yomom1919
-
Posts
1908 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by yomom1919
-
-
I refuse to beleive this. The last time this happened and I got involved, the boy turned up dead and burned. Damn you, Feisel parents!
You were involved in the burning and death of a boy?
-
The opening music from 2001: A Space Odyssey. I'm not even sure where that music is from, or if they made it up or not. But it's definitely overused in movies today. 2001 definitely deserved it though.
And yes, kelem ryu, his 9th symphony is named/referred to as Ode to Joy in America.
-
GROW UP kid, just keep telling yourself you're funny, ok?
I'm glad you didn't find Wedding Crashers funny, but many of us did. Actually, you probably don't even know what movie that was from, do you?
Still waiting for m4tty to say, "Only in America!"Rofl.
-
She is definitely not punk. Shes a pop rock poser-punk. I guess if you like pop music it's your thing, but it really isn't mine. She's one of the antichrists of music.
-
But doesn't that statement, in a way, support our argument as well? We're arguing that they weren't idiots, so they gave up after the use of the atomic bombs. We're still arguing that the Japanese were persistent, which, like you said, is portrayed by how hard they fought and the mindset much of the culture and race held. But why is it that you think an enemy having a weapon that can destroy a major city in an instant wouldn't be the final straw of their withdrawl, if you think they aren't idiots?
And yes, it's ludicrous to say that just because some Japanese soldiers "kamikazed" that they'd fight to the last man, but the idea of the kamikaze tactic portrays a piece of the Japanese elitist persona. As I stated, they had no desire to attack on American soil, just to control all of East and Southeast Asia, to complete their empire. That's how their mindset worked/s- being the greatest race on the planet, they deserve to have a large, expansive empire, with all other nations and people as their slaves (just look up some of the stuff the Japanese did to other Asians while conquering East Asia... ack).
Sorry if I'm not responding to every little point in your posts, but I don't have to time nor desire to spend three hours of my day debating this. Guess I'm lazy, probably won't come anywhere close to finishing this debate, oh well.
Eh, I guess your not obligated to respond to every argument. This is a fairly deep debate, so I'll accept your choice.
As for these matters you bring up, I think what it essentially comes down to is personal opinion.
For your first argument, the bomb, in my opinion, coupled with the entry of the Soviet Union in Manchuria, delivered a 1-2-3 punch to the Japanese. Of course they were going to surrender after they fully realized the capability of the bomb, and surely I won't debate that. It is, however, in my personal opinion based on facts and quotes from both the Japanese and American leaders, that dropping the bomb was unnecessary, as the Japanese were essentially defeated. Both Eisenhower and MacArthur, as well as many prominent military officials on the American side, recognized this. They were seasoned senior war veterans who knew enemy tactics and how to evaluate situations. They knew that the situation Japan was in was nowhere near favorable, and they were people that knew bad situations, which is why they both believe that the bomb was unnecessary.
As your second argument, another matter of personal opinion. I believe the Japanese have a very proficient and honorable culture. If the whole world had a Japanese mindset, it would undoubtedly be a better place. However, the Japanese brought America into the war, whether they like it or not, during the attack on Pearl Harbor [Note] Our retaliation by declaring war on Japan was an issue of self-defense, a Constitutional obligation of America. They decided to attack American soil, and although they had no desire for it, it was America's obligation to retaliate. [i know your not arguing against that, I just felt like mentioning it.]
Also, just a clarification and I'm not sure if this is widely known or not, but many social leaders, including small ones, as well as the people of Japan, thought surrender or negotiation to surrender would be wise. The military leaders were really the only main opposition.
-
Reminds me of Heroes, where Hayden [forgot character's name] sits through her own autopsy.
-
I don't quite understand....
Look under his location - Tel-Aviv. I think he was talking about it being a Hebrew word in general.
Lake of Fire - [unplugged Live in New York version]
-
Justified or not, it's done and only thing we should do is not to argue was it right or wrong but play our cards right so we don't have to see it happening again.
My teacher said this, but after saying this he told us the importance of the argument, and made a good point, saying something like: The bomb has already been dropped, and the decision cannot be revoked. However, future decisions to use or not use weapons of mass destruction can be influenced by an analysis of the past use."
I found that very interesting and valid.
-
[hide=Military Unnecessity]On the Wikipedia page about the debate there is an interesting section titled Military Unnecessity. And i'm going to quote it for you reading pleasure, because i'm too busy to rephrase it at the moment.Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.
