Thread: Hiroshima And Nagasaki

Maybe, but remember that the USA wasn't really considered a world power until the end of WWII--we were still the new kids on the block. Young upstarts who had yet to prove themselves--which is probably why Japan and Germany felt comfortable declaring war on us.

I agree with what Tsen said.

And as an aside, despite my antipathy towards the US, I cannot help but marvel at the US's spectacularly quick mobilisation of their country for war during WWII. During the space of months, or a year, America, a former unknown with regards to their military power, had mobilised and created of itself the largest war machine the world has ever seen. For instance, the massive factories that churned out the B52s, etc...

Originally Posted by Universal

1. It ended World War II, as we knew it would. All other routes were iffy.
[/b]

All other routes were, perhaps, not as definite as the use of nuclear weapons. But this does NOT justify the resort to nuclear weapons, just because of the "iffiness" of diplomacy. Diplomacy is ALWAYS iffy. ALWAYS. You can NEVER be sure what the other party's true intentions are. If the "iffyness" of other options is to be used as a justification of the resort to nuclear weapons, then why do we ever have diplomacy?

Plus, what is CRUCIAL in the case of Japan and the US, is that not only did President Truman choose nuclear weapons over diplomacy, but he took ACTIVE STEPS to STOP any efforts to resolve the situation through diplomacy. He cut of lines of communication with the japanese by instructing diplomats of mediating neutral countries to pay no attention to Japanese attempts to seek a diplomatic peace.

EVEN if you to are accept that the use of nuclear weapons is at ALL a viable, justifiable option, President Truman should have at least ATTEMPTED diplomacy. He did not, and took active steps to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Universal

2. The Japanese had been waffling in regard to surrender.
[/b]

This is a very cursory, overly simplistic, and warped interpretation of Japans efforts to seek a diplomatic solution.

Originally Posted by Universal

They didn't deserve even another three seconds of that when we knew how to end the war and stop our soldiers from having to keep fighting and dying.
[/b]

I find this quite disturbing... this is essentially valuing the lives of American soldiers over Japanese civilians. This is a very dangerous attitude.

Originally Posted by Universal

My two grandfathers were two of those guys fighting the Japanese, and they lived through it. If they had invaded Tokyo or waited for a blockade to make the most stubborn government in the world surrender, they might very well have not made it.
[/b]

An emotive personal anecdote, while it surely exemplifies how the war touched many families, has no place in a much broader debate about the justifications of the actions of an administration.

Originally Posted by Universal

The Japanese started the war with us, so if anybody was going to be sacrificed, it was not going to be Americans.
[/b]

This point is moot. I, for one, see the Japanese attack on pearl harbour as a pre-emptive strike - I believe that there was a very good chance the US would have enetered the war eventually anyway. However, it can still safely be said that Japan initiated hostilities. Nevertheless, your valuing of American life over Japanese life is quite disturbing. On both sides, the soldiers and civilians themselves who ultimately died, had little or no say in high politics. I think it is wholly unjust and simplistic to condemn the soldiers and civilians for the actions of the administration.

Originally Posted by Universal

The Japanese would have been fighting with sticks and rocks until the cows swam home from across the ocean had it not been for the mega-shocks of the atomic bombs.
[/b]

This is a highly debatable point, and one which I would personally strongly disagree with.

All other routes were, perhaps, not as definite as the use of nuclear weapons. But this does NOT justify the resort to nuclear weapons, just because of the "iffiness" of diplomacy. Diplomacy is ALWAYS iffy. ALWAYS. You can NEVER be sure what the other party's true intentions are. If the "iffyness" of other options is to be used as a justification of the resort to nuclear weapons, then why do we ever have diplomacy?

World War II had to end. We had tried diplomacy, and it was not ending the war. We were being played with like a yo-yo. We did not want to mess around with iffiness any more. We wanted the war to end. We had given diplomacy a chance before and during the war.

[/quote] Plus, what is CRUCIAL in the case of Japan and the US, is that not only did President Truman choose nuclear weapons over diplomacy, but he took ACTIVE STEPS to STOP any efforts to resolve the situation through diplomacy. He cut of lines of communication with the japanese by instructing diplomats of mediating neutral countries to pay no attention to Japanese attempts to seek a diplomatic peace. [/quote]

No, Truman did try diplomacy. It was not working.

[/quote] EVEN if you to are accept that the use of nuclear weapons is at ALL a viable, justifiable option, President Truman should have at least ATTEMPTED diplomacy. He did not, and took active steps to the contrary. [/quote]

He did. In fact, the U.S. did not even want to go to war with Japan. We were being diplomatic. The outrage at Pearl Harbor shows that we were not even prepared for war with Japan. Japan was not big on diplomacy back in those days.

[/quote] This is a very cursory, overly simplistic, and warped interpretation of Japans efforts to seek a diplomatic solution. [/quote]

It sums it up. What they were seeking was aggression against us. They could have at any time said, "Sorry about the thousands we killed at your harbor and the thousands we killed when you responded. We made a mistake with our refusal to be diplomatic. We quit." They were not doing that.

[/quote] I find this quite disturbing... this is essentially valuing the lives of American soldiers over Japanese civilians. This is a very dangerous attitude. [/quote]

I do not believe on a personal level that the lives of Americans are worth more than the lives of Japanese civilians. However, a government's responsibility is to its own people first, not first to the civilians that live under an enemy government. I am saying that we had no responsiblity to sacrifice any more American lives for the sake of saving Japanese lives and that the American lives were the first responsibility of our government.

[/quote] An emotive personal anecdote, while it surely exemplifies how the war touched many families, has no place in a much broader debate about the justifications of the actions of an administration. [/quote]

It is one illustration of the American interest in not sacrificing any more of our own soldiers.

[/quote]This point is moot. I, for one, see the Japanese attack on pearl harbour as a pre-emptive strike - I believe that there was a very good chance the US would have enetered the war eventually anyway. [/quote]

Against the Nazis, yes, of course. They were going to take over the world otherwise. We did not want to go to war with Japan, until they attacked us.

[/quote] However, it can still safely be said that Japan initiated hostilities. Nevertheless, your valuing of American life over Japanese life is quite disturbing. [/quote]

I don't. But my grandfathers, for example, had no responsibility to keep fighting just because we had not waited long enough for the Japanese government to stop playing games. And like I said, our soldiers are my government's responsibility long before the civilians of Japan. By the way, I hate the fact that even one Japanese person had to die. It sucks. But I blame that on the government of Japan, including the soldiers. They put us in a really screwed up situation. I have nothing against the civilians of Japan, or for that matter, today's Japanese government.

[/quote] On both sides, the soldiers and civilians themselves who ultimately died, had little or no say in high politics. I think it is wholly unjust and simplistic to condemn the soldiers and civilians for the actions of the administration. [/quote]

I sure as Hell don't condemn the civilians for it. But I do condemn the soldiers. They can all get in line to jump in a volcano and suffocate under the ashes on the way up. Screw those sorry sons of bitches. If somebody puts a gun to your head and tells you to start killing people unjustifiably, you have a responsibility to just be shot. I don't accept their excuse that their government made them do it. If your government told you to blow up Pearl Harbor, would you?

[/quote] This is a highly debatable point, and one which I would personally strongly disagree with.
[/quote]

It worked on Japan.

Goddamn it! The quote part of the forum software is kind of annoying, huh?

I still disagree fundamentally with regards to Truman's use, or rather neglect of use, of diplomacy. At the START of the war he did use diplomatic channels, this is true. After all, when two countries are not at war, such as Japan and America before P harbour, one only expects that there will be an active diplomatic relationship. HOWEVER this does not at ALL present evidence that in the months preceding Hiroshima and Naga, Truman pursued diplomatic options.

In the few months before the unleashing of nuclear weapons, he neglected those channels and indeed took activesteps to cut them off. He simply had no intention of accepting anything less than the utter humiliation of Japan.

And nor was Japan "toying" with the US. A reasonable amount of evidence for this is in the numerous and very emphatic statements of expert opinion by individuals in very high-ranked military, political and diplomatic positions that Japan was urgently seeking a diplomatic "out", in fact, months before hiro and naga. Such opinions would NOT have been so vocally expressed, especially given the extremely sensitive nature surrounding the atom bombs, had it not been VERY clear that the Japanese attempts and diplomacy been anything less than serious. The situation of Japan before hiro and naga, that of a nation on the verge of collapse, also points to this. And most of all, there are NUMEROUS accounts of the Emperor's very strong pushes for peace. Even to the extent that he was willing to override the War Council and bully them into submission.

A diplomatic solution could have been made with ease between the two countries. President Truman was well aware of this. Hiro and Naga were part of a deliberate attempt to exercise American military might and influence, humiliate Japan, and intimidate Russia. It was cold-blooded genocide, and in my mind, ranks right up there with the Holocaust itself. In my mind, Truman is a war criminal guilty of atrocities just as reprehensible as those of Hitler.

I think the disagreement between me and you might have to do with what we consider viable diplomacy. A Japanese surrender was welcome whenever they were ready, which happened to not show itself for years until immediately after the nukes were dropped. Screw the Japanese government for being so selfishly stubborn. Truman was not going to accept anything other than a surrender. That is true. But what should he have accepted? The U.S. is not going to reward attacking the U.S. We are not going to say, "Hey, you just came out of nowhere and killed 3,000 of us. How can we reward you and get you to leave us alone?" That would be terrible policy, and it is unrealistic and unfair to hold us to that standard. We did not want war, but Japan gave us no choice. We wanted the war to end the whole time, but only under reasonable circumstances.

