Sorry Japan. You did deserve the atom bomb after all...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Mar 2 2007, 05:33 PM) [snapback]399354[/snapback]</div>

I agree. Also, those 20 million American Indians did not deserve to be killed by a nation greedy for their land, and those I-don't-know-how-many-millions of Africans did not deserve to be kidnapped and worked to death in the slave camps called plantations.

Nobody's hands are clean. Past atrocities do not justify present atrocities. But when past atrocities lead directly to present inequalities, those inequalities need to be rectified.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 2 2007, 06:50 PM) [snapback]399368[/snapback]</div>

What is a country if not its people?

Did you mean the land, the islands known as Japan deserved to be bombed? I don't think a piece of land cares whether you bomb it, and I don't think the U.S. military was targeting a piece of land. It was targeting human beings, congregated in a city. The intention was to kill innocent civilian human beings. If their intention had been to kill soldiers, they'd have dropped it on a military target.

The real reason for dropping the bomb was probably to intimidate the Soviets, by showing them what a ghastly weapon we had, and showing them that we were barbaric enough to use it, and use it against innocent civilians.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 3 2007, 12:05 PM) [snapback]399488[/snapback]</div>

So, let me ask you this, wise one... would you trade the civilians killed with the atomic bombs for the civilians that *would* have been killed in Burma/China and elsewhere had the bombs not been dropped?

Given that the Japanese killed more people in Nanking in one week than both atomic bombs, and indeed, they ran up almost twice the death count in that one week than both atomic bombs... it's likely more would have died...

What would your choice be?




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 3 2007, 12:05 PM) [snapback]399488[/snapback]</div>

The Soviets already knew about the bomb.

Next.

 

You sick f**ks! You must also believe that the US was right to invade Iraq to get revenge for 9/11. I feel sorry for your excrement filled brains. God the lack of education in this country is appalling. You need to study the history of this country a little more. If you think the USA has always been an angel in the world you're living in a f**king dreamworld. Get a f**king clue!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Mar 3 2007, 01:01 PM) [snapback]399526[/snapback]</div>

But you are speculating. You don't know what the outcomes of the war would have been in the next few years. In other words, should we annihilate some geographical location, let's say in the United States because hypothetically speaking there is an outbreak of deadly and extremely infectious disease (worse than the Spanish Flu) just for the sake of saving millions down the road?
It's about the choice, you are formulating your choice on speculation. You have no idea what would have really happened.
Clearly, in August 1945, Japanese had no military infrastructure to maintain the ability of all the atrocities that they have been committing on Asian mainland. Surly, it's obvious that they would continue committing them but to what scale nobody knows.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Mar 1 2007, 03:36 PM) [snapback]398625[/snapback]</div>

Oh how we smugly wax philosophical about war. "Well THEY killed millions - and THEY killed jillions ... but WE ... WE weren't nearly as bad ... because WE only raped and kidnapped or killed or maimed hundreds of thousands ... you know, those subhuman native Americans - Africans - Chinese - but hey OUR reasons were sooo much more righteous you know, that coming over to north America thing - building a country with the blood of those WE hate.

Then, the Japanese, who admire our vile / imperialistic ways ... they do the same thing, seeing how succesful we were. So we (in the 1930's and 40's) said those bad Japanese - they are sooooo bad. THEY do the same thing WE do, in larger quantity. (If a little is good, then a lot is better! Right? Not according to our righteous sayers of right and wrong). So we stopped selling scrap metal and oil to the Japanese. They struck back (hey! I'm having an Iraq de ja vu!) and we smoked 'em. Those bad bad Japanese.

 

This was a very sad and painful thread to read through. I was born and raised in Japan and went to a college in the US.

Many college history professors in this country may have different opinions for the reasons why the atomic bombs were dropped in Japan. This particular history professor at the college I went to (the College of William and Mary in Virginia) stated that the atomic bombs were not necessary to end the war. He stated that the US government was aware, at the time when the decision to drop the bomb was made, that the Japanese government had already been preparing to surrender. It is possible that the first bomb might have helped to expedite the Japanese surrender, but there was really no reason why the second bomb had to be dropped. Like someone mentioned in his/her earlier post, it is speculated that the US dropped the atomic bombs, even if they weren't necessary, to get ahead in the future arms race to beat the Soviet Union.

