In an annual ritual to mourn the more than 220,000 people who ultimately died from the blast, a crowd including survivors, children and dignitaries gathered at the Peace Memorial Park, near ground zero where the bomb was dropped. - (source (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/06/hiroshima.rally.reut/index.html))


http://www.gensuikin.org/panel/10-1.jpg

Image of freedom.

http://www.gensuikin.org/panel/11.jpg

Woman enjoying democracy.

http://www.gensuikin.org/panel/13.jpg

Young boy expressing his individuality.

(Pictures from here (http://www.gensuikin.org/english/photo.html).)


A glaring light an unnatural tremor
Suffocating heat, suffocating heat
A hell on earth, hell on earth

Men women and children groaning in agony
From the intolerable pains of their burns
A hell on earth, hell on earth - (source (http://www.darklyrics.com/d/discharge.html))


DID YOU DO THIS?
LOL DEMOCRACY DID
VOTE TO END VOTING
CRUSH THE CROWD

OR YOU WILL SEE THIS
AGAIN

And what government system would have prevented that?

lock this. i might as well condemn germans or the japanese or the serbians, or whoever for things done in THEIR names.

but i wouldnt, because im not retarded.

Hiroshima Anniversary already? Darn, and here I was hoping we'd kick it off with a few nukes into Iran. :rolleyes:

- N

OMG, you're right, freedom is BAD! However at great cost to myself I will allow everyone on this thread to be my slave. I hope that solves everything?

And in the same time fraim I would do it again. It stopped the war right then and there, the dieing didn't stop right there but the end of it came quickly.

Wiping out the population of the entire world would have stopped the war right there and then too.

Just because something stops a war, doesn't mean it's OK to do it no matter how awful it is.

The A-Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two largest acts of terrorism every committed, and the US government should have apologised to the Japanese for it.

Let's just get Buffalo's reply out of the way:

"If we didn't bomb them they'd attack us later with pointy sticks."

There we go. Complete and utter nonsense. You support the killing of women and children in a war as long as they aren't your women and children, right? The Truman government are dishonourable terrorists, and you are a supporter of terrorism. Truman was worse than Hitler.

G. F. Schleebenhorst, no you are the terrorist, you would continue a useless war for your own pride, that if it isn't don't to your satisfaction it isn't going to end. and by the points of your post, both warring parties would have to be totally equal to make the war fair, and in the end you would achieve your peace when the last two combatants kill each other, and no it wasn't just nasty pointed sticks, those people were to be the tangle foot, then the Japanese military would attack and the plan used would have killed as many of their own people as we would have, the plan is available and it was called Ketsu-Go, The difference between President Truman, Me, and the terrorist, is that we prefer that our own people don't have to die, and that we wish the killing stopped as soon as possible, how many more casualties would you have accepted to end the war your way? 1 million, 2 million, 500 thousands, tell me how many more would have died under your plan?

I don't see how "continuing a useless war for my own pride" makes me a terrorist. Fighting a war between soldiers does not equate to terrorism, no matter how many soldiers die.

I didn't say anything about war having to be fair, just not dishonourable.

The civilians were issued pointy sticks. Pointy. Fucking. Sticks. If your military was scared of those, then fine, I will accept your excuse, if you admit that your military are a bunch of pussies....otherwise it's not an excuse.

I don't know how many soldiers would have died in this hypothetical invasion of Japan (which was not necessary anyway, as Japan was willing to sue for peace, just not completely unreasonable peace which was what the US demanded) and I don't care how many soldiers would have died anyway, because they are soldiers, paid to fight and maybe even die. If they don't want to fight they can refuse to get on the fucking boat in the first place. Women and children or some poor bastard walking to work in their own city can't.

If you want to support the war on terror, kill yourself.

The A-Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two largest acts of terrorism every committed, and the US government should have apologised to the Japanese for it.

Let's just get Buffalo's reply out of the way:

"If we didn't bomb them they'd attack us later with pointy sticks."

There we go. Complete and utter nonsense. You support the killing of women and children in a war as long as they aren't your women and children, right? The Truman government are dishonourable terrorists, and you are a supporter of terrorism. Truman was worse than Hitler. :rolleyes:

Are you familiar with the Rape of Nanking?

Yes, I am. Please don't try to say that because the Japanese army raped and pillaged and killed that it was then OK to kill their women and children. If you said that I'd probably have to ignore everything you said in the future on the grounds that you were a complete fucking gibbon.

You still haven't read Ketsu-Go, those pointy stick were to be backed up by Infantry Rifles with Bayonets, Artillery, Imperial Marines, Special Attack Groups, ie: suicide units, in boats, planes, suicide bombers, everyone would have been on a one way road to death for the Emperor. What don't you understand about the fact that the war needed to be ended under our conditions, we weren't that worried about the Emperor, what we were bound and determined to eliminate was the beaurocracy that had taken Japan to a war of Pacific Sphere Of Domination, that is what were had to dissemble down to the last beaurocrate and make sure it could never arise again, so please give me the estimates of how many more people would have died to fulfill your honorable plan for peace ?

The Japanese were willing to surrender, provided they could keep their Emperor. The US government wasn't interested in that (or maybe they just wanted to drop the bombs anyway), even though they eventually let the Japanese keep their emperor anyway.

Basically, you killed 200,000 civilians for nothing other than flexing your muscles.

Nwtrt

Yaafg

Judging by the photos at the top here, the people who died immediately may have been the lucky ones.

Has Japan invaded anyone lately? Has Japan re-invaded China, Korea, the Phillipines....
No?

Why dont we ask some Chinese or Koreans about how they feel about the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan?

Has Japan invaded anyone lately? Has Japan re-invaded China, Korea, the Phillipines....
No?

Why dont we ask some Chinese or Koreans about how they feel about the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan?

Maybe they're using advanced weapon technology these days?

hint:$$$$

G. F. Schleebenhorst , you still haven't proven that your solution would have worked and the funny thing is you can't, you can sit on your high horse all you want but all you have is conjecture, and what might have been, the war was ended the way it was ended and you are trying to change history, then and know, history will be what it will be, there is nothing that you can do about back then and there is nothing you can do to change history now, your balls aren't that big, If your could you wouldn't be here on this site carping about the people who have to make the decisions, I would love to see how bad you would fuck thing up.

What was my solution again? Waiting for Japan to surrender? If you need proof, read what Eisenhower and Admiral Halsey had to say about the A-Bombings. They both testified that the bombings were completely unnecessary and that with a naval blockade the Japanese would have surrendered, and that's ignoring the fact that Japan was already trying to sue for peace with only one minor condition.

