black,
ARE YOU INSANE??? I JUST POSTED THE FACT ABOVE! CAN YOU AT LEAST FOLLOW THE LINK AND READ THE QUOTES YOU ********!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?
Wasn't Saddam ousted for doing precisely this sort of thing?
by Simon 398 Replies latest social current
-
-
Pork Chop
Most people don't agree that Japan was ready to surrender. This is just revisionist history. They'd had multiple opportunities and refused to do so. They had demonstrated repeatedly that fighting to the last man was part of their culture. Better to nuke two cities than take a million casualties in an invasion.
-
Realist
pork,
if something is revisionistic history than its the attempt to justify the annihilation of two civil targets with nuclear weapons!
-
Yerusalyim
Concerning the issue of the abuse of the prisoners, the news media keeps forgetting to highlight the point that LONNNGGG before the press got ahold of this story, the system was working...there were investigations....Letters of Reprimand...and that at least six individuals will be court martialed. The big difference is that this behavior is unacceptable and the military was already taking measures to address the issue...wonder how often that happened with Saddam...oh, that's right...NEVER!
Realist
yeru,
israel has many times hit civilian targets with the excuse they wanted to hit some terrorist. for the victims the outcome is the same regardless of the claimed intention. Until you have proof that the Israelis have intentionally targeted and killed civilians you're sounding kinda hollow...to draw some type of moral equivalancy between the Palis...the ones intentionally targeting and killing men women and children, and the Israelis, who have NOT intentionally targeted civilians...is ridiculous.
also to shoot at children who throw stones is a gross violation of self defense. it is murder and you know that. When you have four soldiers and two hundred kids with stones (and guns) it's called self defense...and they still use rubber bullets in most (not all) of those situations.
about the A bombings: most peoplemost people like your circle only agree that japan was ready to surrender anyway. their only demand was that the emperor would not be put on trial since he was viewed as godlike. That was NOT their only demand to what the US called for UNCONDITIONAL surrender.
but even in case this is not true there still remains the problem of EXPLAINING THE SECOND BOMB! The second bomb was used because they refused to surrender after the first one...and still a million civilan lives were saved.
how do you explain nagasaki?
-
Realist
yeru,
just so i understand this right....the killing of israeli citizens is a crime but the annihilation of two cities killing some 300.000 civilians was justified in order to pressure japan into an unconditional surrender?
-
Yerusalyim
Realist,
As oppossed to a million or more deaths of civilians because the Japanese wouldn't surrender...it's horrible, but let's see between 200 and 300 thousand versus over a million...hmmmmm...tough call.
Were there other VIABLE options? I don't know...nor can I cange it...however,
Why so much hatred of Israel? Don't you realize that if the Palis went the Ghandi route they would already have an independent country.
-
truthseeker1
I can't help but ask this question regarding the A-bomb thing: What would you propose to do different? How would you decision be better? Its easy to look back and say something was the wrong decision.
We don't have the same infomation they had back then. At the time, it was deemed the best solution for ending the war. If americans like killing millions and millions of people, then the would do it. They would have nuked all the nations trying to make nuclear bomb before they completed the task so they could be the supreme ruler of the world.
-
Realist
yeru,
that the nukes reduced civilian losses is the newest version!
how about the palestinians detonate a nuke in israel...do you think that will reduce civilian losses?
truthseeker,
there simply was no reason to pressure japan into an unconditional surrender. despite that it would have been possible to just demonstrate the power of these weapons to the japanese instead of whiping out two cities. scientists suggested to detonate the weapon in secure distance to tokio to demonstrate it. it would also have been possible to warn the japanese so they can evacuate the city. nothing can justify this massacre.
-
Yerusalyim
Surrealist,
Again, here's the damning difference...The Palestinians are not a legitimate nation...nor is theirs a legitimate war...nor are they forced by circumstances to do such a thing. Just as Japan was, the Arabs were the aggressors in this war. There are OTHER OPTIONS...they can decide they want both peace and their own nation and STOP attacking Israel...the US wasn't given that option.
Tell ya what big guy, love them terrorists all ya want...they wanna kill you too.
there simply was no reason to pressure japan into an unconditional surrender. despite that it would have been possible to just demonstrate the power of these weapons to the japanese instead of whiping out two cities. scientists suggested to detonate the weapon in secure distance to tokio to demonstrate it. it would also have been possible to warn the japanese so they can evacuate the city. nothing can justify this massacre.
First I heard of the conversation...if it was possible...without injuring anyone...sure...that would have been a better option...with one exception...even after the Japanese saw the power of the bomb on one of it's own cities...it refused to surrender. -
truthseeker1
There were many test blasts before the bombs were detonated. Are you sure Japan was unaware of these blasts? And what would that prove.
Exactly! How can people say how others will behave in a situation? How can you say the war would have ended if they detonated bombs outside of the city? Japan wasn't stupid. They knew about the race to make the bomb. Germany was trying to make one too, and probably would have before the US if it wasn't for some outstanding Norweigans
Its easy to sit back and say what would have worked without being in the situation, and looking back 50 years and saying "you should have done..."