View Single Post
Old 09-01-2006, 04:41 PM   #67
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
No one seems to have addressed my post asking if an Iranian attack on NYC would be justified under the same circumstances as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
The concentration camps weren't entirely necessary, but that wasn't the point of my argument. You said to defeat fanatics we would become fanatics. Once the war ended, we did not try to conquer a severly weakened world, and instead helped it rebuild. That does not fit my definition of becoming like the Japanese ourselves.
Right, because our enemies were defeated. We didn't have to continue acting as fanatics. But setting up our own concentration camps and then nuking their civilians does not seem like a very civilized thing to me. Or am I just a crazy fool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
Since when was that relevant? If the blitz didn't work on Britain, it wouldn't have worked on the Japanese. They proved to be far more fanatical to their cause than the British were, so that obviously wouldn't have worked.
The "shock and awe" on Saddam's regime seemed to work to get the Iraqi military to - for the most part - lay down their arms and surrender. Why? Because they were a weak force that didn't stand a chance. Even though they're crazy totalitarians, they seemed to surrender quite promptly. Didn't even have to nuke all of Baghdad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
The Japanese were not ready to surrender, otherwise they wouldn't have been preparing to send their children and seniors into the fighting, as LIAYD said.
Ask Eisenhower if Japan was going to surrender.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
You are as incorrect as you can possibly get on that matter. Constant bombings can claim just as many, and even more lives than two atomic bombings. Look it up anywhere, and you'll see that more civilians were killed in the fire bombings of Japan than the atomic bombings.
I'm not going to defend firebombing. But at least with firebombing it doesn't leave the fallout that destroys the environment and kills thousands of people later from cancer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
And civilans were not intentionally killed in the atomic bombings. We were targeting the industrial capacity and strategic value of those cities, not the civilians, even though we knew they were there and would die. But did we also know that civilians would die when we used fire bombs on their cities? Yes. You've haven't seemed very opposed to that, despite the fact that there were deaths in those bominbgs.
Sounds like the very same justification that Israel used to slaughter the citizens of Lebanon. "Oh we're not targetting the people of Lebanon, just where Hezbollah hides their weapons. It just happens to be that their weapons are under the beds of children."

Blaming the victim. So sick of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
How can you advocate a form of crippling their military less effectively while killing more civilians over a method that kills less civilians and damages their military just as much, and possibly more? The only difference is that the later took less time and money. Your opinion on that is as inconsistent as you can get.
Less effectively? So actually targetting their military instead of their civilians (a war crime) would not hurt their military as much?

It seems that in order to defend the actions of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki... you must say that terrorism in certain cases can be justified. Because if terrorism is easier, quicker, and cheaper than fighting a war, because your enemy is so fanatical that it would not back down any other way, then it is justified. Guess what, that's what Mr. bin Laden thought when he ordered the 9/11 attacks.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,