Nuking the damn Japs

[DrunkenUno]

Quote:
A ground invasion of Japan would cause far too many casualties among US soldiers. Dropping the bombs was a much safer option. At the time they were dropped, Japanese forces were already weak, and defeat was inevitable even without the bombs. However, many soldiers (and likely more Japanese civilians than were killed in the bombs) would still die in the ground invasion, so this made dropping the bomb a viable solution. Precision bombs and guided missles were nowhere near as advanced as they were today, so the bombing runs alone to eliminate war production would have killed huge numbers of japanese. Plus, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were large military centers for Japan.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL this deserves a whole thread of its own

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From other thread.

Just wondering how anyone can possibly contest the bombings of Japan? It saved about 10-12 million lives and possibly prevented a post-WW2 invasion of Western Europe by the Soviets.

[Dibujante]

I direct you to President Truman's diary entry for the 18th of July, 1945. In it he mentions discussing the offer of peace from Japan with the leader of the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. The Japanese offered peace under two conditions: retention of autonomy and that the royal family not be harmed, the two conditions the United States eventually agreed to. The United States couldn't hasten surrender by dropping the bombs since the Japanese had been offering to surrender prior to the bombings.

[DrunkenUno]

I direct you to President Truman's diary entry for the 18th of July, 1945. In it he mentions discussing the offer of peace from Japan with the leader of the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. The Japanese offered peace under two conditions: retention of autonomy and that the royal family not be harmed, the two conditions the United States eventually agreed to. The United States couldn't hasten surrender by dropping the bombs since the Japanese had been offering to surrender prior to the bombings.
The "Japanese" didn't offer peace, the Emperor did. And the Emperor wasn't even in control of the country.

[Karmashock]

America told them upfront it was unconditional surrender or don't even bother. The mistake of hte first war was conditions... no conditions... drop the fucking guns.

[Polaris]

whatever happened to the good 'ol days when "we conquered your country, now youre our bishes"

*not to be taken entirely seriously

[TheSnake]

The bomb was more humane than sending Chuck Norris who would have just tea-bagged and or roundhouse kicked everyone. Thats how Hitler died you know, Chuck Norris tea-bagged him to death.

I refer you to my Chuck Norris thread in the spam section if this doesn't make sense to you. VISIT THE SITE!!

[Justice]

Bomb dropping = good

Anyone who disagrees is just wrong ... and if someone says so I will be forced to give my arguments.

cheers, and
-=</|Awesome Party!|\>=-

[Karmashock]

Bomb dropping = good

Anyone who disagrees is just wrong ... and if someone says so I will be forced to give my arguments.
what are your arguements for dropping the bomb?

[Dibujante]

The "Japanese" didn't offer peace, the Emperor did. And the Emperor wasn't even in control of the country.
The emperor was the head of the Japanese state. Only he could offer peace.
America told them upfront it was unconditional surrender or don't even bother. The mistake of hte first war was conditions... no conditions... drop the fucking guns.These are the same conditions you provided Japan with. There's no difference between the surrender offers that Japan had been previously making and the surrender offer you made to them. You gave them their terms; the demand for "unconditional surrender" was bogus.

[Karmashock]

These are the same conditions you provided Japan with. There's no difference between the surrender offers that Japan had been previously making and the surrender offer you made to them. You gave them their terms; the demand for "unconditional surrender" was bogus.
Dibs... this might come as a shock to you... but the Tooth Fairy isn't real... I"M SORRY I"M SORRY!!! Don't cry... shhhh... hussh... it's ok... Oh and that line you just gave me isn't true either.:lol:

Unconditional surrender was an war objective for the allies earily on. We demanded it of ALL axis powers. Germany tried to do a conditional surrender too. We said no. And the russians used hitler's fucking skull for an ash tray there after.

[Dibujante]

Dibs... this might come as a shock to you... but the Tooth Fairy isn't real... I"M SORRY I"M SORRY!!! Don't cry... shhhh... hussh... it's ok... Oh and that line you just gave me isn't true either.:lol:This is irrelevant.

Unconditional surrender was an war objective for the allies earily on. We demanded it of ALL axis powers. Germany tried to do a conditional surrender too. We said no. And the russians used hitler's fucking skull for an ash tray there after.That is not true. You outlined your surrender demands at the Potsdam conference. Japan offered the terms that you outlined at the Potsdam declaration. However, the United States chose to ignore these offers and instead drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as firebombs on Tokyo.

[TheSnake]

Because the offers were of conditional surrender. We had stated earlier that nothing short of unconditional surrender would do, why would we settle for less when we had already made our stance clear?

[Dibujante]

Because the offers were of conditional surrender. We had stated earlier that nothing short of unconditional surrender would do, why would we settle for less when we had already made our stance clear?You would have spared nearly a million innocent lives by agreeing to give Japan its one condition without an unconditional surrender. The condition that the Japanese royal family not be destroyed was the only condition the Japanese demanded and it was the condition the Allies granted to the Japanese. Therefore, your government either destroyed a million people for the purposes of splitting hairs, or it had ulterior motives with regard to the Cold War.

[TheSnake]

of course, there is always some sort of covert/black ops/ulterior motive isn't' there? Never can it just be how it is generally thought of. There always has to be some kind of hidden past or back story with you Dib. Dib let me make this clear:
THERE WASN'T SOME ULTERIOR COLD WAR MOTIVE! WE DROPPED THE BOMB TO SAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF OUR SOLDIERS LIVES. IT WAS KILL A TON OF THEM OR LOSE A TON OF US. Which would you have picked, the lives of your enemy's citizens or your own soldiers?

[Dibujante]

of course, there is always some sort of covert/black ops/ulterior motive isn't' there? Never can it just be how it is generally thought of. There always has to be some kind of hidden past or back story with you Dib. Dib let me make this clear:
THERE WASN'T SOME ULTERIOR COLD WAR MOTIVE! WE DROPPED THE BOMB TO SAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF OUR SOLDIERS LIVES. IT WAS KILL A TON OF THEM OR LOSE A TON OF US. Which would you have picked, the lives of your enemy's citizens or your own soldiers?I will repeat myself: The Japanese were willing to surrender without an invasion and without the bombs being dropped. You are clarifying an argument that you have already made to me. I have presented a counter-argument which you have ignored.

[DrunkenUno]

The emperor was the head of the Japanese state. Only he could offer peace.
Right, just like the Queen is the head of the british government and makes all decisions right?

I mean are you retarded? Hirohito was not in control of the government. After Okinawa he realized his county would lose the war, and called on his ministers to seek an end to the conflict, but they refused. Hell, they tried to keep fighting even after the bombs, but Hirohito appealed directly to the people and succeeded.

[Morpheus]

US could've at least tried, Drunk. Granting one condition or killing so many people - I just don't see why US at least didn't try to go for peace. It's happening nowdays too, same story, different time.

[Dibujante]

Right, just like the Queen is the head of the british government and makes all decisions right?

I mean are you retarded? Hirohito was not in control of the government. After Okinawa he realized his county would lose the war, and called on his ministers to seek an end to the conflict, but they refused. Hell, they tried to keep fighting even after the bombs, but Hirohito appealed directly to the people and succeeded.
Hirohito's coup was only quasi-legal. The Emperor still, in theory, was the ruler of all of Japan. If the Emperor had been approached with an offer of peace that was accepted, then the Japanese government would either capitulate or assassinate their emperor, both making it absolutely clear what the United States should have done next.

[Blacksand]

What interests me, is that during the Emperor's surrender speech to the Japanese population - even in the face of the horror of nuclear attack, the populace thought they had won the war.

Another fact - the Japanese have not been the only people to be nuked by America.

Between 1965 and 1971 - three nuclear tests were conducted in the Aleutian Islands, which was also a wildlife refuge at the time, where the native indians living there were unknowingly exposed to the fallout of those blasts.

[2biT]

The problems of the stance of 'unconditional surrender' also had a prolonging effect on the western front too. weather or not any surrender would have been anything but a respite is a bit of a moot point, and look how the policy of apeasement got us in 1938.

Was america right to drop the bombs, imo yes.

[Karmashock]

US could've at least tried, Drunk. Granting one condition or killing so many people - I just don't see why US at least didn't try to go for peace. It's happening nowdays too, same story, different time.
You don't understand what kind of a war that was... Get your head out of 2005 and put it in the middle of that war. Smell it.

If the bombs weren't read, we had already planned to let Stalin's Soviet troops invade Japan with US air support and naval supplies.


