrate America's double standard when it comes to war. To me the question fits because I'm asking, did America commit an injustice (crime) against a group of people (who represent humanity), or not?

Genocide is a crime against humanity, correct?

Wow! I don't know how I lost track of this board after posting on it. Sorry for taking so long to reply. (I'll try not to lose track of it again.)

Genocide is a separate (and much more serious) crime.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has good definitions for "crime against humanity", "war crime", and "genocide".

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm

The main difference between genocide and a crime against humanity is the intent to wipe out a group or culture.





Well that depends on whether the attacks were carried out by an individual or an organization/government. This instance doesn't exactly fit into the case at hand, but yes, it could be an exception in another case.

Very good. Now do you consider a retaliatory attack a crime or simply fighting fire with fire? In this instance, I would definitely consider the Pearl Harbor attacks a war crime whereas the retaliatory attacks I would consider a result of the first crime rather than a crime itself.

Retaliation would be self-defense, which is not in itself a crime.

It is possible for self-defense to involve a crime however, if laws are broken.

[Oralloy]

Sorry to bump but I have to answer this.

The reson we didn't A-Bomb the Afghans, the Iranians, the Saudis, and the rest of the Muslim world is because of our reliance on Middle Eastern Oil. And the fact that several countries have missiles pointed at us in case we attempt to hit them with nukes also prevented that. We could have nuked the Middle East, but Russia, China, uh....other countries would have launched right away because most of our missiles would fly OVER THEIR COUNTRIES.

They would have been able to tell that the warheads were flying over and not coming down in their own country.

Plus, presuming that we only would have nuked Taliban targets in Afghanistan, it could have just been done with a single stealth bomber.

[bullfighter]

you guys just want to justify the killing ,the slaughter of many innocent people[the american way]you slaugtered to get here ,you slaughtered to build here ,and you slaughter to stay here.....and you blame mexicans for wanting some of the good things that hard working people make..when you go to mexico who owns all the beach 5 star hotels and pay there criminal gouvernment to stay there.leaveing the people drops of bread teaching them to be like guess who [you].......................
Wow! I don't know how I lost track of this board after posting on it. Sorry for taking so long to reply. (I'll try not to lose track of it again.)

Genocide is a separate (and much more serious) crime.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has good definitions for "crime against humanity", "war crime", and "genocide".

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm

The main difference between genocide and a crime against humanity is the intent to wipe out a group or culture.






Retaliation would be self-defense, which is not in itself a crime.

It is possible for self-defense to involve a crime however, if laws are broken.

[Oralloy]

Well, in isolation one was a conventional attack against a military base, the other was two nuclear bombc on cities,

Hiroshima was a huge military center with a lot more soldiers/sailors than Pearl Harbor had.

Nagasaki was an industrial center with massive weapons factories.




Well, in isolation one was a conventional attack against a whose after effects would cause deformities for several generations.

Just saying.

Fetuses who were exposed to the radiation given off at the moment of the explosion suffered birth defects, but they had all been born by the first half of 1946.

The A-bombs didn't cause birth defects in subsequent generations.

[Oralloy]

I've been thinking about this lately, and I'm starting to think that it may not have been that good of an idea.

This was the height of the most brutal war in human history. How could we not have used a weapon that had the potential of defeating the enemy?




I've been thinking about this lately, and I'm starting to This article is worth considering: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html

Practically everything stated in that article is untrue.

[Montanarchist]

This was the height of the most brutal war in human history. How could we not have used a weapon that had the potential of defeating the enemy?
It was not the most brutal war in history. It is a question of definition I suppose, but the largest and world-changing conflict doesn't necessarily equate to the most brutal on that plane.

We could have done a lot of things. It was quick and easy solution, and probably the best to go by in the situation we found ourselves by in 1945. WW2 wasn't done perfectly, not to mention all the tings leading up to WW2 (treaty of Versailles for example). Things could have been different and the a-bomb was not a necessity.

Practically everything stated in that article is untrue.
John V. Denson is not the most academically correct or respected historian out there, and he is sort of a tin-foil hat kind-of-guy, but the idea he presents in the article (a policy of unconditional surrender will lead to unconditional resistance) is correct.

