American in Hiroshima...

[Tenchu]

Originally Posted by MMM

It worries me a little that you think any civilized and sane modern leader would even choose the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians over accepting surrender. As Samurai said, they were not trying to make the emperor the bad guy. Imagine how the post-war rebuilding would have gone if they had. It would be like Iraq now...suicide bombers, complete social unrest, progress impossible.

This is exactley what I am talking about. Yeah, 'imagine'. Who gives a fuck. Put some damn balls on, MMM. It would have been damn hell. So what. That is what war is. Takeing the easy way out and just burning cities to the ground is shockingly cowardly.

[MMM]

The soldiers in Iraq, at least the one I talked to, isn't getting resupplied every day. Thankfully he knew what a pomegranite was, and he the the rest of his platoon lived on pomegranites for a week. If they hadn't they might have starved.

Just pointing out there are all kinds of experiences.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

This is exactley what I am talking about. Yeah, 'imagine'. Who gives a fuck. Put some damn balls on, MMM. It would have been damn hell. So what. That is what war is. Takeing the easy way out and just burning cities to the ground is shockingly cowardly.

Right. In order to save lives (part of a soldier's job) they didn't demonize the god the Japanse believed in, and worked with him to stabalize the country. As missions go, I would say that one went pretty well.

[Tenchu]

Originally Posted by MMM

The soldiers in Iraq, at least the one I talked to, isn't getting resupplied every day. Thankfully he knew what a pomegranite was, and he the the rest of his platoon lived on pomegranites for a week. If they hadn't they might have starved.

Just pointing out there are all kinds of experiences.

When I worked with marines we had 3 days rations in our pack, they had 1. (Might I piont out, that means we had 12 litres water, they had 3). And even with the lighter load they could not keep up with us in a pack march. There might be different stories from guys at posts and stuff, but I am talking about a front line assault only. In that case americans have all kinds of tanks and trucks and artillery only like several kilometers behind their infantry. When trouble comes, they just blow the shit out of everything instead the hard road.

I dont understand your next post, explain again.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

I dont understand your next post, explain again.

IMAGINE what a mess it would have been during the occupation and rebuilding of Japan if America had demonized, arrested, imprisoned the Emperor. During that time he was literally considered a god by many Japanese, and to have done so would have put the Japanese against the Americans working to get Japan back on its feet, stifling the recovery.

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

MMM, I dont think so, not in my case. You people are analyzeing a situation, you are useing statistics and figures to deal with peoples lives. Here Samurai (she?) is telling me what a soldiers greatest greatest ability is, when I am not sure, but I suspect Samurai is never been a soldier, and I have, and am now full time martial artist who practices better ways to kill people all day long, and she is trying to tell me what my greatest strength is. Charts and math might be great and all, but when all is said, I am the one who is going to be dealing in bodies and corpses. I kinda hoped seeing the pictures would help her understand what I deal with. They are just a tad different than the numbers she is working in.

Samurai,

This is only true for American soldiers. The massive amounts of casualties the US causes in a war is in the numbers considered grossly unacceptable by the ADF (Australian Defence Force). US marines have a nack for causeing massive destruction. The method they use to invade is part of this reason. The US Infantry resupplies every day, most armies only resup every 3 days. This means the US keeps firepower close to its Infantry protecting its resup. The marines use in 1 day the ammo I use in 3. If they get in trouble they dont try and out smart like the aussies do, they just blow the fuck out of it. Like I said, these are not honorable people. Australia lacks the numbers, but if it were Australian divisions that took Japan, the statistics used would have been a lot different. Anyway, this is not my point. The US gave up, and took the easy way out. I dont think saveing the lives of civilians has ever been the goal of the US, their tactics prove that. Fighting with a bullet and knife would have been the honorable choice. A soldier can choose his victims, even if an american soldier chooses not to. Om, why do I say the same things twice. It is because it is so basic, but you are so blind. I want you to say it, it is true, this is the way you think, so just say it: "It is okay that some innocent children die here and there, and some innocent men and women, it is okay that they die, so long as the war runs smoother there after". Just say it. That is what all your facts and history evidence is saying anyway. Admit that and I will leave you alone. I dont want to humiliate you, I just want you to acknowledge who you are.

