Bring on Iran

[DarkCorp]

@Sander

Even in the face of kamakaze strikes, suicides and general history of the japanese code of bushido, you try to deny the aggressivness of the japanese military. Then it is hopeless to try and convince you.

It was a convenient byproduct for the japanese military to fuck up other nations, kill hundreds of thousands, enslave, torture and murder civillians. But clearly that wasn't mentioned in your post. Nope, only the EVIL FASCIST AMERICANS were to blame (as usual).

Its war folks, everyone was fucking guilty. It just sucks to be the loser.

 

[Professor Danger!]

@Sander

Even in the face of kamakaze strikes, suicides and general history of the japanese code of bushido, you try to deny the aggressivness of the japanese military. Then it is hopeless to try and convince you.

It was a convenient byproduct for the japanese military to fuck up other nations, kill hundreds of thousands, enslave, torture and murder civillians. But clearly that wasn't mentioned in your post. Nope, only the EVIL FASCIST AMERICANS were to blame (as usual).

Its war folks, everyone was fucking guilty. It just sucks to be the loser.

I don't recall anyone calling America fascists.

"It's war"? Didn't we have something created so that people would be treated civilly during "it's war" times? The Geneva convention?

 

[DGT]

"It's war"? Didn't we have something created so that people would be treated civilly during "it's war" times? The Geneva convention?

I LOL hard at that, just because so many countries seem to not even care enough to act like they give a damn about the Convention. Also because it's difficult to keep troops from doing horrible things in war... I don't know why, exactly, but as far as I can tell that is the case. See: Japan, who didn't act like they knew what the Convention was. Not that I'm saying America is innocent, either; just look at the idiocy in Iraq, beheading prisoners.

Edit: Also, the FASCIST part was, I feel sure, an attempt to express the irrational hatred that often seems to be directed at America(ns), even though many/most countries have been or are worse than the U.S.

 

[DarkCorp]

Sander is defending the japanese on a few maybes(there are holocaust deniers too) but clearly not mentioning the shit the japanese did do.

A majority of the world thinks of america as imperialist fascists without mentioning that plenty of countries are also pulling the same shit.

 

[Sander]

@Sander

Even in the face of kamakaze strikes, suicides and general history of the japanese code of bushido, you try to deny the aggressivness of the japanese military. Then it is hopeless to try and convince you.

I did whatnow?

Historical fact: the Japanese were desperate (see: the need for kamikaze actions) at this point and had little reason to expect anything but a resounding defeat. The problem is to what extent they would need to be pushed before a capitulation would be feasible. There were some indications that they were already close to a capitulation, others contend that it would've taken at least a military presence on Japanese soil to get that. Peace overtures had been made as early as January 1945 by the Japanese, and this was not the unthinkable act you make it out to be.
The biggest problem for the Japanese standing in the way of the possibility of capitulation was preserving the Japanese emperor and his divinity. Eventually, that was solved by kind of ignoring it. It's hard to say whether or not this capitulation would've come at a timely pace without the bombings, I'd say it would've but certainly not at a low price in human lives, and it might have taken months more. A key point there would have been the Soviet aggression as they moved on Japan, as Japan held hopes of keeping Russia out of the war proper and negotiating a peace settlement with them.

Your contention of "THEY WERE AGGRESSIVE RAAAAAAH" isn't exactly careful historical analysis, nor is it a realistic approach (it's not like these people didn't have brains, and they did capitulate after all). You tackle this issue from just one perspective and assume a strangely one-minded approach by a large collection of individuals, several of whom had already pushed for peace.

It was a convenient byproduct for the japanese military to fuck up other nations, kill hundreds of thousands, enslave, torture and murder civillians. But clearly that wasn't mentioned in your post. Nope, only the EVIL FASCIST AMERICANS were to blame (as usual).

I-what? This paragraph makes zero sense in the context of my post. Did you even read what I wrote? I made the point that the Americans weighed their options, perhaps a bit swayed by the convenient advantages of showing off this nuclear bomb (and yes these advantages were relevant, this is war and international politics after all).

