It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Hypocrisy.

page: 10
80
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Also note...yes...these opinions are all dated decades after the fact.

BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS WERE ALL CLASSIFIED UNTIL THE MID '80's and didn't become fully available until the mid '90s.

I'VE ALREADY STATED THAT.


Thus, based upon the information available to historians in...say...the 1960's or '70's one might be willing accept the idea that Japan was intending to fight to the very last civilian died and using the nukes were one of the few options we had left to avoid accruing a MASSIVE amount of additional American deaths. If that were ACTUALLY the case...then I would have fully supported the use of nukes. I wouldn't have necessarily been HAPPY about it...but the world can be a dangerous place and if it comes down to "us or them"...then I say..."f^ck 'em".

However...that ISN'T what happened. What REALLY happened is that the Japanese TRIED surrendering but the US was not willing to initially accept that surrender until we had completely and utterly crushed the Japanese military machine.

Even this...I'm OK with. Better to do it "right" the first time so that Japan can't regroup and we just wind up fighting them all over again 5 or 10 years down the road. Cool. No problem.

However...AFTER we devastated 100% of their air power and naval power AND established undisputed air supremacy over the main island, AND cut off all of their wartime natural resources, AND they had been trying to surrender to us for 7 months...I can't STILL justify using a nuclear weapon against them...much less TWO of them. We won. They gave up. We nuked them anyways. That's inexcusable.

Likewise...if you use the excuse that "emotions were high" and "nukes killed people just as dead as our conventional bombing did"...does that mean that you think Iran has the moral authority to nuke two of our major US cities? After all..they are very angry so they meet the "emotions are high" condition and they already have a bunch of conventional bombs...so what's the difference, right? And the US DID topple the Iranian government three times in the last 60 years as well as give chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein which killed a million Iranians in the '80's...clearly ALL are acts of war against the Iranian government and people...right?

But let me guess..."that's different", right?

Hence...I would assert that Sinny's original thesis that the US is highly hypocritical is a valid one.

The definition of hypocrisy is more or less condemning the behavior of others whilst finding some sort of excuse for that same or similar behavior when it comes to the individual who is passing the judgement.

Go ahead...tell me I'm wrong. You're going to have a mighty tough time not coming across as a hypocrite unless you can show me that Japan really had another couple hundred warships stashed somewhere, that Japan happens to sit on top of an enormous oil well that I don't know about, or come out and just say that you think it Iran has a moral right to nuke our civilians because they are angry too.

However...I'd wager the only arguments I'm going to hear is more of "Yeah...but it's different when we __________".

Once again...that's the very definition of hypocrisy.
edit on 28-9-2012 by milominderbinder because: formatting




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Also note...yes...these opinions are all dated decades after the fact.

BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS WERE ALL CLASSIFIED UNTIL THE MID '80's and didn't become fully available until the mid '90s.

I'VE ALREADY STATED THAT.


Thus, based upon the information available to historians in...say...the 1960's or '70's one might be willing accept the idea that Japan was intending to fight to the very last civilian died and using the nukes were one of the few options we had left to avoid accruing a MASSIVE amount of additional American deaths. If that were ACTUALLY the case...then I would have fully supported the use of nukes. I wouldn't have necessarily been HAPPY about it...but the world can be a dangerous place and if it comes down to "us or them"...then I say..."f^ck 'em".

However...that ISN'T what happened. What REALLY happened is that the Japanese TRIED surrendering but the US was not willing to initially accept that surrender until we had completely and utterly crushed the Japanese military machine.

Even this...I'm OK with. Better to do it "right" the first time so that Japan can't regroup and we just wind up fighting them all over again 5 or 10 years down the road. Cool. No problem.

However...AFTER we devastated 100% of their air power and naval power AND established undisputed air supremacy over the main island, AND cut off all of their wartime natural resources, AND they had been trying to surrender to us for 7 months...I can't STILL justify using a nuclear weapon against them...much less TWO of them. We won. They gave up. We nuked them anyways. That's inexcusable.

Likewise...if you use the excuse that "emotions were high" and "nukes killed people just as dead as our conventional bombing did"...does that mean that you think Iran has the moral authority to nuke two of our major US cities? After all..they are very angry so they meet the "emotions are high" condition and they already have a bunch of conventional bombs...so what's the difference, right? And the US DID topple the Iranian government three times in the last 60 years as well as give chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein which killed a million Iranians in the '80's...clearly ALL are acts of war against the Iranian government and people...right?

