• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

Your Utopianism withers in the face of the realities of history. War is hell, no doubt. But you abandon reason for your impractical ideals.

No. KC thinks the US was wrong for starting the war with Japan, is all.
 
I love how these Truman apologists believe the rejection of unconditional surrender (with obvious possibilities for terms to surrender available) is a legitimate reason to end a few hundred thousand innocent lives.

Was Japan forced unconditional surrender after the dropping of the atomic bombs? No. In fact, General MacArthur himself urged Hirohito to retain the position of Emperor.

Amazon.com: Off the Record: Robert H. Ferrell: Books
From Truman's diary, dated July 25, 1945:
"We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world.... This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one."

So much for not targetting women and children.
 
I love how these Truman apologists believe the rejection of unconditional surrender (with obvious possibilities for terms to surrender available) is a legitimate reason to end a few hundred thousand innocent lives.
In total war where your enemy refuses to surrender then a scorched earth policy is a legitimate and acceptable strategy.

The result was far better than the worst case and anticipated scenario.

Was Japan forced unconditional surrender after the dropping of the atomic bombs? No. In fact, General MacArthur himself urged Hirohito to retain the position of Emperor.
source?

Amazon.com: Off the Record: Robert H. Ferrell: Books
From Truman's diary, dated July 25, 1945:


So much for not targetting women and children.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both military targets of great value despite their populations.
 
I love how these Truman apologists believe the rejection of unconditional surrender (with obvious possibilities for terms to surrender available) is a legitimate reason to end a few hundred thousand innocent lives.

The legitimate reason is that the bombs saved at least one American life.

Anything more is the powdered sugar on the cherries on the icing on the cake.

It wasn't Truman's job to save Japanese lives. His duty was to the mothers and fathers of the servicemen, and to those servicemen himself, to bring as many of those men home alive and uninjurred as possible.

He did his job correctly.

He did the right thing.

He saved at least one AMERICAN mother the grief of burying her son who died in an unnecessary invasion of Japan.

One American.

That's all that mattered.

That unnamed man was worth the lives of all the Japanese in Japan.
 
You can disagree with others without stooping to strawman arguments.

You don't like it when I imitate Democrats and other socialists?

You don't like it when I mimic the presentations of the people who protest the responsible use of nuclear weapons?

Then take it up with them for masquerading such muddled constructs as their arguments.
 
An atomic weapon had never before been used.

The first test at the Trinity site occurred on July 16, 1945. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively. These results were given to Truman prior to the Potsdam Conference.

Trinity explosion:

trinity.jpg


You can't seriously sit there and tell me that they didn't know what happened if they did this to a city. There is no way of twisting the fact that hundreds of thousands were guaranteed to die, no matter how you spin it.

He thinks we were wrong to win it.

He thinks the United States is always wrong.

He must think we were wrong for starting it.

More generalizations and bigotry.
 
You don't like it when I imitate Democrats and other socialists?

You don't like it when I mimic the presentations of the people who protest the responsible use of nuclear weapons?

Then take it up with them for masquerading such muddled constructs as their arguments.
Ad-homs are a poor strategy in debate. They almost always do nothing to combat the veracity of others claims. They usually do nothing but derail the discussion no matter if anothers claims are right or wrong.
 
You can't seriously sit there and tell me that they didn't know what happened if they did this to a city. There is no way of twisting the fact that hundreds of thousands were guaranteed to die, no matter how you spin it.

Truman's responsibility was to ensure the dead people weren't wearing US uniforms. He could either send our troops into battle naked, or attack the enemy.

He chose the correct action.
 
Truman's responsibility was to ensure the dead people weren't wearing US uniforms. He could either send our troops into battle naked, or attack the enemy.

Yes, we all already know that you have nothing but contempt for anyone not living inside an arbitrary geographically-designated area with which you feel a quasi-religious affinity.
 
Ad-homs are a poor strategy in debate.

I know. They should stop using them.

I play games with 'em after I've won the debate, as in this case.

I'm pretty easy about that sort of thing.