The expected death toll was 1 million russian soldiers. Dead. How many Japanese would have died? It wasn't part of the calcuations... not important to the mission.


It was unconditional surrender or death. Your question of "why not just ask for peace?" only shows that you don't understand the times or the situation. That was not an acceptable offer. There were only two things that would have stopped the US at that time. Unconditional surrender or no more enemy.


What did America do to japan after it surrendered? It respected the japanese people... if helped them rebuild their industry... it became their friend.

And thus there is peace in the pacific.

[Papa Smurf]

Defining the issue as a choice between the A-bomb and a land invasion is an irrelevant and wholly false dichotomy. By 1945, Japan's entire military and industrial machine was grinding to a halt as the resources needed to wage war were all but eradicated. The navy and air force had been destroyed ship by ship, plane by plane, with no possibility of replacement. When, in the spring of 1945, the island nation's lifeline to oil was severed, the war was over except for the fighting. By June, Gen. Curtis LeMay, in charge of the air attacks, was complaining that after months of terrible firebombing, there was nothing left of Japanese cities for his bombers but garbage can targets. By July, US planes could fly over Japan without resistance and bomb as much and as long as they pleased. Japan could no longer defend itself.

Remember Japan has virtually no natural resources.

Ah you speak for Morpeus thinking too much like hes in 2005 Karma, lets see what the political and military leaders of the time thought about it.

Your know this issue from your text books, ever hear the term history is written by the victor.

According to Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

"Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (General Dwight David Eisenhower Commander in Chief of Allied Forces in Europe)

"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." (UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946.)

"General Curtis LeMay: 'The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.'

Field Marshal Montgomery ( Commander of all UK Forces in Europe) wrote in his History of Warfare: It was unnecessary to drop the two atom bombs on Japan in August 1945, and I cannot think it was right to do so .... the dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining standards of the conduct of modern war.

Truman's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, wrote:" It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in this fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children".

"The dropping of the first atomic bomb was also an act of pure terrorism. It fulfilled no military purpose of any kind. Belatedly it has been disclosed that seven months before it was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthur's headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: in July 1945, as we now know, Roosevelt's successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsberg the Japanese offer to surrender....The Japanese people were to be enlisted as human guinea-pigs for a scientific experiment." "
- F.J.P Veale, Advance To Barbarism: The Development Of Total Warfare From Serajevo To Hiroshima (California: Institute for Historical Review, 1979), pp.352-53.

[Karmashock]

Defining the issue as a choice between the A-bomb and a land invasion is an irrelevant and wholly false dichotomy.
No, it isn't. It was option A and option B. To aquire objective Z. The end.

The japanese were prepared to fight to the last man. We made it clear that that kind of death would be meaningless. They would not hurt us in the process.

[Papa Smurf]

hummm you seem to know more than the most important and WELL INFORMED people of the time even though you never lived through it.

for example Karma knows more than:
Winston Churchill
Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's chief of staff
Field Marshal Montgomery
General Dwight David Eisenhower
General Curtis LeMay

Oh holf on you know better than your own Government too, i'll quote you this again just incase you missed it
"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946

[Karmashock]

hummm you seem to know more than the most important and WELL INFORMED people of the time even though you never lived through it.

for example Karma knows more than:
Winston Churchill
Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's chief of staff
Field Marshal Montgomery
General Dwight David Eisenhower
General Curtis LeMay

Oh holf on you know better than your own Government too, i'll quote you this again just incase you missed it

US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946
Give me a link. Also, surrender is not an unconditional surrender.


I'll give you a link...
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/small/mb16a.htm
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/small/mb16-2.gif


That's from the trueman library... you know... the guy that ordered the bombs to be dropped.... think he knew?

I'll pick out a bit that I thought was relevant... "The atomic bomb had more effect on the thinking of the government leaders then on the morale of the rank and file of civilians outside of the target areas."

What would there be to 'effect' if the japanese had already offered unconditional surrender? They hadn't. After the bombs they did... and the war ended.

[Dibujante]

No, it isn't. It was option A and option B. To aquire objective Z. The end.

The japanese were prepared to fight to the last man. We made it clear that that kind of death would be meaningless. They would not hurt us in the process.
Again, I challenge that assumption. Here's an excerpt from President Truman's diary entry for July 18th, 1945:
Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in.

I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time.He knew about a Japanese offer for peace well before the bombs were dropped but indicated that he was going to drop them anyways. Your argument that dropping the bomb or a massive, destructive land invasion were the only options available is false.

[DrunkenUno]

Your post says it all. The japs gave a peace offer to the Soviets. Did they give a peace offer directly to us? Just like Hitler, we were not willing to allow a seperate peace. And allowing the Japs to come under Soviet sphere of influence might have completely changed the post war balance of power in the world.

[Karmashock]

Again, I challenge that assumption. Here's an excerpt from President Truman's diary entry for July 18th, 1945:
I demand a link.



Let me again make something clear. Stalin was already on his way. HE WAS COMING. Tell me what you think would have been worse for japan? Two US nuclear bombs or a soviet invasion? Stalin wanted Japan. Stalin wanted an eurasian empire to span uncontested from the pacific to the atlantic.


DO NOT REPLY UNLESS YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION DIRECTLY.

[Dibujante]

I demand a link.http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/truman-harry/corr_diary_truman.htm


Let me again make something clear. Stalin was already on his way. HE WAS COMING. Tell me what you think would have been worse for japan? Two US nuclear bombs or a soviet invasion? Stalin wanted Japan. Stalin wanted an eurasian empire to span uncontested from the pacific to the atlantic.

DO NOT REPLY UNLESS YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION DIRECTLY.
That's common knowledge. However, the Japanese emperor had also selected a code he knew the Allies had cracked (code PURPLE) and sent a number of telegrams indicating that he would surrender to the lot of them. He used this telegram to ensure that his encryption in order to keep his ministers from deciding that he had become a threat to the empire and elminating him. In any regard, having known that the Japanese were willing to surrender, the U.S. should have made diplomatic overtures to try to end the war through peaceful means. That said, atomic bombs are preferable to a Stalinist invasion, but preferable above all would have been the peaceful solution that the Allies apparently discarded.

[DrunkenUno]

He used this telegram to ensure that his encryption in order to keep his ministers from deciding that he had become a threat to the empire and elminating him.
So basically you just contradicted your earlier statement and agree with me that the Japanese emperor was not in control of "his" empire, and thus his surrender attempts didn't matter whatsoever.

GG i guess.

[Dibujante]

So basically you just contradicted your earlier statement and agree with me that the Japanese emperor was not in control of "his" empire, and thus his surrender attempts didn't matter whatsoever.

GG i guess.
No, it's completely consistent with my previous statement:
Hirohito's coup was only quasi-legal. The Emperor still, in theory, was the ruler of all of Japan. If the Emperor had been approached with an offer of peace that was accepted, then the Japanese government would either capitulate or assassinate their emperor, both making it absolutely clear what the United States should have done next.Hirohito's post-"coup" situation was ambiguous. His advisors ruled in his stead without formally dispossessing him. Therefore, any offer of peace made by Hirohito could still be honored. However, there was always the possibility that, if Hirohito's offer were accepted, Hirohito would be assassinated. It's a rehash of what I previously said. You are right that Hirohito was not necessarily "in control of his government" but I think it excessive to state that Hirohito could not reassume control long enough to demand peace. In any regard, accepting Hirohito's offer would not have harmed the United States in the least. Had the offer worked, war would have ended and a million lives spared. Had the offer failed due to Hirohito's exile or assassination, then the U.S. could have proceeded with the original plan and have lost nothing.

[Karmashock]

That said, atomic bombs are preferable to a Stalinist invasion
Thank you... you now agree with the bomb. The US could not have said "surrender now or the soviets will get you"... we were still allies in those days. We told them unconditional surrender or don't even bother. They dicked around. Bomb got dropped. War ended. Japan has lived happily ever after.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Wicksy]

To get an idea of the Japanese mindset, think of Kamikazes, Hari Kiri, the treatment of our PoW's, their utter devotion to their emperor, their willingness to fight to the death at any cost.

For the Japs, surrender meant treachery. It was a no-no. Taboo. Don't even think about it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I did hear once that they didn't even have a word for "surrender".

Also consider this, because its an important question:
Why did it take TWO A-bombs before they finally surrendered?

[Karmashock]

well, as obviously the empire of pure liquid evil (America), would only drop such a bomb to glorify the size of its enormous demon penis... we can only assume that the second bomb was dropped to glorify it's enormous throbbing balls.


That, or maybe the US had a reason that was neither evil or illogical, but practical. The United States, if anything, is practical.

[Dibujante]

Also consider this, because its an important question:
Why did it take TWO A-bombs before they finally surrendered?
That can be understood as, "Why was very little time provided between the first and the second bomb?" I think that this was because the two bombs were different types of bombs. One was a Uranium bomb and the other a Plutonium bomb. Both of them could be tested on Japan. If the United States had been dedicated to keeping deaths low, they could have nuked Hiroshima, demanded peace, waited, recieved silence or a rejection after a week or so, and then nuked Nagasaki, and repeated the process.

Karmashock, agreeing that bombs are preferable to Soviet occupation does not justify the extension that you made of that, which was that the bombs were the optimal decision. That connection is logically void. The bombs must be specifically justified. An American ground invasion would have been superior to Soviet occupation as well, but that did not make the American ground invasion the optimal choice.

It still stands that your government was aware of a peace offer from the Japanese emperor. I do not think that Wicksy's speculations into "the Japanese mindset" are a valid scientific contribution to the discussion. Regardless of a hypothetical "Japanese mindset", the Emperor of Japan offered peace and was rebuffed.

Edit: That, or maybe the US had a reason that was neither evil or illogical, but practical. The United States, if anything, is practical.It's quite practical to both drop the bombs rather than wait for a peace and to try to get away with dropping both bombs rather than just one. The first is practical because it intimidates the Soviet Union and hopefully acts as a deterrent to Soviet advances. The second is practical because it tests both bombs, since they were made of two different fissionable materials, there was no guarantee from dropping only one of them that they would both function.

[Karmashock]

Karmashock, agreeing that bombs are preferable to Soviet occupation does not justify the extension that you made of that, which was that the bombs were the optimal decision. That connection is logically void. The bombs must be specifically justified. An American ground invasion would have been superior to Soviet occupation as well, but that did not make the American ground invasion the optimal choice.
First, there is no proof that the japs were offering unconditional surrender before the bombs.
Second, the soviets were coming, how would you stop that without insulting them or breaking any special agreements?
Third, we have deserts and live stock for testing. We don't need cities of japanese for it.

That you would question number three especially is what inspires me to write things such as this
well, as obviously the empire of pure liquid evil (America), would only drop such a bomb to glorify the size of its enormous demon penis... we can only assume that the second bomb was dropped to glorify it's enormous throbbing balls.
you assume america to be an evil cartoon monster... only deep irrational hatred could blind a otherwise intellegent person to arrive at such bizzare conclusions.
It still stands that your government was aware of a peace offer from the Japanese emperor.
Then you stand for rank bullshit.

Regardless of a hypothetical "Japanese mindset"
Hypothetical my left nut.

[Dibujante]

First, there is no proof that the japs were offering unconditional surrender before the bombs.
Second, the soviets were coming, how would you stop that without insulting them or breaking any special agreements?
Third, we have deserts and live stock for testing. We don't need cities of japanese for it.Which begs the question, why drop two bombs before the Japanese could even respond to one?

And I again point you towards that diary entry. I never stated that Japan offered unconditional surrender. I stated that Japan offered surrender on the same terms that the U.S. had accepted them under after the bombs, meaning that the bombs were pointless.

[Karmashock]

I stated that Japan offered surrender on the same terms that the U.S. had accepted them under after the bombs, meaning that the bombs were pointless.
We didn't accept the terms if the terms weren't unconditional surrender.

[Dibujante]

We didn't accept the terms if the terms weren't unconditional surrender.
So you dropped the bomb over splitting hairs? All you would have had to do was guarantee the safety of the royal family and it could have all been avoided. The Japanese were willing to submit to any other terms so long as their royal family wasn't destroyed. Was their royal family, which you didn't destroy anyways, worth nearly a million deaths?

[Karmashock]

So you dropped the bomb over splitting hairs?
It wasn't a spit hair. It wasn't up for debate. It was unconditional surrender or don't even bother. They bothered, we informed them that they shouldn't have, the bombs fell, they offered unconditional surrender, the war ended.

[Dibujante]

It wasn't a spit hair. It wasn't up for debate. It was unconditional surrender or don't even bother. They bothered, we informed them that they shouldn't have, the bombs fell, they offered unconditional surrender, the war ended.
However, you knew that you could save up to a million lives by bothering, as well.

[Karmashock]

However, you knew that you could save up to a million lives by bothering, as well.
Not at all. It would be a million american soldiers that would die in the invasion of japan.

It would be more russain soldiers.

In either case it would be many more japanese.


Or the bomb.

[Dibujante]

Not at all. It would be a million american soldiers that would die in the invasion of japan.

It would be more russain soldiers.

In either case it would be many more japanese.

Or the bomb.Or the peace treaty. You cannot deny that a peace with Japan prior to the bomb would have saved up to a million lives.

[Karmashock]

Or the peace treaty. You cannot deny that a peace with Japan prior to the bomb would have saved up to a million lives.
would it?... what if japan went through the same phase that germany went through after WW1 and only became a bigger problem later?

An unconditional surrender allowed the US to structure japan's future such that that wouldn't happen. That might have saved millions of lives.

But neither of us can truely predict the future... so leave it alone. The US did not drop the bombs just to TEST them. Again, we have a desert for that. We dropped them get unconditional surrender out of the japanese. They weren't offering it until we did.

[Dibujante]

would it?... what if japan went through the same phase that germany went through after WW1 and only became a bigger problem later?

An unconditional surrender allowed the US to structure japan's future such that that wouldn't happen. That might have saved millions of lives.

But neither of us can truely predict the future... so leave it alone. The US did not drop the bombs just to TEST them. Again, we have a desert for that. We dropped them get unconditional surrender out of the japanese. They weren't offering it until we did.
Part of Japan's offer would have allowed the U.S. to restructure Japan as it saw fit, save, of course, for harming the royal family. All of the outcomes would have been the same, except for one million fewer war dead.

If you insist that you have a desert for testing, why did you drop both bombs in quick succession?

[Karmashock]

Part of Japan's offer would have allowed the U.S. to restructure Japan as it saw fit, save, of course, for harming the royal family. All of the outcomes would have been the same, except for one million fewer war dead.

If you insist that you have a desert for testing, why did you drop both bombs in quick succession?
I believe the intention was to demonstrate that we had more... we wanted a quick, unconditional surrender.


That means... no conditions. Drop your guns.


They didn't. Bombs dropped. History.

[Morpheus]

I believe the intention was to demonstrate that we had more... we wanted a quick, unconditional surrender.


That means... no conditions. Drop your guns.


They didn't. Bombs dropped. History.

Read : We're the agressors, we don't care about peace, we don't care about saving lives.

[Karmashock]

Read : We're the agressors, we don't care about peace, we don't care about saving lives.
Actually, Japan was the aggressor.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/Imperial_japan.GIF

You do know what they were doing in china right? Do you know about the experiments on chinese peasents to develope super plagues?... do you know that hitler sent what little remained of the nazi atomic project to japan(germany surrendered before it arrived and the german captain surrendered to the allies instead of making the delivery)?


This was WAR... serious WAR. Blood and bone... soul and sweat. Kill or die. War.

[Morpheus]

Let's say they were. So what? That does not justify US not even giving a real try to solve it peacefully. Makes us no better than them.

[Karmashock]

Let's say they were. So what? That does not justify US not even giving a real try to solve it peacefully. Makes us no better than them.
Hardly. We did offer them peace. The price was unconditional surrender. They weren't prepared to pay. The war continued, they changed their mind, paid, and peace was had by all.


And thus Japan lived happily ever after.

[Dibujante]

I believe the intention was to demonstrate that we had more... we wanted a quick, unconditional surrender.

That means... no conditions. Drop your guns.

They didn't. Bombs dropped. History.Without any citation of factual backup, this argument is unconvincing.

[Morpheus]

Hardly. We did offer them peace. The price was unconditional surrender. They weren't prepared to pay. The war continued, they changed their mind, paid, and peace was had by all.


And thus Japan lived happily ever after.

How can you be sure same couldn't have been achieved through a conditional surrender, considering how small and insignificant the conditions were?

[Karmashock]

Without any citation of factual backup, this argument is unconvincing.
You won't accept truman's own reasons, so why should I bother? You're too in love with yet another reason to hate a power you fail to understand.
How can you be sure same couldn't have been achieved through a conditional surrender, considering how small and insignificant the conditions were?
The japanese were a hated enemy. They were vicious and if you need civilian blood to convince you, then look no farther then the chinese.


We offered them unconditional surrender, they refused, we dropped the bombs.

[Dibujante]

You won't accept truman's own reasons, so why should I bother? You're too in love with yet another reason to hate a power you fail to understand.

But Truman's own reason contradicts his diary entry. That is what is confusing and what makes me skeptical. Furthermore, I haven't heard any reasons from him as to why the second bomb needed to be dropped so quickly after the first.

[Karmashock]

But Truman's own reason contradicts his diary entry. That is what is confusing and what makes me skeptical. Furthermore, I haven't heard any reasons from him as to why the second bomb needed to be dropped so quickly after the first.
We expected the japanese to surrender... they continued to dance.


Or we just did it to test the bomb... which makes no sense at all...

[Dibujante]

We expected the japanese to surrender... they continued to dance.

Or we just did it to test the bomb... which makes no sense at all...
You still haven't addressed why the second bomb was droppped so quickly. No state makes up its mind on these issues that quickly. Furthermore, it cost the U.S. nothing to delay a few days longer, and then drop the second bomb. Since there was no transparent opportunity cost associated with giving Japan more time to make up its mind, I suspect a different motive.

[Karmashock]

You still haven't addressed why the second bomb was droppped so quickly. No state makes up its mind on these issues that quickly. Furthermore, it cost the U.S. nothing to delay a few days longer, and then drop the second bomb. Since there was no transparent opportunity cost associated with giving Japan more time to make up its mind, I suspect a different motive.
I do not think it is safe to speculate with anything less then direct and involved information. The Japanese could have for example still said no. I really don't know.


But as I am not fueled with hatred and paranoia, I will not jump to horrible conclusions. It might have been that bombs were supposed to be a message together... not one but both. If could also be that the US wanted it make it clear that we had more then one.


The japanese did know something of the bomb from the nazi developement... I don't have specific information on it. But testing is unlikely. If it was an act of evil, then it was vengence... not testing.


But you have jumped to conclusions you do not have information to back up... and my core stances are well backed by offical history.

[Dibujante]

But you have jumped to conclusions you do not have information to back up... and my core stances are well backed by offical history.
Since history is written by the victors, there is no guarantee that the official version is accurate. If it is too premature to conclude that the second bomb was being tested then it is also too premature to conclude that it was used for some other purpose. However, Truman's rejection of compromise indicates that he wanted more than "just a peace".

[Karmashock]

Since history is written by the victors
Actually, thats only true if the victors kill them all. Also, the victors need to be able to write. The german hordes that sacked rome wrote nothing of the event... for they could not write.

Today neither is true... for the native americans that nearly all killed and could not write at the time can write their own history as passed down in the tribe

The Japanese can write their version of history... The japanese have a mixed feeling about the whole thing... shame at losing... shame at being evil... angry at the bomb... gratefulness for mercy and friendship.


But the old line of only victors writing history... well... perhaps of the truely ancient tales... but not afterwards.

[TFL Mad Bomber]

America told them upfront it was unconditional surrender or don't even bother. The mistake of hte first war was conditions... no conditions... drop the fucking guns.

Hmm the first world war had no conditions? Which history books are you reading? Yeah that first world war was the reason we had a 2nd. You see Germany was basically enslaved for something like 40 billion dollars, which is those days was unpayable. The German military was dismantled and Hitler recreated it.

The emperor was the head of the Japanese state. Only he could offer peace.
These are the same conditions you provided Japan with. There's no difference between the surrender offers that Japan had been previously making and the surrender offer you made to them. You gave them their terms; the demand for "unconditional surrender" was bogus.

Unless I am wrong I believe that the Emperor was pretty much a puppet for the military. I think that I was taught in school that Tojo was the leader of the military junta but I just read where he resigned after certain failures. I agree with those here who said the Emperor was a puppet and little more, though his attempts at peace might have been legitimate. However, in war the victors write the histories, make the rules, and often break their own rules. It is hard to punish those in power.

Should America have dropped those bombs? Well projections, as I think Drunk already stated, were 1 million casulaties for America if we invaded. Now that is just our casulaties. When a war is fought in and among your people the casualty rates will rise. Check out China, which was occupied for a long time. I am not saying that in Japan, an invasion would have amounted to 10 million but instead of 300k losses (these i assume are dated from 1945 and not after) could have reached 4-500k, especially if the civilians had participated as they had been trained. Guerilla wars are not something you ever want. Just look to Vietnam and Iraq. We have lost 5x more people in occupation than we did in conquest of Iraq.

http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/BACK/Casualties.php

Today people debate from a distance but when the Japanese were slaughtering Chinese (which they have apologized for today, needlessly imo), Koreans, and other SE Asians I think that killing thousands and even hundreds of thousands of them to end the war was a viable solution. Just fyi, in WW2 ethnic prejudices and ideas were a little different than they are today. Americans, despite their not creating concentrations camps for slaughter did see the Japanese as less than Americans. Rumors such as their eye sight was shitty because of the folds (i dont know the exact term for they eye folds) and things of this nature were considered true.

Hind sight is 20-20. Slavery should never have happened but it did. Jews should not have been slaughtered. Minorities should not have been killed and persecuted.

Would the USSR have invaded Europe. Whoever said that I believe you are wrong. They were mighty but the threat of the Abomb was enough to scare Stalin into staying behind his buffer states. America and the Brits had enough might to throw the Soviets back and the Soviets would have faced resistance among the newly occupied E. Europe nations. It has been argued that America wanted to demonstrate to Stalin that they had this new super weapon but that is speculation.

[Justice]

A few reasons why dropping the bomb was not only justified, but the best way to end the war:

1. Easily saved hundreds of thousands of American lives. Estimates for military casualties ranged from 200,000-500,000 dead. Did you know the US military was prepared to manufacture 1,000,000 Purple Hearts for the planned Japanese invasion? End war quickly, relatively few casualties with around 300,000 civilians killed, or have 1,000,000 Americans moaning in agony/dead. What would you choose?

2. First point would probably be justification enough, but think about what would happen to the Japanese people if we invaded. We've pretty much established in this thread that the Japanese were very loyal to their government and they refused to surrender/believe they were defeated. Did you know the Japanese military was training civilians to fight the Americans? Whether it was a sword, or spear, or bow and arrow, or gun, Japanese civilians would have shown immense loyalty to their country (similar to the kamikaze). Even if all Japanese civilians weren't a threat, think about what would happen in the American perception. Japanese civilians are fighting against us. We don't know which Japanese civilian will suddenly stand up and throw a grenade at us. Imagine what would have happened - American troops would have killed a LOT of civilians on invasion route. I bet you, too, Japanese farms would have been torched and a lot of infrastructure would have been burned to the ground. Obviously the US would leave a wake of destruction in their path to prevent the Japanese from launching a counteroffensive. You're looking at hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in that situation.

3. Did you know the American invasion of Japan was scheduled for Summer 1946? That's an entire year after the bombs were dropped. Russia entered the Pacific front in Summer 1945, and it would have been very easy for them to join the fight against Japan. It's highly unlikely, though, that Russia would want the US to capture Tokyo. They would do EVERYTHING in their power to get to Tokyo first. The magnification for this is the Russia-Japan war of 1904-1905 when Japan crushed the Russian navy, and Russia was absolutely pissed at Japan after that. Naturally, given Russian "pride," they would have invaded first and there's a slight possibility they could have gotten to Tokyo before the Americans did (similar to what happened in Europe). Now the Russians don't like the Japanese very much ... think of what would have happened if the Japanese surrendered to Russia instead of the US. Genocidal mass killings of the Japanese population. Thank God we dropped the bombs and possibly averted a catastrophe where the Japanese surrendered to the Russians, and we would lose not only hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives but also the economic benefits of being an ally with Japan through the Cold War.

cheers, and
-=</|Awesome Party!|\>=-

[Tank0]

imho dropping the bombs was the first act of the cold war .

i believe all the high ranking military of that time when they say that the war was over but :

1 . russia and communism had europe strongly in its hold , i think they wanted to avoid that they had to share half of japan with the russians too .
2.revenge and the long duration of the war where good enough motives for most of the population
3. the US needed to show stalin what exactly they meant when the US mentionned they had a "new big bomb" , stalin was paranoid but never the sharpest tool in the shed , untill he saw footage of the abomb he just thought the yanks had build a new high tonnage conventional bomb ( advances in military material where huge then )

war is a bloody affair , the germans killed the jews , the japanes used prisoners for experiments , the yanks used the japanese cities as an experiment , the russian first invaded poland with hitler , firebombing whole cities , sacrificing innocent spies to plant wrong information , etc ....

NO party was innocent when it was over , at least the allies left when they had done their fighting :lol:

[Dibujante]

war is a bloody affair , the germans killed the jews , the japanes used prisoners for experiments , the yanks used the japanese cities as an experiment , the russian first invaded poland with hitler , firebombing whole cities , sacrificing innocent spies to plant wrong information , etc ....

NO party was innocent when it was over , at least the allies left when they had done their fighting :lol:
Well, yeah, the moment someone calls anyone in that war, especially Stalin, "innocent" is the day Hell freezes over and little demons go dancing on the surface.

[Karmashock]

Hmm the first world war had no conditions? Which history books are you reading? Yeah that first world war was the reason we had a 2nd. You see Germany was basically enslaved for something like 40 billion dollars, which is those days was unpayable. The German military was dismantled and Hitler recreated it.
First, what I meant was that surrender was not unconditional the german government could survive. Second, the various things Germany was required to do is no excuse, justification, or explaination for what happened after.

Germany became a problem a second time because it wasn't restained properly the first.
It has been argued that America wanted to demonstrate to Stalin that they had this new super weapon but that is speculation.
We could have sent him a video with information about the blast radius if that's what we wanted to do... you know... a show of friendly information sharing. Hey there stalin, check out what santa gave me for christmas... cool huh? No, you can't play with it, I just got it.
================================================== =====
the yanks used the japanese cities as an experiment
I object to this point. The bomb was tested in the US first and only implimented in japan afterwards. True the second bomb was different from the first, but we still knew what would basically happen. If we were experimenting then we wouldn't be sure.

NO party was innocent when it was over , at least the allies left when they had done their fighting :lol:
Again, I must object. The Allied parties were largely in the right from beginning to end. Their motivations were peace and security while the motivations of the japanese, germans, and italians was conquest and slaughter. Comparing allies to axis is unfair to either side. The axis must be recognized for their darkness... and the allies must be recognized for their righteousness. It is an act of laziness, not wisdom that says all sides are the same.


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Morpheus]

Justice, your points, like many other things in this thread, are highly speculative. Bottom line is we can't really say for sure today what would've been or what could've been.

Germany started the war, they're the bad guys in my book. Allies were defending, so I would say to a point that they were the good guys. But only to a certain point. Wars are dirty, both sides implemented immoral tactics trying to win it. No one was clean or righteous in that war.

[Karmashock]

Wars are dirty, both sides implemented immoral tactics trying to win it. No one was clean or righteous in that war.
What was the sin of the English?

[DrunkenUno]

What was the sin of the English?
Mass bombing of German cities killing hundreds of thousands of civilians? Which is actually much worse than dropping the bomb, but of course no one but the US can be ebil.

[Dibujante]

Mass bombing of German cities killing hundreds of thousands of civilians? Which is actually much worse than dropping the bomb, but of course no one but the US can be ebil.
We actually had this discussion last year, when MVB brought up the records of the bombing. Don't think that just because we can't holistically discuss world problems that they don't exist :P Hell, we haven't once mentioned Mongol atrocities!

[Justice]

You know we firebombed Tokyo and about 100,000 people died.

Why aren't we discussing that, which killed more people than 1 atomic bomb? Compared to other events in WWII the casualties as a result of the nukes were a tiny occurance.

cheers, and
-=</|Awesome Party!|\>=-

[Dibujante]

You know we firebombed Tokyo and about 100,000 people died.

Why aren't we discussing that, which killed more people than 1 atomic bomb? Compared to other events in WWII the casualties as a result of the nukes were a tiny occurance.

cheers, and
-=</|Awesome Party!|\>=-
Oh, I thought I had mentioned the firebombing earlier in this argument, or in another thread that mentioned the nukes.

[Karmashock]

Both the Germans and Japanese were concentrating military assests in their cities. The enemy decided what they want bombed by where they put their factories, weapons caches, and other war materials. The bombing of such areas dramatically weakened both the Germans and the Japanese. For example, many of Reich's later weapons advances couldn't be put into production because Germany lacked the industrial capacity to produce them or produce them in effective numbers.

[Justice]

Both the Germans and Japanese were concentrating military assests in their cities. The enemy decided what they want bombed by where they put their factories, weapons caches, and other war materials. The bombing of such areas dramatically weakened both the Germans and the Japanese. For example, many of Reich's later weapons advances couldn't be put into production because Germany lacked the industrial capacity to produce them or produce them in effective numbers.
Good point ... the Germans and Japanese (I think) concentrated their war industry in cities for two main reasons ... 1. It's practical, lots of people there to work the factories, supplies being delivered on schedule because city = predictable, and 2. they thought the allies were too "moral" not to bomb their cities.

Well, we kind of showed them that we really didn't care. A German or a Jap is still the enemy, no matter civilian or military. If they're living in Germany/Japan and haven't fled, they're either supporting the government or too dumb to leave. In any case what happens to them isn't our responsibility.

In warfare against an entire NATION (not just an organization or governmental body), conducting war against civilian populations is a totally legitimate and moral course of action.

cheers, and
-=</|Awesome Party!|\>=-

[Karmashock]

before the allies bombed the cities we dropped thousands of letters from teh sky saying "we will bomb this place"


We did that almost always all throughout the war.


We did it in Iraq as well. We even did it for normal soldiers. It was typically a little message saying something like "drop/leave your weapons/trucks/tanks/planes and run or die"... that and of course "this is how you surrender"...

[Justice]

Eh, attacking Iraq would fall under the "war against a government, not war against a nation" category.

cheers, and
-=</|Awesome Party!|\>=-

[Karmashock]

what are you talking about?

[Morpheus]

A German or a Jap is still the enemy, no matter civilian or military. If they're living in Germany/Japan and haven't fled, they're either supporting the government or too dumb to leave. In any case what happens to them isn't our responsibility.

IMO, this is just plain racism. There are people that actively support government in a war, and those who don't want anything to do with it. Simply "leaving" is not a viable solution for everyone. And bombing civilians to demoralize the enemy is no different from what we call 'terrorism' today. Also, "war against a nation" - those kind of wars are what Hitler did to Jews.

Wars are like politics - things get dirty quickly and no one will come out of it clean.

[Karmashock]

IMO, this is just plain racism. There are people that actively support government in a war, and those who don't want anything to do with it. Simply "leaving" is not a viable solution for everyone. And bombing civilians to demoralize the enemy is no different from what we call 'terrorism' today. Also, "war against a nation" - those kind of wars are what Hitler did to Jews.

Wars are like politics - things get dirty quickly and no one will come out of it clean.
Racism? First, Germans are the same race as us, so that's kind of an interesting thing to say... that is unless you really think germans are a different race then the rest of white people out there... too similar to bother drawing lines really.

As to the japanese, our actions were not caused by their race, but by their actions. The Germans and Japaneses engaged the US in TOTAL war.


Total war is something that many people in this time don't understand. They can't wrap their heads around the concept.



All I will say is that there is no evil in defending yourself or your allies... and that's all the US and England did in that war. We took nothing for ourselves. The US could have turned Japan into a territory... Or the 51st state. But we didn't. The US could have acted like Russia did and consume everything it touched out of greed. But we helped our brothers and did our best to see that they lived in peace, strength, and love.

The US bares many sins for some of it's evils in the past, like all nations, but not all wars stain the soul of all the nations. A war can even clean a soul... WW2 taught japan and germany the evil of their ways... and they have since repented... The US learned that it could not ignore the world as it had hoped it could.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

IMO, this is just plain racism. There are people that actively support government in a war, and those who don't want anything to do with it. Simply "leaving" is not a viable solution for everyone. And bombing civilians to demoralize the enemy is no different from what we call 'terrorism' today. Also, "war against a nation" - those kind of wars are what Hitler did to Jews.

Wars are like politics - things get dirty quickly and no one will come out of it clean.
I think it's a bit more ambiguous than racism.

On one hand, it is racist to conflate the nation with the enemy state. The only real connections are linguistic/ethnic and don't make a case strong enough to stand on its own without resort to racism. This is basically what happened to Japanese-Americans in the U.S. Their skin color, language and the shape of their eyes determined them to be enemies.

