Was Hiroshima Wrong?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Really? The entire city of Hiroshima was a military target? Nagasaki was all a large military complex?

it was certainly more of a military target than the world trade center. now if you say pentagon, i will concede that was a military target.

Total war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strategies of Annihilation: Total War in US History

“It is probable that the reduction of Japan’s power and will to resist may only be accomplished by a sustained, systematic, and large scale air offensive against Japan itself.” - Allied Combined Chiefs’ Plan for Japan’s Defeat, May 14th, 1943

I'll not even get into the wars and ethnic cleansing s against the natives.

Point is: America had no problem with this sort of thing when we were doing it. Like the Jews, we only cried foul when we were on the losing side.

What credibility do we have?

Are you equating Israel with Nazi Germany?
 
"If your government, or any citizen of your country attempts to stick its nose into our affairs, we will launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on your capial.

Bin Ladin should have done a bit more then, eh?
 
no. saddam's goal before Gulf War I was to capture the arabian peninsula.
Your point?

so I take it, you think the US government brought 9/11 on itself?
The US government brought 9/11 on its people. Of course the people who actually planned and carried out the attacks are ultimately responsible, but those attacks sure as hell didn't happen in a vacuum. In his own words (ignore the title):

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLlo1VQxgDk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLlo1VQxgDk[/ame]
 
Really? The entire city of Hiroshima was a military target? Nagasaki was all a large military complex?

it was certainly more of a military target than the world trade center. now if you say pentagon, i will concede that was a military target.

Total war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strategies of Annihilation: Total War in US History

“It is probable that the reduction of Japan’s power and will to resist may only be accomplished by a sustained, systematic, and large scale air offensive against Japan itself.” - Allied Combined Chiefs’ Plan for Japan’s Defeat, May 14th, 1943

I'll not even get into the wars and ethnic cleansing s against the natives.

Point is: America had no problem with this sort of thing when we were doing it. Like the Jews, we only cried foul when we were on the losing side.

What credibility do we have?

I see you enjoy quoting Noam Chomsky. Tell you what. Why don't you and Kalam give me your definitions of terrorism and we'll work with that.
 
no. saddam's goal before Gulf War I was to capture the arabian peninsula.
Your point?

so I take it, you think the US government brought 9/11 on itself?
The US government brought 9/11 on its people. Of course the people who actually planned and carried out the attacks are ultimately responsible, but those attacks sure as hell didn't happen in a vacuum. In his own words (ignore the title):

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLlo1VQxgDk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLlo1VQxgDk[/ame]

my point is you would rather have had saddam husseins troops on the holy soil than the americans. that's what would have happened had we not intervened in 1989-1990. so the US govt brought the 9/11 attacks on its people but japan's govt didn't bring hiroshima on its?
 
The number one job of the government is to protect the population those that have put them in power. By fire bombing, and then nuking Japan, our government shortened the war, and saved MILLIONS of lives, both Japanese, and American. It was a sad thing, but it was the duty, and the best thing to do. To try and make a argument otherwise is foolishness, and shameful.

:clap2::cuckoo::eusa_whistle:
 
Nuking Japan wasn't wrong. Sad thing is we had to wait so long to do it.


So why is this

nagasaki.jpg


okay


but this

9-11_1.jpg


isn't?




The difference is the Japanese dictatorship was ready willing and able to send millions of its citizens into battle to be massacred on the beaches by American Firepower. Conservative estimates are that the two atomic bombs in the long run saved at least one million Japanese lives that would otherwise have been killed attacking the invasion beaches. The Japanese military had equipped them with spears to attack the landing Americans and the plan was to attack right on the beach where the highest volume of fire could be directed at them.

The bombs put a stop to that nonsense.
 
Bin Ladin should have done a bit more then, eh?

So far as I'm aware Mr. Bin Laden does not represent a Government. He represents a group of religious fanatics who hold no real standing in the world politic. That is a very different situation. Of course from our end, the response should be the same.... wipe them off the face of the Earth as quickly and brutally as humanly possible. Every man, woman, child associated with that group should be dispatched to their eternal home with Allah ASAP.

Personally I have no more problem with Islam as a religion than I do with Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or any other organized religious group. However, I see absolutely no need for fanatical religious activists to be accepted in any manner, regardless of their particular chosen religion.
 
The difference is the Japanese dictatorship was ready willing and able to send millions of its citizens into battle to be massacred on the beaches by American Firepower. Conservative estimates are that the two atomic bombs in the long run saved at least one million Japanese lives that would otherwise have been killed attacking the invasion beaches. The Japanese military had equipped them with spears to attack the landing Americans and the plan was to attack right on the beach where the highest volume of fire could be directed at them.

The bombs put a stop to that nonsense.

So the ends justify the means?
 
...But nuking DC would have been peachy keen had he represented one of the many countries the U.S. has messed with?

In a single word..... YES.

I do not believe that the United States should be involved in the affairs of people, governments, or events outside the borders of the United States. PERIOD. FULL STOP.

I believe in a "Fortress America" concept and always have. I have never found anything to change that viewpoint. Nor do I ever expect to. I am of the opinion that we need a new, Isolationist, Nationalist government here in the US which will turn its back completely on the rest of the world and concern itself SOLELY with the multitude of issues concerns threatening the United States from within.
 
Didn't we believe, even if it was only at the time, that the nukes would provide more life in the long run? That a land invasion would have cost millions of more lives on either side?
Atleast our intention was good.
Doesn't count for that much though in the long run I suppose.
 
And Nagasaki? How many non-combatants were knowingly slaughtered in order to terrorize the government of Japan into granting our demands?

They where given a choice, the Potsdam Ultimatum, choices have consequences....

What was the choice for lower Manhattan?
 
And Nagasaki? How many non-combatants were knowingly slaughtered in order to terrorize the government of Japan into granting our demands?

They where given a choice, the Potsdam Ultimatum, choices have consequences....

What was the choice for lower Manhattan?

devil's advocate: "Get the troops out of the middle east or we'll blow up your skyscrapers."
 
Both were acts of war and should be judged and responded to accordingly. We nuked Japan to end that war. I think we should nuke the terrorists too. Fuck 'em.
So 9/11 was cool, then? Just a part of war?

I think it's a deeper moral question than that. If you look at the analysis from the time, many more people would have died in an invasion of Japan than were killed by the atomic blasts. Does that make the action proper? I'd say yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top