As you'll notice, people are now being called bigots because they firmly believe that their country should make sure their enemies die instead of their own soldiers and sailors.

Well, if they really feel I'm a bigot for remembering the men on the USS Arizona, fine. I went to school on Ford Island for six weeks, and rode the whaleboat past that memorial every day. My sympathies for the victims of that war stop on our shores, we didn't start that war. We, by God, ended it, with as little American loss of life as we could manage.

That's my duty as an American, and I'm not going to apologize when the last respectable Democrat president did his job correctly.
 
Yes, we all already know that you have nothing but contempt for anyone not living inside an arbitrary geographically-designated area with which you feel a quasi-religious affinity.

You seem to know lots of things that aren't so.

Add that one to your list.

I have boatloads of respect for the Japanese. A very impressive people, albeit slightly prone to bigotry and obedience. But they're friendly, they have good food, and the females are pretty hot in the sack. If they'd stuck to those virtues and left Total Global Conquest to the Germans, they'd have avoided the whole Hiroshima problem, no sweat.

But they decided to pick a fight with the baddest boy on the planet....and put up a damn good fight, too, I must add...and in the end we had to hit them in the head with a rock, twice, to make them stop.

Better them than us.

You got a problem with that?
 
I know. They should stop using them.

I play games with 'em after I've won the debate, as in this case.

I'm pretty easy about that sort of thing.

As you'll notice, people are now being called bigots because they firmly believe that their country should make sure their enemies die instead of their own soldiers and sailors.

Well, if they really feel I'm a bigot for remembering the men on the USS Arizona, fine. I went to school on Ford Island for six weeks, and rode the whaleboat past that memorial every day. My sympathies for the victims of that war stop on our shores, we didn't start that war. We, by God, ended it, with as little American loss of life as we could manage.

That's my duty as an American, and I'm not going to apologize when the last respectable Democrat president did his job correctly.

So why are there Geneva conventions? Wouldn't it be easier to just kill and torture the enemy so that your own country doesn't have to feed them and so that your country can gain valuable info to ensure less of its people die?
 
I play games with 'em after I've won the debate, as in this case.

What debate did you win? I asserted that surrender was a viable option that the Allies could have explored but did not choose to do so, and have backed this up extensively with supporting evidence. All I've heard in return is nitpicking and "so what?". You clearly have nothing to argue any further, as evidenced by your recent posts.
 
So why are there Geneva conventions?

Good question.

Japan wasn't a signatory to those conventions.

Therefore we were not constrained by them.

Germany signed them.

Then again, Malmedy was in France, so Germany was exempted...? Or was the argument that Treblinka was in Poland, therefore Germany was exempted...?

Whatever.

Wouldn't it be easier to just kill and torture the enemy so that your own country doesn't have to feed them and so that your country can gain valuable info to ensure less of its people die?

Could be.

Since terrorists aren't members of any nation's official military, there's nothing objectionable about torturing them. The GC doesn't apply to them.

The GC only applies to human beings.

And if Iran uses it's nuclear weapons, we should exterminate them like we'd exterminate a termite infested crackhouse in a valuable historical district...by complete demolition and removal.

There. You people have lost the Hiroshima Argument, as you people always do, and the thread is now back on topic.
 
In total war where your enemy refuses to surrender then a scorched earth policy is a legitimate and acceptable strategy.
What cynical rationale. When you preach diplomacy, you're expected to use it when available, especially when it can save life.
The result was far better than the worst case and anticipated scenario.
Completely subjective.
Hirohito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both military targets of great value despite their populations.
Nagasaki served no military purpose. It was genocidal.
 
The legitimate reason is that the bombs saved at least one American life.

Anything more is the powdered sugar on the cherries on the icing on the cake.

Actually, 13 Allied POWs died as a result from the blast.

Saving one American life is not a legitimate reason. It is merely a reason, an excuse. Nothing more, nothing less.
It wasn't Truman's job to save Japanese lives. His duty was to the mothers and fathers of the servicemen, and to those servicemen himself, to bring as many of those men home alive and uninjurred as possible.