Well, maybe they didnt physically lay their hands on them, but the running and burning part is true.

You overstep your boundary a bit here. If your motive is to protect others, you will be able to kneel and take the tumble for this cause. Selflessness is kneeling. Something the US is lacking. Majority of their soldiers would rather kill the enemy civilians than risk looseing their own life. That is why so many are dead in Iraq (civilians), because when insurgeants put up a good fight and the soldiers are at risk, they just bomb the buildings killing civilians too. The honorable thing would have been to approach on foot, hook in and kill them by hand. It is greater risk, but the innocent people would still be alive. The government has also proved it is not willing to endure financial hardship or anything for the sake of others, they are just as selfish. And kneeling to Hitler is not what I meant.

Anyway, just say it: "It is okay that some innocent children die here and there, and some innocent men and women, it is okay that they die, so long as the war runs smoother there after". If you understand what you are supporting then I will leave you be, if you dont agree that the above is your thoughts, explain why not.

You either don't know as much as you think you do, or you're just trying to be offensive. The soldiers in Iraq are not blowing up civilians wholesale. Most of the civilian casualties there are because:

a) the insurgents/terrorists, many of them foreigners, are targeting and killing any civilians thought to be working with the Americans

b) the insurgents/terrorists disguise themselves as civilians, fire at soldiers from schools, hospitals, and houses, and use the real civilians as human shields

c) many of the dead "civilians" are in fact insurgent/terrorists in civilian garb

d) tragic accidents and people caught in the crossfire.

I have friends in Iraq, I know some of what's going on there, and they are doing everything they can to minimize civilian casualties and win over the citizens of Iraq, even when it is more dangerous for the soldiers.

As for my point, I think I've been pretty clear, but you seem to have missed it. I'll rephrase your statement, which was wrong, to what I have been saying:

"It is regrettable and sad that so many innocent men, women, and children had to die before WW2 finally ended, but given a choice between probably millions (many of them innocent civilians) dying in a land invasion and a few hundred thousand dying in the 2 atomic bombs to end the war months sooner than it otherwise would have, I feel Truman made the right choice in choosing to use the bombs. Personally, I don't believe the Japanese were serious about surrendering before the 2 bombs and Russia's declaration of war, but a few more efforts to feel them out and make clear that the Emperor would not be killed might have been a wise move. However, it is my firm belief that Japan would have continued to fight at least until the US took Kyushu, and that many, MANY more people, both US and Japanese, soldier and civilian, would have died had the bombs not been used." Is that clear enough?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MMM

Initially the thoughts are 100,000 vs. 500,000. End the war in a week, or stretch it out over three months. Zero American deaths vs. Massive American deaths. Every number. Every statistic. Every estimate. Every strategy points at using the bomb.

How could a President, whose job as the top military leader is to protect his country and protect his soldiers choose a strategy which took 1) More time, 2) More human loss of life 3) More civilian loss of life and 4) more American soldier loss of life? How could he turn to his country and say "We have a way that will end this war tomorrow, and protect our troops and our country, but instead, I am going to put our boys on the ground, in the most dangerous form of combat in war."? He would have been impeached, if not worse, in days.

Just thought i'd answer to this then leave it... The only statistics that pointed to using the bomb were the EXTREEME ones...

--A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.
--A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.
When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.

So you see, some if not most of the figures are nowhere near the 500,000.
A lot of people in the office believe that Truman had a hatdred towards the japanese and had a motive to drop the bombs.
Here's a quote that was said by him about the japanese.

"When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true."

According to Truman, the japanese were beasts...

