Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki-justified?

[LiquidCourage]

Just wondering what everyone thinks.

[Jackie Sloan]

Yes. Revisionist historians would have you believe it wasn't necessary, that America was somehow more interested in hurting innocent people. The Japanese at the time vowed to fight to the last man, and that's exactly what they were doing. Kamakaze pilots, (just one example) remember?
Here's the real question...why did it take 2 bombs before they surrendered? You would think 1 Nuked city would be enough, but obviously it wasn't. If you want to get a window into the Japanese military posture at the time, look up the rape of Nan King, China. That tells you all you need to know about their intentions.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/jackie.jpg">

Huge thanks to Aggie n' Silent for the sig

[DrewP]

After all the island fighting and soldiers we lost in the Pacific, there is no way we could have taken Japan on the ground with out massive, massisve, massive lives lost on both sides.

So I would say yes it was justified, it makes us the only country to weapons of mass destruction.

<IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/drewp2112/sigpic_12_26_2002.jpg">

For being the #1 market, New York radio sucks. Aside from R & F and O & A, there is nothing worth listening to.

Now we have NOTHING!!!

See Ya, DrewP

[reeshy]

There was a book I read many years ago when I was in college, I can't remember the name. But anyway, it was written on the premise that we didn't drop the bomb and we had to invade the main island of Honshu. Even though it was fictional, the author had access to documents written at the time. It was estimated that by the time hostilities were under control in Japan, the US forces alone would have lost over 1 million casualties. That's why right after V-E day in Europe, many soldiers thought that they were going to be rotated home. Instead, they were loaded into transports and brought over to the Pacific in the event they were needed for the invasion.

<IMG SRC=http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:vAT5eb31tzMC:www.rp-online.de/news/bilder/bildershows/bilder2002-0909/bilder2002-0909/lewis.jpg>

[furie]

not that it really matters, it done and history, but yes I think it was.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee>If they're called apartment, why are they so close together?</marquee>

This message was edited by furie on 5-19-03 @ 7:45 PM

[Def Dave in SC]

French and Indian War-Justified?

Abba Zabba, you my only friend
<img src="http://members.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/```def.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
Much Love to my Homie dcpete

UCF:AYBABTU

[Tall_James]

French and Indian War-Justified?
The Indians should have nuked France.

<img src=http://users.rcn.com/jamespatton/boundries.jpg>

the forgotten 98%

[ToddEVF]

well, if we didn't, i don't think we would have had an arms race with the Soviet Union. with every action came a reaction. cause and effect. But if we didn't we might have been decimated, so was it justified? that isn't the question. but did we have to nuke Nagasaki and Hiroshima? thats the true questions

<font size=2 color=333366>
<marquee behavior=alternate scrolldelay=30>I've been Tromatized!</marquee>
</font><IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=toddevf"><marquee>hes really the betstst - AngelAmy/todds the man - canofsoup15/todd is the shiznit! - Contra/Toddevf just rocks that much he gets two appriciation threads, but whatever - DCReed/dint mean to come down on him earlier. . . I like Todd - Doogie76/And he supports my nicotine-fits - DynamiteK/But it's great to see the end result with Todd!! - Gaia/How can I be the man if he's the man?!? - FlavorSaver/Todd Rocks and has a HUGE cock. . . so I heard!!!! - Green Lantern/i can actually say that i love the little fuck - GrlNiN/This must be done WITH GERMAN EFFICIANCY! - GrimSanity/Todd Will always be a DARLING! - LatinSpiceXoX/your the bestest, greatest, coolest todd! - Lulu/TODD EVF RULZ THE SCHOOL - NJDMMoe/I like Toddevf. He seems like a fine young gentleman. - pinkyfloyd/I appreciate my Mini-Me! - RonFez Mark/I like the sleezy way Todd puts a watermark in their. Kudos! - SateliteCam/So screw all the Todd-haters! - Shorty/I admire todd's ability to slyly and skillfully turn any and every thread into one about HIM - TheMojoPin</marquee>
<a href=http://www.showchoir.com/~justinc79/troma/terror_media/toddster.wav> The Toddster!!! (sound clip) </a href>
<a href=http://www.lostsanity.net/cgistor/yabb/yabb.pl> Lost Sanity Forum </a href>

[Def Dave in SC]

The Indians should have nuked France.


The French and Indians fought together against the British and the American colonists. But the Indians had their chance to nuke France and they blew it.



Abba Zabba, you my only friend
<img src="http://members.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/```def.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
Much Love to my Homie dcpete

UCF:AYBABTU

[TheMojoPin]

First one? Yeah...it's just still unclear to this day whether the second was necessary or not...there's a lot of historical indications that some of the Japanese government was planning to give up after fully realizing what the first bomb had done, but didn't reach a final agreement before it was too late. But it was war, decisions are made for better or for worse, and that's what happened. At least it kept the Soviets in check in post-war Asia, for what it's worth...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

The bombings were justified and necessary, yes. An attack on Tokyo would have inflicted more casualties on both sides and caused greater destruction. Japan had extensive plans in place for mass-suicide attacks against US troops. As mentioned in an earlier post, the deterrence provided by the show of force against Soviet expansion into the Far East was vital. This limiting of Communist movement east was, in my opinion, more influential in the decision to drop the bombs than the human factor. At least that's what I wrote on my APUS History essay back in school.

