Tsunami "payback" for Pearl Harbour

[Kortney]

All those women and children who had a bomb dropped on their head were busily arming the troops, were they?

Indirectly, yes.

Rofl. I didn't expect you to actually suggest children had an involvement.

Hilarious.

They did. School children in Japan during '45 would support the war effort at school. They would make things for the soldiers, pack supplies, etc.

 

[Gruevy]

cripple the civilians---->stunt production of resources----->destroy economy----->achieve victory

simple, easy, cheap, efficient, popular starcraft tactic.

this is not a moral justification, this is a strategic justification and anyone with half a brain knows that civilians supply the war effort, whether by volunteering or manufacturing supplies.

An invasion would have cost more and taken longer so the US took the easy way out. what easier way than dropping a bomb?

it's not pretty, it's not moral. tough. that's war.

 

[SwimmingRock]

-snippage-
What do you do when your tired of growing only corn on your farm. you take your last harvest and set fire to the left over plants and start again.

Your analogy is terribly flawed on several counts.
1. We are living creatures; not corn. This would clearly be known to God since he supposedly created us.
2. God is not setting fire to the plants as one act. If each natural disaster is a part of the whole, he is slowly torturing us to death. Even more so, if you believe all natural disasters in human history follow this logic. This either shows a sadistic nature or a lack of power, the latter of which would strike me as odd from the being that supposedly created all of existence.
3. God has made no actual claim to the world at large that this is happening/will happen outside of Revelations, which has been around so long it would be impossible to know that now is the time foretold.

In short, the God portrayed by your half-baked musings on the divine is a sadistic weakling, a coward and refuses responsibility when things don't go his way. If I were a Christian, your theory would offend me, because it implies that the omniscient and omnipotent God is essentially a 14 year old emo kid.

Here, then, is a more accurate analogy:"If you got an adorable puppy as a newborn, but got tired of playing with it as it grew up, wouldn't you throw rocks at it until it died?" No, I wouldn't. And if your God, a being supposedly much greater and wiser than us, can't even live up to our human standards of basic decency, he is a being worthy of neither worship nor reverence. I would tell him that personally, but I can't seem to find his MySpace page.

Yes, fine. Bring on the suspension. Worth it.

 

[Mr.Petey]

BAAAAW Why is everyone at the internet so damn mean???!!

Lol. As if any of you lot really even care.

I'd like to see you care for the humanitarian aspect+torn apart families of the current disaster as multi-national forces are flown in to help with the crisis. These guys are doing more than you seem to be. It's not the internet to blame, it's things-masquerading-as-humans that I would normally suggest needed a level of education and empathy but take 'em out back and shoot them instead as they are lost causes.

Actually no, they're fucking trolls.

And congratulations, they got to you.

Sweet! Do I win a cookie? Doughnut filling of my choice?!

So what if they got to me. So what if the rantings of a ignoramic bunch of holligans (wouldn't know the meaning of empathy if it savagely rammed them with Vaseline-with-sand) irritated me and a whole host of other people?
See...that's a living joke to me; a bunch of children too afraid to understand the meaning of hardship and suffering in a crisis with too much time on their hand to poke fun at those in need.
So what if it's the internet? Anonymity is their security blanket that they'll hold in one hand and suck their thumb in the other making accusations that defy any understanding at all. Personally I'da shoved them all under the watchful guard of the US Navy/JSDF and ship them out to the disaster ridden areas to have them lug supplies all around to where it's needed

 

[ImSkeletor]

Dropping two nuclear bombs on civilian cities is not justified.

We're not talking about killing soldiers. We're not talking about accidentally killing civilians in an attempt to kill the enemy and end a bloody war. We're talking about deliberately slaughtering hundreds of millions of innocent people who were simply at work, at school, sleeping, making love, meeting friends and living life. People to this very fucking day are born with issues associated with the radiation - the death toll rises. There is no separation of act and consequence. This is not a case of pushing a button, killing a few so the many can survive. This is the U.S dropping a bomb on the heads of men, women and children in their homes. Killing them. Killing people who had nothing at all to do with the war nor wanted any part of it. People like you and me. Dead.

Killing a few to save many can well be reasonable.

Slaughtering hundreds of millions of innocent people is not. Period.

Hundreds of millions. Right. Try about 300,000 directly and 1.5 million (generous estimate) indirectly. A large number, but nothing like your blatant and hateful exaggeration. Conventional bombing killed more people and ruined more lives, while the only reason there is a stigma on the atomic bomb is because of the raw power simply one warhead has. Their expanded death toll is still lower than the firebombings of Germany or Japan.

Here's a piece of wisdom: war is not reasonable. It is the method with which nations make other nations submit to their will. There is no justification for any method used in war short of or beyond "it will either kill the enemy or make them surrender."

