Gorgon

You can't complain when you aren't present.

uhh, me ?

I wonder how that stacks up per annum versus the general death rate after the invasion. Hard to tell since the US and the Iraqi authority in their wisdom decided not to count. Sadam was in power how many years, 20+ ?

But towards the end ? I mean, bomb what, Berlin, just before it was about to fall, somehow I think not. It's not that that the US was somehow worse that i'm trying to suggest here, simply that the action may/should have been avoided. The argument that they did not surrender in the days after the first bomb does not rule out the concept of surrender without the bombings at all, and again, the hypothetical casualty rates in the event of invasion assumes there would be one. These are all assumptions, and they are convenient to hide behind. Bargaining and some kind of fig leaf for the emperor and his cronies that would enable a surrender was another possible outcome, and as mentioned I am not alone in this assessment, in the words of then General Eisenhower ; "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." The political message was, as mentioned, quite unmistakable, but to begin in the language of 'world communism' to suggest all kinds of outlandish machinations by Soviet Russia and that the bomb prevented these as well, it's just another example of selective memory, and history writing.

We are discussing the nukes because that was the subject, you are wellcome to start a new thread about Dresden, the einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe, Stalin's massacres, etc. if you want.

It is commonly represented as an 'either-or' scenario, either the bombs were dropped on two population centers or there would have to be a full scale invasion. The fact is, the Japanese posed no significant threat to anyone in their battered state. Their fleets destroyed and all sigificant holdouts in the Pacific taken. Trueman wanted the troops home before christmas, and here was a much appreciated chance to get the war overwith. The commonly accepted idea that that this final, perhaps unnecessary, act of destruction saved milions is equal parts guesswork and wishful thinking. Yes, the invasion would have been extremely costly on both sides, but we are assuming too much here. None of the powers involved in WW2 can be said to be without their own stories of mass killings of civilians, this is all common knowledge, and while the outcome still hung in the balance none would have hesitated to use new super weapons. When the bombs were dropped we were in the closing act, where no question remained who would be the victors. The political message of Hiroshima and Nakasaki was unmistakable though, it brough into existance the worlds first superpower.

Training in flashy sounding acronyms is mandatory in officer school.

" Don't get me wrong, the events of August 1945 are in no way, shape, or form a high point in American history. Unforunately, the decision to use the bomb was one that was hoisted upon the US by the Japanese. Attempts were made to end the war without the kind of wholesale loss of life that was witnessed those two days. As was mentioned before, anyone who thinks that the Japanese were not prepared to fight to the bitter end need only look at the fact that it took TWO bombs and several days for them to finally surrender." The US could have chosen another less densely populated target, but, they wanted effect. They didn't warn them because they wanted to make sure the bombers had a clear path. There were alternatives though that did not necessarily include the invasion of mainland Japan. Two bombs could have been dropped at minor sites. One prominent disident was Eisenhower. Churchil and Trueman had both comitted fully to the motto of 'unconditional surrender', to the point where no other kind of surrender would be considered, even if one had existed that would have shortened the war. This was a time and a war where the lives of civilians meant very little on both sides though, the only thing about this that really irks me is the idea that those bombs saved milions of lives, there is no evidence for it, other than a comparison of casualty rates in the even of an invasion. That is not fact, it's conjecture, and it's a bit too convenient.

Won't be long now before some American comes along and tells us all what an icredible act of mercy the bombings were, and how many million lives they saved.

These things might work against a fortified position, or even ambushing near a roadside, but they are pretty useless in a crowded city. How long do you think it would take before one got stolen and sold for parts.

The US seems to be going through another one of those phases were the word '****' is not allowed to be used in the more colloquial Chris Rock/Richard Pryer sense. I maintain that the word is not always racist, and not in this instance anyway.

Doesen't sound racist, unless the owner of the car is black that is

Never liked his movies that much.

What did you do, gank someone for his gold chains ?

Why would I want to run a mile, whos chasing me ?

Tough crowd

Humans should live to be around 260, that would be enough time to suck in the experience without being rushed.

I have moderated my position on capital punishment. A little. But this guy attempted to murder somone earlier in his life and was sentenced to 30 years in prision. He was let out early and what was the first thing he did? Murder someone. It seems if the prisons are just going to let these vermin go, excecuting them is the only way to keep us safe. I'll abandon my support for capital punishment the day the US adopts truth in sentencing laws. If you draw a 30 year sentence, you spend 30 years in prison. If you get life, you leave the prision in a body bag. Plus US prisions are far too nice. They have air conditioning, cable TV, libraries, etc. If they were more like the one in The Count of Monte Cristo then I would say we don't need the death penalty. You can argue that capital punishment is not effective but I do not see how. This guy got a 30 year sentence and murdered someone later. If he is exceuted for this he will not be killing anyone else will he? It is possible to sentence someone to life without parole, that means they will not be eligable to come before the parole board. Barring pardon, they are there for the duration.

Here we go again arguing for the death penalty using one of these spectacular headline acts of violence. It deosen't become any more intelligent with repetition. Legistation affecting everyone and emotional and shock appeal headlines do not mix.

They assassinated him years ago, but, it would be detrimental to strategic goals to release the information.

**** I stepped on my glasses, again. Now I can't see well enough to write

I guess it's the glass being half full kinda thing, looking around at the world and going 'wow how amazing, god must have created that'. Thats fine and all, but it's not an actual argument, it's emotion.

**** ?

The only reason this discussion even exists is as a kindness to the biblical screwballs. Had it been anything other than established religion proposing that the world was created mere thousands of years ago, ruling out dinosaurs among other things, no one would ever have wasted their breath discussing it.

Paganism has a lot of flavor, I mean, human sacrifice, giant wickermen barbecues. The hippies gave it a bad name, but that ain't the fault of the religion. Naturalistic religions aren't more ridiculous than believing god made Adam out of one of his ribs, while were on the subject of BBQ