[HBox]

I'm not sure exactly how the Japanese felt about us following the bombing, but seeing as they do not hate us and are in fact one of our biggest allies right now says something.

[Death Metal Moe]

They were SO JUSTIFIED, I say we do it again!

OH NO! ME NO LIKEY BIG METAL FALLING FROM SKY!

:)

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[A.J.]

Hiroshima, yes. Nagasaki, no.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[FiveB247]

Neither were justified. Both cities were almost in ruins from previous bombings anyways. It was an easy way for the US to show Japan what we could do at a large scale to end the war. It was also a way to show our power and might for future enemies. These two cities were chosen due to their large scale as well as the impact it would have of destruction. That is also why we fire bombed Tokyo and left the place in ashes. Such devastation is never justified. If you don't think so, ask the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims that died due to these actions some many of you call pride too.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[furie]

Such devastation is never justified. If you don't think so, ask the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims that died due to these actions some many of you call pride too.


I can't ask the victims that died, because they're dead. But I can ask the veterans who are alive today who would have been killed in a land invasion.

And how many more civilians would have died from 1946-47? That was the time frame for the invasion till Japanese surrender. The sooner it was over, the sooner civilians would cease to be slaughtered.


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee>If they're called apartment, why are they so close together?</marquee>

[mdr55]

So I guess we are not terrorists because we killed innocent civilians with 2 nuclear bombs as opposed to 2 planes. Has any other country used nukes besides the U.S. to end hostilities? Just curious.

[A.J.]

So I guess we are not terrorists because we killed innocent civilians with 2 nuclear bombs as opposed to 2 planes.

The difference was that this took place during a declared war, against the nation that started a war. Ask the civilians of China and Korea how kindly they were treated by the Japanese.

Also, fewer people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki than in the raids of Dresden and Tokyo.

Has any other country used nukes besides the U.S. to end hostilities? Just curious.

No. This is what made the use of these bombs important. They put a quick end to what could have been a much longer, costlier and bloodier war. They also showed the world the deadly consequences of nuclear war. If we hadn't used these nukes in Japan, would we have used them in the Korean War?

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[JerryTaker]

Completely and totally justified. We were not about to lead the kind of suicide missions they were willing to use on us, and taking a force all the way across the pacific at that point would have resulted in dragging the war out for years and years longer, with severely increased casualties...

You also have to remember that we took a <I>HUGE</I> risk when we dropped the second bomb, because iirc, that was all we had, we had shot our load, and they surrendered because we told them they'd get more if they didn't.

Yes, the resulting cold war led us to a dangerous point, but I prefer to blame the Reagan administration as well as Gorbechav for that. It took both sides to perpetuate the arms race, because both countries needed a "bad guy" that we could all trust our government to beat after the war was over...


<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

[Wormwood]

Absolutely NOT!!! The race to build a Nuclear Bomb was with Werner Heisenberg, Otto Hahn and the rest of Germany's "Uranium Club" and was meant for the European theatre. We know now the U.S. won that race but the two bombs that were now built were no longer necessary because the Germans had surrendered. The military was now hard up to use these things somewhere because it would set a military precedent and end the war immediately (which is fine) but if you know anything about what went on at Los Alamos you would know that almost all of the leading scientists on the project urged the military in a written and signed petition how devastating this bomb actually was and that all the U.S. would need to do was show the Japanese the photos, film footage and data taken from the Trinity test site and they would automatically surrender without having to actually use them. Now what bothers me is that the Japanese were never given the chance to make that decision instead the U.S. just decided to go over there and completely destroy two cities of innocent civilians and then have our president make a statement to the U.S. people that the bombs were dropped on Japanese military bases, BULLSHIT!!!

<IMG SRC="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RobotHorses/files/ruthorkin3.jpg">
Revenge is best served cold!

[mdr55]

OK. Now I get it. The end justifies the means. Win at any cost. But if you think about it, isn't this how the terrorist think?

[FiveB247]

To play devils advocate... Is it justified to use such methods by any nation to achieve an objective (whether you believe it to be just or not)? Who's to say their own nation isn't doing the correct thing or believes their nation is in the wrong with such methods? If you ask a Japanese citizen I'm sure they would tell a different story and view than an American would. It doesn't matter which side you are on, the simple use of these weapons is suggestion enough that if you don't want to receive such devastation, don't use it on others.

