[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well, speaking of war crimes....
Hiroshima, Nagasaki- enough said.
You can argue that we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in a ground war; its a good topic to debate.[/QUOTE]
whose lives?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]spymyshadow wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well, speaking of war crimes....
Hiroshima, Nagasaki- enough said.
You can argue that we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in a ground war; its a good topic to debate.[/QUOTE]
whose lives?[/QUOTE]
Both the Japanese and American soldiers' lives. An invasion would have cost millons more to both sides.
Im not condoning nuclear weapons either; but, defeating the Japanese through conventional means (if possible) would have severly increased the death counts.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki- enough said.
You can argue that we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in a ground war; its a good topic to debate.[/QUOTE]
whose lives?[/QUOTE]
Both the Japanese and American soldiers' lives. An invasion would have cost millons more to both sides.
Im not condoning nuclear weapons either; but, defeating the Japanese through conventional means (if possible) would have severly increased the death counts.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]spymyshadow wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well, speaking of war crimes....
Hiroshima, Nagasaki- enough said.
You can argue that we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in a ground war; its a good topic to debate.[/QUOTE]
whose lives?[/QUOTE]
Both the Japanese and American soldiers' lives. An invasion would have cost millons more to both sides.
Im not condoning nuclear weapons either; but, defeating the Japanese through conventional means (if possible) would have severly increased the death counts.[/QUOTE]
An economic embargo against Japan would have been a better choice to force Japan to surrender. The bad consecuence is that that Japanese civilians would have taken the worst part, because by the end of the war the Japanese army was already stealing all food supplies from civilians and farmers in Japan.
It's been said that an embargo wouldn't have worked due to the extreme national pride of the Japanese army in those days. Their mentality in those days was that an army should fight for their country to the last man standing.
It's a very controversial subject, but at least from my point of view the decision to drop atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was taken way too soon. Those who died had it better than those who survived and suffered from all kinds of diseases due to exposure to radiation.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki- enough said.
You can argue that we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in a ground war; its a good topic to debate.[/QUOTE]
whose lives?[/QUOTE]
Both the Japanese and American soldiers' lives. An invasion would have cost millons more to both sides.
Im not condoning nuclear weapons either; but, defeating the Japanese through conventional means (if possible) would have severly increased the death counts.[/QUOTE]
An economic embargo against Japan would have been a better choice to force Japan to surrender. The bad consecuence is that that Japanese civilians would have taken the worst part, because by the end of the war the Japanese army was already stealing all food supplies from civilians and farmers in Japan.
It's been said that an embargo wouldn't have worked due to the extreme national pride of the Japanese army in those days. Their mentality in those days was that an army should fight for their country to the last man standing.
It's a very controversial subject, but at least from my point of view the decision to drop atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was taken way too soon. Those who died had it better than those who survived and suffered from all kinds of diseases due to exposure to radiation.
was it necessary to attack japan?
if japan's backbone, that is the nazi, surrendered, what was the use of attacking them?
if japan's backbone, that is the nazi, surrendered, what was the use of attacking them?
I still believe that nuclear weapons should have never been invented. In fact, no weapons at all should have ever been invented.
Sometimes I think that George Harrison was right when he said that if everyone who owned a weapon killed themselves, we'd live in a better world.
...but then again, WE ARE the weapons. Not the objects that we use to cause harm.
Sometimes I think that George Harrison was right when he said that if everyone who owned a weapon killed themselves, we'd live in a better world.
...but then again, WE ARE the weapons. Not the objects that we use to cause harm.
I dunno...I think swords are pretty cool.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]spymyshadow wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well, speaking of war crimes....
Hiroshima, Nagasaki- enough said.
You can argue that we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in a ground war; its a good topic to debate.[/QUOTE]
whose lives?[/QUOTE]
Both the Japanese and American soldiers' lives. An invasion would have cost millons more to both sides.
Im not condoning nuclear weapons either; but, defeating the Japanese through conventional means (if possible) would have severly increased the death counts.[/QUOTE]
Do you have any clue at what you're saying?
I think someone should throw 10 a-bombs on America, because if they go on invading countries for no good reason they will make a lot of casualties on both sides.
Do you have any idea how many people got killed during those cruel and heartless attacks? And are still dying from diseases from radioactivity in the area of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
About 80.000 in Hiroshima and 220,000 in Nagasaki.. Maybe 0,1% of all those people were Japanese soldiers.
Sometimes I can't believe the American government is still crying over 9/11 !
Hiroshima, Nagasaki- enough said.
You can argue that we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in a ground war; its a good topic to debate.[/QUOTE]
whose lives?[/QUOTE]
Both the Japanese and American soldiers' lives. An invasion would have cost millons more to both sides.
Im not condoning nuclear weapons either; but, defeating the Japanese through conventional means (if possible) would have severly increased the death counts.[/QUOTE]
Do you have any clue at what you're saying?
I think someone should throw 10 a-bombs on America, because if they go on invading countries for no good reason they will make a lot of casualties on both sides.
Do you have any idea how many people got killed during those cruel and heartless attacks? And are still dying from diseases from radioactivity in the area of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
About 80.000 in Hiroshima and 220,000 in Nagasaki.. Maybe 0,1% of all those people were Japanese soldiers.
Sometimes I can't believe the American government is still crying over 9/11 !
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I dunno...I think swords are pretty cool.[/QUOTE]
Swords can be cool, but lightsabers are far more cool.
Swords can be cool, but lightsabers are far more cool.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]spymyshadow wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well, speaking of war crimes....
Hiroshima, Nagasaki- enough said.
You can argue that we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in a ground war; its a good topic to debate.[/QUOTE]
whose lives?[/QUOTE]
Both the Japanese and American soldiers' lives. An invasion would have cost millons more to both sides.
Im not condoning nuclear weapons either; but, defeating the Japanese through conventional means (if possible) would have severly increased the death counts.[/QUOTE]
Japan had prepared an unconditional surrender message before Nagasaki, and apparently also before Hiroshima. It was only due to communication difficulties that they didn't reach the Americans in time.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki- enough said.
You can argue that we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in a ground war; its a good topic to debate.[/QUOTE]
whose lives?[/QUOTE]
Both the Japanese and American soldiers' lives. An invasion would have cost millons more to both sides.
Im not condoning nuclear weapons either; but, defeating the Japanese through conventional means (if possible) would have severly increased the death counts.[/QUOTE]
Japan had prepared an unconditional surrender message before Nagasaki, and apparently also before Hiroshima. It was only due to communication difficulties that they didn't reach the Americans in time.
are you sure it was a question of communication and not the curiosity to see what would be the effect of an atomic bomb on people?
After the attack on Pearl Harbour, convicing a great part of public opinion about the necessity of the atomic was not that hard.
something similar happened few months ago when falluja was bombed with phosphores (I dont' know if it is the right word) anyway, the thing that burns you leaving your clothes untouched. Was that sparing the lives of american soldiers,war crime, or asking for it?
it all comes back to the initial question.
and then here in Italy we're bombed in a different way but not less catastrophic, with berlusconi saying in fornt of the us parliament 'I'm the temple of democracy'....please.... shut your mouth and mind about what you're saying.
After the attack on Pearl Harbour, convicing a great part of public opinion about the necessity of the atomic was not that hard.
something similar happened few months ago when falluja was bombed with phosphores (I dont' know if it is the right word) anyway, the thing that burns you leaving your clothes untouched. Was that sparing the lives of american soldiers,war crime, or asking for it?
it all comes back to the initial question.
and then here in Italy we're bombed in a different way but not less catastrophic, with berlusconi saying in fornt of the us parliament 'I'm the temple of democracy'....please.... shut your mouth and mind about what you're saying.
I think someone should throw 10 a-bombs on America, because if they go on invading countries for no good reason they will make a lot of casualties on both sides.
Do you have any idea how many people got killed during those cruel and heartless attacks? And are still dying from diseases from radioactivity in the area of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
About 80.000 in Hiroshima and 220,000 in Nagasaki.. Maybe 0,1% of all those people were Japanese soldiers.
Sometimes I can't believe the American government is still crying over 9/11 ![/QUOTE]
he is correct about saving of lives. also to be fair to america they tried their hardest not to get involved in WW2. japan attacked them and then germany, being allied to japan, declared war on them.
Do you have any idea how many people got killed during those cruel and heartless attacks? And are still dying from diseases from radioactivity in the area of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
About 80.000 in Hiroshima and 220,000 in Nagasaki.. Maybe 0,1% of all those people were Japanese soldiers.
Sometimes I can't believe the American government is still crying over 9/11 ![/QUOTE]
he is correct about saving of lives. also to be fair to america they tried their hardest not to get involved in WW2. japan attacked them and then germany, being allied to japan, declared war on them.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]spymyshadow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]are you sure it was a question of communication and not the curiosity to see what would be the effect of an atomic bomb on people?[/QUOTE]
Officially, communication. In reality: showing the Russians they had an A-Bomb.
[QUOTE]something similar happened few months ago when falluja was bombed with phosphores (I dont' know if it is the right word) anyway, the thing that burns you leaving your clothes untouched. Was that sparing the lives of american soldiers,war crime, or asking for it?
[/QUOTE]
Phosphoric shells were outlawed by the New York convention, I believe (otherwise, it's the second Geneva Convention). Thus, it's a war-crime. Whomever authorized the use of these shells is automatically guilty of war-crimes and crimes against humanity (see the Laws Of War), so that qualifies Bush and probably one or more ranking generals as war criminals in addition to Ariel Sharon, who used them against civilian targets when he was still a general.
Officially, communication. In reality: showing the Russians they had an A-Bomb.
[QUOTE]something similar happened few months ago when falluja was bombed with phosphores (I dont' know if it is the right word) anyway, the thing that burns you leaving your clothes untouched. Was that sparing the lives of american soldiers,war crime, or asking for it?
[/QUOTE]
Phosphoric shells were outlawed by the New York convention, I believe (otherwise, it's the second Geneva Convention). Thus, it's a war-crime. Whomever authorized the use of these shells is automatically guilty of war-crimes and crimes against humanity (see the Laws Of War), so that qualifies Bush and probably one or more ranking generals as war criminals in addition to Ariel Sharon, who used them against civilian targets when he was still a general.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I dunno...I think swords are pretty cool.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunatley, theyve been obsolete since Shitaragahara
Unfortunatley, theyve been obsolete since Shitaragahara
It's all very well sitting in a nice warm house typing away that the Allies committed war crimes during the Second World War but if you lived in London during the blitz (at a stage where defeat for Britain looked likely) getting bombed nightly for months on end you'd want want to stick it to the krauts too.
And breathe...
I'm sure in sixty years time when the planet is beyond repair, things we do now will look disgraceful i.e. wasting energy, cheap air travel etc. But don't fear I'll be here to say 'told you so'.
And breathe...
I'm sure in sixty years time when the planet is beyond repair, things we do now will look disgraceful i.e. wasting energy, cheap air travel etc. But don't fear I'll be here to say 'told you so'.
Well, theyve proven time and time again, London can take it.