[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Speaking as a Marine, I’d rather see several thousand more Marines die invading Kysushu or Honsho… blah [/quote]
Blasphemy.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
It’s not the playground,it’s war. I am an adult, if you try to hit me I will defend myself to the best of my abilities up to and including lethal force if it is legally justified and necessary.
The same goes in war. You people are seriously in need of some common sense.[/quote]
Your inability to respond to what I’m saying or to even remain consistent is very vexing, but I shall try again.
Your post that started this all went as follows:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
You know if they never bombed Pearl Harbor… [/quote]
Then, when you were called out to explain this post you very emotionally defended the idea that the Pearl Harbor attack justified any and every action we Americans took to defeat the Japanese.
The original reply went something like this:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
tom63 wrote:
You know if they never bombed Pearl Harbor…
Retaliation. Awesome.
And people wonder why others think poorly of America.
It was a war nitwhit, what should we do send them flowers? Stop the dope and get a clue. in wart you defend yourself, not retaliate numbnuts. Because if you don’t you end up getting taken over and all that war stuff. Seriously, are all young people this retarded, or is it just a New Zealand thing?[/quote]
You then through a few more posts continued to defend this very childish idea that when one is attacked absolutely any retaliation is necessary or at least justified. You also continued to push forward the ludicrous dichotomy that when attacked one can only either surrender or respond with all possible force.
Now though you are changing your tune. In this latest post you said:
That’s certainly different from your attitude before, where you were ranting about how only nitwhits don’t curb stomp anyone who threatens them.
More importantly your latest post just once again brings up the real issue at hand. You say that when one is attacked they should use whatever force is justified and necessary, but that’s the whole question of this thread–was dropping the bomb justified and necessary? It probably was, but you can’t say that dropping the bomb was justified and necessary because we were attacked first. That would be completely circular! (For being attacked first only means that we should respond with whatever force is justified and necessary!)
So I’m not really sure what to make of your posts. All along where you merely being question begging by assuming that dropping the bomb was a justified and necessary response to Japanese aggression, or as your emotional posts seem to indicate where you just being irrational and trying to push an all-or-nothing mentality about retaliatory action?
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
I never said Europeans and Americans went on a systematic attempt to kill EVERY native on the continent–your misquoting aside. I said that there have been instances of both Europeans and Americans systematically eliminating Native tribes.[/quote]
Actually, what you said is:
“Entire race”, aye? Americans putting an “entire race to death”? That doesn’t qualify as a (successful) “attempt to kill EVERY native on the continent”?
Stoked, you’re better than this. You’ve stepped in it and you are making it worse trying to scrape it off.
I don’t think Hiroshima was anything but a tough chapter and a necessary evil. I simply objected to you arguing from a false historical position that simply will never be true, no matter how many times you repeat it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
I never said Europeans and Americans went on a systematic attempt to kill EVERY native on the continent–your misquoting aside. I said that there have been instances of both Europeans and Americans systematically eliminating Native tribes.
Actually, what you said is:
Wouldn’t be the first time Americans put an entire race to death.
“Entire race”, aye? Americans putting an “entire race to death”? That doesn’t qualify as a (successful) “attempt to kill EVERY native on the continent”?
Stoked, you’re better than this. You’ve stepped in it and you are making it worse trying to scrape it off.
[Hiroshima bombing]
I don’t think Hiroshima was anything but a tough chapter and a necessary evil. I simply objected to you arguing from a false historical position that simply will never be true, no matter how many times you repeat it.[/quote]
You are correct that my original phrasing is misleading (“race” is an ambiguous term, the Natives insofar as they understood “race” didn’t see themselves as a single race). What I intended to say was something along the lines of “Wouldn’t be the first time Americans put an entire group of people to death”. The times I was alluding too were specifically various Indian wars were we did intentionally put an entire group of people to death for all practical purposes.
You could still debate this, and depending on how you interpret things you’d be right. Surely there was never some official decree from the American government to put a whole Indian tribe to death. Insofar as my statements before implied that they were incorrect and misleading.
I still stand by my statement that given our past with Natives it is ironic to hear an American flamboyantly boast about our goodness in not putting all the Japanese to death, but I fully admit that my original language was a bit too strong.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
It’s not the playground,it’s war. I am an adult, if you try to hit me I will defend myself to the best of my abilities up to and including lethal force if it is legally justified and necessary.
The same goes in war. You people are seriously in need of some common sense.
Your inability to respond to what I’m saying or to even remain consistent is very vexing, but I shall try again.
Your post that started this all went as follows:
tom63 wrote:
You know if they never bombed Pearl Harbor…
Then, when you were called out to explain this post you very emotionally defended the idea that the Pearl Harbor attack justified any and every action we Americans took to defeat the Japanese.
The original reply went something like this:
tom63 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
tom63 wrote:
You know if they never bombed Pearl Harbor…
Retaliation. Awesome.
And people wonder why others think poorly of America.
It was a war nitwhit, what should we do send them flowers? Stop the dope and get a clue. in wart you defend yourself, not retaliate numbnuts. Because if you don’t you end up getting taken over and all that war stuff. Seriously, are all young people this retarded, or is it just a New Zealand thing?
You then through a few more posts continued to defend this very childish idea that when one is attacked absolutely any retaliation is necessary or at least justified. You also continued to push forward the ludicrous dichotomy that when attacked one can only either surrender or respond with all possible force.
Now though you are changing your tune. In this latest post you said:
if you try to hit me I will defend myself to the best of my abilities up to and including lethal force if it is legally justified and necessary.
That’s certainly different from your attitude before, where you were ranting about how only nitwhits don’t curb stomp anyone who threatens them.
More importantly your latest post just once again brings up the real issue at hand. You say that when one is attacked they should use whatever force is justified and necessary, but that’s the whole question of this thread–was dropping the bomb justified and necessary? It probably was, but you can’t say that dropping the bomb was justified and necessary because we were attacked first. That would be completely circular! (For being attacked first only means that we should respond with whatever force is justified and necessary!)
So I’m not really sure what to make of your posts. All along where you merely being question begging by assuming that dropping the bomb was a justified and necessary response to Japanese aggression, or as your emotional posts seem to indicate where you just being irrational and trying to push an all-or-nothing mentality about retaliatory action? [/quote]
I think you have what I was trying to say.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
I think they could have invited the Japanese Emperor to witness a demo of the bomb dropping on an uninhabited area. If refused, then drop it somewhere that it could be witnessed. I don’t think they needed to drop the second one, I think they wanted live test subjects to see what it would do. I think atrocities were done on both sides.
I recommend watching a documentary called “The Last Mission”. It goes over some events during the final bombing run in the war. Long story short: Hirohito had recorded the surrender message following the second bomb on some wax discs. The day prior to them being played Major Kenji Hatanaka held the palace and emperor hostage during an obviously short-lived military coup. He intended to destroy the discs and continue the war. By chance this bombing run caused a blackout over the area and along with some loyal Japanese servants the discs were eventually played.
My point is that despite what we’ve been told it wasn’t a simple act of everyone wanting to surrender after the bomb went off.
I think it is appalling that in Japan the history has been erased, not taught, wiped from textbooks like it never happened, yet in Germany it is rammed down your throat. And Italy, hey, they were never the enemy? I have nothing against the ever changing alliances in the world but the history should not be altered.
Yeah, I’ve been to the museum at Nagasaki. That place is a vulgar shrine of anti-Americanism. It skates over any mention of Pearl Harbor or Japanese aggression and makes it look like the Americans came out of nowhere to bomb them. I recall a map of the city at the time where they pointed out all the hospitals, schools and orphanages but ignored barracks, munitions factories, ect.
The following is just one man’s opinion so take it for what it’s worth:
Morally I’m appalled we dropped the bomb. Speaking as a Marine, I’d rather see several thousand more Marines die invading Kysushu or Honsho than the mass extermination of civilians. We should be doing everything in our power to avoid civilian death. Being the good guys is a bitch. I could be wrong, but even if the Japanese were too proud to surrender before we hit the mainland, we had stopped their aggression. They were certainly no threat to Western Civilization any longer. Therefore we could have grabbed our toys and went home instead of invading the mainland or we could have spent the necessary lives in a ground invasion.
The morality aside, looking through the wide lens of history I’m glad we did it. The only reason I’m glad we did it is because had we not dropped the A-bomb, sometime between then and now a more modern nuke (H-bomb or whatever they were) would have been used and the results would have been far worse. Instead we dropped the weakest atomic bombs and it gave us a horrifying (albeit overinflated) sense of the power of nuclear weapons, causing us to not use one since.
I’d also like to throw out there that while we certainly did have moral superiority here (to argue otherwise is an absurdity), we did not come close to living up to our duty or principles as Americans. Isn’t it ironic that while we are talking about the concentration camps, we were interning our own citizens? Equally ironic is that in an effort to fight socialists and dictators abroad we had a four-term socialist president who stepped down only because he had a boat space in hell waiting on him.
mike[/quote]
I agree 100%. But don’t you think you’re idealizing your “duty or principles as Americans” a wee-bit too much?
[quote]lixy wrote:
I agree 100%. But don’t you think you’re idealizing your “duty or principles as Americans” a wee-bit too much? [/quote]
Off the cuff, no. Can you elaborate on what you’re trying to say?
mike
[quote]Therizza wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Speaking as a Marine, I’d rather see several thousand more Marines die invading Kysushu or Honsho… blah
Blasphemy.[/quote]
As I said, being the good guy is a bitch. No point patting ourselves on the back as being a force for good if we kill the folks we’re trying to save. Besides, mission accomplishment comes before troop welfare. The war was won before we dropped those bombs (I’d say right about after we took Okinawa), whether or not the enemy admitted it. If we wanted to use a nuke in a justified manner, we should have dropped it on Iwo or Tarawa or some other piece of shit island with no civvies, just a bunch of dug in soldiers. How does one cry platitudes like, “Death Before Dishonor” then justify the killing of civilians to save their ass?
All glory to the Corps friend.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
lixy wrote:
I agree 100%. But don’t you think you’re idealizing your “duty or principles as Americans” a wee-bit too much?
Off the cuff, no. Can you elaborate on what you’re trying to say?
mike[/quote]
I’m trying to say that principles almost never come into question in such situations. It’s about interests.
I say absolutely crush the enemy. Can’t risk them getting back up. And the bombs… well… they kind of crushed them.
and the civilians? Civilians are never neutral. You are either for or against, active or passive. Assuming the civilians shared the same views as their “heroes”, than these bombs found the right home.
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
and the civilians? Civilians are never neutral. You are either for or against, active or passive. Assuming the civilians shared the same views as their “heroes”, than these bombs found the right home. [/quote]
You’ve opened a door for a wide variety of evil with that attitude. I suppose those Chinese deserved civilians deserved all the trouble the Japanese gave them then. For or against? Most civilians don’t want anything to do with various wars. They just want to be left alone.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Most civilians don’t want anything to do with various wars. They just want to be left alone.
[/quote]
Than obviously they are against.
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Most civilians don’t want anything to do with various wars. They just want to be left alone.
Than obviously they are against.[/quote]
Am I missing something Clamp? I got the impression you were basically saying to hell with the Civvies we nuked.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Most civilians don’t want anything to do with various wars. They just want to be left alone.
Than obviously they are against.
Am I missing something Clamp? I got the impression you were basically saying to hell with the Civvies we nuked.
mike[/quote]
“Assuming the civilians shared the same views as their “heroes”, than these bombs found the right home.”
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Most civilians don’t want anything to do with various wars. They just want to be left alone.
Than obviously they are against.
Am I missing something Clamp? I got the impression you were basically saying to hell with the Civvies we nuked.
mike
“Assuming the civilians shared the same views as their “heroes”, than these bombs found the right home.”
[/quote]
Sure, I can agree with that, but that’s still one hell of a presumption to make.
mike
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
It strikes me as tremendously ironic that in order to subdue the heathen Japanese, the United States ended up killing two-thirds of Japan’s entire Christian community with a single bomb.
I wonder how many of the 8,500 Japanese Christians incinerated in Nagasaki could have be considered “enemies.”
Ah well. Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.[/quote]
It wasn’t a religious war. It was a war against Fascism. Or a war to keep the status quo.
In any event, there were a lot more Christians in Europe during WWII, but it did not stop us from bombing and invading there.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
It was a war against Fascism. [/quote]
…led by FDR…
mike
[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
lixy wrote:
I agree 100%. But don’t you think you’re idealizing your “duty or principles as Americans” a wee-bit too much?
Off the cuff, no. Can you elaborate on what you’re trying to say?
mike
I’m trying to say that principles almost never come into question in such situations. It’s about interests. [/quote]
I would contend that only a society of cannibals would come up with such a false dichotomy.
Expecting one group of your own people to die, to save the lives of some of your sworn enemies? How insane is that!
I would joyfully have bombed Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and considered it a tremendous honor to be chosen to perform the task.
God bless the United States of America!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Therizza wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Speaking as a Marine, I’d rather see several thousand more Marines die invading Kysushu or Honsho… blah
Blasphemy.
I agree. I have met quite a few Marines and many are my friends. I cannot imagine a single one of them uttering those words.
I can imagine them hanging their heads in shame that one of theirs said this.[/quote]
Yes, and I’ve met quite a few Marines who were cheating on their wives that could say “Always Faithful” with a straight face. I’ve also known Marines to fuck guys’ new wives on Wakiki Beach on their honeymoons. I served with a guy who fucked some chick on deployment then gave his faithful wife the T-shirt the girl was wearing as a present. I’ve had money stolen from me by Marines. Let those Marines hang their heads; I’m ashamed that there are those in my Corps who can kill civilians to save their own ass with a clear conscience. I trust that they likely just never thought out the situation fully. Hell, up until recently I saw Smedley Butler as a 2-MOH hero instead of communist sympathizer. Most Marines never hear about that part.
mike