Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on November 20, 2007, 09:52:25 PM
-
Discuss.
:cool:
-
And right now, the Patriots have the 2nd pick in next years draft, w00t!
-
Bill Belicheat? :huh
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Bill Belicheat? :huh
lol, yeah, he cheated the 49ers
"Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"
-
Not to derail my thread that basically states that Democrats are murderous bastiges, but...at the threat of further derailment....I'm guessing the majority of the country will discount any potential undefeated season by the Pats due to the shadow of the the cheating that was publicized earlier in the year. Kind of like the Barry Bonds thing...yeah, broke a record, but had to cheat to get there.
What a terrible time to be a Pats fan. :rofl
-
Back on topic. Too bad today's neolibs have lost the resolve of yesteryear's dems.
-
:lol
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Back on topic. Too bad today's neolibs have lost the resolve of yesteryear's dems.
"Neolibs"....LMAO!!!!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
What a terrible time to be a Pats fan. :rofl
yeah, those 23 and a half point spreads are killing us
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Not to derail my thread that basically states that Democrats are murderous bastiges, ....
Well, I can't give Democrats the credit for building it any more than supposed blame for using it.
However... Had the bombs not been deployed and the effects witnessed on a live fire scale, .. who's to say that the unknown effect would not have actually led to a far more widespread usage sometime later, simply because John Q Public wouldn't have been able to comprehend their destructive power without rubbing their nose in it?
Because we saw the carnage, pain, and destruction they caused, I can't help but think that has been a major reason we haven't seen it since.
-
(http://x45.xanga.com/f16c527716135158626688/w119123172.jpg)
Could a kind Russian speaker translate this display of artillery museum in St Petersburg? I don't want to miss House MD which is showing in 6 minutes.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Discuss.
:cool:
...It's easy to use the benefit of hindsight, that over half-a-century of history affords us, after the fact. We can sit back and pick shots at who used the bomb, who built it, or on whom it was used. But can we honestly look back and say that we ourselves, would have made those same decisions', knowing all the consequenses, in all fairness to Roosevelt and Truman? We might be able to come back to these boards' in 30 years, pick through all of the threads' on why we should or should not be in Iraq, and use the benefit of hindsight to say who was right or who was wrong. But, when you look at those same threads' today, while it is going on, You see people saying things' about Iraq that might or might not be true in a few decades' time.
I think, Rip, that it's too hard for most people, to honestly put themselves' in the same shoes as FDR or Truman, and to consider everything the same way they had to, without using our 'hindsight' to throw our judment askew.
-
Wow. I see a rock, too. :D
-
Or I could do that myself.
"While waiting for USSR to enter conflict with Japan, ruling circle of US decided to use atomic weapons verses Japan. On 6th and 9th August American aviation dropped two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As a result of those weapons, 447 thousand civilian people were killed or maimed. No military actions of this nature were needed; fate of Japan was already resolved. Detonation of those weapons are a heavy crime verses humanity. It was atomic blackmail with goals aimed at getting world hegemony after world war, a first act of cold war."
-
Im going to have to agree with the 'un-patriotic bastage' point of view on the atom bomb droppings, in that I dont really feel that such destruction of life is necessary. I also dont agree with the fire bombings of Japanese and German cities. I also dont agree with the slaughter of millions of people based on the fact that they were Jewish. I guess thats the way I am...
(before anyone takes that out of context, NO, I was NOT comparing the US government to the Third Reich).
-
Rather than us debate the need for the A-bombing of Japan, why not ask someone that was around at the time? I feel their opinion holds more water than a bunch of armchair CIC's.
-
I've always found it enlightening that those who decry Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and the fire-bombings of the other Japanese and German cities always leave out Warsaw, Coventry, London, and other cities that were bombed into destruction on the allied side.
But, yes Rip, it was a Dem that pulled the trigger on those 2 bombs. However, the point is moot. If a Republican was in the white house at that time I've no doubt they'd have done the same thing.
