BF2S Forums Lack of respect to life

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo..I have seen you post on other threads.........when were going to respond to this???

Apologies, must have missed it.

The fact that you assist enemies to rebuild doesn't make you non-aggressive.  Look at Iraq, for example.  As America rebuilds, they also draw up plans for permanent army bases.  They selected the interim government.  They screen army recruits.  Creating allies by force is just as aggressive as levelling a country, and a hell of a lot more feasible to boot.

I find your last line particularly amusing.  America only fights when it's in their interest.  By the time America arrived in WWI the war was just about over, in WWII they only declared war after they were attacked.  By contrast, Australian troops died in droves for the French and British during WWI and, to a slightly lesser degree, WWII, when we had our own problems to worry about (Japan).  Yet I would still consider Australia under John Howard to be quite aggressive.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

invading japan? when did i say we should have invaded japan... i was questioning the morality behind the dropping of the atom bombs...to me it sounded like japan was pretty much destroyed and posed no threat (considering they had no real navy and airforce after at this point)  its like shooting a dead person in the face

And?  The fact that an enemy *currently* poses no threat doesn't mean they won't in future.  The Japanese had to surrender to ensure they didn't merely rebuild and go back to war.

I think we need to redefine agressive here........If it is agressive to protect our own countries interests....ok guilty as charged.....If it is agressive to help those that can't help themselves against an inhumane regime......guilty.......or agressive to seek out and attack those that want to do our nation and its people harm.....yup and thank god for it..
But if you think we America is the agressive state over North Korea, or Iran now I gotta disagree. We are protectors of the free world, there is nothing that shows that we conquorers of it.

lowing wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

invading japan? when did i say we should have invaded japan... i was questioning the morality behind the dropping of the atom bombs...to me it sounded like japan was pretty much destroyed and posed no threat (considering they had no real navy and airforce after at this point)  its like shooting a dead person in the face

Except for that little missed "necessary" action to end the war...........They didn't surrender, they know of the bomb before we dropped the first one, they didn't surrender, they definately knew of the bomb before we dropped the SECOND one, they didn't surrender.

The choice was invade, drop the bomb, or surrender.......You seem to forget, that the turning point of the war in the pacific was Midway in June of '42....3 years later.....on Iwa Jima and Okinawa etc.......the Japanese faught to virtually the last man even when the battles could not have been won. Surrender was a disgrace to the Japanese and after Okinawa and the tenacity of their forces, even facing certain defeat, convinced the allies that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would be even more brutal. Hence the bomb. This was a decision that Truman struggled with, he didn't want to make this decision, but he had to and he chose the route that would first, save AMERICAN lives.

  When the future of that decision is already known, and the war won by the allies, and America and Japan now prospering as friends. It seems alittle rediculous that you can look back with the gift of hind sight and still criticize the decision.

{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:

................................................................................................

skratch-x wrote:

I quote wikipedia:

General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War [against dropping the bomb], Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945.[22] The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that he felt that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials);[22] Major General Curtis LeMay;[23] and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard [24], and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[25]

    Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

        "In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[26]

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

    "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[27]

However, it should be noted that the survey assumed that continued conventional attacks on Japan—with additional direct and indirect casualties—would be needed to force surrender by the November or December dates mentioned.

-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bom … d_Nagasaki

Also note that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki possibly violated international agreements regarding war.

The same article wrote:

Supporters of the bombing also point out that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option—as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month. The firebombing had killed well over 100,000 people in Japan, since February of 1945, directly and indirectly. That intensive conventional bombing would have continued prior to an invasion. The submarine blockade and the United States Army Air Forces's mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan's imports. A complementary operation against Japan's railways was about to begin, isolating the cities of southern Honshu from the food grown elsewhere in the Home Islands. This, combined with the delay in relief supplies from the Allies, could have resulted in a far greater death toll in Japan, due to famine and malnutrition, than actually occurred in the attacks. "Immediately after the defeat, some estimated that 10 million people were likely to starve to death," noted historian Daikichi Irokawa. Meanwhile, in addition to the Soviet attacks, offensives were scheduled for September in southern China, and Malaysia.

The Americans anticipated losing many soldiers in the planned invasion of Japan, although the actual number of expected fatalities and wounded is subject to some debate and depends on the persistence and reliability of Japanese resistance and whether the Americans would have invaded only Kyushu in November 1945 or if a follow up landing near Tokyo, projected for March of 1946 would have been needed. Years after the war, Secretary of State James Byrnes claimed that 500,000 American lives would have been lost—and that number has since been repeated authoritatively, but in the summer of 1945, U.S. military planners projected 20,000–110,000 combat deaths from the initial November 1945 invasion, with about three to four times that number wounded. (Total U.S. combat deaths on all fronts in World War II in nearly four years of war were 292,000.) However, these estimates were done using intelligence that grossly underestimated Japanese strength being gathered for the battle of Kyushu in numbers of soldiers and kamikazes, by factors of at least three. Many military advisors held that a worst-case scenario could involve up to 1,000,000 American casualties.

In addition to that, the atomic bomb hastened the end of the Second World War in Asia liberating hundreds of thousands of Western citizens, including about 200,000 Dutch and 400,000 Indonesians ("Romushas") from Japanese concentration camps. Moreover, Japanese troops had committed atrocities against millions of civilians (such as the infamous Nanking Massacre), and the early end to the war prevented further bloodshed.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo..I have seen you post on other threads.........when were going to respond to this???

Apologies, must have missed it.

The fact that you assist enemies to rebuild doesn't make you non-aggressive.  Look at Iraq, for example.  As America rebuilds, they also draw up plans for permanent army bases.  They selected the interim government.  They screen army recruits.  Creating allies by force is just as aggressive as levelling a country, and a hell of a lot more feasible to boot.

I find your last line particularly amusing.  America only fights when it's in their interest.  By the time America arrived in WWI the war was just about over, in WWII they only declared war after they were attacked.  By contrast, Australian troops died in droves for the French and British during WWI and, to a slightly lesser degree, WWII, when we had our own problems to worry about (Japan).  Yet I would still consider Australia under John Howard to be quite aggressive.


And?  The fact that an enemy *currently* poses no threat doesn't mean they won't in future.  The Japanese had to surrender to ensure they didn't merely rebuild and go back to war.

I think we need to redefine agressive here........If it is agressive to protect our own countries interests....ok guilty as charged.....If it is agressive to help those that can't help themselves against an inhumane regime......guilty.......or agressive to seek out and attack those that want to do our nation and its people harm.....yup and thank god for it..
But if you think we America is the agressive state over North Korea, or Iran now I gotta disagree. We are protectors of the free world, there is nothing that shows that we conquorers of it.

Protectors of the free world? we are imperialistic hegemons looking out for our own intrests

lowing wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

lowing wrote:

I think we need to redefine agressive here........If it is agressive to protect our own countries interests....ok guilty as charged.....If it is agressive to help those that can't help themselves against an inhumane regime......guilty.......or agressive to seek out and attack those that want to do our nation and its people harm.....yup and thank god for it..
But if you think we America is the agressive state over North Korea, or Iran now I gotta disagree. We are protectors of the free world, there is nothing that shows that we conquorers of it.

Protectors of the free world? we are imperialistic hegemons looking out for our own intrests

And you live here taking advandage of every bit of us "looking after our own interests" aren't you?

If you feel so poorly about our country, maybe you should move to Canada with Alec Baldwin and Susan Surandon. Oh wait.......never mind, like you they talk allot of shit to, but refused to leave. LMAO at ya commiechipmunk.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

lowing wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

see thats just the way everyone looks at things now, take a step back and look at things from a broader prospective.  Sure America and Japan are prospering now, but does that justify the thousands.. hundreds of thousands of civillian deaths?  Don't think so.  We wanted to test/show off our power, we (america) were the first to gain the atmoic bomb and it wouldnt have ment much if we didnt use it right?  With virtually nothing left to fight with except charred sticks of bamboo.

I guess hind sight is 20/20, but it doesnt mean we can't critisize the past looking to make the future better.

Like I said before, Japan could/should have surrendered before the bomb fell. then certainly before the second bomb fell.........It is almost comical for you to say after the fact, "but they were ABOUT to surrender". The cold hard fact is.........They didn't, until after they forced the destruction of 2 of their cities. If the US really really WANTED to "show off" their new toy, why didn't they drop the damn thing on Tokyo?? It boils down to the fact that Truman had to pick the lesser of 2 evils, as he saw it in August of 45. He knew the bomb was bad, but decided millions of deaths, prevented, was better than tens of thousands deaths inflicted.

On Tokyo? lmao! Tokyo was a city made of wood (like i said) and we had fire bombed it for months.. it was a city of ashes

CommieChipmunk wrote:

we were pretty much created by evil deeds and it just got worse from there.  i guess ignorance is bliss

Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2006-05-19 19:57:20)