We both agree that Pearl Harbor was unprovoked. After that, the only viable diplomacy would inherently involve Japanese surrender. The Emporer of Japan could have done that much earlier than he did. He was not interested in diplomacy of any worth. He was sociopathically stubborn, even to the point of allowing for a great deal of preventable death. He is no better than Hitler. He has a great deal of blood on his hands, and that did not have to happen. Are you angry at him for that? We did what we had to do, which was not to roll over. We had to fight against attacks on us, not reward them. The same goes for Al Qaeda. We are not ever going to say, "Hey, Al Qaeda is mad at us. That is why they crashed airplanes full of innocents into buildings full of innocents. How can we give them what they want?" We don't think that way, and hopefully we never will.

Originally Posted by Universal

The Emporer of Japan could have done that much earlier than he did. He was not interested in diplomacy of any worth. He was sociopathically stubborn, even to the point of allowing for a great deal of preventable death.
[/b]

I completely disagree with you over this point, and I think you may have your facts wrong - Emperor Hirohito, right from the start of WWII, was extremely unwilling to ally with the Axis powers... and Hirohito, in the months before the nuclear bombings, pushed strongly for peace. It was Japan's War Council which issued a lot of the rhetoric supporting the "fight them to the last" attitude to which you are referring.

Originally Posted by Universal

A Japanese surrender was welcome whenever they were ready, which happened to not show itself for years until immediately after the nukes were dropped.
[/b]

No, it was most certainly not. As I have already said, in the months before the bombings, Japan made very serious and very real attempts at finding a way to end the war through diplomacy.

Originally Posted by Universal

Truman was not going to accept anything other than a surrender. That is true.
[/b]

No, it is not true. Japan had already indicated its willingness to surrender... what Truman wanted was an UNCONDITIONAL surrender. This the japanese could not accept, as they feared that such a surrender would mean the end of the Imperial Dynasty. Something which the US had no right to demand, and something was not even in their best interests, especially given the moderation of Emperor Hirohito during WWII.

Originally Posted by Universal

The U.S. is not going to reward attacking the U.S. We are not going to say, "Hey, you just came out of nowhere and killed 3,000 of us. How can we reward you and get you to leave us alone?" That would be terrible policy, and it is unrealistic and unfair to hold us to that standard.
[/b]

Truman chose to utterly humiliate the Japanese and massacre over 100,000 of their civilians. President Truman could still have had his surrender from the japanese had he not been so determined to push for an unneccessary unconditional surrender which would serve no additional purpose than to humiliate japan.

Instead, Truman chose to demonstrate and cement US power to the soviets and unleashed the Nuclear Bomb. It was not neccessary. It was a war crime. Genocide.

I completely disagree with you over this point, and I think you may have your facts wrong - Emperor Hirohito, right from the start of WWII, was extremely unwilling to ally with the Axis powers... and Hirohito, in the months before the nuclear bombings, pushed strongly for peace. It was Japan's War Council which issued a lot of the rhetoric supporting the "fight them to the last" attitude to which you are referring.

He pushed for surrender? How hard? And of course I am not talking about surrender where they still get rewarded for intitiating the horrible war. Are you also suggesting that the Emporer had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor? He is completely innocent? In such a case, I would aim my bitching at those in the government who made the decision. They can all suck dirt.

[/quote] No, it was most certainly not. As I have already said, in the months before the bombings, Japan made very serious and very real attempts at finding a way to end the war through diplomacy. [/quote]

I already responded to that point. They did not surrender, so any whining they did about wanting diplomacy was an inadequate crock.

[/quote] No, it is not true. Japan had already indicated its willingness to surrender... what Truman wanted was an UNCONDITIONAL surrender. This the japanese could not accept, as they feared that such a surrender would mean the end of the Imperial Dynasty. Something which the US had no right to demand, and something was not even in their best interests, especially given the moderation of Emperor Hirohito during WWII. [/quote]

We had a right to ask for unconditional surrender. Again, we were not going to reward an attack on us. We have no mercy on governments that do that, and they don't deserve it. And I'm glad we screwed up their imperial dynasty. Imperial dynasties suck. Japan has become an awesome country due to our crashing of the sick party.

[/quote] Truman chose to utterly humiliate the Japanese and massacre over 100,000 of their civilians. President Truman could still have had his surrender from the japanese had he not been so determined to push for an unneccessary unconditional surrender which would serve no additional purpose than to humiliate japan. [/quote]

Once again, attackers can't be choosers. We refuse to reward such junk. They should not get their way one single spec for that stuff. They either call off their crap or get blown away. No mercy. Screw any government that wants to try that type of crap in the future. They can all go to Hell with the Taliban, the Nazis, and the Hussein regime.

[/quote] Instead, Truman chose to demonstrate and cement US power to the soviets and unleashed the Nuclear Bomb. It was not neccessary. It was a war crime. Genocide.
[/quote]

That is conjecture. It is not even a theory. Just a hypothesis. The U.S. view of Japan was that they attacked us, we fought back, we were willing to stop fighting them when they surrendered, and we were not going to let them get their way. We don't reward attacks against us, and we shouldn't. We used the nukes because nothing else was working. We had been fighting them for years, and all we got in regard to surrender was a bunch of waffling jibber jabber. The nukes resulted in immediate surrender, finally, at which point we stopped fighting back. Any anger over this horrendous situation should be directed at the Japanese government. Do you have as much anger toward the Japanese government as you do toward the American government?

Your entire argument boils down, essentially, to the proposition that Japan's initiating of the war through the attack on Pearl Harbour, a legitimate military target, though agreeably a suprise attack without a prior declaration of war, justified the later killing of 100,000+ Japanese civilians. This is an utter fallacy.

As to your comments on "they did not surrender", perhaps you are unfamiliar with the workings of diplomacy - ANY surrender of a nation is not simply done by a country putting up it's hands and lying on the ground. This is an overly simplistic view of the process. A surrender, just as any other diplomatic agreement, must be negotiated and settled, the terms decided. And it is exactly this process that Hirohito strove for, overriding the War Council and taking matters into his own hands.

And as for your comment "And I'm glad we screwed up their imperial dynasty. Imperial dynasties suck. Japan has become an awesome country due to our crashing of the sick party."... This to me underlines your ignorance. both before, during, and after the War, Hirohito, the Japanese Emperor, was almost the sole voice of sanity within the Japanese wartime regime... he strongly resisted the initiation of hostilities, and strongly pushed for their cessation. I think you need to break out of the stereotypical American mentality that hereditory monarchies are bad. In many cases, such as the present, a monarch independant of elections and popular opinion, can often be a voice of sanity and of reason... as was Hirohito who was, despiute the atrocities of his nation, a great man.

"Do you have as much anger toward the Japanese government as you do toward the American government?"
Most certainly, I do. The Japanese, in fact, committed even greater acts of genocide than the Nazis, a fact which is often unrecognised and overlooked... they killed more chinese civilians than the Nazis did with the Final Solution. Nevertheless, this still does not justify the atrocity committed by Mr. Truman.

"That is conjecture. It is not even a theory. Just a hypothesis."
It is a theory that is widely held by many experts and the masses alike. It is a theory that fits the evidence better than any other, and while surely distasteful in its implications for Mr. Truman, makes a hell of a lot more sense than the official line offered up as justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The first bomb was unneccecary, why didn't they just showed the power they possesed by blowing up a militairy base? Why did they choose a civilian target?

The second bomb was proof that america lost it's mind (and still hasn't found it back).

-

And people are still being born with deformations becouse of the bombs. America should have nuked a remote miletairy base, and just demand japans surrender. I am sure they would have. If not, nuke some more remote fcking places, to make a point, instead of cities with innocent people.

Neuro you obviously know NOTHING about hiroshima or nagasaki.
Both had military bases, which were "hidden" by the city. The cities were also MAJOR war production cities. We did not choose them just to kill a shit load of civilians. If we wanted that we would have hit Tokyo.

The blue meanie.
The kind of skum that without reason kills 3,000 of our soldiers while they slept does not DESERVE ANYTHING on their own terms. Plain and simple. We wanted UNCONDITIONAL surrender as a deterant against future agression. If the emperor were to remain in power, our country would look week. And our soldiers didnt fight island to island, loosing thousands of soldiers so Japan could just "call it even". Japan fucked up, and they had to pay the price.
This is just another example of how you blame America first. Japan awoke a giant. They had to deal with it.

Why do you always insist that America is the problem? No matter how many of our people die or what the enemy does, America can never do anything right in your eyes.

You dont give second chances to your enemy, especially in a world war.


If someone just walked up and broke your nose for no reason, are you telling me you would go easy on them?

one more thing, neuro.

Japan was both smart and stupid. They put their military bases in the cities to hide them and deter any bombings (for fear of death of civilians). I guess they were wrong

The point is there were no "remote military bases". Anywhere we bombed would have killed civilians.

Originally Posted by Hominus

The blue meanie.
The kind of skum that without reason kills 3,000 of our soldiers while they slept does not DESERVE ANYTHING on their own terms. This is just another example of how you blame America first. Japan awoke a giant. They had to deal with it.
[/b]

That's not true they had reason to start some static with the U.S. What about Gunboat Diplomacy? Or how the U.S. reneged on the treaty that "THEY" proposed to the Japanese in the late 19th century? Or what about threats to impose the Japanese Exclusion Act? All of these factors and then some was enough to piss of the Japanese.

Originally Posted by Hominus

Why do you always insist that America is the problem? No matter how many of our people die or what the enemy does, America can never do anything right in your eyes.
[/b]

Because America is the problem you can't say one thing to a group of people and turn around and take it back! How messed up is that? What happened at Pearl Harbor was a tragic event, but on that same note I don't see why everyone's acting like it was a surprise attack the government knew the Japanese was eventually going to take action. The Government new a strike was preemptive and they did nothing. This reminds me of something recent, something right around the corner. Oh I know 9/11 It's kind of funny how we seem to always get caught with our pants down.

I voted no. Because it didn't save lives. The Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. That was it. After the war ended none of the Japanese leaders including the Emperor was subjected to a war crimes trial and the Emperor was kept in his position. So when you look at it there was no need for a bomb. The bomb was dropped to show the Soviets what USA is made off and to make Stalin back off from any excessive demands or activity in the post-war period.

Your entire argument boils down, essentially, to the proposition that Japan's initiating of the war through the attack on Pearl Harbour, a legitimate military target, though agreeably a suprise attack without a prior declaration of war, justified the later killing of 100,000+ Japanese civilians. This is an utter fallacy.

If I actually made that point, it would be a fallacy. Since you have initiated insulting remarks against me personally instead of just my points, here we go... For some reason, you keep misconstruing my points. I hope that is not a result of intellectual dishonesty. Is it? My point was that Japan needed to surrender. Yes, we wanted unconditional surrender on our terms, not the unfair ones of our initiating and ongoing attackers. What we got instead was years of fighting. What stopped their crap? The nukes. I did not say anywhere that we should have nuked two cities due to Pearl Harbor alone. I challenge you to show me where I did. You left out the part about ongoing fighting and refusing to surrender on our terms. I know I have talked about those factors. Do I need to show you where?

[/quote] As to your comments on "they did not surrender", perhaps you are unfamiliar with the workings of diplomacy - ANY surrender of a nation is not simply done by a country putting up it's hands and lying on the ground. This is an overly simplistic view of the process. A surrender, just as any other diplomatic agreement, must be negotiated and settled, the terms decided. And it is exactly this process that Hirohito strove for, overriding the War Council and taking matters into his own hands. [/quote]

On his douchebag terms, not ours. Attackers can't be choosers. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with such complicated logic. Do you assert that our demands were too much, considering all those bastards did? Harsh responses and demands are absolutely necessary when it comes to dealing with such an element. Of course there is a "Hell to pay" factor for attacking us. I'm glad the rest of the world became more familiar with that stance of ours.

[/quote] And as for your comment "And I'm glad we screwed up their imperial dynasty. Imperial dynasties suck. Japan has become an awesome country due to our crashing of the sick party."... This to me underlines your ignorance. both before, during, and after the War, Hirohito, the Japanese Emperor, was almost the sole voice of sanity within the Japanese wartime regime... he strongly resisted the initiation of hostilities, and strongly pushed for their cessation. I think you need to break out of the stereotypical American mentality that hereditory monarchies are bad. In many cases, such as the present, a monarch independant of elections and popular opinion, can often be a voice of sanity and of reason... as was Hirohito who was, despiute the atrocities of his nation, a great man. [/quote]

A "great man"? Perhaps that opinion of yours is part of the problem here. Do you claim that he had nothing to do with the atrocities committed by Japan in WWII? Do you? There was nothing he could do about any of it? Was he really that weak of an emporer? Japan has become an excellent country since WWII, one that does not attack countries unjustifiably, one with a kick ass economy, one that does a great deal of good for international commerce and world economy, one that is a great ally for the United States in the international endeavors we engage in for the world, one that is truly free. The Japan the world knew during and before WWII was quite different, quite horrible. I'm glad we could help their society come around.

[/quote] "Do you have as much anger toward the Japanese government as you do toward the American government?"
Most certainly, I do. The Japanese, in fact, committed even greater acts of genocide than the Nazis, a fact which is often unrecognised and overlooked... they killed more chinese civilians than the Nazis did with the Final Solution. Nevertheless, this still does not justify the atrocity committed by Mr. Truman. [/quote]

I'm glad to see you say that. I was starting to really wonder. And the "great man" was completely opposed to all of it?

[/quote] "That is conjecture. It is not even a theory. Just a hypothesis."
It is a theory that is widely held by many experts and the masses alike. It is a theory that fits the evidence better than any other, and while surely distasteful in its implications for Mr. Truman, makes a hell of a lot more sense than the official line offered up as justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki
[/quote]

The fact that people considered by some to be "experts" believe it does not make it a theory. There is not a strong enough basis for it to be a true theory. However, the concept that I illustrated as to why the nukes were dropped is based on observable realities and concluded logically from them. The Japanese did waffle on surrender. We were losing large numbers of soldiers every day. We did have a way to put an end to that. We employed that method after trying diplomacy. It worked, as we said it would. There are no large holes in that theory. You see some reason that Truman MIGHT have used the nukes, a reason that is out of the boundaries of the situation directly at hand and that had nothing to do with the predictions and corresponding unfoldings of the Japanese surrender, and just assume that it is true. That is a hypothesis, just like saying the moon landing was faked in a studio or that the war in Iraq is about an American corporate oil conspiracy. It sounds interesting on late night radio shows about government conspiracies and alien abductions, but it does not involve tightly sound reasoning.

I got one question for all you people
If Japan was "on the verge of surrender", then why didnt they surrender after the first bombing in Hiroshima? Instead, they waited 2 weeks for Nagasaki to blow up

If they really meant to surrender, they would have done so after Hiroshima. Period. It doesnt seem to me that they were THAT close to surrender.

Answer that directly.

Originally Posted by kramari

I voted no. Because it didn't save lives. The Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. That was it. After the war ended none of the Japanese leaders including the Emperor was subjected to a war crimes trial and the Emperor was kept in his position. So when you look at it there was no need for a bomb. The bomb was dropped to show the Soviets what USA is made off and to make Stalin back off from any excessive demands or activity in the post-war period.
[/b]

If you are going to get specific about the demands, please give us a link. Maybe you are right about that. I'll have to look it up. But my point is that when a government attacks you, THEY don't get to decide jack crap. A country has to handle such situations in a very strong manner. Otherwise, they look weak and submissive on the world stage, and that is unthinkably dangerous. Wouldn't you say? IF what you are saying is true, even that would make sense. It would be a message to the enemy that WE decide the surrender terms because WE don't put up with your crap. Refusing a surrender on their terms and then still getting a surrender from them and then giving them their terms because we are not concerned with them sends a message to them AND the rest of the world-- "DON'T ATTACK US!!!!!!!!!&#3 3;!!! WHEN YOU DO, WE DECIDE WHAT'S WHAT!!!!!!! " That message goes out to the enemy and everybody else, not just the Soviet Union. The United States does not negotiate with our attackers. We tear them up until they submit to us. That is the only logical way to handle such a thing. The only way. Acting like France just gets you your country taken over. Our country was founded on the relentless refusal to be controlled by another country, and our continuation of that mentality is why we are still free and the leading protector of the free world. The whole free world benefits from that stance because everybody knows the U.S. military will jump in and help countries that get unjustifiably attacked. A lot of safety comes with having that.

I don't say any of that out of personal arrogance. I have never fought in a war myself. I say "we" only because it is my country I am talking about. I did not earn my country's freedom, and I have never defended it with a weapon. My point is that I am damn glad there is a country of people who think like I described because it keeps a lot of the world safe, including me. I am very appreciative of it. I would be saying the same thing about the U.S. military if I lived anywhere else in the free world, which I have. The U.S. military, which I have never been part of, deserves a great deal of gratitude.

Link

btw I heard one of the americans who dropped one of the bombs commit suicide because he realized how many people he mass murdered. Is that true?

The whole free world benefits from that stance because everybody knows the U.S. military will jump in and help countries that get unjustifiably attacked. A lot of safety comes with having that. [/b]

btw how often does the US help palestine?


This gets off topic...but is a reply to some previous posts of the greatness of america.

The U.S. military, which I have never been part of, deserves a great deal of gratitude. [/b]

gratitude? Does anyone remeber Nicaragua when they were subjected to violent assault by the U.S. Tens of thousands of people died?

The U.S. is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court ((the usa would have been condemned by the Security Council, except that it vetoed the resolution.)) and that rejected a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law. It continues international terrorism. That example’s the least of it. And there are also what are in comparison, minor examples. Everybody here was quite properly outraged by the Oklahoma City bombing, and for a couple of days, the headlines all read, Oklahoma City looks like Beirut. I didn’t see anybody point out that Beirut also looks like Beirut, and part of the reason is that the Reagan Administration had set off a terrorist bombing there in 1985 that was very much like Oklahoma City, a truck bombing outside a mosque timed to kill the maximum number of people as they left. It killed eighty and wounded two hundred, aimed at a Muslim cleric whom they didn’t like and whom they missed. It was not very secret. I don’t know what name you give to the attack that’s killed maybe a million civilians in Iraq and maybe a half a million children, which is the price the Secretary of State says we’re willing to pay. Is there a name for that? Supporting Israeli atrocities is another one. Supporting Turkey’s crushing of its own Kurdish population, for which the Clinton Administration gave the decisive support, 80 percent of the arms, escalating as atrocities increased, is another. Or take the bombing of the Sudan, one little footnote, so small that it is casually mentioned in passing in reports on the background to the Sept. 11 crimes. How would the same commentators react if the bin Laden network blew up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S. and the facilities for replenishing them? Or Israel? Or any country where people “matter”? Although that’s not a fair analogy, because the U.S. target is a poor country which had few enough drugs and vaccines to begin with and can’t replenish them. Nobody knows how many thousands or tens of thousands of deaths resulted from that single atrocity, and bringing up that death toll is considered scandalous. If somebody did that to the U.S. or its allies, can you imagine the reaction? In this case we say, Oh, well, too bad, minor mistake, let’s go on to the next topic. Other people in the world don’t react like that. When bin Laden brings up that bombing, he strikes a resonant chord, even with people who despise and fear him, and the same, unfortunately, is true of much of the rest of his rhetoric.