I don't see how your notes on Unit 731 and kamikaze actions are relevant other than in an attempt to paint the Japanese as 'evil'. Okay. So? Are we now launching nukes to punish a people for being evil or something?

Sander is defending the japanese on a few maybes(there are holocaust deniers too) but clearly not mentioning the shit the japanese did do.

You're equating me claiming that Japanese capitulation may not have required the use of nuclear weapons to holocaust denial? Are you dead serious? Are you certain you do not wish to recant this entirely moronic statement?

 

[DarkCorp]

Geneva Convention? And you really believe that America is the only country that uses "enhanced interrogation techniques"?

Plenty of countries know about the geneva conventions but it doesn't mean they are being followed behind closed doors. The PRC seems to not follow such conventions when dealing with "the enemies of the people".

What about Russias FSB? You think there a bunch of carebears that just plays nice??

The problem here is NOBODY MENTIONES THAT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE PULLING THIS SHIT. Its always Americans this, and Americans that. If your not gonna bother to mention other guilty parties when dealing with crimes, then what does that make you?

 

[Professor Danger!]

The problem here is NOBODY MENTIONES THAT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE PULLING THIS SHIT. Its always Americans this, and Americans that. If your not gonna bother to mention other guilty parties when dealing with crimes, then what does that make you?

Probably because America is still considered a "superpower" by a lot of countries. We're looked to to help out when shit hits the fan. And we're also looked at when we fuck up. It sucks to be in the limelight. But when we're an important player on the world's stage, we have to deal with all the shit.

 

[DarkCorp]

@Sander

Evil is punished by evil. Thing is, nobody mentions how the japanese were evil. See my point.

America by no means is a saint for using atomic weapons. But the fact is its happened. Did you mention how America assisted the japanese recovery? or the revocery of europe? just seems like all you talk about is what the evil americans do.

The whole holocaust line was the fact that you clearly feel for the japanese and believe that they should not have been punished. You not once mentioned their crimes but yet defend them with such a zeal that most folks would find puzzling. thats like those idiots who wonder why the allies bombed germany to shit but have no idea what the allies are talkiing about when we mention the death camps.

 

[Sander]

Geneva Convention? And you really believe that America is the only country that uses "enhanced interrogation techniques"?

Plenty of countries know about the geneva conventions but it doesn't mean they are being followed behind closed doors. The PRC seems to not follow such conventions when dealing with "the enemies of the people".

What about Russias FSB? You think there a bunch of carebears that just plays nice??

The problem here is NOBODY MENTIONES THAT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE PULLING THIS SHIT. Its always Americans this, and Americans that. If your not gonna bother to mention other guilty parties when dealing with crimes, then what does that make you?

Holy fucking stick up your ass. And we weren't even discussing all that shit.

Maybe you should take the fact that people expect more of America than they do of Russia as a compliment rather than a condemnation.

Add to that, that despite what you seem to be arguing, there is no reason whatsoever to mention anyone else when talking about what America could've done differently. Sure, there's no doubt in my mind Stalin would've used those nuclear weapons sooner and more aggressively than the US did. That doesn't change a thing about the discussion at hand: whether or not it was necessary for those nuclear weapons to be used.

The US performed well and has probably been the empire that has abused its power and people the least throughout history. No one denies this. This does not, however, mean that the US is suddenly free from any criticism. In fact, one could say that American culture is supposed to thrive on criticism and debate.

The fact that someone is doing well or better than his counterparts does not mean that he is doing everything perfectly. You're hung up on criticism because 'but what about them!' (which, by the way, is something you hear 6-year-olds say when they've been caught nabbing cookies from the cookie jar). Well, fuck them. They're horrible, they're expected to do that shit, and they get flak for it too. You're the USA, you're the paragon of Western Judeo-Christian culture and morals, and people want and expect that high standard of ethics from you. Especially when outwardly the US does claim to be exactly that: the standard of freedom, individuality and morality everyone should aspire to.

America by no means is a saint for using atomic weapons. But the fact is its happened. Did you mention how America assisted the japanese recovery? or the revocery of europe? just seems like all you talk about is what the evil americans do.

It was a discussion on the use of nuclear weapons. What the fuck am I supposed to talk about, other than the decision to use those nuclear weapons, made by Americans?

I'm not denying any of the efforts the US made afterwards and I'm not defending Japanese war crimes at all. They're just not relevant to the discussion, which is why they don't get mentioned.

The whole holocaust line was the fact that you clearly feel for the japanese and believe that they should not have been punished. You not once mentioned their crimes but yet defend them with such a zeal that most folks would find puzzling. thats like those idiots who wonder why the allies bombed germany to shit but have no idea what the allies are talkiing about when we mention the death camps.

I'm defending them with zeal? What the fuck are you reading into these posts? If you mean that I see these people as people who can reason through things and aren't just RAH RAH FUCK EVERYONE then okay, I suppose that is defending them. But normal people who aren't trying to read things into my post that aren't even close to being there would see what I wrote as an analysis of the situation that brought Truman's administration to use nuclear weapons. Japanese war crimes are entirely irrelevant in that picture.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Oh for fucks sakes people need to get off that Japan stuff.

Does anyone know really how agressive the Japanese were??

They were kamikazying ships for fucks sakes. They simply were not going to give in.

The Nazis had a Werewolf insurgency plan, but apparently Hitler fucked the country up so bad that they didn't have the logistics and supply to carry it out. Otherwise, the same thing could have very well happened.

Dreseden was not bombed for some time and some believe today that it might not have been Bombed cause it was a likely target for a nuclear attack. Actualy there have been many plans to drop a nuke on Germany. But they didnt had Bombers ready in Britain if I remember correctly. Its hard to seperate the "myth" from the "truth" here.

...

Ever been to east european states? Do you know how much they hate Russians ...

Its definetly not just the USA that gets attacked for what it did. Believe me. I would go even so far to say that the US has a better reputation compared to Russia.

"It's war"? Didn't we have something created so that people would be treated civilly during "it's war" times? The Geneva convention?

I LOL hard at that, just because so many countries seem to not even care enough to act like they give a damn about the Convention. Also because it's difficult to keep troops from doing horrible things in war... I don't know why, exactly, but as far as I can tell that is the case. See: Japan, who didn't act like they knew what the Convention was. Not that I'm saying America is innocent, either; just look at the idiocy in Iraq, beheading prisoners.

Edit: Also, the FASCIST part was, I feel sure, an attempt to express the irrational hatred that often seems to be directed at America(ns), even though many/most countries have been or are worse than the U.S.

Its the emotions and feelings that usualy lead to Soldiers doing war crimes (if not ordered by the HQ which is a different situation I mean the individuals).

Many times people would suffer eventualy a battle fatigue or other mental stress and thus react different to how they would in usual situations. Like how people never got freaked out about all their comrads dieing, the blood and other cruelsome things they have seen in war cause they got used with it but later after the war as civlians suffer a schock like everyone else when beeing a wittnes to a horrorible car accident for example or dream about it and experience it while sleeping.

I think for many it is just usual to feel no mercy for the enemy if you seen your comrads and good friends torn apart or dieing in other cruelsome ways. The eastern front saw a lot of it. Frghting was extremly intenese particularly in Urban engagements where you had usualy people fighting bare hands for their survival and with everything they could grab. Here feelings are reduced to a minimum and eventualy overtaken by sheer agressivness. Simple survival instincts I guess at some point.

 

[DarkCorp]

@Sander

Do people actually buy into the shit that our government spews? People actually expect America to be different than any other country??

America does its best I guess in the way it runs their people (bread and circuses instead of violence).

Yes youa re right Sander, people shouldn't hold America in ideals. If they haven't learned that through history then oh well. Its like people know America has pulled bad shit throughout history yet still seem to be surprised that america still pulls that shit.

America are run by humans beings, some good, some bad. Just like any other country.

