Sign In

A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy — Page 4

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
A poorly-designed robot whose real world tasks got very busy this afternoon.


But, yeah, calling me more names really makes me want to read your stuff and consider a rational response.


How's this ... if you're not pulling numbers out of your ass, your comparisons of casualty rates (though apples and oranges to the comparisons I requested) provide some merit for your argument. Without links though, I have nothing to go by but your word. Ordinarily, I would assume someone who bandies about facts and numbers is not making them up (despite this being, ya know, the internet). But someone who has posted like a 4-year-old does not strike me as the scholarly type. Your demeanor works against you when your communication is all you have to be judged by. So ... perhaps you'll understand that I don't find you trustworthy.



But yeah, if by some chance you're not making shit up, ^ there's your admission by me that your points have merit.







.




What "comparisons" you requested?

Those numbers aren't fiction, it would take about 3 seconds to confirm.... wouldn't it? Knock yourself out.

As I said, you should know your history before you make ridiculous and offensive claims. Many members here (myself included) have relatives who are/were WWII vets and were possibly spared by the use of atomic weaponry during the Pacific campaign. Acting surprised and better-than-thou when they call out your laughable claims for what they are, purposefully offensive and based on fantasy, is the behavior of an ignorant dick head. More civilians were lost on Okinawa than were lost when Little Boy was detonated over Hiroshima, and nearly twice as many as were claimed by the bomb over Nagasaki. In indirect ways the Atomic Bombs used against Japan spared not only the lives of American, Soviet, and Japanese soldiers.... it spared the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. If you’re going to ramble on in ways you know are going to offend people it’s wise to make sure your opinions can hold up to recorded history.

Your notions of the "honorable way" the Pacific campaign "Should have been fought," and what countries should have prevailed is just flat-out asinine

Harrison Ford Has Pretty Much Given Up on His Son. Here's Why

Author
Time
sorry, mr. stinky, but i have you on ignore. I can see that you posted something, but that's all. See, it's that eye-aversion thing I have mastered. Save your breath. Or fingers, as the case may be. I don't read you.




.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

How does one determine when any particular society is pertrating an evil war?

Basic ethics will do. The idea of a “Just War Theory” has existed in the western world for a very long time. For instance, legitimate authority is usually a very important concept. To rebel against a proper authority or to clearly invade its realm without the defense of human rights and the pursuit of justice as a priority, that would generally be considered an unjust war. In basic terms, if a country perpetrates injustices (or attempts to perpetrate injustices), based upon a common understanding of good and evil, we can then take just action to stop it (so long as the response fits the injustice).

In terms of specifics, the US was not “unprovoked” in the most recent Iraq war according to any reasonable evaluation that I know of. And in terms of totalitarian-controlled societies, their ability to function is still, sadly, a valid war target if they support an unjust war.


Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

I guess I'm just not clear on when civilians are fair game, in your mind. They rarely are in mine. Even if it were determined that civilian infrastructure had to be taken out for legitimate war goals (i.e, a bridge taken out to disrupt economic activity as opposed to disrupting military transport), would you rather bomb the bridge, or the TV station, or the airport in the middle of night, to minimize casualties? Or is killing as many civilians as possible a legitimate war tactic?

If so, is it legitimate as a tactic of extortion (such as a nuclear strike on a metropolitan area) or is the killing of civilians for the express purpose of wiping out a population ever allowable?


Appropriately moderating a response in comparison to a threat is never a clear subject and human beings will always make mistakes. We often go too far when attacking an enemy, or, as is also often the case, not far enough. Directly attacking a civilian population should generally be a last resort. In the case of Japan, convincing the Japanese that we now had the power to utterly defeat them, by detonating atom bombs above two of their cities, might have been the wisest move to make. I am generally of the opinion that it was.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Hey, Stinky, stop being so mean to poor Jeewhyen. Ask your self WWYD? HA HA HA!!

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Tiptup, I'm not sure I properly conveyed the gist of my question. I understand when a war is considered "just" vs. "unjust" (despite some very gray areas) ... but I was wondering when, in your view, the civilians of a society can be held responsible for the war acts of their ruling regime .. and thus be legitimate targets of military attack ... whether for coercion to surrender or as direct "assets" to wipe out?