I was actually reading something interesting the other day about Timothy McVeigh. Sick and twisted of course, but he believed he was at war with our nation due to the governments abuse of power both towards foreign nations as well as its own citizens. In one of his last statements before put to death (another 'justified' action), he wrote why he did what he did at Oklahoma City. He makes mention of this "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes the law breaker, it breeds contempt for laws; it invites every man to become a law unto himself." Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmsteadhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=277&invol=438

So I simply ask and say, does one act justify such a response or method? If at "war", do laws not apply to enemies in order to justify an objective? And if they do not, aren't you saying you are open and due for the same treatment? Would you feel the same for innocents of your nation or just pass if it off as a necessary action of rational pursuits? Everything can be justified to someone, but it doesn't make that action rational or ok.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[furie]

all the U.S. would need to do was show the Japanese the photos, film footage and data taken from the Trinity test site and they would automatically surrender without having to actually use them.


Did you see how tenaciously the Japanese fought? The Japanese don't just surrender.
And just seeing the films would have done nothing; they probably would have dismissed it as American propaganda.


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee>If they're called apartment, why are they so close together?</marquee>

[high fly]

BOTH were completely justified.
After the first one, the government was considering surrender and the Japanese military was about to revolt.
Since when did a bunch of nerdy nuke scientists become experts on the Japanese psyche and their will to resist?
Send films of the tests! Hahahahaha.
Though mdr55's delicate sensitivities seem to be a touch offended, this is the way the Axis powers wanted to fight the war, so we responded in kind.
55-- you're missing out on the historic context.
We don't fight war like that anymore and trying to equate the U.S. of the 40s to the terrorists of today is pathetic.
Public school education?

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Se7en]

I'm not sure exactly how the Japanese felt about us following the bombing, but seeing as they do not hate us and are in fact one of our biggest allies right now says something.

You can give a lot of credit to MacArthur and the American occupation forces following the war. All in all, they treated the Japanese with respect, and allowed them to save face and maintain their dignity. That went a long way.

Neither were justified. Both cities were almost in ruins from previous bombings anyways. It was an easy way for the US to show Japan what we could do at a large scale to end the war. It was also a way to show our power and might for future enemies. These two cities were chosen due to their large scale as well as the impact it would have of destruction. That is also why we fire bombed Tokyo and left the place in ashes. Such devastation is never justified. If you don't think so, ask the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims that died due to these actions some many of you call pride too.


Why am I so totally not surprised you take this point of view.

Truman had a difficult choice: cause the death of hundreds of thousands of Japanese, the ENEMY, even though they be civilians, or continue the fight in the Pacific and lose hundreds of thousands of AMERICAN lives.

"Using these weapons is never justified!" In a perfect world, maybe. In the REAL world, however, dropping the bombs was the lesser of two evils for Americans. Thus, Truman made the right decision.

As for showing pride: Americans SHOULD take pride in how we fought the war in the Pacific, because if you study the history of the conflict, we came back from some pretty brutal defeats to essentially reinvent our warfare strategy and gain the upper hand. We showed amazing adaptability, and in the end that helped us to really defeat the Japanese more than anything, due to the somewhat rigidness of the Japanese military / cultural mindset.

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">

Cap sez: The mods are all Nazi fascist cocksuckers drunk with power. Does THAT fit inside 3 lines, asshole?

[Wormwood]

I see your point Furie but the U.S. is supposed to be "an example" to the rest of the world- it's not me saying this; it's something I hear every time I watch the news and we're in Bosnia, Iraq, and Somalia always doing the "right thing". So in that case wouldn't the right thing have been to give them some sort of a warning as to what we had up our sleeve and put the ball back in their court, then if they still think it's just American propaganda at least the rest of the world would have known that fair warning was given. I believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki fueled a lot of the world's hatred towards this country because of how poorly it was handled.

<IMG SRC="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RobotHorses/files/ruthorkin3.jpg">
Revenge is best served cold!

[HBox]

The people of Japan had the unquestioned belief that their emperor was God and that they were destined to not only win the war but take over the earth. If we tried to invade the mainland of Japan, the most densely populated island on earth, every single civilian and child would fight against us, all the way to the end. It took an unequaled display of power to rid them of this mindset.

Nobody liked doing it, nobody reasonable is proud of it, but it was one of those difficult choices where to save a lot we had to sacrifice and innocent few. And yes, those hundreds of thousands who died in the bombing were a few compared to what both sides would lose in the years and years an invasion would take.

[FiveB247]

Truman had a difficult choice: cause the death of hundreds of thousands of Japanese, the ENEMY, even though they be civilians, or continue the fight in the Pacific and lose hundreds of thousands of AMERICAN lives.

"Using these weapons is never justified!" In a perfect world, maybe. In the REAL world, however, dropping the bombs was the lesser of two evils for Americans. Thus, Truman made the right decision.

Actually, Truman to the dismay of many of his advisors (some military) decided to use these weapons. You can say it worked out for the "ends justify the means", but to say any more is ridiculous. What's funny about American society and its history, what we do and say are two different things. It's a version of "do as I say, not as I do". If you don't think so, pick up a book by George Kennan. To say these actions were justified is about as relavant as comparing it to the thoughts/ actions of al Quada and the American casualties of 9-11. But I highly doubt anyone would say those were justified in the "ends and means".

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[mdr55]

NE one notice that even though Germany and Japan lost the war, people like buying their cars.

