[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Shaved wrote:
I don’t understand how instantly killing 80,000 people, the majority of which civilian, would not be considered a war crime. Even if it prevents further escalation of the war, it is still mass extermination of a civilian population.
We dropped fliers telling them to leave. We warned their government. We bombed low population areas that were more industry than residential. And we prevented escalation that would have ended in a bloody, horrible fight, virtually saving millions of lives.
While I’m still not entirely convinced use of nuclear weaponry was necessary, the way about which Truman got it done was to the very best of our ability, in the most humane way possible (if such a word as humane can even be applied to the nuclear option).
No. They didn’t get leaflet bombed them telling them they were going to be nuked. Regardless…they were murdered by the US government.[/quote]
No dumbass. The US government is blameless in this matter. If anybody murdered those people it was the Japanese government that took them to war against the US and refused to end the war long after it was quite apparent that they had no chance of winning.
The Japanese chose to prolong the suffering and raise the body count for everyone. They played with fire and got burned. It’s all their fault.
So grow up and stop being a punk.
[quote]
Just because someone warns you before murdering you doesn’t make it not murder.[/quote]
[quote]Sifu wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Shaved wrote:
I don’t understand how instantly killing 80,000 people, the majority of which civilian, would not be considered a war crime. Even if it prevents further escalation of the war, it is still mass extermination of a civilian population.
We dropped fliers telling them to leave. We warned their government. We bombed low population areas that were more industry than residential. And we prevented escalation that would have ended in a bloody, horrible fight, virtually saving millions of lives.
While I’m still not entirely convinced use of nuclear weaponry was necessary, the way about which Truman got it done was to the very best of our ability, in the most humane way possible (if such a word as humane can even be applied to the nuclear option).
No. They didn’t get leaflet bombed them telling them they were going to be nuked. Regardless…they were murdered by the US government.
No dumbass. The US government is blameless in this matter. If anybody murdered those people it was the Japanese government that took them to war against the US and refused to end the war long after it was quite apparent that they had no chance of winning.
The Japanese chose to prolong the suffering and raise the body count for everyone. They played with fire and got burned. It’s all their fault.
So grow up and stop being a punk.
Just because someone warns you before murdering you doesn’t make it not murder.
[/quote]
Murderers. You can ignore it all you want but you can’t change the definition of a word.
From Wiki, I cut out some of the terms that didn’t apply.
War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:
Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
Directing attacks against civilians
Using poison weapons (assuming the effects of radiation would classify nuclear attacks as poison weapons)
Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
Now, how don’t the attacks of Hiroshima/Nagasaki qualify? Everyone makes decisions because they feel its the “best thing to do.” That doesn’t always make it so.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Anyway, back to Jon. I wonder what made him change his mind. He said it was stupid of him to say it. How does a smart guy like him do a self-confessed stupid thing?
Or was he just being the smart politician and realized he might lose a few fans (ratings)?[/quote]
I’m not going to presume to know the motivations behind Stewart’s apology, but we all say things we regret at some point in our life, regardless of our intelligence level. Me, you, and everybody has said something “stupid” at one time or another. And that’s not politics, that’s just life.
While I do think that to drop the bomb was a quick way to end the war and therefore the general suffering, the carpet bombings in Europe and Japan were taken from the British colonial playbook where they would simply destroy a village from the air to let it be a warning to others.
This policy specifically targeted civilians in order to break their spirit, shock and awe if you will.
Or in other words terrorism and yes, a war crime.
Attacking places like Tokyo with millions of people and wood and paper houses with fire bombs did little to soften their resolve, it did create a flaming inferno though that let hundred of thousands of people die an unimaginably painful death.
To be fair though it was Churchill who introduced that little gem into WWII.
Attacking places like Tokyo with millions of people and wood and paper houses with fire bombs did little to soften their resolve, …
Surely you’re referring to the military / govt leaders and not the Japanese people?
And if that’s the case, your statement says more about those leaders’ attitudes toward their people than the effectiveness of the bombing. The same thing was seen even after the 2 A-bombings: it took a tie-breaking vote by the Emperor to finally reach surrender.
Incidentally, not that it’s particulary relevant here, but I’ve had some older Japanese tell me that they were “happy” when the war ended and the occupation occured, since life was much better under the occupation than it was under the Japanese military leadership. [/quote]
Of course it says something about the German and Japanese leadership, but I guess it was already known then who and what exactly they were.
It makes these bombings even worse for the civilian population had not way of influencing their leaders.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Shaved wrote:
I don’t understand how instantly killing 80,000 people, the majority of which civilian, would not be considered a war crime. Even if it prevents further escalation of the war, it is still mass extermination of a civilian population.
Study. Research it. Read a history book on subjects like this one every now and then. Put the fuckin video game away.
War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:
Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
Huh?
I got a kick out of that one too. Them there International Criminal Court folks are an intellectual bunch for sure.
After all, in War, in an ideal world, we’d only have accidental killings…and just a little bit of suffering…and maybe just a few sprained ankles or twisted knees.[/quote]
Pulled backs from not lifting with the legs and stuff like that.
[quote]orion wrote:
While I do think that to drop the bomb was a quick way to end the war and therefore the general suffering, the carpet bombings in Europe and Japan were taken from the British colonial playbook where they would simply destroy a village from the air to let it be a warning to others.
This policy specifically targeted civilians in order to break their spirit, shock and awe if you will.
Or in other words terrorism and yes, a war crime.
Attacking places like Tokyo with millions of people and wood and paper houses with fire bombs did little to soften their resolve, it did create a flaming inferno though that let hundred of thousands of people die an unimaginably painful death.
To be fair though it was Churchill who introduced that little gem into WWII.
[/quote]
Rank nonsense, once again.
Perhaps Austrian schools skip the Battle of Britain.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So where would you have dropped the bombs?
Or is it that you would rather we have continued conventional warfare?
Or is it that you believe the US should have withdrawn all forces and allowed the Japanese to rebuild and re-attack?[/quote]
I would have not threatened the Japanese (long before Perl Harbor happened) and then they wouldn’t have felt the need to attack the US to begin with.
It’s like people want to forget that US foreign policy was to blame in this matter. I am not apologizing for the wrong that was done to the US…but I am also not letting US foreign policy off the hook either.
Besides, at least the Japanese had the decency to only target a military base. Other than that everything that transpired afterwards was all in the name of saving face. It was a complete waste of life and resources.
Getting along with people is so much simpler than our government wants to make it seem…but that’s how they dupe the masses into giving them more power.
Why do innocent people have to suffer for the whims of idiotic government? Their problems are not mine and I refuse to allow them to convince me otherwise.