In terms of the insensitive statement made by the Japanese Prime Minister, I'm having a hard time understanding why he had to make such a statement. It's widely understood and accepted in Japan that the Japanese military did aweful things to all of the countries that Japan invaded into. I wish that the country would take a full responsibility for what it did and mean it, so we can move on. Instead of making other insensitive comments like this thread topic, this aweful past should be used to teach the younger generations to not make the same mistakes again. Nobody deserves to die from atomic bombs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Mar 3 2007, 03:34 PM) [snapback]399558[/snapback]</div>

Please point out where I condone slavery or the genocide of Native Americans..

Right, thought so.

Those actions are as bad as anything the Japanese did. We paid in blood for slavery (there was this little thing called the Civil War, or the War Between the States, you may have heard of it).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Mar 3 2007, 10:01 AM) [snapback]399526[/snapback]</div>

Killing John to save Joe is a dangerous game. My personal choice is not to kill anybody.

As has already been pointed out above, Japan was defeated before the A-bombs were dropped, and while an immediate invasion would have cost many lives, an immediate invasion was unnecessary, precisely because Japan was defeated and unable to do further harm at that point. We could have waited for their bureaucracy to process its paperwork and surrender in its own good time.

I do not know whether the Soviets were aware of the A-Bomb before Hiroshima. But the real point was to show them that we were barbaric enough to actually use it on civilian cities.

And absolutely none of the arguments offered for the use of the A-bombs could possibly justify Nagasaki. The real reason there was that the two bombs were made of different fissile materials, and the generals wanted a real live test on real, occupied cities for each bomb, to better assess their relative performance. No word in English can better describe this attitude than EVIL.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Mar 3 2007, 03:49 PM) [snapback]399567[/snapback]</div>

Sorry if my point didn't even hit the rim. (Trying again again here ...) In other words, if we're so busy fret'n over which culture is more culpable, whether it's their masses, whether it's their leaders, weather it's their armies, their religious mulas, priests ... blame blame . . . then we fail to see that ALL cultures are hate mongers at some point in history. So before we (the U.S.A.) crusify the Japanese for the horific WWII behavior . . . remember that is was us ... the western culture that taught Japan all about imperialistic expansion. Yes, the discussion is that 60+ years ago Japan tried their hand at expansion, and many there don't want to be reminded. Those folks that do that are just as horible (IMHO) as the western culture that won't own up to being the very entity that taught that expansionist mentality. THAT, is the thought I faild to convey in the earlier thread. We leave THAT little tidbit out of OUR history books, just as they leave out the stuff THEY want to leave out. Yet we only stress over THEIR failures at teaching history. In that regard, we are the kettle calling the pot black. All cultures do the same things, and all cultures downplay their own bad. Hope I did better conveying my thought that time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 1 2007, 08:21 PM) [snapback]398771[/snapback]</div>

:lol:
Right on burritos. I LOVE history. Best grades in College, but I still went into law (I'm such a dummy for that). Historians teach that the only thing we ever learn from history, is that we NEVER learn anything from history. Byzantines, Egypt, Greeks, Romans, Incas, Aztecs, England (and I'll skip a bunch ) . . . it's just a matter of time before our foolish governmental / societal behavior causes our own implosion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Mar 3 2007, 02:39 PM) [snapback]399621[/snapback]</div>

I could'nt agree more. So many ignore the past and pointing fingers or lack of accountability is as high as it's ever been. Ohh wait, is that not a classic sign of societal collapse?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 3 2007, 08:05 AM) [snapback]399488[/snapback]</div>

Oh good grief Daniel, 20 million? That's a bit of a stretch don't you agree? <_<

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 3 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]399594[/snapback]</div>

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? How do you know what the generals' reasons were?

I suspect that you have heard but don't believe the reasoning that the second bomb was justified because it made it even more likely that Japan would surrender. In terms of whether it was evil to drop the bomb, it doesn't really matter whether it actually did make it more likely that Japan would surrender; what matters is whether Truman and the others believed it made the Japanese surrender more likely and thus saved lives. If Truman and his staff honestly believed that it made the surrender more likely to come faster, then the decision was not evil.

When people reason about other peoples motives, they often get it wrong because they think they know something about how the others would reason because it's how they would reason. I would guess that your world view is very different from Truman's world view, and because of that you are a poor judge of why Truman made any particular military decision. The idea that a second bomb would save lives is ridiculous in your world view, so you reject the idea that Truman could believe it. So all you're left with is an evil motive.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 3 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]399594[/snapback]</div>

Sometimes, people are going to die one way or another, and the choice is between actively killing some people or letting more die. It's awful, but that's the way life is sometimes. Emotionally, we can feel better by being passive and not choosing to kill anyone, but I personally think that's selfish. It makes us feel better at the expense of not stepping up to save more people overall.