But let me guess..."that's different", right?

Hence...I would assert that Sinny's original thesis that the US is highly hypocritical is a valid one.

The definition of hypocrisy is more or less condemning the behavior of others whilst finding some sort of excuse for that same or similar behavior when it comes to the individual who is passing the judgement.

Go ahead...tell me I'm wrong. You're going to have a mighty tough time not coming across as a hypocrite unless you can show me that Japan really had another couple hundred warships stashed somewhere, that Japan happens to sit on top of an enormous oil well that I don't know about, or come out and just say that you think it Iran has a moral right to nuke our civilians because they are angry too.

However...I'd wager the only arguments I'm going to hear is more of "Yeah...but it's different when we __________".

Once again...that's the very definition of hypocrisy.
edit on 28-9-2012 by milominderbinder because: formatting


Does not matter how many ships they or may not have had stashed. The casualty estimate of invading mainland Japan was extrapolated on the casualties that actually occured on Okinawa. If we had to go hole from hole like we did on Oki, there would have been millions of casualties combined. They were in the process of training kids to charge with bamboo spears. The only way to get unconditional surrender and avoid the civilian casualties was to get the Emporer himself to announce it.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


And your posts through out this thread also prove my point,

Good day, Cold Blooded Marine,

Signed, Sealed, Stamped, Sinny.


EXACTLY!!

When we use nukes against civilians...it's OK because we were "emotional" LOL. But when Iran just wants to build a nuclear power plant for peaceful purposes..."Let's level the country!!!"

Yeah...we're not hypocritical at all...are we?




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


Whats up with that horned cornetto? Do you think it is a peace sign or devil's sign?



Hopefully you like this one better, since it kind of proves everyone shares the fad...or maybe more!





posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Why are we so intent on proving each other wrong when the truth is usually far from what any of us realize and though some may have a good idea of the wrongs that are perpetuated noone knows the truth for sure!
If we were really intent on changing the world for the better, would we really spend so much time playing this game of who is right, who to blame and where the boogie man is? Or would we unite to stand against the ideals which have destroyed any sense of morality? Does anyone else see why these online persecutions are leading nowhere? Or how we have no chance to right the wrongs that have been waged accross the world through these means? The only thing we can really do to change what's wrong is by not participating in the corrupt system, by being kind to each other and if the time ever does come, by standing against the corrupt bureaucracy which almost definately threatens our very existance! I see today how little power we have at the bottom of the social
ladder but argumentative discussion does nothing to sway our brethern to this ideal! Only through times wane to prove us wrong will our ideals change! If we ever do come to find the ultimate truth that could end war, hate, lies,
murder and the likes, we may look back at the now as the uncivilized dark age of the modern world and wonder
why it took so long to realize we are all one world! That our treatment of each other does matter! That any negative treatment of our brethern affects our very soul and theirs! Love and hate are contagious which would you spread? Bring light to the darkness or the darkness will swallow us all!



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   


Does not matter how many ships they or may not have had stashed. The casualty estimate of invading mainland Japan was extrapolated on the casualties that actually occured on Okinawa. If we had to go hole from hole like we did on Oki, there would have been millions of casualties combined. They were in the process of training kids to charge with bamboo spears. The only way to get unconditional surrender and avoid the civilian casualties was to get the Emporer himself to announce it.


OK...so why would we have to invade? We crippled them militarily and cut off all the raw materials that they could have used to rebuild. As long as we stay off the mainland of Japan...kids with bamboo spears don't really pose any threats to aircraft carriers...right?

Besides...you are STILL choosing to ignore the salient and material historical fact that the Japanese HAD BEEN TRYING TO SURRENDER TO US FOR 7 MONTHS PRIOR TO DROPPING THE NUKES ON THEM.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


And your posts through out this thread also prove my point,

Good day, Cold Blooded Marine,

Signed, Sealed, Stamped, Sinny.




Yeah, those Marines are just a bunch of baby killers and eat infants for breakfast.



You really do not have any real frame of reference...no real life experience...no actual knowlege of the subject do you?


He named him self that, you silly billy.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Sinny
 


Whats up with that horned cornetto? Do you think it is a peace sign or devil's sign?



Hopefully you like this one better, since it kind of proves everyone shares the fad...or maybe more!




