Remember me
[Forgot password?] [Register]
[Login]
menu

Israel/Palestine Discussion Thread

<< First < Prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next > Last >>

[Reply] #81
07-07-2014 05:15 AM
Joined: 01-09-2013
Posts: 8,910
offline
Thugs Bunny
Thugs Bunny
Budapest
Rep: 75

Raniero wrote: Eh, here’s a better example. Do you feel the USA was in the wrong for pulverizing Japan during WWII? Using your logic, apparently they were.


You think the Hiroshima incident was justified?


__________________

1

[Reply] #82
07-07-2014 05:32 AM
Joined: 10-18-2012
Posts: 48,039
offline
Raniero
Raniero
---
Rep: 263

It was arguably better than invading the Japanese mainland, because that would’ve resulted in an estimated death toll over a million, mostly civilians.

EDIT: Looking at some numbers, you’re seeing 10 million casualties in a hypothetical Operation Downfall and that’s the Japanese people alone.

The better question is was it worth the consequences of nuclear weapons.

But I was mostly referring to how the USA did far more damage to Japan and dealt them more casualties than they did to us, even before the atomic bombs were dropped. America was superior to Japan as far as technology goes.

Edited 07-07-2014 05:37 AM by Raniero
[Reply] #83
07-07-2014 05:43 AM
Joined: 01-09-2013
Posts: 8,910
offline
Thugs Bunny
Thugs Bunny
Budapest
Rep: 75

I thought the war was nearing its end when Hiroshima happened? Or was it Hiroshima that ended it?

Haven’t read up on my WWII shit since the 11th grade so I’m fairly ignorant.

edit: I’m aware Hiroshima didn’t “end” the war but you know what I mean


__________________

1

Edited 07-07-2014 05:46 AM by Thugs Bunny
[Reply] #84
07-07-2014 05:45 AM
Joined: 01-09-2013
Posts: 8,910
offline
Thugs Bunny
Thugs Bunny
Budapest
Rep: 75

I’d go do some reading but it’s 6 in the morning so I think I’m going to go to sleep in a few minutes...


__________________

1

[Reply] #85
07-07-2014 05:49 AM
Joined: 10-18-2012
Posts: 48,039
offline
Raniero
Raniero
---
Rep: 263

The war in Europe was nearing its end, but the Pacific War up to that point was mostly America strategically capturing Japanese controlled islands scattered throughout the Pacific. Most of that was more in preparation for a mainland invasion.

The atomic bombs were a dropped in order to force Japan to surrender so that they didn’t have to resort to invading, resulting in a large amount of casualties on both sides.

Truman basically had his hands tied. If he chose not to drop the bombs and launched a full scale invasion and it was later revealed to he public that there was an alternate way to end the war that would have resulted in less deaths (the atomic bomb), he would’ve be ostracized from the US.

Edited 07-07-2014 05:56 AM by Raniero
[Reply] #86
07-07-2014 06:00 AM
Joined: 01-09-2013
Posts: 8,910
offline
Thugs Bunny
Thugs Bunny
Budapest
Rep: 75

Raniero wrote: The war in Europe was nearing its end, but the Pacific War up to that point was mostly America strategically capturing Japanese controlled islands scattered throughout the Pacific. Most of that was more in preparation for a mainland invasion.

The atomic bombs were a dropped in order to force Japan to surrender so that they didn’t have to resort to invading, resulting in a large amount of casualties on both sides.

Truman basically had his hands tied. If he choose not to drop the bombs and launched a full scale invasion and it was later revealed to he public that there was an alternate way to end the war that would have resulted in less deaths (the atomic bomb), he would’ve be ostracized from the US.

Well I figured Japan would surrender as soon the war in Europe was taken care of.

I’m sure the U.S. could have stalled. Or was the situation in Europe uncertain at the time?

In the textbook I read during my 11th Grade History class (I remember this specifically because it really made me sad) it was said the Japan had already sent word / was about to send word to U.S. of surrender. Not to mention I mean Fat Boy was the second bomb they dropped, wasn’t it?