It is not fair. It is not nice. To claim it is or should be anything resembling "nice" is utter foolishness.

Addendum: The atomic bombs were not "payback" for Pearl Harbour either. There is no "payback" in war. There are only tactics and casualties.

Thank you xpwn, you made the point I was going to make to him for me and worded it better than I could have. I hope everyone reads this so they can really see the facts of what happened.

 

[Flac00]

Well fuck them.

Give me power, and they will all disappear.

woah, someone has to get a life. Why do you hate the japanese? I think you need to go to counseling or something. Sure, during World War 2 they did many atrocities. But we also NUKED THEM! Seems sorta eye for and eye there.

No, no, no.

I meant the idiots thinking this is god's retribution or some shit like that, silly.

It's actually almost offensive to be even mistaken for one of those things, my avatar is Japanese ffs =P

My bad man, i didn't see your context so I just jumped to conclusions

 

[mabrookes]

They got involved because they had too not because "they were tired of this stupid shit" (a statement that instantly puts you on the same level as most trolls to be honest), luckily for them some countries actually fought back and completely decimated German naval and air forces before the US even joined.

End of WW1:
US: Hey, guys, maybe we shouldn't shit all over Germany.
Great Britain and France: Naaaaah.
Less than 50 years later: WW2 breaks out.
US: Not this shit again.

The leadership of the US was doing everything to get involved but the simple fact of the matter was that public opinion was generally dis-favorable surrounding WW2. Most Americans saw it as Europe's problem. So FDR worked loop holes. The Lend / Lease program kept Russia afloat when they were desperate and kept the British alive when they were getting hammered.

The German air force wasn't decimated before the US got involved. It was actually a prolonged air campaign- one that wasn't even feasible without the US- that crippled German production that ended it. The germans lost a great deal of aircraft in the Blitz but they still had the resources to simply rebuild.

German navy is an inside joke. It's a bunch of submarines.

It was a good attempt at changing what I was saying, but it doesn't work. I never said the killing of soldiers was acceptable because they are paid, I only pointed out that in this situation they are the ones who should be in that position and only a absolute low life would think that it is reasonable to wipe out many, many times more innocent civilians (men, women and children and the after affects for generations) to save a proportionally much smaller number of the people who are meant to be fighting and can defend themselves etc (the level of cowardice involved was immense).

I changed nothing. I actually only went off of what you said. If you meant something else you may want to change your wording.

Japan would likely have surrendered - every country other than the US at the time thought it was fast approaching. And in reality, the US government probably did think so as well but were more interested in demonstrating the bombs, which is why they had to drop them fast while they had the chance.

There was little to no chance an invasion would have happened so yes, I think less combatants would have died. If you think differently though it does not matter too much, we all have our opinions.

Edit: Meant to answer your other question as well, of course the blitz was a horrific ordeal and some of the responses from the British were just as bad - but are you really telling me you cant tell the difference between the standard bombing raids where casualties were actually pretty minimal most of the time and there was always chances to get to shelter etc and the silent killer parachuted from a plane that detonated as a nuclear explosion with all the after affects and death?

Those broadcasts saying that the Japanese would fight to the death days and weeks before the US dropped both atomic bombs really sends the message of, "We're just about ready to surrender unconditionally." Up to that point the Japanese were ready to surrender, but they refused to do so unconditionally. If you can't grasp why that's a problem read my brief history of what led to WW2. The US were not stupid. They had a fair idea of what would happen to a country that was shamed and defeated, but not exactly dismantled.

If the nukes were not an option, the invasion was going to happen. It was the entire reason the US spent so many resources on little spits of land like Okinawa and Iwo Jima. If they had any reason to believe that they could have just ended the war with two nukes they would not have been seeking land assets that held no value other than staging grounds to invade mainland Japan.

And to address your claim that the nukes dropped on Japan were somehow morally more reprehensible than the Blitz, I would like to point out that the Germans specifically ignored military assets like airstrips and instead favored dis-ambiguously civilian targets (cities) because they figured if they killed enough civilians and made enough others panic they could make the British sue for peace. No one made any bones about it- civilians were going to die, and it was actually a decision that would haunt president Truman for the rest of his life, and in all reality did save lives. The simple fact that the US had a very real example to go off of for what nukes were capable of defined their strategic use (and lack there of) for the rest of the 20th century. While the military may have seen it's use as a tactical weapon the civilian side only saw it as a strategic weapon, which set the precedent for it's lack of use through out the cold war.

In WW2 both Germany and Japan demonstrated an extreme disregard for civilian life long, long before the Allies ever did anything comparable.

But lets ask China, or those civilians the Japanese would strap live grenades and mines to what they thought about them.

