U.S. attends Hiroshima bombing ceremony for first time

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 



Are you a Japaenese sympathizer in any way?


No, I'm an innocent child sympathizer. I'm even a human-being sympathizer and don't believe in terror, irregardless of commits who the terrorist act.


So what you're saying is that we should've let Japan carry on with their Pacific expansion of their empire without never addressing the atrocities they committed on the civilian populations they encountered with every invasion.


Never once was that said or emplied by me, or anyone else in this thread that I have read so far. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me. In fact, the Japenese weren't going anywhere. The Soviets were closing in on them from the north and we had alreaady pryed them from every island to the south. In fact, we had an effective blockade and had destroyed most of their industrial infrastructure. The Japanese weren't going anywhere at that time.


Don't get me wrong. It wonderful how the Japanese embraced democracy after the war but to say that we're the bad guys during the second world war is in itself bewildering to me.


Yes, when you deliberately attack millions of innocent civilians, you are a terrorist, otherwise known as a "bad-guy". Jeez, we look at Al Qaeda as "bad-guys" and they only targeted thousands of civilians. Terrorism is terrorism and no matter how you try to justify it, it's still wrong. Do you buy into the crap being spewed by Al Qaeda too?

--airspoon




posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
Truth is, you or anyone else doesn't know how many would have died had we invaded.
Yes that's true and of course that includes you as well. But we did have a clue:

www.cfo.doe.gov...


No one knew how many lives would be lost in an invasion, American, Allied, and Japanese, but the recent seizure of the island of Marine crossing "Death Valley" under fire, Okinawa, May 10, 1945. Okinawa provided a ghastly clue. The campaign to take the small island had taken over ten weeks, and the fighting had resulted in the deaths of over 12,000 Americans, 100,000 Japanese, and perhaps another 100,000 native Okinawans.


Just taking Okinawa via invasion resulted in about as many deaths as both atomic bombs did. So I don't think it's pulling numbers out of the air to look at those casualties for a reference point for estimating expected casualties for a full scale invasion.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


nice post, and thoughts regarding how the US has not apologized

while i do not know for certain if we have 'officially' apologized or not, i know we are still occupying japanese land, such as
from wikipedia




Air Force:

Camp Chitose, Chitose, Hokkaido
Kadena Air Base, Okinawa Prefecture
Kadena Ammunition Storage Area, Okinawa Prefecture
Okuma Recreational Facility, Okinawa Prefecture
Yaedake Communication Site, Okinawa Prefecture
Misawa Air Base, Aomori Prefecture
Yokota Air Base, Fussa, Tokyo
Fuchu Communications Station, Fuchu, Tokyo
Tama Service Annex, Inagi, Tokyo
Yugi Communication Site, Hachioji, Tokyo
Camp Asaka AFN Transmitter Site, Saitama Prefecture
Tokorozawa Transmitter Site, Saitama Prefecture
Owada Communication Site, Saitama Prefecture
Army:

Fort Buckner, Okinawa Prefecture
Army POL Depots, Okinawa Prefecture
White Beach Area, Okinawa Prefecture
Naha Port, Okinawa Prefecture (return after relocation to the Urasoe Pier area)
Torii Station, Okinawa Prefecture
Tengan Pier, Okinawa Prefecture
Camp Zama, Zama, Kanagawa
Yokohama North Dock, Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture
Sagami General Depot, Sagamihara, Kanagawa
Sagamihara Housing Area, Sagamihara, Kanagawa
Akizuki Ammunition Depot, Hiroshima Prefecture
Hiro Ammunition Depot, Hiroshima Prefecture
Kawakami Ammunition Depot, Hiroshima Prefecture
Hardy Barracks, Minato, Tokyo
Marine Corps:

Camp Smedley D. Butler, Okinawa Prefecture, Yamaguchi Prefectures. (Although these camps are dispersed throughout Okinawa and the rest of Japan they are all under the heading of Camp Smedley D. Butler):
Camp McTureous, Okinawa Prefecture
Camp Courtney, Okinawa Prefecture
Camp Foster, Okinawa Prefecture
Camp Kinser, Okinawa Prefecture
Camp Hansen, Okinawa Prefecture
Camp Schwab, Okinawa Prefecture
Camp Gonsalves (Jungle Warfare Training Center), Okinawa Prefecture
Kin Blue Beach Training Area, Okinawa Prefecture
Kin Red Beach Training Area, Okinawa Prefecture
NSGA Hanza
Higashionna Ammunition Storage Point II
Henoko Ordnance Ammunition Depot
Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, Okinawa Prefecture (return after the MCAS Futenma relocates to Camp Schwab)
Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni
Camp Fuji, Shizuoka Prefecture
Numazu Training Area, Shizuoka Prefecture
Ie Jima Auxiliary Airfield, Okinawa Prefecture
Tsuken Jima Training Area, Okinawa Prefecture
Navy:

Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Ayase, Kanagawa
United States Fleet Activities Sasebo, Sasebo, Nagasaki
United States Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Yokosuka, Kanagawa
Urago Ammunition Depot, Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture
Tsurumi POL Depot, Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture
Naval Housing Annex Negishi, Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture
Naval Transmitter Station Totsuka, Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture
Naval Support Facility Kamiseya, Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture
Tomioka Storage Area, Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture
Naval Housing Annex Ikego, Zushi, Kanagawa
White Beach Area, Okinawa Prefecture
Camp Shields, Okinawa Prefecture
Camp Lester, Okinawa Prefecture (return after the Naval Hospital relocates to Camp Foster)
Awase Communication Station, Okinawa Prefecture
New Sanno Hotel, Tokyo
JSDF–USFJ Areas:

Tori Shima Range, Okinawa Prefecture
Kume Jima Range, Okinawa Prefecture
Kisarazu Auxiliary Landing Field, Kisarazu, Chiba Prefecture
Camp Hansen (small portion in central area of Camp Hansen), Okinawa Prefecture
Ukibaru Jima Range, Okinawa Prefecture
Kadena Air Base (small areas outside of the base that are supported by Kadena—these areas are located on the southern portion of Okinawa), Okinawa Prefecture
Jungle Warfare Training Center (formerly known as Northern Training Area—four thin elongated areas embedded and distributed evenly within JWTC), Okinawa Prefecture


when i lived there on one of the naval bases years ago, i witness the formal japanese marches and political campaigns to get the americans to leave, they ultimately don't really want or need us there ( they're VERY polite and patient about it though )

it's a little more complicated than protesting in the US, since legally they have to set up an official protest time with their government and get the government's 'OK' approval to do it, but the japanese are definitely showing signs that they are sighing heavily and wondering why we're still there and when we'll leave

it's obvious to me that the american's do not care much for it being 'ok' or acceptable for them to still be there and running operations there, i think america just enjoys the strategic placement of so many forces there, as well as maintaining a watchful eye on the japanese at all times since the japanese are known to have a superior naval fleet

i agree with your opinion, we need to apologize, we also need to get out of THEIR country though as well.... i think the conclusion to all this is the american's just want to use the japanese land as a stepping stone for strategic global domination, might sound farfetched at first, but it's not far from the truth just look at us and what we're doing EVERYWHERE..

i don't think the american's feel any need to show the japanese formal respect of any kind, which really sickens me because they are such a polite and peaceful culture and society

although, if we didn't have any bases there people like me would not have gotten the chance to grow up there and learn from their culture and experience things that could not be experienced in coorporate america...


ah, i didn't mean to go off on a tangent there



[edit on 8/6/2010 by indigothefish]

[edit on 8/6/2010 by indigothefish]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by indigothefish



it's obvious to me that the american's do not care much for it being 'ok' or acceptable for them to still be there and running operations there, i think america just enjoys the strategic placement of so many forces there, as well as maintaining a watchful eye on the japanese at all times since the japanese are known to have a superior naval fleet


The Japanese most certainly do not have a superior naval fleet. The Japanese are not even allowed to have a military per the treaty they signed with the US all those years ago. They are obligated to protect Japan, and have a heavily restricted defense force.

They have no blue water navy to speak of! Period!

Also, they are a close US ally. I agree that we do not need to be everywhere in the world. But do not discount the relationship the Japs and the Americans have.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Discotech
Why apologise ?

Has Japan apologised for Pearl Harbour ? War is hell, people die, the victors never apologise, to expect an apology is absurd as it was Japan who brought the US into the war by bombing Pearl Harbour. I'm sure the majority of Japanese are not angered as they probably realise it was their own fault by declaring war on the US


Seeing your condensing tone I should probably reply like this;

Japan selflessly fought against the Western imperialists for the freedom of all Asian peoples, and brought order to a China tormented by the despotism of mafia-like warlords. But the U.S. greedily saw this as a threat to business interests in China, and gave huge sums of aid and military support to said warlords. Japan was forced to make war with the U.S., already a de facto belligerent by proxy.

The Japanese soldiers fought with unparalleled valor, yet always chivalrously, always fairly. The U.S., on the other hand, fought with scornful negligence of the principles of just and legitimate warfare, massacring hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians in a ruthless campaign of terror bombings and, most atrociously, deploying the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a barbaric form of warfare alien to the very spirit of Japanese culture and morality.

Perhaps the sad truth is that the world is to malicious a place for a country like Japan. If she would only have condescended to the same filthy kind of warfare that the Americans and the Chinese waged, it is possible, even likely, that she would have prevailed.

In the light of history, Japan is the greatest victim of WWII.

(Now I sounded like you just using opposite side)

Here's my reply, the sad truth is victor's get to write the history, as well as decide who gets charged with war crimes. Simple as that. The Allies did just as much, if not more war crimes than the Axis did. Russians pretty much got of scott free with everything and anything they did. The war crimes done by the Allies that did have blame attached to them were all attributed to the Germans during the Nuremberg Trials. That is how the Allies can kill 200 000 civilians with two bombs and not be held responsible.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Sheol]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
Based on the logic that many are using here, a diliberate terrorist attack on US cities would be justified if the saves the lives of another country's military. This is absurd and it's the same thinking that goes through the head of suicide bombers as they enter a nightclub or crowded market.

--airspoon


Who's side are you on? I find it highly disturbing that you could be a member of the United States military, based on your thinking in this thread. There is such a thing as right and wrong, and in the case of World War II, the Japanese were clearly in the wrong. They were the initiators of the conflict, they committed atrocities against civilians, prisoners of war and opposing miliary forces alike, and it's their own government that brought the hellfire that is an atomic attack onto the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If anyone should apologize for those bombs, it's the Japanese themselves!

And if you want to label any bombing on a "civilian" population as terrorism(nevermind the fact that the atomic targets were strategic industrial sites rather than large population centers), you may as well brand centuries of war as terrorism. For the majority of human history, targets have NOT been "off-limits" simply because non-combatants happen to reside in harm's way. All major participants in World War II waged bombing campaigns on enemy cities - just as armies have employed sieges and attacked their opponents' supply lines for as far back as we can remember.

In many cases, an army will even engage in mass enslavement and rape of enemy civilians - just ask the Japanese because this was one of their favorite activities!



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Replicator EYD
 


A couple things wrong with your information. First, the intent behind the a-bomb was not to take out industrial targets. Rather, they were to scare the Japanese leadership into surrender. In order to accomplish this, the US went for maximum destruction and human lives. This is the same tactic employed by terrorism. Maximum destruction and human lives lost for a political goal. We didn't target an industrial center, rather we targeted civilians.

Furthermore, as a professional soldier, it is only expected of me to not partake in or condone the targeting of civilians. It's what seperates me, a professional soldier, from a terrorist. In fact, that is the difference between a terrorist and a soldier.

I'm not trying to say that the Japenese did nothing wrong in WWII, however two wrongs don't make a right and those women and children who were targeted, did not partake in the atrocities of their government.

The sad fact of the matter, is that we targeted civilians for a political goal. The Soviets were closing in on the Japs and instead of allowing the emperor the option of negotiating a surrender deal with the Russians, we thought that targeting millions of innocent people was a better idea.

This is a clear disregard for human life and it is the very definition of terrorism. I don't see how anyone can support this act of terrorism, yet not support the act if terrorism committed on 9/11.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


That was then. This is now. The way war is fought has changed dramatically. Why are you so intent on focusing on Japan? The allied fire bombings in Germany killed more civilians than that were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We had to use them before we could give them the chance to use them on us or any other nation. Besides, the only reason for the Soviet Union to declare war on Japan in 1945 was to aquire the nuclear reasearch Japan had already succeeded at.

I say again: that was then. This is now. Our mental state on how war should be waged is different. Then again, there hasn't been another World War since then neither.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 


well, you are right about their military being small now, i don't know for certain if it is truely 'restricted' stil to this date, but that is a good point to bring up thanks

the japanese were a powerful enemy in world war 2, they learned the western ways of naval warfare faster than anyone could imagine, i am only referencing things that american officers have talked with me about during conversations, america may not have respect for japan as a country, but it seems any american officer who knows history respects the japanese navy for it's ability to be resourceful, quick learning and extremely determined

i mean, it took two atomic bombs to get them to submit! !!

this is not an argument to disprove that the japanese naval force is not currently as strong as it used to be, but only to illuminate how fast the japanese are capable of becoming fully prepared for superpowers such as the west

i'd expect that when faced with protecting japan's best interest, the japanese are still more than capable of creating a vast military force in a short time, that's sort of just how history has proven it to happen

and don't forget as well that japan holds more than 780 billion dollars worth of us treasury securities



[edit on 8/6/2010 by indigothefish]

[edit on 8/6/2010 by indigothefish]

[edit on 8/6/2010 by indigothefish]

[edit on 8/6/2010 by indigothefish]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon

Still no apology? This must be angering many Japanese and if it doesn't, they prove much more "understanding" than many Americans, seeing how many people in the US are angered by a proposed Mosque near ground-zero. The difference here is that the US government actually destroyed millions of lives in a horrible and deliberate attack on civilians, while Islam (as a whole) didn't. I guess it's easy to suggest that no one alive in government today had anything to do with the bombing, but it is the symbology of it all. If we apologized, it would be one thing but to attend without apology seems a little harsh to say the least.


WTF, over?

Apologize? For what, may I ask? If I remember things correctly, the Japanese started the war.

I guess in your eagerness for an apology, you forgot about the Rape of Nanking, or the Bataan Death March, or the Hell Ships filled with POWs.

Keep this in mind: You start a war with the world, you lose the right to complain when said world turns around and lays the nuclear mushroom stamp across your dumbass forehead.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
reply to post by airspoon
 


That was then. This is now. The way war is fought has changed dramatically. Why are you so intent on focusing on Japan? The allied fire bombings in Germany killed more civilians than that were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We had to use them before we could give them the chance to use them on us or any other nation. Besides, the only reason for the Soviet Union to declare war on Japan in 1945 was to aquire the nuclear reasearch Japan had already succeeded at.

I say again: that was then. This is now. Our mental state on how war should be waged is different. Then again, there hasn't been another World War since then neither.


The difference is that the bombings in Europe didn't deliberately target civilians, rather civilians were considered to be collatoral damage. We bombed industrial and military targets in a goal to reduce their war-making effort. Unlike in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the goal wasn't to kill civilians for a political goal. In fact, the difference between the two, is the same difference that seperates a military strike from an act of terrorism.