He did his job correctly.

He did the right thing.
If the purpose of the atomic bomb was to convince Japan to surrender unconditionally, then no, he failed at doing his job. There was no unconditional surrender, nor did the deaths of thousands of people at Nagasaki serve any military objective.
He saved at least one AMERICAN mother the grief of burying her son who died in an unnecessary invasion of Japan.

One American.

That's all that mattered.

That unnamed man was worth the lives of all the Japanese in Japan.

I already proved earlier that an invasion of Japan was unnecessary to get Japan to surrender, according to the American and Allied commanders actively engaged in that region. An effective naval blockade and superior air support would have forced Japan to agree to terms of surrender without the need for an invasion of Japan.

So many Americans have this misinformed education that the atomic bombings weren't immoral in nature and were quite possibly the greatest form of state terrorism ever witnessed.
 
Good question.

Japan wasn't a signatory to those conventions.

Therefore we were not constrained by them.
That doesn't mean we are exempt. No matter how much you want us to be.

Since terrorists aren't members of any nation's official military, there's nothing objectionable about torturing them. The GC doesn't apply to them.
Actually it does. They are illegal combatants but they still have rights just to a lesser extant.

The GC only applies to human beings.

And if Iran uses it's nuclear weapons, we should exterminate them like we'd exterminate a termite infested crackhouse in a valuable historical district...by complete demolition and removal.
I think I've heard enough. You obviously do not contemplate the consequences of your actions.
 
What cynical rationale. When you preach diplomacy, you're expected to use it when available, especially when it can save life.
They did. The Japanese refused to agree to the terms therefore the war continued. The terms were fair and equitable and they refused. We dropped the first bomb. They refused. We dropped the second and they finally acquiesced.


Completely subjective.
now you are being pathetically dismissive. Please try harder to actual make an actual refutation as fallacies are unbecoming.

If we invaded and the Japanese still refused surrender the casualties were projected to be astronomical. Moreover, the dropping of the bombs did not guarantee that they would surrender either. We were fully prepared to begin a land invasion and produce further weapons if necessary.

I'm not going to make your argument for you. See how a quoted my section below?


Nagasaki served no military purpose. It was genocidal.
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Nagasaki during World War II
Urakami Tenshudo (Catholic Church in Nagasaki) in January 1946, destroyed by the atomic bomb, the dome of the church having toppled off.

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials."
 
That doesn't mean we are exempt. No matter how much you want us to be.

Actually it does.

Contracts are agreements between two parties.

Actually it does. They are illegal combatants but they still have rights just to a lesser extant.

Animals don't have rights.

Terrorists don't rank as high as animals.

I've never hear much from the PETB crowd, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Bacteria. When that gang gets concerned about the fate of terrorists, they might finally find some sympathy.

I think I've heard enough. You obviously do not contemplate the consequences of your actions.

I obviously do.

You don't like those consequences.

Too bad.
 
What cynical rationale. When you preach diplomacy, you're expected to use it when available, especially when it can save life.

We did.

We diplomatically demanded the Japanese surrender.

The Japanese diplomatically dithered past the deadline.

Their tough luck. Diplomacy is absolutely useless if it manages to convince the other side you're weak, irresolute, and easily manipulated.

Diplomacy is the process of telling the other party what you want, what your position is to get that, if force is an option. Our position using unlimited squadrons of B-29's was unassailable by the Japanese, and their position was untenable. They refused to beleive the latter. We had no obligation to inform them of our ace in the hole, and we were under no obligation to sustain their dithering and back dealing.

WE demanded their surrender.

THEY refused it.

Too bad.

Why is it you people can't understand the simplest basics of life?

Nagasaki served no military purpose. It was genocidal.


Nagasaki informed the Japanese that we were implacable and armed as no nation had ever been armed before, and we were seriously pissed at them.

It's military purpose was informative.

It was not genocidal, since it failed to kill 10% of the Japanese population.
 
Back
Top Bottom