freebirdpat wrote:
And both targets were vital militarily to Japan, we just didn't bomb some random city with no military targets inside it. One was a supply base and the other important for the Japanese navy I think.
You really don't know anything about WWII.Ub3r-ElitE wrote:
There is a BIG difference between soldiers and civilians. It's the free decision of any soldier to fight or to refuse fighting(at least that's what it should be). Civilians have no decision. They are not involved in the war, in other words: innocent people. And now tell me: Why did the USA nuke 2 of Japan's largest cities at that time? Why didn't they just nuke military factories, power stations or barracks? Because they wanted to demonstrate their power of being able to kill 100.000nds of people with 1 bomb. Not only to Japan but also to the Soviets and their other rivals.atlvolunteer wrote:
I guess you didn't read the entire thread before posting. The general consensus is that a lot more people would have died (both Japanese and American) if the US would have invaded Japan instead of dropping the atomic bombs.Ub3r-ElitE wrote:
And it's the fault of the civilians that their government didn't care about their lives? There was no chance for japan to win that war, yet the USA decided to kill 400.000+ civilians just because they didn't want to lose any more ships/ground troops. That are tactics that you expect from dictators like saddam hussein, but definately not from a democratic and free country like the USA claims to be.
The main point is: They didn't care about the victims of their nuclear attack. That's why i see them on one level with people like saddam hussein.
Last edited by freebirdpat (2006-01-05 12:19:43)
Haha that's funny! You forgot one point: we didn't start the war! Why the fuck would we surrender?Ub3r-ElitE wrote:
*sigh*
Nobody got my point? It doesn't matter if the japanese were about to kill themselves, imho there is NO reason and NO excuse to use a nuclear weapon on a civil target.
If the US wanted to save lives they could have surrendered. 1000nds of lives would have been saved. They HAD the decision to say "We refuse killing those people". But they did it.
Last edited by atlvolunteer (2006-01-06 09:15:53)
Circle gets the square Bob. I'm going to have to agree with ATL here. Don't bring us into a war, and then bitch when we annihilate your shit. Maybe they should have surrendered a little quicker, or took their sorry asses back home. maybe if they wouldn't have attacked us first, we wouldn't be here crying about some people who got a bomb dropped on them.atlvolunteer wrote:
Maybe Germany and Japan shouldn't have started the fucking war to begin with. That would have saved many more lives than just those killed by the A-bombs.
you realize that Fallujah is probably the most stable city in Iraq right now?Erkut.hv wrote:
Circle gets the square Bob. I'm going to have to agree with ATL here. Don't bring us into a war, and then bitch when we annihilate your shit. Maybe they should have surrendered a little quicker, or took their sorry asses back home. maybe if they wouldn't have attacked us first, we wouldn't be here crying about some people who got a bomb dropped on them.atlvolunteer wrote:
Maybe Germany and Japan shouldn't have started the fucking war to begin with. That would have saved many more lives than just those killed by the A-bombs.
Should've dropped 3, as a message to future generations. Don't blindside us, or we'll fuck you up for generations to come.
personally, I think we should pick 1 more country (Middle Eastern) and drop a bomb there. To let the good jonny Jihads know we are through fucking around. Next time an IED kills a Devil Dog, we drop one on Fallujah. After removinng our troops of course. Just a small tactical nuke. or firebomb the city to dust.
Yes, poor choice of city. I digress. Actually about the post in general. Just sucks our (US) military has to play the good guy, when our enemies don't play by the same rules. makes me upset is all.Ikarti wrote:
you realize that Fallujah is probably the most stable city in Iraq right now?Erkut.hv wrote:
Circle gets the square Bob. I'm going to have to agree with ATL here. Don't bring us into a war, and then bitch when we annihilate your shit. Maybe they should have surrendered a little quicker, or took their sorry asses back home. maybe if they wouldn't have attacked us first, we wouldn't be here crying about some people who got a bomb dropped on them.atlvolunteer wrote:
Maybe Germany and Japan shouldn't have started the fucking war to begin with. That would have saved many more lives than just those killed by the A-bombs.
Should've dropped 3, as a message to future generations. Don't blindside us, or we'll fuck you up for generations to come.
personally, I think we should pick 1 more country (Middle Eastern) and drop a bomb there. To let the good jonny Jihads know we are through fucking around. Next time an IED kills a Devil Dog, we drop one on Fallujah. After removinng our troops of course. Just a small tactical nuke. or firebomb the city to dust.
Last edited by War Man (2006-01-08 11:34:51)
Playing by the rules in a war? Well... let's see... The US started a war in Iraq without having been provoked by them. Granted, Iraq invaded Kuwait years ago and the US wanted to protect one little country that actually supplies a lot of oil to them. BUT: The reason for the second war against Iraq was twofold... first it was said they were in league with terrorists, which has never been proven... second, it was said they has Weapons of Mass Destruction.... which miraculously were not found at all... the Iraq was even willing to let UN inspectors into the country and to every suspected site but the US government did not care...Erkut.hv wrote:
Yes, poor choice of city. I digress. Actually about the post in general. Just sucks our (US) military has to play the good guy, when our enemies don't play by the same rules. makes me upset is all.Ikarti wrote:
you realize that Fallujah is probably the most stable city in Iraq right now?Erkut.hv wrote:
Circle gets the square Bob. I'm going to have to agree with ATL here. Don't bring us into a war, and then bitch when we annihilate your shit. Maybe they should have surrendered a little quicker, or took their sorry asses back home. maybe if they wouldn't have attacked us first, we wouldn't be here crying about some people who got a bomb dropped on them.
Should've dropped 3, as a message to future generations. Don't blindside us, or we'll fuck you up for generations to come.
personally, I think we should pick 1 more country (Middle Eastern) and drop a bomb there. To let the good jonny Jihads know we are through fucking around. Next time an IED kills a Devil Dog, we drop one on Fallujah. After removinng our troops of course. Just a small tactical nuke. or firebomb the city to dust.
That is not an opinion, that is a conspiracy theory with little to no facts. And the entire webpage seems devoted to selling a book and an idea.H00D3DCL4W wrote:
The popular opinion on Pearl Harbour, was that it was staged to get America to enter the war, they had already voted against joining a war that they would not gain from, they needed a massive outrage to get the powers that be to join the war, so they moved a fleet into dock, not just a couple of ships but a fleet.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
Leo Szilard, he was one behind inventing and proving that a chain reaction was possible. Einstein was the guy backing Leo up, and he had the clout to get letters sent to the President and get noticed without coming off as an wackjob.(HUN)Rudebwoy wrote:
Just a bit offtopic about A-bombs: Know any names about who invented it?
We started a war against them 15 years ago that we never got around to finishing til now. You tone in our protection of Kuwait sounds like you support the Iraqis in THEIR ILLEGAL CONQUEST OF A FOREIGN NATION. The Iraqis weren't going to leave Kuwait, they were going to take Kuwait's oil fields, whereas the US is going to leave Iraq in the future, we are not conquesting Iraq, we are just rebuilding Iraq, like we rebuilt Germany and Japan, because we found out that by punishing Germany the way we did during WWI led to WWII. They may not have been in league with terrorists, except for the fact that many insurgents are calling themselves the Al Qaida in Iraq. That link is good enough for me, they may not be linked directly, but the Al Qaida thing is more of a movement, its basically a hatred of the US. Iraq had many issues with weapons inspectors, they did not want them freely roaming the country, they wanted to tag along, and they did not want the inspectors to see certain places. Iraq wanted the inspectors with limitations. The US and British government did not care because it was essentially a political battle in the UN Security Council. Which as I will say again, out of the 5 members, all the members were getting kickbacks from the oil-for-food program, but the most opposed members of the entire UN council, all had very deep economic ties that were probably the true basis of their objection to changing the leadership of Iraq. You don't change the leadership of country that owes you money, or who you are buying or selling things too.BEE_Grim_Reaper wrote:
Playing by the rules in a war? Well... let's see... The US started a war in Iraq without having been provoked by them. Granted, Iraq invaded Kuwait years ago and the US wanted to protect one little country that actually supplies a lot of oil to them. BUT: The reason for the second war against Iraq was twofold... first it was said they were in league with terrorists, which has never been proven... second, it was said they has Weapons of Mass Destruction.... which miraculously were not found at all... the Iraq was even willing to let UN inspectors into the country and to every suspected site but the US government did not care...
Right, you want to call it "War against Terrorism" (which has been said to be unwinnable by US government btw), I call it a war of agression.
But anyway... what the militant iraqi are actually doing is called guerilla war... and that was perfectly by the rules in WW II (The French Maquis, the Russian Partisans). Noone complained about that. So I guess, the US started the game and now that they seem to have a shitty hand, they should live with that. Since they eliminated the only stabilizing factor in a country full of rivalries, I guess they need to find way to deal with this situation.... and by the way... nukes are not suitable means on solving this dilemma... hence the user of nukes will be the bad guy regardless of the reasons... or why do you think India and Pakistan did not nuke each other into the stoneage? Ever thought of the political repercussions of the use of nukes?
Interesting points you have there indeed. Actually, even if I do play games that relate to war, I do not condone real war. You see, I issue I do have is the following: Kuwait is/was a sovereign country (even if the ruling body is pretty much undemocratic as the Iraq used to be). It was attacked by another sovereign country... so what was the point or reason for US to start a war themselves? Personally, I do not like to have some kind of world police, that itself does not like to be monitored (What about the ban of atomic weapons btw?).We started a war against them 15 years ago that we never got around to finishing til now. You tone in our protection of Kuwait sounds like you support the Iraqis in THEIR ILLEGAL CONQUEST OF A FOREIGN NATION. The Iraqis weren't going to leave Kuwait, they were going to take Kuwait's oil fields, whereas the US is going to leave Iraq in the future, we are not conquesting Iraq, we are just rebuilding Iraq, like we rebuilt Germany and Japan, because we found out that by punishing Germany the way we did during WWI led to WWII. They may not have been in league with terrorists, except for the fact that many insurgents are calling themselves the Al Qaida in Iraq. That link is good enough for me, they may not be linked directly, but the Al Qaida thing is more of a movement, its basically a hatred of the US. Iraq had many issues with weapons inspectors, they did not want them freely roaming the country, they wanted to tag along, and they did not want the inspectors to see certain places. Iraq wanted the inspectors with limitations. The US and British government did not care because it was essentially a political battle in the UN Security Council. Which as I will say again, out of the 5 members, all the members were getting kickbacks from the oil-for-food program, but the most opposed members of the entire UN council, all had very deep economic ties that were probably the true basis of their objection to changing the leadership of Iraq. You don't change the leadership of country that owes you money, or who you are buying or selling things too.
It is a valid point, that two were dropped as a message to the future antagonist. BUT: by the time, the bombs were dropped, Germany has already surrendered unconditionally, so it was not a warning to them. It was not only a deterring measure but also a "beta-test", as both bombs were of a completely different design (Little Boy (Hiroshima) was constructed as "Gun-Design", Fat Boy (Nagasaki) as Implosion-Design). So... they had two new toys, they wanted to test them both. On a sidenote: Japan only surrendered when they were ensured, that the Tenno (Japanese Emperor) would still be in office after surrender and peace treaty,(HUN)Rudebwoy wrote:
Interesting topic, (hell it took about 30-35 mins to read all posts )
In my opinion the two bombs was meant to be a warning to Russia and Germany, that the US have the ultimate bomb, and it was two bomb being dropped, to show, that they can make more, not just one.
I am not quite sure, where you got the 40% from. Official counts do state 6 Million Jews and "undesireable elements" (as communists, handicapped and gypsies), unofficial counts state app. 10-12 Million.Did the whole war worth it?
Well, if there was no war, then I think that the 40% or more of the European population would've been killed for being a Jew (coz you know, not just Jews were killed, anyone who was a possible threat had been carried away...) and tall blond Germans would run around everywhere now.
Not taken as one... at least not by meI do not mean this as a racist statement, I have absolutely no problems with German people.
Yup... that project was called "Lebensborn e.V."I said it because Hitler had a project during ww2 called the "Übermensch", it's purpose was that to select those man and women whose child would probably be a pure German (blond, tall, fit etc), for that they selected many from the northern countries (as far as I know one girl from ABBA was a child of that project: born from the marriage of a nazi officer and a swedish woman).
I would like to add some corrections there as well. It is true, that Hitler started the war against Poland but you can be damn sure that he had a stupid expression of surprise by the time the official declarations of war by England and France reached him. The problem is, that Hitler did get a war he did not want because he got too bold. He thought, that this would go through as the annexation of the Czech part of the Czechoslovakia, but it didn't as England did relinquish its policy of Appeasement. The road to this war was marked by the following steps:First of all Hitler started the war by attacking Poland.His plan was of course to take over the majority of Europe...
(He was just not as brilliant as a general than as a smooth talker and was condemned to lose when a two-fronted war turned out).
This war was inevitable, if not Hitler, then someone else would've started it (just think about the poverty in that time, such poverty helped people like Hitler to be the leader of a country).The question is not "did the war worth it? but "what would've happened if someone else starts it, or if someone else had won?"
I can give you some:Just a bit offtopic about A-bombs: Know any names about who invented it?
Nobody ever condones real war, its always the last option on anyone's mind. Repeat, we did not start a war, Iraq started the war with Kuwait, we finished it. Many times in history one country has been dominated or ran over by another country and a foreign country came in to help fight back. I do not like the US being a kind of world police, but nobody else wants to pick up the job, and someone has to do it.BEE_Grim_Reaper wrote:
Interesting points you have there indeed. Actually, even if I do play games that relate to war, I do not condone real war. You see, I issue I do have is the following: Kuwait is/was a sovereign country (even if the ruling body is pretty much undemocratic as the Iraq used to be). It was attacked by another sovereign country... so what was the point or reason for US to start a war themselves? Personally, I do not like to have some kind of world police, that itself does not like to be monitored (What about the ban of atomic weapons btw?).
However... in my opinion rebuilding a country after a war usually means, that some sort of conquest has taken place earlier hence there would be no point in rebuilding something as nothing was destroyed.
Granted... without the Marshall Plan, Germany would not be the country it is now, but this plan was not really initiated out of pure humanitarian reasons. Also, apart from Germany being completely conquered and annihilated by that time, there is definitely one main difference between Germany and Iraq: Germany had a stable society which was ursurped by a powerhungry, megalomaniac dictator. Iraq has no stable society (which definitely can be seen nowadays) and the dictator there was the only stabilizing factor.
But anyhow... the sovereignity of Iraq was never really compromised... so if you were him, would you like someone to sniff around your house without any warrant?
Last edited by Tagmaestro (2006-01-09 22:17:11)