However, on the other hand, throwing guilt the way of the Japanese and the Germans isn't unjustified. Many Germans supported the Nazi government either directly or indirectly. A lot of Nazi policies, such as forcible land redistribution, or mechanisms for rounding up Jews and government opponents, relied on sympathizers within the population to turn these people up or to indicate to the Nazis what land they should confiscate and turn over to "good German capitalists". The German population was guilty of what the Nazis did. However, the degree of guilt varies from individual to individual. I therefore believe that while the bombings were brutal and possibly uncalled-for, their victims were not all innocents. I think it's not cut-and-dried enough to state that those bombings were entirely the product of bigotry or entirely the product of tactical decision-making. Mass killings of civilians weakens a state's military power, regardless of whether or not those civilians are guilty.

[Aagil]

You're all wrong.

Nuking the damn japs was the best thing we ever did because we got all those sweet ass videos of mutated japanese children.


HOW AWESOME WAS THAT!!?!?!

[Karmashock]

I think it's a bit more ambiguous than racism.

On one hand, it is racist to conflate the nation with the enemy state.
A strong point, and very likely true. However, I would put the restiction on that that we don't know what would have happened if that had not been done.


First of all, a large part of the reason it was done was to protect the japanese from OTHER americans who might decided to just start killing japs in his own neighborhood.

Second of all, it was an american japanese that spied for the japanese government in Hawaii and made pearl harbor possible. I'm quiet sure that 99.99 percent of the japanese were loyal. However, it is not possible to weigh the injustice of their imprisionment against the damage that that .01 percent might have done just by leeking intellegence. The Japanese in the war had HORRIBLE intellegence against the US. They practically nothing after the war began, while the Nazis retained a great deal of knowledge of american activities throughout the war. The Chinese to this day rely very heavily on Chinese americans to pass secrets to China.

My point is simply, that it might have been for the best. The japanese WERE very well treated in those camps, allowed to continue their educations, and live peacefully. There is no telling what would have happened if they had been on the streets. Certainly some of them would have been killed by confused and upset non japanese that thought they'd just start killing japs now... and perhaps some of the japamericans could have passed info to japan.

I therefore believe that while the bombings were brutal and possibly uncalled-for, their victims were not all innocents. I think it's not cut-and-dried enough to state that those bombings were entirely the product of bigotry or entirely the product of tactical decision-making. Mass killings of civilians weakens a state's military power, regardless of whether or not those civilians are guilty.
The populations themselves were not targets beyond their connection to their country's war machine. People were generally not targets for anything beyond propoganda... factories, warehouses, and supply lines were the targets.


We destoryed rail yards, warehouses, and factories IN cities. The fact that we bombed the cities to the ground in many cases is largely due to our inprecise weaponry, need to be VERY high up to avoid getting shot down, and that the enemy kept these assets IN cities.

[Morpheus]

I was referring to labeling an entire nation as "the enemy", civilians and soldiers alike.

[Karmashock]

I was referring to labeling an entire nation as "the enemy", civilians and soldiers alike.
said nation was in a state of offical war with us... all members of said nation are at war with us whether they support the war personally or not.

A nation/people you are at war with are the enemy.

the above is obvious...


If the US goes to war with any country, then america is at war with them. Americans are the enemy.


this is reversable.

[Morpheus]

Right.... So in that case of course it is ok to kill the civilians. Why not the wipe out the whole nation, they're all "the enemy".

Oh wait, that is what Hitler was trying to do with jews...

[Karmashock]

Right.... So in that case of course it is ok to kill the civilians. Why not the wipe out the whole nation, they're all "the enemy".

Oh wait, that is what Hitler was trying to do with jews...
the jews weren't a nation, a state, or at war with hitler... you know that and said that anyway. What does that say for your intellectual integrity? Not flattering. You will make an effort not to be cheap, or you'll go back on my ignore list.


The enemy is the enemy until it surrenders. At that point, you get from the enemy what ever it was you wanted from the conflict.


For example, the US wanted a friendly democracy in the middle east... so it's making one. After WW2, the US wanted 'peace'... so it made it. During the west ward expansion, the US wanted land... when the indians surrendered, the land was taken.


The enemy is the enemy until it surrenders. If it doesn't surrender, then it remains a target.


This does not mean that if you drop into a city that you start shooting at random people. You can shoot soldiers on sight... but civilians should merely be controlled until the war is over and arrangements can be made. Such as making a new government for them... helping build back industry... or moving them to reservations.


You certainly can't just do nothing to them period... civilians almost always are the side of their government... and even if they aren't they're rarely on the side of a power that just invaded them regardless of whether they like their government.


As a result, you have to be very careful around them to protect yourself...

The rules of engagement allow steps of reactive force in these situations. If people are cooperative, then you be nice with them. If they're rude but still largely obey, then you be rude back but don't use force as it isn't required. If they get violent are start pulling dirty tricks, then you're free to use some violence and force them into tighter controls.


This escalates all the way to the end one step at a time... always with the enemy deciding if and when things go to the next level.


This is how the US military is working in Iraq right now... if they're all nice and kind, then that's how we are... if they aren't, then that brings us up a notch.

[Morpheus]

You're trying to make civilians "neutral enemies". You forgot that my original statement came from "killing civilians is ok because they didn't leave their country during a war and they're the enemy anyways". You have completely moved off that and now trying to change the view it was originally stated in.

Btw, being on your ignore list is the highest honor, as you simply put everyone that argues with you alot on it, while backing it up with some made up reason.

[Karmashock]

You're trying to make civilians "neutral enemies". You forgot that my original statement came from "killing civilians is ok because they didn't leave their country during a war and they're the enemy anyways". You have completely moved off that and now trying to change the view it was originally stated in.
Not really... what you're doing is what most leftist do when they want to smear someone... you use moral equivalency... right is no better then wrong... night no darker then day... murder no worse then a mother's kiss... and before you know up is down and left is right and the universe collapses in on itself with ol steven laughing his ass off in his robotic chair.

Btw, being on your ignore list is the highest honor, as you simply put everyone that argues with you alot on it, while backing it up with some made up reason.
Yeah sure... when you look at your fat ass in the mirror, do you tell yourself that everyone is fat? :lol:

I only put people that have no integrity on the ignore list. And only the period of time that they are showing that. If they behave themselves for awhile, then they come off because I'm a kind person.


But many people that I disagree with here never go on the ignore list dispite many heated discussions.


But by all means... tell yourself whatever makes it work for you.

[Morpheus]

And you're not answering a straight point and running away from the subject. The statements that were said were very clear and didn't have the hidden views you're trying to add on to it. You're trying to make it look like we're talking about the same things, while changing your view of the meaning of what was said, making it a completely different subject.

[Karmashock]

And you're not answering a straight point and running away from the subject. The statements that were said were very clear and didn't have the hidden views you're trying to add on to it. You're trying to make it look like we're talking about the same things, while changing your view of the meaning of what was said, making it a completely different subject.
You're saying that we shouldn't treat all the people in a given country that is at war with us as the enemy... I get that... and we don't unless most of them actually are.


The japanese were and the germans were... the iraqis aren't... so we aren't treating them all like the enemy. The Sunnis though are mostly enemy civilians... and so are being treated as such... they are being controlled there is very heavy security in their area... we don't do that with the kurds or shiites because they're behaving themselves and are largely sympathetic.


Now please... stop preaching worthless political theory that would collapse 5 second after anyone tried to impliment it.

[Morpheus]

Being peaceful and tolerant to other people's views and cultures is a political agenda?

Then again, perhaps it should be...

[Karmashock]

Being peaceful and tolerant to other people's views and cultures is a political agenda?

Then again, perhaps it should be...
being peaceful when at war is stupid... it is a suggestion an idiot would make... did you make it?... *dramatic pause*


I rest my case.

[Morpheus]

Not willing to make peace to save lives is something that other idiots have done... And you will support those decisions at all costs...

[Karmashock]

Not willing to make peace to save lives is something that other idiots have done... And you will support those decisions at all costs...
making peace while at war is an invitation to get killed... which is something all such people have long since done, died, and dropped out of the gene pool.

thus explaining our increasing intellegence over time.

[Morpheus]

That is comletely baseless, you have no evidence to support either point.

[Bentusi]

the idea that if your nice people automatically become nice to you is infantile. It'd be great if the world works that way, but it doesn't. Like karma said, being nice usually leads to other people taking advantage of it, and usually to your benefit.

We're not executing civilians, we're not putting them into camps. We're putting big watchdogs over them so they don't shoot anybody. Nothing wrong with that. Peace enforced by loaded guns my friends, thats where it's at.

[Justice]

As I've said in the past ... when fighting another COUNTRY during actual war, the civilian population is a legitimate target.

