A Little Debate About North Korea

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Kevin, Apr 6, 2013.

  1. Mr.Bond

    Mr.Bond Big Ass Dog

    Man of the Year has nothing to do with admiration, it has to do with the influence that person had on the world that year....
  2. Mr.Bond

    Mr.Bond Big Ass Dog


    By the time the Brits bombed Dresden, the Germans had been bombing London....for years and now were sending V2 missiles into civilian areas........

    The civilian deaths at Dresden would be used by two political machines as propaganda. First, the Nazi Propaganda Ministry would attempt to use this to stir public resentment against the Allied invaders. Then during the Cold War, Soviet propaganda would describe this bombing as western cruelty, alienating the East Germans with the British and Americans. Churchill, too, started to feel guilty of the widespread destruction the western Allies had caused in Germany, even though he was an early proponent of bombing German cities. In a memorandum sent to Harris, Churchill noted that
    It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing terror, should be reviewed.... I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives..., rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction.
  3. Mr.Bond

    Mr.Bond Big Ass Dog

    What about when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Was it over? HUH?

    And I am not pro bombing London or Dresden...
    SifuPhil and Kevin like this.
  4. Mr.Bond

    Mr.Bond Big Ass Dog

  5. MattCMMA

    MattCMMA Master


    War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court—that the U.S. has refused to support—which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity. - Robert McNamara
  6. Enkidu

    Enkidu Destroyer of your martial arts fantasies

    In my mind, the fire-bombing of Dresden was most certainly a war crime. It really served no military purpose other than strictly retaliatory.

    I am of a different view of the use of the atomic weapons against Japan, although it is, by no means, an easy question. To put this in perspective, the Japanese were a fanatical enemy that didn't surrender and were willing to commit suicide to kill American soldiers, sailors, and Marines. The battle of Okinawa, the first fought on Japanese land, was an insanely bloody affair with the Japanese fighting tooth and nail for every inch of ground. American dead and wounded were quite high (something like 80,000) and Japanese military losses were something like 100,000 (with almost all of those being KIA due to the unwillingness of the Japanese soldier to surrender). Civilian losses were astoundingly high with estimates ranging from as low as about 50k all the way up to 150k.

    After the fall of Germany, the allies had been calling on the Japanese to surrender, which demands repeatedly fell on dead ears. By all accounts, Japan sure appeared like it was willing to fight to the last man, woman, and child. The US Invasion plan of Japan was estimating casualties on a truly staggering level based on the American experience fighting against a fanatical enemy who would not surrender defending their homeland.

    Japan was repeatedly warned that it would face utter destruction if it persisted in the war, yet it continued fighting tooth and nail. Ultimately, the goal of the atomic weapon was to get Japan to surrender to save both American, but also, ultimately, Japanese lives. The goal was to show the futility of continued fighting based on the deployment of a super weapon (it should also be noted that the military value of the targets was a consideration ).

    If there is any doubt that the American assessment of the Japanese willingness to fight to the end wasn't just made-up as an excuse to drop the bombs, consider this: After the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Japanese STILL DIDN'T SURRENDER despite being given an opportunity to do so and being told that we had another one and would use it if they didn't. Moreover, even after the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki there were many Japanese generals who still wanted to fight to the bitter end and refuse to surrender.

    Frankly, the use of the two atomic bombs against Japan probably saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives. It is easy to sit back in our armchairs decades later and talk of these bombings as unnecessary and war crimes and pontificate what the "real" reasons were that the US used them (often racism or sending a message to the Soviets is cited), but I think this is revisionist history.

    Ultimately, although not an easy determination to make by any stretch of the imagination, I think the use of atomic weapons against Japan was justified and ultimately saved far more lives in the end.
  7. Mr.Bond

    Mr.Bond Big Ass Dog


    I agree....but big difference between bombing Dresden during WW2 and Bombing NYC in 9/11. Which goes back to why Dresden came up in the first place. A moral equivalency argument to the Palestinians dancing in the streets and handing out candy on 9/11, and stating that the allies danced in the streets when Dresden was bombed. I have no evidence of the latter, but have videos of the former.

    There is a difference, ....one was a declared war, the other was a terrorist attack.
  8. Mr.Bond

    Mr.Bond Big Ass Dog

  9. MattCMMA

    MattCMMA Master

  10. DeeD

    DeeD Nak Muay

    TIME’s Person of the Year is bestowed by the editors on the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or ill, and embodied what was important about the year. See who made the grade over TIME’s first eight decades.

    Read more: http://poy.time.com#ixzz2QMQBkxNC
    Mr.Bond likes this.
  11. Mr.Bond

    Mr.Bond Big Ass Dog

    Matt, great! You are learning!
  12. MattCMMA

    MattCMMA Master

    Oh yeah..so much that I returned my degree and enrolled in bond's close minded university. I'm sure it will do much better then my previous one.
    Kevin likes this.
  13. Mr.Bond

    Mr.Bond Big Ass Dog

    I am so close minded that I opened your eyes...
  14. MattCMMA

    MattCMMA Master

    I will admit some ignorance. I forgot for a short while that even with the vast knowledge at the fingertips of everyone on the internet, that some people can still feed on what their government tells them and believe it. But thanks to you..you've opened my eyes
  15. Enkidu

    Enkidu Destroyer of your martial arts fantasies

    Well, I have no idea whether people danced in the street when Dresden was fire-bombed or not, nor does it matter much to me, as it was a war crime either way. Dresden wasn't targeted because a calculus was made that such an act would immediately end the war saving countless lives. Dresden wasn't chosen because it was of any military significance. Dresden wasn't warned that something like this was coming. The choice to bomb Dresden, and to do it in the manner that was chosen was to create maximum casualties among the civilian population as a form of revenge for the terror inflicted on the citizens of London during the Blitz (and the regular V-rocket strikes against the city). Obviously the Nazis were war criminals in what they did, but just because your enemy commits a war crimes doesn't give you carte blanche to return the favor. Obviously every war in the history of man, regardless of the justness of the cause of participants, involves some war crimes being committed by some of the combatants (and often a handful of incidents are cherry-picked to claim that such behavior was widespread, policy, or that a blind eye was turned to such behavior -- frankly, that is exactly what Kevin was doing when he referenced rape by US troops in Vietnam). But it is a different order of magnitude when criminal acts are ordered from those in charge. Even the most disciplined and moral military will have degenerates in its ranks who will do degenerate things, but when those in power order such acts, it is much different.

    In no way are my criticisms of the fire bombing of Dresden meant to let Nazi Germany off the hook for its far more widespread and egregious policies of criminal behavior that were observed throughout the rank and file of the German military (and often to its citizenry as well who happily let their neighbors be taken off to death camps because of their bigotry). Similarly, just because what the Nazis did was far more egregious and widespread doesn't mean we have to pretend that the internment of Japanese-Americans wasn't a heinous unconstitutional crime that is contrary to the principles upon which our country was supposed to stand for.

    Now, I happen to think that people are quick to throw around the phrase "war crime" (or equivalent words) such that the words tend to lose their meaning because if pretty much everything is a war crime, then nothing is. War is dirty ugly business and often times it is impossible to avoid killing civilians to be able to conduct war. Sometimes it is through misidentification of targets, sometimes by bullets or bombs going astray, sometimes by pure accident, sometimes by left over unexploded weaponry, sometimes because a valid target is so entrenched among civilians that it is unavoidable, and sometimes, because a cold-blooded calculation must be made that such killing will save more lives in the end. Obviously war is not antiseptic the way some people wish it to be, and with the spread of the powers of journalism first to television, then to the Internet and through social media, quite obviously there are many who will use any civilian deaths for propaganda and scream "war crimes" (and often cry crocodile tears over the brutality of their enemies to kill "women and children" ignoring the fact that such women and children were being used as human shields).

    But just because the phrase has been overused (almost to the point of meaningless now) doesn't mean that there aren't still genuine war crimes committed all the time, and sometimes by those in charge of "our side" -- and just because "they do it to" doesn't mean "our side" is permitted (or morally should) stoop to their level. Obviously their are gradations of war crimes (they are not all equal) and clearly when talking about them, they should also be put in context so as not to make some sort of false moral equivalency argument, or to somehow excuse one side from what it has done. I would never make a moral equivalency between Nazi Germany's war crimes and crimes against humanity and the Allies, but that doesn't mean that the Allied powers' hands were entirely clean either.
    Mr.Bond, Kevin and DeeD like this.
  16. Kevin

    Kevin Admin Staff Member

    This is where your arguments keep failing. Rather than linking to a balanced view of him, you link to a far-right activist that posts videos without the context they were filmed.

    His debate against the USA senate negates many of the arguments that guy presents.

    Again, he is not a communist. He's a socialist. Repeating that he is a communist over and over, despite being presented with facts to the contrary, does not make him so.

    I don't agree with all his views, but there is no disputing that he has done a lot of good in the UK, and in the world, raising money for worthy charities, and going against crooked politicians.
  17. Enkidu

    Enkidu Destroyer of your martial arts fantasies

    Regardless of his political affiliations, George Galloway is a douchebag of epic proportions.
    Caneman likes this.
  18. Kevin

    Kevin Admin Staff Member

    For the 50th time, you are missing the point. You spoke about how the war could have ended earlier. I was trying to illustrate that the world was a different place then, and the world viewed certain leaders in a different light to how they are viewed today (this comes back to Matt's quote about history being shaped by the victor). Will you at least agree that Time magazine would not give their award to someone who was perceived as a dictator at the time (which is why Hitler didn't win it after 1938)?
  19. Enkidu

    Enkidu Destroyer of your martial arts fantasies

    Honestly, who cares what Time Magazine's criteria were for naming the Man of the Year? A handful of editors for one magazine certainly don't speak to how various world leaders were perceived throughout the United States or the West. This line of debate is meaningless.
  20. Kevin

    Kevin Admin Staff Member

    Many of the debates I read said that the second bomb was unnecessary. I have read both sides of this argument, and do not profess to be an expert on the subject, though I have read many articles that conflict with what you wrote above.

    I did a quick search on Google and found this article: http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/db_article.php?article_id=381

    I'm not sure if the above statement is true. If the Japanese were trying to surrender, then I would say that the argument that the atomic bombs were used to stop the war are invalid.
    SifuPhil and MattCMMA like this.

Share This Page