Next time you want to go on about people strapping bombs to their children think about a nation that chose to kill hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT CIVILIAN men, women and CHILDREN instead of facing their army.
What a load of crap. Not once did I state it would have been better to go the other route in that regard, just stated we can't take the moral high ground when it comes to killing or the manner in which we kill.
No, we certainly cannot take a moral high ground regarding killing, but you also cannot compare suicide bombers to the nuclear bombing of Japan as morally comparable either. We bombed Japan to end a war; suicide bombers cannot solve anything except making sure the conflict continues. There is no moral excuse for it because it accomplishes nothing.
I know exactly what happened as the US got closer to the home islands. The figures given to the president regarding causalties was 300K-500K Japaneses killed at a cost of 150K-200K Americans. But you're niave if you think that was the sole reason for the US dropping the bomb on Japan. The fact of the matter was the US was just as worried about the Russians invading Japan as they were about the cost of American lives. The Russians routed the Japanese army in China and were already planning their own invasion of Japan. Every ally came to the same conclusion regarding the invasion of Japan, an 18 month blockade could have starved the island nation into submission or at a minimum severly devastate their ability to defend themselves. But the US decided to go with the bomb.
All of this just supports
MY opinion, but counters what you said earlier, that the U.S. was more concerned about facing the Japanese army. Alternatives to dropping the bomb existed and were considered, but they all involved much longer scenarios, had such negative connotations as the Russians invading first (and have no doubt, they would not have decided to use such an alternative as starvation), and certainly would have involved counterattacks by the Japanese that would not have spared American lives anyway.
There isn't a better way to kill, that's my ENTIRE point. There is no moral high ground the US can take regarding killing the right way.
Ah, now you are stating that your point was about the morality of killing and the U.S. is not immune to the consequences. Since the bombing of Japan
WAS the morally correct thing to do at the time, how does that compare to what suicide bombers seem to think they are accomplishing? That is what you are comparing it to. I don’t think you chose the right example. Our bombing of Japanese civilians, as well as the military targets in those cities, helped to resolve a horrible worldwide conflict. Suicide bombers who target civilians accomplish death that serves no ultimate goal except terror and hopelessness. By design, this type of bombing furthers the conflict without provide any hope of resolution. Are there such things as levels of morality when the death of civilians are involved?
It was the use of the bomb on civilians that bothers me and NOT knowing the long term effects that bothered me. Maybe Saddam was just doing a study on the long term effects of nerve gas on the Kurds. Maybe Osama was just doing a study on jet fuel on building superstructures.
Maybe Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds was simply vicious and only served to annihilate an enemy within his own borders. My guess is he knew exactly what the effects would be. Gassing that occurred during World War I left plenty of evidence to the long-term effects of it. We all can assume Ben Laden knew exactly what to expect from flying two planes into skyscrapers.
No one was certain as to what would be the long-term affects of the use of a nuclear device. Then. We certainly understand it now.We chose those two cities for reasons that included their military significance and size. We did not bomb Tokyo, did we? We very easily could have. We are hardly morally superior to many others, but tell me, if Russia had the bomb then, would Tokyo even exist today? If Hitler had gotten there first, would anyone be able to go near where London currently is without the threat of being contaminated? Regardless of the devastating effect it could have on themselves, would our current foes hesitate to explode a nuclear device where it would do the most devastation?
You want to compare the morality of our using a nuclear bomb the way we did to any of these groups, you go right ahead.
Morons will also try to justify killing innocent people. You want to talk about a forgotten holocaust, lets talk about Cambodia while we're at it or closer to home lets talk about Honduras. Both of which were triggered by the meddling US. How about the MOST succesfull holocoast/genocide in American history. Talk about forgotten, next time you're at a Kings game get on the PA and ask all the natives to raise their hands, you'd probably be able to count them on one hand.
Too bad you didn’t take a step back before your original post and used these examples instead of Japan. You would get very little argument from me on any of them, except the last point. Native Americans are there at Arco in numbers, if they are smart and root for the Kings.
Because we only had two you moron. It was a huge gamble dropping the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki because we didn't have a third. Had the Japanese not capitulated the casualties on both sides would have been huge because the US was not willing to wait for the blockade to soften up the Japs. The US wouldn't wait because they didn't want the Russians on the main island of Japan, NOT because of the tragic loss of human life.
Listen you MORON, I honestly respect your opinion regarding politics and religion more than anyone else on this board. You're extremely well grounded and informed, my childish name calling is all in good "LA style" fun pendejo!
Well, mine wasn’t. :angry: :lol:
Even after two were dropped, the Japanese military was not prepared to surrender. The Emperor simply overruled them and against their wishes he capitulated. The Japanese military, thank God, could not buck tradition by going against their Supreme Leader.
MY point, WOW, really was not about your argument regarding the morality of killing innocence during legitimate military actions, which will happen in every instance. But to specifically
TARGET civilians should not ever be acceptable. If you had mentioned Wounded Knee, or the Trail of Tears, the consequences of Pizarro and Cortez’ invasions, or just what a complete jerk G.A. Custer was regarding his Indian Campaigns, then the comparisons to Palestinian and Al Qaida suicide bombers who target civilians would fit your argument.
Comparing them to the bombing of civilians in Japan to end that war after what the Japanese had previously done just does not.