Aha, I really must change my avatar, its caused me endless grief



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by nosacrificenofreedom
Why are we so intent on proving each other wrong when the truth is usually far from what any of us realize and though some may have a good idea of the wrongs that are perpetuated noone knows the truth for sure!


Why?

Because the same people who think that we were justified in ACTUALLY USING nukes against civilians in a country which no longer posed ANY MILITARY THREAT WHATSOEVER to the United States or even surrounding countries ALSO are eager to go start WWIII in Iran because they want to use nuclear power for PEACEFUL purposes...AND THEY SEE NO COGNITIVE DISCONNECT WITH THEIR LOGIC AND CANNOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHY SO MUCH OF THE WORLD THINKS WE ARE HYPOCRITES.

It's not about splitting hairs over WWII...it's about NOT gleefully running headlong into WWIII because we erroneously think that we are always right, never make mistakes, and have jesus on our side to boot.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I wouldn't get in the habit of lumping millions of people under one banner. Nationalism and patriotism is a scourge, and some people will kill to protect that identity.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


And your posts through out this thread also prove my point,

Good day, Cold Blooded Marine,

Signed, Sealed, Stamped, Sinny.



Yeah, those Marines are just a bunch of baby killers and eat infants for breakfast.



You really do not have any real frame of reference...no real life experience...no actual knowlege of the subject do you?


He named him self that, you silly billy.


HAHAHAHA!!!

I love it when people don't even bother to read the thread before just assuming that you must "hate soldiers" or whatever.

Yeah dude...Slayer69 is a self-admitted "cold blooded marine" and seems somewhat proud of it. He also went on record and said that being "emotional" is a justifiable excuse to detonate nuclear weapons on civilian populations. Much to the delight of Ahmadinejad, I'm wager...that's what he's been saying for quite awhile now. LOL.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by nosacrificenofreedom
 


Yeah the ptb can't afford to tell us all that the reptillians are waiting in hollow earth for us to depopulate ourselves via planned conflict, all entrusted on their secret society cohorts on the surface, going back to mesopotamia(the whore of babylon).

So we have to live with half truths or total lies.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder


Does not matter how many ships they or may not have had stashed. The casualty estimate of invading mainland Japan was extrapolated on the casualties that actually occured on Okinawa. If we had to go hole from hole like we did on Oki, there would have been millions of casualties combined. They were in the process of training kids to charge with bamboo spears. The only way to get unconditional surrender and avoid the civilian casualties was to get the Emporer himself to announce it.


OK...so why would we have to invade? We crippled them militarily and cut off all the raw materials that they could have used to rebuild. As long as we stay off the mainland of Japan...kids with bamboo spears don't really pose any threats to aircraft carriers...right?

Besides...you are STILL choosing to ignore the salient and material historical fact that the Japanese HAD BEEN TRYING TO SURRENDER TO US FOR 7 MONTHS PRIOR TO DROPPING THE NUKES ON THEM.



First of all. THe war is not over with any permanancy unless you have boots on the ground. I thought you were a history major. History shows that, over and over again, isolation does not equal the end, Also you forget the Japanese armies in Manchuria, China, and throughout the Pacific and SE asia. They would have kept fighting without a decisive surrender. Also you forget the tens of thousands of American POWs that were dying by the hundreds per day by that time of the war. Sitting off the coast of Japan with our thumbs up our bottoms would not have helped matters.

As for your assertation that the Japanese were begging to surrender, that is not as you put it "supported by the vast majority of scholars" (That is a rather overreaching statement isn't it?), but a hypothesis put forward by a few scholars. The concensus of historians, including bastions of military history as Sandhurst and West Point, still hold onto the narrative that the Japanese were going to hold out to the last man. This is also consistent with Japanese homefront excercises, orders, and preparedness as well as global military strategy at the time. Every indication was that they were preparing for a bloody, to-the-last-person fight as seen on Okinawa. The few scraps of recent writings to the contrary, the situation as seen then and is seen now still is consistent with the original thought.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 

Still waiting for your response from Page 4 .. or I guess the blatant FACT that the UK's release of fallible intelligence is overlooked because it's not the U.S.?

Your title should be renamed to "US and UK Hypocrisy"

Just FYI, you are aware your Soldiers are just as guilty as American .. don't you?
You don't actually believe your country's hands are clean .. do you?
edit on 28-9-2012 by 31Bravo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


And your posts through out this thread also prove my point,

Good day, Cold Blooded Marine,

Signed, Sealed, Stamped, Sinny.