Or to return to “our own little region over here,” as Henry Stimson called it, take Cuba. After many years of terror beginning in late 1959, including very serious atrocities, Cuba should have the right to resort to violence against the U.S. according to U.S. doctrine that is scarcely questioned. It is, unfortunately, all too easy to continue, not only with regard to the U.S. but also other terrorist states.[/b]

"From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair." [/b]

-William Blum.

"[Genocide] certainly is a valid word in my view, when you have a situation where we see thousands of deaths per month, a possible total of I million to 1.5 million over the last nine years. If that is not genocide, then I don't know quite what is." - Denis Halliday, former UN humanitarian coordinator - on effect of US sanctions on Iraqi people [/b]

The six million people the CIA has helped to kill are people of the Mitumba Mountains of the Congo, the jungles of Southeast Asia, and the hills of northern Nicaragua. They are people without ICBMs or armies or navies, incapable of doing physical damage to the United States the 22,000 killed in Nicaragua, for example, are not Russians; they are not Cuban soldiers or advisors; they are not even mostly Sandinistas. A majority are rag-poor peasants, including large numbers of women and children. - John Stockwell, former CIA official and author[/b]

- Chomsky on the us is a terrorist state.

btw I heard one of the americans who dropped one of the bombs commit suicide because he realized how many people he mass murdered. Is that true?

Not that I know of. The guys who did that did not get much personal recognition in the world, if any. It would mess with my head really bad. I know that. I say from a purely logical standpoint that the bombs needed to be dropped for the greater good, but I am not the person for that job. I would hate it. I'm sure the people who dropped the bombs hated it. It is a terrible thing to have to do. Screw the Japanese government of 1945 for giving us no choice.

[/quote] btw how often does the US help palestine?
This gets off topic...but is a reply to some previous posts of the greatness of america.[/quote]

Help them what? Commit suicide bombings at family eateries due to no rational calculations regarding the greater good? For their refusal to share a democratic society with the Jews? For being run by our enemy Hamas? Why in the world would we help any of that? We defend the democracy they want to destroy instead.





[/quote] gratitude? Does anyone remeber Nicaragua when they were subjected to violent assault by the U.S. Tens of thousands of people died? [/quote]

We were fighting the cold war, and the government of Nicaragua was on the wrong side. War has unfortunate side effects. But guess what... YOU get to live in a world that was never taken over by the Soviet/communist push toward owning you. Guess whom you can thank for that. The same country that played a vital role in stopping the Nazis from taking over the world.



The quoting mechanism would not quote the rest for some reason. Chomsky has the credibility of Bin Laden because he hates the U.S. just as much. I don't care what he has to say. You might as well quote Hitler. The rest of what you quoted shows a lack of belief in the dichotomy between legitimate war effort and killing out of pure rage. As I said in another post, it is legitimate to blow up a mall full of people if it is the only way to stop a few people from blowing up the entire city. But it is not legitimate to blow up a mall just because you're mad and want to hurt random innocents. That is what Palestinian suicide bombers do. What we do is not even in the same ball park.

If it were not for the United States, you would be living in a German speaking police state, if you are white and healthy. Otherwise, you and your kind would not exist. If the U.S. had played a vital role in stopping Nazi world take over but not stopped the Soviets, you would be speaking Russian and living on a communist planet. Well, at least you would in upcoming decades. We are now dealing with Islamofascists who want YOU dead as fried chicken and to end civilization as we know it. They want a world run by the Koran and extreme oppression. Fighting such things has unfortunate side effects/collateral damage. That is terrible, very terrible, but fighting such things is absolutely necessary. Somebody has to do it, and don't hold your breath for it to be France.

Link

Okay, thanks for the link. But can you provide one from a major news outlet that competes with other major news outlets and has a great deal to lose if they lie, as did Dan Rather at CBS and the reporter at the New York Times? This is major stuff you are talking about, and the source you provided is quite obscure and not credible. In the mean time, I will research the specifics myself, but be careful what internet sources you trust. When somebody has a political agenda in reporting and has nothing to lose by lying, they will. I mean, we have a guy (Leo) on this very web site claiming that Jesus walked away from the crucifixion scene and hung out in India for a while.