Still don't quite get why people are butt mad about pearl harbor though. The largest losses the US lost that day were purely resources- battleships, fuel, and so on. In terms of actual lives lost it was actually one of the smallest fights in the war, and easily the smallest "major" battle in the Pacific.

There are so many things wrong with what you said, it is not worth me pointing them out as it is clear we wont be able to get anywhere. I mean seriously - the very nature of world war 2 was because of Europe appeasing (if you know what that word means) Germany too much, which shows your entire reply starts off with utter, laughable nonsense and showed your understanding of what happened to be worthless. I suppose I cant blame you, I actually read an American history school text book once that clearly talked about two "American" battles in detail. They actually happened before the US even joined and had nothing to do with them. You were probably actually taught what you are saying.

And I don't need to reword what I wrote just to help out people who can not understand the subtle differences in language that change meaning and instead see what they want.

One final point, the blitz was about panic and fear - not really death as a primary purpose. Death was an obvious side affect of it but if they actually killed everyone there would be no one left to put pressure on the government to surrender which was the point. The nukes were designed to end vast repugnant amounts of civilian lives, with no chance to get away or hide like the blitz, and nothing else. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be done or is justified.

We wont be able to convince each other, so lets just leave it.

 

[acosn]

There are so many things wrong with what you said, it is not worth me pointing them out as it is clear we wont be able to get anywhere. I mean seriously - the very nature of world war 2 was because of Europe appeasing (if you know what that word means) Germany too much, which shows your entire reply starts off with utter, laughable nonsense and showed your understanding of what happened to be worthless. I suppose I cant blame you, I actually read an American history school text book once that clearly talked about two "American" battles in detail. They actually happened before the US even joined and had nothing to do with them. You were probably actually taught what you are saying.

There are so many things wrong with what you said, it is not worth me pointing them out as it is clear we wont be able to get anywhere. I mean seriously - the very nature of world war 2 was because of Europe leaving the entire bill for WW1 with Germany, which shows your entire reply starts off with utter, laughable nonsense and showed your understanding of what happened to be worthless.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Appeasement policy is predated by the actual seeds that made it possible for Hitler to enter the scene. Germany was defeated, shamed, and then asked to pay for it all leaving the country effectively bankrupt. Maybe your utter lack of national pride or any concept makes it hard to appreciate, but that made Germany mad. It may mean nothing to you but there's a reason why the US stuck around to rebuild Europe after WW2 as well as Japan, and it wasn't because of the goodwill of the US people. It's because someone in the White House studied their history and knew that simply leaving Europe and Japan a wasteland was a bad idea.

And I don't need to reword what I wrote just to help out people who can not understand the subtle differences in language that change meaning and instead see what they want.

If you're unwilling to rewrite what you wrote you have to accept whatever interpretation is applied to it. When you write quite plainly that your attempt to differentiate the deaths of soldiers versus civilian targets as the soldiers being the ones paid to fight, you've effectively attempted to some how claim that it means that soldier deaths are some how less important. And as long as we're on the subject, you've still not touched the Japanese occupation of China and Korea. You can measure the number of civilian deaths the Japanese inflicted on them in multiples of what both nuclear bombs did if you're trying to keep a tally of "morality."

One final point, the blitz was about panic and fear - not really death as a primary purpose. Death was an obvious side affect of it but if they actually killed everyone there would be no one left to put pressure on the government to surrender which was the point. The nukes were designed to end vast repugnant amounts of civilian lives, with no chance to get away or hide like the blitz, and nothing else. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be done or is justified.

We wont be able to convince each other, so lets just leave it.

If it were a scare tactic the Germans had much better ways of doing it, and even they knew it. But I guess those bombs they dropped were loaded with candy and love or something. They couldn't have possibly wanted to kill anyone when they'd gone and declared war or something!

Germany systematically, willfully targeted dis-ambiguously civilian targets.


And again, the nukes weren't actually the single largest devastating weapon in the war. A single night worth of firebombing Japan netted more kills than either nuke, with prior warning as well. And if we want to talk about post-attack results I guess you can harp on about radiation sickness but I wouldn't want to jump out of a fire into a canal only to discover it was actually boiling either.

And I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I'm running you over with a car, getting out, slapping you a few times, and telling you you're wrong before I drive off into the sunset with my five super model girlfriends.

 

[mabrookes]

There are so many things wrong with what you said, it is not worth me pointing them out as it is clear we wont be able to get anywhere. I mean seriously - the very nature of world war 2 was because of Europe appeasing (if you know what that word means) Germany too much, which shows your entire reply starts off with utter, laughable nonsense and showed your understanding of what happened to be worthless. I suppose I cant blame you, I actually read an American history school text book once that clearly talked about two "American" battles in detail. They actually happened before the US even joined and had nothing to do with them. You were probably actually taught what you are saying.