And BTW, this discussion was derailed into a SDI nuclear weapons topic. The first thing that Surf Solar said was why do people think better weapons technology is good? If you want to be technical, SDI is defensive and not really a "weapon" per say. Then the thread is further derailed by surf solar complaining about how americans bitch about everything.

When people mention if the japanese deserved nuclear retaliation, you have to talk about why they went to war. You have to talk about war crimes. You have to talk about how die hard the japanese miliatry was. Whether you agree with me or not, it has to be mentioned.

Just because they didn't know all the details of what japans imperialistic ambition was doesn't mean they weren't RAH RAH FUCK everyone else. In fact thats what the government was telling them to think. Wait, our government does the same shit but we are held to a higher standard just because our government says we are saints??

 

[Aphyosis]

Whoa, little heated but anyway.

@ Crni, i still don't understand the "Japan is irrelevant" thing. It happened decades ago, but as a scenario it can still be used as a example. Why would a country NOT want to be involved with MAD? Not having nukes does not make you exempt from receiving them, which is exactly what happened to Japan. Now, if the japs had A-Bombs, i betcha the yanks would have thought about dropping theirs a lot longer and harder.

MAD is not a perfect deal, i won't deny it, but its a very effective method of preventing nuclear launch's. If i was in Iran's position, i would want to have the capability to respond to Nuclear force and i fail to understand the "Your safer without them" position. Its the reason i expect them to continue with their Nuclear program and the reason i think the US And other country's are being unreasonable by telling them they can't have such weapons.

Lastly, MAD is not infallible when pertaining to nations, either. Specifically, what do you think will happen when desperate regimes get driven into a corner at wartime. Do you think North Korea would shy away from detonating a nuke if US troops were just outside its capital?

Oh, i agree completely. Its not infallible, but the thing is, in that Scenario the Koreans don't have much to lose do they? Even dictators or other country's might fire them, but they are forced to weigh up the consequences against the benefits. Most country's realize retribution for such a attack would likely cost their lives and country's and decide its not worth it. Like i said above, not infallible, but definitely the best method of deterring Nuclear launches we have.

 

[Hoxie]

I find it funny that so many try to justify nuking Japan with the whole "AHGAGA, THEY WERE BAAAAAAD" crap, sooooo, to show them they're bad, you drop two nuclear weapons on them and severely cripple and kill tons of innocent civilians? Sounds so much more better.

Anyone who flat out denies the Japanese did awful things is an idiot no doubt, but to say it's entirely fine that they had nuclear arms used on them for doing those things is just as stupid.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Whoa, little heated but anyway.

@ Crni, i still don't understand the "Japan is irrelevant" thing. It happened decades ago, but as a scenario it can still be used as a example. Why would a country NOT want to be involved with MAD? Not having nukes does not make you exempt from receiving them, which is exactly what happened to Japan. Now, if the japs had A-Bombs, i betcha the yanks would have thought about dropping theirs a lot longer and harder.

Cause it was simply 1945 not 1965 or 1985. You cant tell me the situation where the US was actualy in WAR with a nation is the same like the relation between the US and Soviets was during the cold war. Just compare the Cuba Crisis with WW2 and tell me it was the same. Or Able Archer for that matter. Even historians make here a difference or it would not be called WW2 and Cold War.

 

[Sander]

@Sander

Do people actually buy into the shit that our government spews? People actually expect America to be different than any other country??

America does its best I guess in the way it runs their people (bread and circuses instead of violence).

Yes youa re right Sander, people shouldn't hold America in ideals. If they haven't learned that through history then oh well. Its like people know America has pulled bad shit throughout history yet still seem to be surprised that america still pulls that shit.

America are run by humans beings, some good, some bad. Just like any other country.

Yes, when you project an image then people are going to hold you to that.

But more importantly, people don't hold the US to different standards than they hold other nations. They apply these same standards to their own nations and every other nation out there.
It's just that you're American and America is the most active nation in international politics, so it's a lot more natural to criticise America than it is to criticise a country like Uzbekistan.

When people mention if the japanese deserved nuclear retaliation,

Deserved nuclear retaliation? I never spoke about Japan deserving nuclear retaliation, I spoke about the pros and cons and necessity of using nuclear weapons to end the war. This had nothing to do with 'deserving' nuclear retaliation (and I'd say no one deserves nuclear retaliation), and it had nothing to do with Japanese war crimes.

 

[el_jefe_of_ny]

the US army and Marines physically interrogate all prisoners instantly upon capture.

Every one. ALL. Except maybe for those fake things that get released to cnn where you get non continuous camera shots taken from one camera, showing the same guys being led away quietly from a firefight with plastic handcuffs. Ask anyone in the army who is involved in aggressive attack assignments. The whole after the fact torture is the variable one. The thought out, after imprisonment torture is the questionable one. The right after the event, while the dickbag is pleading for its life, that is when you work them over a little to see where the rest of his friends are and what his mission was. They are not citizens and they are going to kill you and definately torture you.

Going back to Japan and Nukes.... What more can be said aside from it worked and Japan wanted to continue fighting to the death? What about the arming of civillians with inadequate weapons getting ready to use them as fodder for a possible Ally invasion? All before giving up. Mind you, the US was fighting for non-expansion. The Japanese were fighting for world dominance. At any point, giving up to the Allies meant peace and a return to pre-war boundaries and lifestyle. They were ready, the few in power, to sacrifice their innocent peoples to do a ground fight just to prove how... well... what? Bravado, inflated sense of self, a self imposed distortion of being an underdog. Look at China and Korea. THey were mass slaughtering, mass torturing and eventually systematically mass raping 100's of thousands of them. We should be glad that the US, the big meanie, had the nukes and the planes, otherwise, if another Asian country had them, Japan might be a desolate wasteland and possibly, justifiably so from their perspective.

 

[Sander]

Going back to Japan and Nukes.... What more can be said aside from it worked and Japan wanted to continue fighting to the death?

RA RA JAPANESE WILL DIE BEFORE PEACE FUCK YOU ALL

It's like people don't even pretend to think this through or, y'know, apply any sort of rationale to the situation.

After about 5 seconds of thought the fact that they didn't continue fighting until they were all dead should probably tell you that they didn't want to continue fighting until they were all dead, y'know.

What about the arming of civillians with inadequate weapons getting ready to use them as fodder for a possible Ally invasion? All before giving up. Mind you, the US was fighting for non-expansion. The Japanese were fighting for world dominance. At any point, giving up to the Allies meant peace and a return to pre-war boundaries and lifestyle. They were ready, the few in power, to sacrifice their innocent peoples to do a ground fight just to prove how... well... what? Bravado, inflated sense of self, a self imposed distortion of being an underdog. Look at China and Korea. THey were mass slaughtering, mass torturing and eventually systematically mass raping 100's of thousands of them. We should be glad that the US, the big meanie, had the nukes and the planes, otherwise, if another Asian country had them, Japan might be a desolate wasteland and possibly, justifiably so from their perspective.

Aaaaaaaand we're back to the 'The Japanese were evil, so those 200,000 or so civilians totally deserve to die!'

What juvenile reasoning is this? Kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, because their military was EVUUUUUULL.
Do you really think that the American high command ever thought 'Well these are some evil Japanese people so we should bomb the crap out of them!'
Bullshit. These decisions are based on practical issues: fast end to the war possibly reducing the total cost of human life (or at least US lives), additional advantages of showing off a nuclear weapon, sending a message (you fuck with us, we fuck you up) and so on.

 

[Crni Vuk]

That was mostly propaganda which was present for all forces in that time regardless if Brits, US, Soviets or Germans. There are probably black and white definetly. But there I think there is a lot more "gray" in it and the shades of gray. Sometimes you have more sometimes you have less. The usual soldiers among each other havnt been probably that different.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB2zujCJYYY[/youtube]

 

[DarkCorp]

@Sander

Like you said, there were a bunch of reasons the US dropped bombs on Japan. The biggest ones, (those you don't believe in), were the important ones, atleast to Truman when they think of how to sell it to the public.