The definition of "terror", according to Marriam-Webster:

4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

The goal of the nuclear bombings in Japan, was to intimidate the Japanese government into giving in to our demands, an uncondtional surrender. When our government committed this act, they had the same goal and tactic that Al Qaeda had, when perpetrating 9/11 (or whoever you believe to have committed the act). Again, the only goal was to intimidate the Japanese government into surrender, a political goal, as opposed to knocking out any industrial or military targets. Ny the logic many are using here, Al Qaeda should also be justified for the events of 9/11, since they allegedly targeted their targets for the greater goal of freeing their people from oppression.

As much as I take up for the Palestinians in their on-going conflict with Israel, I would never condone the targeting of innocent people, such as the bus blasts of last decade. They too were targeting civilians for a political goal. They weren't targeting military and government forces and innocent people just happened to be caught up in their violence.

In this day in age, people are confusing what terrorism is. This is partly or mainly due to propaganda in drumming up support for a particular agenda. These days, we are often lead to believe that any attack by America's enemies are acts of terror. For instance, it is not uncommon for the media to suggest that terrorists have attacked an outpost with mortars. This simply isn't true. When a military unit, irregardless of whether you think they are legit or not, attacks another military unit, it is hardly terrorism and if you think differently, then where would you draw the line? Would American military action not be considered terrorism too, by that definition of the term?

It's because of this recent "War on Terror", people are mislead into thinking terrorism is what it isn't and that it isn't what it is. "Terrorism" is anyone who attacks America and her allies, rather it is when you deliberately target civilians for a political goal.

As much as people want to whine and cry about the atrocities of the Japanese government, the people of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki hardly had anything to do with it, especially the children. They were not soldiers and thus shouldn't have been targeted.

Would Iran be justified in sending nuclear missiles into our cities in an effort to prevent the American or Israeli military from striking their nuclear sites? Should they be able to deliberately target, kill and maim hundreds of thousands or even millions of American civilians to save their military from destruction? If you answer no, then ask yourself how you came to that conclusion. Could it be because they aren't American?

Al Qaeda (if in fact they are guilty), didn't commit the attacks on 9/11 because they were jealous of our freedoms or because they were bored with nothing else to do, rather they had a political goal and obviously felt that the killing was justified and would make life easier for them and their people. Does this make it right? Right after 9/11, I can remember all of the talking heads, suggesting how disgusting it was that this group would target innocent civilians for their own political goals, which ultimately made them terrorists. Now a decade later, it is how disgusting they are for targeting Americans for any reason, which makes them terrorists, so "they" would want you to believe.

Again, why is okay for the US to do it, but not for Al Qaeda? Is it because they are diffferent than you? Is it because you are better than them?

The lesson here, is don't allow the popular media to skew the definition of "terrorism" and instead, see it for what it is. When you deliberately set out to kill and/or maim innocent civilians, you are a terrorist, plain and simple. In fact, part of the responsability of a professional soldier, is to minimize civilian casualties. When you purposefully target them, you are not a soldier, rather you are a terrorist. With as much terrorism as has happened in the last decade or so, you would think that all moral people would be condemning it, instead of condoning it. It only seems that people are eager to condemn it, when either someone tells them too, or it is against their own country. With that being said, I don't think people are condoning it on purpose, rather it is ignorance preventing them from seeing it in the first place.

Even our own court of law sees the difference between deliberately targeting an innocent person and accidently killing one as a result of a different goal. If you are shooting at an intruder and you accidently kill "Joe-Shmoe", it's manslaughter. If you deliberately target "Joe-Shmoe", it's murder. If you are hunting deer and and accidently shoot "John", you aren't going to be charged with murder (if in fact they believe your story) but if you deliberately attack "John", you are committing murder.

Here is the deciding factor that you can't deny, no matter how hard you try to ignore it or block it out of the equation. America's only goal in killing all of those innocent people, was to intimidate the Japanese government into an unconditional surrender, otherwise known as a demand. This too was Al Qaeda's goal (if in fact they are guilty), to kill civilians to intimidate for their own demand or political goal.

--airspoon


Edit to add:

It's quite sad to see so many people claiming to deny ignorance, yet ignore obvious facts when the data doesn't fit their view-point. Instead of objectivity, people are allowing their own personal biases to skew their conclusion.

Furthermore, people keep bringing up the atrocities of the Japanese government and somehow use that to justify the whole-sale murder of thousands of women and children. Two wrongs don't make a right. With that logic, it should be perfectly acceptable for Iraqi nationals to bomb American cities or kill as many American children as possible.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
As much as people want to whine and cry about the atrocities of the Japanese government, the people of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki hardly had anything to do with it, especially the children. They were not soldiers and thus shouldn't have been targeted.


Tell that to the people of Nanking. I'm sure they'll be comforted to know that.

I love how on ATS, people seem to forget that. The Rape of Nanking. Men, women and children were butcher wholesale by the IJA. Two officers had a contest on how many people they could behead.

But all that doesn't matter. No need to waste time worrying about them. The Atomic bombings were much more horrible, much more terrible. Yeah, they were bad, but guess what? Maybe if the Japanese hadn't started the war, they wouldn't have been tapped on the nose twice with the nuke stick.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 



It wasn't polical goal the United States was trying to achieve. The direct motive behind the use of the atomic bomb was to end the war.

The fire bombings in Germany and the detonation of two atomic bombs on Japanese soil produced the same results.

An invasion on the Japanese mainland would've produced 100 times the casualties the two bombs produced.

I'll stand on my statement until my death: it was war and war is hell.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
The difference is that the bombings in Europe didn't deliberately target civilians, rather civilians were considered to be collatoral damage. We bombed industrial and military targets in a goal to reduce their war-making effort. Unlike in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the goal wasn't to kill civilians for a political goal. In fact, the difference between the two, is the same difference that seperates a military strike from an act of terrorism.


Oh come on Airspoon, I don't believe you are that naive. They most certainly bombed civilians in germany. Just look at the images of berlin after its fall and tell me no civilians were targeted. Its called demoralising the enemy and turning the civilians anger on their own government. You must know how inaccurate the old bombers were, most bombs hit hundreds of yards off target.

The military brass and civilian leaders knew they were killing civilians in europe with their airstrikes and still went ahead. Same thing with Japan. I think you are using semantics trying to seperate the two to defend your position.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
The difference is that the bombings in Europe didn't deliberately target civilians, rather civilians were considered to be collatoral damage. We bombed industrial and military targets in a goal to reduce their war-making effort. Unlike in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the goal wasn't to kill civilians for a political goal. In fact, the difference between the two, is the same difference that seperates a military strike from an act of terrorism.


Well this is complete and utter BS, the Dresden bombing served no strategic gain other than to try and demoralise the German citizens living there. Or are you going to deny the Dresden bombing ?

As for Hiroshima not being of strategic value I suggest you read this which I did post earlier but you've clear just dismissed it because it doesn't suit your agenda

www.japaneselifestyle.com.au...


At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable military significance. It contained the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defence of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications centre, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force.


Note the key points

1. It was a HQ for the southern defence of Japan
2. Communications centre
3. Storage point & assembly area for troops.
4. Training WOMEN & CHILDREN to resist any invading force

It's quite clear you don't understand the mindset of the Japanese people at that time in history nor do you understand much of what has presented to you in favour of dropping the nukes in order to SAVE lives.

Noone is saying they think it was a good thing the nukes were dropped but they appreciate why the nukes were dropped for being a neccessary evil

Either that or you're just trolling



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I can't believe this Tokyo Rose nonsense from the OP.

Frankly, if terror and mass Japanese civilian death were the goals of the atomic strikes, why wasn't Tokyo targeted?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Replicator EYD
 


to drop a b omb on top of tokyo, a plane would have to fly over tokyo

tokyo would have been well protected during ww2 seeing how even then it was such a large and important city, and getting a plane directly over it would have been difficult without getting shot down



[edit on 8/6/2010 by indigothefish]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by indigothefish
tokyo would have been well protected during ww2 seeing how even then it was such a large and important city, and getting a plane directly over it would have been difficult without getting shot down


Not by August 1945. The Japanese really didn't have much in the way of air defenses. And Tokyo was a cinder from the firebombings by then.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Nanking has nothing to do with this. Tell me, how did those little children in Hiroshima have anything to do with what soldiers did in Nanking? Want to kill soldiers, then fine but the targeting of civilians is terror as its finest.

You seem to have a thing with the Japanese actions in Nanking but convienently excuse the actions of the US in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What is the difference? Why is one okay but not the other, besides your skewed reasoning based on your obvious bias?

At least it's a sign that you agree the killing of innocents is wrong, right? If you do agree, then why is it only wrong when the enemies of America do it but not America herself? The point here, is that if Japanese actions (the harming, torture and slaughter of innocent civilians) in Nanking were wrong, then it is wrong when anyone else does it, to include the US.

--airspoon

 
 


reply to post by Intelearthling
 


The goal of the bombing was to intimidate and the goal of the intimidation was to end the war. You know, Islamic terrorists use that same excuse. "we bombed _________ to end the war against ________." When you target innocent civilians for political purposes, irregardless of what those political purposes were, you are committing an act of terror.


An invasion on the Japanese mainland would've produced 100 times the casualties the two bombs produced.

You don't know that for sure and an invasion wasn't our only option. The Soviets were closing in on the Japanese mainland and Japan's only hope in the entire war, lay with Manchuria, to which the Soviets were all but victorious. With that fall of Manchuria, the Japanese would have been forced into surrender, only they would have been nogotiating that surrender with both the Americans and Russians.

At this time, Japan's mainland lay in waste and the Japanese were really teetering on the fence of surrender. If the Americans waited any longer, Japan would have had to split the victory with the Russians, something that had just previously happened with Germany, only the Soviets got the relative "goods" with Germany. The Americans surely didn't want this same thing to happen with Japan and so instead chose the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, an act of terror.

In short, there were ways to avoid this tragic event and anyway you look at it, the targeting of innocent civilians is wrong, even of it is one civilian for 100 soldiers. This is what seperates the good guys from the bad guys.

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic, that the same arguments many are making here, are the same arguments used by suicide bombers and their supporters.

--airspoon

 
 



reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 



Oh come on Airspoon, I don't believe you are that naive. They most certainly bombed civilians in germany.


The technology that we had at the time, only allowed us to "carpet bomb" our targets. So, if we were targeting an industrial center, we would need to "carpet" the entire area with bombs to ensure that this industrial center was put out of commission. This, plus the fact that many bombers had to be sent each time because it was expected that many would be shot down, added to the firepower.

I don't believe that the bombing of Europe was for the purpose of killing innocent civilians and even if it was, then that too would be wrong. As I have said before, when you deliberately target innocent civilians, you are no longer a soldier, rather you are a terrorist. Plain and simple. All of these excuses that many are making, sound almost exactly similar to those skinny kids - and their supporters - who strap bombs to their chests and walk into crowded markets or public transpot stations. It even sounds similar to the arguments made for flying planes into buildings.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
The difference is that the bombings in Europe didn't deliberately target civilians, rather civilians were considered to be collatoral damage. We bombed industrial and military targets in a goal to reduce their war-making effort.


"Bomber" Harris. Do some reading on him, and his planning of the bomber offense in Germany. You'll be unf**king that statement that the Allies weren't targetting civilians.






top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join