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

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Mar 6 2007, 12:31 PM) [snapback]400945[/snapback]</div>

again would you allow iran to ability to possess nuclear weapons?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]400953[/snapback]</div>

LOL... they're intentionally ignoring you, and yet you continue to ask the same question, over and over...

BTW, who decides what good and evil is? you? your god? their god?

 

Personally, I can't imagine anyone in the military, after years of war, hesitating to use the bombs. The indisicriminate bombing of civilian populations had been adopted by all sides. We had killed more people with traditional ordinance bombing on a number of occasions. There was also desire to use the bomb to gain a diplomatic edge over the Soviets.

But for anyone really interested in the history, a great resource is
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

They've got pdf scans of the original memos, letters, etc, among various parties, released under the FOIA, concerning the bomb decision. The site takes no side on the issue; it just presents primary sources from the historical record. To a surprising extent, it reveals the complexity and ambiguity of the decision-making even then.

From a memo by Henry Stimson recording a converstation with Truman re: the end of the war. In the excerpt below, the Atom bomb almost sounds as if it is considered more merciful than conventional bombing.

Stimson: I told him [Truman] that I was busy considering our conduct of the war against Japan and I told him how I was trying to hold the Air Force down to precisionbombing but that with the Japanese method of scattering its manufacture it was rather difficult to prevent area bombing. I told him I was anxious about this feature of the war for two reasons: first, because I did not want to have the United States get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities; and second, I was a little fearful that before we could get ready the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon would not have a fair background to show its strength. He laughed and said he understood.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 6 2007, 09:48 AM) [snapback]400966[/snapback]</div>

Thanks, that's a great link! I had read some original source documents back in high school when we had a project to research and debate the ethics of the atomic bombings, but that was a long time ago.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 6 2007, 12:40 PM) [snapback]400955[/snapback]</div>

actually each person needs to decide what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong - your inability to understand that basic tenent is perhaps a key deficiency in your seeing evil and calling it good.

the reason for the question is obvious - and thank you for your honestly even though I think it represents a horror of horrors. there ignoring it at least says to me that they understand the inherent conflict that is occuring within their constructs of personal thought and opinions.

once you admit you favor a nuclear armed iran you place yourself in a unique position. they recognize that. you might too - but, if you do, you obviously do not care. hence, my thinking of you as a future accomplice to evil if iran obtains nuclear weapons and uses them - at that point - you are an accomplice.

 

I would suggest that everybody take a deep breath and read the following:

http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm

This documentation might serve to look at the state of mind of American leaders, as well as what the Japanese had planned for anybody who invaded the home islands. The American estimates of potential casualties was done with erroneous assumptions of Japanese ability to mount an effective defense.

The loss of civilian life in the 2 atomic attacks, although horrific, was lower than the fire bombing of Tokyo, which nobody seems to be jumping up and down about.

Does anybody think that the Japanese would have hesitated for a microsecond if they had developed nuclear weapons?

The atomic bombs were deployed a a strategic weapon, the purpose being to give the Emperor the "balls" to go against the Imperial Army and demand unconditional surrender.

I was 10 years old at the time of the bombings. I remember a lot of "gold star" flags in the windows in homes in my neighborhood. If not for the bombings, there would have been a whole lot more. I dare say that some of the apologist's parents might never have been born.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 12:10 PM) [snapback]400983[/snapback]</div>

LOL... each person needs to decide for themselves, and yet anyone who doesn't see the world as black and white as you want to paint it is wrong.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 6 2007, 12:40 PM) [snapback]400955[/snapback]</div>

That's because many people have berman on "ignore". As usual, he's clueless.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveLeePrius @ Mar 6 2007, 11:02 AM) [snapback]400886[/snapback]</div>

Dave- you are absolutely wrong here. There are winners - follow the money. The corporations that profit from war (and who are by necessity intimately tied to politicians) win.

If you said humanity loses (which I believe is what your point really was), then I totally agree with you.

As far as speculating, every one of us are speculating on what "would have happened". Once you decide on one path, all others collapse and there is no definitive way to claim what the outcome of those collapsed paths may have been. If one can acknowledge this, there's no need for argument, because we are all arguing on speculations. If one can't, they also cannot be made to change their minds, despite every effort; they are therefore not worth getting into an argument with.

And anyone who attempts to bait every poster from every topic of discussion to their own pet argument (like Iran's nuclear situation) should be ignored once the attempt is made.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Mar 6 2007, 02:51 PM) [snapback]401063[/snapback]</div>

You must have an amazing sense of inner peace. i think if a person cannot answer a simple question such as do you think a madman should have a nuclear bomb at his beckon call then they have a problem. it should be a simple no i do not think a madman should have a nuclear bomb. no arguments here - just wondering why its so hard for some to call evil evil?



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 6 2007, 02:10 PM) [snapback]401028[/snapback]</div>

it is easy to ignore rather than answer or face the prospect of answering a simple for most but difficult for some question -- do you think a madman should have a nuclear bomb?

Ignoring is easier than admitting that you would think it ok for armadiman of iran to possess nukes. because then you have to come to grips with the fact that he probably will use it in one way or another - and then you have a conflict with the fact that you abhore even the US's use of it during a hot world war and for a justifiable reason(s).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 02:10 PM) [snapback]401074[/snapback]</div>

Ignoring is simply easier than trying to explain your position to a madman who refuses to actually listen and comprehend what someone is saying.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 01:37 PM) [snapback]400953[/snapback]</div>

Would you allow Israel to possess nuclear weapons if they didn't already?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Mar 6 2007, 02:48 PM) [snapback]401131[/snapback]</div>

Of course he would. they aren't "evil".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 12:37 PM) [snapback]400953[/snapback]</div>

should Cabinda gain independence from Angola?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Mar 6 2007, 03:48 PM) [snapback]401131[/snapback]</div>

yes i would, yes they have them, yes they have not used them, yes they have not threatened to use them, yes they are a democracy with individual rights and liberties and a free press and elections, i have as much of an issue with them having nukes as i do england or france.

bigger issue - reality check - even if you did not want them to have them - how are you going to take them away now --- AND THAT IS MY POINT - AT LEAST THE POINT THAT YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND - KINDA LIKE ONCE NoKo GOT ITS FIRST BABY ATOM BOMB ITS TOO LATE TO TAKE IT AWAY.

go ahead - try taking Israels 300-400 nukes away - dare you to even try. and that is why i rest at night - i know Israel will not let iran go nuclear the same way they did not let iraq go nuclear - are you sorry israel prevented saddam from building the bomb??? probably - but then again it would have given us a wmd to find although i think the kurds found some of his wmd's up close and personal.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 6 2007, 03:56 PM) [snapback]401143[/snapback]</div>

he sees good and calls it evil
he sees evil and call its good
he strengthens my enemies
he enables them
he is an accomplice to future disasters

i would say only you would call Israel evil - good. want to explain why? i promise you i would read your entire response.

and for the record, no Israel is NOT evil.

there is an easy way to tell - if you think it is evil it is good, if you think it is good it is evil.
if it oppresses its people, if it commits mass murder, if there is no free press no fair judiciary - you like it - it is good by you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 05:11 PM) [snapback]401164[/snapback]</div>

I wouldn't call Israel evil myself...

But I guess I will never really understand why they felt the need to attack an American Naval vessel and slaughter dozens of our sailors for no reason.

As an 'American first', I know you probably feel the same way.

 

You believe Israel is good, Iran believes they are evil. Who is to say you are a better judge than they are?

This is really a philosophical question here - why are we on this Earth? Are we here to better ourselves and mankind? to procreate? to kill each other off? Until you can answer that question, you cannot state who is good and who is evil. If you believe in a higher power, then you believe that we're all here for some reason. Given the number of different religions and differences, you couldn't honestly say why we're on this Earth. If you don't believe in a higher power, then we're here for one express purpose - to multiply and pass on our genes.

Now, depending on the grand meaning of life, different groups could be good or evil. If we're here to better ourselves and mankind, then any warmongers out there would be considered evil, while those who volunteer their time to help others, and support other countries when need be would be good. If we're here simply to procreate and pass on our genes, then those who annihilate their enemies and ensure their children will survive are good, and those that don't are evil. If this is just some big bloody game of "king of the hill", then those that destroy others the best are good, while those that preach peace are evil.

While I agree with you that Iran shouldn't get Nukes, i do believe there is a better way than just bombing them. So i guess I'm a proponent of the "bettering ourselves and mankind" than either of the others... You seem to prefer one of the others which lets you attack someone who hasn't actually made an aggressive move on anyone yet - just a bunch of talk.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 6 2007, 04:35 PM) [snapback]401194[/snapback]</div>

i stopped reading right there.

what do you think?

Israel good____ evil_____
Iran good____ evil_____

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 04:59 PM) [snapback]401207[/snapback]</div>

should Cabinda gain independence from Angola?

 

Should Tibet gain independance from China? Should native Americans get their land back and the Europeans go back to Europe?

Ask yourself these questions. Then come back and tell us.

Dave