Printable View
scare tactic? I do enjoy how americans complain over tactics used against them - crying about surprise attacks on naval bases in hawaii and whining about attacks on civilians on 11/9.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kemia
I'm sure USA never did anything comparable . . .
Bad things happen in war and tough decisions are made, but I would never compare it to the way terrorism specifically targets civilians for absolutely no other reason than to murder them.
so the firebombing of dresden and the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki were ok because their aims wasn't to kill civilians but to achieve a war goal?Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
do you really think that al qaida don't have aims and they just want to kill civilians for the fun of it?
you know that the war with japan was already won right?
>but our motives were pure because we're the good guys
Meanwhile in pakistan: USA launches drone missiles against the populous of a nation they are not at war with, performing signature strikes where they have no idea who the targets are, using double taps to hit first responders and hitting the funerals of targets so you can be sure to get their wives and kids too. That **** is too low for the mafia.
>bwaaa waaaa dey r using scurr tactik
I didn't say it was "ok", but it certainly saved American lives and ended a war, to claim otherwise is naivety. For some reason America is always **** on for responding to aggression, it defies logic. Our biggest crime in the world court is invading Iraq under false pretenses, but we're still treated as if we invaded some peaceful village of innocent bunny rabbits, not a country run by an oppressive war criminal. I can't say I agree with America's actions on every level (very few actually), but stop pretending like we bomb innocents on purpose and for no reason whatsoever. You want to compare the actions of terrorists to drone strikes, which is just stupid. Was there some military personnel I wasn't aware of that they were targeting on 9/11? No, just civilians. Apples to oranges.
Personally, I wish we'd get the hell out of every single other country except our own, and leave them to their own self destruction. But of course if we did that, the same people would cry about how the great and powerful America is ignoring world issues. It's a lose lose situation, so I just assume the people giving orders have a better idea of why they are doing what they're doing than a bunch of idiots on a message board.
The war was already over, to claim otherwise is tactical and historical ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
You traded a few soldiers lives for the lives of quarter of a million civilians.
top jokes, the US had blockaded japan in the pacific cutting off their supply lines, as well as funding the chinese. They badly wanted to get into the war and needed something to convince the isolationist public to support it. I mean the fleet had originally been stationed in San Diego and there was already a military build up in the phillipines.Quote:
For some reason America is always **** on for responding to aggression, it defies logic.
Good job on more recent 'responses to aggression' by the way, you invaded the wrong country twice and broke the back of your own economy.
Aaah those nasty war crimes... which the US funded, sponsored, supported and supplied the biological weapons for. Okay, you guys sure are the moral authority here.Quote:
Our biggest crime in the world court is invading Iraq under false pretenses, but we're still treated as if we invaded some peaceful village of innocent bunny rabbits, not a country run by an oppressive war criminal.
But. . . you do. At least to the same level of reasoning as Al Quaida do, ie. ideological reasoning. Although with the drone program there is also a lot of money being made manufacturing the damn things.Quote:
but stop pretending like we bomb innocents on purpose and for no reason whatsoever.
'Potential enemy combatants' in the drone program are defined as any man of military age... in a country that you are not at war with and is nominally your ally.Quote:
You want to compare the actions of terrorists to drone strikes, which is just stupid. Was there some military personnel I wasn't aware of that they were targeting on 9/11? No, just civilians. Apples to oranges.
Which military personnel are you targeting when you 'double tap' to kill ambulance drivers and paramedics?
>it's stupid because I say so
>no I don't have any arguments
Oh yes, those dreadful drone strikes in Pakistan, requested by Pakistan, where the drones take off from bases in Pakistan, and then hit targets provided via shared intelligence from Pakistan. But no, let's pretend we're simply "bombing an ally", lol.
And I don't know wtf you're talking about the war in Japan "already being over". It was over as in yes we were going to invade them and win, but it certainly was going to cost thousands of lives to accomplish. Japan was given the chance to surrender and refused. In what way was that war "over"?
you mean the ones Pakistan was told were going to happen regardless where they have no control over the targets and the could either consent to it or have it happen without their consent which would cause immediate overthrow? that's a case of 'you can quit or we fire you', and we know the US has no compunctions about running operations in pakistan without pakistani consent.Quote:
Oh yes, those dreadful drone strikes in Pakistan, requested by Pakistan, where the drones take off from bases in Pakistan, and then hit targets provided via shared intelligence from Pakistan. But no, let's pretend we're simply "bombing an ally", lol.
Your knowledge of these subjects is not sufficient, but I like how you're no longer trying to defend the targeting practices.
Japan approached the Soviets wanting to surrender in June of 45, provided they could keep their Emperor, which Truman knew about. He was either willing to drop the bombs to get rid of the Emperor or he wanted to drop them to flex his muscles in front of the soviets (who his top generals including Patton wanted to invade directly after Germany's surrender)Quote:
And I don't know wtf you're talking about the war in Japan "already being over"
Given that the kept their Emperor under their eventual terms, I'd say it's pretty obvious that Truman was merely looking for a pretense to drop the bombs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Snowstorm
Pakistan's army chief requested MORE drone coverage in 2008, that came out with the wikileaks thing. They deny this because they know their citizens despise the program and don't want to look bad authorizing the bombings, but in reality it's likely fully supported by Pakistan.
lolwut? The Soviets didn't even declare war on Japan until after the bombs dropped, so who was Japan trying to surrender to in June? The Potsdam Declaration was presented to Japan in late July which stated failure to surrender would result in their "prompt and utter destruction". This warning was ignored by Japan and they fought on. The choice was a costly invasion of Japan, or dropping the bombs.Quote:
Japan approached the Soviets wanting to surrender in June of 45, provided they could keep their Emperor, which Truman knew about. He was either willing to drop the bombs to get rid of the Emperor or he wanted to drop them to flex his muscles in front of the soviets (who his top generals including Patton wanted to invade directly after Germany's surrender)
Given that the kept their Emperor under their eventual terms, I'd say it's pretty obvious that Truman was merely looking for a pretense to drop the bombs.
implying that army chief = full supportQuote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
implying the pakistanis are dictating targets
implying the drone policies don't come from american executive branch
implying the army aren't hoping for an uprising so they can have another coup and take power again
"I am in blood
Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surren...n#cite_note-44Quote:
lolwut? The Soviets didn't even declare war on Japan until after the bombs dropped, so who was Japan trying to surrender to in June? The Potsdam Declaration was presented to Japan in late July which stated failure to surrender would result in their "prompt and utter destruction". This warning was ignored by Japan and they fought on. The choice was a costly invasion of Japan, or dropping the bombs.
"While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, the Empire of Japan's leaders, (the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War, also known as the "Big Six"), were privately making entreaties to the neutral Soviet Union to mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese."
"It goes without saying that in my earlier message calling for unconditional surrender or closely equivalent terms, I made an exception of the question of preserving [the imperial family]." - Japanese Ambassador to Moscow
- Magic Diplomatic Summary No. 1212.
noob pls go.
Since when does the person surrendering set the terms? They wanted to keep their authority in place, we demanded it be removed. They refused to surrender under the terms presented and faced the consequences.
They wanted to keep their emperor, the Americans said knew that, they set unacceptable terms, they showed off their new weaponry to the soviets, suddenly they're OK with the Japs keeping their Emperor.
Your homework is to figure out what the US's main goal was.
Thank you class, your history lesson for today is complete.
The same terms that they agreed to after the bombing, must not have been so unacceptable. The Potsdam Declaration did not specifically single out the Emperor, but stated "the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"", and I don't see how removing the people responsible for a war is an unacceptable term. Their stupidity and pride led to the bombings. Once the bombs dropped, it was the Emperor who demanded to the war council that the terms be accepted.
The terms were offered in such a way as to make them clearly unacceptable to japan, and they knew that was the case as they had intercepted their talks with the soviet union stating the only thing they wouldn't move on was losing their Emperor.
Are you seriously trying to play abs style word games here? your arguments have been demolished down to saying, 'durr well they didn't refer to him by name with his social security number', 'remove for power for all time' (all time - clearly referring to an inherited position).
Your arguments are becoming more feeble with each post as I expose your ignorance.
I'm not playing word games at all, this was a specific issue at the Potsdam conference, it's their word game. The Brits wanted to keep the Emperor and the Yanks wanted him out and the position ended. The terms as worded was the compromise agreed on by the parties involved. It spoke on eliminating those responsible for the war while also reestablishing a peaceful government. The only mention of an "unconditional" surrender only referred to the immediate and unconditional surrender of ARMED FORCES. They didn't even bother to reply to the declaration, they simply went to the media and said we will fight to the bloody end. Stop pretending they were desperately trying to surrender, they made virtually no effort until the bombs went down. They were trying to prevent the Soviets from joining the war because they knew they couldn't win, but that's not even close to the same thing as a war being "over".
And I point out again, these "unacceptable" terms were immediately accepted after the bombs were dropped, so how can accepted terms be called unacceptable? That's just a stupid comment. They didn't believe the US had the bomb, and even when we dropped the first one, they didn't believe we had more ready to drop.
You look ridiculous trying to claim Japan was ready to surrender, when everything they did and said showed otherwise. When presented with terms for surrender, their only reply was:
lol pretending you are proving me wrong doesn't make it so.Quote:
We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war.
they weren't immediately accepted, they were accepted after talks specifying that they could keep their Emperor under allied rule.
and you look ridiculous every time you say they weren't ready to surrender since I've already proved with documentation that they were willing to surrender in June of 45 if they could keep their Emperor, which the Americans knew. Keep making yourself look dumb, it's hilarious.Quote:
You look ridiculous trying to claim Japan was ready to surrender, when everything they did and said showed otherwise.