Most of those people actually believe what the government is indoctrinating them with, which makes them the enemy, and for all those neutral/against-the-government people in the country, well, I guess that means you should have fled sooner, doesn't it.

cheers, and
-=</|Awesome Party!|\>=-

[Morpheus]

Thing is, Bent, being hostile only causes one thing in return - hostility. And people nowadays have this strange complex of hostility to any other culture that is different from their own. In USA this complex is somewhat bigger. Vast majority of people I know that do not have this complex have traveled and seen the world with their own eyes, realizing that people are the same no matter where they are. Politically, however, things are getting worse and worse, governments openly hating each other and becoming less and less willing to go for a compromise. I don't believe that you can prove historically that trying to find a middle ground automatically leads to one side wiping out another.

And Justice, I still strongly disagree that during a war civilians should be considered a "legitimate target" for anything else than propaganda. You have never been in a war, you have never seen how people react to their own government while being in the middle of the battles, you have absolutely no idea what it is like to live in the middle of the falling bombs.

[Dibujante]

the idea that if your nice people automatically become nice to you is infantile. It'd be great if the world works that way, but it doesn't. Like karma said, being nice usually leads to other people taking advantage of it, and usually to your benefit.

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.
Whether or not being nice causes people to be nice, being mean gives people like Osama Bin Laden perfect propaganda material.

[Justice]

And Justice, I still strongly disagree that during a war civilians should be considered a "legitimate target" for anything else than propaganda. You have never been in a war, you have never seen how people react to their own government while being in the middle of the battles, you have absolutely no idea what it is like to live in the middle of the falling bombs.

So ... you just admitted that people living in the bombed country would get very mad at their government and cause revolts, possibly leading to internal instability?

Sounds like the country dropping the bombs would benefit from the people's reactions.

cheers, and
-=</|Awesome Party!|\>=-

[Dibujante]

So ... you just admitted that people living in the bombed country would get very mad at their government and cause revolts, possibly leading to internal instability?

Sounds like the country dropping the bombs would benefit from the people's reactions.

People don't always have a choice as to against whom their government goes to war. The Iraqis certainly didn't, and neither did the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, yet both populations suffered and are suffering horribly.

[Karmashock]

Whether or not being nice causes people to be nice, being mean gives people like Osama Bin Laden perfect propaganda material.
what of it?... he'd hate us anyway, and is happy to make up stuff when he doesn't have information just like most fanatics.

[Morpheus]

Maybe he would hate US anyways, but he wouldn't have the grounds to base the accusations he is using to gain so much support. And don't tell me the accusations are baseless, look how messy the internal affairs are with the war in Iraq. All this is raising questions around the world that are unwanted for US.

[Karmashock]

Maybe he would hate US anyways, but he wouldn't have the grounds to base the accusations he is using to gain so much support.
He doesn't need grounds and neither do his supporters. If you think it works like that, then you don't understand.


These people have shame/pride issues. They are feeling small and joining that bs makes them feel big. Our success and their failure alone is enough to fuel this.

All this is raising questions around the world that are unwanted for US.
The US has the most secure political position in the world. I mean that in terms of their alliances and various relationships around the globe.


Could we be doing better?... perhaps... but no one is doing better then we are.

[Morpheus]

He doesn't need grounds and neither do his supporters. If you think it works like that, then you don't understand.


These people have shame/pride issues. They are feeling small and joining that bs makes them feel big. Our success and their failure alone is enough to fuel this.

I really doubt that Osama simple saying "US is evil, we should fight against it because Koran says so" would get as much support as the facts of the US actions in the middle East he is currently using. These facts even raise a ton of questions for the people that live in US. This certainly creates very nice recruiting grounds for the terrorists.

The US has the most secure political position in the world. I mean that in terms of their alliances and various relationships around the globe.


Could we be doing better?... perhaps... but no one is doing better then we are.
I think US position is sliding. And because no one is doing better, it doesn't mean that we should stagnate and not try to improve.

[Bentusi]

And people nowadays have this strange complex of hostility to any other culture that is different from their own. In USA this complex is somewhat bigger.

Are you kidding me? Have you even SEEN France lately?

[Karmashock]

I really doubt that Osama simple saying "US is evil, we should fight against it because Koran says so" would get as much support as the facts of the US actions in the middle East he is currently using. These facts even raise a ton of questions for the people that live in US. This certainly creates very nice recruiting grounds for the terrorists.
Are americans muslims? Are infidels dictating world policy? Is islam in the crapper and getting crappier?

Eh?... if you knew anything about religions, you'd know they get stronger and more forceful as their civilizations do increasingly poorly. This is not to say they get weaker as their civilizations become stronger, but they generally become more tolerent... sort of the way a fat man doesn't care too much if you steal one of his hamburgers... but a starving man will fucking rip out your eyes for it.

I think US position is sliding.
Hardly... our position is sliding with no power on earth that was with us before. Our alliances have only grown stronger. India and Japan for example have grown much closer to the US... the japanese as china grows stronger and the indians as the muslims become more hostile.


No power on earth has our political connections... nothing even close. Most of our allies are closer to us then EU members are to each other... and the significant point is, said allies are actually worth something in a fight as opposed to being little more then loud at fancy dress parties.


And because no one is doing better, it doesn't mean that we should stagnate and not try to improve.
Patience... if we improve much more we'll control the planet... our position is extremely strong.

[Morpheus]

Are you kidding me? Have you even SEEN France lately?
I sure have. On the media. I've met with a few very nice French people in here, I guess they wouldn't count since they've been in US for long visits. But I just think that the stronger the country is politically and economically, the bigger the complex. Now, this doesn't mean that people living here are worse than others, people in other countries would eventually react the same way in the same situation.

[Morpheus]

Are americans muslims? Are infidels dictating world policy? Is islam in the crapper and getting crappier?

Eh?... if you knew anything about religions, you'd know they get stronger and more forceful as their civilizations do increasingly poorly. This is not to say they get weaker as their civilizations become stronger, but they generally become more tolerent... sort of the way a fat man doesn't care too much if you steal one of his hamburgers... but a starving man will fucking rip out your eyes for it.

So, you're saying USA is just a random target of Osama's raging ego?

Hardly... our position is sliding with no power on earth that was with us before. Our alliances have only grown stronger. India and Japan for example have grown much closer to the US... the japanese as china grows stronger and the indians as the muslims become more hostile.


No power on earth has our political connections... nothing even close. Most of our allies are closer to us then EU members are to each other... and the significant point is, said allies are actually worth something in a fight as opposed to being little more then loud at fancy dress parties.

Why England was the only country who fully supported the decision to go to war with Iraq?

Patience... if we improve much more we'll control the planet... our position is extremely strong.
If we will ever control the entire planet, I will firmly believe that Bible speaking about the antichrist during the end of the world is entirely true, and that the antichrist is the USA. People and cultures are much too different for this to be achieved any other way.

[Karmashock]

So, you're saying USA is just a random target of Osama's raging ego?
No... america is the most powerful country in the world. It is the hegemonic state.

America, based on its power alone, is on a list with only one name.


Why England was the only country who fully supported the decision to go to war with Iraq?
Not true.

I've bolded the countries that are actually able to help us.

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

We've lost a few countries off of that that don't matter... but we got india... so it was a massive gain on the balance.


If we will ever control the entire planet, I will firmly believe that Bible speaking about the antichrist during the end of the world is entirely true, and that the antichrist is the USA. People and cultures are much too different for this to be achieved any other way.
Liar... man you're such a liar... IF you believed, you would then submit your life to Christ? No? Then your words are nothing more then a "I don't like republicans" dressed up in ill fitting religious clothes.


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Morpheus]

No... america is the most powerful country in the world. It is the hegemonic state.

America, based on its power alone, is on a list with only one name.
If so, why do other countries have terrorists targetting only them? If US is the big target, why so coincidentally it is targeted by the people that are not happy with the situation in the middle East?

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
All these countries unconditionally voted "yes" to the invasion of Iraq? Or did they say "if the others will support it too"?

Liar... man you're such a liar... IF you believed, you would then submit your life to Christ? No? Then your words are nothing more then a "I don't like republicans" dressed up in ill fitting religious clothes.
I said what I believe. You're the one making assumptions.

[Karmashock]

If so, why do other countries have terrorists targetting only them? If US is the big target, why so coincidentally it is targeted by the people that are not happy with the situation in the middle East?
Are you asking why people that are unhappy and suicidal are generally the ones blowing themselves up?

are you honestly asking that question?