One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[31][32]
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[32] Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[33] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[34]
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[35]
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[35]
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[36][35] The survey assumed that conventional bombing attacks on Japan would greatly increase as the bombing capabilities of July 1945 were ...a fraction of its planned proportion...[37] due to a steadily high production rate of new B-29s and the reallocation of European airpower to the Pacific. When hostilities ended, the USAAF had approximately 3700 B-29s of which only about 1000 were deployed.[38]
Had the war gone on these and still more aircraft would have brought devastation far worse than either bomb to many more cities. The results of conventional strategic bombing at the cease-fire were summed up thusly:
"...On the basis of photo coverage, intelligence estimated that 175 square miles of urban area in 66 cities were wiped out. Total civilian casualties stemming directly from the urban attacks were estimated at 330,000 killed, 476,000 injured, and 9,200,000 rendered homeless." General Haywood S. Hansell[38]
General MacArthur has also contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages, but refused to clarify Washington's willingness to accept this condition. Before the bombings, the position of the Japanese leadership with regards to surrender was divided. Several diplomats favored surrender, while the leaders of the Japanese military voiced a commitment to fighting a "decisive battle" on KyÃÆââ¬Â¦ÃâëshÃÆââ¬Â¦Ãâë, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward. The Japanese government did not decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme War Council was still split, with the hard-liners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials would be conducted, and no occupation of Japan would be allowed. Only the direct intervention of the emperor ended the dispute, and even then a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender.
Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945.[39]
The sources are all referenced accurately.[/hide]
Thank you for reading and inserting that into the argument. That is one of the more important points on military necessity, and I hoped since I provided links that people would read them.
It's important to note that Japan expected Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be bombed, since they were they only 2 major cities untouched [source = Hiroshima, by John Hersey [not quoted, but paraphrased]]. The only thing Japan did not expect it to be an atomic weapon, because the Japanese scientists believed the construction of one to be near impossible. After a while, they just accepted it as another air raid or such, which, as I said earlier, they already expected and were in the process of air raid preparation.
At defender, I will try my best to respond to ignorance and illogic:
First of all, click the footnotes on the Wikipedia articles, and It will lead you to the source or citation. If the citation is a book, go to your local library. Contrary to popular belief, important Wikipedia articles do not pull stuff out of their rear-end...
Secondly, addressing your text book, it is a well known fact that textbooks are very biased towards the country they are used in. In Germany, it is guaranteed you will hear a different story about WWII than in America. You are probably inclined not to believe me, because of your forum behavior in the past [such as denying direct scientific evidence provided by Warrior proving that homosexuality is not a choice], but my German teacher herself, who grew up in Germany and lived most of it there, told us, and she is a very worldly and experienced person. But I'm not going just on her word alone, it's common knowledge. Also, textbooks do not go in depth into issues, they are simply a general compilation of full works written by professors of history, science, etc. You will never find the full story of anything in a textbook, it is merely a summarized and as impartial as possible compilation, while actually usually ending up being partial to the nation of use. You'll figure out more when you get to actual real history and read real books on it.
Japan did not surrender because they wanted a negotiated surrender, as stated in quotes in the article that I provided, as well as quotes I posted in this thread. The Japanese were afraid the Allies would remove or execute the emperor as punishment for war crimes [he committed none]. Therefore, they were confused over the state of the Emperor, and were scared that, if they surrendered, the Imperial offices and officers in Japan, such as the Emperor, would no longer exist. Japan wished for negotiations, and received none. However, they were still hopeful on the mater, for they had little choice.
America did not plan to take any soldiers prisoner after Japan's surrender. The only prisoners they took were the leaders who committed war crimes. The Allies were not magically going to take the whole of Japan and its army as POW. Also, regarding your kamikaze point, the kamikaze pilots were usually going down anyway and their planes were almost exploded, so they put their death of their plane [and themselves] to good use by using it as missiles against enemy boats, etc.
I never said we did it out of hate for the Japanese. I said if negotiations were possible, we should have taken advantage of that.
Consider this quote from Truman:
"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare."
Does that not imply revenge or hate for the Japanese?
-
Okay, I was writing a response to this, but it was taking too long, so rather than make this debate waste dozens of hours of both of our lives, let's just focus it:
In searching through the sources you referenced (especially Wikipedia, which I scowered through looking for your arguments), I could not find one example of the Japanese desiring (as at least a majority) to end the war before the bombings. Any example of desire to end the war that I did find came after the bombings, including this statement:
"... Despite the best that has been done by everyone ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢â∠-
Yes I know it is, but if you actually read what I wrote, I said some did while others didn't, not all suffered a quick painless death.
I was responding to llamster, I just forgot to delete your quote tags...