[Oralloy]

It was not the most brutal war in history. It is a question of definition I suppose, but the largest and world-changing conflict doesn't necessarily equate to the most brutal on that plane.

I can't think of one that was more brutal.




John V. Denson is not the most academically correct or respected historian out there, and he is sort of a tin-foil hat kind-of-guy, but the idea he presents in the article (a policy of unconditional surrender will lead to unconditional resistance) is correct.


The article claims that Japan was willing to surrender in May of 1945, and that we knew it.

In reality our first indication that Japan was interested in surrender came after both A-bombs were dropped.


The article claims that Truman was ignoring near unanimous advice from his advisers that he not drop the bombs.

In reality Truman received no such advice from anyone.


The article goes on at some length about the Truman not accepting Japan's fictitious surrender offer and what would have happened if he had accepted it.

As the supposed May surrender offer was fictitious, that's all nonsense.


The article also claims that the fears of huge casualties were concocted after the fact to justify the bombs.

In reality those were actual estimates given before the bombs were dropped.

[Montanarchist]

I can't think of one that was more brutal.
In tribal societies you are far more likely to die at the hands of another man. Indian cultures have the same word for "people" as for "people of their own tribe" and "enemy" is similar to the word for "stranger".

If you'd project the statistics of violent encounters between them on us, the death toll in ww2 would not have been 50 million, it would have been 2 billion.
We are civilized, we don't fight all that brutal wars.


Text
I said that the article wasn't all that correct, but the point about unconditional surrender still holds water.

[freakazoid]

you guys just want to justify the killing ,the slaughter of many innocent people[the american way]you slaugtered to get here ,you slaughtered to build here ,and you slaughter to stay here.....and you blame mexicans for wanting some of the good things that hard working people make..when you go to mexico who owns all the beach 5 star hotels and pay there criminal gouvernment to stay there. leaveing the people drops of bread teaching them to be like guess who [you].......................

http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon4.gif You also slaughtered each other in Indian tribal wars...

While the war Philip waged was savage and brutal, It can also be said that it was no more so than the brutalities inflicted by the white man.Ironically, Native American intertribal conflicts, trading interests and warring would ultimately enhance the English position.

In a volley of ferocious and savage attacks, Philip and his warriors (later to include Nipmuks and Narragansetts) hit village after village. First came Swansea in June of 1675. Next came Mendon in July. Thereafter, no town felt immune from impending disaster, and, indeed, the fear became a nightmare as town after town was wholly or partially destroyed, its inhabitants killed, maimed, or carried into captivity. In the now famous narrative of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson, a captive who survived, we gain a glimpse of these terrifying days (Indian Captivities, Or Life In the Wigwam, Samuel Drake, 1851)

** Ref.: http://www.mayflowerfamilies.com/enquirer/native.htm

** See also - http://www.jstor.org/pss/967942

About 1808 Tecumseh settled in the area of present-day Indiana with his brother Tenskwatawa, called "the Prophet" because he claimed to have had a revelation from the "Master of Life." There the brothers sought to induce the Indians to discard white customs and goods and to abjure [or stop] intertribal wars for unity against the white invader. The code of the Prophet had a mysticism that appealed to the Indians, and many became converts...

** Ref.: http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1800s/yr10/ftecumseh1811.htm

Strike & Retreat: Intertribal Warfare and the Powder River War, 1865-1868

** Ref.: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4518527

[bullfighter]

this fucking killing has gone on and on and on..we been some what inteligent should by now know that we can find better ways to manage our live and let live theory...the fact is we still kill under bullshit properganda will of others..and if two men want to go fucking kill each other fine...leave the innocent people out of it.......................................
http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon4.gif You also slaughtered each other in Indian tribal wars...

While the war Philip waged was savage and brutal, It can also be said that it was no more so than the brutalities inflicted by the white man.Ironically, Native American intertribal conflicts, trading interests and warring would ultimately enhance the English position.