Wouldn't it make sense that before all other reasons like the soviets, political expedience, show off the bomb, etc, the first step is to justify to the american people why the bomb was necessary. Otherwise, how could an administration get away with it?

The japaese were eating their own grenades, pulling banzai charges and crashing their planes into allied ships. You really believe the kempetai wouldn't have forced their civilians to fight to the death? Look at what the soviet commissars did to their own retreating troops, or what the ss regulars and waffen ss were doing to civillians who "believed the war was lost".

You want to talk about nuclear weapons without emotions than fine. Fuck all the horrible shit the japanese pulled. As far as I know, the scientists didn't really know all that much about radiation poisoning, or pretty much other long term effects of the atomic weapons. Our government figured we could either:

1. Learn from the Russians. They suffered some brutal urban combat. A force that simply would not give up and made you pay blood for every street. The waffen SS were even using children and old men because they just refused to quit.

2. Whether you believe it or not, the japanese were planning to fight to the death. Like the SS, the kempetai was more than willing to press its civillian population into doing their duty to fight off the "invaders", even if it meant to the death.

3. You have to uderstand unlike germany, the japanese military and secret police leadership was not broken. Thats the benefit when you are an island nation and not easily surrounded by ground forces like germany was.

4. The combination of japanese war crimes, sneak attack on pearl harbor, the soviets taking over japan, need to show off their new superweapon, and the honest threat that american casualties were going to be enormous among others, was more than enough reason to justify dropping the bomb. Against all this, there was no way in hell the japanese would be able to avoid getting nuked.

5. You want to talk about civillians casualties? You want to talk about PROS and CONS? How many cities were bombed into oblivion in europe? In the soviet union? In china? How many countless civillians on all sides were slaughtered due to carpet bombing, invasion, retaliation for resistance, etc? An invasion means sending in soldiers. That means lives lost. As another here has put it, when tempers flare, thats when atrocities are most likely to happen. Instead, we drop two horrific bombs on the country. A grand total of TWO cities were wrecked even if it meant heavy instant civillian casualties. Whats the better price to pay? Completely ruined infrastructure leaving the whole of the nation with nothing, a die hard resistance campaign forced upon the populace, lives on both sides lost with an invasion proper. OR, take out two cities, but save everyone else from what the kempetai had waiting for them? Save the nation. Try to salvage the best and brightest the nation has to offer and let them live their lives and to help rebuild the nation. Use thier lives to fulfill their filial obligations to their family and elderly instead of throwing it away for some fucked up ideology. In short, let the people have peace.

PS: They didn't continue fighting till they were all dead was because the were NUKED. Their infallible empeor, destined to rule the world by celestial right, couldn't do jack shit while two of japans cities were instantly vaporized. How much face did the emperor lose/the government/the kempetai, when it was the americans, and NOT, the japanese who had these superweapons? I don't care how much terror the japanese secret police can wield or how much propaganda they choose to whip out. After witnessing shit like that, there is no way in hell one could force the populace to continue to fight, whatever the tactics used.

 

[Sander]

Like you said, there were a bunch of reasons the US dropped bombs on Japan. The biggest ones, (those you don't believe in), were the important ones, atleast to Truman when they think of how to sell it to the public.

That's not a reason to drop a bomb, that's a way to justify it to the public after you've decided you want to do this. That's something entirely different. You don't go 'Hey I can justify this to the public, so let's just do it for fun!'

The japaese were eating their own grenades, pulling banzai charges and crashing their planes into allied ships. You really believe the kempetai wouldn't have forced their civilians to fight to the death?

No. Because they didn't. The Japanese stopped fighting. The incentive here was those nuclear weapons, so very clearly there's a point where they said 'Okay we're done'. The question is whether or not those weapons were that point, or whether it could've been reached at a much lower cost in human lives. That's the evaluation here.

Completely ruined infrastructure leaving the whole of the nation with nothing, a die hard resistance campaign forced upon the populace, lives on both sides lost with an invasion proper.

Gogo false dichotomy!