The question was rhetorical, evidence for this is that I answer it in the very next sentence: "Well for one and this is a surprise for most but back to Richard's arguments: the Atomics actually reduced the total deathtoll"
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor
- Thread starter mathman
- Start date
The question was rhetorical, evidence for this is that I answer it in the very next sentence: "Well for one and this is a surprise for most but back to Richard's arguments: the Atomics actually reduced the total deathtoll"
Oh, you bad, no doubt. I mean all the screeching, man, that's just you goin' all Leroy Brown on my skinny white ass. Fo' real.
Of course you do. It's fun watching you do it.
So now that you've agreed you were only pushing an isolated ethical argument more suited to the ethics board than history, may I assume you're done inflicting that fingernails down a blackboard style of "writing" on me? My eyes are bleeding. I'm rather thankful you only read history rather than writing it, even if it does seem limited to the mostly pointless ones.
...Where's my bloody ice cream.
¿Qué?
Of course, why else do you come here but for entertainment.
Did I say that? No I didn't, I said that if you think this is an ethical issue then have this topic split off to the ethics board, until then its historical.
... ¿Qué?
Oh scathing
Lets take this moment to note the wonderful hypocrisy: this entire post of yours has nothing to do with the thread topic or history, yet you claim what I was speaking of didn't and that is problematic. I'm glad you taken the time to follow me around like you said you wouldn't, your hypocrisy is reliable in a way.
Cultural references, Manuel. Never mind.
Oh, I see. So your initial
has changed then?
To clarify your position on the subject, or perhaps your opinion of the argument you claim to be representing, you should merely state, for the record: "I don't believe the nukes were neccessary", or "I've changed my mind: I now believe the nukes were necessary".
That way we'll all know for sure.
That's one reason. You've been very accommodating. Although I have to admit that chasing you while you're running around in circles is beginning to make me dizzy.
I should probably note here, though, that we're all here to entertain ourselves. The objection you have is toward the manner in which I do so.
Well, actually, yes you did:
I'm sure it inflates your ego when you think I'm "following you around", but in fact I only remember encountering you in two threads... so far. What I might have done, at a stretch, is to state that I would be "done with you" if you continued to push your rather weak and atrociously worded "arguments" upon me. In which case I may be guilty of not following through on something I said I might do.
I do have to admit a certain satisfaction with you taking pleasure from the thought of me following you around, though. My little weaknesses, you see. Although here it should be noted that they are not uniquely mine.
But while we're on the subject, perhaps you should look up the "hypocrisy". It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. I suppose, in your defence, it's a fairly common misconception - but having said that, you get it more wrong than most.
You see, hypocrisy as an accusation is only valid when the one you are accusing of hypocrisy has made the claim that he acts in a manner he tells you to, but actually does not.
I myself did not say I always cite references. I suggested you should, if you wished to make your argument more clear. The reason I did so, as I think I've made clear, is that it's terribly difficult sometimes to determine what it is you are saying - or at least what your particular position is.
Now run along, and read this entire exchange again, and point out where I've been hypocritical here. I'm not even going to look first to see if I might have been at some point. I shall reward you by never posting again in this thread if you can. Do we have a deal?
Or racist mockery.
No it has not change. Atomics were not necessary to get japan to surrender, nor was invasion, atomics though reduced total death-toll. I said this over and over again now and yet you keep trying to misconstruing my argument.
yes, around and around because you refuse to acknowledge my argument.
I'm here for discussion and enlightenment, if your here for 'entertainment' my I recommend masturbation instead?
Look again: did I say said issue was more suited to the ethics board?
Two dispersant threads in so short of time, oh my your smitten!
Most people would be definite on if they will or will not respond to a person, but someone who is intent is to be argumentative and slanders for entertainment would certainly say what you just said.
Oh well forgive me for believing you had any ethics at all. Usually people do not tell others to act in ways that they would not, and quite honestly now I can ignore any recommendation you make!. You ask me to cite sources, yet you won't, why should I? I would think my argument is pretty clear at this point consider how many times I stated it and brought up sources even, rather its clear that all your doing is being argumentative for no other reason then to be argumentative, even to the point of stating you your self hold no value in your own 'suggestions'.
I win, I win if you do not reply, I win if you do reply.
No, Manuel. Just plain old garden variety mockery.
You're becoming more than a little incoherent, you know.
But seeing as you're still here, why you don't you enlighten me as to what it is you think you've "won"?
I mean, If I'd known there was a prize involved, I might put some real effort in.
