An attack against civilan cetres in a country wanting to surrender...
It was terrorism, plain and simple. Don't expect americans to agree though, they have a rather warped view of their military history.
So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]Bartman! what i would like for you to take away from this is that you, me and everyone on this site no matter who they are or where they are from is a part of a government or culture that has participated in war crimes during a conflict and had their govenment lost their leaders would have been hung as criminals.[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Strawman! I never said or implied that anywhere. This is a Hiroshima and Nagasaki thread if you haven't noticed.kuraimen
why is the atomic bombings any sort of big deal in any way?
it's like complaining that one square inch of an elephant is gray. boy, if you don't like that one square inch whatever you do don't look at the rest of it.
My ancestors were spanish people who came to this land and slaughtered the native population and destoryed entire cultures. I accept that and will never try to justify such a disgusting thing. Likewise I would never try to justify any despicable act commmited by my government or the people that are supposed to represent me and my culture. I think that is the reason the Japan bombings are so ncontroversial, I never see anyone defending the Holocaust or 9/11 or any terrorist act yet americans are the only ones who I've seen defend such atrocious acts commited by their governemnt so easily. As if we should just accept that they are the good guys who sometimes have to do such things for the good of humanity pffft.lol, what rock have you been hiding under? i have seen plenty of people defend 9/11, terrorist acts and the holocaust.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Wait a minute how can you or anyone be so sure that the bombings were the best outcome if the other options were never pursued? How can you be so sure that those other people were wrong if what they suggested was never tried? The thing is that no amount of hiindsight can tell us what would have happened in such situations, the only thing we can do is trsut the people who know more about the subject. That's why I brought up the Holocaust earlier. The same kind of justification can be used for it. Befor Hitler the german society was in shambles, Hitler managed to bring Germany out of that hole. Afterwards came the war and now Germany is one of the most developed nations in the world so something good came out of all that mess. But can we use that good to justify the Holocaust and Hitler's regime as the best course of action possible? Hardly anyone will say that and that's why I find so disturbing that people feel it's so easy to say that about the japanese bombings. For me the ends should NOT justify the means, that's a very easy way to justify any kind of atrocity.kuraimenI already explained why, you chose to ignore it. We can view all the variables and come to the conclusion that what they were suggesting would have had a negative outcome. I hate having to explain things to people who will just choose not to listen but I guess I may as well try here. Germany was one of the most developed nations in the world before WWI. Because of the Treaty of Versailles they were thrown into a horrible economic depression. Hitler fixed their economy before WWII and before the holocaust. Look at east Germany, it's STILL not as well off as west Germany. Know why? Soviets.
If not for the nukes in Japan the Red Army would have rolled in, as they were about to. They didn't give a crap about regard for life and would have steam rolled through Japan and probably taken more than half of it. Northern Japan would be in much worse shape right now if the soviets had taken over. These are variables the Allies didn't know. They knew what Russia would do to areas conquered but they didn't know how bad the Cold War would be. They didn't know that Japan under American occupation would eventually become the second largest economy in the world. They couldn't see the variables. We can. Open a book and look at the finer points of the conflict and you'll see that it wasn't cut and dry. Bombing them was awful but the invasion would have been much worse.
I'd never advocate the deaths of humans but from a historical standpoint things pretty much worked out for the best in the long run. Get it? I'm not saying nuking Japan was good. I'm saying it was horrible. But sometimes horrible things work out for the best. This is a situation where it did. It's a unique situation that won't ever happen again the way it has. You can use history to gain a grasp on things that CAN happen but you should never use it to say what will happen in the future. You're trying to say that. It doesn't work like that.
I know those things about Germany, I lived there afterall. "If not for the nukes in Japan the Red Army would have rolled in, as they were about to. They didn't give a crap about regard for life and would have steam rolled through Japan and probably taken more than half of it. Northern Japan would be in much worse shape right now if the soviets had taken over." Are you 100% sure that would have happened? Again all that is pure speculation if it never happened. The thing is no one could say that for sure and that's my point. And even if it were the fact that the US were not even aware of what we now know makes the act of attacking Japan that way even more disgusting. And how are you sure it won't ever happen again? Maybe someone can say, if we use a couple of nukes now all will work out in 50 years, look at Japan! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCmoAhMKacohttp://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,585779,00.html
yeah, whos to say what would have happened? they only raped 2 million women in germany so hey they prolly would not lay a finger on those Asian women right?
gawd! quit judging!