As for the things you pointed out

1) MAYBE it would have taken more time... You don't know how quickly the Japanese would have chosen to surrender after the news of the Soviets... And you're probably gonna say why didnt they surrender after the first bomb... I can ask why didn't they give it time? 2 A-bombs in a couple of days!!! Thats just discusting!!
2)Again, this is debatable depending on which figure's were more accurate!
3)This is DEFINATELY not true, thus the main reason why i am against this. Hiro and Naga cost 200,000 lives in the space of a couple of days... the majority of these were civilians. And on top of that. 100,000 more civilians died due to radiation or affects of the a-bombs.
4)This is definately true, but at least the people that would have died knew that there was that risk.

I'd also like to say i am against it because its the biggest "terrorist" attack this world has ever seen... And i'm sure, in your defence you will say the US was in a "legitimate war", but targeting non-combatants, women, children,the elderly etc appears contrary to notions of ‘legitimate war" -definately took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If you don't agree with that, would you consider an attack on Washington with an A-bomb by Iraq to be part of this legitimate war? If you believe that is fine, then i will shut my mouth. But personally, i would definately think its a terrorist attack as the majority of people in Washington are civilians!!!


I guess we'll leave it at that... it seems that we won't change eachothers minds. lol
It was educational though...

[Enkidu22]

Originally Posted by MMM

Right. In order to save lives (part of a soldier's job) they didn't demonize the god the Japanse believed in, and worked with him to stabalize the country. As missions go, I would say that one went pretty well.

But the thing is they didn't wanted to do this until the very last days. They agreed only when Swiss embassy put them before accomplished fact of japanese government agreeing to capitulate if they leave the emperor intact. Truman didn't have a choice but to agree, the whole world wanted the war to end as fast as possible. Also US politics didn't even try to negociate, they just wanted to force Japan into capitulation by destroying it's cities, no mather the cost in civilian lives. Even Vatican tried to negociate with japanese government while US didn't.
Besides I really doubt that US would ever begin the land invasion. They would rather bomb and bomb and bomb again until Japan would surrender. That's the US tactic. Same happened in Vietnam when they would rather drop napalm on a village rather than risk "precious american lives" in normal assault. Ever heard of camps for vietnam peasants where they died of hunger? And US generals were saying that's it's for their own good so they wouldn't get recruited by Vietcong. Not to mention that McArthur wanted to use A-bombs in Korea when he realized they can't win the war. And they weren't used just becouse the eastern block had their own nuclear weapons and would retaliate.

You have to understand that japanese government knew they will lose and while many really wanted to fight to the end half of them didn't, but instead of using this and negociating US didn't care and continued to kill civilians. And it's not just my opinion, most of WW II specialists think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't necesary for Japan's capitulation. And I'm not talking about american specialists.

But seriously we already proved that we can't convince each other so let's just stop this ok. I only hope some people would read this topic from the beginning as it turned into quite interesting debate ^_^

[Tenchu]

Originally Posted by samurai007

You either don't know as much as you think you do, or you're just trying to be offensive. The soldiers in Iraq are not blowing up civilians wholesale.

Are you sure about that. I have met a lot more marines than you, I reckon. A lot are pissed, the insurgeants ARE the civilians, the marines are dumb, a lot of them blame the actual people for what is happening. The stories you hear of marines and gunships wrecklessly destroying civilians and their homes are only the ones they could not hide. The ones in colateral damage are not even counted as wrongs.

Originally Posted by samurai007

a) the insurgents/terrorists, many of them foreigners, are targeting and killing any civilians thought to be working with the Americans

b) the insurgents/terrorists disguise themselves as civilians, fire at soldiers from schools, hospitals, and houses, and use the real civilians as human shields

c) many of the dead "civilians" are in fact insurgent/terrorists in civilian garb

d) tragic accidents and people caught in the crossfire.

a) Their suicide bombs only kill a dozen a week, the death toll of civilians is nearing a million. Sweetie, this was not done by suicide bombers and arab gunners.

b0yes, they do, shameful, I know, but no better than the return fire they get regardless of their shields.

c)it is also standard procedure to place an AK47 on able bodied civilians to pass them off under the insurgeant toll aside the civilian. The US has not killed as many as you might think of the enemy.

d)only idiots fire without a clean shot.

Originally Posted by samurai007

I have friends in Iraq, I know some of what's going on there, and they are doing everything they can to minimize civilian casualties and win over the citizens of Iraq, even when it is more dangerous for the soldiers.

The majority of marines dont give a fuck, I know, I have met them, beleive what you want but dont tell me otherwise.

Originally Posted by samurai007

"It is regrettable and sad that so many innocent men, women, and children had to die before WW2 finally ended, but given a choice between probably millions (many of them innocent civilians) dying in a land invasion and a few hundred thousand dying in the 2 atomic bombs to end the war months sooner than it otherwise would have, I feel Truman made the right choice in choosing to use the bombs. Personally, I don't believe the Japanese were serious about surrendering before the 2 bombs and Russia's declaration of war, but a few more efforts to feel them out and make clear that the Emperor would not be killed might have been a wise move. However, it is my firm belief that Japan would have continued to fight at least until the US took Kyushu, and that many, MANY more people, both US and Japanese, soldier and civilian, would have died had the bombs not been used." Is that clear enough?

Let me tell you something. I was a soldier, and dont rule out the possibility that one day I will be one again. My gun scope is clear, I can see my targets, I look through it before every shot to test my aim. I would not pull the trigger at risk of killing the innocent, even at the cost of my life. My grenades and claymore, if by accident I threw a grenade around a corner when I thought there was enemy but there was only people, I would have to deal with that shame for the rest of my life, but I would try my hardest to avoid this. However, it does happen, but the US has it happen far more than any other conventional army in the world. And whats worse is, they feel no shame, they think it is okay. You beleive you fight for freedom, but when all is said, when your country fights you are doing nothing but telling inocent people they must die, and they have no choice in it. This is not freedom. They have no chance. I find it hard to understand how your countrymen can feel no shame for what they have done and are still doing, I beleive it is in their culture and their blood. I understand you do not agree, but the people I am with now, and where I now say I come from (no longer australian), we would think it a great shame to do such things. And any man who takes the life of a child who did not want to die nor fight, if they do not bear regret and shame for this action, then they are the worst of cowards. I beleive you will never understand, but I will tell you anyway, these things are the reasons millions of people hate your country, and why hundreds of thousands of people are willing to, and most likely going to put their lives on the line to destroy you.

Let me ask you one final thing, considering your views of correctness, why exactley do you beleive Osama wants to kill you? MMM, you wanne answer too? Just quick.

Originally Posted by MMM

IMAGINE what a mess it would have been during the occupation and rebuilding of Japan if America had demonized, arrested, imprisoned the Emperor. During that time he was literally considered a god by many Japanese, and to have done so would have put the Japanese against the Americans working to get Japan back on its feet, stifling the recovery.

MMM, it is the duty to rebuild Japan why? The country attacked you, do your job, force submission, and piss off. I only beleive rebuilding is an important coutesy in like, Iraq, where as you invaded an unwilling country and fucked it, it would be rude to just up and go. Japan wanted war, if they can not bear the concesquences that is their own shame.

[samurai007]

Tenchu, I see little point in debating you further. It's clear that you are an irrational America-hater who has created all kinds of justifications for your hatred, and you are unwilling to see any other view. Yeah, the US will have more accidental fire because Australia has 500 combat soldiers there (and another 1,000 support staff) and we have 150,000... gee, which group is going to have more accidental shootings?

Osama is an irrational bastard who has dreams of establishing a world-wide Islamo-fascist Caliphate and wiping out the "degenerate, debauched, decadent" Great Satan of America, and any other free people who might stand in his way or refuse to submit. If you're trying to say his reasons for attacking us many times over the years are perfectly reasonable and legitimate, I think that says more about you than Osama... and if you're trying to say Osama attacked us on 9/11 in return for our actions in Iraq or Afghanistan, look at a calender and see which happened first.