Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Yarpie

Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Recommended Posts

Yarpie

Your thoughts on this. I will write up my debate once I know the public opinion on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

Well, I won't deny the use of nuclear bombs helped bring the war to a quick, decisive end. HOWEVER, using them against Japanese cities TWICE clearly just shows the US Government was testing it out and showing off to the Russians. I really can't support the use of nuclear weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

Look at the time, japs weren't considered human, but yeah, it was basically genocide, and those bombs are hugely exagerated - the bombing of tokyo killed more people than maybe both atomic bombs combined and it was done with napalm.

 

Big f*cking deal.

 

GENOCIDE. can you say it? it means the killing of genus - less or more than species - it means extermination. It means holocaust. (Let's just remember that the USA had concentration camps for japanese, never for jews) Let's remember also the ease in which the US left WW2 - with a stronger economy. Able to push into the I-don't-remember-what century.

 

Try reading chomsky on nagasaki and hiroshima - don't listen to a bunch of teens on the internet. (don't listen to me) instead of these two choices though you could - ummm - I don't know... commit suicide suicidal.gifsuicidal.gifsuicidal.gifsuicidal.gifsuicidal.gifsuicidal.gifsuicidal.gifsuicidal.gifsuicidal.gifsuicidal.gifsuicidal.gifsuicidal.gif ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yarpie

Genus

Species

 

I hope all know what genocide is.

 

Noam Chomsky is an interesting person, I love his lectures. I read the transcripts online.

 

I wonder how many did die in the Tokyo bombings. I was just reading the page to see the casualties, as I thought the figures were about 150,000 but apparently Japan and USA are saying about the 100,000 mark. Then Mark Selden's little speech saying that 1,500,000 people lived in the burned out area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

The data for the deaths of innocents is never determined. (nobody is innocent, not even little tiny babies)

 

but... ummm... oh yea. of course there's different estimates - point is they don't know - otherwise they'd tell you show you why they know and be done with it. not only is the data for the tokyo deaths unreliable, so is the deaths for nagasaki and hiroshima, and all the other cities bombed in japan, and in vietnam, and ... Dresden. (I think that's about it for napalm- maybe)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
The data for the deaths of innocents is never determined. (nobody is innocent, not even little tiny babies)

 

but... ummm... oh yea. of course there's different estimates - point is they don't know - otherwise they'd tell you show you why they know and be done with it. not only is the data for the tokyo deaths unreliable, so is the deaths for nagasaki and hiroshima, and all the other cities bombed in japan, and in vietnam, and ... Dresden. (I think that's about it for napalm- maybe)

What source of information can you cite for this, Mr. Data?

 

Sorry, but if you're going to whine and moan about how no one else provides data you might want to do so yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

My goodness KJB - it's like you forgot all about me - you remember the good old times? Bartleby and all the gang...

 

I didn't complain that nobody provided data - I complained that there was no dada to begin with.

 

I mean you can count bodies, but can you imagine doing that in Hiroshima (count piles of ashes maybe. I mean - everybody was dead. Everybody. (not actually everybody - here and there there were some survivors, especially the farther away from the blast...

 

But talk about counting the dead in Iraq or Afganistan today for example - anywhere from 100 thousand to more than three hundred thousand. I mean - that's two hundred thousand who may (or may not) have died. the uncertainity is larger than the information. This is the situation I am referring to - not "nobody linked to wikipedia to show data"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
My goodness KJB - it's like you forgot all about me - you remember the good old times? Bartleby and all the gang...

 

I didn't complain that nobody provided data - I complained that there was no dada to begin with.

 

I mean you can count bodies, but can you imagine doing that in Hiroshima (count piles of ashes maybe. I mean - everybody was dead. Everybody. (not actually everybody - here and there there were some survivors, especially the farther away from the blast...

 

But talk about counting the dead in Iraq or Afganistan today for example - anywhere from 100 thousand to more than three hundred thousand. I mean - that's two hundred thousand who may (or may not) have died. the uncertainity is larger than the information. This is the situation I am referring to - not "nobody linked to wikipedia to show data"

Sorry, I just thought you were acting like a troll in the other threads carrying on about data, or complaining that there's no "debate", or basically wiping your ass with the opinions of others beacuse they're "teens". Name dropping Chomsky and showing off... I don't think anyone here is trying to act like some kind of intellectual fancy pants or assumes they're going to get a historically accurate debate, so just don't worry about that. I mean, trust me, I didn't need you to point out the fact that I'm not gaining amazing insights reading the philosophical inklings of members of GTAForums.com

 

Anyway, yeah, I misinterpreted your point--more like I missed it entirely. My bad

 

In any case, just saying it was never determined how many civilians lost their lives doesn't mean you can't look at it as a massive loss of civilian life. I mean, do you really think the body count for the 2004 Tsunami was accurate? The only reason it's not debated and contested as much as death tolls pertaining to war is because there's not a huge atmosphere of political squabbling around it.

 

Your example of Iraq is even a better way to look at that, because the estimates of civilian death vary so widely. The DOD only estimated it to be around 50,000 - 100,000, and then there are some organizations that claim it is somewhere between 500,000 to 1 million. I really cannot gather up all the source for this, here is a couple:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...cMYvB15kuZ0U9mA

 

I mean, now days we cannot even find accurate numbers of the Vietmanese that died in the Vietnam war due to various technicalities and because the Vietmanese took and hid their bodies to throw our figures off.

 

So the debate is... Were the bombings a massacre ( since you're so stringently adhering to the biological definition of genocide ) or were they simply a justified act of war? I guess you covered that a little, but not with much content.

 

I agree that the atomic bombs carnage was not that great compared to many other incidents during the war--in fact fire killed many more people caused by conventional bombing or Napalm. I don't know what this bombing of Tokyo incident is, but I know that the German's bombing campaign in Britain caused much more loss of life than the bombings at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

 

However this is a little beside the point because a lot of the debate about whether the bombings was a crime of war does not have so much to do with the actual amount of civilians that have died during the attacks themselves, but the consequences that the radiation played on future generations of the Japanese.

 

I personally don't think that argument is very legitimate though, as there have been many theaters of war, with many acts that cause great consequences for the civilian population afterward. I mean, there are still many countries that have to have "de-mining" programs because of all the land mines still buried in the ground. Does that mean that anyone guilty of using them in WW2 or afterward is guilty of a war crime?

 

What I think it basically boils down to is that there was such huge loss of civilian life, instantaneously. It wasn't like the fire bombings where the fires would burn for days at a time; they dropped one bomb, and without even needing to listen to death reports, could see from the air that the country was devastated. Then they threatened to keep dropping these bombs until they surrendered.

 

There's not a whole lot of people that will look at that today as anything other than a massacre, and the only thing people ever seem to bring up to debate it is either, "There was huge loss of life in these battles too," or, "They had to, they couldn't land an invasion force in Japan, man women and children would all got Kamakazee".

 

Either argument doesn't really address the actual issue at hand. If you say, "There was huge loss of life in this battle," then that's basically saying, "This battle was a massacre too," or, "They couldn't form an invasion source, there would be too much death," would be, "They had to massacre them, or else they would be massacred."

 

It doesn't change the facts of the matter. However, these have been the facts of the matter through many more occurrences of war, what I really think is the lynch pin of U.S. wrong doing is that they kept dropping bombs, and that the radiation had long-standing effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrownBear

My problem is that it wasnt a military target, it was a heavily populated city.

If it had been say a millitary base, it would be different, but they dropped them on cities, were thousands of people lived and worked. This wasnt justifiale, most of the people living there wouldnt have cared about the war, just going about their day to day lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spinach
My problem is that it wasnt a military target, it was a heavily populated city.

If it had been say a millitary base, it would be different, but they dropped them on cities, were thousands of people lived and worked. This wasnt justifiale, most of the people living there wouldnt have cared about the war, just going about their day to day lives.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military city's and areas of heavy industrial output. It makes perfect sense that they were targeted.

 

I also don't think you get the idea of total war. Pretty much everyone one was a target in WWII, civilians or not. It's not pretty and I don't like it but it was necessary, and it won the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Canofceleri

The Japanese were no longer a threat when the two cities were bombed, in fact if I am not mistaken, they had already surrendered or it was known that they were going to surrender. When everything is taken into consideration, it appears that the bombings were posturing, a big fat message from America to the Soviets.

