60 years
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=139673
Printed Date: 18 December 2025 at 3:24pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 60 years
Posted By: Linus
Subject: 60 years
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 7:38pm
|
Well, it's been 60 years since the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki....
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/08/08/japan.nagasaki.ap/index.html - Story
Nope, won't happen... ------------- 
|
Story wrote:Replies:
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 7:46pm
|
What a great move on our part...
------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 7:48pm
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007.
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 7:48pm
|
Agreed. Who needs another, better plan, when you have a new toy to test out on two civillain towns. ------------- Hey, nice marmot!  |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 7:55pm
No. It was mass genocide. -------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 7:59pm
No it wasn't. ------------- 
|
Posted By: CHAOSS
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:07pm
|
The world would have lost 1000's more if we hadn't dropped the only 2
atomic bombs in existence....lets not forget the reason we entered the
war....the slaughter of Pearl Harbor, when we thought we were at peace
with the Japanese.
------------- 
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:08pm
|
Genocide is the attempted wipping out of a race. Still lots of Japanese people. Can someone pull up the definition of genocide? K i did. Genocide is..
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. Kosovo was genocide, The nazi war camps were genocide, The masacre of the Tutsis was genocide. The nuclear bombs were horrible, but they were not genocide. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors"> 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:08pm
|
"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."
It wasn't systematic at all, 2 cities. -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:09pm
|
Why the hell did I type genocide...
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007.
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:09pm
|
Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong. Who says that another solution couldnt have been reached? Who says that 100000 more soldiers would have died, Our government, that is who. Ever think maybe we dropped the bombs becuase Russia was heading out east, and we didnt want them taking a peice of Japan? Compare the death toll of Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki + Haroshima... ------------- Hey, nice marmot! |
Posted By: Salem
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:13pm
|
Yeh yeh yeh. Why drop a bomb on the folks when you can invade the island and suffer monstrous casualties and an extremely long costley campaign. Quit acting like we just shamelessy dropped 2 A-BOMBS on a perfectly innocent unsuspecting japanese civilization. The entire country was ready and willing to fight to the death. They had fortifed the island and there would have been no surrender. The numbers of casualtys were probably a fraction compared to the number of people who would have died had we invaded the island. We ended the war and most likely lowered the of japanese death toll. And with the little bonus of no US deaths. I say good call -Kasey ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007.
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:16pm
Why drop them on civillian cities? Why not on millitary fortifacations? ------------- Hey, nice marmot! |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:25pm
|
Russia had more than ten times the civilian casualties that Japan had. -------------
|
Posted By: CHAOSS
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:26pm
|
The first 3 paragraphs http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/ww2/lesson.asp - http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/ww2/lesson.as p -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:29pm
|
Whale, both cities did have major military functions.
Hiroshima emerged as a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. Nagasaki had a huge military factory area in it as well. -------------
|
Posted By: Roll Tide
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:30pm
Because it might not have ended the war. I think dropping the bombs was a horrible thing but hey, it needed to be done. By destorying Japanese economy and essentially their will to fight, they surrended. Yeah, we could've invaded the Japanese main island, but that might have been your relative that was a casualty. It could've been your relative that was captured and tortured. From the Japanese point of view, it is the opposite. We wiped two cities off the face of the Earth. Sad thing, but what's done is done. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> 
|
Posted By: Salem
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:33pm
President Truman's difficult and courageous decision to drop the Atomic Bomb not only saved a million American casualties, it undoubtedly saved 10 million Japanese casualties
for those too lazy to link and read -------------
|
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:34pm
------------- 
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:35pm
|
That's a crap argument too. Blanketing an entire city with the title of
military factories is a huge misnomer. Hundreds of thousands of
Japanese worked there, living out everyday lives.
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:40pm
|
That's the thing frozen. You don't put factories out in the middle of no where, you put them near where people live so it's easier for the coomute.
Listen, dropping the bombs was asad thing, but I don't regret us doing it in anyway. 175,000 civilians don't have presdence over 1,000,000 soliders -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:41pm
|
We killed alot of inocent people. Alot.
-------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:46pm
Yes, and the Japanese did their fair share. Est. 15,000,000 Chinese civilian deaths. No proper records exist, however. edit based upon new source. -------------
|
Posted By: Lemon
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 9:16pm
no crap That's what war is ------------- 
|
Posted By: blackdog144
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 10:09pm
|
about the bombings......we hit them where it hurt most, we destroyed
there factories where they made everything.........we killed all those
people because it hurts most to kill inocent people then
military.....thats why the terrorists hit the two towers......it hurt
us most becuase they were inocent people.....
------------- http://imageshack.us">  
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 10:22pm
In one fell swoop, you justified the bombings by saying that terrorists used the same tactics, so it is the right way to git r done. Nice. -------------
|
Posted By: Norma
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 10:25pm
War is not fair or pretty. -------------  |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 10:26pm
No, and no. The terrorist bombed where did because they cant stand up to us militarily.. They have to use guerrila warefare like we did against europe during the revolutionary war. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: blackdog144
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 10:26pm
|
Frozen Balls.....ok umm ya whatever
------------- http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: blackdog144
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 10:28pm
|
DBibeu855......i always thought it was hit them where it hurts most kind of thing.....which it did hurt us.......
------------- http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 10:43pm
We didn't have to drop two huge bombs on a japan when they were surrendering... -------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 10:44pm
It may be for the best if you stop trying to use logic. -------------
|
Posted By: blandpart2
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 10:45pm
Yeah we did, it's fun ------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 10:57pm
Well noted historians have written books on this, and most have come to the same conclusion. Right as the Emporer was writting his speech to say they surrendered, AFTER THE BOMBS, there were still a lot of Japanese officers who were about to do a military coup to throw the emporer out of power to keep from surrendering. -------------
|
Posted By: Mehs
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:00pm
From what I've read for school/watched on the History Channel, they were not ready to surrender, they were even training civillians to fight incase of an American invasion, they were not ready to surrender, and even by the first bomb, and multiple warnings to surrender, they still said no, and kept fighting, then the 2nd bomb was dropped. ------------- [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg"> Squeeze Box ☣ |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:01pm
|
Exactly Mehs. They had 3 days, 3 DAYS, after Hiroshima to surrender. We warned them each day that we'd do it again if forced to. -------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:03pm
They targeted symbols of american power. Least amount of effort, mass amount of carnage. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: xXxXHxCxXxX
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:05pm
| JAPAN GOT OWNED!!!! |
Posted By: cdacda13
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:09pm
|
There were four possible targets. Toyko- The capital The old capital of Japen(the name escapes me) Nagasak- Military reasons Heroshma- Military reasons. Look at it like this. How would you feel if they didn't drop the bomb, and the war lasted 2 more years, and many more soldiers were killed. One of those soldiers was your father. After the War was over, you found out that there was a weapon that could have ended the more, 2 years ago, and saved many american lives, including your fathers. How would you feel then? |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:13pm
|
The officers would have fought to the death and the war would have dragged on and on. They were afraid of loosing. Look what they did to the chinese at nangking.. They thoght it would happen to them. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:14pm
Actually, we had to use standard European strategy. If we used guerilla tactics, no countries would respect our army or our independence. The only way to prove ourselves to France was to beat England at it's own game. -------------
|
Posted By: shocker sucks
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:15pm
|
------------- 
"Fifteen years old plus one Hotter than a microwave oven Mary, baby, daddy is comin' home" |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:27pm
We didnt fight against the british rank and file. We did use guerilla warefare. We used ambushes and shoot and run tactics. And i dont really think we won per se.. the brits just gave up, it wasnt worth fighting over so much. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:29pm
|
Yorktown, Cowpens, Saratoga, Charleston, Trenton?
-------------
|
Posted By: bronco9588
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:33pm
Kerry supporter? Compair the death toll of Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki vs. a US land invasion of homeland Japan. Id rather be hit with the bombs, then face the numbers it would take. Compairing the tactics from the islands, they made a guess that it would cost the US some 600,000+ lives to take Japan to have an unconditional surrender. I think the bombs saved lives in the end. |
Posted By: bronco9588
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:35pm
and soldiers aren't innocent? |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:37pm
Irrelevant question. Use a real argument. -------------
|
Posted By: Norma
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:39pm
|
How is it irrelevant?
------------- |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:41pm
Soliders were in the war. Unlike civilians. -------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:43pm
|
Civilians don't sign up to be issued a gun and thrust into danger. Soldiers by definition are not innocent. They are trained to kill the enemy, not Mr. Smith the plumber. Dehuminization. -------------
|
Posted By: Norma
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:45pm
|
What about the civilians in the factories making all the war products, they contributed to killing the enemy.
------------- |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:49pm
So did the civilians in the USA packaging Old Spice, the supplier of deoderant to the US army. They both outfit our boys to go to war. What is your point? -------------
|
Posted By: Norma
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:53pm
|
Because "war products" are old spice. I was referring to the
people commited to making weapons, ammunition, vehicles...etc.
------------- |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 11:57pm
Yes, and that is an ignorant and innane argument. What about the suppliers of food to our men in uniform? Without food they could not kill. Does that not make our farmers bastardized sons of satan, only fit for the bowels of hell? -------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 12:01am
|
Let me take you a bit further down the logic trail. Without food, they
can not kill. Without bullets, they cannot kill. Neither the food nor
the bullets are directly responsible for the death of an enemy, nor are
the workers who create the product.
-------------
|
Posted By: Norma
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 12:02am
|
If someone helps to aid soldiers, they are helping the "cause".
They are doing the same job any factory would do, help soldiers
fight. Just because they make a food product instead of a rifle
makes them no less, well I guess I could say innocent because that
appears to be what you were aiming for here.
------------- |
Posted By: Norma
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 12:03am
So, if I shoot someone the bullet is not directly responsible for said death? I may have pulled the trigger, but it was the worker in the factory that supplied that trigger and bullet. ------------- |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 12:03am
Interesting. So, you agree with total war then? By your logic, anyone who aids a soldier, even the mailman who send him letters from his wife 3000 miles away, is an enemy. -------------
|
Posted By: Norma
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 12:05am
|
Unless that mailman also works in a factory creating weapons, or any
other supplies than no. A letter is not neccesary for survival in
war, while ammunition and food is.
------------- |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 12:06am
The worker in the factory produced the bullet, yes. Congratulations. By your reasoning, which is seriously in question at this point, then the worker who assembled the car that killed little jimmy because a drunk driver was behind the wheel, is partly responsible for that death. A bullet is what is commonly called an inanimate object. It cannot think, act, or feel. Therefore, it can not be responsible for anything. Your reasoning skills aren't fully developed. Come back in a few years. -------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 12:08am
Now you are just playing footsies silly billy. The mailman is most definitely aiding the cause. Do you think a soldier could maintain morale and will to fight after three years of no contact from his family? -------------
|
Posted By: Norma
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 12:11am
|
The bullet is made with an intent to kill, a car is not. Two completely different things. The bullet ultimately does the damage, while I cause the bullet to cause said damage. Honostly, I do believe you are smarter than I and I may not be the best at arguging as of yet but I am trying to prove my point which you don't seem to understand. ------------- |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 12:15am
|
War requires logistics. To fight that scale of war, our entire country
was geared towards supporting our soldiers on two fronts, half a world
apart. Metal and gas were rationed, women were sent to factories, and
millions of people bought war bonds to aid the effort. This type of war
is total war. To win, you have to vanquish not just the soldiers, but
their will to fight, ability to fight, and above all, the ones they are
fighting to protect. My point is, in this scale of global war, entire countries were mobilized. Car factories churned out tanks by the thousands, people everywhere gave their support to the effort. A country simply can not win this sort of conflict without 100% support from it's citizens. -------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 12:17am
|
As to your contention of me not understanding your point, I do
understand it. To that, I say, the bullet maker could have had high
hopes that his little friends would be sent to a 50 year old hunter in
Montana instead of an 18 year old marine in France.
-------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 12:21am
Just for your info, it's called a war of attrition, and it's a terrible thing. It is now what the conflicts today are turning into. Kill EVERYONE is the goal, rather than strategic points/ goals. Same thing happened in Vietnam. Success was measured by bodycount, rather than objectives. |
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 12:50am
|
"In War, there can be no substitute for victory" - General McArthur.
The pesky thing about the japanese, is that they refused to surrender or retreat on the battlefield - they thought it an act of dis-honor, so they tended to fight till they were all dead, pushing up body counts on both sides, also making it much more likely for any nearby civlian to be caught in crossfire due to the longer duration that fighting was taking place. and your talking full scale land invasion here... that would cost more lives than the bombings did. war is not pretty, but sometiems what has to be done has to be done. |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 1:15am
|
Junky! ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 1:37am
|
You have a leak in your hat.
-------------
|
Posted By: Impulse.
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 2:47am
|
We would of lost a million people soldiers if we invaded japan. ------------- [IMG]http://www.word-detective.com/berry.gif"> |
Posted By: hybrid-sniper
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 3:10am
|
I second this motion. |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 4:10am
 ------------- 
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 6:58am
|
CRIPES. Are you guys always on? ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 8:10am
Attrition is a long type of war. An example of a war of attrition is WW1 with the trenches. You go 1 month and only move 100 feet. It's meant to gradually wear down the enemy. Frozen, I've gain a lot of respect for you int his post, you seem to know what you're talking about. 
Listen, it's been noted a ton of times that if we invaded mainland Japan, the civilians, women and children, would take handfulls of grenades (what, 2?) and charge out troops and blow up, much like the terrorist of today. Bonzai style. I don't see ANYONE on here pissed abbout our bombing methods in europe. We'd go in with 40+ B-17's and B-24's and just drop bombs to kingdom come, INSIDE POPULATED CITIES. War isn't pretty in any sense of the word, but you have to do what you have to do so that others may live. IF you have to takes the lives of 200,000 "innocent" lives to save 1 million of your own, no matter how selfish it may seem to some people, it HAS to be done. And you have to do whatever it takes to win.
Wrong CDAC, wrong wrong wrong. There were actually a ton more targets, Nagasaki was actually a secondary target chosen only becasue of weather. If we dropped it on the capatial war would never have ended, they would be mad that the emporer died. -------------
|
Posted By: bluemunky42
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 8:21am
no it wasn't. and it DID end the war. the only thing that has me concerned is that when they dropped it, they didn't even know what the effect would be like. it was a test. ------------- 
http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity - http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity |
Posted By: Murdock
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 8:33am
|
They shouldave made more bombs and sank all the friggin jap islands to the bottom of the sea. Id have dropped the first one on the imperial palace myself. ------------- PFC Murdock 307th FSC 1st BDE 82nd Airborne Division HOOOOOOOOAAAAHHHHH!!!!! |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 10:20am
 -------------
|
Posted By: reclusivetorrid
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 10:39am
Yup..I second that scared thing... However, if there was no atomic bombs dropped on Japan, there would be no Godzilla. And GODZILLA ROCKS!!! (not the crappy one in the matthew broderick movie)... I'm going to be a rich architect so that I can build a small model of Tokyo dress up in a Gozilla suit and march around in it, screaming at the top of my lunges!!! MAN! would that be cool... ok, yeah, I'm going................ ------------- 
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 11:05am
40? Try 400+ per raid... on cities. Purpose: demoralize the population. Ugly by all means... but standard practice worldwide by all forces, allied and axis. Germans bombed London, US bombed Berlin, etc etc. Everyone puts so much emphasis on the use of the Atomic bombs and how devastating they were to the civilian population... I won't argue against that. It was devastating against the civilian population... but their use was NO DIFFERENT from other bombing raids using more conventional methods. Point in fact: It is estimated that 103,000 people were killed in the combined attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In comparison, there were 185,000 casualties suffered in the first incendiary attack on Tokyo on March 9th, 1945. Not an atomic attack. Civilian casualties are unfortunate, and much is done NOW to avoid such casualties. 60 years ago, civilian casualties were a fact of war. You can rattle your moral sabres and say how wrong it is... and I won't disagree. But it was the way things were carried out. Total war is just that. Total. Breaking the back of an enemy meant breaking not only their military strength, but the backbone of the entire country. And to those who continue to argue that both atomic sites had no military significance: Hiroshima housed the headquarters of the Fifth Division as well as the headquarters for 2nd General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan (a significant target in it's own right). Hiroshima was also a major supply and logistics base/storage center, a major communications center, and an assembly area for troops. Nagasaki was one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan. It's military importance revolving around it's industrial might - ranging from ordnance, ship building and other military equipment. These WERE strategic targets. As stated, military targets are often found in urban settings. It'd be nice to house a weapons factory in East Jabib... but it doesn't work that way. We bombed these targets for the same reasons industrial and military targets were picked in Europe, and elsewhere in Japan. The same would apply to the US had we been privy to attack. Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York... all major ports, major military facilities, major military industry sites. Washington DC obviously for military headquarters. All cities. All with large civilian populations. But they are all also very strategic targets. Did politics play a role in the decision? I'm sure it did. But the main reason is fairly solid and not up for debate... the little underlying reasons will always be debatable. Main reason: it was done to end the war. Which it did. Civilian casualties were a result. Civilian casualties would have been a result of further incendiary and conventional bombing raids carried out on a regular basis as well. As stated in the example given above for ONE raid on Tokyo (not mentioning further raids, and raids on other cities). We could continue to bomb them into the stone age... or we could shock them into a quick and unconditional surrender. NEITHER is a "peaceful" or "nice guy" choice. Lesser of two evils was chosen, in my opinion. The other option?... I'd like to hear a good one, that would result in less civilian casualties. I won't even count military casualties, and won't count expected US troop losses. Tell me a good alternative option that would result in LESS civilian casualties. I'd like to hear it. The only alternative I can think of at this moment that would have resulted in less civilian casualties: go back in time to 1937 and prevent the Japanese from starting the war to begin with. Too bad we developed the atomic bomb instead of the time machine. Again... wasn't a "nice" thing to do, and I would never say that it was a "great" event in history... but given the alternatives, it was the closest thing to being "right" as it could be. |
Posted By: holysmartone
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 1:12pm
| ^ Also, Nagasaki held a factory that created the Mitsubishi(sp?) torpedos that were used against Pearl Harbor. |
Posted By: Razgriz Ghost
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 1:25pm
|
But then what are we other than terrorist to another group of people? Nagasaki and hiroshima were acts of terrorism just like pearl harbor and 9/11. Our attack on Japan cannot be justified, it happened and that is that. We should be looking at the present instead of the past we are great allies and tradeing partners with japan now. |
Posted By: Dragunov
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 1:47pm
You dare link a military attack by a soverign nation in the largest war in modern history to an act of terror? That is pure ignorance. We were at war. Total war is not just the act of killing an enemies soldiers, and destroying their tanks. It is destroying their livelihood, everything they seek to protect. read some of my prior posts. You have to destroy the entirety of the machine in a conflict of this scale. Pulling the plug won't work, because there are nine more plugs to keep it alive. Our attack on Japan was the way to save the most AMERICAN lives. Truman wanted to keep our boys alive, and that was the way to do it. ------------- RAMBINO IS MY BABIES DADDY
|
Posted By: Razgriz Ghost
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 1:58pm
|
I'm sure that when they bombed pearl harbor thats how they justified it to those in Japan that stood up and told them that it was wrong. "Oh it was to save all of our boys." The fact of the matter is it was wrong, it should never be done again and it's too damn late to say sorry now by having 60 year anaversaries and what not. I don't care if it was an act of terrorism or "the greatest military attack by a soverign nation in the largest war in modern history" we shouldn't have gone there. All we did was lower ourselves to there level. |
Posted By: holysmartone
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 2:10pm
| Man, they attacked us. Call it a "terror attack" if you must, but we retaliated. If Japan had the bomb, you had damn well better be sure theyd have dropped it on us. To them, attacking Pearl was justified, to us, Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. |
Posted By: Razgriz Ghost
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 2:20pm
|
And that is what makes us no better then them. Retaliation is not a justification in my opinion. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 2:40pm
|
War is war. Killing is killing. Neither are "right".
But they happen. And you do what you have to do. Pearl Harbor: started a war. Atomic drops: ended a war. There is a huge difference between the two. To compare the two is asinine. The only similarity they have is that people died. Nothing else. The attack on Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack aimed at preventing the United States from interfering with Japan's desire to create an Empire in the Pacific. The bomb drops on the other hand, were hardly "unprovoked".
It'd be nice if it were that simple. This wasn't an issue of keeping our noses clean, or trying to prove we were the biggest kid on the block. War was declared on US. You can't ignore that. As much as you'd like to, you can't. So long as someone else is the aggressor, you have two choices: accept defeat... or defend yourself. There is no comparison to the current "war on terror" to WW2. World War II was something the nation didn't WANT to do, it was forced to. Had we not, you wouldn't be living the life you lead today. As much as you'd like to think you would. It wasn't "retaliation" to the likes that you see the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. There was no "eye for eye" mentality. Had there been... we wouldn't have bothered rebuilding Germany and Japan to the great nations and allies they are today. We would have simply wiped them away. You can wish for peace and condemn war all you want... someone else out there will be on the opposite spectrum. And when they come knocking on your door, don't expect mercy or the "good will of mankind" to come with them. "We shouldn't have gone there" ???? Easy statement to say from your comfy chair. Back in 1939, a lot of Americans agreed with you. By 1941, they realized they didn't have that option. Would've been nice. But reality trumps idealism every day of the week. And reality is not as pretty, nor as kind. |
Posted By: reclusivetorrid
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 2:56pm
|
BRAVO Shorty. -------------
|
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 4:15pm
I'm Back! and so are you, long time no see. i find myself unable to debate at present because there are no oposing arguements shorty hasn't torn to peices at present... |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 4:19pm
|
Good to see you back. Shorty has been on quite the tear recently... :)
------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 5:00pm
|
Pst, Shorty basically elaborated on what I said before
Posour  -------------
|
Posted By: Salem
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 8:01pm
LOLOL OMG. Wow razgriz. Retaliation isnt justified??? What do you suggest we do. Not retaliate??!?!? Let them attack pearl harbor then just giggle to ourselves and say "hehheheh, those silly japs. Bombing our nation again. hehe Im sure it wont happen again." -------------
|
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 10 August 2005 at 8:55pm
-------------
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 11 August 2005 at 8:46am
Of course not! If we all agreed on stuff the world would be the happy, peaceful, idealistic place that some of the people here think they live in. But again... we don't live in that world. Ideally we would... but ideally gets it's butt whooped and lunch money stolen every day by reality. Killing is never right. But moral judgement is often overshadowed by self-preservation. Moral judgement is a choice. Self-preservation is an instinct. If someone threatens your life, or in a nation's case... your way of life... self-preservation kicks in. Not to say that all killing can be related to self-preservation. But in the case of the war against Axis powers in the mid-twentieth century... it was. You do what you have to do. If that argument is still unacceptable to the standards of our higher-moral folk, how about this thought? Everything we have now, everything that we call great, everything that we cherish and hold as pure... long ago, someone was killed for it. For what you have now, someone commited an "evil" act to give it to you. Disagree? Go back 2-3 centuries and take up that debate with a Native American. More often than not... to create something "good", you're bound to do something "bad". The "good": World War Two came to a close. The "bad": the age of atomic weapons was unleashed upon the Japanese people, and the world. As for the indifferent thoughts of some people on this forum, those with the attitude that "if they're not us, who cares? Just shoot them." I simply tack that up to ignorance, lack of education and/or misguided-misshapen youth. Those who lean more towards the moral-high ground I can trade thoughts with... those with the "kill em all" mentality... I won't waste my time with. 
|
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 11 August 2005 at 8:50am
|
Wow all the reclusive mods come out form one little tee pee... ------------- 
|