[JerryTaker]

Since when did a bunch of nerdy nuke scientists become experts on the Japanese psyche and their will to resist?
Send films of the tests! Hahahahaha.


ergh, I agree that the tapes would have been passed off as propoganda, but nothing pisses me off more than your sentiment of "build us our nukes and shut up"

Of course highly educated "nerdy nuke scientists" don't have a friggin clue about real world politics, while we all sit here and debate this shit on a message board, right?


<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

[TooCute]

NE one

I just figured out that this means anyone not northeast one. gah.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[FUNKMAN]

i don't know...


Here's an excellent tune off the Utopia RA album: not for it's meaning but more for the musical talent of the band...

Hiroshima

Under the rising sun dirty yellow children play
And in the red pagoda mamasan is praying
Blood wasted saving face, ancestors are looking on
As they wave their silver samurai underneath the big gun
Hiroshima, no one could imagine
Not the victors nor the victims
Pitiful survivors nor the pawn of a man
who had the button under his hand
No one would believe it
God, God is on our side, he placed the power in our hands
To teach the yellow peril, this is Christian mercy
Harry, Harry give 'em hell, give 'em hell one more time again
We'll show those axis powers how to make an oven [fry them]
Hiroshima, Nagasaki
Don't you ever forget, don't you ever fuckin' forget

This is the official voice of the United States of America addressing the
peoples of the islands of Japan. Tomorrow morning, on August 15th, 1945 at
exactly 8:15 am, we will bomb your cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima with a
blast that will level these cities. This is the only alert you will receive.

END


My friend is a War History buff and he said the Japanese atrocities were more cruel than the Germans:

In brief, the book is the story of the almost unbelievable orgy of violence unleashed over several months by the Japanese army after it occupied Nanking, the capital of Nationalist China, in December 1937. There is dispute about the death toll, but most serious scholars place it in the hundreds of thousands. Chinese men were forced at gunpoint to rape their mothers and daughters. Japanese soldiers gang-raped women by the tens of thousands. They nailed women to trees. They drove stakes through their vaginas. They bound the hands of Chinese men, lined them up in long rows, and machine-gunned them into huge burial ditches. They bayoneted babies in front of their mothers. They buried people alive. Soldiers had "killing contests" and boasted to Japanese reporters of their scores. Some of the carnage was recorded on film




<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">



This message was edited by FUNKMAN on 5-20-03 @ 1:30 PM

[Bergalad]

Now what bothers me is that the Japanese were never given the chance to make that decision
Ah yes, and I recall sailors at Pearl Harbor being given warning before the Japanese killed them?
The end justifies the means. Win at any cost. But if you think about it, isn't this how the terrorist think?
Again, this was a declared war, not a terrorist attack. The US was attacked first, and we were justified to end the war on our own terms.
So in that case wouldn't the right thing have been to give them some sort of a warning as to what we had up our sleeve and put the ball back in their court, then if they still think it's just American propaganda at least the rest of the world would have known that fair warning was given. I believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki fueled a lot of the world's hatred towards this country because of how poorly it was handled.
Again, what warning did Japan give us? I don't feel there's any hatred towards the US over this historical event. Japan is one of the strongest economies in the world and rose out of that rediculous "the Emperor is God" bull. I was in Japan and spoke with some JDF officers there; they don't blame us for what we did.
You can say it worked out for the "ends justify the means", but to say any more is ridiculous.
Revisionist bull, as usual. I am not surprised that you would rather have had a hundred thousand US servicemen die on the beaches of Japan rather than the (at the most) 105,000 Japanese that died as a result of the bombings. That you put the lives of the aggressors over those of your "fellow" citizens is unquestionable and callous. The US did the right thing, and if we wanted to be cruel we would have dropped both of the bombs on Tokyo, not outlying cities. It was a show of force that worked, and I am glad that Truman did it.

[FiveB247]

Ah yes, and I recall sailors at Pearl Harbor being given warning before the Japanese killed them?

Well with the same notion, hundreds of thousands of innocent victims (many women and children) were vanished from Earth. Pearl Harbor was a military target and base. Quite a difference, wouldn't you say.

Again, this was a declared war, not a terrorist attack. The US was attacked first, and we were justified to end the war on our own terms.

A bombing on a miltary target. Hmm I wonder where I've heard such a thing....Oh yeah, It's the US's version of a Pre-emptive Military strike. But let's not confuse the 'evils of other aggressors' to those of our dear, enduring nation...hmm?

Revisionist bull, as usual. I am not surprised that you would rather have had a hundred thousand US servicemen die on the beaches of Japan rather than the (at the most) 105,000 Japanese that died as a result of the bombings. That you put the lives of the aggressors over those of your "fellow" citizens is unquestionable and callous. The US did the right thing, and if we wanted to be cruel we would have dropped both of the bombs on Tokyo, not outlying cities. It was a show of force that worked, and I am glad that Truman did it.

What exactly is revisionist? The part you don't want to remember? I do not put the lives of our service men on the line by thinking such things. In fact it's quite the contrary, if you believe nuclear weapons are a viable and rational method of and for war, then wait til the US gets hit with a one or a couple and see if you hold the same notion. Then you'll first understand "ends justifying the means".

