[Old Man G Funk]

Well, if that's all it takes for a nation that has been defeated in an ammoral and hateful way to become an ally I guess we can expect Iraq to be on our team in the future?

It's more complicated than that, because we are not seen as the same force for good as we once were.

Edit: Also, our involvement in the war was not necessarily immoral. We were attacked. That is not the case today.

Japan rightfully got their ass handed to them, regardless of the means. I imagine they know that, my german friends certainly do.
In the end they were rewarded with what they thought war would attain (as VB mentioned earlier and you agreed with): entry into the rich-boy club.

I think you misunderstood, or I misunderstood VB. The war was started in part because they were resentful at NOT being let into the rich-boy club. They didn't believe war was the way to get into the club.

The american arrogance you claim is the common thread between then and now is also bogus. That arrogance (which i agree exists and is responsible for current conflicts) was a result of our success in WW2. It was only emerging at the time the pacific war ended.

I was probably not as clear as I should have been. I did not mean to assert that we were arrogant back then. The common thread is that our arrogance now is partly fed by our unwillingness to look at ourselves in the mirror.

 

[dan-o]

I'm not so sure that lasting peace only comes through decisive military victories. I think there's a lot more to it than that.

Mutual Assured Destruction? ink:

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Mutual Assured Destruction? ink:

Well, we'll have to see if Russia really becomes an ally of ours on that score I suppose.

 

[N8 v2.0]

No worries about your comment.

I'm not so sure that lasting peace only comes through decisive military victories. I think there's a lot more to it than that.

Edit: As for how much good the US has done, I don't know that I can argue with you on that score. But, I think we should own up to the mistakes that we have made. IMO, it makes us a better nation when we can stand up and accept responsibility for our actions.

I don't see anyone ducking responsibily other than democrats in congress... I think we've made out bed and now we are going to have to sleep in it for better or for worse... although I think it will ultimately be for better... not only for us, but for all freedom loving peoples.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I don't see anyone ducking responsibily other than democrats in congress... I think we've made out bed and now we are going to have to sleep in it for better or for worse... although I think it will ultimately be for better... not only for us, but for all freedom loving peoples.

You don't see anyone ducking resposibility except Democrats?

When will the current administration own up to what they did? That is the most egregious example of ducking responsibility in the whole entire mess. Couple that with ducking the responsibility for actually going after Osama, and it makes quite the one-two combination.

Edit: And to keep this somewhat on topic, when will the administration stop acting like we are the saviors of the world, i.e. that our sh*t really don't stink? We waltz into another country for no good reason, impose our form of government on them, and act like they should be thankful?

 

[N8 v2.0]

You don't see anyone ducking resposibility except Democrats?

When will the current administration own up to what they did? That is the most egregious example of ducking responsibility in the whole entire mess. Couple that with ducking the responsibility for actually going after Osama, and it makes quite the one-two combination.

I don't see the current adminstration cutting and running in the war against militant islam (ok 'terror'... whatever..). We have 2 active fronts in the enemy's back yard and a proxie front in their front yard thx to our good buddies the Israelies who know what the deal is.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I don't see the current adminstration cutting and running in the war against militant islam (ok 'terror'... whatever..). We have 2 active fronts in the enemy's back yard and a proxie front in their front yard thx to our good buddies the Israelies who know what the deal is.

I'm not saying that the Dems are faultless, but for you to say that the administration is faultless shows a stunning lack of awareness.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I'm not saying that the Dems are faultless, but for you to say that the administration is faultless shows a stunning lack of awareness.

I say the current administration is totally responsible for our current efforts to combat militant islamic terrorists.

110% responsible.

 

[ohio]

110% responsible.

They are more responsible than responsible for everything?

 

[N8 v2.0]

They are more responsible than responsible for everything?

yes45

 

[Silver]

They are more responsible than responsible for everything?

They want to combat terrorism so much that they are committed to making more terrorists, just so they can battle them.