So, basically what it comes down to, is that you have to admit one of two things:

1) The A-Bombs were only dropped to show them off, in which case total and utter disregard for civilian life was shown by your government.

2) The bombs were dropped to coerce the Japanese government into taking terms of the US's choosing, which is terrorism.

Either way, you can't call pearl harbour an act of cowardice if you won't admit that dropping the A-Bombs was even worse for specifically targetting civilians.

Idealists - they have the answer to everything!

I think any answer is better than "They won't surrender! Kill more of their women and children!"

Terrorism has a political objective. Hiroshima had the practical objective of ending the need for a ground invasion of Japan. They should all thank the US on Hiroshima Day. They made a noble sacrifice to convince their emperor not to lead the entire Japanese race to their final end.

Ummm no, it had the political objective of getting the government of Japan to surrender unconditionally.

OK, so I guess we were not destroying the enemy's military, but forcing them to comply with our demands. Still, the situation was different than modern times, since it was total war, with the population subservient to military interests. Civilians manned the factories that kept the war machine going.

The emperor was also seen as part of the problem in that he was almost a religious figure that demanded total loyalty from his subjects. To leave such a system in place would be tanamount to leaving Hitler in charge of Germany. It was not just a matter of US pride.

I guess the fact that the Japanese killed 1,000,000 civilians in Nanking is lost on some people....

I guess it was OK that we killed 300,000 Japanese civilians in the bombing of Tokyo...as long as it wasnt nuclear it was ok??

I would love to see someone argue that Japan wouldnt have used nuclear weapons against the west. They already used WMD against the Chinese and attempted to attack the west coast with biological warfare. I guess its ok for the Japanese to use WMD, start a war, and kill millions of civilians...but heaven forbid the US uses WMD to end the war.

Why would it be lost on me? Are you trying to say with that knowledge, I should think that it then becomes OK for you to kill their women and children?

No one was discussing Tokyo.

So what if they would have used nuclear weapons or used biological weapons on the Chinese? If that was the case, does that make killing their women and children OK?

Please stop arguing like a nine year old.

G. F. Schleebenhorst, you are the one playing the nine year old, tell me what the difference was between Tokyo and Nagasaki, or Hiroshima, the death totals were almost the same all around the victims all died from fire and incineration, the only difference was the number of planes that it took to do so, and in the end the Emperor did lose his power which was the sticking point on the surrender, when all was said and done all that remained of the old system was the Figurehead, with no legal authority, and we put in place a democratic parliamentarian system of governance, so how many more people would have died to implement your plan, the Japanese were demanding that the Emperor would be left with his power or they were going to continue the fight.

Where did I say firebombing Tokyo was OK?

We are not talking about Tokyo.

.So what then would you have said if they had fire bomber, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima the same way they had bombed Tokyo, and the war would have ended in the same time frame? It had been scheduled but stopped for the A- Bombs so the full scale impact would be felt at the highest circles of leadership, and even after the bombs were dropped there were people in the leadership who wished to go on fighting. Thank Heaven For the Emperor.

We wouldn't have had to invade Japan, that's a load of bunk given to excuse the dropping of the a-bombs.

Japan was already surrendering. The Soviets were already about to invade Japan on their own the day we dropped em. We dropped the bombs to show our power and stop Soviet aggression from playing clean-up in the battered East Asia so that we would still have a foothold in that region. It stopped them for a short while, but Communism still spread and we still had the Cold War.

As Buffalo Roam mentioned, we killed just as many with fire bombing which was a more horrific way to die. I'd much rather die instantly from an atomic bomb than be burned to death from the other ways.

I'm still for the droppings of the bomb, just not for the reason that most sheeple think. Japan was no longer a threat. It was all about the Soviets. I'd have dropped it again to send that message to them to back off. Dropping them on the Soviet's doorstep in Japan that no longer had the power to retaliate sure beats dropping em on Soviet land continuing the World War. You think a non-existant amphibious assault on Japan would have been bad? Hell, keeping this war going with the Soviets would have been worse!

- N

G. F. Schleebenhorst:

The political achievement of the US by dropping the bomb on the Japanese has been infinate. Lets just expand from what has happened as a result of the bomb.

Japan surrendered, The war was over. A democratic government was set up, now look at how successful the country is. The cold war began, both the US and USSR were spending large amounts on technology that could kill each other, but on the flip sides had commercial and civilian uses aswell (i'm not talking about weapon systems here). We had the space race which saw the best of human ingenuity and intelligence.

There are many things that just might not have happened if the US didn't drop the bomb, Ultimately the way history has panned out as a direct or indirect result has been just fine

Does any of that suddenly make it OK just to kill women and children when you feel like it?

You forget the Military installations, and troop concentrations.

No, but it worked :p

Yes, I am. Please don't try to say that because the Japanese army raped and pillaged and killed that it was then OK to kill their women and children. If you said that I'd probably have to ignore everything you said in the future on the grounds that you were a complete fucking gibbon.

I was just checking since you wrote



The A-Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two largest acts of terrorism every committed

I am guessing you meant ever commited. Just for comparison the citizens of Nanking had actually surrendered to the invading Japanese army and still almost 370,000 were murdered. The japanese started the war waged it with extreme prejudice and were still at war when the bombs dropped. Dropping those bombs served a dual purpose, getting Japan to surrender unconditionally and stopping the soviets from invading Japan.

You forget the Military installations, and troop concentrations.

....which would have already been bombed to nothing months before if they were of any significance.

I was just checking since you wrote





I am guessing you meant ever commited. Just for comparison the citizens of Nanking had actually surrendered to the invading Japanese army and still almost 370,000 were murdered. The japanese started the war waged it with extreme prejudice and were still at war when the bombs dropped. Dropping those bombs served a dual purpose, getting Japan to surrender unconditionally and stopping the soviets from invading Japan.

The rape of nanking wasn't terrorism, it was just rape and pillage on a large scale.

The rape of nanking wasn't terrorism, it was just rape and pillage on a large scale.

If you don't define the rape of Nanking (http://www.tribo.org/nanking/) as terror then I'd probably have to ignore everything you said in the future on the grounds that you were a complete fucking gibbon.

But you said earlier that dropping the bombs only served to make the japanese surrender unconditionally and prevent the soviet union from invading japan.

What has Nanking got to do with the whole thing then suddenly?

Read back and FOLLOW the thread.... cmon....you can do it now concentrate.

Yes, I am. Please don't try to say that because the Japanese army raped and pillaged and killed that it was then OK to kill their women and children.
so, it's okay if japan does it but not okay if america does it.

