Was Hiroshima Wrong?

[GWV5903]

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."

Understood, are you referring to the troops in Kuwait?

 

[Kalam]

...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.

I think that nationalism is abhorrent but respect that your views are at least consistent. American isolationism would be a most welcome change from the current state of affairs.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

So why is this

okay


but this

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.

Another thing was sending waves of B-17s over Japan was a much more dangerous endeavor because of the distance. We barely got planes over Tokyo but we had to ditch them in China. All we needed was two aircraft when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[elvis]

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."

Understood, are you referring to the troops in Kuwait?

actually the ones in Saudi Arabia. it was the reason bin laden gave for the attacks.

 

[mudwhistle]

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."

So a few radicals can tell us to leave when the King wanted us there to defend him from Saddam???

Wow. Those guys are powerful.

And what was the reason they wanted us to leave???


Bigotry.

They hate anyone who's not a Muslim on their precious soil.

 

[elvis]

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."

So a few radicals can tell us to leave when the King wanted us there to defend him from Saddam???

Wow. Those guys are powerful.

well, as I said, devil's advocate.

it was the choice bin laden gave us in 1995 when he declared war on the United States.

 

[Anachronism]

I think that nationalism is abhorrent but respect that your views are at least consistent. American isolationism would be a most welcome change from the current state of affairs.

Personally, I think that Nationalism is the only reasonable basis for citizenship in a country. If one is not truly committed, devoted, and loyal to that country, why are they there to begin with? Likewise, why would one retain any loyalty or devotion to a country that they have left? For example.... my paternal great-grandparents Adam and Karoline left Germany in 1910. The next time they had any contact with the portion of their family they left in Germany is when two of my great-grandfathers cousins showed up on their doorstep in Connecticut in 1928. Adam's belief, and that which has been handed down on that side of the family for the last century (including several of the intermarried families now) is that we are AMERICANS and AMERICANS ONLY. Where we came from means NOTHING.

I think that American Isolationism would bring about some very interesting things in the world. Including some things that foreigners may not like. The form of Total Isolationism I espouse would mean no medicines, food, money, or any other form of aid would be leaving the United States for the "developing nations". There would be no aircraft carriers treating tsunami victims. No American search teams digging through the rubble after earthquakes. It would also require some MASSIVE and MAJOR changes in American culture as well. Travel would largely be a thing of the past. Individual communities would have to start providing for themselves again. We would have to go back to a more agrarian, less technological, and hopefully more morality and values driven society.

 

[GWV5903]

devil's advocate: "Get the troops out of the middle east or we'll blow up your skyscrapers."

Understood, are you referring to the troops in Kuwait?

actually the ones in Saudi Arabia. it was the reason bin laden gave for the attacks.

Brain Fart, long day....

If I remember we where requested to be there by the Saudis, where we not? I have a difficult time with OBL being recognized as a soldier or commander of an armed force. Terrorist attacks are performed by cowards imo....

Also, I believe there was a previous ultimatum given to the Japanese....

 

[elvis]

Understood, are you referring to the troops in Kuwait?

actually the ones in Saudi Arabia. it was the reason bin laden gave for the attacks.

Brain Fart, long day....

If I remember we where requested to be there by the Saudis, where we not? I have a difficult time with OBL being recognized as a soldier or commander of an armed force. Terrorist attacks are performed by cowards imo....

Also, I believe there was a previous ultimatum given to the Japanese....

I am only giving the reasons bin laden gave. yes our presence was requested by the saudi royals.

 

[Polk]

actually the ones in Saudi Arabia. it was the reason bin laden gave for the attacks.

Brain Fart, long day....

If I remember we where requested to be there by the Saudis, where we not? I have a difficult time with OBL being recognized as a soldier or commander of an armed force. Terrorist attacks are performed by cowards imo....

Also, I believe there was a previous ultimatum given to the Japanese....

I am only giving the reasons bin laden gave. yes our presence was requested by the saudi royals.

I think people are missing the deeper point behind your statement, which, at least as I see it, is that you could make an argument for just about any sort of action. The ethical issues rest on something more fundamental than ultimatums.

 

[mudwhistle]

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."

Understood, are you referring to the troops in Kuwait?

Saudi Arabia.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You might as well throw was slavery wrong in with the question. It's hard to find judgment of the action of people from a differant time period when you are not from that period of time. All I can say is let's try and prvent either from happening again.

 

[westwall]

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?

The goal was to save lives or didn't you understand that? The goal was met, both American and Japanese lives were saved by the use of the bombs.

 

[Polk]

You might as well throw was slavery wrong in with the question. It's hard to find judgment of the action of people from a differant time period when you are not from that period of time. All I can say is let's try and prvent either from happening again.

That's getting into a pretty situational view of ethics.

 

[Kalam]

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?

The goal was to save lives or didn't you understand that? The goal was met, both American and Japanese lives were saved by the use of the bombs.

You didn't answer my question. Do the ends justify the means?

 

[elvis]

So the ends justify the means?

The goal was to save lives or didn't you understand that? The goal was met, both American and Japanese lives were saved by the use of the bombs.

You didn't answer my question. Do the ends justify the means?

well, yeah, he did.

 

[Polk]

So the ends justify the means?

The goal was to save lives or didn't you understand that? The goal was met, both American and Japanese lives were saved by the use of the bombs.

You didn't answer my question. Do the ends justify the means?

Yeah, he did. He said saving some people to save the lives of a far larger number is acceptable.

 

[Kalam]

The goal was to save lives or didn't you understand that? The goal was met, both American and Japanese lives were saved by the use of the bombs.

You didn't answer my question. Do the ends justify the means?

well, yeah, he did.

'Do the ends justify the means?'

'The goal was to...'

Sorry; that isn't a direct answer to the question I asked.

 

[elvis]

You didn't answer my question. Do the ends justify the means?

well, yeah, he did.

'Do the ends justify the means?'

'The goal was to...'

Sorry; that isn't a direct answer to the question I asked.

yes. the ends justified the means, as lives were saved..

 

[Kalam]

The goal was to save lives or didn't you understand that? The goal was met, both American and Japanese lives were saved by the use of the bombs.

You didn't answer my question. Do the ends justify the means?

Yeah, he did. He said saving some people to save the lives of a far larger number is acceptable.

So 9/11 would have been justified had it successfully prevented any post-2001 US wars in the Muslim world?