No, its not terrorism. The US was at war with Japan, in the midst of the biggest conflict in the 20th century. They attacked the US first (and killed many unfortunate civilians), and the US dropped some bombs on them. The bombs killed a lot of civilians, sure, but it ended the war and saved more lived then they ended (since attacking Japan head on would have cost many, many more lives of US and Japanese soldiers).
In terrorism, its also a case of them using guerilla tactics and specifically targeting civilians to try and get what they want. The US just wanted to end the war, they weren't some small guerilla force going after a much larger government or army, they were in a large scale war that the Japanese provoked on the US.
You need to brush up on your history and definitions. You could argue that the rebels in the revolutionary war were terrorists at that time, but even then I don't believe they resorted to killing countless civilians for an unwinnable cause (which is generally what terrorism is).
An attacked against civilan cetres in a country wanting to surrender...
It was terrorism, plain and simple. Don't expect americans to agree though, they have a rather warped view of their military history.
htekemerald
This is why your argument falls aparts before you even get to the distorted definition of terrorism and the America hate.
You tell others to brush up on their definitions but use an improper definition for terrorism. It's just the act of using fear to coerce an enemy. It doesn't need to be done by a small force and it doesn't need to be done during peace time.No, its not terrorism. The US was at war with Japan, in the midst of the biggest conflict in the 20th century. They attacked the US first (and killed many unfortunate civilians), and the US dropped some bombs on them. The bombs killed a lot of civilians, sure, but it ended the war and saved more lived then they ended (since attacking Japan head on would have cost many, many more lives of US and Japanese soldiers).
In terrorism, its also a case of them using guerilla tactics and specifically targeting civilians to try and get what they want. The US just wanted to end the war, they weren't some small guerilla force going after a much larger government or army, they were in a large scale war that the Japanese provoked on the US.
You need to brush up on your history and definitions. You could argue that the rebels in the revolutionary war were terrorists at that time, but even then I don't believe they resorted to killing countless civilians for an unwinnable cause (which is generally what terrorism is).
SPYDER0416
[QUOTE="htekemerald"]
An attacked against civilan cetres in a country wanting to surrender...
It was terrorism, plain and simple. Don't expect americans to agree though, they have a rather warped view of their military history.
SPYDER0416
This is why your argument falls aparts before you even get to the distorted definition of terrorism and the America hate.
???
Did they drop bombs in city centres?
Yep.
Did japan want to surrender?
Yep.
Man look at those distorted facts! :roll: Your country dropped two nuclear weapons on civilian centres to intimidate the Russians, deal with it.
[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]
[QUOTE="htekemerald"]
An attacked against civilan cetres in a country wanting to surrender...
It was terrorism, plain and simple. Don't expect americans to agree though, they have a rather warped view of their military history.
htekemerald
This is why your argument falls aparts before you even get to the distorted definition of terrorism and the America hate.
???
Did they drop bombs in city centres?
Yep.
Did japan want to surrender?
Yep.
Man look at those distorted facts! :roll: Your country dropped two nuclear weapons on civilian centres to intimidate the Russians, deal with it.
Actually they had no intention of surrender until after the first bomb and even after both there was still large amounts of people who didn't want to surrender. A coup was staged.[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]
[QUOTE="htekemerald"]
An attacked against civilan cetres in a country wanting to surrender...
It was terrorism, plain and simple. Don't expect americans to agree though, they have a rather warped view of their military history.
htekemerald
This is why your argument falls aparts before you even get to the distorted definition of terrorism and the America hate.
Did japan want to surrender?
Yep.
Man look at those distorted facts! :roll: Your country dropped two nuclear weapons on civilian centres to intimidate the Russians, deal with it.
That's not a fact. Deal with it.
[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]killing countless civilians for an unwinnable cause (which is generally what terrorism is).kuraimenThat puts Vietnam and Afghanistan wars in the definition of terrorism. But the question is this. Does it matter in reality? If America has such a strong history of damnation then why hasn't the world riled up against it? The entire middle-east isn't even on that agenda by far. Or is it because everyone who was capable of doing so on a national level, been time and time again a Terrorist to someone else?
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]killing countless civilians for an unwinnable cause (which is generally what terrorism is).CreasianDevailiThat puts Vietnam and Afghanistan wars in the definition of terrorism. But the question is this. Does it matter in reality? If America has such a strong history of damnation then why hasn't the world riled up against it? The entire middle-east isn't even on that agenda by far. Or is it because everyone who was capable of doing so on a national level, been time and time again a Terrorist to someone else? The US is the most powerful nation in the world with the biggest army by far and the most wide political, economical and military influence in the planet. First it is not so easy to go against them, look at China which most of the world knows violates human rights here and there. China's power has always been smaller than the US and no one has ever made a hard stand against them. What is a freedom fighter for one is a terrorist to another. History has shown that time and time again. That's why I feel it's so important that people shouldn't be justifying means using ends anymore. It is not even about morality, it's about ethics.
[QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]
This is why your argument falls aparts before you even get to the distorted definition of terrorism and the America hate.
Ace6301
???
Did they drop bombs in city centres?
Yep.
Did japan want to surrender?
Yep.
Man look at those distorted facts! :roll: Your country dropped two nuclear weapons on civilian centres to intimidate the Russians, deal with it.
Actually they had no intention of surrender until after the first bomb and even after both there was still large amounts of people who didn't want to surrender. A coup was staged.:lol: Feel free to read up on the facts, if anything the deciding factor in the Japanese surrender was the Russian invasion of Manchuria.
And to quote Eisenhower
"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] That puts Vietnam and Afghanistan wars in the definition of terrorism.kuraimenBut the question is this. Does it matter in reality? If America has such a strong history of damnation then why hasn't the world riled up against it? The entire middle-east isn't even on that agenda by far. Or is it because everyone who was capable of doing so on a national level, been time and time again a Terrorist to someone else? The US is the most powerful nation in the world with the biggest army by far and the most wide political, economical and military influence in the planet. First it is not so easy to go against them, look at China which most of the world knows violates human rights here and there. China's power has always been smaller than the US and no one has ever made a hard stand against them. What is a freedom fighter for one is a terrorist to another. History has shown that time and time again. That's why I feel it's so important that people shouldn't be justifying means using ends anymore. It is not even about morality, it's about ethics. You talk of ethics but when it comes down to it a nation is in fact an entity. Countries that were splintered before entering into warfare lost quickly from coups from within during assaults from outside. Japan also bolstered that there was genuine feelings towards non military actions against each other when it came to them and the U.S. as well. Tactically they lied, and hit PH like they tactically should. But that set the precedence. So when they offered even the remote idea of surrender it wasn't justified to stop. Do you get what I am saying? One could say the same on the current issues of the middle-east extremists vs the west, albiet mostly U.S., of today. They have no real reason to trust what we say with words alone. So you consider all the middle-east extremist sects as morally incorrect as U.S. was in bombing Japan right?
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] But the question is this. Does it matter in reality? If America has such a strong history of damnation then why hasn't the world riled up against it? The entire middle-east isn't even on that agenda by far. Or is it because everyone who was capable of doing so on a national level, been time and time again a Terrorist to someone else? CreasianDevailiThe US is the most powerful nation in the world with the biggest army by far and the most wide political, economical and military influence in the planet. First it is not so easy to go against them, look at China which most of the world knows violates human rights here and there. China's power has always been smaller than the US and no one has ever made a hard stand against them. What is a freedom fighter for one is a terrorist to another. History has shown that time and time again. That's why I feel it's so important that people shouldn't be justifying means using ends anymore. It is not even about morality, it's about ethics. You talk of ethics but when it comes down to it a nation is in fact an entity. Countries that were splintered before entering into warfare lost quickly from coups from within during assaults from outside. Japan also bolstered that there was genuine feelings towards non military actions against each other when it came to them and the U.S. as well. Tactically they lied, and hit PH like they tactically should. But that set the precedence. So when they offered even the remote idea of surrender it wasn't justified to stop. Do you get what I am saying? One could say the same on the current issues of the middle-east extremists vs the west, albiet mostly U.S., of today. They have no real reason to trust what we say with words alone. So you consider all the middle-east extremist sects as morally incorrect as U.S. was in bombing Japan right? If those sects in the Middle East decide to bomb the hell out of civilians just because they don't trust the US then of course that's completely 100% morally reprehensible! no matter the excuse they make. Of course that's not saying that what Japan did was not morally reprehensible because it was also.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]
???
Did they drop bombs in city centres?
Yep.
Did japan want to surrender?
Yep.
Man look at those distorted facts! :roll: Your country dropped two nuclear weapons on civilian centres to intimidate the Russians, deal with it.
Actually they had no intention of surrender until after the first bomb and even after both there was still large amounts of people who didn't want to surrender. A coup was staged.:lol: Feel free to read up on the facts, if anything the deciding factor in the Japanese surrender was the Russian invasion of Manchuria.
And to quote Eisenhower
"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
Eisenhower also saw nukes as a common bullet. Find the quote if you want. He saw no distinction between shooting someone and using a nuke on them. One could take from that, in essence, he might of just felt bad and wanted to not look like a bad person. However... he also increased dramatically our arsenal of nukes. Some of you quote some of the strangest people for your side of the arguements...Actually they had no intention of surrender until after the first bomb and even after both there was still large amounts of people who didn't want to surrender. A coup was staged.[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]
???
Did they drop bombs in city centres?
Yep.
Did japan want to surrender?
Yep.
Man look at those distorted facts! :roll: Your country dropped two nuclear weapons on civilian centres to intimidate the Russians, deal with it.
htekemerald
:lol: Feel free to read up on the facts, if anything the deciding factor in the Japanese surrender was the Russian invasion of Manchuria.
And to quote Eisenhower
"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
Considering the Japanese got hit by a Nuke then invaded by Russia and STILL didn't surrender I think you're the one who needs to do a bit of reading. The second nuke fell and they surrendered. The Russian invasion was a very large part of it, yes. The Japanese realized they could surrender to the US who at least had a chance at being somewhat benevolent compared to the Soviets who would have done the same thing they did to everyone. You however claim that they were already prepared and surrendering when the US nuked them, which is wrong. They had no intention of surrender until after Russia invaded and the US nuked them. Please don't say "read up your facts" when your own facts don't even line up. First you claim they were ready to surrender then you say Russia had a part in it. The two are mutually exclusive.[QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Actually they had no intention of surrender until after the first bomb and even after both there was still large amounts of people who didn't want to surrender. A coup was staged.CreasianDevaili
:lol: Feel free to read up on the facts, if anything the deciding factor in the Japanese surrender was the Russian invasion of Manchuria.
And to quote Eisenhower
"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
Eisenhower also saw nukes as a common bullet. Find the quote if you want. He saw no distinction between shooting someone and using a nuke on them. One could take from that, in essence, he might of just felt bad and wanted to not look like a bad person. However... he also increased dramatically our arsenal of nukes. Some of you quote some of the strangest people for your side of the arguements...Ike? The 5 star general? The man who played a large part in planning the war effort against the Japanese? Former President of the USA? What a stranger person to quote indeed...:roll:
And what his views on nukes were or were not is immaterial, that fact is "The Japanese were ready to surrender" prior to America nuking Japanese civilian centres.
[QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Actually they had no intention of surrender until after the first bomb and even after both there was still large amounts of people who didn't want to surrender. A coup was staged.Ace6301
:lol: Feel free to read up on the facts, if anything the deciding factor in the Japanese surrender was the Russian invasion of Manchuria.
And to quote Eisenhower
"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
You however claim that they were already prepared and surrendering when the US nuked themFeel free to indicate where I stated the japanese were "surrendering" prior to being nuked.
And btw, a useful fact you should keep in mind in your hunt:
The act of *surrendering* and being *willing to surrender* are two different things.
Once you're the almighty you can do anything and get away with it no matter how insane and crazy it might be. The United State's doing it day by day and most of us are just cheering about it. If you oppose, you'll be next on the list. This is why many countries are trying to build up their weapon capabilities to protect themselves of fear of destruction. In the news you may hear how everyone's trying to oppose those moves; this is because U.S. knows that they will have a harded time down the road to deal with whoever they've pointed their finger at.
U.S. resources ain't coming from nothing. It's easier to just take it. With a little help of their "allies" they'll label their enemy whatever they want, invent all kind of news story to please and control everyone else and just go for it. Riches will be shared among the participants. What great democracy we have...isn't it?
You however claim that they were already prepared and surrendering when the US nuked them[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]
:lol: Feel free to read up on the facts, if anything the deciding factor in the Japanese surrender was the Russian invasion of Manchuria.
And to quote Eisenhower
"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
htekemerald
Feel free to indicate where I stated the japanese were "surrendering" prior to being nuked.
And btw, a useful fact you should keep in mind in your hunt:
The act of *surrendering* and being *willing to surrender* are two different things.
You claim they wanted to surrender. Yet they were still claiming they had no intention. Even after being hit with a nuke they stated they would not give up. Then Russia invaded and they STILL didn't cave. Then they got nuked again. What you're saying doesn't line up with history. Hell it doesn't even line up with your own claims since the Japanese didn't surrender when Russia, the strongest army on the planet, invaded them. Doesn't seem like the actions of a country that "wanted to surrender". A country that wants to surrender will surrender when they're hit with a completely new weapon that killed thousands in an instant and especially would surrender when the biggest army on earth is on their doorstep. Yet they didn't. Guess they didn't want to surrender.[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]
:lol: Feel free to read up on the facts, if anything the deciding factor in the Japanese surrender was the Russian invasion of Manchuria.
And to quote Eisenhower
"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
Eisenhower also saw nukes as a common bullet. Find the quote if you want. He saw no distinction between shooting someone and using a nuke on them. One could take from that, in essence, he might of just felt bad and wanted to not look like a bad person. However... he also increased dramatically our arsenal of nukes. Some of you quote some of the strangest people for your side of the arguements...Ike? The 5 star general? The man who played a large part in planning the war effort against the Japanese? Former President of the USA? What a stranger person to quote indeed...:roll:
And what his views on nukes were or were not is immaterial, that fact is "The Japanese were ready to surrender" prior to America nuking Japanese civilian centres.
Yes. The same person that threated several countries over nuclear winters. One twice. Had the rest of the western world begging him to stop being a wannabe Hitler He also "thought" they were ready to surrender. Also he was more worried about relations with Russia after the war as per consenquence to the nukes dropping on Japan than the civilians that actually died. Really man.. read up on the man. His views from all of this is material 100% on subject. He was right however on U.S. stealing the soviet's dinner with a superior weapon did indeed hurt post war relations. He is the pinnacle of stability on direction and an absolute perfect quote for your arguement. He also was the entire think tank, commander, tactical idea man, and god of the war in the pacific. By god his very presence made the sun rise on a flag and he was linked telepathically to the Emporer of Japan. Man.. you won...[QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] Eisenhower also saw nukes as a common bullet. Find the quote if you want. He saw no distinction between shooting someone and using a nuke on them. One could take from that, in essence, he might of just felt bad and wanted to not look like a bad person. However... he also increased dramatically our arsenal of nukes. Some of you quote some of the strangest people for your side of the arguements...CreasianDevaili
Ike? The 5 star general? The man who played a large part in planning the war effort against the Japanese? Former President of the USA? What a stranger person to quote indeed...:roll:
And what his views on nukes were or were not is immaterial, that fact is "The Japanese were ready to surrender" prior to America nuking Japanese civilian centres.
Yes. The same person that threated several countries over nuclear winters. One twice. Had the rest of the western world begging him to stop being a wannabe Hitler He also "thought" they were ready to surrender. Also he was more worried about relations with Russia after the war as per consenquence to the nukes dropping on Japan than the civilians that actually died. Really man.. read up on the man. His views from all of this is material 100% on subject. He was right however on U.S. stealing the soviet's dinner with a superior weapon did indeed hurt post war relations. He is the pinnacle of stability on direction and an absolute perfect quote for your arguement. He also was the entire think tank, commander, tactical idea man, and god of the war in the pacific. By god his very presence made the run rise on a flag and he was linked telepathically to the Emporer of Japan. Man.. you won... I'm always interested in the mentality that historical figures tell the absolute truth all the time as if they themselves had nothing to gain.I'm always interested in the mentality that historical figures tell the absolute truth all the time as if they themselves had nothing to gain. Ace6301I think he rightfully saw the soviets as the only, at the height of the war, country a threat when all said and done. I don't think he gave two craps about Japan and only reservation to the nukes was that it might bring the soviets and U.S. into conflict. Nukes and we control and piss off the soviets, or we let the soviets invade and slaughter most of the people and slave out the rest. Either way Japan was going to end but one tactically would of bid time and also kept our nukes secret. Watching how his mentality "suddenly" changed after he got control of the nukes, I honestly think he wanted to save the bombs for USSR. Which casts doubts on the actual reasonings behind him not wanting to use the bombs on Japan. His decisions on test sights, like for Bravo, come to mind on his "humanitarian concerns".
[QUOTE="Ace6301"] I'm always interested in the mentality that historical figures tell the absolute truth all the time as if they themselves had nothing to gain. CreasianDevailiI think he rightfully saw the soviets as the only, at the height of the war, country a threat when all said and done. I don't think he gave two craps about Japan and only reservation to the nukes was that it might bring the soviets and U.S. into conflict. Nukes and we control and piss off the soviets, or we let the soviets invade and slaughter most of the people and slave out the rest. Either way Japan was going to end but one tactically would of bid time and also kept our nukes secret. Watching how his mentality "suddenly" changed after he got control of the nukes, I honestly think he wanted to save the bombs for USSR. Which casts doubts on the actual reasonings behind him not wanting to use the bombs on Japan. His decisions on test sights, like for Bravo, come to mind on his "humanitarian concerns". I was actually agreeing with you. I meant we shouldn't take the words of those who were there at face value. We have to see why they would say what they said just as much as it's implications on history, many just take words at face value.
