Hiroshima justified? (wasRe: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Cave Fish, Dec 21, 2003.

  1. Cave Fish

    Cave Fish Guest

    First, the Enola Gay exhibit? Nothing wrong with that. A museum's role is put important artifacts
    and items on display. You want details, read a book.

    -----

    My feeling about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Morally unjustifiable but I have the benefit of hindsight,
    Truman didn't. Also, though unrelated to the ethical argument over Japan, the unconditional
    surrender of Japan--ensured by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki--was good for its future. It
    allowed Americans to rebuild Japan in a very fundamental way which would have been impossible under
    the military government, had it survived. We're facing the same problem in Iraq. If we had a
    completely free hand and complete control as we did in Germany and Japan after WWII, we'd do a
    better, more thoroughgoing job for Iraqis which will benefit them in the long run. But, the issue of
    sovereignty is greater now than ever before, and Americans, especially after the Vietnam fiasco, is
    careful not to appear the arrogant aggressor.

    Yet, why do I think Hiroshima/Nagasaki--or Hirosaki--bombings were unjustified?

    1. One argument says invading Japan would have led to casualties upward of 5 million lives, that as
    horrible as the bombings were, on balance they saved lives by ending the war more quickly. The
    problem with this argument is it's taking estimates as fact. Estimates are often wrong, often
    very wrong. By Hitler's estimates, Nazis would have conquered Russia in less than a year. By
    McCarthur's estimates during the early stages of Korean War, Chinese wouldn't dare send troops
    and if they did would be helpless against American military. According to respectable estimates
    of American casualties prior to the Gulf War, we were led to expect numbers ranging from 20,000
    to 50,000 in a war lasting several years. All wrong, scandalously wrong. It's possible that
    casualties would have been high had Americans pressed forward with conventional means against
    Japan but to say that the bombing of Hirosaki saved millions of lives is simply an estimate, not
    a sound basis for objective argument.

    2. Another issue concerns unconditional surrender as the ONLY option. Did United States really need
    Japan to surrender unconditionally? Did United States need Japan to surrender at all? If invasion
    of Japan would have cost over a million American casualties or if it entailed the used of nuclear
    bombs, would it not have been more sensible to negotiate a conditional surrender? Or, a cease-
    fire with a Japan already virtually isolated and destroyed? Why was unconditional surrender so
    important? Was it revenge? After all, Japan started the war and bombed Pearl Harbor. But, if
    revenge is the issue, United States avenged itself 10,000 fold prior to Hirosaki bombing. If you
    look at the casualty ratio among American/Japanese soldiers, it was comparable to cowboys and
    Indians. We really kicked their ass in every way. Also, how many died at Pearl Harbor? Besides,
    it was a military target. Now, how many Japanese died as a result of American bombing of cities
    like Tokyo? We are talking in the 100,000s. We are talking of leveling entire cities,
    incinerating entire populations of children, women, gramps, etc. If revenge was the factor, we
    got an oceanful of it. And, what was left of the Japanese navy, it's most prized military asset?
    What had happened to its airforce or airfarce?

    It's like some scrawny kid sneaking up and kicking the behind of a powerfully built muscleman and
    then getting beat up until his nose is busted, his eyes black and blue, all his teeth missing, his
    ribs crushed, his ears bitten off, etc. Does the strong man then have to pull out a gun and shoot
    the bloody pulp unless he calls the big guy 'uncle'?

    If not for revenge, how about to ensure longterm safety in the region by bringing Japan to its
    knees? This is not a bad argument but did it justify nuclear bombs? Also, was Japan really a future
    threat in the region even without surrendering? Historical facts show otherwise. If anything,
    American victory and the rebuilding of Japanese economy and military ensured a more prominent role
    for Japan in region(thus far for the good but who knows in the future?) than had Americans not
    pressed for unconditional surrender and simply isolated Japan from the rest of the world. If so,
    Japan would today be a backward, poor nation run by authoritarian overlords but no threat to anyone.

    Japan, near the end of the war, had no viable navy or airforce. Its soldiers, streteched from
    Siberia to Southeast Asia were on their last legs. 90% of transport ships carrying supplies were
    routinely sunk by US planes. Japanese soldiers were exhausted and demoralized. They were on the
    defensive and retreat in China where the Nationalists and Communists were regaining major
    territories. Japanese had been terribly mauled by vastly superior Soviet troops in Manchuria. Japan
    was a goner whether it surrendered or not. Had Japan not surrendered, it would have had no means to
    rebuild its economy, its military, or its empire. Japan has little in terms of natural resources.
    Cars in Japan near the end of the war were running on charcoal. Also, no Asian nation, which
    suffered greatly under the Japanese, would have supplied Japan with raw materials. Neither would
    have Soviets, certainly not US or Western Europeans nations. So, what kind of threat would Japan
    have been?