Iran may be a legitimage target, for example, but are its civilians fair game for attack?



In the case of Japan during WWII, was it necessary to kill people with the atom bomb ... or would a less lethal demonstration of its ability to cause massive casualties have been sufficient? Would it have been more prudent to try a demonstration in less habited areas first, before going on to kill tens of thousands if the demonstation did not provoke surrender?


* * * * *


(oh, and C3PX, don't worry about stinky being mean to me. I'm not reading his stuff, and he knows it. Anything he posts about me is for his own benefit ... and he can continue to masturbate as often as he likes. He won't go blind from that, and I am blind to his posts from now on.)



.
Author
Time
The civilian deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are tragic, no doubt, but Truman had to make it clear we had the ability to utterly obliterate the Japanese nation.

The soldiers of the Japanese army were absolutely insane thanks to military brainwashing, and they would have fought us and any Japanese citizens that tried to oppose them tooth and nail to the death. Whether it was morally acceptable to nuke them is up for debate, but there is no doubt it brought the war to an end sooner than it would have otherwise ended and saved American and Japanese lives.

The cities bombed weren't arbitrary targets, either--they were militarily significant cities.

4

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
T
In the case of Japan during WWII, was it necessary to kill people with the atom bomb ... or would a less lethal demonstration of its ability to cause massive casualties have been sufficient? Would it have been more prudent to try a demonstration in less habited areas first, before going on to kill tens of thousands if the demonstation did not provoke surrender?
.


Once again, Hirohito didn't even surrender after witnessing the destruction of the first nuke, so to think a mere tech demo would eek a surrender out of Japan is fucking idiocy.

Honestly, you have the comprehension skills of a fucking salamander.

Harrison Ford Has Pretty Much Given Up on His Son. Here's Why

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Tiptup, I'm not sure I properly conveyed the gist of my question. I understand when a war is considered "just" vs. "unjust" (despite some very gray areas) ... but I was wondering when, in your view, the civilians of a society can be held responsible for the war acts of their ruling regime .. and thus be legitimate targets of military attack ... whether for coercion to surrender or as direct "assets" to wipe out?


I thought I was being pretty clear that I believe civilians to be a legitimate target when they have satisfied two criteria. Namely, when they are mobilizing to support a war effort and when the war effort they support is unjust. At that point we can coerce them to surrender and even kill them if need be, just so long as we don’t attack them beyond that which we try to wisely determine as needful. Our “need” in this context is to discourage an enemy “civilian” population from supporting a war, and/or destroy their physical ability to support it. (A secondary “need” is to do this in ways that will simultaneously preserve the lives of the people from our own nation.)

A society is responsible for supporting a war if they support it, it doesn’t matter in what way. Certainly if their chosen support for a war is low (as may be the case under a totalitarian regime), we should take that into account and be less inclined to target them. Still though, even in this case, support for an unjust war is still support (whether physical or mental), and if the best wisdom we can muster decides that it is best to attack that civilian population, to the degree they support it, then so be it.


The civilians in Iraq should be targeted to the degree they support evil actions and illegitimate authority. And, in terms of WW2 Japan, I believe the atom bomb attacks would not have worked as mere demonstrations only. By using them to destroy actual military targets (mobilized cities) they were far more compelling. That’s not to say that pure demonstrations of power cannot work under certain circumstances, and shouldn’t be considered, but with the Japanese of that time, I’m convinced that such an approach would have solved practically nothing (even with the two bombs attacks, we were barely able to convince them to surrender).

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Yeah, I'll grant you that, in terms of Japan in the 40's.

In terms of Iraq today, I'm not comfortable assigning responsibility to everyday Iraqis for Saddam Hussein's wishful but nonexistent pursuit of WMD, and his stupid thwarting of U.N. inspections. I'm glad the U.S. is not targeting civilians directly, but I can hardly imagine it possible to kill many more if we did.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying your thoughts.
Author
Time
I know this is only slightly relevant to the topic, but...

Post # 1941!

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg