Here we go again...

Joe,

Given the relationship b/t Iraq and NKorea, it appears more agressive than passive to me! And those guys are far loonier (sp?) than Saddam and definately have the BOMB!!

Rodger

 

Originally posted by SlowAndScared :
"Rodger - Unconditional surrender was the only option. Japan's mouthings about terms were widely considered to be a feint."

"Hiroshima was most definitely a military target. Hiroshima housed heavy industry, which previous bombings with conventional bombs had failed to knock out. If the goal was, as you suggest, to go for maximum kill, why didn't we just drop both bombs on Tokyo or Osaka?"

Slow - Toykyo and Osaka had already had the shit bombed out of them and the cities were largly evacuated. And why not just bomb the military targets within the city?

"The bombing of Nagasaki seems, with hindsight, to have been possibly unecessary. Given the communications systems of the time and the inability to get consistently good military intelligence from Japan, it's doubtful that the War Dept could have seen then what we think we see so clearly now. I've always thought of Monday-morning quarterbacking as being rather pathetic."

Slow - lets focus on the first bombing then, now that you've conceded the second was for naught!

"The "message" wasn't even close to what you say - again, if it were, why not go for a big civilian population center? The REAL message was, we will not risk our troops to make you surrender. We don't have to use them to hurt you - we have other means. We are tired of fighting you and we WILL make this stop. Give up now before it goes worse for you."


Slow: Same thing isn't it?

"What would you have done? Killed 250,000 our own troops and and millions of Japanese with an invasion? Continued conventional bombing until the entire country was a wasteland, thus killing millions anyway? Or acceded to the Japanese "terms," allowing them to keep their conquered lands and other ill-gotten gains, and giving them permission to kill millions of their captives?"

Slow - they wnated to keep theri emporer as a figurehead. we said no, they did anyway. Negotiation would have cost nothing. the regime was doomed. Sound familiar? i would have negotiated a surrender like all prior wars of the last 2ooo years (most anyhow).

"Terroristic," indeed! Such foolishness they teach kids today. "


Slow - those attacks are by all means terroristic - more on this when time warrants. Feel free to wait .. . . just like I am for your proof. . .


Waitning. . .

waitning

I give up for today. See you wendsday!!

Rodger

 

Rodger, I'm not going any further with this one - it's pointless.

"Never argue with a fool - they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."

 

becasue you can't win

 

I hope your right Mongo, GW is playing good cop...bad cop. I also hope it works.

The UN resolution kept us from getting Saddam in the Desert Storm not GW senior. Jim Baker did so well we made money off that war.

North Korea has been wanting to talk since "Shock and Awe", can you blame them. I am very impressed with our military, a couple of sad notes in the few friendly fires but AWEsome work. 500 to 1,000 air sorties per day. If you own the sky, ...forget-about-it.

What I think is funny are the other ME country boys that believe the ARAB media (Baghdad Bill) and wanting to go fight and then realizing that they are to die for nothing when they got there.

David

 

Joe:
"I think my above reply accurately states why we went back. It wasn't to clean up a job that wasn't finished - it was a different job (liberation of Kuwait vs. upholding U.N. sanctions). The comment was pointed at your hindsight view of the original conflict. Sure, if we'd known the U.N. would pull the inspectors out for years without more action I think we'd have pursued our own agenda a little more. But that's all hindsight talking and I believe the decisions made at the time were the right ones, taken in context. Some conflict can't be avoided, and though I disagree with the timing, negotiations with Saddam were sure to come to this."

I follow you on the above comments. Restated, maybe...Saddam was properly beaten the first time and "measures" were put in place to make sure he didn't become a recurring problem. That he DID become a recurring problem, was not the fault of an incomplete first victory.... but the lack of follow through on the "measures". If that is pretty close, it makes sense to me too.

A point to consider is that the failure of the first "action+measures" to solve the Saddam Problem seems to have been due to the UN-nature of it. Stirring in the UN may be more problem than it's worth. By the time the UN reaches a consensus on a big issue, the consensus may be so watered down as to be a waste of time. This time, with just us and Britain (and the other little guys that helped) the definition of the outcome was LOTS simpler to achieve.

 

Ahhh, the classical theological double-speak. If God, Allah, Jesus and company are all powerful and control everything on the planet and know everything that is going to happen before it happens, how is it "not ther fault if humans don't listen, screw everything up and kill each other" ? Seems that if they know it's going to happen and have the power to stop it but CHOSE not to, then it is clearly their (his, whatever) fault. Or perhaps they don't know nor have the power to stop it? Or perhaps their "fault" is not the same as we would envision it? I know, I know, it's not up to some simple-minded human like me to understand their (his) will, but some other like-wise minded human can say he talks to God...

