And btw, the "deeply flawed" accusation against Giangreco's work predates Hell to Pay by seven years. Game, set, match.
Not really. Those arguments haven't gone away.
That doesn't mean the projections were A) valid, or B) unchallenged, or C) something that ends the debate. Nor does it change that terror was used to make political gain, and on civilians not soldiers. This was immoral, Christian or not. Christianity is just one one moral gauge. It might be practical to kill children or rape women, but that practicality won't make it moral.
You yourself are evidence they have not gone away, but they have been rendered obsolete.
Those deaths prevented millions more. The decision to use the bombs was a great moral achievement -- something to be proud of, and something for which American soldiers and all Japanese can be grateful.
No they haven't, for the reasons I stated.
No, that is not fact. That is supposition. And it doesn't address the reasoning either. These were civilian deaths, innocent women and children and not soldiers. Terror from above, murder. Not war. Not soldiers. Not combatants. Not collateral, but deliberate. Targeted civilians.
An excellent article discussing the morality of the situation. I do have some disagreement but not a lot. I suspect the same is true for you: The Atomic Bombings Reconsidered | Foreign Affairs. The last section entitled "THE REDEFINITION OF MORALITY" acknowledges your position and doesn't necessarily agree with mine. Again, I look at it in the context of the times and what was known and the decision Truman made. An atomic bomb had never been used so it wasn't entirely clear what would happen, including it being a dud.
I never said that this was a proud moment for the US, but I understand why it was done. The fact that there were so many civilians did not keep these cities from being targeted, but I do not believe that there was any reason to avoid them--again, in the context of the situation and the times. Wars are bad, and no war is better than a short war and a short war is better than a long one. I also believe that having real life examples of the horrors of atomic and nuclear weapons has been a valuable lesson in the horrors of their use. My point that targeting a bomb to hit a target doesn't mean that civilians were specifically targeted. As the article indicated, the War changed the standards of morality and not necessarily for the better. You don't care about that context but I'm satisfied my point has been made.
No they haven't, for the reasons I stated.
No, that is not fact. That is supposition. And it doesn't address the reasoning either. These were civilian deaths, innocent women and children and not soldiers. Terror from above, murder. Not war. Not soldiers. Not combatants. Not collateral, but deliberate. Targeted civilians.
The only "credible" historians are those that argue the justification of using nuclear weapons on civilian targets. Most likely somebody else will be justifying there use as well someday.
U.S. manpower losses amounted to over 82,000 casualties, including non-battle casualties (psychiatric, injuries, illnesses) of whom over 12,500 were killed or missing. Battle deaths were 4,907 Navy, 4,675 Army, and 2,938 Marine Corps personnel.[40] Several thousand servicemen who died indirectly (from wounds and other causes) at a later date are not included in the total. One of the most famous U.S. casualties was the war correspondent Ernie Pyle, who was killed by Japanese sniper fire on Ie Island (Ie Shima, a small island just off of northwestern Okinawa).[41] Lt. Gen. Buckner's decision to attack the Japanese defenses head-on, although extremely costly in U.S. lives, was ultimately successful. Just four days from the closing of the campaign, Buckner was killed by Japanese artillery fire, which blew lethal slivers of coral into his body, while inspecting his troops at the front line. He was the highest-ranking U.S. officer to be killed by enemy fire during the war. The day after Buckner was killed, Brig. Gen. Claudius Miller Easley was killed by machine gun fire.
After Okinawa it was clear what the results of a land invasion of Japan would be.
Japan had pulled as many assets as they could to the home islands. Then Russia declared war and invaded the Kuril Islands & took the rest of the Sakhalin Island.
Battle of Okinawa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sorry dude, I've debated this a dozen times in a dozen threads, it's not the op topic and anyway, there's no concern that Iran gets a nuclear weapon, that's covered. That's the point. The hand wringing is for nothing.
When Iran does their first underground atomic test and if you're still on this board I'll make sure to mention this and link it in every future conversation you and I might have. Mmkay? *bookmarked*
Already done my friend.Please do...
Already done my friend.
I double-checked the post in question and found absolutely no evidence of "name calling"_Right, you're reduced to name calling,
Have you ever heard it said? "if the shoe fits"???and questioning loyalty
I suspect you view all criticism of Obama as "****ing on the president"?!as you show up regularly to **** on the president.
And 9 years of P5+1 sanctions has had very little effect on Iranian enrichment of weapons grade uranium_I support the work of the P5+1, which would deny Iranian nukes.
I support whichever plan of action delivers total compliance with the least sacrifice of blood and resources_I don't know what you support other than war, WAR!!!
OMG! You're starting to sound like me! :shock: Hey; I need a moderator in here, ASAP!From a Realist perspective, they have the "right" to whatever they can get away with.
We, in turn, have the "right" to impede them in such pursuits if it goes against our own interests.
At the end of the day, it's really as simple as that. Iran has an agenda, and we have an agenda. Unfortunately, those agendas simply happen to be mutually incompatible.
May the best nation win. :shrug:
I double-checked the post in question and found absolutely no evidence of "name calling"_
Perhaps you confused my post with someone else's?!
Have you ever heard it said? "if the shoe fits"???
In a nutshell; you are judged by how you present yourself, which you control!
I suspect you view all criticism of Obama as "****ing on the president"?!
Might you have possibly forgot to include "racist" or will that come later?!
And 9 years of P5+1 sanctions has had very little effect on Iranian enrichment of weapons grade uranium_
As radical Islam closes in on the day it's dreamed of for so long when it can finally blow Israel off the map!
I support whichever plan of action delivers total compliance with the least sacrifice of blood and resources_
I assume this would be the exact same plan of action that every patriotic American supports_
And P5+1 would be laughable under any other circumstances; and here is 5 reasons why:
1) The UN has always had a major problem with confusing the good guys for the bad guys; nuff said!
2) The current United States power structure is unmotivated by Iran nukes!(possibly even supportive)
3) The United Kingdom will only act in accordance with the US; concerning middle east policy! (see #2)
4) France and Germany can't even deal with radical Islam in their own backyards and therefore; useless!
5) And Russia and China appear more interested with enabling Iran's nuclear ambitions than stifling them!
ie;Champions of P5+1 policy either support Iran's efforts, are gullible fools, or simply have ulterior motives!
Simpleχity;1064454765 said:As with the other 189 nations who have signed the NPT, Iran's nuclear rights and responsibilities are contained within the document.
TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS (NPT)
The problem is, Iran has previously been in non-compliance with the IAEA which resulted in international sanctions.Yep. They signed, they have repeatedly said that their nuclear program is peaceful, US and Israeli intelligence has stated that they don't have a weapons program, and six of the worlds most powerful nations are working to ensure that they never do. There's little to be concerned of. The handwringing over this is fantastic.
Simpleχity;1064455366 said:The problem is, Iran has previously been in non-compliance with the IAEA which resulted in international sanctions.
Any brokered deal must assure that the IAEA has unfettered access to all Iranian nuclear-related documents, data, and facilities. All IAEA inspection requests must also be immediately accommodated.
OMG! You're starting to sound like me! :shock: Hey; I need a moderator in here, ASAP!
Gathomas88 has hijacked my unique writing style and natural flare; and maybe even a few IQ points!
What's next Gat?! My wit and charm?! :badpc:
| Moderator's Warning: |
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?