What would you say if Saddam nuked, f.ex. NY into a pile of dust ? I imagine you'd say "And .. who attacked who ? learn it, deal with it, get over it. Saddam isnt as evil as everyone says."

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
What would you say if Saddam nuked, f.ex. NY into a pile of dust ? I imagine you'd say "And .. who attacked who ? learn it, deal with it, get over it. Saddam isnt as evil as everyone says."

thats for another thread.

this thread is about japan, not iraq. stick to the topic or start another thread.

It's not another thread .. the thread is about "using nukes in japan - right or wrong?". You said it was right b/c japan attacked US first. I suspect you didnt think your argument through, and your unwillingness to answer the comparison shows you'd like to conceal your double standards. Just get rid of them !! life will be so much easier

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
It's not another thread .. the thread is about "using nukes in japan - right or wrong?". You said it was right b/c japan attacked US first. I suspect you didnt think your argument through, and your unwillingness to answer the comparison shows you'd like to conceal your double standards. Just get rid of them !! life will be so much easier

you're changing the subject, period. this is about japan.

christ can you read? apparently not. war makes no sense. you're trrying to make logic of somethign that has no logic. but you'd know that if you read my previous posts in this thread.


this is about japan, not saddam and iraq.

get over it.

I am not changing subject. You put forth an argument and i am challenging it's moral integrity. Look, you don't even answer my comparison. You have a very bad style of discussion right now. bad monkey!

Well Moku...if Saddam had 'nuked' New York....be assurd that instead of occupying and liberating Iraq, that there would be a significant amount of glass being claimed and called former Iraq.


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
I am not changing subject. You put forth an argument and i am challenging it's moral integrity. Look, you don't even answer my comparison. You have a very bad style of discussion right now. bad monkey!

"hmmm i have an apple and an orange, i'm going to argue how similar the two fruits are"

moral relativism is a flimsy argument.

what part of "war doesnt make sense and never will" have you failed to understand?

they are completely different situations, about the only similarity is people die. beyond that its all different.

so no i am not going to compare apples to oranges. but you keep thinking the two are the same thing.

Okay since you seem to prank on me by denying your capability for abstract logic, i will be more explicit. Your Argument is "A attacked B therefore B was in the right to use the bomb". I say well well .. does this proposition hold for all variables A and B ? if not, the proposition is incorrect.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Well Moku...if Saddam had 'nuked' New York....be assurd that instead of occupying and liberating Iraq, that there would be a significant amount of glass being claimed and called former Iraq.


regards
seekerof

That's also what i suspect, but Monkey would say "get used to it, get over it. Saddam isnt as evil as people say"

lol no because both situations are different.

but lets be honest, all war is wrong. or at least we feel it is wrong.

now if you're going to say america is wrong for "attacking" iraq then you must STILL come to the conclusion that japan was wrong for attacking the US.

i know you just want people to say how evil america is and i know you want to make america look like the only country who has done this but you are still trying to compare two different situations.

yes america attacked iraq, they lost. pretty simple. japa attacked and they lost.

japan got what it deserved.

of course saddam doesnt have the miltary might to strike the US homeland like we struck japan.

alls fair in war as i'm concerned. i never said saddam couldnt strike back in any way he wanted. people just dont like it when america does it yourself included.

but again, none of it makes sense.

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
i know you just want people to say how evil america is and i know you want to make america look like the only country who has done this but you are still trying to compare two different situations.

Who says that ?

alls fair in war as i'm concerned. i never said saddam couldnt strike back in any way he wanted. people just dont like it when america does it yourself included.

Not true, i am against any form of unnecessary violence, be it the nukes on japan, the bombing in Iraq, the war against vietnamese peasents, the Red Khmer, the genocide of palestinians or WW2.


[Edited on 7-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
i know you just want people to say how evil america is and i know you want to make america look like the only country who has done this but you are still trying to compare two different situations.

Who says that ?

alls fair in war as i'm concerned. i never said saddam couldnt strike back in any way he wanted. people just dont like it when america does it yourself included.

Not true, i am against any form of unnecessary violence, be it the nukes on japan, the bombing in Iraq, the war against vietnamese peasents, the Red Khmer, the genocide of palestinians or WW2.


[Edited on 7-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

well moral relativism states all war is unnecessary. its wrong and shouldnt be done ever.

or was striking back with as much force as possible wrong when america did it but when japan attacked peral harbor that was somehow a necessary violent act?

you dont get to have your cake and eat it too. noone does.

either war is wrong or not. you dont say "well what america did was wrong" while not condemning the attack that brought about the war between japan and america.

well we attacked iraq and saddam can certainly strike back anyway he sees fit, there are no rules but "win" when it comes to war.

as many rules and policies have been put into place (geneva convention) about how POWs ands civilians should be treated i have yet to see any country follows those rules to the letter. in facts not many follow them at all. rules are just a form of morality placed on something that has no room for it.

war is a double edge sword. it cuts both ways.

I condemn the illegal (according to international law) japanese surprise attack on US military target, but i condemn far more the use of nuclear weapons on civilian targets. It's an act of bestiality, not an act of war.

Just just info to compare against a nuke.

This is all in ONE Firebombing raid on Tokyo.
276,171 buildings, Thats 25% of all buildings in Tokyo at the time. 100,000 People dead.
EST: Total death count after all fire bombing raids
400,000

On another run. 80,000 to 200,000 Died in a 6 HOUR bombing campaign using oil gel (Napalm)

Vaporize or Burn ? These people died in a fire storm, that far worse than being vaporized instantly.

EST DEATH COUNT FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS (both)
350,000 Dead.

Safe to say people were gonna die either way.

Id rather be vaporized than burnt to death by napalm.



[Edited on 7-8-2003 by ThermoNuke]

Well any form of massive civilian or nuclear bombing is an unnecessary and criminal act of bestiality, be it over Germany, Japan or Iraq.


[Edited on 7-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

Kajomo, Pay attention in history. The U.S. had two battle plans at the time. Nuke Japan. Or invasion. Everyone knows that.

Ok, those of you who say "Japan was near defeat" obviously know NOTHING ABOUT WW2!

1) The provided link discusses how Japanese NOT ANYONE ELSE! But Japanese have uncovered the correspondance between the Emperor and the Military leaders, where the Military leaders basically told the Emperor and anyone else who wanted to surrender to "Shut up, we'll lose 20 million before we give up!"

2) The Military leaders ran the show, if you think Japanese would just wake up one day and say "we don't want to fight anymore" then you're an idiot...the Military Leaders decided when they stopped fighting.

3) Japan had ready at anytime, the civilian population to hold off a beach landing until the Japanese army could arrive.

This consisted of over 600,000 people, who were NOT TRAINED in any way OTHER than this:

To dig a hole, and stay there until you are killed, and kill anything that comes your way.

If you think the Japs would have left their holes, you're again, and idiot.

The japanese were known for such tactics as the following:

Anti-Tank tactics:

1) Man in hole with bomb and hammer.

2) Man with time-bomb holds the bomb to tank and protects bomb with his body.

Anti-Ship tactics:

1) Fly plane with explosives into ship.

Surrender tactics:

1) Pull pin on Grenade in a hole or cave.

2) Throw self off cliff

3) Shoot yourself or others who you will not see surrender!

Other facts are such as the bombing of Japan.

If you think the Atomic bombs were a real disaster, then maybe you should look up some other Jap towns...like:

Cities Fire Bombed from 18 June - 14 August 1945

Namazu: Pop: 53thousand %destroyed: 90

Toyama: Pop: 128thousand %destroyed: 100

Hachioji: Pop: 62thousand %destroyed: 80

Fukui: Pop: 98thousand %destroyed: 85.

The atomic bombs were dropped 6th August and 9th August.

Keep that in note because on 14th August:

Cities Fire Bombed:
Kumagaya: Pop: 49thousand %destroyed: 45
Isezaki: Pop: 40 thousand %destroyed: 17

Now compare the endless Firebombing to the bliss and relief of two, simple atomic bombs.

Hiroshima: Pop: 343 thousand % destroyed: 75

Nagasaki: Pop: 252thousand % destroyed: 40

I never said the Atomic Bombs were not the lesser of two evils.

But would you really want the firebombing campaigns to have continued for years? When all that above destruction is just a small list of over 70 cities fire bombed in that small time span alone.

Even after two atomic bombs the Japs hesitated to surrender...amidst all that death.

Don't blame America for dropping the bombs, it saved the lives of tens of millions.

Note: The lists above are of secondary bombings, I don't have a list of primary bombings for those dates

Originally posted by Jakomo
The only thing worse than war is someone who's never been in a combat situation and JUSTIFIES or GLORIFIES it. War brings out the depths of human depravity.

No one is Glorifying anything, but we are justifying.

The only thing worse than someone justifying an act during war, is an idiot who's never been in war, who says that act was wrong.

I suggest you talk to WW2 veterans about your feelings on the bomb, they'd tell you to, "Shut the hell up."

FreeMason: I'm a journalist, so I've talked to many veterans, from WWI to WWII to Vietnam to Korea, and none of themever said "Shut the hell up, those Japs deserved it." Not one.

"The only thing worse than someone justifying an act during war, is an idiot who's never been in war, who says that act was wrong."

I'm not an idiot, so I'm not sure who you're directing that at. Unless it's a personal attack in which case thanks!


FreeMason: Yes, the nerve of those godless Japanese. How dare they plan to defend their country against an invasion.

And now that you mention statistics, it looks like the massive firebombing of civilian targets in Japan was just as cowardly and wrong as dropping 2 a-bombs. I didn't realize how many people had died until you posted it up.

"Don't blame America for dropping the bombs, it saved the lives of tens of millions. "

Tens of millions? Huh? Where?