If nobody had made the decision to kill John to save Joe, then nobody would have stopped Adolph Hitler. I personally wish some people had decided earlier in the 1930s to go to war with Hitler, even though it would have cost many, many innocent lives, because it would have saved even more.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Mar 6 2007, 06:56 AM) [snapback]400785[/snapback]</div>

Again, you are speculating. You are making an assumption that whenever the authority makes a decision on making somebody's life expendable for the sake of "saving" other lives they know for sure that they are saving more lives, but it might be just a tool of a propaganda. You have to understand that some leaders may not be equipped with an infinite tools to make a right justification for the actions they take. They may purse them out of their own believes but it doesn't mean that it is a right choice. It is not a clear cut. You are just speculating; how do you know how many victims there would have been without intervention? How do you know that the number would have been greater? You don't know. You are voicing an opinion that is based on speculation that is formulated on the political agenda, part of propaganda. All political leaders always proclaim that the actions they take are always for the benefit of people. The cracks of the issue is whom do you believe and how much of that propaganda can be substantiated.
The slogan given by Truman to justify dropping of the bomb for the sake of saving more lives may not have been the actual reason. Nobody really knows the reason. And nobody knows how many people would have died if the bomb wasn't dropped. For sure everybody knows that the bomb did intimidate.
And your Hitler example is also open to debate as very early on we didn't seem to have a problem with him as long as our profits were high from dealing with Nazi regime and we were not eager to help people only when they infringed on our interests. Only when it was clear that Nazis were infringing on our interests we went to war. The motives of saving other people's lives suddenly became a useful tool to gather the support for entering the war.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Mar 6 2007, 06:56 AM) [snapback]400785[/snapback]</div>

But wasn't that part of Hitler's own mentality? The wiping out of "inferior" races/cultures and the prevention of diluting Aryan bloodlines? Certainly sounds like he felt he was "saving" his one true race....
So you're saying we made the decision to kill John to save Joe, but in reality Hitler himself was using that same mentality, from his perspective - and that's not speculation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Mar 6 2007, 05:42 AM) [snapback]400814[/snapback]</div>

Yes, you have a good point. Just because someone thinks they are doing something for the greater good does not mean it is actually for the greater good. A lot of people killing for what they believe is the greater good can end up with a much worse result than if all those people could be convinced not to kill at all. People may have a propensity to underestimate the damage from killing and overestimate the good it does. So convincing more people to do less killing even when they think it is for the greater good can be a good thing.

But it doesn't follow that this is always the case. There can also be situations where killing really does save more lives and really is for the greater good. I happen to believe that going to war to stop Hitler is one of those cases. Hundreds of thousands of innocents would have died by going to war earlier with Hitler. But more would have been saved.

A general rule of never killing anyone for any reason is one of those things that if everyone could simultaneously be convinced to do it, we'd all be better off, but given that some really bad people will not be convinced to follow the rule, the good people should not be bound by it, or they can't stop the bad people.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Mar 6 2007, 09:22 AM) [snapback]400830[/snapback]</div>

Brilliant - sometimes hard decisions have to be made about identifying evil and calling it such! Hitler was evil but there were people who in the 1930's thought he was good or at least tolerable. Even in HINDSIGHT they would not have acted pre-emptively - something i find AMAZING. Because, here we are again....

in Iran there is a madman who has called for a countries destruction, has denied the Holocost ever happened - and he is trying to obtain nuclear weapons. and there are people who would allow this to happen - AMAZING.

it is NOT ok to allow people like this the ability to commit genocide - yes there are times we need to call evil evil - that it is ok to call our system of governance and life SUPERIOR and PREFERABLE and worth fighting for and even identifying times we need to act pre-emptively.

One bullet - in Hitlers head could have saved tens of millions of lives. One bullet.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Mar 6 2007, 09:22 AM) [snapback]400830[/snapback]</div>

You are speculating, you don't know.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Mar 6 2007, 09:22 AM) [snapback]400830[/snapback]</div>

Which situations are you talking about? Please post an example.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Mar 6 2007, 09:47 AM) [snapback]400835[/snapback]</div>

no speculation with saying if we did not appease hitler and acted forcefully we could have changed history and saved millions. a very important lesson we must not forget

here is a situation - iran and arhmadman - we MUST NOT allow him to get his hands on nuclear weapons - what do you think?