[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]
You, of course, are ignoring the many people who thought differently at the time, both government and army officials, not to mention historians who thought that there were good possibilities to end the war by less atrocious means. Of course your reasoning makes sense ONLY if you ignore that but I'm choosing not to ignore it. And if getting on a high horse or having a "righteous" mentality means questioning killing 200 thousand civilians as being the "right thing" then by all means I surely hope I never get off that high horse.
You know the world is **** up when you are accused of having too high ethical principles when you question the obliteration of innocent people by the thousands.
kuraimen
Since when is killing 200,000 people considered worse than killing half a million in firebombings? Or millions due to genocide and regular warfare? Your "high horse" comes from your hypocritical stance that some how the nuclear weapons were worse than things that killed people more slowly and in greater numbers. I thought you didn't believe in comparing the killing of other human beings, but somehow the bombs were worse than anything else in the war? Is it because the EVIL U.S. used them? 200,000 people unfortunately died, but it was indeed a time of WAR and it was the method that would end the conflict the fastest and with the least amount of people killed.
I am not ignoring anyone, but find it hilarious that YOU are ignoring the people from back then who believed dropping the bombs was the right thing to do because of your bias. FYI Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military supporting cities with Japanese divisions being stationed in one and a naval port being in another. Your "ethics" would lead to the death of millions and a prolonged war. Trying to enforce civility and ethics in a savage and unethical thing such as war can only be done to a cetain extent before you start to become unable to fight a war effectively. This was a TOTAL WAR, and there has been nothing like it since (Thank god).
Who says that I said that is was worse than anything? Please quote me where I said that. My whole point is that saying that it was the best or the right course of action is disgusting for me. I think the people who dropped those bombs back then did it for less than noble reasons. I think they did it to show the world the power they had and to test the weapons. Some of those who were there think that was the case. But don't expect me to think that everybody then thought that it was the only option because that was not the case. 1. Sorry to burst your bubble, but compared to all of the ALTERNATIVES, it was the best course of action. People here are not trying to say it was the most ideal thing to do by itself, but compared to everything else at the time, it was. It was NOT a pure act of terror, but an act of WAR. If those weapons were not used then, they would have absolutely have been used in Korea (Or some alternative conflict) because the world would not have known their horrifying power when used on people. Do you understand now? 2. While the main reason was to end the war, you are correct in that it was not the only one. It was also used to intimidate the U.S.S.R. and Keep them from advancing further into Asia and Europe. So, yes, there were other motives, but they were secondary due to their long term, strategic nature (Cold War), rather than the short term, tactical one (WWII).[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] I'm always interested in the mentality that historical figures tell the absolute truth all the time as if they themselves had nothing to gain. Ace6301I think he rightfully saw the soviets as the only, at the height of the war, country a threat when all said and done. I don't think he gave two craps about Japan and only reservation to the nukes was that it might bring the soviets and U.S. into conflict. Nukes and we control and piss off the soviets, or we let the soviets invade and slaughter most of the people and slave out the rest. Either way Japan was going to end but one tactically would of bid time and also kept our nukes secret. Watching how his mentality "suddenly" changed after he got control of the nukes, I honestly think he wanted to save the bombs for USSR. Which casts doubts on the actual reasonings behind him not wanting to use the bombs on Japan. His decisions on test sights, like for Bravo, come to mind on his "humanitarian concerns". I was actually agreeing with you. I meant we shouldn't take the words of those who were there at face value. We have to see why they would say what they said just as much as it's implications on history, many just take words at face value. Oh i know I just was foaming at the mouth there. Was moreso just taking oppurtunity to side respond to htekemaid or whatever. It is easier with so many years having past that we can take what someone said, historically, and see both what they said and did before and after.
[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]
[QUOTE="htekemerald"]
An attacked against civilan cetres in a country wanting to surrender...
It was terrorism, plain and simple. Don't expect americans to agree though, they have a rather warped view of their military history.
htekemerald
This is why your argument falls aparts before you even get to the distorted definition of terrorism and the America hate.
???
Did they drop bombs in city centres?
Yep.
Did japan want to surrender?
Yep.
Man look at those distorted facts! :roll: Your country dropped two nuclear weapons on civilian centres to intimidate the Russians, deal with it.
lol, didn't realize you were joking. People who say things this off the mark are clearly joking, because if they aren't then... well my faith in humanity is shot.