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[mdr55]

Who the heck cares if it's justified. We won the war didn't we. What good are nukes of we don't use them. Let the past lay and move on to a better future. Why is this stuff relevant ne way? It's like talking about JFK's intern after 40 years. Who cares.

[furie]

So in that case wouldn't the right thing have been to give them some sort of a warning as to what we had up our sleeve and put the ball back in their court, then if they still think it's just American propaganda at least the rest of the world would have known that fair warning was given.


i remember reading a book called 'Hiroshima'. written by surviviors, first responders, and the occupation force. The Japanese military didn't believe that one bomb had done that much damage. If they didn't believe it after we dropped the bomb, why would the blieve it before? Think about it, it's war time, and your enemy tells you that they have a new powerful weapon that just one bomb will do the work of a thousand. So surrender or else! Sounds far fetched if you keep the time in mind.

not warning them and dropping the bomb are two seperate issues. Should we have warned them? Sure. i think that would have been nice. but i think that you're confusing the issue.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee>If they're called apartment, why are they so close together?</marquee>

This message was edited by furie on 5-20-03 @ 5:50 PM

[Wormwood]

http://f2.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/gMHKPhgprjiVU3YLMYRj99oTurWpBXmzblKft-z_ANeqFRh2WZ1i4rYIPh1r1MUj9JREN5czuLGLwfsS/WWII%20Statement.au

<IMG SRC="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RobotHorses/files/ruthorkin3.jpg">
Keep Lee Bowyer out of Newcastle!!!

[DC Reed]

Japan got nuked once, and decided, ok you have nukes, but we have divine wind, so what. So what? We nuked em again and we won, whereas many more would have died trying to take the island, on both sides.

Justified? Hell yes

Also wasnt the death toll considerably lower in Nagasaki than Hiroshima? Cause if i remeber correctly, we warned nagasaki that we would bomb them if they didnt surrender, so they evacted

<IMG SRC="http://dcreed.freeservers.com/images/dcrampage.gif">

<marquee behavoir=alternate>Yawn</marquee>

This message was edited by DC Reed on 5-20-03 @ 8:52 PM

[furie]

Visit this Website


they did drop it on a military base. the city just got in the way.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/droids.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee>"Fire can be our servant, whether it's toasting smores or raining down on Charlie." Seymour Skinner </marquee>

[Bergalad]

Hey Five, how does your body store all that blood for that massive bleeding heart you have?

Well with the same notion, hundreds of thousands of innocent victims (many women and children) were vanished from Earth. Pearl Harbor was a military target and base. Quite a difference, wouldn't you say.
The bombing of Dresden was civilian in nature, where are your complaints about that?
Oh yeah, It's the US's version of a Pre-emptive Military strike. But let's not confuse the 'evils of other aggressors' to those of our dear, enduring nation...hmm?
One more time for the slow bus. The US's attack on Iraq was not a pre-emptive strike. It was the LEGAL resumtion of hostilities due to Iraq's violation of the Gulf War cease-fire. Japan did a surprise attack, which is totally different then the repeated warnings and slow build-up the US gave for Iraq.
if you believe nuclear weapons are a viable and rational method of and for war, then wait til the US gets hit with a one or a couple and see if you hold the same notion. Then you'll first understand "ends justifying the means".
This may be your desire, to see the US hit by such a thing, but it won't happen. Now we have a president who will do everything he can to prevent such a thing, much to your chagrin.

[reeshy]

To those who think that dropping the bomb was immoral, just put yourself in the boots of a young marine sitting on a landing craft waiting to get the order to invade. Then you are told that the war is over because we used a new weapon and the Japanese surrendered. How do you think you would feel. I , for one, would be elated that I got to live one more day and that I won't have to fight again. That's what it all basically comes down to. Kill your enemy before he kills you. Then you can go home again.

<IMG SRC=http://www.osirusonline.com/sub/reeshy.jpg>
Thanks Reef

[Wormwood]

they did drop it on a military base. the city just got in the way
stupid city.


<IMG SRC="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RobotHorses/files/ruthorkin3.jpg">
Keep Lee Bowyer out of Newcastle!!!

[Gvac]

Well said, Reeshy, and I couldn't agree more. For those of you who have never studied WWII I suggest you do some reading and learn just how awful that war was, particularly on the Asian front.

Stopping a ruthless, heartless enemy hell-bent on domination is a difficult task, and in this particular case the end more than justified the means.

http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/gvacamerica.jpg

[Def Dave in SC]

Let the past lay and move on to a better future. Why is this stuff relevant ne way?


Have you ever heard the saying, "those who do not remember the past are soomed to repeat it"?

This is relevant because it is a major major point in history. By debating it we are making sure that it is not forgotten, and therefore not repeated.


Also, it is very hard to take someone serious when they use "ne" as a substitue for "any".