I was also alway curious if God (and co.) were so against war and the such, why is the Bible chock-full of examples and references to war-like symbols? Soldiers of the Lord, the Bible is a Sword, the 7 Horse-men? I realize that these aren't invitations to war, but I don't think the Bible tells us anywhere NOT to defend ourselves, our families, children, etc. In fact, if you studied it some (which I haven't) I would suspect you would find that it gives you the green light to defend yourself...

I will give you this, RSDad, of all the major organized religions, Buddism seems to make the most sense to me. But then again, I haven't studied it's teachings enough to be sure. I have been exposed to Christianity enough to wonder about it... (Atleast the organized, money-making end of it...)

 

THAT'S never stopped me before! If it did, I wouldn't be racing.

I simply don't see the point in continuing that discussion with someone who calls our efforts to bring the war with Japan to a quick close "terroristic acts." I find it astonishing that an educated person would hold such a view.

 

That has never stopped you before, or stopped people from debating with you for that matter.

 

That's true, Dad. You're much more experienced than I am.

 

rodger is a clown. a terrorist would not bomb you, and help you become the technology leader of the world.

rodger, feel free to skip out and sue japanese people. we sure could use less bottom feeders.

 

LMAO! And all those bombing raids on Germany and Tokyo were what exactly? Those weren't presicion guided bombs ya know... Just cuz one bomb did so much damage...

 

No he was refering to the the physiological chemistry of the brain that makes us think the way we do.

A) Bush wouldn't drop a nuke on Damascus.

B) We didn't "freely" drop them during WWII. We dropped them on Japan after careful consideration of what would happen if we didn't.

Your definition of "better" might be different than someone from a different culture.

 

Well be astonished, because many agree with him, including the few WW2 vets I know. I know I shouldn't use specifics to argue a general point, but a friend's father was crew on the Enola Gay. Patrick's Dad used to say the crew had no inkling there would be so much destruction. Pat said he used to wake up at night saying "We didn't have to do that."

P.S. my race mascot is Wile E. Coyote... never wins, but never quits

 

Alot of people share an opinion that it might not have been necessary but terroristic, I don't think so. It was a bit heavy fisted but who give a shit. Payback is hell.

I work at one of the sites of the Manhattan Project(K-25 Oak Ridge, TN) and not many people had a clue what kind of damage it would do in that environment... not even the designers. It was an untested bomb.

My Dad served under one of the officers that flew that mission and he wasn't having much trouble dealing with it.

 

Roger: "Slow - they wnated to keep theri emporer as a figurehead. we said no, they did anyway. Negotiation would have cost nothing. the regime was doomed. Sound familiar? i would have negotiated a surrender like all prior wars of the last 2ooo years (most anyhow)."

Bullshit. You are applying a 2003 mentality to a 1945 situation and presuming citizens of this country would have allowed you to negotiate ANYTHING with the nation that bombed Pearl Harbor. An unconditional surrender was the ONLY thing acceptable at that time. The war against Japan was as much a race war as a political war. Fortunately things have changed drastically for the good in that regard.

Furthermore, saying the regime was doomed in no way says it was finished fighting or not dangerous. The military was still in charge of the government and committed to a last stand on the home islands, even using civilians to fight.

Lastly, Stephen Ambrose postualtes a pretty convincing argument that the use of the bombs to end that war so destroyed the militaristic bent of the Japanese, that it made the rebuilding of Japan possible. I can't explain it like he does, but it made sense to me.

Now, you can say that the guys that dropped the bomb wished they handn't of had to, but their own words show that it was a necessity. And perhaps you personally wouldn't have had the sand to drop them. Fine. But saying the people that did it were wrong, though, from the murkey view of nearly sixty years of passed time is nonsense.


"Slow - those attacks are by all means terroristic ..."

I can't argue with that. Of course they were terroristic. The purpose of bombing civilians was to cause terror. Terror bombing against civilian populations was used on all sides in WWII. I believe the Japanese began it in China and the Germans in Poland and then seriously in England. Dresden is a good US example.

 

Once again Joss, you have impressed me and stated what I wish I could get in words! Cheers!

 

Don't you guys feel guilty not inviting RC or Dave to your "We all think alike, aren't we wonderful" Butt-Kissing party? (One poke for each.)

 

i can't believe rsdud faults people because they are intelligent. what's the matter dud? can't get a high five for being a moron?