Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 191

Thread: Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Does this in any way justify the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?
    1) It was war. Therefore it wasn't murder.

    2) It was war. Therefore "innocence" and "guilt" have no bearing, since those states are determined in a court of law, not a battlefield.

    3) It was war. You wouldn't be this upset if we'd not dropped the bomb and slaughtered three or four million japs on their beaches instead?

    4) It was war. I just don't hear you complaining about the fire bombing of Tokyo on March 9, 1945 that killed 100,000 people. Why is that?

    5) It was war. The lives of the enemy weren't our concern. If the enemy wanted to live, all they had to do was surrender. It's not complicated.


    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    "They were weak, and we offered surrender to them, but they rejected and in order to prevent millions of deaths due to invading such a weak enemy (????) we just nuked them instead."

    That makes absolutely no sense. You've discredited yourself.
    It makes perfect sense.

    Your hatred of the US makes it impossible for you to gain the wisdom to see that.

    Not my problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    It's quite clear here that your interests lie not with any notion of freedom but rather with US economic and political interests. You would give yourself much more credibility by admitting that much.

    There's something wrong with wanting to see the greatest nation the world has ever seen recover the greatness the socialists have stolen from it these last twenty years?

    Nope.

    That have anything to do with the fact that the United States was not only perfectly justified in nuking Japan as many times as it took to force them to surrender, but that those nukes were the most honorable and most effective means of saving the lives of people on both sides of the conflict?

    Nope. That's a fact you can't refute.

    You can't even address the bombing of Tokyo. Come on, I want to see you say we shouldn't have bombed the capital city of Japan, that'll be funny.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 03-13-09 at 10:35 PM.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    1) It was war. Therefore it wasn't murder.

    2) It was war. Therefore "innocence" and "guilt" have no bearing, since those states are determined in a court of law, not a battlefield.

    3) It was war. You wouldn't be this upset if we'd not dropped the bomb and slaughtered three or four million japs on their beaches instead?

    4) It was war. I just don't hear you complaining about the fire bombing of Tokyo on March 9, 1945 that killed 100,000 people. Why is that?

    5) It was war. The lives of the enemy weren't our concern. If the enemy wanted to live, all they had to do was surrender. It's not complicated.


    You should be a spokesperson for Al-Qaeda. You got it down well.
    Last edited by TheNextEra; 03-13-09 at 10:33 PM.

  3. #113
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,879

    Re: Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

    1) It was war. Therefore it wasn't murder.

    2) It was war. Therefore "innocence" and "guilt" have no bearing, since those states are determined in a court of law, not a battlefield.

    3) It was war. You wouldn't be this upset if we'd not dropped the bomb and slaughtered three or four million japs on their beaches instead?

    4) It was war. I just don't hear you complaining about the fire bombing of Tokyo on March 9, 1945 that killed 100,000 people. Why is that?

    5) It was war. The lives of the enemy weren't our concern. If the enemy wanted to live, all they had to do was surrender. It's not complicated.
    I wasn't referring to legalities. The fact is that you consider it acceptable to kill civilians in such an instance, to which I don't even need to respond. Your statement says pretty much everything about you that needs to be said.

    And as for the firebombing of Tokyo, of course I haven't commented on it, as we were discussing the validity of dropping the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was irrelevant to the discussion of those actions.

    It makes perfect sense.

    Your hatred of the US makes it impossible for you to gain the wisdom to see that.
    It only "makes perfect sense" if you are implying that the Allies were absolutely terrible at war, as you have said that it would cost millions of casualties for them to defeat such an impotent enemy. It seems that you are the anti-American one here.

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    I wasn't referring to legalities. The fact is that you consider it acceptable to kill civilians in such an instance, to which I don't even need to respond. Your statement says pretty much everything about you that needs to be said.

    And as for the firebombing of Tokyo, of course I haven't commented on it, as we were discussing the validity of dropping the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was irrelevant to the discussion of those actions.



    It only "makes perfect sense" if you are implying that the Allies were absolutely terrible at war, as you have said that it would cost millions of casualties for them to defeat such an impotent enemy. It seems that you are the anti-American one here.
    What are you trying to say? That the use of atomic weapons by the US wasn't justified or that killing civilians in war to save your own is unacceptable? What is your point?

    We saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of US servicemen by dropping those bombs. I suppose, in your strategic brilliance, you would have sent our Marines into the jaws of an entrenched and suicidal enemy just to assuage your conscience? You can't even fathom the absolute hell the Japanese put our Marines through during the "Island-Hopping-Campaign", so my sympathy for them is in short supply. Dropping those bombs was the best move we ever made.

  5. #115
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,879

    Re: Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

    What are you trying to say? That the use of atomic weapons by the US wasn't justified or that killing civilians in war to save your own is unacceptable? What is your point?
    I am arguing the former. The latter really isn't a valid question, as I do not distinguish between whether or not a civilian is "one of my own," which is a completely arbitrary distinction. Anyone that makes such a distinction is inherently anti-humanitarian.

    We saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of US servicemen by dropping those bombs.
    How so? Clarify this.

    I suppose, in your strategic brilliance, you would have sent our Marines into the jaws of an entrenched and suicidal enemy just to assuage your conscience?
    First, my comments regarding AS's posts were pointing out his hypocrisy in asserting first that the Japanese were incredibly weak and impotent and second that it would have cost millions of lives.

    Second, in case you haven't read any of my posts here (which is apparent by your supposition), I am stating that instead of nuking hundreds of thousands of civilians or "killing 15 million" in an invasion, that they could have just negotiated terms of surrender with the Japanese, whose conditions were not really that difficult.

