(08-09-2015 05:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 05:43 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 05:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 12:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  So what you're saying is that the bombings were not justified? Or what are you saying?

my stance....
post 39

your stance is gambling on winning using additional lives and dollars to achieve success....

I can't make it any simpler....

you not understanding is not my problem.....

edit: it helps to read through the thread before responding.....unless you want a novel every time (which I'm unwilling to do)

I don't understand what you're writing because you obviously did not read the thread. I said THREE TIMES that the bombing was justified. So I don't know what you're arguing with, unless you simply like to argue, and your perception of me as a liberal completely blinds you to what I actually write in my posts.

Did anybody else on this board not understand that?

I said the bombing may not have been strictly necessary in that we could probably have won the war without that, but it would have been much more costly, to the US certainly and probably to Japan as well. And that's ignoring geopolitical considerations such as the Soviet Union trying to gain territory.

Then the bombings were necessary.

No, if we could win without them, then they weren't necessary.

To truly win a war you have to do exactly what I said earlier:

Quote:The goal of war is to defeat your opponent at the least amount of cost to yourself. That's exactly what we did, thus the use was justified.

Had we forgone dropping the bombs on Japan the amount of lives lost would have been astronomical. Remember that it took not only the two atomic bombs but six months of even more deadly fire bombing of their wood and paper cities before Japan surrendered. They were training civilians to fight American troops with spears and swords.

The bombings were both justified and necessary, and this country wouldn't have muddled through five additional wars and numerous brush-fire conflicts if we had maintained the sense of purpose that we had in 1945. When we eventually get back involved in the Middle East I pray that our leaders get it back.

(08-09-2015 02:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 02:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is never justification for killing innocent women and children. If it's justified for us then it's justified for everyone. Attempting to justify what we did makes us no better than terrorist.

The goal of war is to defeat your opponent at the least amount of cost to yourself. That's exactly what we did, thus the use was justified.

Then don't condemn those who say the same thing on another front. Be consistent.

What are you talking about?

Terrorist day the same thing in their justification of killing innocent people. That its war.

(08-09-2015 06:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 05:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 05:43 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 05:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  my stance....
post 39

your stance is gambling on winning using additional lives and dollars to achieve success....

I can't make it any simpler....

you not understanding is not my problem.....

edit: it helps to read through the thread before responding.....unless you want a novel every time (which I'm unwilling to do)

I don't understand what you're writing because you obviously did not read the thread. I said THREE TIMES that the bombing was justified. So I don't know what you're arguing with, unless you simply like to argue, and your perception of me as a liberal completely blinds you to what I actually write in my posts.

Did anybody else on this board not understand that?

I said the bombing may not have been strictly necessary in that we could probably have won the war without that, but it would have been much more costly, to the US certainly and probably to Japan as well. And that's ignoring geopolitical considerations such as the Soviet Union trying to gain territory.

Then the bombings were necessary.

No, if we could win without them, then they weren't necessary.

To truly win a war you have to do exactly what I said earlier:

Quote:The goal of war is to defeat your opponent at the least amount of cost to yourself. That's exactly what we did, thus the use was justified.

Had we forgone dropping the bombs on Japan the amount of lives lost would have been astronomical. Remember that it took not only the two atomic bombs but six months of even more deadly fire bombing of their wood and paper cities before Japan surrendered. They were training civilians to fight American troops with spears and swords.

The bombings were both justified and necessary, and this country wouldn't have muddled through five additional wars and numerous brush-fire conflicts if we had maintained the sense of purpose that we had in 1945. When we eventually get back involved in the Middle East I pray that our leaders get it back.

I think we mostly agree, except that my definition of "necessary" includes situations where it costs us much more to win than we would like it to, which is a strict definition.

They would have All fought Tooth and Nail to the Last Man & Woman standing. You wouldn't break Them conventionally.

(08-10-2015 05:42 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  They would have All fought Tooth and Nail to the Last Man & Woman standing. You wouldn't break Them conventionally.

Exactly. IMO if we had invaded Japan and defeated them conventionally we would have had a situation like Germany after WWI where after a few years an even more radical government would have come to power and we would have had to fight them again in the decades to follow. Hiroshima and Nagasaki took the Japanese culture 180 degrees from where it had been prior to the bombings. Prior to that they had been one of the most aggressive, militaristic countries not just in Asia but in the world.

Fit's just trolling you guys. No one can be that ignorant.

This

He's done a pretty good job of it as well.

You can't justify killing women and children. You just can't.

(08-09-2015 06:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 02:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 02:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is never justification for killing innocent women and children. If it's justified for us then it's justified for everyone. Attempting to justify what we did makes us no better than terrorist.

The goal of war is to defeat your opponent at the least amount of cost to yourself. That's exactly what we did, thus the use was justified.

Then don't condemn those who say the same thing on another front. Be consistent.

What are you talking about?

Terrorist day the same thing in their justification of killing innocent people. That its war.

Last time I checked wars were between governments.

(08-10-2015 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You can't justify killing women and children. You just can't.

You can when they have sworn or pledged to fight and kill our troops. At that point they become enemy combatants, not innocent civilians.

It scares me to think that you are teaching reformist history or injecting your flawed opinions into lessons for your students. There are necessary evils in this world and students need to know that. Portraying a decision like bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a mistake or 'wrong' is not only historically incorrect, but dangerous in so much as it creates a negative light of past US actions in the minds of students. There are plenty of examples of questionable US acts, but using those bombs to end WWII are not among them.

Thank God our military leaders and President didn't share your view, I may not be here today as both my grandpas was in the Navy in the South Pacific until the end of the war.