 

I wouldn't say it won the war, the Axis powers had been f*cked for a couple years before 1945.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rown

I would disagree Candarelli. Yes Japan's defeat was imminent but we had just spent months beating them out of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Okinawa saw the emergence of the Kamikaze pilots where human lives were exchanged for sunken ships. I think there was a justifiable concern against going to the home islands of a nation that was willing to send men to die in such a manner. While it may have been very Samurai, it was a ways outside of accepted Western military doctrine (we still haven't come to terms with suicide attacks).

 

The U.S. was expecting a hell of a fight once it came to the main islands. Estimates were in the range of over a million Allied losses to take Japan itself. Operation Downfall was the name of the planned invasion.

 

However that degree of loss of life wasn't needed. Instead we opted to scare Japan into surrender by using two thirds of our atomic arsenal at the time. That coupled with a declaration of war from the Soviet Union brought about an end to the war with a much lower death toll.

 

Sorry for the presentation of this information... hope it clearly states my position the point and answers the question of my opinion.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
However that degree of loss of life wasn't needed. Instead we opted to scare Japan into surrender by using two thirds of our atomic arsenal at the time. That coupled with a declaration of war from the Soviet Union brought about an end to the war with a much lower death toll.

Yeah, and that makes it even more interesting that less people died in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki than did in various other military campaigns. After all, if the loss of life on the American side was thought to be high, then that could only be true for the Japanese as well.

 

Two bombs, or two more years of bombing?

 

 

Japan was very resistant to surrender. In fact, they were about to be bombed again--well that's what we were telling them anyway, even though we didn't have the bomb ready--if they didn't surrender. I believe we told them we would drop one of those bombs for every day it took them to surrender. It eventually lead to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident

 

So I think the likelihood that Japan would not surrender until very heavy losses were incurred is not that great of a stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playstation_Loyalist

I agree that the Japanese Government deserved the 2 A-Bombs after destroying nearby countries, most affected is the Philippines, of course. Taking for account the lives they claimed in the war of the Asia-Pacific. They raided South East Asia with no consideration of the fact that thousands of INNOCENT people are living there. They are even smart enough to attack Pearl Harbor first before beginning to raid China and the Malay Archipelago. They bombed key cities, standing out is Manila.

 

Already declared as an "open city", Manila was bombed like hell by the Japanese. Historians even call it "The Warsaw of the Pacific" as it was totally destroyed by bombs that also killed thousands of lives, much like Warsaw as the Nazi took Poland. And to think that the Japanese raided Manila two times (one as they occupied the city and the other as they tried to defend it) although the second one was mainly from the Americans. The Japanese kept fighting to the end here in the Philippines as their army led by Gen. Yamash*ta defended Manila to the end until they were forced to climb the mountains in search of refuge, not knowing that the Japanese stronghold already surrendered.

 

I strongly disagree to the great loss of lives, but it was for the better good. (After the A-Bomb's radiation crumpled Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the next 10 years, was it really for the better good?). But, in my point of view, the Americans just tried to fend off the Japanese for the sake of peace. Heck, Manila is far more damaged than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. The reconstruction of Manila took more than a decade to restore it's former glory...

 

...good thing the Japanese knew how to pay back what they have taken. They have a contract of 99 years of reconstructing, developing, and helping Manila stand up back to its feet. The evidences are clear at the number of flyovers, roads and bridges constructed in the past 50 years here at Manila.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole
Sorry, I just thought you were acting like a troll in the other threads carrying on about data, or complaining that there's no "debate", or basically wiping your ass with the opinions of others beacuse they're "teens". Name dropping Chomsky and showing off... I don't think anyone here is trying to act like some kind of intellectual fancy pants or assumes they're going to get a historically accurate debate, so just don't worry about that. I mean, trust me, I didn't need you to point out the fact that I'm not gaining amazing insights reading the philosophical inklings of members of GTAForums.com

 

Anyway, yeah, I misinterpreted your point--more like I missed it entirely. My bad

Yeah, exactly. Your bad. Except for the fact that you prefaced your admittance of guilt (might I say without a hint of apology) with ad hominem attacks - which might be okay where you live - because I'm guessing you're a white guy of middle class of a first world country - because you are of the ruling class of a oppressive regime. And as part of the ruling class, no questions are asked of you, no revolution is asked of you, in fact - you can do what you very well please as long as you don't think outside the box. So - shall we start with an apology or not start a debate at all? I don't know. I think I've done some ad hominems toward you right now, and thus I feel like I've evened the field of debate.

