Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Ooh, yay. "I know you are but, what am I?" The height of intellectual discourse.
I apologize, you are allowed to call me ignorant, but how dare I accuse you of it. The arrogance of me!
As I'm sure, you're actions of pointing out grammatical errors in a movie discussion board are an intellectual 'piece de resistance'.
Originally posted by RobtardYou were ignorant of the background issues surrounding Hiroshima and Nagasaki yes. You did not qualify the statement that the nuclear weapons were necessary for Japanese surrender, with that Japan had the condition of keeping their Emporer, a condition they maintained after the use of nuclear weapons anyway. Even with the qualifier, the statement that nuclear weapons were wholly necessary is still moot.
I apologize, you are allowed to call me ignorant, but how dare I accuse you of it. Shameful of me...
I don't hold "hard feelings" in any of these "debates". It's a forum, to do so would be foolish. Constant editing of past posts after people have responded to them is annoying.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You were ignorant of the background issues surrounding Hiroshima and Nagasaki yes. You did not qualify the statement that the nuclear weapons were necessary for Japanese surrender, with that Japan had the condition of keeping their Emporer, a condition they maintained after the use of nuclear weapons anyway. Even with the qualifier, the statement that nuclear weapons were wholly necessary is still moot.I don't hold "hard feelings" in any of these "debates". It's a forum, to do so would be foolish. Constant editing of past posts after people have responded to them is annoying.
It was a war a full out war, they had no right in demanding terms, any terms. Japan had the chance to surrender on August 5th 1945, they didn't, they wanted to set their own terms, America had no reason to accept anything but an unconditional surrender (remember Pearl Harbor). They then had a chance to surrender on August 6th, 7th and 8th 1945, they didn't and guess what America had to do? Fat Man was his name. If you need to blame someone for all the lives lost on on Aug 5th and Aug 9th 1945, blame the rulers/leaders of Japan for not surrendering because of their pride.
I edited in less than 5 minutes, deal with it.
Originally posted by RobtardThe motives behind the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ulterior. As were the reasons for the choosing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The means was not necessary to end WWII.
It was a war a full out war, they had no right in demanding terms, any terms. Japan had the chance to surrender on August 5th 1945, they didn't, they wanted to set their own terms, America had no reason to accept anything but an unconditional surrender (remember Pearl Harbor). They then had a chance to surrender on August 6th, 7th and 8th 1945, they didn't and guess what America had to do? Fat Man was his name. If you need to blame someone for all the lives lost on on Aug 5th and Aug 9th 1945, blame the rulers/leaders of Japan for not surrendering because of their pride.I edited in less than 5 minutes, deal with it.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The motives behind the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ulterior. The means was not necessary to end WWII.
Of course not, America had Japan on it's knees before the bombings, but to bring Japan to it's belly it either had to wage a land war* which would have caused massive deaths on both sides or drop a bomb and spare it's own soldiers (other option was to let Japan set the terms of surrender, illogical). If you had the chance to save your own soldiers lives, would you not? Wouldn't that be the proper thing to do?
*You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is: "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." But, only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!"
Vizzini
Originally posted by RobtardInaccurate as indicated by both retrospect and Truman's contemporaries and advisers at the time. The use of the weapons was directed at the Soviet Union perhaps moreso than at the Empire of Japan. Japan was prepared to surrender and its offensive capabilities were diminished to negligibility.
Of course not, America had Japan on it's knees before the bombings, but to bring Japan to it's belly it either had to wage a land war*
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Inaccurate as indicated by both retrospect and Truman's contemporaries and advisers at the time. The use of the weapons was directed at the Soviet Union perhaps moreso than at the Empire of Japan. Japan was prepared to surrender and its offensive capabilities were diminished to negligibility.
Yes, I am not arguing that Japan wasn't ready to surrender, but they would only surrender under their own terms. Even after the 1st bomb killed 100k+ they didn't want to surrender unless it was under their own terms. They also had the ability to fight back on their own soil, not saying they would have defeated an American ground assault, but Americans and Japanese would have died.
Do you propose that Japan was waving the white flag and America dropped the first bomb and then out of sheer spite and a show of force dropped a second?
Originally posted by RobtardThe preparations for deployment of nuclear weapons was concurrent to negotiations of surrender in both instances. Japan was advanced in negotiations of surrender with the USSR who were prepared to allow their conditions regarding Emperor. The condition of retaining the Emperor was ultimately granted.