I also want to get into the atrocities of the bomb. The after effects of the radiation would mess with unborn children - future generations...


__________________

1

Edited 07-07-2014 06:00 AM by Thugs Bunny
[Reply] #87
07-07-2014 06:05 AM
Joined: 01-23-2011
Posts: 25,140
offline
AIDB
AIDB
See you space cowboys
Rep: 238

Yeah, we dropped two bombs on them and instantly killed 150,000&#150;246,000+ people according to wiki

Edited 07-07-2014 06:06 AM by AIDB
[Reply] #88
07-07-2014 06:06 AM
Joined: 01-09-2013
Posts: 8,910
offline
Thugs Bunny
Thugs Bunny
Budapest
Rep: 75



Don’t know if that’s legit but it’s basically what I recall my textbook summing up.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html


__________________

1

[Reply] #89
07-07-2014 06:09 AM
Joined: 10-18-2012
Posts: 48,039
offline
Raniero
Raniero
---
Rep: 263

Lumberjack wrote: Well I figured Japan would surrender as soon the war in Europe was taken care of.


Definitely not. They had their own plan for the invasion. They were hoping to force a truce or a ceasefire.

I’m sure the U.S. could have stalled. Or was the situation in Europe uncertain at the time?


At that point, the European theatre had already ended and Japan had yet to surrender. The plan was already set and America couldn’t just decide not to invade.

In the textbook I read during my 11th Grade History class (I remember this specifically because it really made me sad) it was said the Japan had already sent word / was about to send word to U.S. of surrender. Not to mention I mean Fat Boy was the second bomb they dropped, wasn’t it?


Japan only considered surrendering when the first bomb was dropped. That’s exactly why the bombs were dropped. To force Japan to surrender before the invasion.

However they stayed adamant, which is why the second one was dropped. That was when they surrendered.

I also want to get into the atrocities of the bomb. The after effects of the radiation would mess with unborn children - future generations...


Well like I said, when you look at the projected casualties of an invasion, I can kinda understand why the bombs were dropped.

Edited 07-07-2014 06:13 AM by Raniero
[Reply] #90
07-07-2014 06:11 AM
Joined: 10-18-2012
Posts: 48,039
offline
Raniero
Raniero
---
Rep: 263

AIDB wrote: Yeah, we dropped two bombs on them and instantly killed 150,000&#150;246,000+ people according to wiki


And as I said, factually, that caused FAR less casualties than a hypothetical mainland invasion. Assuming the Japanese civilians were hostile, you were looking at 10 million possible civilian deaths :\ And that’s not taking into account military casualties. Japan would’ve essentially been destroyed.

Edited 07-07-2014 06:12 AM by Raniero
[Reply] #91
07-07-2014 06:16 AM
Joined: 01-09-2013
Posts: 8,910
offline
Thugs Bunny
Thugs Bunny
Budapest
Rep: 75

Raniero wrote:

Lumberjack wrote: Well I figured Japan would surrender as soon the war in Europe was taken care of.


Definitely not. They had their own plan for the invasion. They were hoping to force a truce.


This entire article says otherwise. I can pull up another if you want.

America couldn’t just decide not to invade.

Lol, why not? If the war in Europe was over guy’s like England should’ve been on their way. Hell Russia invaded just before the bombings. Japan was done with, I definitely can’t see them not surrendering soon enough.

Japan only considered surrendering when the first bomb was dropped. That’s exactly why the bombs were dropped. To force Japan to surrender before the invasion.

Then they definitely could’ve stalled. Told them hey -- if you don’t surrender we’re dropping another bomb and awaited a response.

I also want to get into the atrocities of the bomb. The after effects of the radiation would mess with unborn children - future generations...


Well like I said, when you look at the projected casualties of an invasion, I can kinda understand why the bombs were dropped.

I don’t even see why the invasions was necessary tbqh. The U.S. alone was pushing their shit in both air and water-wise. Then Russia came in. Factor in the scare of others joining? Yeah they were done man, especially after the first bombing. Hiroshima was unnecessary.


