Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

....I haven't exactly seen you Yankee-bashers come up with a single solution that it any way would have recognized the realities of the situation. You're all worse than arm chair generals, your ignoramuses judging hard choices by some bizarre inflexible code of conduct designed more for your own sanctimonious self-gratification than as a rational exploration of the situation in the summer of 1945.

Damn!! I think I'm gonna cry...that was beautiful. Semper Fi! ;)

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

  • Replies 406
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
....I haven't exactly seen you Yankee-bashers come up with a single solution that it any way would have recognized the realities of the situation. You're all worse than arm chair generals, your ignoramuses judging hard choices by some bizarre inflexible code of conduct designed more for your own sanctimonious self-gratification than as a rational exploration of the situation in the summer of 1945.

Its not yankee bashing at least on my part. I would reject the intentional wholesale slaughter of civilians NO MATTER WHO perpetrated it.

And youre the biggest armchair general here. You dismiss all of the other options out of hand based on pure assumption and speculation. Youre really just parroting the exact same thing post hoc rationalization made at the time.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Posted

If targetting civilians is the moral way to fight wars then lets nix all the treaties weve signed since WW2. And remember all your assumptions, and post hoc rationalization when an ENEMY using those same rationalizations chooses YOUR city to make an example of. You can applaud their moral superiority the last moment before youre vaporized.

We're talking about August 1945.

Posted

We're talking about August 1945.

Its no more wrong to intentionally target civilians now than it was then. Forcing an enemy to surrender by annihilating cities full of civilians is IMHO the wrong thing to do EVEN IF you can make an argument from utility based on assumptions about what might have happened.

But thats fine... we can agree to disagree. Ill stick with the belief that its wrong to slaughter huge ammounts of civilians intentionally.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Posted

Its no more wrong to intentionally target civilians now than it was then. Forcing an enemy to surrender by annihilating cities full of civilians is IMHO the wrong thing to do EVEN IF you can make an argument from utility based on assumptions about what might have happened.

But thats fine... we can agree to disagree. Ill stick with the belief that its wrong to slaughter huge ammounts of civilians intentionally.

So you would have been for invasion?

Posted

America = Dr Evil

...oh wait...Oh Canada.

No America and the allies wer not "Doctor Evil". They were the good guys and we are all lucky they won. But that doesnt mean that every single thing they did during the war was right... even though the propoganda you guys have grown up with and swallowed hook line and sinker tries to paint that picture.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Posted

No America and the allies wer not "Doctor Evil". They were the good guys and we are all lucky they won. But that doesnt mean that every single thing they did during the war was right... even though the propoganda you guys have grown up with and swallowed hook line and sinker tries to paint that picture.

Oh yawn. Thank goodness for you and your deep understanding of the War in the Pacific/SEA. So you'd invade rather than drop the Bombs? Or would you do SFA and let the Empire of Japan do as it pleased?

Posted

So you would have been for invasion?

No, I would have been for trying to force a surrender without targetting massive ammounts of civilians. I definately would have continued the blockade and embargo which was already mostly in place. Sea lanes too and from Japan were already mostly closed. I would have continued with a bombing campaign against military targets anyways since by that time the Japanese could do little resist it.

I also would have considered atomic detonations that DIDNT target civilians. A third atomic bomb would have been available by the third week of August, and three more were on their way shortly after that. Thats six total. I probably would have dropped the first four in areas where the massive destructive capability of the weapons could have been demonstrated without the civilian casualties. It would have at least been worth a try and if that didnt work youd still have 2 more to drop on cities, and it would have only set you back a few weeks.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Posted

So you would have been for invasion?

LOL! I love this....the "moral choice" was an invasion...but not by Canada! Or "naval blockade"....but not by Canada!

Goddamn American bastards should have done the right thing and killed the Japanese one bullet or incendiary bomb at a time.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

LOL! I love this....the "moral choice" was an invasion...but not by Canada! Or "naval blockade"....but not by Canada!

Goddamn American bastards should have done the right thing and killed the Japanese one bullet or incendiary bomb at a time.

Im not sure if you two spend more time with your noses up each others assholes, or inventing positions for other posts. Probably about 50/50?

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Posted

LOL! I love this....the "moral choice" was an invasion...but not by Canada! Or "naval blockade"....but not by Canada!

Goddamn American bastards should have done the right thing and killed the Japanese one bullet or incendiary bomb at a time.

I think folks like dre like to see things done evenly in war. You know...nice and fair.

Posted (edited)

I think folks like dre like to see things done evenly in war. You know...nice and fair.

Thats just another strawman. My position is that Im AGAINST the wholesale slaughter of civilians during war time. Youre for it.

Edited by dre

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,025
    • Most Online
      2,945

    Newest Member
    Jameslive
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • maro ay earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • maro ay earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Longley earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • ashtonfennescey earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • ashtonfennescey earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...