Lest we forget - Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a morally bankrupt gang of thugs intent on converting the world to their beliefs by any means

[/ QUOTE ]

They think the exact same thing about the U.S. - does this mean you consider their actions justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't there some qualitatively different about the way the US tries to "convert the world to its beliefs" and the way Al Qaeda does? We have done far better having the world emulate our enviable life-style than by brute force aggression espoused by them. That at least should be meaningful in determining the moral nature of the War.

[/ QUOTE ]
You haven't seen the US government use brute force aggression?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes against worse brute force aggressors.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Said I:
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm wondering why you described ground zero for only one of the two atom bombs (at Nagasaki). Am I wrong that it's because the location of ground zero at Hiroshima (a bridge in the center of the city) doesn't support your position that the civilian deaths were "collateral damage"?

[/ QUOTE ]

So I take it I was correct, then, Phil? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I missed your post. Precision bombing didn't exist, so the ground zero means little. The point I was making was that Nagasaki was filled with a large, important industrial area (the arms factory was one side of an arms making area that sprawled for several miles, ending up in the naval yards where they made torpedos. The actual site of the bombing was a coincidence caused by the weather conditions.

I readily agree that the weren't trying to contain the damage to military areas.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]

I was going to ignore your ignorant posts, however, this one is beyond ignorance. Japan cannot have (due to the conditions of surrender at the end of WWII) a navy, much less nuclear arms.
By the way, they don't have an air force either.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will come as quite a shock to the numerous sailors and airmen of the Japanese Defence Forces I spent time with during various training and exercises. They probably won't take the knowledge that DON'T EXIST too well.
Try and keep this a secret so as not to hurt their feelings.

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing that the U.S. cannot accomplish militarily with conventional weapons, other than defending against an all out invasion (using conventional weapons) by Russia or China.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to ignore this ignorant post, but, having replied to the first part...might as well tell you, that you are way off (in multiple directions) on this unsupported assertion as well. But hey, what do I know anywayz. You probably have years more military experience and knowledge than me.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was going to ignore your ignorant posts, however, this one is beyond ignorance. Japan cannot have (due to the conditions of surrender at the end of WWII) a navy, much less nuclear arms.
By the way, they don't have an air force either.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will come as quite a shock to the numerous sailors and airmen of the Japanese Defence Forces I spent time with during various training and exercises. They probably won't take the knowledge that DON'T EXIST too well.
Try and keep this a secret so as not to hurt their feelings.

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing that the U.S. cannot accomplish militarily with conventional weapons, other than defending against an all out invasion (using conventional weapons) by Russia or China.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to ignore this ignorant post, but, having replied to the first part...might as well tell you, that you are way off (in multiple directions) on this unsupported assertion as well. But hey, what do I know anywayz. You probably have years more military experience and knowledge than me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you consider MOABs conventional weapons? I do, and my understanding was that a few well placed MOABs would be as effective as nukes. Which goes back, btw, to the sub-thread on why a special place for nukes (which I proposed was due to the effects of fallout on future generations). If it isnt radiation fear, I had though we could do as much damage with non-nukes as we can with nukes. (I'm not disagreeing, Im asking)

[NewTeaBag]

On a larger scale note:

Without getting into a lot of the historical revisionism going on in htis thread (from both directions, I'll add) what exactly has The USA ever done right?

I get the impression from many posters that it is always correct to look at all US historical actions in te worst possible light and all those who engaged in any form of combat with The US in the brightest, nicest possible light.

I understand andyx's POV that since The US is his country he cares more about the things they do since they are done "tacitly" in his name, but. I get the impression that many posters simply have an "Assume the US was wrong, overboard, evil, intent on murdering children, always ONLY working towards pure greed, etc" mindset prior to entering any thought or discussion of history. This mindset lacks, at a minimum, any balance or perspective.

Perhaps the ACers are right that this government (The US one) will eventually crumble. I think less so from tax revolts and inspirations to absolute personal freedoms and property, but more likely from this internal, selfloathing malaise that seems to infect an ever growing part of it's population with the absolutist mindset that all who have attacked or attack The US are justified and anything and everything The US has done or is doing is patently wrong.

I don't for a minute espouse that all US actions, politicly or militarily, have been morally superior in all cases through history. I easily admit that significant mistakes ahve been made, are being made, and will be made. That said. Why is it so difficult for those of the "trash The US" parade so difficult to admit that The US's enemies are generally worse and on the very very very very rare occasion, perhaps, just a bit, responsible for their actions and maybe even accountable for them?

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was going to ignore your ignorant posts, however, this one is beyond ignorance. Japan cannot have (due to the conditions of surrender at the end of WWII) a navy, much less nuclear arms.
By the way, they don't have an air force either.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will come as quite a shock to the numerous sailors and airmen of the Japanese Defence Forces I spent time with during various training and exercises. They probably won't take the knowledge that DON'T EXIST too well.
Try and keep this a secret so as not to hurt their feelings.

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing that the U.S. cannot accomplish militarily with conventional weapons, other than defending against an all out invasion (using conventional weapons) by Russia or China.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to ignore this ignorant post, but, having replied to the first part...might as well tell you, that you are way off (in multiple directions) on this unsupported assertion as well. But hey, what do I know anywayz. You probably have years more military experience and knowledge than me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you consider MOABs conventional weapons? I do, and my understanding was that a few well placed MOABs would be as effective as nukes. Which goes back, btw, to the sub-thread on why a special place for nukes (which I proposed was due to the effects of fallout on future generations). If it isnt radiation fear, I had though we could do as much damage with non-nukes as we can with nukes. (I'm not disagreeing, Im asking)

[/ QUOTE ]

I would consider MOABs as merely a bigger and nastier evolution of conventional bombs. Given that their delivery method is "being dropped out of a cargo plane" their use is limited to combat against enemies with minimal air defence sophistication. Though highly effective against whatever target they hit, there numbers and slow delivery make them more a new "Air Force Showpiece" than a radical alterer of conventional conflicts in the way that armor, helicopters, advanced fleet submarines, aircraft carriers, etc were.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that attacks on the US are understandable given the US meddling in the affairs of muslim nations, and their propping up of Israeli barbarity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? No one that died in 9/11 meddled in any muslim affairs or propped up Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove your statement plz

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this a joke? The workers in the WTC don't make any foreign policy decisions. If by some miracle shot a few were then maybe their deaths were justified, but the large majority obviously didn't.
[ QUOTE ]
Once again prove your point plz do you have a list of every pilot and where they lived on the attack from pearl harbor.

[/ QUOTE ]
What the hell are you talking about? Just prior to the nucleur attacks the battlefield was very limited. It was not a choice between nuking innocent people and "war accross the globe" you fool. And if you think it was, you need to be the one to prove the positive (war accross the globe), I don't have to prove the negative (there wouldn't), mainly because it's impossible.
[ QUOTE ]
Not that it matters you know what i'm trying to say

[/ QUOTE ]
I know exactly what you're trying to say. You're trying to say that actions committed by a state justifys killing individuals that had nothing to do with those actions. It shows how the statist propaganda is blocking your brain from making the connection. We =/= foriegn policy decision makers, therefore we are not the ones that deserve to be reprimanded for their criminal actions. Your statist mindset to group "the US" as everyone within the boundaries of the US is complete and utter BS.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The children are unfortunate casualties of war, but put the blame where it lies - with the government and military leaders.

[/ QUOTE ] prove you point plz

[/ QUOTE ]
Last time I checked no Japanese person unaffliated with the war effort or the government made a decision to harm anyone from the United States.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You haven't seen the US government use brute force aggression?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes against worse brute force aggressors.

[/ QUOTE ]
Like civilians? Prove your statement plz.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that attacks on the US are understandable given the US meddling in the affairs of muslim nations, and their propping up of Israeli barbarity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? No one that died in 9/11 meddled in any muslim affairs or propped up Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove your statement plz

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this a joke? The workers in the WTC don't make any foreign policy decisions. If by some miracle shot a few were then maybe their deaths were justified, but the large majority obviously didn't.
[ QUOTE ]
Once again prove your point plz do you have a list of every pilot and where they lived on the attack from pearl harbor.

[/ QUOTE ]
What the hell are you talking about? Just prior to the nucleur attacks the battlefield was very limited. It was not a choice between nuking innocent people and "war accross the globe" you fool. And if you think it was, you need to be the one to prove the positive (war accross the globe), I don't have to prove the negative (there wouldn't), mainly because it's impossible.
[ QUOTE ]
Not that it matters you know what i'm trying to say

[/ QUOTE ]
I know exactly what you're trying to say. You're trying to say that actions committed by a state justifys killing individuals that had nothing to do with those actions. It shows how the statist propaganda is blocking your brain from making the connection. We =/= foriegn policy decision makers, therefore we are not the ones that deserve to be reprimanded for their criminal actions. Your statist mindset to group "the US" as everyone within the boundaries of the US is complete and utter BS.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The children are unfortunate casualties of war, but put the blame where it lies - with the government and military leaders.

[/ QUOTE ] prove you point plz

[/ QUOTE ]
Last time I checked no Japanese person unaffliated with the war effort or the government made a decision to harm anyone from the United States.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You haven't seen the US government use brute force aggression?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes against worse brute force aggressors.

[/ QUOTE ]
Like civilians? Prove your statement plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

This must be an example of that new "nice," non snide, non insulting, purely logical and calm nature of poli that was being spoke of in ATF recently.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
This must be an example of that new "nice," non snide, non insulting, purely logical and calm nature of poli that was being spoke of in ATF recently.


[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, don't say anything to what Govman said towards me, I'm the bad one. Whatever. The politics posters and the moderator have made it clear we don't care about your opinion on how it should be run. Take your snarky attitude where someone cares.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This must be an example of that new "nice," non snide, non insulting, purely logical and calm nature of poli that was being spoke of in ATF recently.


[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, don't say anything to what Govman said towards me, I'm the bad one. Whatever. The politics posters and the moderator have made it clear we don't care about your opinion on how it should be run. Take your snarky attitude where someone cares.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL Of course!
Any opinion aside from yours is invalid. (But we already knew that, now didn't we?)