 

You're almost right when you say this debate is about Genocide or Justified. Except I believe in your case, it's actually both - I believe you think it was both genocide and justified. You follow the thinking of american nationalists. Criticized by Chomsky, yes. Those american nationalists who defend that Americans can be terrorists, nobody else can. Americans can do genocide, nobody else can. Americans can bomb twin towers, nobody else can.

 

I don't know if you understand me, I hope you do. But I must say, sometimes in a debate, neither side gets to convince the other, and it goes on like a endless boxing match. Punches fly and fly until both are so tired, they sleep on the ring, and ... I don't quite know what happens after that - maybe they die of starvation and thirst. But neither of them wins, and neither of them lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
Sorry, I just thought you were acting like a troll in the other threads carrying on about data, or complaining that there's no "debate", or basically wiping your ass with the opinions of others beacuse they're "teens".  Name dropping Chomsky and showing off...  I don't think anyone here is trying to act like some kind of intellectual fancy pants or assumes they're going to get a historically accurate debate, so just don't worry about that.  I mean, trust me, I didn't need you to point out the fact that I'm not gaining amazing insights reading the philosophical inklings of members of GTAForums.com

 

Anyway, yeah, I misinterpreted your point--more like I missed it entirely.  My bad

Yeah, exactly. Your bad. Except for the fact that you prefaced your admittance of guilt (might I say without a hint of apology) with ad hominem attacks - which might be okay where you live - because I'm guessing you're a white guy of middle class of a first world country - because you are of the ruling class of a oppressive regime. And as part of the ruling class, no questions are asked of you, no revolution is asked of you, in fact - you can do what you very well please as long as you don't think outside the box. So - shall we start with an apology or not start a debate at all? I don't know. I think I've done some ad hominems toward you right now, and thus I feel like I've evened the field of debate.

 

You're almost right when you say this debate is about Genocide or Justified. Except I believe in your case, it's actually both - I believe you think it was both genocide and justified. You follow the thinking of american nationalists. Criticized by Chomsky, yes. Those american nationalists who defend that Americans can be terrorists, nobody else can. Americans can do genocide, nobody else can. Americans can bomb twin towers, nobody else can.

 

I don't know if you understand me, I hope you do. But I must say, sometimes in a debate, neither side gets to convince the other, and it goes on like a endless boxing match. Punches fly and fly until both are so tired, they sleep on the ring, and ... I don't quite know what happens after that - maybe they die of starvation and thirst. But neither of them wins, and neither of them lives.

 

Sorry...

 

You may have missed that while focusing on the "ad hominem" attacks... Which was actually me attempting to explain why I jumped down your throat. However, you're right, an explanation isn't an apology, and it seems to have been misinterpreted and made things worse. So I suppose I will apologize for that as well.

 

That being said, I am also sorry for so hastily judging your post based on all the others of yours which I found unfavorable. It wasn't fair and was very foolish of me. I think that covers it better than just, "Sorry", right?

 

Now, let's let bygones be bygones and have a civil conversation, eh?

 

I don't really think that the U.S. was any more justified in their actions than any other military was during that time. WW2 was not a very diplomatic event, with rules of engagement set out or followed, and it's easy to try to pick and choose heroes and villains, but the simple fact of it is that not one military power ( the big ones anyway) that participated in WW2 is not guilty of great atrocities. Oh, and if you think Pearl Harbor is the worse thing the Japanese did, you'd be amazed at some of the gruesome things they were involved in. Makes Auschwitz look like Camp Granada.

 

Now before you misinterpret that as me saying that it doesn't matter because the Japanese were just as bad, what I am trying to say is that it was war, and most of the huge, heinous war crimes that were perpetrated have gone unanswered. I mean, just beacuse the Nazis were some of the few brought to trial for war crimes doesn't mean they were the only ones guilty of it. I mean, Stalin is pretty much directly comparable to Hitler. In the end you have quite a few actions that are unaccounted for.

 

The other thing I'm saying is that I think one can't easily deny the argument that a full scale invasion would have cost more lives, even though it seems like a cop out. I pointed out in my last post that it's not just the Americans that would have taken heavy losses, and with all the comments about how the loss of life at each place that an atom bomb hit was less than many conventional battles, it would seem that the atomic bombs did prevent a much greater loss of life. That is not justification, however I was merely pointing out that some Americans--especially in a time of all out war, where it's them or you, would see it as justification entirely.

 

The problem I have with the use of the atomic bomb is that it has long-withstanding after effects--and no I don't condone such things for the U.S. In fact, I'm probably one of the few people in this topic that knows anything about the adverse effects that depleted uranium has caused in all of the places where we pumped thousands of rounds a minute of it into the ground during "operations", like in Somalia during the whole "Black Hawk Down" thing. There are hugely disproportionate rates of developmental problems, birth effects, etc. in those areas. In my opinion, it will take many years for this to be accepted as truth. I don't know for a fact, but I am sure that the developmental effects caused by the atomic bombs on the Japanese took a long time to be accepted by everyone too, and what bit of accountability has taken place for that?

 

See I'm acknowledging that it's wrong, and I'm not condoning it, I'm simply saying that it may indeed have saved more lives than it would have caused, and that there's really no use squabbling over that alone considering all of the other massacres and war crimes that no one is being held accountable for.

 

Past that I simply have a hard time condemning the U.S. forces simply for dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima in the face of everything else they've done. I mean, was it a terrible thing to do? Of course, who could argue that it was a good thing to do even if it did prevent loss of life? However, compared to the napalming of villages in Vietnam, or maybe even the interment of Japanese civilians during WW2, are just two of a few heinous things the U.S. have done in terms of humanitarianism.

 

 

So, is America at fault for Hiroshima and Nagasaki beacuse they attacked a civilian populace? If so then so are many, many other forces.

 

Are they guilty for causing long-withstanding problems with radiation in Japan?

 

If so, then what about the people that have planted so many land mines across the Earth we're still pulling them out or only discovering them when a kid blows his leg off on one?

 

I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were as justifiable as Pearl Harbor was.

 

 

Oh, and you're acting a little bit outside of the line of semantics here. A genocide is not the same as a mass murder or massacre, even though it's tossed around like it a lot. The Holocaust, was a genocide, because it strived to kill off all of the Jews. Things like the wars in Darfur are genocide, since it's roughly centered around ethical cleansing--unless I'm mixing up the stuff going on in Darfur with what happened in "Hotel Rwanda"--honestly I thought they were the same conflict.

 

The Americans were never thinking, "Let's just blow up all of the Japanese." That's why it's a massacre, not a genocide.

 

 

Is one really better than the other? Well, that's where everything gets really debatable. Because, Americans can justify dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki beacuse it would have caused much more loss of life any other way, and they had to end the war for their interest, etc. Well, at a certain point, can't one argue that Hitler had to exterminate all of the Jews to complete his plan for Germany? Is one really any lesser than the other? You're still justifying a large-scale loss of life for your own best interests. As you said earlier, most Americans see that as okay for them to do. I don't really see what is unnatural about that, given the right time, and especially during WW2 I think you'd be crazy not to think, "Yeah, f*ck them, it's either them or us."

 

Now days of course we don't have the same global diplomatic atmosphere as we did in WW2 and Americans shouldn't think like that, and a lot of them don't, so it's not that my argument is that, "That's what we had to do," it's that, that's what everyone had to do. Do you really think if Germany had invented the atom bomb before us they wouldn't have dropped it on some target of their choice? Same with Japan.

 

I think people have said in the past though that despite that America should pay reparations or something like that. What about that for an argument, since I think for the most part you and I are on the same page about America's actions, we just have different opinions on what we as a world should resolve to do about it.

 

 

Personally I'm not really sure. On the one hand I'd like to just say, "Who cares, if we tried to hold everyone accountable for every bad thing that happened during WW2 we'd be trying to prosecute dead guys for the next 30 years." However, since all of the Nazis have already had war crime tribunals and what not, it seems kind of unfair to the Japanese no one will answer for the crimes perpetrated against them.

 

However, I don't know if I mind that, considering there's no justice for the people who the Japanese perpetrated against. In a way it's almost like there being no justice is justice itself, but we've already got the double-standard set for Nazi war tribunals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

You may have missed that while focusing on the "ad hominem" attacks... Which was actually me attempting to explain why I jumped down your throat. However, you're right, an explanation isn't an apology, and it seems to have been misinterpreted and made things worse. So I suppose I will apologize for that as well.

