|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Feb 8, 2011 21:18:55 GMT -5
That's still months. They could have said "Hey, we're working out peace treaties. Please don't bomb us yet" ({Are you serious 0.0'?}). You are making it sound as if the US hadn't heard/read a word of the japanese people seeking peace. Also the "Please don't bomb us yet" is kind of a given when working peace treaties... in fact, it is kind of a given at any time except when someone says something like "Bring it on bastards, we can take all the atomic bombs you can throw at us". Japan was ready to surrender everything, and the US didn't seem to accept their peace terms, which were to surrender almost everything with the exception of turning over the Emperor (which I'd say it's kind of silly, but it is no justification for the bombing, especially since the US didn't do anyting with the Emperor even after the bombing). In the article it says that the 'US Strategic Bombing Survey' accepted the fact that even without the atomic bombs, Japan would have surrendered. It seem to me that the bombing was unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Feb 8, 2011 21:35:24 GMT -5
You missed my point. Of course we knew but they didn't know we knew.
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Feb 8, 2011 22:03:04 GMT -5
Seriously?
*sigh* Fuck this - there's no point in arguing. You're acting like rialvestro. You're not even arguing, you're just repeating the same thing over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Feb 8, 2011 22:05:32 GMT -5
Because it hasn't been proven wrong
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Feb 8, 2011 22:09:59 GMT -5
What is there to prove? All you've done is say that I've yet to provide you with anything (which I have), say that JSTOR is full of only opinions (which it isn't), and say that the US should have killed, not only all of Japan, but Cuba, Iran, and North Korea as well (which is, not only a hate crime, but completely irrelevant)
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 8, 2011 22:10:23 GMT -5
Zang - I will vouch for Aust's sources, as I have access to them through my school. Peer reviewed journals are written by people - but so are history text books. Journal articles may contain slightly more obvious hints of opinion but the amount of opinion is usually less than the opinion presented in history text books and as such, peer-reviewed journal articles are many times a better source of information.
Also, I will apply your current logic to a situation described as follows.
There's a bunch of kids on the playground. Some of them start fighting. Some of them dont. There's one, let's call him Sam, he is not fighting. There's another, let's call him Jo, and he's not really doing too much fighting, but kinda helping one of the other kids when he really needs it. Well one day, the kid he's helping - we'll call him Joseph, tells Jo to go punch Sam in the face. So Jo does. Well this gets Sam into the fight who ends up helping his friends Brighton, Pierre, and Dmitri in beating up Joseph. All the while also dealing with Jo who apparently thinks fighting is a good idea now. After Joseph goes down, Jo is tired of fighting and tells Sam he is willing to stop. But Sam decides to go into his dad's bag pull out a shotgun and shoot it at Jo's foot.
By your logic Zang - Sam is justified. Jo didn't know about the fact he might get his foot shot off by a shotgun...but that's ok...
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Feb 8, 2011 22:14:02 GMT -5
ryan - Thank you! If not for you living nowhere near me, you would be the recipient of one hug.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Feb 8, 2011 22:26:42 GMT -5
I'm gonna have fun with this one.
Oi, I don't even bring it up. Someone else did and I agreed (more or less. They were sarcastic)
I see your point here. Just a little pissed off you cited something I couldn't see.
GOOD FOR SAM! Well, not good. Some more punches to the face would have been good because this is children shooting each other which is different than war. In each case though, you can't just start a fight and wimp out.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 8, 2011 23:34:46 GMT -5
Children fighting is war on a different scale. The two events ARE proportional.
|
|
|
Post by SwimFellow on Feb 8, 2011 23:59:23 GMT -5
I do see your point. But at least my take is that that Jo didn't really want o help Joseph. But Joseph and Jo's fathers were both very good friends, forcing Jo and Joseph to play together. Jo didn't really like Joseph. He was kind of a dick. But he would be disowned by his father if him and Joseph's father were to stop being friends. So, Joseph told Jo that Sam's father made fun of Jo's father. So Jo got mad, and punched him, and threatened to punch him again.. So Sam's father told Sam to take Jo to the principal, and Jo got even more mad, and threatened Sam with another punch. Sam didn't like that, because it really hurt. Sam tried ignoring Jo, but then Joseph was like "HOW DARE YOU IGNORE JO??" so, under a great deal of peer pressure, Sam decided he would have to teach JOSEPH a lesson. Joseph was taller and stronger than everyone, and a huge bully. So, Sam had to win the fear of Joseph, who in a way created Jo, by shooting Jo in the foot. Why Sam didn't instead shoot Joseph in the foot? I.... THE END!!
Have to be a tiny bit more specific about your simile.. It's much more complicated.. Even after my description.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 9, 2011 0:32:19 GMT -5
In case you didn't follow the original example Joseph = germany not russia.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Feb 9, 2011 0:47:05 GMT -5
In case you didn't follow the original example Joseph = germany not russia. ^That. You confused me on that one. Also, if we're going into deep specifics, we should just end it here
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Feb 9, 2011 12:12:06 GMT -5
What America did was unjustified. It might've ended the war, but there were tons of other ways the war could have ended. America was wrong and all they wanted was the final word.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Feb 9, 2011 17:03:51 GMT -5
What America did was unjustified. It might've ended the war, but there were tons of other ways the war could have ended. America was wrong and all they wanted was the final word. America just said "enough is enough". It's not like Japan was innocent
|
|
|
Post by SwimFellow on Feb 9, 2011 17:10:08 GMT -5
Really? I wrote it as if Joseph was Germany.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Feb 9, 2011 21:01:13 GMT -5
We need to stop acting like it was all of Japan that participated in the war. The cities America bombed were completely innocent as far as I know and were exterminated for no real reason.
Just because those people happened to be Japanese doesn't mean they deserved to be killed. We are all humans and no one deserves a fate as cruel as that.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Feb 9, 2011 21:17:22 GMT -5
...Pearl Harbor
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 9, 2011 21:30:00 GMT -5
Pearl Harbor happened to have the largest fleet of military aircraft carriers in the world at the time. Hiroshima and Nagasaki both had no military presence to speak of (that I know).
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Feb 9, 2011 21:35:54 GMT -5
Quoted from Wikipedia, in the Pearl Harbor bombings, 2,402 people were killed. In the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings, 150,000-246,000 people died.
So America was allowed to kill over 80 times the amount of people just because they were Japanese?
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Feb 9, 2011 21:36:17 GMT -5
The military base doesn't make a difference. It's the country declaring war
|
|