    It would have been militarily weak, economically desperate, diplomatically isolated from both West
    and East it had once preyed upon. Americans had done such a total job of destroying the Japanese
    military that the idea of the Japanese Empire was simply a ghost of a shell on the Asian mainland.
    Indeed, even before Pearl Harbor, Japanese had gotten mired in China in a stalemate. For all its
    talk of a great empire, Japan didn't have the material, the men, or stamina to sustain their
    imperial ambitions. So, it seems irrefutable that Japan would have served as no future threat if
    United States had simply set up a naval blockade around Japan and focused its attention on China,
    mainly to keep communists at bay. Instead what happened? Americans devoted most of its energy and
    talent to rebuilding Japan during which time neglected China fell to the communists.

    3. Another argument is simply ends justify the means. Let's assume that invasion by conventional
    means would have led to exceedingly high casualties. Therefore, whatever it took to lower that
    casualty is justified. This sounds morally untenable. While it's true that extraordinary means
    are often taken to achieve certain ends, there are certain rules, even in war. What was the
    Geneva convention about? Why the law forbidding the use of poison gas? Even in war, there has to
    be a modicum of rules, such as not bombing hospitals, etc. And, what does it say about American
    fighting men that they would prefer an entire city be indiscrimately slaughtered so they
    themselves could live? What soldiers go thru is horrible, and we must value the life of every
    soldier but soldiers are meant to fight and die. If casualty estimates are too high, then you
    don't send soldiers to useless, pointless slaughter. However, if it's a matter of gaining
    military objectives, it must remain war between soldiers. Indiscrimate massacre of everyone to
    save soldiers' lives is never justifiable. Pictures from Sep 11 is horrible enough. Hirosaki was
    countless times that. We are talking of everyone getting incinerated or vaporized or left mangled
    in the worst way, everyone from mother in a hospital giving birth to elder gasping his last
    breath. We're talking of 100,000s of lives, from kindergarten to seniors. It's not just a matter
    of numbers but of higher decency. I'd say two armies fighting one another with 10,000 casualties
    is less indecent than indiscriminate massacre of 1,000 civilians. If US could have used the
    nuclear bombs to target mainly soldiers, it would have been justified. But, dropping a bomb in
    the middle of a city and killing that many civilians can't in any way be justified. And, I speak
    not only of Hirosaki but Dresden and Tokyo. And, of course Hitler's V1 and V2 bombings of London
    but then Hitler was a subhuman as*hole. Still, I would say Churchill's bombing raids against
    Germany were more justified out of simple revenge because of Hitler's bombing against British
    civilians. United States doesn't have this claim against Japan. This isn't to say Japanese were
    nice(they certainly bombed civilians in Shanghai)nor that Japan would not have used the nuke if
    they had it. It's to say United States got revenge 1000x over and would have obtained its
    objectives in the Pacific sphere even without Japan's surrender. Even without Japan's surrender,
    US owned the Pacific and Japanese empire was in shambles, on its last legs, destroyed.

    4. The implication of defending Hirosaki bombing is we could and should do it again if a similar
    situation arises. Suppose a nation attacks US out of the blue, causing military casualties in
    the 1000s. US wages war and breaks the back of that nation but the nation will not
    unconditionally surrender. Pentagon estimates that US casualties will be high so we decide to
    bomb two civilian targets. If one defends Hirosaki, he would have to defend this scenario. I
    think it's crazy. Or, suppose US goverment had been overrun by belligerent military government
    and we attack some nation out of the blue. We are engaged at war and that nation gains the
    upperhand but we won't surrender. So does that give that nation the right to nuke Chicago and
    Miami? I think this is crazy.