The emperor was also seen as part of the problem in that he was almost a religious figure that demanded total loyalty from his subjects.
he wasn't considered 'almost' a religious figure, he was considered to be god.
as a matter of fact as one of the conditions of japans surrender was for the emporer to tell the japanese people he was not god.

so, it's okay if japan does it but not okay if america does it.

Where did I say that it was OK for Japan to do it? Don't make assumptions.

If you don't define the rape of Nanking (http://www.tribo.org/nanking/) as terror then I'd probably have to ignore everything you said in the future on the grounds that you were a complete fucking gibbon.

We were talking about terrorism, not terror, gibbon.

The Rape of Nanking is called the Rape of Nanking for a reason. It was rape and pillage. Something that happens after war. The rape and pillage is something that I don't necessarily condemn, but the killing of civilians in a war is something which I don't approve of. Anyway, I didn't say it was OK, and killing civilians of a conquered nation just for the hell of it does not equal terrorism. It's fairly awful, but it's not terrorism.

If you want to see some fucked up shit:

http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/holocaust77/rapenanking.htm

We were talking about terrorism, not terror, gibbon.

And the root of terrorism is....... terrorism is designed to spread _ _ _ _ _ _


The Rape of Nanking is called the Rape of Nanking for a reason. It was rape and pillage. Something that happens after war.

It was somuch more it was the intentional murder of 369,000 civilians, 170,000 more than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was at war with the US they made the decision to go to war knowing what happens in war. Civilian deaths always outnumber military in war.

The rape and pillage is something that I don't necessarily condemn, but the killing of civilians in a war is something which I don't approve of.

In that case you must disprove the rape of Nanking even more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Anyway, I didn't say it was OK, and killing civilians of a conquered nation just for the hell of it does not equal terrorism. It's fairly awful, but it's not terrorism.
Fairly awful....? you don't consider the intentional killing of 369,000 civilians by the japanese in Nanking terror? :rolleyes:

And the root of terrorism is....... terrorism is designed to spread _ _ _ _ _ _


You've completely missed the distinction.


In that case you must disprove the rape of Nanking even more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There is no "more" or "less". Intentionally killing women and children in a war is completely and utterly honourless. Rape and pillage is another matter. Anyway are we discussing Nanking or the A-Bombings? What's the title of this thread?

You've completely missed the distinction.

Yes I have missed the distinction between killing a large mass of civilians during wartime on the one hand and killing a larger mass of civilians during wartime on the other hand. Please forgive me




There is no "more" or "less". Intentionally killing women and children in a war is completely and utterly honourless.

So Japanese behaviour in Nanking must rank even higher on your list than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Rape and pillage is another matter.

Again 369,000 people were murdered, rape and pillage was the least of it

Anyway are we discussing Nanking or the A-Bombings? What's the title of this thread?

I am responding to your claim that The A-Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two largest acts of terrorism every committed

No, you have missed the distinction between murder and terrorism.

No, you have missed the distinction between murder and terrorism.

Use the examples given to clearly illustrate the differences oh lofty educated whiteman ;)

Last time I checked a dead civilian was a dead civilian.

GE how exactly is the 200,000 atomic deaths a greater tragedy than the 300,000 who died from firebombing in Tokyo?

G. F. Schleebenhorst

The Rape of Nanking is called the Rape of Nanking for a reason. It was rape and pillage. Something that happens after war. The rape and pillage is something that I don't necessarily condemn, but the killing of civilians in a war is something which I don't approve of. Anyway, I didn't say it was OK, and killing civilians of a conquered nation just for the hell of it does not equal terrorism. It's fairly awful, but it's not terrorism.

It isn't,???????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????

So dropping two atomic bombs that kills 200,000 people- Terrorism
Firebombing Tokyo that kills 300,000 people- not revelant to this discussion?
The systematic slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians- not Terrorism?
Releasing Biological WMD on Chinese civilians- not Terrorism?
The attempted WMD attacks on US Cities- not Terrorism?


Ah yes, another "US is the great Satan!" post. This one just backdated 60 years.

What WMD attacks on US cities? You mean those stupid little balloon bombs? I think the death toll from those was 1. More people in the US got kicked to death by donkeys that year, probably on that DAY.

Terrorising civilians is not the same as terrorism. Terrorism is specifically attacking civilians in an attempt to coerce a government into meeting your demands. Murdering civilians or bombing them simply with the intention of killing them is not terrorism. Either way they are unacceptable.

It's not really that hard to understand.

Unacceptable in what context?

If they are both unacceptable then obviously you must be more upset with the firebombing of Tokyo and the Rape of Nanking as both of those incidents killed more people.

The 'little balloon bombs" were a precurser to a long range bomber being developed by the Japanese to drop Biological WMDs on west coast cities. We just beat them to the chase.

G. F. Schleebenhorst
Terrorizing civilians is not the same as terrorism.
You must be quite a barber can you split hair's, DAM!

If they are both unacceptable then obviously you must be more upset with the firebombing of Tokyo and the Rape of Nanking as both of those incidents killed more people.

The 'little balloon bombs" were a precurser to a long range bomber being developed by the Japanese to drop Biological WMDs on west coast cities. We just beat them to the chase.

What fucking difference does it make whether I am more or less upset with the firebombing of Tokyo?

You mentioned attempted WMD attacks on US cities, not some hypothetical future situation. What are these attempted WMD attacks on US cities?

Please bear in mind that you are attempting to weigh these "attempted WMD attacks" of yours against ACTUAL WMD attacks on Japanese women and children.

Just the same old yank hypocrisy, just like the nation with more WMD than any other nation on earth invading a country for posessing WMDs.

How about the WMD attacks by Japan against the Chinese? and the hundreds of tons of WMD that are first being cleaned up by the Japanese?

What about them?

How about the WMD attacks by Japan against the Chinese? and the hundreds of tons of WMD that are first being cleaned up by the Japanese?

Finally someone mentions it.

- N

That was mentioned pages ago, and if you're still trying to make the argument that because the Japanese committed atrocities in China, then it's fine to just kill their women and children as you please, then you're a fucking idiot. Pure child logic.

Actually, that's true. Not just atrocities in China, but tens of millions of dead around the world, and we had a weapon to end it.

G.F. you sit here and blast the US for its evils and at the same time blow over Japans own use of WMDs and its future plans for using them against the US.

Why dont you start a post about Japans use of WMDs if WMDs upset you so much. Obviously your rant has nothing to do with WMDs and their usage, just your continual hatred of anything American.

I haven't blown over them. We are not discussing them, and you just want to use them as if those events suddenly justified you to kill their women and children, which they didn't.

Do you get revenge on a child molester by fucking their kids?