[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]I've seen him in a couple political/geopolitical related ones and it is always a "cute" remark about evil America and how it ruined the Middle East by itself (Because WWI, WWII and the U.S.S.R had NOTHING to do with it :roll: )Victorious_FizeAs LJ once said, the past is past. So why does America still supports dictators (or "kings" as your officials so delightfully put it) abroad? You mean the same people the rest of the West, China, Russia, Brazil, etc support? Maybe it has to do with the globalization of economics? If by "Kings" you are referring to the Saudis, the U.S. is far from the only country supporting them. Also, if the past is indeed the past, then why bring up past American actions at all?
No. It was a war. The Japanese attacked us first too.KC_HokieWell, i know it's not exactly the same with 9/11 but there are some similarities. The US dropped the bomb to show the world their power and force the Japanese to surrender, Al Qaeda hit the buildings and the Pentagon to show the Americans they're not to be messed with (didn't work) and gtfo out of their so-called "holy" grounds... Inflicting civilian casualties to achieve a political goal.
[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]You tell others to brush up on their definitions but use an improper definition for terrorism. It's just the act of using fear to coerce an enemy. It doesn't need to be done by a small force and it doesn't need to be done during peace time.No, its not terrorism. The US was at war with Japan, in the midst of the biggest conflict in the 20th century. They attacked the US first (and killed many unfortunate civilians), and the US dropped some bombs on them. The bombs killed a lot of civilians, sure, but it ended the war and saved more lived then they ended (since attacking Japan head on would have cost many, many more lives of US and Japanese soldiers).
In terrorism, its also a case of them using guerilla tactics and specifically targeting civilians to try and get what they want. The US just wanted to end the war, they weren't some small guerilla force going after a much larger government or army, they were in a large scale war that the Japanese provoked on the US.
You need to brush up on your history and definitions. You could argue that the rebels in the revolutionary war were terrorists at that time, but even then I don't believe they resorted to killing countless civilians for an unwinnable cause (which is generally what terrorism is).
Ace6301
The definition of "terrorism" is murky at best, and one group's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
One thing is certain though, there is a difference between an act of war between two countries, and terrorism. Dropping a nuke on a country with no intention to surrender, who the US were not at war with is NOT terrorism.
Terrorism falls more in line with using guerrilla tactics, scare mongering, and killing civilians/breaking every rule of engagement to try and further some cause usually destined to fail. That is what I think is the closest approximation of modern terrorism is, but until we have an official concrete definition then you can go ahead and define anything as terrorism.
Go ahead and say skateboarders are terrorists for occasionally punching a rent a cop and defacing public property if you want, its a pretty ambiguous word.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]No. It was a war. The Japanese attacked us first too.Stavrogin_Well, i know it's not exactly the same with 9/11 but there are some similarities. The US dropped the bomb to show the world their power and force the Japanese to surrender, Al Qaeda hit the buildings and the Pentagon to show the Americans they're not to be messed with (didn't work) and gtfo out of their so-called "holy" grounds... Inflicting civilian casualties to achieve a political goal.Wait...what does 9/11 have to do with WWII? That was the stupidest analogy I've ever read.
You tell others to brush up on their definitions but use an improper definition for terrorism. It's just the act of using fear to coerce an enemy. It doesn't need to be done by a small force and it doesn't need to be done during peace time.[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]
No, its not terrorism. The US was at war with Japan, in the midst of the biggest conflict in the 20th century. They attacked the US first (and killed many unfortunate civilians), and the US dropped some bombs on them. The bombs killed a lot of civilians, sure, but it ended the war and saved more lived then they ended (since attacking Japan head on would have cost many, many more lives of US and Japanese soldiers).
In terrorism, its also a case of them using guerilla tactics and specifically targeting civilians to try and get what they want. The US just wanted to end the war, they weren't some small guerilla force going after a much larger government or army, they were in a large scale war that the Japanese provoked on the US.
You need to brush up on your history and definitions. You could argue that the rebels in the revolutionary war were terrorists at that time, but even then I don't believe they resorted to killing countless civilians for an unwinnable cause (which is generally what terrorism is).
SPYDER0416
The definition of "terrorism" is murky at best, and one group's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
One thing is certain though, there is a difference between an act of war between two countries, and terrorism. Dropping a nuke on a country with no intention to surrender, who the US were not at war with is NOT terrorism.