    5. ... which brings us to the subject of when should use of atomic weapons be justified? If nukes
    were used simply because one nation attacked another nation, the world would today be awash in
    nuclear wars. United States isn't the only nation that was attacked unprovoked in the 20th
    century. If US actions were justified, it would imply that in the case of every nation that
    was attacked by another nation, use of nuclear weapons would have been a viable option. And,
    these nations would have had more of a justification since they were far more vulnerable to
    and helpless against enemy aggression than US to Japan's. Take Israel for instance. Beleagured
    and vulnerable, surrounded by hostile nations, constantly under terrorist attacks against its
    civilian populations. If Afghanistan had nukes, it would have been justified when Soviet tanks
    came rolling in. Some would say Iraq, though nasty nation, had the right to use nuclear
    nations to defend its sovereignty against the invading American force if indeed Iraq had such
    weapons. Nevetheless, we are glad that nukes were not used even in those scenarios where the
    fate of the nation was of far more drastic concern. Yet, US used nukes on a nation that was
    defacto destroyed. It used nukes against its civilian populations. Nukes might be justified
    just barely to defend a nation from being engulfed by an overwhelming hostile force(if Arab
    nations blitzkrieged Israel). But, to use nukes on a nation defacto destroyed and bleeding to
    death is overkill.
     
    Tags:


  2. Michal Los

    Michal Los Guest

    Uzytkownik "cave fish" <[email protected]> napisal w wiadomosci
    news:[email protected]...
    > First, the Enola Gay exhibit? Nothing wrong with that. A museum's role is put important artifacts
    > and items on display. You want details, read a book.
    >

    1. Who start that war?? (They should be prepare for ANY necessary response)
    2. We can forgive but we can't forget (A museum's role)
    3. This all B-17's and B-24's kill more people in Hamburg, Norymberga and others Germany cities
    --
    pzdr
    Michal Los
     
  3. Col . Rj

    Col . Rj Guest

    On 20 Dec 2003 23:32:03 -0800, [email protected] (cave fish)
    wrote:

    >First, the Enola Gay exhibit? Nothing wrong with that. A museum's role is put important artifacts
    >and items on display. You want details, read a book.
    >
    >-----

    Second, Arm chair quarter backing the leaders back then is as stupid today as saying some running
    back should have done a run different last sunday. I believe that the Japs were well served by
    dropping nukes. They were given the chance to surrender and refused. Wanting instead to force us to
    invade, where I will bet hundreds of thousands if not a million or more would have died. (People
    like you would today be whining about why we didn't use nukes to save that carnage). After the first
    nuke we again asked the Japs to surrender and they refused. If not for the Emperor, they also didn't
    want to surrender after the second Tojo was prepared to obliterate the whole country before giving
    up. AS for the civilian cassualties, the Japs themselves didn't care about civilians in other
    countries. Nor obviously did they care about their own since the militerists were prepared to
    sacrifice them all for their pride. Yet now 60 years later you expect us to feel bad and all. Not
    gonna happen from anyone with a smidgen of sanity and an IQ over 65.

    >
    >My feeling about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Morally unjustifiable but I have the benefit of hindsight,
    >Truman didn't. Also, though unrelated to the ethical argument over Japan, the unconditional
    >surrender of Japan--ensured by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki--was good for its future. It
    >allowed Americans to rebuild Japan in a very fundamental way which would have been impossible under
    >the military government, had it survived. We're facing the same problem in Iraq. If we had a
    >completely free hand and complete control as we did in Germany and Japan after WWII, we'd do a
    >better, more thoroughgoing job for Iraqis which will benefit them in the long run. But, the issue
    >of sovereignty is greater now than ever before, and Americans, especially after the Vietnam fiasco,
    >is careful not to appear the arrogant aggressor.
    >
    >Yet, why do I think Hiroshima/Nagasaki--or Hirosaki--bombings were unjustified?
    >
    >1. One argument says invading Japan would have led to casualties upward of 5 million lives, that as
    > horrible as the bombings were, on balance they saved lives by ending the war more quickly. The
    > problem with this argument is it's taking estimates as fact. Estimates are often wrong, often
    > very wrong. By Hitler's estimates, Nazis would have conquered Russia in less than a year. By
    > McCarthur's estimates during the early stages of Korean War, Chinese wouldn't dare send troops
    > and if they did would be helpless against American military. According to respectable estimates
    > of American casualties prior to the Gulf War, we were led to expect numbers ranging from 20,000
    > to 50,000 in a war lasting several years. All wrong, scandalously wrong. It's possible that
    > casualties would have been high had Americans pressed forward with conventional means against
    > Japan but to say that the bombing of Hirosaki saved millions of lives is simply an estimate, not
    > a sound basis for objective argument.
    >
    >2. Another issue concerns unconditional surrender as the ONLY option. Did United States really need
    > Japan to surrender unconditionally? Did United States need Japan to surrender at all? If
    > invasion of Japan would have cost over a million American casualties or if it entailed the used
    > of nuclear bombs, would it not have been more sensible to negotiate a conditional surrender? Or,
    > a cease-fire with a Japan already virtually isolated and destroyed? Why was unconditional
    > surrender so important? Was it revenge? After all, Japan started the war and bombed Pearl
    > Harbor. But, if revenge is the issue, United States avenged itself 10,000 fold prior to Hirosaki
    > bombing. If you look at the casualty ratio among American/Japanese soldiers, it was comparable
    > to cowboys and Indians. We really kicked their ass in every way. Also, how many died at Pearl
    > Harbor? Besides, it was a military target. Now, how many Japanese died as a result of American
    > bombing of cities like Tokyo? We are talking in the 100,000s. We are talking of leveling entire
    > cities, incinerating entire populations of children, women, gramps, etc. If revenge was the
    > factor, we got an oceanful of it. And, what was left of the Japanese navy, it's most prized
    > military asset? What had happened to its airforce or airfarce?
    >
    >It's like some scrawny kid sneaking up and kicking the behind of a powerfully built muscleman and
    >then getting beat up until his nose is busted, his eyes black and blue, all his teeth missing, his
    >ribs crushed, his ears bitten off, etc. Does the strong man then have to pull out a gun and shoot
    >the bloody pulp unless he calls the big guy 'uncle'?
    >
    >If not for revenge, how about to ensure longterm safety in the region by bringing Japan to its
    >knees? This is not a bad argument but did it justify nuclear bombs? Also, was Japan really a
    >future threat in the region even without surrendering? Historical facts show otherwise. If
    >anything, American victory and the rebuilding of Japanese economy and military ensured a more
    >prominent role for Japan in region(thus far for the good but who knows in the future?) than had
    >Americans not pressed for unconditional surrender and simply isolated Japan from the rest of the
    >world. If so, Japan would today be a backward, poor nation run by authoritarian overlords but no
    >threat to anyone.
    >
    >Japan, near the end of the war, had no viable navy or airforce. Its soldiers, streteched from
    >Siberia to Southeast Asia were on their last legs. 90% of transport ships carrying supplies were
    >routinely sunk by US planes. Japanese soldiers were exhausted and demoralized. They were on the
    >defensive and retreat in China where the Nationalists and Communists were regaining major
    >territories. Japanese had been terribly mauled by vastly superior Soviet troops in Manchuria. Japan
    >was a goner whether it surrendered or not. Had Japan not surrendered, it would have had no means to
    >rebuild its economy, its military, or its empire. Japan has little in terms of natural resources.
    >Cars in Japan near the end of the war were running on charcoal. Also, no Asian nation, which
    >suffered greatly under the Japanese, would have supplied Japan with raw materials. Neither would
    >have Soviets, certainly not US or Western Europeans nations. So, what kind of threat would Japan
    >have been?
    >
    >It would have been militarily weak, economically desperate, diplomatically isolated from both West
    >and East it had once preyed upon. Americans had done such a total job of destroying the Japanese
    >military that the idea of the Japanese Empire was simply a ghost of a shell on the Asian mainland.
    >Indeed, even before Pearl Harbor, Japanese had gotten mired in China in a stalemate. For all its
    >talk of a great empire, Japan didn't have the material, the men, or stamina to sustain their
    >imperial ambitions. So, it seems irrefutable that Japan would have served as no future threat if
    >United States had simply set up a naval blockade around Japan and focused its attention on China,
    >mainly to keep communists at bay. Instead what happened? Americans devoted most of its energy and
    >talent to rebuilding Japan during which time neglected China fell to the communists.
    >
    >3. Another argument is simply ends justify the means. Let's assume that invasion by conventional
    > means would have led to exceedingly high casualties. Therefore, whatever it took to lower that
    > casualty is justified. This sounds morally untenable. While it's true that extraordinary means
    > are often taken to achieve certain ends, there are certain rules, even in war. What was the
    > Geneva convention about? Why the law forbidding the use of poison gas? Even in war, there has to
    > be a modicum of rules, such as not bombing hospitals, etc. And, what does it say about American
    > fighting men that they would prefer an entire city be indiscrimately slaughtered so they
    > themselves could live? What soldiers go thru is horrible, and we must value the life of every
    > soldier but soldiers are meant to fight and die. If casualty estimates are too high, then you
    > don't send soldiers to useless, pointless slaughter. However, if it's a matter of gaining
    > military objectives, it must remain war between soldiers. Indiscrimate massacre of everyone to
    > save soldiers' lives is never justifiable. Pictures from Sep 11 is horrible enough. Hirosaki was
    > countless times that. We are talking of everyone getting incinerated or vaporized or left
    > mangled in the worst way, everyone from mother in a hospital giving birth to elder gasping his
    > last breath. We're talking of 100,000s of lives, from kindergarten to seniors. It's not just a
    > matter of numbers but of higher decency. I'd say two armies fighting one another with 10,000
    > casualties is less indecent than indiscriminate massacre of 1,000 civilians. If US could have
    > used the nuclear bombs to target mainly soldiers, it would have been justified. But, dropping a
    > bomb in the middle of a city and killing that many civilians can't in any way be justified. And,
    > I speak not only of Hirosaki but Dresden and Tokyo. And, of course Hitler's V1 and V2 bombings
    > of London but then Hitler was a subhuman as*hole. Still, I would say Churchill's bombing raids
    > against Germany were more justified out of simple revenge because of Hitler's bombing against
    > British civilians. United States doesn't have this claim against Japan. This isn't to say
    > Japanese were nice(they certainly bombed civilians in Shanghai)nor that Japan would not have
    > used the nuke if they had it. It's to say United States got revenge 1000x over and would have
    > obtained its objectives in the Pacific sphere even without Japan's surrender. Even without
    > Japan's surrender, US owned the Pacific and Japanese empire was in shambles, on its last legs,
    > destroyed.
    >
    >4. The implication of defending Hirosaki bombing is we could and should do it again if a similar
    > situation arises. Suppose a nation attacks US out of the blue, causing military casualties in
    > the 1000s. US wages war and breaks the back of that nation but the nation will not
    > unconditionally surrender. Pentagon estimates that US casualties will be high so we decide to
    > bomb two civilian targets. If one defends Hirosaki, he would have to defend this scenario. I
    > think it's crazy. Or, suppose US goverment had been overrun by belligerent military government
    > and we attack some nation out of the blue. We are engaged at war and that nation gains the
    > upperhand but we won't surrender. So does that give that nation the right to nuke Chicago and
    > Miami? I think this is crazy.
    >
    >5. ... which brings us to the subject of when should use of atomic weapons be justified? If nukes
    > were used simply because one nation attacked another nation, the world would today be awash in
    > nuclear wars. United States isn't the only nation that was attacked unprovoked in the 20th
    > century. If US actions were justified, it would imply that in the case of every nation that was
    > attacked by another nation, use of nuclear weapons would have been a viable option. And, these
    > nations would have had more of a justification since they were far more vulnerable to and
    > helpless against enemy aggression than US to Japan's. Take Israel for instance. Beleagured and
    > vulnerable, surrounded by hostile nations, constantly under terrorist attacks against its
    > civilian populations. If Afghanistan had nukes, it would have been justified when Soviet tanks
    > came rolling in. Some would say Iraq, though nasty nation, had the right to use nuclear nations
    > to defend its sovereignty against the invading American force if indeed Iraq had such weapons.
    > Nevetheless, we are glad that nukes were not used even in those scenarios where the fate of the
    > nation was of far more drastic concern. Yet, US used nukes on a nation that was defacto
    > destroyed. It used nukes against its civilian populations. Nukes might be justified just barely
    > to defend a nation from being engulfed by an overwhelming hostile force(if Arab nations
    > blitzkrieged Israel). But, to use nukes on a nation defacto destroyed and bleeding to death is
    > overkill.

    --

    "Conan, what is best in life?''

    ''To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.''
     
  4. On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:32:03 UTC, [email protected] (cave fish)
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    > Yet, why do I think Hiroshima/Nagasaki--or Hirosaki--bombings were unjustified?
    >

    > 2. Another issue concerns unconditional surrender as the ONLY option. Did United States really
    > need Japan to surrender unconditionally? Did United States need Japan to surrender at all? If
    > invasion of Japan would have cost over a million American casualties or if it entailed the used
    > of nuclear bombs, would it not have been more sensible to negotiate a conditional surrender?
    > Or, a cease-fire with a Japan already virtually isolated and destroyed? Why was unconditional
    > surrender so important? Was it revenge? After all, Japan started the war and bombed Pearl
    > Harbor. But, if revenge is the issue, United States avenged itself 10,000 fold prior to
    > Hirosaki bombing. If you look at the casualty ratio among American/Japanese soldiers, it was
    > comparable to cowboys and Indians.

    Part of Japan's copnditions was to keep their army in China. You let a defeated enemy keep an army
    to come back at you? To go after others and build itself up?

    No.

    The PC had us make that mistake in the First Gulf War. Not again.

    LT
     
  5. Rogerm

    Rogerm Guest

    "Col. RJ" wrote:
    >
    > On 20 Dec 2003 23:32:03 -0800, [email protected] (cave fish) wrote:
    >
    > >First, the Enola Gay exhibit? Nothing wrong with that. A museum's role is put important artifacts
    > >and items on display. You want details, read a book.
    > >
    > >-----
    >

    didn't have shit to with Pearl Harbor.

    Secondly, your attitude is different from Osama Bin Laden's how, exactly?

    Maybe some day you American cowboy assholes will grow up and realize there's more to life than
    having the biggest gun.

    --

    The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

    I find that while malice and greed are prime motivations in human
    behavior, it is a serious error to discount basic human stupidity.
     
  6. Freeda

    Freeda Guest

    > Second, Arm chair quarter backing the leaders back then is as stupid today as saying some running
    > back should have done a run different last sunday. I believe that the Japs were well served by
    > dropping nukes. They were given the chance to surrender and refused. Wanting instead to force us
    > to invade, where I will bet hundreds of thousands if not a million or more would have died.
    > (People like you would today be whining about why we didn't use nukes to save that carnage). After
    > the first nuke we again asked the Japs to surrender and they refused. If not for the Emperor, they
    > also didn't want to surrender after the second Tojo was prepared to obliterate the whole country
    > before giving up. AS for the civilian cassualties, the Japs themselves didn't care about civilians
    > in other countries. Nor obviously did they care about their own since the militerists were
    > prepared to sacrifice them all for their pride. Yet now 60 years later you expect us to feel bad
    > and all. Not gonna happen from anyone with a smidgen of sanity and an IQ over 65.

    Bear in mind America could forcast the impending cold war, so what better way to scare the
    Russians shitless.
     
  7. Steve Hix

    Steve Hix Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Michal Los" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Uzytkownik "cave fish" <[email protected]> napisal w wiadomosci
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > First, the Enola Gay exhibit? Nothing wrong with that. A museum's role is put important
    > > artifacts and items on display. You want details, read a book.
    > >
    >
    > 1. Who start that war?? (They should be prepare for ANY necessary response)
    > 2. We can forgive but we can't forget (A museum's role)
    > 3. This all B-17's and B-24's kill more people in Hamburg, Norymberga and others Germany cities

    Don't forget the RAF Lancasters and Mosquitoes, which put on the night firebombing raids, the which
    did more damage to German cities.
     
  8. Dave Smith

    Dave Smith Guest

    RogerM wrote:

    >

    >

    > didn't have shit to with Pearl Harbor.

    Sure they did. They were part of an imperialist society that had been expanding in the Pacific. They
    were the people who were providing the men to serve in the Japanese armed forces which had invaded
    China and other Asian countries where they were set loose to terrorize the populace with
    unimaginable atrocities. The people in those cities were busy manufacturing war materials and
    providing other services that helped the war effort.
     
  9. Dudhorse

    Dudhorse Guest

    "RogerM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Col. RJ" wrote:
    > >
    > > On 20 Dec 2003 23:32:03 -0800, [email protected] (cave fish) wrote:
    > >
    > > >First, the Enola Gay exhibit? Nothing wrong with that. A museum's role is put important
    > > >artifacts and items on display. You want details, read a book.
    > > >
    > > >-----
    > >

    >

    > didn't have shit to with Pearl Harbor.
    >
    > Secondly, your attitude is different from Osama Bin Laden's how, exactly?
    >
    > Maybe some day you American cowboy assholes will grow up and realize there's more to life than
    > having the biggest gun.
    >
    > --
    > ... I once read that a recent French writer said there were two atrocities
    in WWII: the Nazi deathcamps & Hiroshima - that sounds like typical B.S. from a country that caved
    during the war - the Japanese were going to defend their homeland to the death and MacArthur who was
    to command the invasion forces said he expected a million allied casualties! You need to get the
    opinion of the allied soldiers & marines who were to hit the beaches! Thankfully most them ended up
    dying of old age and natural causes. What the handwringers and the apologists for Japan should
    consider is how many lives were saved on both sides by the use of the bomb. - also if the bomb had
    not been used at the end of WWII then somewhere during the cold war somebody would have gotten
    stupid and used it but as long as the memory of Hiroshima/Nagasaki is around maybe it will keep
    responsible governments from pulling the nuclear trigger.
     
  10. On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:26:36 UTC, RogerM
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Col. RJ" wrote:

    > didn't have shit to with Pearl Harbor.
    >
    > Secondly, your attitude is different from Osama Bin Laden's how, exactly?
    >
    > Maybe some day you American cowboy assholes will grow up and realize there's more to life than
    > having the biggest gun.

    And the 3000 dead at WTC had what to do with Bin Laden? They had invaded his country how? They had
    fired on his family how?

    LT
     
  11. Gene Storey

    Gene Storey Guest

    > Maybe some day you American cowboy assholes will grow up and realize there's more to life than
    > having the biggest gun.

    There is more to life, but having a big gun makes it all possible.
     
  12. Gene Storey

    Gene Storey Guest

    > > didn't have shit to with Pearl Harbor.

    Yea, they stayed home while their husbands and sons raped China, Korea, and Indo-China. They'd be
    raping your mother now if it wasn't for the American leadership in breaking the enemies backs.

    Women and children always pay for the sins of their fathers.
     
  13. Dave Smith

    Dave Smith Guest

    Gene Storey wrote:

    > > > didn't have shit to with Pearl Harbor.
    >
    > Yea, they stayed home while their husbands and sons raped China, Korea, and Indo-China.

    That part I agree with.

    > They'd be raping your mother now if it wasn't for the American leadership in breaking the
    > enemies backs.

    American leadership in WW II? That is where we differ. England and its Commonwealth Allies were
    fighting in Europe and in SE Asia long before the US finally got involved.

    >
    >
    > Women and children always pay for the sins of their fathers.
     
  14. Dudhorse

    Dudhorse Guest

    "Dave Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Gene Storey wrote:
    >

    murdered
    > > > > didn't have shit to with Pearl Harbor.
    > >
    > > Yea, they stayed home while their husbands and sons raped China, Korea, and Indo-China.
    >
    > That part I agree with.
    >
    >
    > > They'd be raping your mother now if it wasn't for the American leadership in breaking the
    > > enemies backs.
    >
    > American leadership in WW II? That is where we differ. England and its Commonwealth Allies were
    > fighting in Europe and in SE Asia long before the
    US
    > finally got involved.
    >
    > >
    ... quite true the Brits and the Commonwealth were fighting long before we Americans entered the
    fray and also true you were losing till the U.S. arrived and Herr Hitler let Britain off the hook by
    attacking Russia.
     
  15. Tim Gueguen

    Tim Gueguen Guest

    "cave fish" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > First, the Enola Gay exhibit? Nothing wrong with that. A museum's role is put important artifacts
    > and items on display. You want details, read a book.
    >
    > -----
    >
    > My feeling about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Morally unjustifiable

    There were 3 choices in 1945. One, attempt to force the Japanese to surrender with the nuclear
    threat. Two, launch an eventual amphibious invasion of the Japanese mainland. Or three, blockade
    Japan and wait for conditions to deteriorate sufficiently to make the Japanese surrender. All of
    these choices would have resulted in deaths, both of Japanese civilians and Allied military
    personel, along with civilians in those Asian countries where Japanese forces were still active. The
    latter two were also problematic politically. The populations of the Allied states wanted the war
    ended, some having gone thru more than half a decade of conflict. Even a blockade that caused
    minimal Allied casualties would have been hard to promote politically.

    tim gueguen 101867
     
  16. Tim Gueguen

    Tim Gueguen Guest

    "Linda Terrell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]Level3.net...
    > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:32:03 UTC, [email protected] (cave fish) wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Yet, why do I think Hiroshima/Nagasaki--or Hirosaki--bombings were unjustified?
    > >
    >
    > > 2. Another issue concerns unconditional surrender as the ONLY option. Did United States really
    > > need Japan to surrender unconditionally? Did United States need Japan to surrender at all? If
    > > invasion of Japan would have cost over a million American casualties or if it entailed the
    > > used of nuclear bombs, would it not have been more sensible to negotiate a conditional
    > > surrender? Or, a cease-fire with a Japan already virtually isolated and destroyed? Why was
    > > unconditional surrender so important? Was it revenge? After all, Japan started the war and
    > > bombed Pearl Harbor. But, if revenge is the issue, United States avenged itself 10,000 fold
    > > prior to Hirosaki bombing. If you look at the casualty ratio among American/Japanese
    > > soldiers, it was comparable to cowboys and Indians.
    >
    >
    > Part of Japan's copnditions was to keep their army in China. You let a defeated enemy keep an army
    > to come back at you? To go after others and build itself up?
    >
    > No.
    >
    > The PC had us make that mistake in the First Gulf War. Not again.
    >
    "PC" had nothing to do with the end of Gulf War 1. It was all a question of stability. The US and
    its allies decided that a defanged Saddam was a better idea at the time than deposing him and seeing
    regional stability go byebye. They didn't want to see for example an escalation of the conflict
    between Kurdish seperatists and the Turks. They didn't want to see Iran grab a chunk of Iraqi
    territory. And so on.

    tim gueguen 101867
     
  17. Rogerm

    Rogerm Guest

    tim gueguen wrote:
    >
    > "cave fish" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > First, the Enola Gay exhibit? Nothing wrong with that. A museum's role is put important
    > > artifacts and items on display. You want details, read a book.
    > >
    > > -----
    > >
    > > My feeling about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Morally unjustifiable
    >
    > There were 3 choices in 1945. One, attempt to force the Japanese to surrender with the nuclear
    > threat. Two, launch an eventual amphibious invasion of the Japanese mainland. Or three, blockade
    > Japan and wait for conditions to deteriorate sufficiently to make the Japanese surrender. All of
    > these choices would have resulted in deaths, both of Japanese civilians and Allied military
    > personel, along with civilians in those Asian countries where Japanese forces were still active.
    > The latter two were also problematic politically. The populations of the Allied states wanted the
    > war ended, some having gone thru more than half a decade of conflict. Even a blockade that caused
    > minimal Allied casualties would have been hard to promote politically.
    >

    No one ever said doing the right thing was easy. That's why so much evil is done in the world,
    because doing good is usually problematic.

    --

    The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

    I find that while malice and greed are prime motivations in human
    behavior, it is a serious error to discount basic human stupidity.
     
  18. Rogerm

    Rogerm Guest

    Linda Terrell wrote:
    >
    > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:26:36 UTC, RogerM <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > "Col. RJ" wrote:
    >

    > > didn't have shit to with Pearl Harbor.
    > >
    > > Secondly, your attitude is different from Osama Bin Laden's how, exactly?
    > >
    > > Maybe some day you American cowboy assholes will grow up and realize there's more to life than
    > > having the biggest gun.
    >
    > And the 3000 dead at WTC had what to do with Bin Laden? They had invaded his country how? They had
    > fired on his family how?
    >

    You know what the presumed purpose of Al Qeada is right? The removal of foreign (American) troops
    from Saudi Arabia.

    The point is that Bin Laden (like the defenders of WW2 Allied terror bombings) believes in total
    war. Killing civilians as well as military personel.

    --

    The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

    I find that while malice and greed are prime motivations in human
    behavior, it is a serious error to discount basic human stupidity.
     
  19. Gene Storey

    Gene Storey Guest

    "RogerM" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    > You know what the presumed purpose of Al Qeada is right? The removal of foreign (American) troops
    > from Saudi Arabia.

    You've simplified it too far.

    During the last 70 tears, we have considered Muslims to be nothing more than niggers, and the fact
    that they have oil has caused us to acknowledge their leaders, much as we used to acknowledge Cotton
    Gin owners.

    Like the Negro, the Arab has had enough.

    What's happening today, is the same thing that happened in 1968, only this time the weapons are more
    powerful, and more people will die.

    The only right thing to do, is to treat Arabs as something other than niggers, and end the energy
    economy which we have based on depletion of natural resources.

    There is no technological need for oil in over 80% of what we consume. The only reason we use it, is
    because it is cheap, and the niggers are under our thumb. As they used to say: You can pay me now,
    or you can pay me later.

    As California has found out, "later" has arrived.
     
  20. "Dave Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Gene Storey wrote:
    >

    murdered
    > > > > didn't have shit to with Pearl Harbor.
    > >
    > > Yea, they stayed home while their husbands and sons raped China, Korea, and Indo-China.
    >
    > That part I agree with.
    >
    >
    > > They'd be raping your mother now if it wasn't for the American leadership in breaking the
    > > enemies backs.
    >
    > American leadership in WW II? That is where we differ. England and its Commonwealth Allies were
    > fighting in Europe and in SE Asia long before the
    US
    > finally got involved.
    >

    In Europe yes , in SE Asia no. Both nations got involved militarily on Dec 7 1941 . Prior to the
    that the Americans had provided aid and advisors to the Chinese. Initially HMG actually closed the
    Burma road in June 1940 under Japanese pressure to avoid a conflict.

    It was only reopened in October that year after FDR promised to aid Britain if the
    Japanese attacked.

    Keith
     
Loading...