How? they already have themselves, just as the Japanese goverment fucked over their civilians by getting them into a war they lost.

Do you get revenge on a child molester by fucking their kids?

well, they are probably already broken in, so it isnt so much of a revenge as "same old, same old.."

i make even myself sick sometimes, jesus christ!

well, they are probably already broken in, so it isnt so much of a revenge as "same old, same old.."

i make even myself sick sometimes, jesus christ!

Eww!

Terrorising civilians is not the same as terrorism. Terrorism is specifically attacking civilians in an attempt to coerce a government into meeting your demands. Murdering civilians or bombing them simply with the intention of killing them is not terrorism. Either way they are unacceptable.

It's not really that hard to understand.

Oh now I see, you are against warfare in general, since war is meant to inflict sufficient death and destruction by one nation upon another to get it to meet that nations demands and surrender of the enemy is always one of the main goals of war.

I can respect that G F.

I am not against warfare, I just think that war can (and should) be an honourable affair.

there is no such thing.

I am not against warfare, I just think that war can (and should) be an honourable affair.
name one war, just one, that wasn't started by:
1. i am better than you
or
2. i want what you got.

yes, such honor.

3. i am afraid of you.

im afraid of leopold too. he has numbers in his name...only robots have numbers in their names.....never...trust...a...robot.

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

And that was WWI. The War to end all wars. :rolleyes:

name one war, just one, that wasn't started by:
1. i am better than you
or
2. i want what you got.

yes, such honor.
How about "I don't want you invading my/ my ally's country"? If the invaded country doesn't fight back then it isn't a war - it takes two parties to actually fight.
How about "you're foreigners/ far away and we don't want you ruling us anymore"? (American War of Independence, anyone? Dishonourable?)

How about "I don't want you invading my/ my ally's country"? If the invaded country doesn't fight back then it isn't a war - it takes two parties to actually fight.
How about "you're foreigners/ far away and we don't want you ruling us anymore"? (American War of Independence, anyone? Dishonourable?)

Iraqi freedom figthers? dishonourable?

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

And that was WWI. The War to end all wars. :rolleyes:

I like this description better


AN Austrian army, awfully arrayed,
Boldly by battery besieged Belgrade.
Cossack commanders cannonading come,
Dealing destruction's devastating doom.
Every endeavor engineers essay,
For fame, for fortune fighting - furious fray!
Generals 'gainst generals grapple - gracious God!
How honors Heaven heroic hardihood!
Infuriate, indiscrminate in ill,
Kindred kill kinsmen, kinsmen kindred kill.
Labor low levels longest, lofiest lines;
Men march 'mid mounds, 'mid moles, ' mid murderous mines;
Now noxious, noisey numbers nothing, naught
Of outward obstacles, opposing ought;
Poor patriots, partly purchased, partly pressed,
Quite quaking, quickly "Quarter! Quarter!" quest.
Reason returns, religious right redounds,
Suwarrow stops such sanguinary sounds.
Truce to thee, Turkey! Triumph to thy train,
Unwise, unjust, unmerciful Ukraine!
Vanish vain victory! vanish, victory vain!
Why wish we warfare? Wherefore welcome were
Xerxes, Ximenes, Xanthus, Xavier?
Yield, yield, ye youths! ye yeomen, yield your yell!
Zeus', Zarpater's, Zoroaster's zeal,
Attracting all, arms against acts appeal!

How about "I don't want you invading my/ my ally's country"? If the invaded country doesn't fight back then it isn't a war - it takes two parties to actually fight.

That would mean someone else started the war i.e. the invader. Why did the invader start the war in the first place?

Ah yes the the days of yore, chivalry and all that. Man kills man in a fashion that brings a tear of nostalgia to the eye.

4. On instruction of a deity.

4. On instruction of a deity.

Who?

Crom (http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/crom.htm)

Who?

A God or gods.

How do you destroy God?

How do you destroy God?

Evidently cocaine (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1111988#post1111988) will do the trick

name one war, just one, that wasn't started by:
1. i am better than you
or
2. i want what you got.

yes, such honor.

Those things have absolutely nothing to do with conducting war honourably.

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

And that was WWI. The War to end all wars. :rolleyes:

That was just the start of Chickenshit Warfare(tm)

Iraqi freedom figthers? dishonourable?
freedom fighters my ass.
you mean to tell me that iraqi women want to be wrapped in burlap?
yes, let's stone the adulterers.
lob off hands of theives.

Those things have absolutely nothing to do with conducting war honourably.
yes, i know.

freedom fighters my ass.
you mean to tell me that iraqi women want to be wrapped in burlap?
yes, let's stone the adulterers.
lob off hands of theives.

Iraqi Muslims are pretty moderate. Under Saddam Hussein they had female doctors and other professionals, and no, they didn't have to wear Burkas....however the fuck you spell that.

yes, i know.

:p snarf

freedom fighters my ass.
you mean to tell me that iraqi women want to be wrapped in burlap?
yes, let's stone the adulterers.
lob off hands of theives.

People value freedom from a foreign invasion more than they hate fundamentalists.

This has been proved over and over. Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon.

Given a choice, the one thing people do not want is a foreign culture imposed on them.

freedom fighters my ass.
you mean to tell me that iraqi women want to be wrapped in burlap?
yes, let's stone the adulterers.
lob off hands of theives.

reality check.

Iraqi women actually had rights till the USA invaded Iraq.

unless it comes down to a fistfight between 2 combatants under Queensbury rules (or something similar), there is no such thing as "honorably" trying to kill someone you dont know. period.

And as long as we have idiots who think going to war is an honourable way to sort out our differences people will just keep on killing one another

I didn't say that, Einstein....I said war can (and should) be conducted honourably. Learn to fucking read or this is the last time I reply to your posts.

War has been romanticised in the past and present and will be so in the future. There have been elements of so-called 'honourable warfare' in the past. But it was never the rule.

In ancient greece two opposing armies often ended up facing each other in a field to decide on a particular matter. The winning army did not pursuit the defeated army into total annihilation. Defeat itself was enough to end the conflict.

That said, in the same period backstabbing, ambushing, pillaging was also normal.

Under normal circumstances there was something like an honour code.

That went totally down the drain when warfare was industrialized. The first world war changed everything. However most civilian deaths were caused by the flu and famine. In WW2 civilians became official targets. Carpet bombing civilians had become a norm (Holland basaically surrendered because the germans started bombing civilians). Using civilians as war tools had become the norm.

And we said never again.

But apparently civilian targets are legitimate again. Bomb a hospital. It might be used by the military if we don't. Never mind the civilians. Bomb that powerplant. Bomb that sewage plant. Make the people suffer. Kill the people. Install terror.