EDIT: Allright, I found a good link. It is the BBC (British Broadcast Company) web site. The BBC has everything in the world to lose for lying. They would lose most of their viewers. This article does not say directly what the Japanese demands were, but it does help put things in perspective. In the "In Context" part, it discusses the reasons the Emporer was not tried for war crimes after he flat out said that he would take responsibility for his government's atrocities. That doesn't sound like he was innocent the whole time. He was never tried or taken out of power because he was given a chance to help us reform the country. As a result, Japan is the great country it is today. Also, we wanted Japan to surrender, period, and not to surrender after meeting their demands. We don't do that with our attackers. As I have said, that would be horrifically dangerous. No matter what their demands were, they were in no position to have demands. Their refusal to drop their demands for so long is what resulted in years of fighting and finally the dropping of the two atomic bombs.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:czu1d...t=clnk&cd=1

But there was definately no need to drop 2 bombs.

After the first bomb was dropped the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. But the second bomb came too soon. Japan wasn't even given time to unconditionally surrender.

Some say that the second bomb was an experiment to test the plutonium bomb (Hiroshima was bombed with a uranium bomb)

I figured my link as it was a summary of the book of an American historian has some credibility.

Originally Posted by Universal

EDIT: Allright, I found a good link. It is the BBC (British Broadcast Company) web site. The BBC has everything in the world to lose for lying. They would lose most of their viewers. This article does not say directly what the Japanese demands were, but it does help put things in perspective. In the "In Context" part, it discusses the reasons the Emporer was not tried for war crimes after he flat out said that he would take responsibility for his government's atrocities. That doesn't sound like he was innocent the whole time. He was never tried or taken out of power because he was given a chance to help us reform the country. As a result, Japan is the great country it is today. Also, we wanted Japan to surrender, period, and not to surrender after meeting their demands. We don't do that with our attackers. As I have said, that would be horrifically dangerous. No matter what their demands were, they were in no position to have demands. Their refusal to drop their demands for so long is what resulted in years of fighting and finally the dropping of the two atomic bombs.
[/b]

During the years between Pearl Harbour and the start of 1944, the Japanese did make demands, this is true. But it is not the point.

At least two months before the dropping of the atomic bombs, the Japanese were pushing for a surrender. A surrender the ONLY significant condition of which was the rentention of the Imperial Dynasty as a constitutional monarchy.

Ironically, the terms of the ACTUAL surrender accepted by the US were NO different than those the japanese were pushing for months before the detonation of the nuclear bombs.

As I stated here

Originally Posted by kramari

I voted no. Because it didn't save lives. The Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. That was it. After the war ended none of the Japanese leaders including the Emperor was subjected to a war crimes trial and the Emperor was kept in his position. So when you look at it there was no need for a bomb. The bomb was dropped to show the Soviets what USA is made off and to make Stalin back off from any excessive demands or activity in the post-war period.
[/b]

Help them what? Commit suicide bombings at family eateries due to no rational calculations regarding the greater good? For their refusal to share a democratic society with the Jews? For being run by our enemy Hamas? Why in the world would we help any of that? We defend the democracy they want to destroy instead. [/b]

wtf? Hamas was elected democratically? they are trying to destroy themselves??? jesus christ...

The quoting mechanism would not quote the rest for some reason. Chomsky has the credibility of Bin Laden because he hates the U.S. just as much. I don't care what he has to say. You might as well quote Hitler. The rest of what you quoted shows a lack of belief in the dichotomy between legitimate war effort and killing out of pure rage. As I said in another post, it is legitimate to blow up a mall full of people if it is the only way to stop a few people from blowing up the entire city. But it is not legitimate to blow up a mall just because you're mad and want to hurt random innocents. That is what Palestinian suicide bombers do. What we do is not even in the same ball park. [/b]

damn I made a mistake! I was going to leave out Chomsky's name at the end of the article...because I knew there'd be some shallow..narrow minded person who wouldn't even read it because who said it. As bin laden? well I wouldn't say chomsky has quite that much credibility...but shouldn't you read his argument and then disagree because of what he says not who he is? btw Chomsky has said america is the best country in the world...he just points out its not perfect and questions things from time to time without blindly following. I don't see how that is hating america as much as bin Laden? and then you said I might as well have quoted HItler? if I quote chomsky I might as well quote hitler? lol

The rest of what you quoted shows a lack of belief in the dichotomy between legitimate war effort and killing out of pure rage.[/b]

reallly?


hmm anyways now im hopelessly off topic. ...and I was just trying to talk like a politician, make my point and Then if I feel like it stay on topic and be part of the actual debate...why in the world did I want to talk liek politician? I have no idea.

I don't even have a segway...hmm too bad...but what blue meanie and kramari are saying is the point of the whole debate.

Ironically, the terms of the ACTUAL surrender accepted by the US were NO different than those the japanese were pushing for months before the detonation of the nuclear bombs.[/b]

so Clearly the bomb was dropped for more than making the japanese surrender...and more than making them surrender on our terms.

Originally Posted by Hominus

The point is there were no "remote military bases". Anywhere we bombed would have killed civilians.
[/b]

If that justifies killing civilians, we disagree.