-
Be interesting to go back in time, not drop the bomb, invade Japan instead, Japan woulda killed all U.S. held prisoners of war then would be interesting to see how many of the socialist winers on this bbs woulda never been born.
So Rip are you comparing the Demonicrats with muslims? Cause we all know who'll set off the next nuclear device... probably one they buy from our good Soviet friends.
-
Well I think if you polled the nation some 5 years after the event, you'd get a 95% approval for ending the war and saving hundred of Allied lives.
Of course, now a days, people wish to re-write history and play up the role of the defeated.
Republican, Democrat, Lib, etc....I think most are in favor of the atomic bomb being utilized.
Nice fishing trip tho.
-
Why are those asians buried up to their necks in that pic above?
And Rip...its a great time to be a Pats fan!
-
I would have to agree with RPM on this.
Before we vilify Truman or the Democrats for dropping the Atomic Bomb on the Japanese, I think we should put ourselves in the shoes of the Marines, the Army Units, the Sailors, and the Air Corp pilots who were going to be involved in the actual invasion. If you realize that the Japanese were going to resist to the last person in most cases, then you are able to see that regardless of the horror of an atomic detonation, the actual usage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in reality the humane action.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Rather than us debate the need for the A-bombing of Japan, why not ask someone that was around at the time? I feel their opinion holds more water than a bunch of armchair CIC's.
oh lord I don't believe this but I agree with you on this one.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I would have to agree with RPM on this.
Before we vilify Truman or the Democrats for dropping the Atomic Bomb on the Japanese, I think we should put ourselves in the shoes of the Marines, the Army Units, the Sailors, and the Air Corp pilots who were going to be involved in the actual invasion. If you realize that the Japanese were going to resist to the last person in most cases, then you are able to see that regardless of the horror of an atomic detonation, the actual usage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in reality the humane action.
Humane? I would argue that it is probably the least humane thing in the world to crush someone's belief structure.
Torture them, starve them, beat them, kill them... But suddenly they are forced to realize that they are wrong at the most basic level? Brutal.
-
My dad turned 15 years old in May of 45. I can tell you he was extremely pleased with the atom bomb being dropped forcing Japans speedy bow out of the war. Before that he was sure he would be drafted and sent to Japan, like most other 15 year old males in 1945 America.
Im with Truman on this one, better safe than sorry.
-
http://prion.bchs.uh.edu/~zzhang/1/Nanking_Massacre/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_massacre
http://www.bataansurvivor.com/content/the_bataan_death_march/1.php
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_pacific.html
We should have dropped more of them. I refer to current age Japanese as "Japanese" but when I talk about them in a WW-ll context they are simply "Japs" to me. In my opinion, and unlike most elements of the German armed forces, the Japs fought a dishonorable war in WW-ll and whatever they got they had coming. And more besides.
Had they the weapons and industrial might we had they would have enslaved those they didn't outright murder. And what did we do? We freed them from Military tyranny, those we didn't kill first, and turned them into capitalists.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Humane? I would argue that it is probably the least humane thing in the world to crush someone's belief structure.
Torture them, starve them, beat them, kill them... But suddenly they are forced to realize that they are wrong at the most basic level? Brutal.
Putting a sick dog out of it's misery is considered humane. Many will argue that it is humane to do the same to a human, but it is currently illegal in the US. Basing ones belief structure around the belief that any one race is better, or "destined" for greatness is sick.
It is known there were roughly 460 thousand killed or maimed by the bomb. 1 Million+ casualties expected amongst the Allied Invasion Force. Countless more would have died on the Japanese Side.
Considering the options, it is obvious what the more humane option was.
-
It "happened to be a Democrat". I have no doubt that a Republican would have done the same thing. And it brings to thought, the Republicans often say Democrats are too "weak" in big deals, such as wars....
Anyway, I see the links above, - they should bring some things to focus.
Perhaps Hiroshima was the biggest urban casualty over a couple of days, but Nagasaki was not. Tokyo was bigger. Dresden may have been bigger. The Manila massacre was bigger. Nanking?