And we said never again. But who was listening.

And we said never again. But who was listening.

is "donald rumsfeld" the right answer?

No. The answer is donald duck.

same difference.

But I got you on a technicality. Now I'm free to invade you. And your country. And Belgium.

I didn't say that, Einstein....I said war can (and should) be conducted honourably.

Oh did I say schleebenhorst dumbass?

Learn to fucking read or this is the last time I reply to your posts.

Gee how will I ever get over the loss

If the hospital is being used as a launch point for rockets, yes it is a legal target, if the hospital is built over a command bunker, yes it is a legal target, if the hospital is built over a weapons bunker yes it is a legal target, the people who are legally responsible are the people who did this, not the force defending themselves from attack from these sites, Check your G.C.

But I got you on a technicality. Now I'm free to invade you. i am terrified by what this could mean.

And your country.
you already did. probably soiled half the lab mouse population with your "foreignishness".


And Belgium.
thats cool. im leaving in a month. shit, i might even help you get an entry visa by way of invitation.

If the hospital is being used as a launch point for rockets, yes it is a legal target, if the hospital is built over a command bunker, yes it is a legal target, if the hospital is built over a weapons bunker yes it is a legal target, the people who are legally responsible are the people who did this, not the force defending themselves from attack from these sites, Check your G.C.

Nobody is interested in your drivel. Go to your AA meeting.

Gee how will I ever get over the loss

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
no, that honor belongs to puns.

Debate that with Oscar Wilde, not me.

Isn't he dead?

Well you could try shouting at his descendents.

Wasn't he gay?

uh huh

spuriousmonkey, can't face the logic?, even when I was drunk I had more logic than you do sober, and that ain't claiming much.

uh...the reason you get all pissed, buffalo, is that you dont know when to quit when you are beaten.

spuriousmonkey is one of the smarter folks in this neck of the woods, and you are largely considered to be on the opposite end of the spectrum.

now let us get back to our oscar wilde conversation. you are free to join, if you like.

"spuriousmonkey is one of the smarter folks in this neck of the woods"
Yes

Ywtyo

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Well I didn't want to set the bar too high for you.

Ywtyo
stfuyrn

Lsmft

stfuyrn

ikwus

The American Revolution was about money.

So add to your reasons for war:

#4: I dont want to pay your #@#% stamp tax

In an annual ritual to mourn the more than 220,000 people who ultimately died from the blast, a crowd including survivors, children and dignitaries gathered at the Peace Memorial Park, near ground zero where the bomb was dropped. - (source)

Bad reporting on the part of Reuters. It is unlikely that more than 200,000 were killed from both A-bombs combined.

The A-Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two largest acts of terrorism every committed, and the US government should have apologised to the Japanese for it.

Terrorism is conducted by covert operatives. These were overt military acts.

We have nothing to apologize for. The Japanese were committing horrible atrocities and needed to be stopped.

The civilians were issued pointy sticks. Pointy. Fucking. Sticks. If your military was scared of those, then fine, I will accept your excuse, if you admit that your military are a bunch of pussies....otherwise it's not an excuse.

There was more than just "civilians with sticks" being prepared to meet our invasion.



I don't know how many soldiers would have died in this hypothetical invasion of Japan (which was not necessary anyway, as Japan was willing to sue for peace, just not completely unreasonable peace which was what the US demanded)

Preposterous! The terms we gave Japan were perfectly reasonable.

The Japanese were willing to surrender, provided they could keep their Emperor.

Note that the first time that the Japanese government was willing to surrender "just with a guarantee for their Emperor" was the day AFTER Nagasaki was bombed.

What was my solution again? Waiting for Japan to surrender? If you need proof, read what Eisenhower and Admiral Halsey had to say about the A-Bombings. They both testified that the bombings were completely unnecessary and that with a naval blockade the Japanese would have surrendered, and that's ignoring the fact that Japan was already trying to sue for peace with only one minor condition.

Don't ignore the fact that Japan wasn't trying to surrender "just with a condition for their Emperor" until AFTER Nagasaki was bombed.

The blockade was about to cause ten million Japanese civilians to starve to death when Japan surrendered, by the way.



2) The bombs were dropped to coerce the Japanese government into taking terms of the US's choosing, which is terrorism.

Overt military acts are not terrorism.



Either way, you can't call pearl harbour an act of cowardice if you won't admit that dropping the A-Bombs was even worse for specifically targetting civilians.

The A-bombs did not target civilians, specifically or otherwise.

Hiroshima was a large military center, with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers, and with the military headquarters in charge of the defense of the southern half of Japan.

The outskirts of Nagasaki were home to armament-factories.

We wouldn't have had to invade Japan, that's a load of bunk given to excuse the dropping of the a-bombs.

In hindsight, it is easy to speculate that the invasion might have been unnecessary.

But it remains speculation. And even that speculation wasn't apparent when the decision was made to drop the bombs.



Japan was already surrendering.

Japan didn't try to surrender until the day after Nagasaki.



The Soviets were already about to invade Japan on their own the day we dropped em. We dropped the bombs to show our power and stop Soviet aggression from playing clean-up in the battered East Asia so that we would still have a foothold in that region. It stopped them for a short while, but Communism still spread and we still had the Cold War.

The primary reason we dropped the bombs was to shock Japan into surrendering.



Japan was no longer a threat.

An invasion of Japan would still have killed many US soldiers.

The US dropped the bombs merely as a political statement. Japan was on its knees. Russia was about to enter the Japanese conflict. American couldn't let that happen.

So it fucked over 200.000 civilians in order to send a postcard to the world stating: 'Fat chance Soviet Union'.

Er, we were doing everything we could to encourage the Soviets to go to war against Japan.

You forget the Military installations, and troop concentrations.
....which would have already been bombed to nothing months before if they were of any significance.

They weren't bombed at Hiroshima because the city was off limits to mass bombing once it was picked as an A-bomb target.

Nagasaki couldn't be readily bombed by radar, and so was immune to the large napalm raids.



It is hard to see how tens of thousands of troops, and the military headquarters in charge of the defense of the southern half of Japan, can be honestly portrayed as not having military significance.


One of the arms factories on the outskirts of Nagasaki was the Mitsubishi Ordnance Works.

Pearl Harbor was regarded as immune from torpedo attack before the Japanese struck, because its waters were too shallow for existing torpedoes to operate in.

Japan had to create entirely new torpedo technology just to attack Pearl Harbor. The Mitsubishi Ordnance Works was the place that invented and built those torpedoes.

Terrorism is conducted by covert operatives. These were overt military acts.

We have nothing to apologize for. The Japanese were committing horrible atrocities and needed to be stopped.

So it's OK to commit atrocities against civilians in order to stop atrocities against civilians? Is that what you're saying?

Preposterous! The terms we gave Japan were perfectly reasonable.

A lot of credible americans disagree with you. Nimitz, Leahy, MacArthur and Eisenhower, for instance. Plus the rest of the world.

Note that the first time that the Japanese government was willing to surrender "just with a guarantee for their Emperor" was the day AFTER Nagasaki was bombed.

Nope, they were trying to mediate through the russians LONG before that.

Wikipedia says otherwise (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:0KQ7YD1GY0gJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki+hiroshim a+%22already+sued+for+peace%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2&lr=lang_en)

Overt military acts are not terrorism.


Says you.

The A-bombs did not target civilians, specifically or otherwise.

So no civilians died then? Were there no civilians living in the area that was nuked? Is that honestly what you are trying to say? Did they just make it up then?

Japan had to create entirely new torpedo technology just to attack Pearl Harbor. The Mitsubishi Ordnance Works was the place that invented and built those torpedoes.

Is this supposed to be poetic justice or something? You don't punish a nation for a brilliant (if copied from the British) military attack by killing hundreds of thousands of their women and children.

What the A-Bombings come down to is simply this:

"They won't surrender! Kill more of their women and children!"

That is when the USA ceased to be the "good guy".

An invasion of Japan would still have killed many US soldiers.

An invasion of Japan.. LoL -- never would have happened. The Soviets were already in the process of invading their main islands. That was the reason for dropping the A-bombs, to send a message to the Soviets to keep back.

The U.S. and the Soviets were the only two major powers left in the world. We needn't worry about a crippled Japan. The Soviets were the only threat and the ones who could match us. The Soviets were the ones who wanted to continue to fight and land-grab during WWII. Both sides wanted to play clean up with a ruined world. There's a reason why the Cold War only involved them and the U.S. and not Japan or anyone else.

The primary reason we dropped the bombs was to shock Japan into surrendering.

Sorry, but no. Read some real history. It was about the Soviets, nothing more. The whole "to shock Japan" is a poor excuse A-bomb lovers use as a reason for justification. At least come up with something better, such as the truth. You'd have more people accepting the bombing of Japan if you'd just admit the part about the Russians than some quickly thought reason as Japanese shock and awe, lol.

- N

An invasion of Japan.. LoL -- never would have happened.
america had the plans to invade pretty well ironed out
The Soviets were already in the process of invading their main islands.
the soviets didn't declare war on japan until AFTER the first a-bomb


The U.S. and the Soviets were the only two major powers left in the world. We needn't worry about a crippled Japan. The Soviets were the only threat and the ones who could match us.
granted
The Soviets were the ones who wanted to continue to fight and land-grab during WWII.
sources?
Both sides wanted to play clean up with a ruined world.
what's wrong with that?
There's a reason why the Cold War only involved them and the U.S. and not Japan or anyone else.
and what reason would that be?


At least come up with something better, such as the truth.
can you enlighten us as to the truth? with sources?

Just a few cents worth here.

In my view, the overall feeling of the USA in 1945 was that the military could/should do whatever it took to end the war, without regard to any usual 'rules of war'. If that meant huge civilian deaths in Germany or Japan, so be it. All 'rules of warfare' were essentially gone, because the war had become so nasty, in particular because of german and japanese atrocities that were then known. At that time (early 1945), the war had killed tens of millions of civilians in Russia, Germany, and Japan, with the prospect that many millions more would be killed if the war prolonged.

So, Allied military decisions such as the fire-bombing of Dresden (which killed some 100,000 innocent white [blonde, blue-eyed] civilians overnight) in early 1945, or the fire bombings of Tokyo (which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent japanese civilians too), or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which killed about the same number of innocent civilians as the fire-bombings had already done) were done without regard to the fact that far more civilians would be killed than military personnel. They were done primarily to lower the morale of those who survived, which they surely did, as well as to eliminate the 'military targets' that also served to justify those attacks, in the hopes that the surviving government would sue for peace.

Apparently, the thinking was that by shocking Japan with huge losses at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they would surrender, ultimately saving more American military lives, and Japanese civilian and military lives than were lost in those attacks, by such quick surrender. Apparently, the stratgey worked. No one ever said warfare was fair.

Now, I believe those are the facts. I also believe that we can endlessly argue the 'morality' of those decisions ad nauseum.

What we really need to do is insure that we never have a repeat of that world climate of fear, or a repeat of such a war in which civilians are treated as a 'bargaining chip' in the efforts to undermine the morale of the 'enemy'. Unfortunately, we've seen just such a scenario in the recent Lebanon/Israel fiasco, in which innocent civilians on both sides are essentially ignored, without regard to who started it, or whether either side was justified in their actions.

I think people ignore the fact that conventional bombing was at least as severe as the devestation from the two A-Bombs. The only reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on the short list of A-Bomb targets is because they were two of the very few Japanese cities which were pretty much intact. The A-Bombs, while horrible, weren't any more devestating in their result than the fire-bombing that took place in other Japanese and German cities.

I've read quite a few historical accounts that suggest the dropping of these two bombs saved many lives, by shaking the fanatical Japanese military leaders out of their "never-surrender" mentality. Of course, they still attempted a coup, and barely relented in the end. It wasn't until the Japanese people heard a radio announcement from their emperor, that they finally gave up the fight.

I think this anniversary is not a day to bemoan the existence of new and horrible weapons, but a day to marvel at the barbarism that the entire war led up to, especially the racial war that took place with Japan.

ikwus
alsd...trnipmo

Magic intercept on what we knew about what Japan was doing about surrendering.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1126514#post1126514

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

Preposterous! The terms we gave Japan were perfectly reasonable.
A lot of credible americans disagree with you. Nimitz, Leahy, MacArthur and Eisenhower, for instance. Plus the rest of the world.

I think MacArthur whined about us not giving a guarantee for the Emperor. But that is hardly a complaint that the rest of the terms were unreasonable.

Leahy and Ike didn't object to the surrender terms, and neither did the rest of the world.

Note that the first time that the Japanese government was willing to surrender "just with a guarantee for their Emperor" was the day AFTER Nagasaki was bombed.

Nope, they were trying to mediate through the russians LONG before that.

Um, the fact that they were trying to negotiate through the Soviets in no way changes the fact that they were not willing to surrender "just with a guarantee for their Emperor" until after Nagasaki was bombed.

When they were pursuing their silly negotiation gambit, the military faction of their government was insisting on a whole host of unacceptable terms, not just a guarantee for the Emperor.