Abba Zabba, you my only friend
<img src="http://members.aol.com/TheToddsterLSP/sigpics/defdaveindc1.gif">
Much Love to my Homies dcpete, Todd EVF, PanterA, and Tall_James

UCF:AYBABTU

[TheMojoPin]

Ah yes, and I recall sailors at Pearl Harbor being given warning before the Japanese killed them?

One of the most ironic things is that an official decaration of war was supposed to be delivered to the US government just before the attack on Pearl Harbor began, but because of foul-up in the translation process at the Japanese embassy/consulate, the message wasn't delivered until hours AFTER the Pearl Harbor attack was over. Not that this would have given us much more warning, but the Japanese were so adamant that this SHOULDN'T be perceived wholly as a "sneak attack", but because of a simple beauracratic snafu, they managed to fully incur the US' millitary wrath for the next four years. Whoops.

Someone brought up a good point, Five, why aren't you levelling the same arguments against the nukes towards the Allied bombings of Tokyo and Dresden, which caused FAR more death and destruction? I feel that the SECOND nuke may have been unecessary, but your argument against the bombings seem solely based in contemporary "America=bad" reasoning that don't fully compare with our politcal and social mindset at the time.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[El Mudo]

I definitely believe they were justified. We took 70,000 casualties on Okinawa, which was basically supposed to be a warm up. There would be no Japan today if we'd had to go in there and invade, because we would have had to kill every single person. Have you ever heard about Saipan? That's where Japanese civillians and soldiers threw themselves off cliffs rather than surrender.

And after reading about the Rape of Nanking and all the other stuff the Japs pulled in China, and about the Bataan death march, and what they did to my grandfather, i've got no sympathy for any of em.

Invading Japan couldve been a disaster in another way too, as the Russians had just declared war on the Japanese, and maybe we would have accidentally run into them and got in an incident like the Germans and Russians did in the early part of the war when they were still allies...

http://www.oldbaseball.com/hom/zoilo_versalles3.jpg
I got a problem solver...and his name is revolver

[Se7en]

To say these actions were justified is about as relavant as comparing it to the thoughts/ actions of al Quada and the American casualties of 9-11.

There can be no comparison between the Hiroshima / Nagasaki bombings and 9-11, because the circumstances - and reasoning - behind each act are utterly different.

One was an act of ultimate violence made in the desperate hope that MILLIONS of lives, on both sides, would be spared from a continuation of the bloodiest of wars. The other was an act of global tyranny and religious zealotry.



<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">

[FiveB247]

I pointed out the civilian casualties on the bombings of the two cities that this post was about. Someone then mentioned how no one warned Pearl Harbor before being attacked. Any civilian bombings, on either side, are ungodly and uncalled for.

As for you Bergalad, you twist my words as usual, implying I want the US to be nuked?, try and paint me into some ideological group like bleeding heart? Get off it already. People who cheer at war usually happen to cheer all too often; as if this particular militaristic engagement is the final one to create a peace. War doesn't nor will ever create a peace...it's perpetual. After the war on terror, there will be a new "threat" or "enemy". To cheer at the death of your enemy is about as contemporary as them cheering at yours. It's all level and revenant.

I do chuckle at the fact how gung-ho our nation is to go to war, use it as a viable method of stability as well as cheer for such victories. It's probably due to the fact that most of our people never see the full complications and realistic sides of war. It's always overseas and out of our citizens vantage point. It also helps when the citizens eyes are shielded to such things.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[furie]

Have you ever heard the saying, "those who do not remember the past are soomed to repeat it"?


he's right people. we better slow down. the last thing we want is to be soomed.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/droids.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee>"Fire can be our servant, whether it's toasting smores or raining down on Charlie." Seymour Skinner </marquee>

[A.J.]

he's right people. we better slow down. the last thing we want is to be soomed.


"Soom soom soom."

http://www.thebigt.com/mazda-zoom-zoom.jpg

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[Bergalad]

Twisting words, or twisting them yourself?
To cheer at the death of your enemy is about as contemporary as them cheering at yours. It's all level and revenant.
"Contemporary"? That's twisted and nonsensical from the get-go. I just point these things out.
try and paint me into some ideological group like bleeding heart? Get off it already.

You said this before:
hundreds of thousands of innocent victims (many women and children) were vanished from Earth. Pearl Harbor was a military target and base. Quite a difference, wouldn't you say.
So the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were innocents and didn't deserve to die, but since the sailors at Pearl Harbor were in the military, then that's alright?! In "untwisted" terms, you say that the military deaths are very different from the "innocent victims" (which you throw in women and children- clear sympathy ploy) of the bombings. This is the very definition of bleeding heart, putting the enemy above your supposed fellow citizens. With that kind of thinking, would it surprise me if you valued the lives of the 19 hijackers over those of the 3000+ who died on 911? Not at all. Hell, you sarcastically describe America in a negative light here: But let's not confuse the 'evils of other aggressors' to those of our dear, enduring nation...hmm?
Sounds pretty sympathetic towards terrorists vs the US to me.
People who cheer at war usually happen to cheer all too often: as if this particular militaristic engagement is the final one to create a peace. War doesn't nor will ever create a peace...it's perpetual.
So yeah, let's all sit on the floor, and tell sad tales of times gone by. I swear you are Belgian.
It's probably due to the fact that most of our people never see the full complications and realistic sides of war. It's always overseas and out of our citizens vantage point. It also helps when the citizens eyes are shielded to such things.
Oh, right. They didn't show any of the Iraq war on TV. Damn this censorship! Your point here defeats your arguement about how wrong it was for the US to drop the bomb. During WW2, the administration knew full-well the "complications and realistic sides of war", and that is precisely why they did what they did. You essentially claim it would have been better to sacrifice 100,000 US servicemen instead of the est. 100,000 Japanese that did die, and that is unbelievable. This isn't twisting of your words, it's what you are saying in your posts. Your rampant "America is evil" belief now has you bemoaning the deaths of foreigners while regretting that it wasn't US servicemembers who died instead. How dishonorable and misguided can it get?