If that isn't 110% commitment, I don't know what is.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

And this is different from Bush asserting that Iraq did have chemical weapons how?

Look at what he says too. "Dropping the bombs ended the war, saved lives, and gave the free nations a chance to face the facts." This is simply stating what happened and then his opinion as to the matter. Of course, the fact that his opinion doesn't say that he killed a bunch of civilians for no good reason is not surprising, is it?

He also says, "When it looked as if Japan would quit, Russia hurried into the fray less than a week before the surrender, so as to be in at the settlement." This says to me that he already knew Japan was quitting.

before the bombing, it wasnt black and white either.
it was a matter of chances, in a time where everybody was trying to outguess the others. you blinked, you died.

there was a substantial chance dropping the bomb would make japana surrender.

there was a substantial chance, the plan for the invasion of japan would take thousands of japanese and allied lives if it was succesful.

doing nothing, and waiting for a 3rd option to happen, japan surrendering.. was a bit of wishful thinking, specially when you consider the determination and ferocity of the battles leading to the bombings.

would it have been sensible to pass up the chance to end the conflict, in hopes of a sudden japanese determination change?

 

[valve bouncer]

I asked Secretary Stimson which sites in Japan were devoted to war production. He promptly named Hiroshima and Nagasaki, among others. We sent an ultimatum to Japan. It was rejected.

I ordered atomic bombs dropped on the two cities named on the way back from Potsdam

I think old Harry was going a bit senile at this point. Hiroshima was not a centre of war production, certainly not the downtown area the bomb was dropped on. Hiroshima was chosen, as I mentioned previously because of geography. Hiroshima literally translates as "wide/broad/large island". The effects of the bomb could more clearly seen in this relatively flat area. The aiming point of the bombs (the T-shaped bridge downtown) ensured maximum casualties.

As I also mentioned earlier, Nagasaki was a secondary target, again not a major centre of war production. On that day it was a target of oppurtunity after Kokura in northern Kyushu was clouded over.

Don't fool yourself N8, the A-bombs were not used against military targets. They were a show of strength, purposely designed to inflict maximum death and destruction on Japanese people.

 

[Silver]

They were a show of strength, purposely designed to inflict maximum death and destruction on Japanese people.

And to wave a big dick in Josef's face...

 

[MikeD]

They want to combat terrorism so much that they are committed to making more terrorists, just so they can battle them.

If that isn't 110% commitment, I don't know what is.

Silver, that's truly funny. I hated the rep system, but wish it was still here just for little old you.

If the answer were yes, would that make us right?

Not in itself, but your search for a true moral right/wrong is a metaphysical question, not a political/practical one. That fact helps us understand the situation which shaped the thinking of those who made the decision. And since neither the US nor any other nation had received any quarter from the Japanese, the US could rightly expect that use of less than its maximum military power would be seen as a sign of weakness, or would at best extend the war.

I'm sure you'll argue that the moral thing to do would be to make a bid for peace at the earliest available opportunity, but again, I don't think it made practical sense to do so. We'll also simply have differ on whether the US had an obligation to protect the life of Japanese civilians at the expense of its people, resources, or political objectives. In context, I don't think we did. This was a total war on all sides, and while lessons learned from it would prevent me from carpet-bombing a city today if I had the opportunity, I can't apply my own feelings, borne mostly of historical hindsight, to a situation which is totally alien to me. I can only apply the lessons learned.

(PS...you'll notice I don't criticize either America and America's current enemies on moral grounds, but on practical ones as well...)

I doubt he would have used it on Germany.

If the option had existed to melt Dresden with one plane and one bomb instead of an armada, we'd have done it without the briefest of pauses. This is also a red herring argument/comment.