Wikipedia says otherwise (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:0KQ7YD1GY0gJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki+hiroshim a+%22already+sued+for+peace%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2&lr=lang_en)

Going to the Soviets and asking them to mediate negotiations is not even remotely close to "suing for peace".

When you sue for peace, you make an attempt to pass a message to the people you are at war with and ask to end the war.

Japan did not ask the Soviets to pass any message to us. All they did was attempt to ask the Soviets to mediate future unspecified negotiations.

An invasion of Japan.. LoL -- never would have happened.

It would have if they hadn't surrendered yet.



The Soviets were already in the process of invading their main islands. That was the reason for dropping the A-bombs, to send a message to the Soviets to keep back.

We were encouraging the Soviets to go to war against Japan.

We wanted them to go to war against Japan.

They were going to war against Japan because we asked them to.



The U.S. and the Soviets were the only two major powers left in the world. We needn't worry about a crippled Japan.

If they had refused to surrender without an invasion, we would have needed to worry about them.



Sorry, but no. Read some real history.

I've read more real history, just on this subject, than you've read history period.



It was about the Soviets, nothing more.

Nope. The primary purpose of the A-bombs was to shock the Japanese into surrender.



At least come up with something better, such as the truth.

That's what I'm doing here right now.

just telling someone you are smart doesnt cut it around here, new guy.
you cite no resources, studies, or articles to back your claims.

Overt military acts are not terrorism.

Says you.

Would you like to consult a UN definition of the word?

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

Note the part about clandestine and semi-clandestine agents.



The A-bombs did not target civilians, specifically or otherwise.

So no civilians died then? Were there no civilians living in the area that was nuked? Is that honestly what you are trying to say? Did they just make it up then?

The fact that civilians died does not mean that civilians were the target.



Japan had to create entirely new torpedo technology just to attack Pearl Harbor. The Mitsubishi Ordnance Works was the place that invented and built those torpedoes.

Is this supposed to be poetic justice or something?

Yep.



What the A-Bombings come down to is simply this:

"They won't surrender! Kill more of their women and children!"

Hiroshima was a large military center, with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers, and with the military headquarters in charge of the defense of the southern half of Japan.

The outskirts of Nagasaki were home to armament-factories.

you cite no resources, studies, or articles to back your claims.

LOL!

I did just that when I refuted the falsehood you posted over on this thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1126504#post1126504

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

Document 33: "Magic" – Diplomatic Summary, War Department, Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, No. 1210 – July 17, 1945, Top Secret Ultra
Source: Record Group 457, Records of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, "Magic" Diplomatic Summaries 1942-1945, box 18.

Another intercept of a cable from Togo to Sato shows that the Foreign Minister rejected unconditional surrender and that the emperor was not “asking the Russian’s mediation in anything like unconditional surrender.” Incidentally, this “Magic’ Diplomatic Summary” indicates the broad scope and capabilities of the program; for example, it includes translations of intercepted French messages (see pages 8-9). [Page 14 missing from original]

LOL!

I did just that when I refuted the falsehood you posted over on this thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1126504#post1126504
your own link doesnt support your claim in that thread.

however, i hadnt noticed you posted it. thanks for pointing it out.

When I read the report I have to come to the conclusion that there is no indication of mutation, and it is so stated in the report.

http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/radefx/genetics/birthdef.htm

The absence of a statistically significant effect of ionizing radiation on the frequency of major birth defects should not be construed as evidence that mutations were not induced by parental exposure to atomic radiation. At least two reasons argue otherwise. First, under suitable experimental conditions, mutations have been seen in every animal and plant species studied, and it would be contrary to all biological evidence to presume that human genes are not mutable when exposed to ionizing radiation. Second, the magnitude of a difference between two or more groups that can be detected statistically depends upon the number of observations made and on the "natural" frequency of the event under scrutiny as well as the difference between the groups resulting from exposure. One can ask, therefore, how adequate this study has been or pose the question differently: "How large a difference would have had to exist to be demonstrable with a study of 65,000 infants, only half of whom had one or more exposed parents?" Suffice it to say that a clinical study of the kind described would have been able to detect a doubling of the rate of major congenital malformations if such had occurred.

your own link doesnt support your claim in that thread.

It looks to me like it says that there has not been any detectible increase in birth defects.



however, i hadnt noticed you posted it. thanks for pointing it out.

You're welcome.

My "falsehood" comment was harsher than I intended. I apologize for that.

You're welcome.

My "falsehood" comment was harsher than I intended. I apologize for that.
at least someone around here has manners.
:) i like you, new guy!

Note the part about clandestine and semi-clandestine agents.


....and the "state actors" part.

You can be as pedantic as you want, but what it comes down to is that killing civilians deliberately in order to coerce a government into meeting your demands, whether you are a country or a nutbar in a headscarf, is terrorism.

The USA is so quick to tell the UN to fuck off, so why should it get the benefit of defending itself with the UN definition of terrorism? That's the last thing you should be trying to use as evidence.

Is it safe to assume that the US, UK, USSR, Germany and Japan all engaged in varying degrees of terrorism on their respective enemy's homeland civilians? Examples include the fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo by the Allies, Siege of Stalingrad by the Germans, the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki to 'shock' the military into surrender, etc. etc.

Is it safe to assume that the civilized world as a whole does not want to return to that world mentality where anything goes in warfare?

Well said (well, asked) Walter.

....and the "state actors" part.

What about it? It doesn't change the fact that terrorism only refers to the acts of covert agents.



You can be as pedantic as you want, but what it comes down to is that killing civilians deliberately in order to coerce a government into meeting your demands, whether you are a country or a nutbar in a headscarf, is terrorism.

Only if you are attacking as a covert operative.

And we were not targeting civilians with the A-bombs.



The USA is so quick to tell the UN to fuck off, so why should it get the benefit of defending itself with the UN definition of terrorism? That's the last thing you should be trying to use as evidence.

The U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center defines terrorism as: "premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target."

at least someone around here has manners.
:) i like you, new guy!

So, was there anything in particular that I said that you would like me to reference with a cite?

Not everything related to the A-bombs is on line, but I can usually find something or other to link to.

The U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center defines terrorism as: "premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target."
yes, but do the countrys of the world accept this definition?
the last i checked the U.N. still had no definition of terrorism that satisfied everyone.

yes, but do the countrys of the world accept this definition?
the last i checked the U.N. still had no definition of terrorism that satisfied everyone.

I'm sure that people and countries who want to bend the definition so as to falsely accuse the US and Israel (or the west in general) of terrorism do not like it.

