[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Push,
Why do you bother attempting to engage this total fucking idiot in a serious conversation?
Him and Lixy should get together and rim each other while they whine like cunts about the U.S.[/quote]
Leave off, you intellectual peon! The adults are talking here.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
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.
Rank nonsense, once again.
Perhaps Austrian schools skip the Battle of Britain.[/quote]
Coventry, VI, VII…
Yadayadayada, completely missing the point as usual -
because we already know that the Nazis and the Japanese military committed war crimes.
That still does not, and did not, make the deliberate carpet bombing of civilian targets excusable.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So Lifticus, 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Or is it that you believe the US should have withdrawn all forces and allowed the Japanese to rebuild and re-attack?[/quote]
They could have dropped it over a military target.
Over a fleet or something.
I think the atomic bomb was probably the necessary move, as awful as it was. However, I’m sympathetic to the argumentthat terror bombing (which is the appropriate term for killing masses of civilians to try to break an opponent’s will) is a war crime. After all, LeMay said it himself, didn’t he?
Strategic bombing, trying to cripple their industries and production, is something else. But then again, it’s a fine line between the two, especially sixty years ago.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pushharder wrote:
LIFTIC, OK, you’re President Truman. It’s July 1945. What do you do?
(I don’t why I do this. I might as well be asking Daffy Duck but let’s run with it)
I would not have…
Daff, you didn’t answer my question.[/quote]
According to Lift’s answer, apparently Truman had the power of time travel.
[quote]orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
…
To be fair though it was Churchill who introduced that little gem into WWII.
Rank nonsense, once again.
Perhaps Austrian schools skip the Battle of Britain.
Coventry, VI, VII…
Yadayadayada, completely missing the point as usual -
because we already know that the Nazis and the Japanese military committed war crimes.
That still does not, and did not, make the deliberate carpet bombing of civilian targets excusable.
[/quote]
There is no fool quite like a self-righteous fool.
Well, if you choose to fabricate history, you could at least fabricate a source for your assertion, quoted above.
Otherwise, we will just list this as one more example of self-serving and creative approach you take with facts, like The New Histories of Munich, Lincoln, the Navahos…
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I think the atomic bomb was probably the necessary move, as awful as it was. However, I’m sympathetic to the argumentthat terror bombing (which is the appropriate term for killing masses of civilians to try to break an opponent’s will) is a war crime. After all, LeMay said it himself, didn’t he?
Strategic bombing, trying to cripple their industries and production, is something else. But then again, it’s a fine line between the two, especially sixty years ago.[/quote]
True, they bombed Geneva when they tried to bomb, I think, Frankfurt or Essen, and that is quite a bit off.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
…
To be fair though it was Churchill who introduced that little gem into WWII.
Rank nonsense, once again.
Perhaps Austrian schools skip the Battle of Britain.
Coventry, VI, VII…
Yadayadayada, completely missing the point as usual -
because we already know that the Nazis and the Japanese military committed war crimes.
That still does not, and did not, make the deliberate carpet bombing of civilian targets excusable.
There is no fool quite like a self-righteous fool.
Well, if you choose to fabricate history, you could at least fabricate a source for your assertion, quoted above.
Otherwise, we will just list this as one more example of self-serving and creative approach you take with facts, like The New Histories of Munich, Lincoln, the Navahos…
[/quote]
… the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive…should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany.[18] [19]
It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories....
Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris
Care for some quotes from a young Congressman about the God-given right to secede?
Or from the Wilson doctrine that also included the Germans that were part of other nations?
Just because you worship a bunch of butchers neither makes me a fool nor illiterate - your determined effort to ignore even quotes out of the horses mouth when they contradict your preconceived notions make you willfully ignorant though.
[quote]orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So Lifticus, 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?
They could have dropped it over a military target.
Over a fleet or something.
[/quote]
I don’t believe the Japanese were in the practice of concentrating a majorly-important part of their Naval fleet within well under one square mile.
(Far under would be required actually. The US Navy did testing on how close an atomic bomb would have to be to a supercarrier to destroy it, and for bombs in the tens-of-kilotons range as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were, it’s damn close. Forget what, but a lot closer than a half-mile.)
Nice idea but not realistic.
And it seems unlikely that surrender would have been accomplished by the Japanese government learning of one carrier being destroyed by one bomb. Or two carriers by two bombs.
I think it fair to ask anyone who criticizes Truman’s decision to provide their own superior decision with reasonable basis of showing how the proposed-better outcome would not have been even worse.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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?
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.[/quote]
Hmm, I had simple, relevant, and very direct questions, which you ducked completely.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Plus, Stewart says we can’t judge the decision because it was made in the context of war. I don’t agree entirely with his position, but he defends it far better than the other guy, who just keeps coming off as a pushy cock face.
[/quote]
Off topic, but have you ever read Billy Budd by Melville? It sort of goes along with the dilemma of making a decision which may seem necessary during a time of war but is morally wrong.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
Care for some quotes from a young Congressman about the God-given right to secede?
Or from the Wilson doctrine that also included the Germans that were part of other nations?
Just because you worship a bunch of butchers neither makes me a fool nor illiterate - your determined effort to ignore even quotes out of the horses mouth when they contradict your preconceived notions make you willfully ignorant though.
Dear Grandson of the Folks of Who Started This War, OK, you’re President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill rolled up into one. It’s July 1944. What do you do?
Regale us with your strategic military prowess. If you don’t have a nicely packaged little synopsis on how you would have defeated the Germanic-Austrian thugs, the true butchers in this tussle, then you might do well to step away from this debate and paint your toenails or something.
[/quote]
In July 1944 they already were defeated.
They just did not know it yet.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So Lifticus, 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?
They could have dropped it over a military target.
Over a fleet or something.
I don’t believe the Japanese were in the practice of concentrating a majorly-important part of their Naval fleet within well under one square mile.
(Far under would be required actually. The US Navy did testing on how close an atomic bomb would have to be to a supercarrier to destroy it, and for bombs in the few-kiloton range as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were, it’s damn close. Forget what, but a lot closer than a half-mile.)
Nice idea but not realistic.
And it seems unlikely that surrender would have been accomplished by the Japanese government learning of one carrier being destroyed by one bomb. Or two carriers by two bombs.
I think it fair to ask anyone who criticizes Truman’s decision to provide their own superior decision with reasonable basis of showing how the proposed-better outcome would not have been even worse.[/quote]
I had forgotten how small that thing really was.
Not in the sense of lives taken, but the literal smallness of the sphere of impact.
Anyways, compared to an estimated 1 000 000 losses in the case of an invasion…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
Care for some quotes from a young Congressman about the God-given right to secede?
Or from the Wilson doctrine that also included the Germans that were part of other nations?
Just because you worship a bunch of butchers neither makes me a fool nor illiterate - your determined effort to ignore even quotes out of the horses mouth when they contradict your preconceived notions make you willfully ignorant though.
Dear Grandson of the Folks of Who Started This War, OK, you’re President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill rolled up into one. It’s July 1944. What do you do?
Regale us with your strategic military prowess. If you don’t have a nicely packaged little synopsis on how you would have defeated the Germanic-Austrian thugs, the true butchers in this tussle, then you might do well to step away from this debate and paint your toenails or something.
In July 1944 they already were defeated.
They just did not know it yet.
You ducked another question.
BTW, your toenails look fine in lavender. Put the brush down now and get busy with something less feeble than, “In July 1944 they already were defeated. They just did not know it yet.”
Answer my question. Describe the strategy YOU would’ve employed. Now that I’ve met you via the internet, if it would’ve been me…I would have withdrawn all Allied forces from the Continent and let Stalin stop by Salzburg for lunch at an adorable little cafe with your grandma.
[/quote]
Well, with perfect hindsight and assuming that I would actually want the Nazis to win the war, I would have crushed the BEF, followed by an invasion of the British isles and have kept my peace with Stalin.
And I would have never had an alliance with Japan which was more or less pointless.
This war was not won by the Allies, it was lost by Germany.
Edited: it was the BEF
[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]
It was stupid of him to say it because it lets people have a clear picture of how he thinks. The man is a radical political ideologue who packages himself as a comedy act to get people to lower their guard.
As bad as his ideology is, what is even worse is he isn’t funny.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
Care for some quotes from a young Congressman about the God-given right to secede?
Or from the Wilson doctrine that also included the Germans that were part of other nations?
Just because you worship a bunch of butchers neither makes me a fool nor illiterate - your determined effort to ignore even quotes out of the horses mouth when they contradict your preconceived notions make you willfully ignorant though.
Dear Grandson of the Folks of Who Started This War, OK, you’re President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill rolled up into one. It’s July 1944. What do you do?
Regale us with your strategic military prowess. If you don’t have a nicely packaged little synopsis on how you would have defeated the Germanic-Austrian thugs, the true butchers in this tussle, then you might do well to step away from this debate and paint your toenails or something.
In July 1944 they already were defeated.
They just did not know it yet.
You ducked another question.
BTW, your toenails look fine in lavender. Put the brush down now and get busy with something less feeble than, “In July 1944 they already were defeated. They just did not know it yet.”
Answer my question. Describe the strategy YOU would’ve employed. Now that I’ve met you via the internet, if it would’ve been me…I would have withdrawn all Allied forces from the Continent and let Stalin stop by Salzburg for lunch at an adorable little cafe with your grandma.
Well, with perfect hindsight and assuming that I would actually want the Nazis to win the war, I would have crushed the BEF, followed by an invasion of the British isles and have kept my peace with Stalin.
And I would have never had an alliance with Japan which was more or less pointless.
This war was not won by the Allies, it was lost by Germany.
Edited: it was the BEF
You are having problems once again. I specifically asked you what you would have done if you were Churchill and Roosevelt and you answer with “assuming that I would actually want the Nazis to win the war…” Wake up and for the third time, answer my question.
Dear Grandson of the Folks of Who Started This War, OK, you’re President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill rolled up into one. It’s July 1944. What do you do?[/quote]
Nothing.
Let the war commence as it does.
Neither the bombing of German nor of Japanese civilians did any good.
I would have dropped the bomb, but not for the reasons the carpet bombings with incendiary devices were used.