There are so many things wrong with what you said, it is not worth me pointing them out as it is clear we wont be able to get anywhere. I mean seriously - the very nature of world war 2 was because of Europe leaving the entire bill for WW1 with Germany, which shows your entire reply starts off with utter, laughable nonsense and showed your understanding of what happened to be worthless.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Appeasement policy is predated by the actual seeds that made it possible for Hitler to enter the scene. Germany was defeated, shamed, and then asked to pay for it all leaving the country effectively bankrupt. Maybe your utter lack of national pride or any concept makes it hard to appreciate, but that made Germany mad. It may mean nothing to you but there's a reason why the US stuck around to rebuild Europe after WW2 as well as Japan, and it wasn't because of the goodwill of the US people. It's because someone in the White House studied their history and knew that simply leaving Europe and Japan a wasteland was a bad idea.

And I don't need to reword what I wrote just to help out people who can not understand the subtle differences in language that change meaning and instead see what they want.

If you're unwilling to rewrite what you wrote you have to accept whatever interpretation is applied to it. When you write quite plainly that your attempt to differentiate the deaths of soldiers versus civilian targets as the soldiers being the ones paid to fight, you've effectively attempted to some how claim that it means that soldier deaths are some how less important. And as long as we're on the subject, you've still not touched the Japanese occupation of China and Korea. You can measure the number of civilian deaths the Japanese inflicted on them in multiples of what both nuclear bombs did if you're trying to keep a tally of "morality."

One final point, the blitz was about panic and fear - not really death as a primary purpose. Death was an obvious side affect of it but if they actually killed everyone there would be no one left to put pressure on the government to surrender which was the point. The nukes were designed to end vast repugnant amounts of civilian lives, with no chance to get away or hide like the blitz, and nothing else. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be done or is justified.

We wont be able to convince each other, so lets just leave it.

If it were a scare tactic the Germans had much better ways of doing it, and even they knew it. But I guess those bombs they dropped were loaded with candy and love or something. They couldn't have possibly wanted to kill anyone when they'd gone and declared war or something!

Germany systematically, willfully targeted dis-ambiguously civilian targets.


And again, the nukes weren't actually the single largest devastating weapon in the war. A single night worth of firebombing Japan netted more kills than either nuke, with prior warning as well. And if we want to talk about post-attack results I guess you can harp on about radiation sickness but I wouldn't want to jump out of a fire into a canal only to discover it was actually boiling either.

And I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I'm running you over with a car, getting out, slapping you a few times, and telling you you're wrong before I drive off into the sunset with my five super model girlfriends.

Yes very good, more ill informed nonsense and posturing like a 10 year old. Now we can leave it.

just adding in what you basically said was right and what he basically said was even though all nations during ww2 were doing morally reprehensible things "America is evilest because I say it is and it says that all over the internez". The point of the Blitz was to gain as much strategic ground as possible and break the enemy's defensive line before they even knew what hit them, you know kinda like a LIGHTNING strike as a WARFARE strategy

lol oh dear - you're thinking of blitzkrieg which has nothing to do with the bombing campaign of London. Maybe learn the very basics of what is been talked about before looking stupid.

And more paranoia as well, its really disturbing how special Americans think they are that it is all about them. I couldn't care less about the fact it was the US that dropped them just that they were dropped and in my opinion completely unnecessarily. It was, as much as you don't like it, far more morally reprehensible and it is very telling the sort of people who think otherwise.

 

[Buccura]

Nationalism is a cancer upon humanity.

That depends what you mean by Nationalism. I'm a nationalist in that I want Scotland to seperate from the UK and be its' own country.

Then you have that whole "My country is better than yours just because" nationalism, which is the very bad kind.

Yeah the latter is what I was referring too.

 

[acosn]

just adding in what you basically said was right and what he basically said was even though all nations during ww2 were doing morally reprehensible things "America is evilest because I say it is and it says that all over the internez". The point of the Blitz was to gain as much strategic ground as possible and break the enemy's defensive line before they even knew what hit them, you know kinda like a LIGHTNING strike as a WARFARE strategy

Blitzkrieg: what you're thinking of.

The Blitz: The progressive bombing campaign on England during WW2 largely aiming to devastate them to the point that they'd sue for peace. You might be more familiar with American terms like "Battle of Britain."

Americans don't think they're special. They know they're special. They know that their states at their best compete with countries like Great Britain and Germany for top 10 producing countries by GDP, and at their "worst" still manage to compete with first and second world countries. Post WW2 politics were defined by Americans. Most of Europe would be either German or Russian if it wasn't for Americans.

Yeah, it's annoying when a bunch of uneducated morons decide they need to wave their dicks in everyone's faces but they didn't get their arrogance from sitting on their laurels all day.

And I'm keenly curious as to where Mabrookes is from to be perfectly honest.