Too bad for them.

So, was there anything in particular that I said that you would like me to reference with a cite?

Not everything related to the A-bombs is on line, but I can usually find something or other to link to.
i was referring to the speculation about the invasion of japan, and a possible war with the soviets.
the post above the one in which i said this was pure speculation.

I'm sure that people and countries who want to bend the definition so as to falsely accuse the US and Israel (or the west in general) of terrorism do not like it.

Too bad for them.
i don't think that is the case.
the definition of a terrorist isn't as clearcut as it first appears.

The U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center defines terrorism as: "premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target."

Yeah, let's ask the criminal what the definition of the crime is :rolleyes:

Some important points when coming to a conclusion about why the United States used nuclear weapons on Japan:

- Much has been made of the timing of the act of including the Soviets in an invasion. One must consider this question. If Truman was so confident of Japanese surrender, why involve the Soviets at all? The United States asked the Soviets to be involved, even though they knew the repercussions.

- "Magic" intercepts of Japanese communications show many discussions between Sato and Togo. Sato asks, during several interactions, that Togo except all conditions, except one, the dismantling of the Imperial palace. In one telling relay, Togo states: "the whole country … will pit itself against the enemy in accordance with the Imperial Will as long as the enemy demands unconditional surrender." Many have used this as an argument that if the Americans excepted the monarch, then the war would have ended. Uncondtional surrender, however, included many unacceptable parts, such as the occupation of Japan.

- "Magic" intercepts continue to show that Japan attempts to get Soviet help in negotiations, from July to August, up into the use of the nuclear bombs. This shows the Japanese were not completely willing to surrender, but still wanted "terms".

- one intercepted message quoted Toto as saying "is difficult to decide on concrete peace conditions here at home all at once. “We are exerting ourselves to collect the views of all quarters on the matter of concrete terms." In other words, there was still heated arguments at home on the terms of surrender.

- as late as August 8th, military intercepts showed Japanese both dispersing fuel stocks to remove vulnerabiltiy to attack, and moving troops south to Kyushu to prevent invasion. This was a legitimate concern of U.S. generals, and several wanted to scrap any invasion attempts based on this news.

- Even after the bombing of Japan, in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the Japanese cabinet could not come into concensus on the terms of surrender. The supreme war council wanted the inclusion of at least four terms of surrender, which included on provision stating that the U.S. could not occupy Japan. It finally took Emperor Hirohito to declare acceptance of the U.S. proposal. Even after this, Army Minister Anami threatened a coup against the monarch.


Those arguing against the United States generally attempt to portray the dropping of the bombs as a cold calcuated act meant to terrify the Soviets only, and a total disregard for human life.

In truth, Truman gave tremendous consideration to many opinions, including that of Eisenhower. Whether he was correct or incorrect, Truman felt this was the easiest and safest way for the United States to end the war.

It displayed an undeniable reason to lay down arms for the Japanese, who as shown above, were attempting to resist a full surrender even towards the last days of the war. Also, it did give warning to the Soviets not to interfere with peace negotations, but this was merely a bonus, and not the deciding factor. Truman's desire to involve the Soviets at all was proof enough that he felt the Japanese surrender would not be an easy task.

Those on the far left love to potray Truman as a calculating monster, who easily disregarded human life, and use the anniversary of the bombing to criminalize the United States, a favorite topic. In reality, there were many factors (a few displayed above) that led to that final decision. Whether one agrees with that decision or not (I believe, myself, surrender could have been had in other ways), Truman certainly gave careful thought and believed he did what was necessary with the facts he had.

Even the U.N. under your definition is a terrorist and apparently their own.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DAV20050315&articleId=452

Please meet Kofi Annan, public relations officer of NWO (New World Order)

“A More Secure World — Our Shared Responsibility”, is a report produced by the High-level Panel that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan set up to study global threats and recommend changes in the international system. The Panel calls for a definition of terrorism which would make it clear that "any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. I believe this proposal has clear moral force, and I strongly urge world leaders to unite behind it, with a view to adopting the comprehensive convention as soon as possible." (Kofi Annan's Keynote address to the Closing Plenary of the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security, 10 March 2005).

According to this definition, the United Nations Security Council would have to be designated as the major terrorist in modern times for having imposed and maintained for 12 deadly years the most stringent economic sanctions in modern history against a poor nation, Iraq, whose foreseeable and observed consequences included the deaths of half a million children.

The sanctions against Iraq fulfilled in all respects the definition of terrorism proposed by Kofi Annan's Panel:

1. They were imposed with the intent to cause serious harm to the Iraqi population by denying it the basic necessities of life, including items necessary for the operation of water treatment facilities.

2. Intent, under criminal law, is not equivalent to motive. The motive of the Security Council was not to cause death or serious bodily harm to the Iraqi population but to compel the Iraqi Government to abide by its demands. The means of doing so was through the plight of the population. Terrorists, typically, do not particularly desire the deaths of their victims but use such deaths as an instrument for what they consider a legitimate political purpose. The mindset of the Security Council was thus equivalent to that of ordinary terrorists.

3. The Security Council was fully aware that its actions will cause deaths in Iraq and was regularly informed of the deadly consequences of the sanctions over a period of over a decade. For the purpose of criminal law, the Security Council intended the consequences of its policies. It simply turned a blind eye to these consequences.

Fair enough, I shall concede that the UN are terrorists if you concede that the US are terrorists.

Deal?

Fair enough, I shall concede that the UN are terrorists if you concede that the US are terrorists.

Deal?
then who the fuck are not terrorists anymore

then who the fuck are not terrorists anymore
The plants. Except for those evil parasitic ones that suck the life out of innocent trees ... and the carnivorous ones, like the Venus flytrap, sundew, pitcher plant and the foul bladderwort which feeds on harmless mosquito larvae.

i was referring to the speculation about the invasion of japan, and a possible war with the soviets.
the post above the one in which i said this was pure speculation.

You mean this?

We were encouraging the Soviets to go to war against Japan.

We wanted them to go to war against Japan.

They were going to war against Japan because we asked them to.


FDR had made an agreement with Stalin at the Yalta conference, where the Soviets would agree to go to war against Japan 90 days after the fall of Germany, in exchange for certain concessions from China (which we were happy to promise without asking the Chinese for permission).

It is listed here (at the bottom, under the heading "agreement regarding Japan").

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/yalta.htm


Truman managed to bully the Chinese into giving the concessions, and at the Potsdam conference got Stalin to pledge to go to war against Japan by August 15.

Here is an excerpt from the letter he sent to his wife following that pledge:

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/truman-harry/corr_truman_1945-07-18.htm