Yes, I am not arguing that Japan wasn't ready to surrender, but they would only surrender under their own terms. Even after the 1st bomb killed 100k+ they didn't want to surrender unless it was under their own terms.Do you propose that Japan was waving the white flag and America dropped the first bomb and then out of sheer spite and a show of force dropped a 2nd?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The preparations for deployment of nuclear weapons was concurrent to negotiations of surrender in both instances. Japan was advanced in negotiations of surrender with the USSR who were prepared to allow their conditions regarding Emperor. The condition of retaining the Emperor was ultimately granted.
OK.... We are talking about Japan surrendering to America, not seeking an outside peace with Russia. Yes, America allowed Japan to keep it's emperor, but after they unconditionally surrendered. They should have surrendered unconditionally in the first place, it would have saved many lives.
Originally posted by RobtardI take it you're American; if you wish to believe the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wholly necessary, the only means by which Japan would have surrendered and an altruistic act designed to spare Japan from loss of lives in a ground invasion then by all means do so.
OK.... We are talking about Japan surrendering to America, not seeking an outside peace with Russia. Yes, America allowed Japan to keep it's emperor, but after they unconditionally surrendered. They should have surrendered unconditionally in the first place, it would have saved many lives.
But you should know historians with retrospect as well as Truman, and his contemporaries and advisers, understood this to be false.
^ 😂 ^
And that clearly sums up the feeling which drives the political views of those who think "Bad Israel."
Stay evasive, pick and choose what you wanna believe. Certainly, you guys know better than even the world leaders and moderate Arab states which have said Hezbollah is responsible for starting this conflict. You guys can now quit your day jobs.
It's time for me to check out the Evolution vs Intelligent Design threads and see if the evolutionists are having any better luck.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If they had done that, there would be no distinction between current and pre-1967 borders.Sort of like telling the Palestinian refugee diaspora that they can't return.
I said much, not all. Once again it is an illustration that Israel was attacked this time by 4 countries, and after SOUNDLY defeating it's enemies (on 3 different fronts no less.) They didn't keep everything and still no DMZ was put in place and Israel was once again forced to police it's borders with a heavy hand due to previous actions of neighboring states.
Originally posted by MindshipYes, clearly those who condemn the current actions of Israel hate Israel. One can't condemn actions that have lead to a large amount of deaths, simply because they believe it wrong. That's absurd. What drives your "Go Israel! Go!" political view one wonders. This:
^ 😂 ^
And that clearly sums up the feeling which drives the political views of those who think "Bad Israel."
Originally posted by Mindshipis certainly very telling if it indicates a belief in ID "theory".
It's time for me to check out the Evolution vs Intelligent Design threads and see if the evolutionists are having any better luck.
Originally posted by MindshipDramatic irony at it's finest.
Stay evasive, pick and choose what you wanna believe.
Originally posted by MindshipThe only reason the UNSC hasn't condemned Israel's current actions is the U.S. veto.
Certainly, you guys know better than even the world leaders and moderate Arab states which have said Hezbollah is responsible for starting this conflict. You guys can now quit your day jobs.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I take it you're American; if you wish to believe the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wholly necessary, the only means by which Japan would have surrendered and an altruistic act designed to spare Japan from loss of lives in a ground invasion then by all means do so. Cheers!But you should know historians with retrospect as well as Truman, and his contemporaries and advisers, understood this to be false.
I am American, South American and that has nothing to do with how I feel. You need to realize what WWII was about and the mindset of Japan in the 1940's. They weren't just a misunderstood island nation. Buy hey, if you want to think America was and is wrong, go ahead, you're not the only one.
Also, I never said bombing Japan was solely to save Japanese lives.
Originally posted by Soleran
I said much, not all. Once again it is an illustration that Israel was attacked this time by 4 countries, and after SOUNDLY defeating it's enemies (on 3 different fronts no less.) They didn't keep everything and still no DMZ was put in place and Israel was once again forced to police it's borders with a heavy hand due to previous actions of neighboring states.
Remember Soleran, WAR SHOULD BE FAIR! Damn that Israel for being victorious over the united effort of four countries trying to eliminate them and damn that Israel for not returning every single cubic inch of conquered ground! 🙄