Then you move on to the fronts to see the manslaughter, as well as the occupied zones of the Japanese and German. Hiroshima is a big bad number, so is Nagasaki. These are dwarfed by the butchery that went on in China. Some say 15 millions total.
Dresden is likewise dwarfed by the camp butchery, as well as the butchery on the eastern front.
However, Hiroshima + Nagasaki ENDED the deal, who was belived to take millions of lives (including 1-1.5 millions of the allied).
Dresden did not, and neither did Hamburg (45K dead?). Pity.
Conclusion? Mine is (with a cold mind) that the Nuking did 2 good things vs one bad.
1. End WW2 swiftly, sparing countless lives in the time to come.
2. Show the full force and horror of this weapon, which put some weight on why it has never been used again.
the bad one:
- well, it surely killed a lot of civilians in a most horrible way.
-
Apparently back in the day they were only Americans,today its Republicans or Democrats.
-
Originally posted by KgB
Apparently back in the day they were only Americans,today its Republicans or Democrats.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Back on topic. Too bad today's neolibs have lost the resolve of yesteryear's dems.
You mean to say facio-democrats are not in vogue?? say it isn't so! :rofl
KgB, I agree... Americans only come in one flavor that counts... Amercian! :aok
TIGERESS
-
wow you guys let political parties own and deploy nooks? :o
in most countries* the button is in the hands of it's government. I think you're taking that "right to bear arms" thing a bit too far :p
*except the UK of course :rolleyes:
-
I believe if someone like Teddy Roosevelt had been in office he would have taken a more proactive role in getting the growing conflict resolved before America became involved. Something like, "Hey Adolf, let me show you something. You see that right there? That's our industrial complex. It's at idle at the moment. If you seriously want to see what it can produce against you go ahead, make my day. It's your call, pal."
-
According to a non-biased study that the Navy did, the invasion of Japan would have cost 250,000 casualties and 50,000 American dead.
-
Originally posted by Angus
2. Show the full force and horror of this weapon, which put some weight on why it has never been used again.
the bad one:
- well, it surely killed a lot of civilians in a most horrible way.
There was a short film made years ago that was aired in the sci-fi channel that had 'alternative history' scenarios.
One of those was the allies winning WW2 without using nuclear weapons. The story was that the war ended in 1947 after a brutal invasion of the Japanese mainland by the US and Russian forces and Japan got split up into north and south control zones just like Germany was split.
The cold war went a different way though. When north korea attacked the south and the UN forces pushed North korea north of the 38th parallel, Macarthur WAS given permission to use the A-bomb when the Chinese forces joined the fight on the side of the north. (macarthur wanted to create a 'radiation' wall at the chinese-korean border)
The result of that was China losing 1/3rd of its territory to the UN forces (UN forces were at war with China) and the USSR quietly remained neutral while trying to build its own a-bombs.
Years later, the cuban missile crisis went badly and US / USSR exchanged nuclear attacks and the world entered a nuclear winter. The story itself was told by a teacher giving a history lesson to kids in an underground shelter 20 years after the nuclear winter.
a very interesting short film. It kinda shows how the use of the nukes to end WW2 gave the world advanced notice of the horror of nuclear weapons at a time BEFORE the two superpowers had stockpiles of them (and of significantly higher destructive power than WW2 era nukes). It is said the USSR backed away from the cuban missile crisis because their leaders knew too well the effects the nukes had on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
According to a non-biased study that the Navy did, the invasion of Japan would have cost 250,000 casualties and 50,000 American dead.
I would say that this study was maybe biased.
It has no particular comparability with the fights and losses the USA suffered on IWO and Okinawa. (IWO was what, - 20K?), which are very small slabs of land compared to the japanese homeland, - which is also even more holy to them and had a lot more troops.
What was it, - operation Olympus. Their total casualty estimates were extrapolated from exactly the actual combats with the japs. And while they may have kept their figures "roomy", they were IMHO right to do so.
And BTW, did they calculate the Japanese losses?