[TheMojoPin]

I swear you are Belgian.

<img src=http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/jonal/wedding/laughing.jpg>

But...but...his WAFFLES...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Doogie]

Simple phrase to help understand the whole situation here: "The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few."

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/doogie.gif>
ADF Fan since day one...this sig rocks!!!
"Impossible is only the failure of imagination"
<marquee behavior=alternate>The Jedi Master and an incredible hound dogga</marquee>

[Bergalad]

The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.
Or the one? Star Trek geeks unite!

[furie]

"From Hell's heart I stab at thee. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee"

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/droids.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee>"Fire can be our servant, whether it's toasting smores or raining down on Charlie." Seymour Skinner </marquee>

[A.J.]

"I've done worse than kill you. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on hurting you."

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[FiveB247]

I said this: hundreds of thousands of innocent victims (many women and children) were vanished from Earth. Pearl Harbor was a military target and base. Quite a difference, wouldn't you say.

Since when is a military base not a target?! It always is, at time of war or at times of peace. A military base contains soldiers, weaponry, etc... A city on the other hand contains citizens, mostly non-military and civilian in nature. So the bombing of a military base (even in surprise) is not even comparable to the complete leveling of a city. A soldiers' job is to fight, defend, etc. Sometimes soldiers are attacked, other times they do they attacking (and part of the risk of being a soldier is putting your own life on the line). Either way, the attack on civilians is awful and unnecessary. The bombing of a civilian city is more horrendous an action than any attack on a military base for the reasons I've mentioned above. (for any nation)

Sounds pretty sympathetic towards terrorists vs the US to me.

Yeah cause that's exactly what I said? You twist words and use association so often to reason and make some random point.

Oh, right. They didn't show any of the Iraq war on TV. Damn this censorship! Your point here defeats your argument about how wrong it was for the US to drop the bomb. During WW2, the administration knew full-well the "complications and realistic sides of war", and that is precisely why they did what they did. You essentially claim it would have been better to sacrifice 100,000 US servicemen instead of the est. 100,000 Japanese that did die, and that is unbelievable. This isn't twisting of your words, it's what you are saying in your posts. Your rampant "America is evil" belief now has you bemoaning the deaths of foreigners while regretting that it wasn't US servicemembers who died instead. How dishonorable and misguided can it get?

If you honestly believe the average American has a clue what wars do to a nation you are insane. The media de-sensitizes everything and makes it like a video game. When you watch the news, remember it's a tv show for gaining ratings, nothing more. They show you what you want to see and very little of value. Your simple notion on this issue is even worth going into.

I'm not anti-American, anti-servicemen or whatever silly term you want to throw towards me. You say all of these ridiculous notions yet don't understand, comprehend or realize the full grasp of them. I highly doubt you would feel the same on any of them if it was another nation using such actions or methods against your nation. That in itself is why your reasoning and logic is biased and lacks perspective.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Bergalad]

Wrath of Kahn. Best sequel ever. Period.


Oh, and Five, I'm done trying to talk sense to you with this. Blah blah blah, you want everyone else to succeed over America, and it's not gonna happen. Dropping the bombs were the correct thing to do, and that's it. You gall me.

[FiveB247]

Berg...If you're the voice of reason or "sense" as you put it, we are all doomed. So please save your heart-felt, flag waiving for someone pea brain who doesn't know any better. As for me, I'll just keep to my 'leftist', 'bleeding heart' ways of actually seeing the other half of the spectrum.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[HBox]

"GODDAMMIT JIM! I'M A DOCTOR, NOT A [insert occupation here]!"

[furie]

Berg...If you're the voice of reason or "sense" as you put it, we are all doomed.


don't you mean "soomed"?

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/droids.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee>"Fire can be our servant, whether it's toasting smores or raining down on Charlie." Seymour Skinner </marquee>

[Bergalad]

So please save your heart-felt, flag waiving for someone pea brain who doesn't know any better.
I figured that was what I was doing already!

[canofsoup15]

Yes, it was justified, and as for dropping it on a civilian area, it didnt HAVE to be done, but it was one of not many of choices. These Japanese soldiers were willing to die for there country, just look at the kamikaze pilots, if we killed a whole ass load of them the rest wouldnt of surrendered they'd of kept fighting until their entire army was either dead or very close to that state. That would therefore lead to many more american and japanese deaths alike. But if we hit the things that mattered to them maybe they'd have the sense to surrender, to see that we werent going to back down and that we were going to use everything we had against them, but that wasnt enough, we had to go and do it again. No matter which option you couldve taken in World War II at that time it wouldve involved more casualties, whether american, japanese, chinese, or any other race, color, or creed that the japanese felt so compelled to kill.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/TheToddsterLSP/sigpics/canofsoup151.gif>

Cannot kill the family.
Battery is found in me.
BATTERY!

[FiveB247]

I figured that was what I was doing already!

Oh you showed me...hudla hudla. Is this the part where I call you a poopie head?

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[saveopieanthony.net]

if there wasn't a pearl harbor...there would not have been a hiroshima or nagasaki.

the japanese gov't told all the people that americans were barbarians. We were larger, physically imposing people compared to them. they said if we invaded we would torture the men, rape the women and kill everyone. they were so focused / brainwashed they would've fought to their last breath to keep americans away.

the fact that so many americans and japanese would've been killed in numerous battles over YEARS ..as well as the science coming together lead the US government to drop the bomb. they would told the three targets. The third target was Tokyo after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

By the way, we embarassed Japan by making their emperor sign a peace agreement on the deck of our aircraft carrier. They also cannot have an army. ..the closest thing they have is military police. Our tax dollars and army, navy guys are stationed in Japan to defend it from invaders. Thanks to our tax dollars and lives by the way.

BIG ASS CARD HOLDER 316006 r+f are gone. Al is still gay. and Billy is still a drunk. and a waste. and sad. I even miss Billy.

SEEEEEYAAAAA

[furie]

By the way, we embarassed Japan by making their emperor sign a peace agreement on the deck of our aircraft carrier.


what history books are you reading? First it wasn't an aircraft carrier, it was a battleship. The U.S.S. Missouri, General MacArthurr's flagship. Second, the emperor didn't sign the surrender(a peace agreement would mean both side came to an agreement, not one side surrendering to another). General Umezu signed for the empire of Japan. the emperor did not show.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/droids.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee>"Fire can be our servant, whether it's toasting smores or raining down on Charlie." Seymour Skinner </marquee>

[A.J.]

They also cannot have an army. ..the closest thing they have is military police.


They don't have a navy per se, but they do have the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force: which includes 4 AEGIS-class destroyers.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[FiveB247]

if there wasn't a pearl harbor...there would not have been a hiroshima or nagasaki.

That's assanine logic. You going to break out the which came first, the chicken or the egg, next?

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[furie]

Quote:
if there wasn't a pearl harbor...there would not have been a hiroshima or nagasaki.



That's assanine logic. You going to break out the which came first, the chicken or the egg, next?


so then, do you think we would have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki anyway, without the Japanese bombing us first?

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/droids.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee>"Fire can be our servant, whether it's toasting smores or raining down on Charlie." Seymour Skinner </marquee>

[FiveB247]

No, but to simplify it to the point that they accompany each other is a bit much to say the least. The nukes weren't used as a retaliation against Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[furie]

The nukes weren't used as a retaliation against Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor.


fair enough. actually if revenge had been the reason for the bombings, then I wouldn't have supported it.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/droids.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee>"Fire can be our servant, whether it's toasting smores or raining down on Charlie." Seymour Skinner </marquee>

[high fly]

Hey, it's just the way war was fought back then.
The Axis Powers started it with the strategic bombing campaigns against civilian targets and we responded in kind.
The idea back then was to break the enemies will to fight by bombing it's civilians.
They learned the hard way not to fuck with the U.S. of A.
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

" and they ask me why I drink"

[furie]

They learned the hard way not to fuck with the U.S. of A.


yeah, we really tought the vietnamese not to fuck with us!

and those koreans, did they ever learn their lesson!

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/droids.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee>"Fire can be our servant, whether it's toasting smores or raining down on Charlie." Seymour Skinner </marquee>

[Wormwood]

No one likes us
I don't know why.
We may not be perfect
But heaven knows we try.
But all around even our old friends put us down.
Let's drop the big one and see what happens.

We give them money
But are they grateful?
No they're spiteful
And they're hateful.
They don't respect us so let's surprise them;
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them.
Now Asia's crowded
And Europe's too old.
Africa's far too hot,
And Canada's too cold.
And South America stole our name.
Let's drop the big one; there'll be no one left to blame us.

We'll save Australia;
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo.
We'll build an all-American amusement park there;
They've got surfing, too.
Well, boom goes London,
And boom Paris.
More room for you
And more room for me.
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town.
Oh, how peaceful it'll be;
We'll set everybody free;
You'll have Japanese kimonos, baby,
There'll be Italian shoes for me.
They all hate us anyhow,
So let's drop the big one now.
Let's drop the big one now


<IMG SRC="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RobotHorses/files/ruthorkin3.jpg">
PRAY FOR THE ETERNAL DAMNATION OF OLIVER CROMWELL'S SOUL