I can just imagine fetus lying there on the ground after just having been mugged.
From the mess, a small arm arises, finger pointing straight up in the air, and a small wounded voice saying "I claim the moral victory" as the mugger wanders off down the street with his wallet and car keys.
Heh. Goodnight, Sparky.
I won the argument, this is not a mugging or reality, this is the internet! You given up even talking about it, you no longer even attempt to counter my claims that the atomic bombs saved lives, even without an invasion, you have given up with all your strawmans, all that is left is your contempt and your pathetic comical metaphorical slander, I won.
Every so often a Japanese Prime Minister visits a shrine in Japan and Asian countries, and the US, get pissed off. It happened today. The shrine they visit is Yasukuni, built in 1869. It's sounds like it's the Japanese equivalent of Arlington Cemetery here in the US.
The problem everyone has with the shrine is because of what happened after WWII:
If head priests and Emperors wont visit the shrine then the only reason for a PM to do so can only be provocation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine
The problem everyone has with the shrine is because of what happened after WWII:
If head priests and Emperors wont visit the shrine then the only reason for a PM to do so can only be provocation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine
The combined death toll was 150,000 to 246,000
First, where is your evidence the US gets "pissed off" when a Japanese official visits this shrine? Most Americans aren't even aware of the shrine's existence and frankly they just don't care. And what would Abe (Japanese Prime Minister) gain by provoking the US or is Abe trying to provoke the Emperor or China or Vietnam or India or South Korea or Burma or Cambodia or Australia or New Zealand or Thailand or the Philippines (i.e. the nations Japan attacked and/or occupied during WWII) and what would his motivation be for such a provocation? Your claim just doesn't make sense.
The US State Department said it was disappointed. There is a difference between disappointment and "pissed off". Judging by the press releases, South Korea and China were the ones who were pissed off, not the US.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...pm-shinzo-abe-visits-controversial-war-shrine
Since WWII, Japan and the US have been the best of friends and good trading partners. They are allies and right now Japan's possessions are being threatened by an every more aggressive China, and its citizens are being threatened by a new dictator in North Korea. So again your machinations just don't make sense if you think Abe was trying to be provocative towards the US.
Last edited:
So how exactly is the US trying to get others to attack it? It there any factual basis for this claim or are you just pulling stuff out of the aether?
Last edited:
Really, I thought the US was defending itself. I thought it was Japanese troops who invaded and occupied the Philippines while it was a US possession. I thought it was Japan who organized the Battan Death March.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March
I thought it was Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
I thought it was Japan who attacked Midway Island.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway
I thought it was Japan who declared war on the US after attacking and occupying the Philippines and attacking Pearl Harbor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire
All of that happened well before the US dropped a single bomb, nuclear or otherwise, or fired a single shot at a Japanese soldier on Japanese soil.
Last edited:
If you think there is a difference between "disappointed" and "pissed off" in political terms, good for you. Stay innocent as long as you can.
BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25518137
Well there is a difference between "pissed off" and disappointed. There is no reason for the US to be pissed off. You don't think the US understands the political situation in Japan? I give the State Department a little more credit.
Japan's neighbors have been less restrained than the US in their criticism of Abe's visit (per previous post). If the US was pissed, its statement would have been harsh. It wasn’t. The only way Abe's visit makes sense, is if it was intended to boost his internal popularity. But it doesn't make sense to provoke its neighbors and allies and trading partners. China and Korea are still very sensitive to the human rights abuses they suffered under Japanese occupation and annexation - abuses committed by convicted Japanese war criminals. If Chinese and Korean consumers and others stop buying Japanese goods as result of this visit, the costs to Abe and his government will outweigh any short term benefit Abe may get domestically from that visit.
Abe is seeking to have japan's constitution changes so Japan can officially have an offensive army. visiting the shrine is part of that motive, it increase tensions which cause more demand for military capability. Another reason for visiting the shrine is internal promotion of japan's fac/eer I mean "nationalist" groups who get a big chubby every time the shrine is visited and those filthy foreigners get angry, they want to show the world they can do what ever they want because their fucking japan, the most aah "unique" people on the planet!
For further reading on that subject I recommend debito.org.
For further reading on that subject I recommend debito.org.
You sound like one of Sciforums wise graybeards, able to tell "weird and wonderful" from true.
You also say that nationalism is the biggest threat in the world.
Watch this video from BBC as China and Japan "play chicken."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20312325
How weird and wonderful is that?
... but nationalism is [a big] threat to the world.
Indeed it is and we are all susceptible to it.