Yes, the US killed thousands, but it took only two bombs to force a surrender, with no casualties other than those within the two cities. If the US had fought out the war without the two bombs, head-to-head combat would have forced the death toll far higher, especially if the Japense somehow got the war to American ground, or vice versa.Those two bombs ended the war, swiftly. There is little debate as to whether it was the right choice; Hell, the CHURCH agrees it was the right choice, and that organization has the largest pack of pro-life nutjobs on the planet. The current Japanese government itself agrees that it was necessary at the time for America to drop the bombs to end the war.
And yomom, stop talking like war is supposed to be perfectly ethical in all its parts. That's not possible, okay?
As for your comment on "kicking him in the nuts afterwards", you do understand what was happening at the end of WWII, right? The bomb wasn't "kicking them in the nuts", it was the first step of completely subduing the enemy to the point of no retaliation. The Japanese in the past, and even now, have no care for foreigners. They are an elitist race, and, as has been stated, were no where near surrendering. The bombs were necessary for ending the war, period.
First of all, the situation was not like that at all for the Japanese. Trade was blocked off and production of war materials was very small compared to production at the beginning of the war. Naval ships were at port, and the Japanese air force was grounded, because of lack of fuel. Japan accepted their defeat months before the bomb dropped. They were strongly attempting to negotiate, using the Soviet Union as their diplomat. There was no possible way the Japanese would have moved the front to America, any historian knows that. The Japanese accepted that. That's not possible, okay?
Obviously war is not supposed to be completely ethical. But you can debate the ethics of certain tactics used. If everyone said 'well war is not supposed to be ethical' to war crimes committed, and no one was ever convicted of war crimes because of that excuse, I don't think that would be very fair, do you? Do you think decapitation of POW's would be unethical [the Japanese decapitated American officers of rank if caught]. I know you probably aren't talking about things like this, but I'm just showing you how far that potential excuse can go.
Also, it is a strong misconception that Japan would never have surrendered. Read the third link on the opening post [pmg wikipedia o noes illegal! Relax everybody, the quotes are footnoted], yes the generals are reluctant to surrender, but they were also open for negotiations with the Allies. A quote from the emperor, on June 22, 1945, during a meeting of the Imperial War Council of Japan, 1 and a half months before the bombs, clearly showed this:
"I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them."
And that is the emperor speaking, the most honorable and respected man of the time in Japanese culture. Japan only rejected unconditional surrender because the Allies did not make clear that they would not lay a hand on the emperor or imperial system. Therefore, the Japanese and the Emperor thought that it was possible he would be executed for war crimes [he committed none]. The allies let the emperor stay, of course, after the bombings, but a simple clarification would have made negotiations easier. Also, the Japanese were open to negotiations, and were trying to solicit the Soviet Union as a mediator. So, asking you, was 200,000+ lives worth a speedy surrender, when a peaceful surrender could have very well potentially existed?
-
The first one, of course, was justified. No country should ever sit back and let themselves be attacked. The second one, I think was justified. The Japanese attack was pretty much a surprise attack. They caught us off guard, so why not show them what we're capable of? We wiped on city off their map, let's show them what will happen if they try anything else.
People died man. Their eyeballs popped out and their skin melted into the river like blobs of oil in a soup as they tried to escape the burn. [cabbage] like that is never justifiable.
That's not true. The people were vaporized painlessly in a fraction of a millisecond.
Actually, it is true. Read Hiroshima by John Hersey.
-
Let's try putting it in different terms.. Say you get into a fight at school. The other guy throws the first punch, it stings like hell. You throw the next, he takes a step back and you can tell it hurt. Are you going to give him the chance the come back for another swing, or are you going to take your open shot and finish him?
You are confusing self-defense with terrorism. The Constitution specifies that self-defense is a responsibility of government, not terrorism. If the bully was intending to continue the fight, then I would not condone that. But, let's look at this like a sense of progression of battles instead. Say you are in a war. An enemy attacks you, you retaliate, and are in the process of war. It just so happens that you win a string of battles, and are open to defeating the enemy. Not by burning down their village, but by military confrontation between the two parties. You seize the capitol, and threaten the people never to do it again. Do you kill the king and shoot his troops? No, that is not self-defense [if the king was guilty of war crimes, then that would be a different case.] So, returning the blow and keep the fight going till the bully is clearly subdued would be self defense. Kicking him in the nuts afterword, when he is bloody and defeated is a different story. And with countries at war, we are not talking about illogical bullies who usually aren't smart. We are talking about countries with multiple options and issues of morality.
-
wikipedia is NOT a credible soruce. it's an easy way to find information, but you have to find a real source to back it up afterwards.