All these countries unconditionally voted "yes" to the invasion of Iraq? Or did they say "if the others will support it too"?
We're talking about allies of the US... and these people joined us... because WE were on the list. Our name alone did it.


I said what I believe. You're the one making assumptions.
You didn't answer my question, poptart. Would you give your life to jesus or are you just talking shit? :lol:

[Morpheus]

I know exactly where it is headed. I'm not up to another boring exchange of "give me your soul". Accepting Bible as a complete truth doesn't automatically devotes one's life to its teachings.

BTW, you didn't give straight anwers to my questions.

[Karmashock]

I know exactly where it is headed. I'm not up to another boring exchange of "give me your soul". Accepting Bible as a complete truth doesn't automatically devotes one's life to its teachings.
Hardly. If you believe the anti christ is coming, you must first believe in the real christ.

Your statement, like everything you've said in this thread is purely retorical... surface without substance.

BTW, you didn't give straight anwers to my questions.
Which retorical questions would you like answers to first? :lol:

[Morpheus]

Let me repeat myself for those who do not catch on fast enough:

Accepting Bible as a complete truth doesn't automatically devotes one's life to its teachings.

[Karmashock]

Let me repeat myself for those who do not catch on fast enough:

Accepting Bible as a complete truth doesn't automatically devotes one's life to its teachings.
are you suicidal? Because if you recognize it as true and yet reject it, you are damning yourself.


I assumed you wouldn't damn yourself...:lol:

Was I mistaken?

[Justice]

Actually Uzbekistan is helping. You should bold them too, even though they are horrible human rights violators (!).

cheers, and
-=</|Awesome Party!|\>=-

[Karmashock]

all those countries helped... however, only a few were able to provide meaningful support.

[2biT]

Which is why your (US) position is sliding karma, like morph typed.

[Karmashock]

Which is why your (US) position is sliding karma, like morph typed.
... uh... for that to be true, the none bolded countries would have to be able to provide meaningful support at sometime and then lose that ability.


That hasn't been something any of those countries have been able to do for generations in most cases... and hundreds of years in others.


The US's power is objectively growing. We lose some support in europe, which was never worth anything to begin with, and gain a whole lot more in east asia, the middle east, etc.


The thing euros never seem to get over is that they're not the center of the world... not in any sense. They've been so used to being the hegemonic power in the world for so long that they haven't realized that it's ended.

[Morpheus]

I'm afraid if we continue on our current way, one day EU will grow enough political power to turn against US.

[Quietus]

I'm afraid if we continue on our current way, one day EU will grow enough political power to turn against US.

Sure, right after hell freezes over. :)

[Dibujante]

I'm afraid if we continue on our current way, one day EU will grow enough political power to turn against US.
Which asks the question, "Is a multipolar world better than a unipolar one?" So far I've only seen the answer of that idiot professor from Harvard, hardly convincing.

[Karmashock]

I'm afraid if we continue on our current way, one day EU will grow enough political power to turn against US.
they'd need a spine first... and you don't fear that, morph. You're praying for it.:lol:


Keep praying.... it's cute.

[Morpheus]

And you're praying for the world where the lone capitalism is the all-mighty power to rule the Earth with no concern for well-being of the human beings.

[Tank0]

i really dont get the american paranoia about europe .stop viewing things in black or white , its not because we have other view on some things that we are against you . right now US and EU have more things in common then there are differences .

the powerbalance in this century will prolly be :


USA + EU + Oceania ( NZ + AUS )
INDIA ( my best option for a "good" partner )
RUSSIA ( is bribing the EU to try to get it as partner to break NATO )
CHINA ( is laying low untill they get the industriam strenght even higher )

S america and middle east will be the fighting grounds to win their support

Africa i am afraid will be given up or quasi quarantined , mercanry armies owned by companies will protect the resource mining but leave the rest in anarchy

[Karmashock]

And you're praying for the world where the lone capitalism is the all-mighty power to rule the Earth with no concern for well-being of the human beings.
Praying for? See, unlike you, I don't need to pray.

My people DO things. We MAKE things happen. We don't dress up like fucking animals and go running through city streets with our dicks hanging out smashing windows.

We leave that to you people.


Capitalism does rule this planet. It is the single largest and most recognized organizing social force on this planet.
================================================== ==========================================
i really dont get the american paranoia about europe .stop viewing things in black or white , its not because we have other view on some things that we are against you . right now US and EU have more things in common then there are differences .
Word...

The only thing you have to remember Tank0, is that just like your people listen to the US to see what we're thinking, we listen to you to see what you're thinking.

And you can't deny that the EU to counter the US is something discussed over there.

Again, remember who said the EU would do this in this thread... *waits for tank0 to check*... exactly... so he wasn't being very honest to begin with.


Anyway, the US and Europe will be together in the future no matter what other people think about it. We have too many interests in common. The only problem is that the US fears entanglement and Europe deludes itself about existing geopolitical realities.


As a result, the US will push away whenever it feels cramped, and the EU tends to walk around on fire saying "who's cooking bacon?"... things will settle down when the US doesn't fear being sucked into something that would reduce our freedom or the EU realizes that that smell is it's ass.

the powerbalance in this century will prolly be :


USA + EU + Oceania ( NZ + AUS )
INDIA ( my best option for a "good" partner )
RUSSIA ( is bribing the EU to try to get it as partner to break NATO )
CHINA ( is laying low untill they get the industriam strenght even higher )

S america and middle east will be the fighting grounds to win their support

Africa i am afraid will be given up or quasi quarantined , mercanry armies owned by companies will protect the resource mining but leave the rest in anarchy
The US will will have most of the powerful militaries in Europe, the aussies, japan, south korea, india, israel, and perhaps a few other powers.


That alone will allow the US to retain it's status as the hegemonic state into the 21st century regardless of how powerful china becomes. In fact, china's growing power has caused nations that were thinking of turning their back on the US to enter into tighter alliances and we're picking up new alliances from countries that were never interested in our friendship before.


It's clockwork... the harder they press, the stronger we become.

[Morpheus]

What have YOU made happen? Ran around the internet like a little rabbit praising capitalism and ridiculing everything else, that's about it.

[Karmashock]

What have YOU made happen?
Started a business that makes lots of money... bitch. :lol:

Ran around the internet like a little rabbit praising capitalism and ridiculing everything else.
I'll give other ideas credit, just not stupid ones. ;)

[Morpheus]

Started a business that makes lots of money... bitch. :lol:
Then shut up and enjoy the life. You haven't changed the political balance in any way.

I'll give other ideas credit, just not stupid ones. ;)
Only if they agree with your non-flexible views.

[Karmashock]

Then shut up and enjoy the life. You haven't changed the political balance in any way.
I've changed it a lot more then most people. ;)


Only if they agree with your non-flexible views.
false... all my views are flexible except for the view that humanity should thrive. That is the only non flexible view. If your view will cause humanity to suffer, then I'll oppose that.

[Morpheus]

I've changed it a lot more then most people. ;)
Contributed, perhaps, but not actually changed anything.

false... all my views are flexible except for the view that humanity should thrive. That is the only non flexible view. If your view will cause humanity to suffer, then I'll oppose that.
Unfortunately, you try and fit all things either under that category or outside of it, making all of it non-flexible. For you the world is black and white with no mixing anywhere to be seen.

[Karmashock]

Contributed, perhaps, but not actually changed anything.
call it what you will, I've earned the right to say I'm part of something.


Unfortunately, you try and fit all things either under that category or outside of it, making all of it non-flexible. For you the world is black and white with no mixing anywhere to be seen.
Only because somethings are negative to the human condition and somethings are not. Get over it.


Many leftist ideas are bad ones just like many rightist ideas. I oppose all ideas regardless of their affilation that are bad for people. If you can make an arguement how our society is stronger or our people better off over the long haul under communism, then I'll become a communist.


My problem with most leftist ideas is that they assume a static environment. They do not evolve and they are not comfortable with killing off bad systems or ideas. Capitalism is very good in that it evolves very quickly and is very comfortable in killing systems that aren't working.

I would be a pacifist neo hippy if I thought that was good for people too. But I've generally found it to be so weak willed that it's only good at bitching at people that care for it. When Neo hippies are among the REAL enemy... ie people that really see them as wastes of skin, then they're powerless. No, I'm not that type of person... I love the neo hippies... I think they're wrong and kind of annoying most of the time... but so is my brother.


I merely believe that some systems make us stronger and others enfeeble us. As you will.