Terrorism falls more in line with using guerrilla tactics, scare mongering, and killing civilians/breaking every rule of engagement to try and further some cause usually destined to fail. That is what I think is the closest approximation of modern terrorism is, but until we have an official concrete definition then you can go ahead and define anything as terrorism.
Go ahead and say skateboarders are terrorists for occasionally punching a rent a cop and defacing public property if you want, its a pretty ambiguous word.
The issue being that the direct definition is the use of fear to coerce a party into doing what you want them to do. The nuclear bombings of Japan do fit that definition. Terrorism as a modern definition is about small scale attacks but the term isn't a new one. The US weren't just coercing Japan either. They were showing the world, especially Russia, that messing with them wasn't a good idea.[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]No. It was a war. The Japanese attacked us first too.KC_HokieWell, i know it's not exactly the same with 9/11 but there are some similarities. The US dropped the bomb to show the world their power and force the Japanese to surrender, Al Qaeda hit the buildings and the Pentagon to show the Americans they're not to be messed with (didn't work) and gtfo out of their so-called "holy" grounds... Inflicting civilian casualties to achieve a political goal.Wait...what does 9/11 have to do with WWII? That was the stupidest analogy I've ever read. People compared 9/11 and the nukes previously, i thought you read the entire discussion. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki isn't terrorism, then 9/11 isn't terrorism either.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Well, i know it's not exactly the same with 9/11 but there are some similarities. The US dropped the bomb to show the world their power and force the Japanese to surrender, Al Qaeda hit the buildings and the Pentagon to show the Americans they're not to be messed with (didn't work) and gtfo out of their so-called "holy" grounds... Inflicting civilian casualties to achieve a political goal.Stavrogin_Wait...what does 9/11 have to do with WWII? That was the stupidest analogy I've ever read. People compared 9/11 and the nukes previously, i thought you read the entire discussion. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki isn't terrorism, then 9/11 isn't terrorism either.Dropping nukes on Japan ended a war. A war the U.S. was drawn into too after an attack.
Attacking on 9/11 started a war.
How are they related?
People compared 9/11 and the nukes previously, i thought you read the entire discussion. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki isn't terrorism, then 9/11 isn't terrorism either.Dropping nukes on Japan ended a war. A war the U.S. was drawn into too after an attack.[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Wait...what does 9/11 have to do with WWII? That was the stupidest analogy I've ever read. KC_Hokie
Attacking on 9/11 started a war.
How are they related?
lol no, it didn't start a war. That conflict goes way before 9/11, i thought you knew that.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Dropping nukes on Japan ended a war. A war the U.S. was drawn into too after an attack.[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] People compared 9/11 and the nukes previously, i thought you read the entire discussion. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki isn't terrorism, then 9/11 isn't terrorism either.Stavrogin_
Attacking on 9/11 started a war.
How are they related?
lol no, it didn't start a war. That conflict goes way before 9/11, i thought you knew that. Every country in the world other than maybe Pakistan considered Al Qaeda a terrorist organization prior to 9/11. Even countries like Iran. So what's your point?[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Dropping nukes on Japan ended a war. A war the U.S. was drawn into too after an attack.lol no, it didn't start a war. That conflict goes way before 9/11, i thought you knew that. Every country in the world other than maybe Pakistan considered Al Qaeda a terrorist organization prior to 9/11. Even countries like Iran. So what's your point? Pretty goddamn arbitrary isn't it? Hypothetically speaking, if Al Qaeda wasn't considered a terrorist organization prior to 9/11, would you have considered 9/11 to be a terrorist attack? That's just silly...Attacking on 9/11 started a war.
How are they related?
KC_Hokie
not dropped on purely civilian targetsOn3ShotOneKillThe 200 000 dead dislike this...
Time of peace? No interest in the aggressor? ...9/11 was an attack against a completely unprepared population and government (somewhat on the latter) that had no interest (or awareness) in the aggressor, during a time of peace, and with no immediate warning (don't give me that 1996 declaration BS).
Every country in the world other than maybe Pakistan considered Al Qaeda a terrorist organization prior to 9/11. Even countries like Iran. So what's your point? Pretty goddamn arbitrary isn't it? Hypothetically speaking, if Al Qaeda wasn't considered a terrorist organization prior to 9/11, would you have considered 9/11 to be a terrorist attack? That's just silly...No. A terrorist organization killing thousands of people results a....terrorist act. It very simple. Even our enemies like Iran condemned the attack.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]lol no, it didn't start a war. That conflict goes way before 9/11, i thought you knew that. Stavrogin_
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment