Navy Pride
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 39,883
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
comments please
ncallaway said:This is a tough ethical question for me.
Yes, it saved many American soldier's lives, but it came at the cost of many civillians.
Perhaps it could have been executed differently? Maybe dropping the first bomb on a remote military base, with the threat of a second bomb to come on a city? Or maybe we only needed to drop one bomb? I don't know.
I suppose I am all for saving American lives, at whatever the cost. I'm on the fence though. I hate seeing that many civillian casualities...
Rgh. I don't know. I just don't know...
Surenderer said:Wow I thought that it was always wrong to attack civilians...... soldiers choose to fight.....old people and little girls and babies that died in Hiroshima and Nagaski didnt......just goes to show that in some eyes terrorism is something that only happens to us
Busta said:One VERY important detail that is constantly overlooked is that the people them selves were willing to fight to the death for their Emperor. The Japanese people, to this day, have not bowed to America. If the Emperor said fight, the people (Men, Women and children) would have gleefully laid down their lives by the millions in faithful obedience.
So if you want to apply the Geneva conventions, fine, lets aply the Geneva conventions: That means that the ENTIRE population of Japan were either Soldiers or unlawful combatants; BOTH of which are fair Military targets.
Surenderer said:Wow I thought that it was always wrong to attack civilians...... soldiers choose to fight.....old people and little girls and babies that died in Hiroshima and Nagaski didnt......just goes to show that in some eyes terrorism is something that only happens to us
Surenderer said:Wow I thought that it was always wrong to attack civilians...... soldiers choose to fight.....old people and little girls and babies that died in Hiroshima and Nagaski didnt......just goes to show that in some eyes terrorism is something that only happens to us
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear
peace
cnredd said:Your logic is the same as Bin Laden's for say civilians are not innocent, making them viable targets...you are making the case for him.
Navy Pride said:if we lost a half a million men then they would not have gotten married and had children and just maybe some of the people that post to this forum would not be here now...........
cnredd said:You're not looking at it from a 1945 mindset....Civilians were never a consideration until after WWII....
But no, seriously....continue with your backhanded cheap shots...go on.....
debate_junkie said:Would WWII have ended when it did? We'll never know. The bombs, though incredibly catastrophic within today's thinking and reasoning, were cutting edge, and not without flaw.
Having said that... were they precision or heat seeking bombs that were programmed to seek out ONLY the enemy, would we even be having this conversation? Would you deny the US the right to finish a war that had led to the deaths of our soldiers and civilians, not only in P.H. but also on shores all over the world?
You wanna quote terrorism.... but how quickly you forget that the US remained predominantly NEUTRAL in WWII until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. So how is the US defending an active declaration of war, levied by the Japanese, terrorism? Is it because we got them on their shores? I don't understand your logic of thinking.
teacher said:That's just fuc*king weak. How many Japanese cililians would have died in a mainland invasion of Japan? I think you need to read history, or better yet, had had a good talk with your Grandfathers. This question is stupid. An attempt to bring yet more American guilt for winning? Some times the way you people try to put todays view on historical events illustrates you're bed wetting propencities. Shut up.