 

That being said, I am also sorry for so hastily judging your post based on all the others of yours which I found unfavorable. It wasn't fair and was very foolish of me. I think that covers it better than just, "Sorry", right?

 

Now, let's let bygones be bygones and have a civil conversation, eh?

 

I don't think I can have a civil conversation with a fascist, no. And let me give you some apologies of my own. I'm sorry you're such a f*cking idiot that you can't hear or understand a word I write, let alone string the sentences along, let alone then actually manage paragraphs. I'm sorry that you can't answer me in a f*cking debate because you're such an idiot that if it was hard for you to read - man! - is it hard for you to write! I mean I can just see you suffering.

 

You seem to be missing the point like a drunk, old man, lucid dreaming that he's in a conversation, when he's actually isolated and in prison already, maybe he's a ghost, killed by someone faster and smarter. I don't give a f*ck what you're missing the point like, but I'm trying to be you know - clear, you know - make yourself clear being one of the thingymagigees of rhetoric and all that?

 

You seem to have missed the point about terrorists in my post - The United States is a terrorist nation and always has been. It's history begins with genocide of indians, goes through the genocide of japanese and maybe ends with the genocide of Afghanis. It's a glorious story, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playstation_Loyalist

Oh, please. Throw your bitching arguments outside of this topic... sarcasm.gif

 

The Japanese had suffered greatly from these atomic bombs America threw at them. The two populated cities were flattened by a single bomb, leaving no traces of life except for ants. I was thinking, though: Why bomb the two cities when they were actually out of the "equation"? I mean, the Americans could have brought hell in Tokyo rather than smoldering two "innocent" cities? Tokyo had almost all of it's ministries and military HQ's centered in this city. And yet they just pulverized it with smaller missiles, a tad weaker than the big A.

 

I don't know, but I think both the Japanese and the Americans are homicidal freaks during WWII. Just a thought... catspider.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

You may have missed that while focusing on the "ad hominem" attacks... Which was actually me attempting to explain why I jumped down your throat.  However, you're right, an explanation isn't an apology, and it seems to have been misinterpreted and made things worse.  So I suppose I will apologize for that as well.

 

That being said, I am also sorry for so hastily judging your post based on all the others of yours which I found unfavorable.  It wasn't fair and was very foolish of me.  I think that covers it better than just, "Sorry", right?

 

Now, let's let bygones be bygones and have a civil conversation, eh?

 

I don't think I can have a civil conversation with a fascist, no. And let me give you some apologies of my own. I'm sorry you're such a f*cking idiot that you can't hear or understand a word I write, let alone string the sentences along, let alone then actually manage paragraphs. I'm sorry that you can't answer me in a f*cking debate because you're such an idiot that if it was hard for you to read - man! - is it hard for you to write! I mean I can just see you suffering.

 

You seem to be missing the point like a drunk, old man, lucid dreaming that he's in a conversation, when he's actually isolated and in prison already, maybe he's a ghost, killed by someone faster and smarter. I don't give a f*ck what you're missing the point like, but I'm trying to be you know - clear, you know - make yourself clear being one of the thingymagigees of rhetoric and all that?

 

You seem to have missed the point about terrorists in my post - The United States is a terrorist nation and always has been. It's history begins with genocide of indians, goes through the genocide of japanese and maybe ends with the genocide of Afghanis. It's a glorious story, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

It's hard to hear text, not my fault!

 

Meh, I kind of figured you never really had a point. I'm sorry I wasted my time.

 

@Playstation_Loyaltist

 

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were better targets for aerial bombardment. They were more easily identified by the air (since they were flying in at night), less fortified, and the actual geography of the area would concentrate the blast of the bombs.

Edited by SagaciousKJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole
It's hard to hear text, not my fault!

and thus ends something resembling a debate. Much flailing. Very little contact.

 

GENOCIDE of japanese in World War II, CONCENTRATION camps of japanese in World War II. ANTI COMMUNISM in that same period. (Neo) colonial relationships between european and US countries and the "uncivilized". Xenofobia, Racism.

 

Where are you from again KJB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
It's hard to hear text, not my fault!

and thus ends something resembling a debate. Much flailing. Very little contact.

 

GENOCIDE of japanese in World War II, CONCENTRATION camps of japanese in World War II. ANTI COMMUNISM in that same period. (Neo) colonial relationships between european and US countries and the "uncivilized". Xenofobia, Racism.

 

Where are you from again KJB?

Here are some thingymagigees to you know - clear, you know - things up like TORTURE and MASS KILLINGS to you know - clear, you know - my last post up since you apaprently can't read - man! - I decided to write this way for you

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_...risoners_of_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_...s#Mass_killings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_...hemical_weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Cannibalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_...es#Forced_labor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_c...d_by_country.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_c...d_by_country.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_cr...ng_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_du...45_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#..._and_war_crimes

 

What's your favorite color?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spinach

You forgot about the Bataan Death March and the Rape of Nanking. Those were both very nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole
It's hard to hear text, not my fault!
Where are you from again KJB?

Here are some thingymagigees to you know - clear, you know - things up like TORTURE and MASS KILLINGS to you know - clear, you know - my last post up since you apaprently can't read - man! - I decided to write this way for you

 

What's your favorite color?

I feel kindof sad that you didn't respond -

 

So - regarding the war crimes and f*ck all that the japs did. Yeah, they were assholes. Maybe even bigger assholes than the americans or the allies. (But if you look back in time they were forced to act that way to survive in the face of neo colonialism) take a look at the first contact between america and - or just watch the last samurai.

 

But in regard to what the Americans did - Genocide Yes or no - you continue saying it was genocide and it was justified. It was justified because the terrorist japanese would have ... I don't know blown up the twin towers and instituted a regime of terror on all countries of the world. (By the way instead of the japanese and the axis doing that, the allies did that - divided in two fronts - the USSR front and the european-american front.)

 

My favorite color is the color of my girlfriends eyes, is the color of justice, is the color of good and evil, my favorite color is the only color a world I live in could have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yarpie
What's your favorite color?

That history is written by the winners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spinach

Why are so many people defending what the Japanese did? Me thinks they have no idea what they actually did.

 

And Tom Toole isn't even debating anymore. Just giving using stupid examples of hyperbole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
Why are so many people defending what the Japanese did? Me thinks they have no idea what they actually did.

 

And Tom Toole isn't even debating anymore. Just giving using stupid examples of hyperbole.

Well, yeah, I think that's pretty much it. The first I ever heard of any Japanese war crimes was of Unit 731 and that was only a few years ago. I think as far as most people in America go, the idea's of Japan's war crimes goes about as far as mistreatment of POWs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole
What's your favorite color?

That history is written by the winners.

Very well Yarpie. Guess what though. There are no winners, there are no losers. There are just stupid worthless survivors.

 

But at least you listen and understand what I write, which is more than I can say for these other stupid worthless survivors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
usmc123

The Battle of Okinawa cost more lives than the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many civilians killed themselves or went on suicide attacks or joined the Japanese Army to fight the 'invaders'. The cost of a war on the Japanese mainland would have been catastrophic. The Japanese at that point had been losing battles and the war's end was close. But 'close' is subjective, we could have invaded and with a combined Marine-Army force it could have taken months to secure the islands, let alone fend off guerrilla attacks by the civilian populace. It would have been a bloodbath, not to mention what would have happened if the Russians got there in time to join in. The Atomic Bombs were the best option, less people would die on the Japanese side, and no Allied lives would be loss at all. From an Allied point of view it was the best thing you could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shylock

Someone forgot to read the rules of D&D. Must be that they are too fascist.

ph34r.gif

 

And for the sake of argument and since I am typing this on my phone I will keep this as short as possible...

 

The US dropped the bomb to show the world what new weapon we had. If they weren't showboating, they wouldn't have sent several planes for the sole purpose of recording the event and measuring/obtaining blast/atmospheric data.

 

Would I have dropped the bomb? Yes.

 

Would I have done it differently? No.

 

It was spot on to end the war as fast as possible. An all out invasion of mainland Japan would of been catastrophic for everyone. And that is a fact. I am sorry that women and children had to die. But the allies did give them multiple opportunities to surrender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole
Someone forgot to read the rules of D&D. Must be that they are too fascist.

ph34r.gif

There is not one discussion going on here, but many.

 

There is one discussion which can't be escaped, which is about the nature of debate, the nature of words, of meaning, of existence.

 

The other debate is pretty much about the same thing, just coloured in japanese and american, bloody and burnt.

 

So indeed you are correct, there are fascists in the room.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.