(Good debating, as always...even if you did drag me in to another @(*&#% online a-bomb debate. Then again, I owe my current job to in part to the practice I got in debating this subject online, so I really shouldn't complain... )

MD

 

[Old Man G Funk]

before the bombing, it wasnt black and white either.
it was a matter of chances, in a time where everybody was trying to outguess the others. you blinked, you died.

there was a substantial chance dropping the bomb would make japana surrender.

there was a substantial chance, the plan for the invasion of japan would take thousands of japanese and allied lives if it was succesful.

doing nothing, and waiting for a 3rd option to happen, japan surrendering.. was a bit of wishful thinking, specially when you consider the determination and ferocity of the battles leading to the bombings.

would it have been sensible to pass up the chance to end the conflict, in hopes of a sudden japanese determination change?

I don't think we can take the invasion of Japan as a given. Yes, an invasion would have cost more lives on both sides, but it probably wasn't necessary. Japan was impotent at this point and going downhill fast, especially with the loss of oil supply lines.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Not in itself, but your search for a true moral right/wrong is a metaphysical question, not a political/practical one.

True that.

That fact helps us understand the situation which shaped the thinking of those who made the decision. And since neither the US nor any other nation had received any quarter from the Japanese, the US could rightly expect that use of less than its maximum military power would be seen as a sign of weakness, or would at best extend the war.

I see what you are saying here, and I agree to some extent. The Japanese were certainly pretty harsh with their tactics (to put it diplomatically.) But, the Japanese were also concerned about being eradicated, and we had the ability to do that to them with conventional bombing runs. I think they knew it too. They were searching for a way out that would save some face. Perhaps they should have put their pride away.

I'm sure you'll argue that the moral thing to do would be to make a bid for peace at the earliest available opportunity, but again, I don't think it made practical sense to do so. We'll also simply have differ on whether the US had an obligation to protect the life of Japanese civilians at the expense of its people, resources, or political objectives.

Isn't that what is required of us now via the Geneva Conventions?

In context, I don't think we did. This was a total war on all sides, and while lessons learned from it would prevent me from carpet-bombing a city today if I had the opportunity, I can't apply my own feelings, borne mostly of historical hindsight, to a situation which is totally alien to me. I can only apply the lessons learned.

(PS...you'll notice I don't criticize either America and America's current enemies on moral grounds, but on practical ones as well...)

And, that's what I'm asking us to do now. Apply the lessons learned. It doesn't mean, however, that we can't go back and say, "Yeah, that was bad and probably shouldn't have happened."

If the option had existed to melt Dresden with one plane and one bomb instead of an armada, we'd have done it without the briefest of pauses. This is also a red herring argument/comment.

Yeah, it is a red herring. I was simply sniping.

(Good debating, as always...even if you did drag me in to another @(*&#% online a-bomb debate. Then again, I owe my current job to in part to the practice I got in debating this subject online, so I really shouldn't complain... )

MD

Thank you, and I would extend the same compliment. Sorry to drag you into something that it sounds like you've done as much as I've debated Creationists. It can get tedious at times.

 

[MikeD]

And, that's what I'm asking us to do now. Apply the lessons learned. It doesn't mean, however, that we can't go back and say, "Yeah, that was bad and probably shouldn't have happened."

I guess our parting shot, then, is that I still don't think it was a bad choice in the context in which it happened, and I'd have probably made the same decision, given the situation.

MD

 

[rockwool]

So with what we have learned through this extreme action 60 years ago, how can we apply it to todays and future conflicts?
What must a situation be like before an atomic weapon is used again?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I guess our parting shot, then, is that I still don't think it was a bad choice in the context in which it happened, and I'd have probably made the same decision, given the situation.

MD

Fair enough. It's hard to go back and say that things would have been different if I were in charge, because I don't know what exactly Truman knew and when he knew it.* I just hope that we realize how destructive we really can be and that we do whatever is necessary to never unleash such destructive force again.

*Edit: Although, we have pieced some things together after the fact, and if he didn't know the bomb's capability or the state of the Japanese, then his advisors should have been sacked.