The US didn't ask to be attacked and there's no such thing as a proportional response. I'm pretty sure the Japanese didn't give a crap about all the women and children in Hawaii, the women and children in the Japanese Army brothels, the Bangka island massacre, and the murder, rape, and burning of Nanking.

(08-10-2015 11:12 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You can't justify killing women and children. You just can't.

You can when they have sworn or pledged to fight and kill our troops. At that point they become enemy combatants, not innocent civilians.

It scares me to think that you are teaching reformist history or injecting your flawed opinions into lessons for your students. There are necessary evils in this world and students need to know that. Portraying a decision like bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a mistake or 'wrong' is not only historically incorrect, but dangerous in so much as it creates a negative light of past US actions in the minds of students. There are plenty of examples of questionable US acts, but using those bombs to end WWII are not among them.

Thank God our military leaders and President didn't share your view, I may not be here today as both my grandpas was in the Navy in the South Pacific until the end of the war.

I have never said it was wrong to my students. I let them make that decision for themselves. I'm a professional, I never inject my personal opinions into my teaching.

(08-10-2015 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You can't justify killing women and children. You just can't.

Sure you can. First off it spared an immense number of American and other allied lives. That alone should be justification enough.

But here's all the justification you need:


In the 100 years between 1845 and 1945 Imperial Japan:

Invaded Taiwan (1874)
Started a war with China over control over Korea (1894)
Started a war with Russia (1904)
Invaded Manchuria (1931)
Started a second war with China (1937)
Fought numerous conflicts with the Soviet Union (1932-1941)
Started WWII in the Pacific in Dec 1941 when they attacked Hawaii, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, The Philippines and Thailand. (1941-1945)


You know how many battles, conflicts, wars, etc. Japan has caused since they surrendered in 1945?

Zero.


It's a perfect example of Owl's philosophy. They wanted to make war so we obliged them. We made it to where they realized that the price paid wasn't worth it and have been peaceful ever since.

Seems like a perfect justification to me.

(08-10-2015 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You can't justify killing women and children. You just can't.

lives=lives

I don't hold women or children in any higher regard than men. WWII was total war. It was a different ballgame then than we have now. It was the right (although unimaginably tough) call to make to drop those bombs. Had they not surrendered after two, when the next one was ready in Sept, it would have been the right call to drop that one too. Had that not worked, the invasion would have been the next step, including the Soviet invasion of the north.

I think I remember seeing the 4th (5th if you include the Trinity bomb) bomb would have been ready in December. What would they have done with that with a two front invasion going on?

Edit: Just found this, saying there would have been 4 more ready by the end of October, so in theory we could have dropped 7 total before the planned invasion in November. http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/04/2...yond-1945/

(08-10-2015 11:26 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You can't justify killing women and children. You just can't.

Sure you can. First off it spared an immense number of American and other allied lives. That alone should be justification enough.

But here's all the justification you need:


In the 100 years between 1845 and 1945 Imperial Japan:

Invaded Taiwan (1874)
Started a war with China over control over Korea (1894)
Started a war with Russia (1904)
Invaded Manchuria (1931)
Started a second war with China (1937)
Fought numerous conflicts with the Soviet Union (1932-1941)
Started WWII in the Pacific in Dec 1941 when they attacked Hawaii, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, The Philippines and Thailand. (1941-1945)


You know how many battles, conflicts, wars, etc. Japan has caused since they surrendered in 1945?

Zero.


It's a perfect example of Owl's philosophy. They wanted to make war so we obliged them. We made it to where they realized that the price paid wasn't worth it and have been peaceful ever since.

Seems like a perfect justification to me.

A part of me thinks that would also make a good Middle East strategy. Different times I guess.

(08-10-2015 08:13 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Fit's just trolling you guys. No one can be that ignorant.

Yeah, I really should know better by now.

(08-10-2015 11:53 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 08:13 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Fit's just trolling you guys. No one can be that ignorant.

Yeah, I really should know better by now.

I tried telling you guys. But I'm only human

(08-10-2015 11:47 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 11:26 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You can't justify killing women and children. You just can't.

Sure you can. First off it spared an immense number of American and other allied lives. That alone should be justification enough.

But here's all the justification you need:


In the 100 years between 1845 and 1945 Imperial Japan:

Invaded Taiwan (1874)
Started a war with China over control over Korea (1894)
Started a war with Russia (1904)
Invaded Manchuria (1931)
Started a second war with China (1937)
Fought numerous conflicts with the Soviet Union (1932-1941)
Started WWII in the Pacific in Dec 1941 when they attacked Hawaii, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, The Philippines and Thailand. (1941-1945)


You know how many battles, conflicts, wars, etc. Japan has caused since they surrendered in 1945?

Zero.


It's a perfect example of Owl's philosophy. They wanted to make war so we obliged them. We made it to where they realized that the price paid wasn't worth it and have been peaceful ever since.

Seems like a perfect justification to me.

A part of me thinks that would also make a good Middle East strategy. Different times I guess.

I agree.


I firmly believe that one of the big reasons we ended up having to go back to Iraq was the fact that the media put so much pressure on GHW Bush to end the war after the so called "Highway of Death". IMO had we hit their forces a couple more days with both air strikes and our armored forces we would have weakened the Iraqi Army to the point where they wouldn't have posed a threat to a well equipped Brownie Troop. But the bleeding hearts in the media wrung their hands and stomped their feet about us killing our enemies and he buckled. I also believe that Obama's dual capitulation in Iraq and Afghanistan is going to mean sooner or later we will be back and facing an even greater challenge.

Add long as we justify killing women and children, we cannot claim higher moral ground than terrorist.

(08-10-2015 12:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Add long as we justify killing women and children, we cannot claim higher moral ground than terrorist.

Some truth in this.