Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Genocide is the systematic attempt to wipe out an entire group (ie: the Holocaust). The atomic bombings were not that. We were at war with Japan, and the fact that that particular nation happens to be very homogenous doesn't make it "genocide".
Oh, wait...Did they not drop the bombs deliberately? Was there no method? Hahaha, nice try. If the US lost the war, 'genocide' is what it would have been called. Simple as that.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Oh, wait...Did they not drop the bombs deliberately? Was there no method? Hahaha, nice try. If the US lost the war, 'genocide' is what it would have been called. Simple as that.
And it would have been a misuse of the word.
The US government didn't devise a plan to wipe every Japanese person off the face the planet. FDR didn't have a "Final Solution" to the 'Japanese problem'. That's what I meant by that, pendejo. Those cities were targeted to decisively end the war...which they did, and quite well too.
-----------
Besides, your statement If the US lost the war, 'genocide' is what it would have been called. is flawed. How would the US have lost in that case? We were the only country that had the bomb, and more importantly, we had the only plane that could carry it: The B-29 Superfortress. And Germany had already surrendured, and the Soviet Union had declared war on Japan.
Re: Re: Teens murder puppy
Originally posted by Grimm22
Two teens in Atlanta murdered a 3-month year old puppy, by burning it alive in an oven. They then used the puppy's corpse as a sideshow presentation to the neighborhood children.
First I have to ask, exact what is a 3-month year old puppy? After I stop being a smart-ass, I can't help but think that these kids first have serious mental problems, and second..that they are worthless piles of crap.
Originally posted by JacopeX
I'm not surprised that they were young, mindless, lethargic TEENS.
Yep, that lethargy does it to ya every time.
Hiroshima/Nagasaki != genocide.
At all. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong, and if we're into quoting definitions...
dictionary.com
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
American Heritage Dictionary
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
WorldNet
systematic killing of a racial or cultural group
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a harsh action, but it was the right course of action despite the civilian casualties.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And it would have been a misuse of the word.The US government didn't devise a plan to wipe every Japanese person off the face the planet. FDR didn't have a "Final Solution" to the 'Japanese problem'. That's what I meant by that, pendejo. Those cities were targeted to decisively end the war...which they did, and quite well too.
Obviously, you're not paying attention because I've already stated that Robert McNamara (do you know who he is?) has quoted his top general at the time (General Curtis LeMay) as saying "If we'd lost the war, we'd all be prosecuted as war criminals" - in reference to the bombing of Japan. McNamara then goes on to add, "I think he's right...But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?". So, you see, what I'm stating is not without prescient, but rather a reinforcement of what the former US Secretary of Defense has acknowledged.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Hiroshima/Nagasaki != genocide.At all. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong, and if we're into quoting definitions...
I notice two common elements in those definitions that conveniently didn't turn up in in Krunk'd's.
Hmmm, curious...Did I really not attend to the words 'deliberate' and 'systematic'? But, wait...What's this:
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Oh, wait...Did they not drop the bombs deliberately? Was there no method? Hahaha, nice try. If the US lost the war, 'genocide' is what it would have been called. Simple as that.
Do you know what a rhetorical question is?
(That wasn't rhetorical, by the way)
Anyway, I seem to have 'dropped the bomb' on both of your arguments, perhaps I should be in line for a trial at The Hague...hehehe.
(Obviously, it wouldn't get that far because I've won.)
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Obviously, you're not paying attention because I've already stated that Robert McNamara (do you know who he is?) has quoted his top general at the time (General Curtis LeMay) as saying [B]"If we'd lost the war, we'd all be prosecuted as war criminals" - in reference to the bombing of Japan. McNamara then goes on to add, "I think he's right...But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?". So, you see, what I'm stating is not without prescient, but rather a reinforcement of what the former US Secretary of Defense has acknowledged.[/b]
Hmmm, curious...Did I really not attend to the words 'deliberate' and 'systematic'? But, wait...What's this:
Anyway, I seem to have 'dropped the bomb' on both of your arguments, perhaps I should be in line for a trial at The Hague...hehehe.(Obviously, it wouldn't get that far because I've won.)
Either way, stating that you've "dropped the bomb" on my arguments is both erroneous and the mark of one pandering to an audience. Unfortunately, I don't hear a rousing cheer from anyone agreeing with you.
Originally posted by FeceMan
General Sherman--do you know who he is?--should have been tried as a war criminal. But he wasn't, and that had little to do with genocide.
Your general sounds like a nice fellow, but mine wins because he's relevant.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. Dropping the bombs was deliberate--methodical--but there was no intent to wipe out the whole of the Japanese people. The intent was to end the war, not eradicate the Japanese from the gene pool.
You only seem to find it 'ridiculous' because it shows how weak your argument is. I've already stated (with evidence) that the US' intentions were to kill as many Japanese people as possible, so it quite obviously is applicable.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Ah, the classic "I've won the debate!" strategy. I'm sure you've criticized FOX's beloved O'Reilly before on that matter...but that's only because he's conservative, right?Either way, stating that you've "dropped the bomb" on my arguments is both erroneous and the mark of one pandering to an audience. Unfortunately, I don't hear a rousing cheer from anyone agreeing with you.
One mouth cheering makes more noise than one hand wanking.
I win! I win! I wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin!
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Your general sounds like a nice fellow, but mine wins because he's relevant.
You only seem to find it 'ridiculous' because it shows how weak your argument is. I've already stated (with evidence) that the US' intentions were to kill as many Japanese people as possible, so it quite obviously is applicable.
One mouth cheering makes more noise than one hand wanking.I win! I win! I wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin!
Originally posted by FeceMan
You have managed to miss the point--which is that the deliberate killing of Japanese civilians would have been tried as morally wrong, not that it was genocidal.
Well, no. Again, I am reiterating what the people involved have acknowledged.
Originally posted by FeceMan
You have conveniently ignored the part where I mentioned that the purpose was not to eradicate the whole of the Japanese people. Furthermore, the dropping of the two atomic bombs hardly constitutes a "systematic" extermination.
My dear boy, the former US Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, has gone on record to state that their intentions were to kill as many Japanese civilians as possible. Therefore, I've merely applied the term in accordance with the actions taken, and the words acknowledged! Do I really need to explain everything? It's like talking to a high-school student. Eh...
Also, I like the flippancy in reference to the dropping of atomic bombs. Makes me chuckle.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Is this some sort of tactic where you go off-topic by being completely random?
Basically, I was saying that I like what I do, you like what you do, but my cheering makes more noise your attempts to relieve yourself.
Crystal?
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Well, no. Again, I am reiterating what the people involved have acknowledged.
My dear boy, the former US Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, has gone on record to state that their intentions were to kill as many Japanese civilians as possible. Therefore, I've merely applied the term in accordance with the actions taken, and the words acknowledged! Do I really need to explain everything? It's like talking to a high-school student. Eh...
Your application is erroneous.
Also, I like the flippancy in reference to the dropping of atomic bombs. Makes me chuckle.
Basically, I was saying that I like what I do, you like what you do, but my cheering makes more noise your attempts to relieve yourself.
And ANOTHER topic is about America. Wow. How surprising.