-
Originally posted by Russian
Or I could do that myself.
"While waiting for USSR to enter conflict with Japan, ruling circle of US decided to use atomic weapons verses Japan. On 6th and 9th August American aviation dropped two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As a result of those weapons, 447 thousand civilian people were killed or maimed. No military actions of this nature were needed; fate of Japan was already resolved. Detonation of those weapons are a heavy crime verses humanity. It was atomic blackmail with goals aimed at getting world hegemony after world war, a first act of cold war."
Got to love Soviet era propoganda, so full of tripe.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
According to a non-biased study that the Navy did, the invasion of Japan would have cost 250,000 casualties and 50,000 American dead.
The planners made several casualty rate studies. One low one to gain approval for the invasion, and a second higher one to plan for reinforcements necessary and to plan medical logistics.
During the planning for Operation Downfall, it was decided to first land on Kyushu to provide a close in base for the attacks on the main Island. At the start of the invasion planning, there were roughly 45000 troops on Kyushu. The Japanese anticipated the plans and moved 9 more divisions into the area. For a total of over 250000 troops on Kyushu alone.
Based upon casualty rates on prior invasions like Okinawa, the Japanese wounded one American for every defender. Approximately 20% caused deaths.
There were over 5000 non Kamikaze Combat Aircraft held in reserve. There were an additional 5000 Kamikaze Aircraft. It was estimated that 15% - 20% of the invasion fleet would be sunk. The Japanese figured on 50% plus owing to there previous success with long distance attacks at Okinawa.
The bottonline was that over a million casualties were expected.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Got to love Soviet era propoganda, so full of tripe.
ack-ack
I dont think it has anything to do with being Soviet.Lotta people believe that it was demonstration of power.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Got to love Soviet era propoganda, so full of tripe.
ack-ack
I go with that.... Unneccesary...447.000 people....
Sure, - for you Russian, even after Hiroshime, the Japanese military councel decided to go on fighting. So go figure the rest of Japanese casualties in a homeland conflict, - you can find out the Japanese casualty figures at IWO (99%) as well as civilian casualties added in places like Okinawa.
-
It was both. Both a means to end the war, and as long as were doing that we might as well show the Soviets what we had. But we had also shown that as they occupied to German cities destroyed by bombing as well. Ive always believed that was part of the reason we annihilated Dresden. You dont think Stalin took note?
Imagine the catastrophe in Asia if we didn't end the war quickly and didn't build Japan into a Fortress of Democracy? All of Asia would have ended up under the filthy Commie boot.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
It was both. Both a means to end the war, and as long as were doing that we might as well show the Soviets what we had. But we had also shown that as they occupied to German cities destroyed by bombing as well. Ive always believed that was part of the reason we annihilated Dresden. You dont think Stalin took note?
I agree 100%
-
I meant to add in my earlier post....
I'm sure the servicemen who perished in Pearl Harbor were for it.
Or those killed in the Bataan deathmarch.
Or the British troops who had surrendered in Singapore, many being murdered in cold blood while in the hospital, in the midst of surgery or the nurses who were murdered.
So before we go boo-hoo for the Japs, let's also recall how *sweetly* they treated POWs or the people's of any land they captured.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I believe if someone like Teddy Roosevelt had been in office he would have taken a more proactive role in getting the growing conflict resolved before America became involved. Something like, "Hey Adolf, let me show you something. You see that right there? That's our industrial complex. It's at idle at the moment. If you seriously want to see what it can produce against you go ahead, make my day. It's your call, pal."
World War 2 wasn't really a separate conflict, only World War 1 (Part two).
The only preventative measure to WW2 would have been an entirely different post war plan after WW1.
But, like the saying goes, "Those who do not study history, are doomed to repeat it." There was a very good reason for doing things the way they did back then.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Discuss.
:cool:
I can't : I'm all verklempt.
-
Originally posted by KgB
I agree 100%
And it was exactly the kind of language Uncle Joe would understand. He knew we could have done the same to Russian cities, tho with all due respect the Soviet army was pretty fearsome in 1945.
I do not think however they could have stopped a systematic bombing campaign against Russia at that time should the love have been lost. As history has shown the absolute last thing Stalin needed post Germany was a conflict with the western allies.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
"Hey Adolf, let me show you something. You see that right there? That's our industrial complex. It's at idle at the moment. If you seriously want to see what it can produce against you go ahead, make my day. It's your call, pal."
He would have ignored it. Hitler and his minions were pretty adept at ignoring reality. They did it countless times.
-
Originally posted by Russian
Or I could do that myself.
"While waiting for USSR to enter conflict with Japan, ruling circle of US decided to use atomic weapons verses Japan.
Hmmm, Ruling Circle?? Isn't that the current form of Russia's government under Putin??
I just love these press photos that Putin has done recently.
Just look at what a mighty hunter he is:
(http://www.yousaytoo.com/gallery_image/pic/9384/picture.jpg)
And fisherman also:
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070822/capt.6b58fe25aa19494ab8be11c01c173cd3.russia_putin_s_image_mosb107.jpg)
And he is so good with children:
(http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8915/putin9fp.jpg)
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by Russian
Or I could do that myself.
"While waiting for USSR to enter conflict with Japan, ruling circle of US decided to use atomic weapons verses Japan. On 6th and 9th August American aviation dropped two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As a result of those weapons, 447 thousand civilian people were killed or maimed. No military actions of this nature were needed; fate of Japan was already resolved. Detonation of those weapons are a heavy crime verses humanity. It was atomic blackmail with goals aimed at getting world hegemony after world war, a first act of cold war."
Minus the world hegemony BS, Russian history post ww2 is a positive reason
the method was used to win the war. Those leaders had little idea of the scope of destruction that would result from those two bombs
Less deaths then Stalin murdered during his tenure... Less deaths then
the chinese occupation by japan Crimes against humanity...what a crock.
-
I just love the way that some people try to make everything about democrats and republicans. Stop trying to generalize, be and american and get rid of both the parties.
As a US Army Veteran I have seen combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, and small firefights in a few other places in this world. I have seen my fellow countrymen in pools of blood in the back of vehicles hit by IEDs. I have pulled my wounded friends out of the mist of gunfire, and many other things I don't wish upon any living human being.
My stance on things is not popular. I dont know the real reasons behind bush going to war in IRAQ. I really dont care as he is going out of office and he has to live with himself, But I say this and mean it. If it would save the lives of countless of my friends and fellow soldiers, I would turn that entire region into a sheet of glass. Do that, and wait for 10-20 years, then go in and take the damn oil if that is what all this is over.
I know I will get flamed for this, but hell thats ok.
Flame Away!
-
Originally posted by RTHolmes
I think you're taking that "right to bear arms" thing a bit too far :p
Unlike England, our country was birthed from revolution; guns allowed that birth. Of course we take the 2nd amendment seriously. I personally have no interest in having a gun and think they are scary but I am glad American men have them, in principle.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Gaidin
I just love the way that some people try to make everything about democrats and republicans. Stop trying to generalize, be and american and get rid of both the parties.
As a US Army Veteran I have seen combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, and small firefights in a few other places in this world. I have seen my fellow countrymen in pools of blood in the back of vehicles hit by IEDs. I have pulled my wounded friends out of the mist of gunfire, and many other things I don't wish upon any living human being.
My stance on things is not popular. I dont know the real reasons behind bush going to war in IRAQ. I really dont care as he is going out of office and he has to live with himself, But I say this and mean it. If it would save the lives of countless of my friends and fellow soldiers, I would turn that entire region into a sheet of glass. Do that, and wait for 10-20 years, then go in and take the damn oil if that is what all this is over.
I know I will get flamed for this, but hell thats ok.
Flame Away!
I am an outspoken Moderate... not too far to the right or left and vote to maintain a balance in this country between right and left.
Thank you for your service to our country, sir.
TIGERESS