[QUOTE=s0m3_guy;35745303]how old are you?[/QUOTE]
What on earth are you even on about?
Actually come up with a proper argument rather than just throwing irrelevant questions at me.
[editline]28th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;35749701]so if somebody punches you in the face you think it's a cool idea to go to their house and murder their family[/QUOTE]
How is that even a comparable analogy? Actual international relations and war work nothing like that.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35749703]What on earth are you even on about?
Actually come up with a proper argument rather than just throwing irrelevant questions at me.
[/QUOTE]
He actually was supporting your argument with his examples but I dont think he was meaning too.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35749703]What on earth are you even on about?
Actually come up with a proper argument rather than just throwing irrelevant questions at me.
[editline]28th April 2012[/editline]
How is that even a comparable analogy? Actual international relations and war work nothing like that.[/QUOTE]
Japan attacks a military target (ONE military target, mind you, in like the ENTIRE war,) and that justifies obliterating two civilian cities?
You can't say "they started it." Those civilians didn't start shit. Those civilians were in no position to surrender. Those civilians were in no position to fight. Innocent men, women, and children vaporized because "they started it."
Again, you cannot condemn the actions of Japan while simultaneously justifying that sort of barbarism.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35749866]Japan attacks a military target (ONE military target, mind you, in like the ENTIRE war,) and that justifies obliterating two civilian cities?
You can't say "they started it." Those civilians didn't start shit. Those civilians were in no position to surrender. Those civilians were in no position to fight. Innocent men, women, and children vaporized because "they started it."
Again, you cannot condemn the actions of Japan while simultaneously justifying that sort of barbarism.[/QUOTE]
It didn't just go, Japan attacks a naval base and then the US flew over and nuked them. There was a massive war prior to that in the pacific that cost millions of American and Japanese lives, and the continuation of the war due to the Japanese governments refusal to surrender threatened to take even more lives, so the US decided to use it's new experimental weapons and see if they could scare the Japanese into surrendering, and it worked and likely saved many more lives in the process.
I'm not saying that these people deserved what happened to them, but that it was necessary in the eyes of the Americans to finish the war.
A massive war on whose soil, again?
[editline]28th April 2012[/editline]
Because unless Japan made some other moves into US territory that I am unaware of, it remains a completely disproportionate response.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35749974]A massive war on whose soil, again?
[editline]28th April 2012[/editline]
Because unless Japan made some other moves into US territory that I am unaware of, it remains a completely disproportionate response.[/QUOTE]
The only reason they never got to US soil is because the US managed to beat them back before they could. They still attacked America and continued to fight them accross the pacific and refused to surrender once they'd finally been beaten back.
So we were beating them back but they were still enough of a threat to warrant one of the greatest atrocities in the history of war?
You're mixing messages here. On one hand, you're talking about Japan like they were the greatest threat to mankind that had ever existed, and on the other hand you're making them sound like pussies who could only manage to make one successful strike on United States soil before they started getting fucked up.
Which is it?
we have evidence now that shows Japan was waiting to surrender because they were negotiating terms with the Soviets.
the concept of the invasion having costed more lives is a moot one considering the Soviets had already invaded Japan and most of them did surrender. the people who authorized the bombing are the ones who came up with this concept of "it's either this or an invasion" to justify the bombing, it was never a real projection.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35750107]So we were beating them back but they were still enough of a threat to warrant one of the greatest atrocities in the history of war?
You're mixing messages here. On one hand, you're talking about Japan like they were the greatest threat to mankind that had ever existed, and on the other hand you're making them sound like pussies who could only manage to make one successful strike on United States soil before they started getting fucked up.
Which is it?[/QUOTE]
Well it's hardly one of the greatest atrocities, there were plenty of atrocities during and after that make the bombing pale in comparison, hell there were conventional bombings that took more lives.
As for whether they were a threat or not, they should surrendered when they were surrounded, but of course they didn't and continued to attack American forces, and had the Americans not bombed their cities, would likely have rebuilt and attacked in some way again likely leading to a war of attrition. It was the only way to get Japan to disarm.
[editline]28th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;35750181]we have evidence now that shows Japan was waiting to surrender because they were negotiating terms with the Soviets.
the concept of the invasion having costed more lives is a moot one considering the Soviets had already invaded Japan and most of them did surrender. the people who authorized the bombing are the ones who came up with this concept of "it's either this or an invasion" to justify the bombing, it was never a real projection.[/QUOTE]
From what I heard the allies requested the Japanese surrender, but the Japanese didn't respond.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35749962]so the US decided to use it's new experimental weapons and see if they could scare the Japanese into surrendering/[/QUOTE]
completely false, the Japanese were already surrendering.
[url]http://www.greenwych.ca/hiro2bmb.htm[/url]
[quote]The Target Committee of the Manhattan project believed it was desirable that the first use of the bomb be (according to notes, memos and documents formerly classified top secret for a generation) "sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it was released."[/quote]
it was a display of power, nothing more.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35750181]we have evidence now that shows Japan was waiting to surrender because they were negotiating terms with the Soviets.
the concept of the invasion having costed more lives is a moot one considering the Soviets had already invaded Japan and most of them did surrender. the people who authorized the bombing are the ones who came up with this concept of "it's either this or an invasion" to justify the bombing, it was never a real projection.[/QUOTE]
There were also mistranslations between the Emperor and Truman. Don't know the exact phrasing, but when asked if he was going to surrender, the Emperor said something akin to "we are deliberating", but Truman's translator managed to misinterpret the intent of his words as being somewhere along the lines of "fuck off."
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35750202]From what I heard the allies requested the Japanese surrender, but the Japanese didn't respond.[/QUOTE]
No, Japan said "hold on, we're thinking" and Truman thought they said something about his mother.
[editline]28th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Atlascore;35750221]Shut the fuck up, you have yet to post a single source, nor have you done any research, in an argument both sides are supposed to have evidence, wheres your's?[/QUOTE]
en.wikipedia.org/
[editline]28th April 2012[/editline]
unless you're too lazy, that is.
[editline]28th April 2012[/editline]
Also my sources are these things called books. You should try them sometime.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35743034]Your crimes don't just disappear because you were good at hiding.[/QUOTE]
"Gentlemen, lets waste money looking for 90 year old nazis to bring them to justice, even though they might die right after we waste the aforementioned money on it!"
[QUOTE=thisispain;35750217]completely false, the Japanese were already surrendering.
[url]http://www.greenwych.ca/hiro2bmb.htm[/url]
it was a display of power, nothing more.[/QUOTE]
Oh fair enough then.
Believe it or not Japan was actually far more worried about that huge Soviet invasion that hit them.
The Potsdam declaration did not involve the Soviets at all so the government treated the terms with their word for ending silence.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35750303]Believe it or not Japan was actually far more worried about that huge Soviet invasion that hit them.
The Potsdam declaration did not involve the Soviets at all so the government treated the terms with their word for ending silence.[/QUOTE]
Well actually if I recall Nagasaki was ordered for the purpose of scaring the soviet union into thinking they had more nukes than they actually did.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35750350]Well actually if I recall Nagasaki was ordered for the purpose of scaring the soviet union into thinking they had more nukes than they actually did.[/QUOTE]
It's great that you know your political history, but "scaring the soviet union into thinking they had more nukes than they actually did" isn't something you want to bring up if you're trying to justify nuking a city.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35750350]Well actually if I recall Nagasaki was ordered for the purpose of scaring the soviet union into thinking they had more nukes than they actually did.[/QUOTE]
you mean terrorism
[QUOTE=Mericet;35750402]It's great that you know your political history, but "scaring the soviet union into thinking they had more nukes than they actually did" isn't something you want to bring up if you're trying to justify nuking a city.[/QUOTE]
Oh no I gave up with that when the source about how Japan was ready surrender turned up.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35750425]Oh no I gave up with that when the source about how Japan was ready surrender turned up.[/QUOTE]
everyone would stop justifying the bombing if they actually read the documents and statements from the people who authorized the bombing. wanting to showcase the world that they had a huge bomb was explicitly written.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35749600]Then you can go ahead and post excerpts from those instead, and not a conveniently worded aggregate.
[editline]28th April 2012[/editline]
There is a reason why Wikipedia is not a respectable source.
That reason is because you didn't read Wikipedia's sources. You read what someone else thought of them. You didn't verify the information, you assumed it was valid. That is no proof. That is laziness on your part, not mine.[/QUOTE]
It sums it up so your small brain can understand the sources easily. You have tons of links to check out, stop being such a self entitled prick and look at them your self.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35750446]everyone would stop justifying the bombing if they actually read the documents and statements from the people who authorized the bombing. wanting to showcase the world that they had a huge bomb was explicitly written.[/QUOTE]
Don't be so sure, some people will justify just about anything.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;35750829]It sums it up so your small brain can understand the sources easily. You have tons of links to check out, stop being such a self entitled prick and look at them your self.[/QUOTE]
yes you are clearly the expert here i know because you've rated all of my posts dumb
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;35750829]It sums it up so your small brain can understand the sources easily.[/QUOTE]
says Captain Dumb who apparently only understands the "click-on-the-brown-box" method of discourse.
beat you to it
the insult was a package deal
you could say it comes in a box
[QUOTE=Lankist;35750409]you mean terrorism[/QUOTE]
Why is this being rated dumb? That is literally what it was.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;35751589]Why is this being rated dumb? That is literally what it was.[/QUOTE]
its being rated dumb because ThePinkPanzer has sand in his vagina
[QUOTE=Lankist;35751608]its being rated dumb because ThePinkPanzer has sand in his vagina[/QUOTE]
Yeah can't be your post was stupid or anything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.