Yeah, those Marines are just a bunch of baby killers and eat infants for breakfast.



You really do not have any real frame of reference...no real life experience...no actual knowlege of the subject do you?


He named him self that, you silly billy.


What does that have to do with anything? We've seen several pages of "US military are terrorists and war criminals. Obviously he put that in his sig as a sarcastic reply to your obviously uneducated and prejudicial stance towards people you know nothing about.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by 31Bravo
 


Well, MY soldiers are IRA. (FYI you can start a new thread if you want to discuss them)

But in regards to the Brits, they're almost as dirty as the US.

Have you missed several of my posts where I address the English?
edit on 28-9-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


You know what's the most confusing to me? It's how the hard-core right wingers are 100% CONVINCED that the Federal Government is inherently evil, absolutely dishonest, and has NOTHING but malevolent intent inside our borders...but then magically becomes a model of benevolence, altruism, and goodwill to mankind as soon as we start dropping bombs on brown people.

Which is it? Does the government lie or not? If they do...then who in their right mind would doubt FOR ONE SECOND that they would lie about the Japanese wanting to surrender for 7 months previous to our unwarranted nuking of women and children? Why would the government lie to us about something like healthcare...but tell the gospel truth about wars in the Middle East?

Which one needs more propaganda to justify? Taking care of kids with cancer or killing a couple hundred thousand civilians in Iraq? Statistically speaking...shouldn't the one that is harder to "sell" to the public be the one with the greatest amount of lies in the story??

Where's all this right-wing "common sense" I always hear so much about??



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Sinny

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


And your posts through out this thread also prove my point,

Good day, Cold Blooded Marine,

Signed, Sealed, Stamped, Sinny.




Yeah, those Marines are just a bunch of baby killers and eat infants for breakfast.



You really do not have any real frame of reference...no real life experience...no actual knowlege of the subject do you?


He named him self that, you silly billy.


What does that have to do with anything? We've seen several pages of "US military are terrorists and war criminals. Obviously he put that in his sig as a sarcastic reply to your obviously uneducated and prejudicial stance towards people you know nothing about.


Whats sooo obvious when he hasn't clarified anything?! Huh?

*Obviously* I used the term in what ever aspect he used it, which remains to be seen.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
reply to post by Sinny
 


You know what's the most confusing to me? It's how the hard-core right wingers are 100% CONVINCED that the Federal Government is inherently evil, absolutely dishonest, and has NOTHING but malevolent intent inside our borders...but then magically becomes a model of benevolence, altruism, and goodwill to mankind as soon as we start dropping bombs on brown people.

Which is it? Does the government lie or not? If they do...then who in their right mind would doubt FOR ONE SECOND that they would lie about the Japanese wanting to surrender for 7 months previous to our unwarranted nuking of women and children? Why would the government lie to us about something like healthcare...but tell the gospel truth about wars in the Middle East?

Which one needs more propaganda to justify? Taking care of kids with cancer or killing a couple hundred thousand civilians in Iraq? Statistically speaking...shouldn't the one that is harder to "sell" to the public be the one with the greatest amount of lies in the story??

Where's all this right-wing "common sense" I always hear so much about??


Haha, your funny
"Dropping bombs on brown people".. Many thanks for joining in this thread. I'm yet to see a half decent rebuttal. Why canny they just swallow it? o_O



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Sinny

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


And your posts through out this thread also prove my point,

Good day, Cold Blooded Marine,

Signed, Sealed, Stamped, Sinny.




Yeah, those Marines are just a bunch of baby killers and eat infants for breakfast.



You really do not have any real frame of reference...no real life experience...no actual knowlege of the subject do you?


He named him self that, you silly billy.


What does that have to do with anything? We've seen several pages of "US military are terrorists and war criminals. Obviously he put that in his sig as a sarcastic reply to your obviously uneducated and prejudicial stance towards people you know nothing about.


Ummm...are you missing Sinny's ironic reissuance of Slayer69's sarcasm? They are both literary devices...isn't it a bit hypocritical to defend Slayer69's use of sarcasm whilst simultaneously chastising Sinny's use of irony??



You guys just keep re-proving her original point. Quit while you're behind already...would 'ya?



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join