Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 23, 2012, 04:07:36 PM

I dont disagree.

I was still a kid, but I saw plenty of US, civilian casualties during Vietnam. My neighborhood got hit hard. I think there were quite a few people that would have preferred being nuked, over the anguish of losing their kids, boyfriends, fiances, etc.

War sucks.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 23, 2012, 01:54:05 PM

Im not suggesting a ground war would have been more effective, I'm saying it would've been more honorable than nuking civilians. 

Yes...because allowing 2 million people to die rather than 200 thousand is so much more honorable.   

"There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending."
-Abraham Lincoln, Star Trek: The Savage Curtain

-Dr Watt

Quote from: bluelieu on July 24, 2012, 01:07:06 PM
Yes...because allowing 2 million people to die rather than 200 thousand is so much more honorable.   

Allowing people to fight each other in armed combat is more honorable than dropping an atomic bomb on children. 


Both aren't good, but one is more honorable than the other, IMO. 

Quote from: Dr_Watt on July 24, 2012, 04:01:39 PM
"There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending."
-Abraham Lincoln, Star Trek: The Savage Curtain

-Dr Watt

"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." ( Lincoln Lyceum Address, January 27, 1838)

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 24, 2012, 04:11:19 PM


Allowing people to fight each other in armed combat is more honorable than dropping an atomic bomb on children. 


Both aren't good, but one is more honorable than the other, IMO.

You do know that at the end of WW2, the Japanese government was training house wives to use bamboo spears, and children as suicide bombers, to dive under tanks with satchel charges in a backpack. You do know that in the softening up process before the landing, the US was going to use air assets to destroy the Japanese transportation system, which would have meant starvation in Japans overcrowded cities. And of course the Japanese high command had issued orders for their troops to kill all prisoners in their hands the minute the first allied foot stepped on Japanese soil. So explain to me again what's honorable about having to treat EVERYONE Japanese - man, woman, and child - as a combatant, out of necessity.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 24, 2012, 04:21:36 PM
You do know that at the end of WW2, the Japanese government was training house wives to use bamboo spears, and children as suicide bombers, to dive under tanks with satchel charges in a backpack. You do know that in the softening up process before the landing, the US was going to use air assets to destroy the Japanese transportation system, which would have meant starvation in Japans overcrowded cities. And of course the Japanese high command had issued orders for their troops to kill all prisoners in their hands the minute the first allied foot stepped on Japanese soil. So explain to me again what's honorable about having to treat EVERYONE Japanese - man, woman, and child - as a combatant, out of necessity.

Nothings honorable about treating non combatants as combatants.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 24, 2012, 04:11:19 PM


Allowing people to fight each other in armed combat is more honorable than dropping an atomic bomb on children. 


Both aren't good, but one is more honorable than the other, IMO.

There is nothing honorable in an additional 1.8 million dead...That was the estimate, 2 million vs. 200,000.  Furthermore, if you look at the pre-battle estimates for the Pacific Theater, they were always grossly underestimated.

Quote from: bluelieu on July 24, 2012, 05:31:25 PM
There is nothing honorable in an additional 1.8 million dead...That was the estimate, 2 million vs. 200,000.  Furthermore, if you look at the pre-battle estimates for the Pacific Theater, they were always grossly underestimated.

Damn Blue, don't you know that killing an additional 2 million is the honorable thing to do?

Libs, ya gotta luv the logic...

The writer Paul Fussell wrote "Thank God For the Atom Bomb". Google it, it's a pdf.
Or here's Bill Whittle on, Truman being labeled a war criminal by Jon Stewart, for dropping the bombs:
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=1808
Fish you should check them out.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 24, 2012, 04:39:57 PM
Nothings honorable about treating non combatants as combatants.

In the case of Japan, the non-combatants were unbelievably blessed by never becoming combatants. The children with their satchel charges and their mothers with their poisoned spears never became the front line.

But their conversion from non-combatants to combatants was just exactly one invasion away. Those Japanese children and mothers and old men were already trained, already assigned positions, already dispersed to kill the American invaders in every conceivable way. We were as right as can be about stopping the Japanese with every tool at our disposal.

EVERYONE involved is better off that it didn't come to invasion. Everyone is better off because the Japanese government  -- led by the nose by Hirohito -- saw the futility and the unimaginable cost of continuing what had already become a clinging, humiliating defeat at arms. Our government, in its turn, backed away from the previous demand for "unconditional surrender" in that we allowed the Japanese the important (to them) dignity (a hollow one, but nonetheless...) of retaining their precious emperor in office.

But in the case of invasion of the Japanese home islands, make no mistake -- the people of the Rising Sun would have done ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to stop it.

Don't worry fish, the left has paid back for our war crime..............with interest.


Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, there have been approximately 50 million abortions performed in the United States.


http://www.whyprolife.com/abortion-facts/

Every one of them, US civilian casualties. Feel better?

Is this barbaric?

Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions
Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238 Aug 1, 2008

Quote from: kramarat on July 25, 2012, 03:16:46 AM
Don't worry fish, the left has paid back for our war crime..............with interest.


Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, there have been approximately 50 million abortions performed in the United States.


http://www.whyprolife.com/abortion-facts/

Every one of them, US civilian casualties. Feel better?

Is this barbaric?

Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions
Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238 Aug 1, 2008

It is out there how so many don't see abortion as killing.  I wish We could sterilize people if they are repeat offenders. Men and women alike.   

Quote from: mdgiles on July 24, 2012, 06:39:52 PM
The writer Paul Fussell wrote "Thank God For the Atom Bomb". Google it, it's a pdf.
Or here's Bill Whittle on, Truman being labeled a war criminal by Jon Stewart, for dropping the bombs:
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=1808
Fish you should check them out.

Will do, thanks for the link.

Quote from: tbone0106 on July 24, 2012, 07:55:50 PM
In the case of Japan, the non-combatants were unbelievably blessed by never becoming combatants. The children with their satchel charges and their mothers with their poisoned spears never became the front line.

But their conversion from non-combatants to combatants was just exactly one invasion away. Those Japanese children and mothers and old men were already trained, already assigned positions, already dispersed to kill the American invaders in every conceivable way. We were as right as can be about stopping the Japanese with every tool at our disposal.

EVERYONE involved is better off that it didn't come to invasion. Everyone is better off because the Japanese government  -- led by the nose by Hirohito -- saw the futility and the unimaginable cost of continuing what had already become a clinging, humiliating defeat at arms. Our government, in its turn, backed away from the previous demand for "unconditional surrender" in that we allowed the Japanese the important (to them) dignity (a hollow one, but nonetheless...) of retaining their precious emperor in office.

But in the case of invasion of the Japanese home islands, make no mistake -- the people of the Rising Sun would have done ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to stop it.

Im not disagreeing that things for many were better off by us dropping the bombs, but Im not ever going to call the action honorable.  You guys have convinced me of the possibility of its necessity, and even helped me see how I may have done the same if had the same information, and the ability, but I wouldn't call my own actions honorable. To be honest,  I doubt I could've lived with myself after either.   


So, all that said, side some name calling,  it's been a good conversation/debate. Don't get me wrong, you fucks are crazy old bats with huge chips on your shoulders for anything possibly liberal leaning, but there's some really good information here and there that You all allow, thanks for sharing.