In a volley of ferocious and savage attacks, Philip and his warriors (later to include Nipmuks and Narragansetts) hit village after village. First came Swansea in June of 1675. Next came Mendon in July. Thereafter, no town felt immune from impending disaster, and, indeed, the fear became a nightmare as town after town was wholly or partially destroyed, its inhabitants killed, maimed, or carried into captivity. In the now famous narrative of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson, a captive who survived, we gain a glimpse of these terrifying days (Indian Captivities, Or Life In the Wigwam, Samuel Drake, 1851)

** Ref.: http://www.mayflowerfamilies.com/enquirer/native.htm

** See also - http://www.jstor.org/pss/967942

About 1808 Tecumseh settled in the area of present-day Indiana with his brother Tenskwatawa, called "the Prophet" because he claimed to have had a revelation from the "Master of Life." There the brothers sought to induce the Indians to discard white customs and goods and to abjure [or stop] intertribal wars for unity against the white invader. The code of the Prophet had a mysticism that appealed to the Indians, and many became converts...

** Ref.: http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1800s/yr10/ftecumseh1811.htm

Strike & Retreat: Intertribal Warfare and the Powder River War, 1865-1868

** Ref.: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4518527

[freakazoid]

this fucking killing has gone on and on and on..we been some what inteligent should by now know that we can find better ways to manage our live and let live theory...the fact is we still kill under bullshit properganda will of others..and if two men want to go fucking kill each other fine...leave the innocent people out of it.......................................

Who are the "innocent people?"

[bullfighter]

Who are the "innocent people?"

when men stand up for what they want and others want the same thing and great amount of money and power involved .many innocent people get killed..so goes the world of kill .. the thing is if you think your sorry ass is worth saving, so you can have the goals you would like and enjoy healthy life with important feelings and joy..what about the 10000s dieing every day that could be prevented .are there souls any less important then yours..

[hitekredneck]

are there souls any less important then yours..
if they aren't willing to fight for their lives and what they believe in?...absolutely :cool:

[bullfighter]

if they aren't willing to fight for their lives and what they believe in?...absolutely :cool:

when you will stand up for what you believe,and not have a hinch man do the killing for you, tilling you what to believe in..you are absolutly correct.

[Controversy]

Way I see it we had to drop the bomb. We had no way to tell who was for or against Japan's desire to go to war. For all we knew, the whole damn nation coulda supported the army and enlisted happily, knowing they'd be serving their country with honours, ready to kill whoever got in their way and even themselves to get the job of invading and conquering other lands done.

[bullfighter]

Way I see it we had to drop the bomb. We had no way to tell who was for or against Japan's desire to go to war. For all we knew, the whole damn nation coulda supported the army and enlisted happily, knowing they'd be serving their country with honours, ready to kill whoever got in their way and even themselves to get the job of invading and conquering other lands done.

bullshit,bullshit,bullshit..

[Controversy]

That your nostrils blaring? Come on, charge me! Let's see how hard you ram. :)

[Montanarchist]

Way I see it we had to drop the bomb. We had no way to tell who was for or against Japan's desire to go to war. For all we knew, the whole damn nation coulda supported the army and enlisted happily, knowing they'd be serving their country with honours, ready to kill whoever got in their way and even themselves to get the job of invading and conquering other lands done.

Well, they did. Sorta. But that doesn't mean they posed a threat.

[Controversy]

The trouble was they took advantage of how America's a much bigger country and Japan wasn't. They fought the wasp could sting in the right place and get away with it. Just so happens the Japanese managed to pull it off and killed defenseless opponents. I say that was cause to drop the bomb. Show 'em what it's like to attack lots of unarmed people.

[Oralloy]

I said that the article wasn't all that correct, but the point about unconditional surrender still holds water.

You'd probably like "Strategic Surrender: The Politics of Victory and Defeat" by Paul Kecskemeti.

It looks at the WWII surrenders of France to Germany, Italy to the Allies, Germany to the Allies, and Japan to the Allies.

It concludes that the Allied policy of demanding unconditional surrender and refusing to negotiate behind the scenes was extremely counterproductive.

Google has it partially online:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IjisAAAAIAAJ

[Oralloy]

bullshit,bullshit,bullshit..

What he said sounded reasonable. When we dropped the A-bombs, the possibility of a brutal fight to the death against Japan still seemed quite possible.

[Montanarchist]

You'd probably like "Strategic Surrender: The Politics of Victory and Defeat" by Paul Kecskemeti.

It looks at the WWII surrenders of France to Germany, Italy to the Allies, Germany to the Allies, and Japan to the Allies.

It concludes that the Allied policy of demanding unconditional surrender and refusing to negotiate behind the scenes was extremely counterproductive.

Google has it partially online:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IjisAAAAIAAJ
Good, very good!

[Carrot]

Yea, pretty interesting orally. Might get it.

[bullfighter]

What he said sounded reasonable. When we dropped the A-bombs, the possibility of a brutal fight to the death against Japan still seemed quite possible.

it was the 1000s of woman and children that died then and after of hidious death pains.now you can just try to put your self and your community in that place.there is no fairness or justification for that. if your niegbour did a crime against the hell angels then they came and blew up your street leaving your kids dead and crippled.till me you feel that would be fair..

[freakazoid]

it was the 1000s of woman and children that died then and after of hidious death pains.now you can just try to put your self and your community in that place.there is no fairness or justification for that. if your niegbour did a crime against the hell angels then they came and blew up your street leaving your kids dead and crippled.till me you feel that would be fair..

We had a choice; lose up to 1 million people (the number estimated we would lose on both sides if we had to invade Japan) or lose a few thousand using the atomic bomb. We chose to lose a few thousand and save EVERY American life that would have been lost if we had to invade. It was the best choice available. The japanese WERE NOT going to surrender.

The loss of innocent life was a tragedy, tell it to the Japanese who started the war by, without warning, attacking and killing thousands at Pearl Harbor for no reason other than an insane greed for power. The death of the innocent and their blood is on their hands.

Because of the United States and our allies Japan is now a free and prosperous democracy.

[bullfighter]

We had a choice; lose up to 1 million people (the number estimated we would lose on both sides if we had to invade Japan) or lose a few thousand using the atomic bomb. We chose to lose a few thousand and save EVERY American life that would have been lost if we had to invade. It was the best choice available. The japanese WERE NOT going to surrender.

The lose of innocent life was a tragedy, tell it to the Japanese who started the war by, without warning, attacking and killing thousands at Pearl Harbor for no reason other than an insane greed for power. The death of the innocent and their blood is on their hands.

Because of the United States and our allies Japan is now a free and prosperous democracy.

however i feel there is no justification for killing innocent people out of fear or trade off to a war death toll.the japs were wrong out of fear to do what they did.that does not make right the death that we caused to innocent people.i guess when you feel your death is worth the freedom of others you would give that up with the death of your loved ones also.just like the suicide people in irac,where we now cause that civil disorder because of our presents[we should not be there] so we cause lots of death all over the world.and fucking justify it all, like we are the kings of disition who dies and who lives..i hope your suicide mission when needed will proper your community in some way...

[freakazoid]

however i feel there is no justification for killing innocent people out of fear or trade off to a war death toll.the japs were wrong out of fear to do what they did.that does not make right the death that we caused to innocent people.i guess when you feel your death is worth the freedom of others you would give that up with the death of your loved ones also.just like the suicide people in irac,where we now cause that civil disorder because of our presents[we should not be there] so we cause lots of death all over the world.and fucking justify it all, like we are the kings of disition who dies and who lives..i hope your suicide mission when needed will proper your community in some way...

RE: "however i feel there is no justification for killing innocent people out of fear or trade off to a war death toll."

There was no way of NOT killing innocent people (non combatants) in an all out war with a nation. It would have been nice to do so, but it is very unrealistic. Again, we had no choice. We saved hundreds of thousands of lives by using the bomb. Japan was warned that we would use it and they choose to continue the war. THAT was a big mistake.

But, as I said... Because of the United States and our allies Japan is now a free and prosperous democracy.

[bullfighter]

RE: "however i feel there is no justification for killing innocent people out of fear or trade off to a war death toll."

There was no way of NOT killing innocent people (non combatants) in an all out war with a nation. It would have been nice to do so, but it is very unrealistic. Again, we had no choice. We saved hundreds of thousands of lives by using the bomb. Japan was warned that we would use it and they choose to continue the war. THAT was a big mistake.

But, as I said... Because of the United States and our allies Japan is now a free and prosperous democracy.

how ever things never had to get to the point where the japs attacked .wars are product of power men and not common people.but you no what we are a fucked specie,and will allways have this killing thing in the will.so good luck when the shit comes near you..

[freakazoid]

how ever things never had to get to the point where the japs attacked .wars are product of power men and not common people.but you no what we are a fucked specie,and will allways have this killing thing in the will.so good luck when the shit comes near you..

RE: "how ever things never had to get to the point where the japs attacked"

That is correct; they could have stopped at anytime, apologized to the world for what they have done, handed over the war criminals who planned and carried out the attacks for prosecution, paid the United States for the damage and...


Save thousands of Japanese lives, including those who died when we used nuclear weapons on them.


But, do you think they would have?

[Controversy]

True, it could'a helped, but the truth is there's never been a time when the enemy apologized for their actions. History's replete with adversaries that fought ta the bitter end, getting their asses kicked first and then repenting later, It's just human nature. I could be wrong, but I hope I'm not.

[freakazoid]

True, it could'a helped, but the truth is there's never been a time when the enemy apologized for their actions. History's replete with adversaries that fought ta the bitter end, getting their asses kicked first and then repenting later, It's just human nature. I could be wrong, but I hope I'm not.
Here are the assholes responsible...

” Today, we did it again. We pushed innocent Chinese down and beat them up.
When they were half dead,
he pushed them into ditches and burned them,
torturing them to death. Everyone gets his entertainment
this way to get rid of the boredom. If this had happened in Japan,
it would be an enormous incident. But
here it’s like killing dogs and cats.”
–an excerpt from a Japanese soldier’s diary

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/207/441531324_312c2d359f.jpg

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-06/01/xin_53060201102423924607.jpg

http://executions.justsickshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/1937-nanking-massacre-beheaded-bodies-heads.gif

The Japanese Killing Contests:
The heads lines of the Japanese newsletter read,”Contest
to kill first 100 Chinese with sword extended when both fighters
exceed mark –Mukai scores 106 and Noda 105.”
The killing contest began as a way to “boost morale among the
[Japanese] troops.” Sub-lieutenants Toshiaki Mukai and
Takeshi Noda began this competitive game on the base of Nanking’s
Purple Gold Mountain.

http://executions.justsickshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/japanese-chinese-behead.jpeg

[bullfighter]

Here are the assholes responsible...

” Today, we did it again. We pushed innocent Chinese down and beat them up.
When they were half dead,
he pushed them into ditches and burned them,
torturing them to death. Everyone gets his entertainment
this way to get rid of the boredom. If this had happened in Japan,
it would be an enormous incident. But
here it’s like killing dogs and cats.”
–an excerpt from a Japanese soldier’s diary

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/207/441531324_312c2d359f.jpg

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-06/01/xin_53060201102423924607.jpg

http://executions.justsickshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/1937-nanking-massacre-beheaded-bodies-heads.gif

The Japanese Killing Contests:
The heads lines of the Japanese newsletter read,”Contest
to kill first 100 Chinese with sword extended when both fighters
exceed mark –Mukai scores 106 and Noda 105.”
The killing contest began as a way to “boost morale among the
[Japanese] troops.” Sub-lieutenants Toshiaki Mukai and
Takeshi Noda began this competitive game on the base of Nanking’s
Purple Gold Mountain.

http://executions.justsickshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/japanese-chinese-behead.jpeg

by your forefathers.but wait you can justify that to..seems you can justify what ever the usa has done..when we are as bad as the rest..

[freakazoid]

by your forefathers.but wait you can justify that to..seems you can justify what ever the usa has done..when we are as bad as the rest..

As bad as the rest? That is pretty sick, and historically wrong.

[Montanarchist]

The Japanese prison camps had a mortality rate of almost 30% which is higher than the German KZ-camps.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March

Not for more people died in that than Indians did in the Trail of Tears.

[bullfighter]

The Japanese prison camps had a mortality rate of almost 30% which is higher than the German KZ-camps.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March

Not for more people died in that than Indians did in the Trail of Tears.

we been of sound mind and good principal should be able to put a stop to it.but guess what bush and his kind is not of sound mind..by the way where is that murdering asswipe.going around free and making money..and where is your protest up your ass with the rest of the hot air..the rich make the wars and the dumb die been puppet heroes