The quotes from Japanese officials in that article are all footnoted :wink:.
-
Yes, because I support what the US did, I totally support terrorism :roll: But what you're telling me is, the US can get attacked, but they're not allowed to go after the country that attacked them. So, you support world powers doing nothing in a time of crisis?
I never said they were not allowed to retaliate, I said that dropping the bomb out of spite and revenge on an essentially defeated enemy was unnecessary. You claimed that we should "Show them what will happen if they try anything else". That is the definition of terrorism, inflicting fear in your enemy so they 'leave you alone'. Please don't use the roll smiley next time, I do not intend to have any rude sort of argument, especially when the arguer should recognize something... If you claim the bomb is justified for revenge and inflicting fear and terror in our enemy, then you aren't condoning terrorism. And if you condone terrorism of other nations but not America's, that is severely hypocritical.
Also, to many of you claiming that Japan would never surrender, you need to rethink.
-
Hmm, Royal Air Force?
That's probably what he was referring to, but in no way were the casualties inflicted by the RAF more politically and morally controversial than air raids, by any country. Like I said, the total effects of American fire bombings and air raids on Japan inflicted mass casualties and destruction [over 400,000 casualties, 9,200,000 people left homeless, etc.] But it was the sheer psychological effect of the attack only consisting of one bomb that was the most shocking.
-
The first one, of course, was justified. No country should ever sit back and let themselves be attacked. The second one, I think was justified. The Japanese attack was pretty much a surprise attack. They caught us off guard, so why not show them what we're capable of? We wiped on city off their map, let's show them what will happen if they try anything else.
So you don't condone terrorism? Your definition and justification for the bomb is the definition and justification for terrorism.
It is not the responsibility of a civilized country to engage in revenge.
-
As I said though, let's not get too carried away. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible, yes, but surely so is the death of 24,000,000 Russians? Yet no-one ever seems to get so emotional over that, even though they probably died in even more horrific circumstances than the Japanese did from Stalin's dictatorship.
Except, the atomic bomb is a whole new type of warfare and began the nuclear age. Yes, the German and Russian holocausts were horrific, and obviously much more casualties were inflicted. However, the fact that one bomb could cause so much destruction was somewhat incomprehensible at the time. After the bombing of Hiroshima and the American announcement that an atomic bomb was used, many Japanese were not convinced that it was an atomic bomb. Japan already had 2 separate labs working on the bomb, one in the navy and one in the army, and they failed to make one, and appreciated the difficulty of it. Many thought it was actually impossible.
Also, the Tokyo fire bombings inflicted well over 100,000 casualties. Why shouldn't that be as shocking? It was the fact that it was only one weapon inflicting the damage that shocked the world.
May I recommend the second link for those who believe Japan was so adamant in not surrendering, read the second linked article. They recognized they were defeated and were attempting to find ways to surrender. However, they were not seeking an unconditional surrender, rather a negotiated one.
-
Recently in AP American we had a debate about this. So, I was wondering, how do you feel about the atomic attacks on Japan? In case you aren't familiar with the topic, America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, supposedly to end WWII. One was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, and the other on Nagasaki. These bombs caused mass devastation and raised moral questions.
Do you think the bombings were justified, and that the ends justified the means?
For more info on this topic:
Personally, I think the bombings were not justified. I'll elaborate later, but I don't want to create an opening post that changes your current opinion in any way.
Edit: Please read the last article, there are many misconceptions over the surrender of Japan.
-
And what other excuses do you have that have no meaning what so ever to the fact its wrong.
Honestly.. you must be a idiot to say you have no choice at all. That would be saying you act on instint and have no control.
I guess i'm straight the rest of my life, with absolutely no choice in the matter. But I have a choice and I know it, and If I have that ability so do they.
Seriously.. this cover it up with "so called evidence" and proof is just stupid. I do not hate the men, I hate what they are doing. Your only covering for them and its easy to see.
Its not natural and it NEVER WILL be natural and you will have a long going battle ahead of you so good luck.
You see, I could fight this fight [again]. Or I could just show you this thread, in which people who hold similar opinions to yours got owned.
Gf :).
-
Thing si I don't really need to put music and videos on it... I use my computer for stuff like that? Do the saved games really take up much space?
No, and truthfully, unless you are an absolute junkie for that kind of stuff, you won't need anywhere near 100gb, or even 20 for that matter.
-
-
-
I pretty sure it was, or else it was a 102.0
I was listening to it coming home from work on 104.3 :P.
Man wakes up during his own autopsy!!!
in Off-Topic
Posted
Eh he wasn't being too civilized either...