__________________

1

[Reply] #92
07-07-2014 06:22 AM
Joined: 06-29-2014
Posts: 98
offline
-Light-
-Light-
Wannabe
Rep: 9

We shouldn’t have dropped bombs or invaded them. The Japanese were smart, they would’ve surrendered. Klling hundreds of thousands of civilians just isn’t right.


__________________

[Reply] #93
07-07-2014 06:30 AM
Joined: 10-18-2012
Posts: 48,039
offline
Raniero
Raniero
---
Rep: 263

Lumberjack wrote: This entire article says otherwise. I can pull up another if you want.


That article fails to address the planned invasion though.

I posted this for a reason.
http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Operation_Downfall.pdf
Or just check wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

Whatever the case, Japan had enough men, weapons, and planes to do major damage against the USA in a full scale invasion and nothing indicates they were considering surrendering until the bombs were dropped.

See: Operation Ketsugou

Lol, why not? If the war in Europe was over guy’s like England should’ve been on their way. Hell Russia invaded just before the bombings. Japan was done with, I definitely can’t see them not surrendering soon enough.


I think you’re underestimating Japan’s persistence. They were outgunned throughout the war with America, but they never surrendered. Have you read of all the suicides that took place? Civilians throwing themselves off cliffs and soldiers gutting themselves rather than surrender to the Americans? Kamikaze? Read the article I posted. The Japanese empire’s plan was clear on them not surrendering and taking as many Americans with them as possible, as they knew they wouldn’t win the conflict.

It was arguable if any of the allies were willing to send a lot of men when they were recovering from their own war.

Hell, the Soviets lost over 20 million people. You think they were going to stick their heads into a large scale invasion? France was basically in ruins and Britain was barely recovering after the Nazi bombings. America is the reason Europe won and they fought two fronts.

Invading Japan would be primarily an American effort, as that was our war and our war alone. Japan hadn’t declared war on any other nation at that point.

Then they definitely could’ve stalled. Told them hey -- if you don’t surrender we’re dropping another bomb and awaited a response.


Which they did. lol

Guess what? Japan didn’t surrender.

I don’t even see why the invasions was necessary tbqh. The U.S. alone was pushing their shit in both air and water-wise. Then Russia came in. Factor in the scare of others joining? Yeah they were done man, especially after the first bombing. Hiroshima was unnecessary.


I think you’re missing the point. If Japan was unwilling to surrender, then they had no choice but to either force them with the bombs to surrender or invade.

The Russians had very little to do with the Pacific War. Japan knew there were probably allies to be involved, but that didn’t exactly deter them. Japan was under the impression that mainland invasion would be costly regardless if America got help or not and they were betting on that.

Which is why they strategized that they could force America into a truce due to a continued invasion being far too costly.

Edited 07-07-2014 06:34 AM by Raniero
[Reply] #94
07-07-2014 06:31 AM
Joined: 01-09-2013
Posts: 8,910
offline
Thugs Bunny
Thugs Bunny
Budapest
Rep: 75

I think Ran is typing up a long response right now so I’m going to surrender and go to sleep.

Decisions were made at the time and nothing is going to change that. We weren’t there and we can’t know for sure what was going on. But in my personal opinion the Hiroshima bombing as well as an invasion were totally unnecessary. And I doubt someone could convince me otherwise.

Edit: @Ran I read your post but after the couple articles I read I still don’t agree. I see where you’re coming from though I just believe otherwise.


__________________

1

Edited 07-07-2014 06:35 AM by Thugs Bunny
[Reply] #95
07-07-2014 06:37 AM
Joined: 10-18-2012
Posts: 48,039
offline
Raniero
Raniero
---
Rep: 263

-Light- wrote: We shouldn’t have dropped bombs or invaded them. The Japanese were smart, they would’ve surrendered. Klling hundreds of thousands of civilians just isn’t right.


They weren’t smart enough to surrender when we firebombed Tokyo.

[Reply] #96
07-07-2014 06:48 AM
Joined: 10-18-2012
Posts: 48,039
offline
Raniero
Raniero
---
Rep: 263

Lumberjack wrote: Edit: @Ran I read your post but after the couple articles I read I still don’t agree. I see where you’re coming from though I just believe otherwise.


I understand, though I believe said articles underestimate Japan.

Firstly, Japan had a projected 1,000 fighter jets. Each of those jets were going to be used as Kamikaze, which would have destroyed almost half of a landing force and sunk about 400 American ships. Secondly, there’s a bit of misinformation there. America had yet to encounter Japan’s main army and all those bombings that that article speaks of targeted civilians areas, which while impactful, was not enough to cripple the military. Japan’s army was hardly destroyed beyond repair. It may sound flowery when its said their Navy was destroyed, but what use would their Navy be when they’re fighting on the mainland in what was essentially planned to be a “take down as many Americans with you as possible” scenario?

Japan may have been on the verge of “collapse”, but that didn’t really matter when their plan against an invasion was basically a bloodbath.

I understand how you say America could have stalled Japan, but America would have had to do something eventually.

But yeah, let’s agree to disagree.

Edited 07-07-2014 06:50 AM by Raniero
[Reply] #97
07-07-2014 06:51 AM
Joined: 08-07-2011
Posts: 2,283
offline
Foppa Forsberg
Foppa Forsberg
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 97

Rich616 wrote:

Being Jewish doesn’t automatically equate to being some Israeli agent, but when 96% of the world’s media is owned by mostly Israeli-born (or their direct family) billionaire’s, largely with ties to the bankers that control the US and Israel through money and politics, you can’t ignore that I:



Care to give any scientific source for 96% of world’s media being owned by Israeli-born billionaires?


__________________

[Reply] #98
07-07-2014 03:41 PM
Joined: 03-27-2013
Posts: 9,157
offline
Rich-616
Rich-616
The Great Uniter
Rep: 79

Foppa Forsberg wrote:

Rich616 wrote:

Being Jewish doesn’t automatically equate to being some Israeli agent, but when 96% of the world’s media is owned by mostly Israeli-born (or their direct family) billionaire’s, largely with ties to the bankers that control the US and Israel through money and politics, you can’t ignore that I:



Care to give any scientific source for 96% of world’s media being owned by Israeli-born billionaires?



Care to check the previous page?

[Reply] #99
07-07-2014 04:00 PM
Joined: 10-09-2011
Posts: 8,854
offline
B.J. Titty-Banger
B.J. Titty-Banger
The Mayor of Titty-City
Rep: 120

“They own the banks and the media!" became the new antisemetic byline after “They killed our Lord!" went out of vouge. [FUN FACT]: The reason Jews took to banking and financing in the first place was because during Europe’s guilded age, when you needed to be a member of a trade guild to be a blacksmith or a tanner or a mason, jews were banned from the trade guilds by christian theocrats. Banking (an unguilded trade still in its infancy) was the only advanced field that highly educated jews looking for work outside of jewish communities were allowed to enter. We just worked with what you gave us.


__________________

[Reply] #100
07-07-2014 04:05 PM
Joined: 03-27-2013
Posts: 9,157
offline
Rich-616
Rich-616
The Great Uniter
Rep: 79

That’s all well and good, but when they all-but run the world’s foremost superpower and constantly dumb it’s people down, influence their opinion and push them towards war that’s a different story. Many Jews in Israel can even see this, and openly oppose it.

Edited 07-07-2014 04:07 PM by Rich-616

<< First < Prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next > Last >>

New Reply
Name (guest):

For faster posting and no restrictions: [Login] [Register]

Message:


 
 

[More Options] [New Topic]
Moderated by: Phobetius, Zeroextra, - FS -, Admins, Superusers [All moderators]
The Lounge Forums ©Silicon.dk ApS 2012 - Privacy Policy - Disclaimer - FAQ - Contact