Was United 93 an inspirational movie?

[Fenghuang]

Because LoneWolf's a goddamn hippy?

[LoneWolf16]

So why not film a test?

 

And I know it must have seemed like a quick, easy solution...but...damn it, why couldn't they have been patient a few weeks longer, then there's a huge chance it would have ended peacefully?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A better question would be why not surrender after the first bomb ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, that is a much better question. No arguments here.

 

Because LoneWolf's a goddamn hippy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I look the part, shaggy hair and all...and the desire to see things end without unnecessary death.

 

Those people didn't deserve it. If it's a group, or person who does, on the other hand...let the annihilation begin!

[Fenghuang]

Sh!t happens. Those people were collateral damage and averted potentially much worse and extensive pain and suffering over a longer period of time.

 

Have to think tactically when it comes to war, because if you aren't willing to make sacrifices to win your enemy sure will be.

[LoneWolf16]

No ****. In a time of war, were I in charge, if it came down to it, I'd have made the call too. But only if there were no other alternative.

[julianw]

A better question would be why not surrender after the first bomb ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because they dropped the second bomb within three days? The Japanese government was scrambling to keep its citizens calm as well as assessing the damage and weighing the little options they have left. Even with today's high-speed communications, when 9/11 happened, Bush kept reading his children's book for another 20 minutes and then disappeared into Air Force 1 and flied blindly in the sky for another two hours while Chaney went hiding in a bunker. President Bush did not address the nation until half a day later. How can you expect the Japanese to respond with a non-conditional surrender within 72 hours?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Because they dropped the second bomb within three days? The Japanese government was scrambling to keep its citizens calm as well as assessing the damage and weighing the little options they have left.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In other words they were weighing up whether or not to surrender.

[kirottu]

Kirottu, without the USA in WW2 a lot of allied soldiers would be dead: my father included.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have nothing against USA joining/making the allied forces in WW2. In light of history you can clearly point finger at nazi Germany and Japan and say "Evil".

[julianw]

@Paladin - Right. US should have given Japan more time. If Bush was running the Japanese government, they probably needed weeks to respond, once they got him out of the bombshelter first.

Edited May 7, 2006 by julianw

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

@Paladin - Right. US should have given Japan more time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think your missing the point of unconditional surrender.

[julianw]

What am I missing then? 72 hours are hardly enough time to make a decision this important. It's as if someone was just slapped hard in the face and as he was standing there dumbfounded, the guy slapped him again.

Edited May 7, 2006 by julianw

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

What am I missing then? 72 hours are hardly enough time to make a decision this important. It's as if someone was just slapped hard in the face and as he was standing there dumbfounded, the guy slapped him again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is nothing to decide. You either quit or you carry on fighting. If you don't quit , then the other side has every right to hit you again before you hit them.

[Fenghuang]

I think a more apt analogy would be someone gets decked, falls to the floor, then gets up ready to fight again.

[LoneWolf16]

Actually, a better analogy would be to lose a major city within a single night, then be given three days to assess the damage, try to figure out what the hell happened, and bring all your people to the conclusion that surrender is inevitable...then lose another city after that third day.

 

Wait...

Edited May 7, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[julianw]

There is nothing to decide. You either quit or you carry on fighting. If you don't quit , then the other side has every right to hit you again before you hit them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

'Either quit or carry on fighting': that is a very big decision to make and it's not one man's decision either. People held meetings about this stuff. People who didn't really care that much for inncoent lives.

 

Are the Japanese at that point any threat to the US? No. They have no oil to run their tanks and ships and all their trained soldiers are killed already. The only incentives for US to drop the bomb are: 1) show strength to the Russians who has become a threat and 2) avoid a land invasion of Japan, which they had no plan to start in three days after Hiroshima. The US had all the time in the world to wait for an response. Instead, they decided to drop another atomic bomb on another city heavily populated with civilians after merely three days.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

'Either quit or carry on fighting': that is a very big decision to make and it's not one man's decision either. People held meetings about this stuff. People who didn't really care that much for inncoent lives.

 

Are the Japanese at that point any threat to the US? No. They have no oil to run their tanks and ships and all their trained soldiers are killed already. The only incentives for US to drop the bomb are: 1) show strength to the Russians who has become a threat and 2) avoid a land invasion of Japan, which they had no plan to start in three days after Hiroshima. The US had all the time in the world to wait for an response. Instead, they decided to drop another atomic bomb on another city heavily populated with civilians after merely three days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At that stage I would have thought it was pretty straightforward. You cant blame the Americans for the Japanese disregard of their people anymore than you can blame the allies for having to fight to the gates of Berlin because Adolf wouldnt throw in the towel.

 

You can be a threat without having the power to threaten the country directly.

[metadigital]

So why not film a test?

 

And I know it must have seemed like a quick, easy solution...but...damn it, why couldn't they have been patient a few weeks longer, then there's a huge chance it would have ended peacefully?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Film it?

 

And show it how? This was 1945: no satellite, no tv, and even in Wesern countries news was delivered weekly, via cinema ... oh, I know they could use their broadband!

 

Your grip on geopolitics and historical perpective is very tenuous.

 

Answer me this: what good would a delay do?

It's not like the Japanese Imperial government held a referendum! It was still the decision of one man (Emperor Hirohito), possibly after convincing his war cabinet (<10 men), to surrender. That takes three minutes, not three days.

 

Wait for the farmers to attempt a coup? Because that would result in less civilian casualties?

There is nothing to decide. You either quit or you carry on fighting. If you don't quit , then the other side has every right to hit you again before you hit them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

'Either quit or carry on fighting': that is a very big decision to make and it's not one man's decision either. People held meetings about this stuff. People who didn't really care that much for inncoent lives.

 

Are the Japanese at that point any threat to the US? No. They have no oil to run their tanks and ships and all their trained soldiers are killed already. The only incentives for US to drop the bomb are: 1) show strength to the Russians who has become a threat and 2) avoid a land invasion of Japan, which they had no plan to start in three days after Hiroshima. The US had all the time in the world to wait for an response. Instead, they decided to drop another atomic bomb on another city heavily populated with civilians after merely three days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stop being an apologist for the militaristic Japanese fascists.

 

Iwo Jima

 

You seem to be very keen to give value to the civilians of Japan ... what about the Allied conscripts who were trying to end the war, that was started by the Axis, as quickly as possible for both sides? Their lives are forfeit because they have a gun?

[Lucius]

I think using 3 'roll eyes' emotes in one post goes against some sort of forum rule.

 

Edit: As does spam... soo... :ph34r:

Edited May 7, 2006 by Lucius

[Fenghuang]

Butterfly? ^_^

[Lucius]

I didn't get it. ^_^

[kirottu]

That takes three minutes, not three days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would think choosing a fate for over 100 million people takes more than 3 minutes.

[metadigital]

They were the aggressors, they were being asked to capitulate to surrender (n.b. NOT ANNIHILATION, merely a ceasation of hostilities).

 

And it wasn't like Japan was winning, either: they had been steadily losing since the Battle of Midway, and all that was up for debate was whether the Allies would have to invade the Japanese mainland.

[LoneWolf16]

So why not film a test?

 

And I know it must have seemed like a quick, easy solution...but...damn it, why couldn't they have been patient a few weeks longer, then there's a huge chance it would have ended peacefully?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Film it?

 

And show it how? This was 1945: no satellite, no tv, and even in Wesern countries news was delivered weekly, via cinema ... oh, I know they could use their broadband!

 

Your grip on geopolitics and historical perpective is very tenuous.

 

Answer me this: what good would a delay do?

It's not like the Japanese Imperial government held a referendum! It was still the decision of one man (Emperor Hirohito), possibly after convincing his war cabinet (<10 men), to surrender. That takes three minutes, not three days.

 

Wait for the farmers to attempt a coup? Because that would result in less civilian casualties?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All righty. You could film it, then send it to the Emperor, along with the necessary equipment, with one of the diplomats.

 

I knew that. All of that, in fact. Thank you for telling me something I already know, then being mean about it.

 

Look at Kirottu's post. That sizes it up pretty nicely. As was said earlier, it took our country most of the day to get their act together after the WTC incident in 2001. There's a big time difference there...but a same guiding principle. It takes a while to make important decisions regarding one's country.

[Llyranor]

Why not target the military?

[LoneWolf16]

'Cause that would make sense...

[Llyranor]

Would it necessarily have?

 

Would the Emperor have surrended if two bases/armies/fleets were wiped out? Or would the Japanese be more convinced of the evils of the American swines and strengthen their resolve? Losing two cities is kinda demoralizing. It's easy to see 'right' and 'wrong' in hindsight, isn't it?

 

Was it the right decision? Heh.