    Third, I am asserting that the allied powers and especially the US were not interested in achieving surrender from the Japanese prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs.

    You can't even fathom the absolute hell the Japanese put our Marines through during the "Island-Hopping-Campaign", so my sympathy for them is in short supply.
    Really? Please explain what "hell" the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put "your" Marines through during the 'Island-Hopping-Campaign.'

  6. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Surrender was on the table; there was no need for either nuking Hiroshima/Nagasaki or for any such invasion.
    Surrender was being discussed; however, Japan was unwilling to part with their emporer. This was their main reservation for accepting the terms of the treaty.

    Then there was also the fact that the allies had to weigh the cost of taking Japan by military force. Brig. Gen. Guy Denit, estimated that a 120-day campaign to invade and occupy only the island of Kyushu would result in 395,000 casualties (including allies, axis, and civilians).

    Kyushi is the southermost island in the chain. There are many islands in this chain, which means the estimated casulaties on the side of the allies alone would be astronomical.

    The allied commanders knew they didn't have the man power to take the islands one at a time. Another solution was required. Japan had to know that the allies were NOT going to be stopped. A show of force was required.

    President Truman was left with little choice. It occurrs to me that the allies didn't want the Russians to seize control of Japan like they did in Germany after Berlin fell. The Russians were our allies but we, the allies, knew that Stalin was an unstable lunatic.

    Whether it was the casulty estimates or a need to keep Russia from controlling Japan or possibly both will never be known. It will continue to be a topic of debate.

    The atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings.

    Six days after the detonation over Nagasaki, on August 15, Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2, officially ending the Pacific War and therefore World War II.

    These bombings were seen by the Truman Administration as the lesser of two evils.

    Should the allies invade and watch as countless thousands die on both sides or should the allies, specifically the United States bomb two kep cities in Japan, and kill thousands?

    In war there are no easy options and there is no such thing as "the right choice"; however, a decision was required and Truman undoubtedly opted for the choice that would cost the fewest lives.

    In any event, to say that the attack was uneccesary is not factually correct. There was a war going on and there was more at stake than two cities.

    The allies were not in the war to kill civilians. The United States wasn't even in the war until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It was not the allies who ran concentration camps and conducted experiments on living beings. We were not using slave labor to build bombs and load shells.

    Germany did all of those things.

    Japan stuck to the scientific portion and used innocent civilians to conduct biological warfare experiments on; often infecting them with small pox, and various other diseases.

    Japan was out of control and had to be stopped. The allies had to make certain that Japan was never capable of casuing trouble on a global scale ever again.

    While I recognize the loss of civilian lives in World War II was horrible; I also realize that bad things happen in war. War is hell.

    Japan was guilty of serious war crimes and had to be stopped. For further details on this read about Japanase atrocities in Manchuria.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post

    Your contempt for innocent civilians is pretty disgusting.
    Your contempt for the United States and her Allies is pretty disgusting.

    Please try to control your bias.

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    I think the world at large would prefer that Iran not be allowed nuclear technology.
    I'm in favour of any nation that wants to reduce its dependence on oil by using nuclear energy.

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    Surrender was being discussed; however, Japan was unwilling to part with their emporer. This was their main reservation for accepting the terms of the treaty.
    Japan was nuked first and foremost to intimidate the Russians, and to give the U.S. more bargaining power in the reconstruction of Europe. This allowed the U.S. to include aspects in the Marshall plan which would repel Communism from the rest of Europe. It also allowed the U.S. to rise unquestionably to hegemony over the rest of the world.

    The nuking of Japan had benefits though... such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Geneva Conventions. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were murdered in Japan in an instant. Such an atrocity must be prevented in the future.

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I'm in favour of any nation that wants to reduce its dependence on oil by using nuclear energy.
    Iran doesn't want energy it wants weapons.

    Iran is run by a group of terrorists and their supreme ****bag ... the Ayetoiletbowl.

    Religious zealots who stone rape victims to death as a matter of due course are not wise enough to have nuclear technology.

  10. #120
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    Japan was nuked first and foremost to intimidate the Russians, and to give the U.S. more bargaining power in the reconstruction of Europe. This allowed the U.S. to include aspects in the Marshall plan which would repel Communism from the rest of Europe. It also allowed the U.S. to rise unquestionably to hegemony over the rest of the world.
    This is pure speculation. Moreover, the U.S. never sought nor had Hegemony. This is bull**** anti-American rhetoric.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    The nuking of Japan had benefits though... such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Geneva Conventions. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were murdered in Japan in an instant. Such an atrocity must be prevented in the future.
    To start with, the US did not "Nuke" anybody. We dropped Atomic bombs on two cities in Japan. There is a HUGE difference between those weapons and a cold-war era nuclear weapon.

    The Geneva convention was created in 1854 and it delt mostly with the treatment of wounded soldiers. It was later expanded to address many other issues.

    Nobody was murdered.... stop with your bull**** rhetoric and go find a tree to hug. It was a war... a war that Japan started. The use of those weapons was the lesser of two evils. Moreover, both of those cities were considered valid military targets at that time.

    I'm sure the use of those weapons was not something that Truman wanted to consider; however, what choice did he have? Would you have the balls to make this decision?

    Looking at the decision; given the options Truman had available to him at the time; I believe I would have made the same call.

    Should we cause 300,000 casualties or make a move that limits the loss of life to around 149,000 casualties?

Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •