User Tag List

First 41213141516 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 188

  1. #131
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    However, it is still debatable whether or not dropping not one but TWO atomic bombs on Japan and putting Japanese-American citizens into concentration camps was "just."

    I do not question that we needed to get involved in WWII, we assuredly did yes, but I question some of the methods employed.

    Same in this case.

    The unjust nature of internment camps is pretty well settled.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #132
    Senior Member evilrobot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    nite
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    However, it is still debatable whether or not dropping not one but TWO atomic bombs on Japan and putting Japanese-American citizens into concentration camps was "just."

    I do not question that we needed to get involved in WWII, we assuredly did yes, but I question some of the methods employed.

    Same in this case.

    For once you’re right about something, ms. It was certaintly unjust to put Japanese Americans in prison camps, but those were very bigoted times. Hard to miss the irony that we fought a war against the Nazis.
    X___________________________________

    If things are not what they seem, and we are forever reminded that this is the case—then it must also be observed that enough of us ignore this truth to keep the world from collapsing. –Thomas Ligotti, The Mystics of Muelenberg

  3. #133
    Junior Member MyIsland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INtj
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    15

    Default

    "Well, If America is Shit, than everyone else is just flies on our Shit right?"- Jim Gaffigan (Away We Go).

    ^
    This is not my view, but I think the Elitists collectively view it this way and hence maybe a little underlying Machiavellian agenda when it comes to telling the rest of the world what is going on.

    But this also comes from my hopeful assumption that maybe someone out there that actually knows what the hell is going on in the first place.

    It seems this is the way we fight wars these days. We send some in, we scope it out, get things where they need to be, then we send more in. If we draw it out for a long enough period of time then the world will start to see we are now in them, therefore they are in us. Once this happens we would have their resources. Hopefully its not just Opium

  4. #134
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Take Five View Post
    OK I wasn't clear on what you meant. The Pakistan border is a clear problem and should have really been one of the first issues we fixed. Even without the help of the Pakistanis we may have some success in blocking it off ourselves, but i'm not really clear on the details of how we are acting on that.
    Yes. It should have been the first issue. Bush made two serious mistakes.

    He neglected the Pakistani Pashtuland.
    It is there you find the ideological background for the Taliban.
    The Wahhabi interpretation of Islam is a foreign product in Afghanistan.

    During WWII, America freed France of Nazi occupation. France was not the enemy.
    It was Germany.

    Germany was not divided. Pakistan, on the other hand, is divided.
    The idealists want to see democracy in Pakistan. It is the worst option.

    The other mistake of Bush was to attack the Ba'athist Iraq.
    Iraq could have been changed by peaceful means.
    The sanctions only affirms the enmity of the common people. It is they who suffer.
    Had there not been the sanctions, Saddam could not have survived.
    The Iraqi army had tried to kill him half a dozen times, in a couple of months prior to the invasion.

    Saddam did not control Iraq. The terror regime he had let loose, controlled him, too.
    He had nothing to do with the Islamists, the Taleban, or al Qaida.
    They had one thing to do with him. It was the wish to have him assassinated.

  5. #135
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    However, it is still debatable whether or not dropping not one but TWO atomic bombs on Japan and putting Japanese-American citizens into concentration camps was "just."

    I do not question that we needed to get involved in WWII, we assuredly did yes, but I question some of the methods employed.

    Same in this case.
    Atomic bombs were absolutely justified. The reason two were dropped (instead of one or three), is because it took two for Japan to capitulate. As horrible as they were, they were the least bloody way to end the war. I don't think people who question the atomic bombs appreciate the fighting ferocity of the Japanese - they were the original suicide bombers. The Emperor was a living god, and every Japanese, whether it would be old man, woman, or child was expected to give their life for him and many did with great enthusiasm. The Imperial Army only allowed single men to become kamikazes... so there were incidents when a wife would kill herself and her children so her husband could become a kamikaze. Would YOU want to fight that with convential weapons?

    US Army estimated the casualty rate of 1 million people if Japan was to be invaded D Day style. The atomic bombs killed something like 150,000 people. As bad as that is, a million is worse. The bombs prevented further bloodshed on both sides and saved Japan for a complete destruction that land invasion would have involved.

    No excuse for the internment camps, though. That was just plain old racism. Actually, Japenese Americans fought in Italy and became the most decorated unit in the US Army.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  6. #136
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Actually the Japanese were trying to negotiate an end to the war since at least May '45 through the Soviets. General Eisenhower himself stated years later it was not necessary to drop the bombs.

  7. #137
    Supreme Allied Commander Take Five's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    However, it is still debatable whether or not dropping not one but TWO atomic bombs on Japan and putting Japanese-American citizens into concentration camps was "just."

    I do not question that we needed to get involved in WWII, we assuredly did yes, but I question some of the methods employed.

    Same in this case.
    Are you implying that going into Afghanistan after 9/11 wasn't just? Or that continuing the efforts after US military casualties exceed 9/11 totals is unjust? 9/11 was the beginning of the war, one battle in what has been and will be several. The terrorists and their supporters must be held accountable--that is what the military is doing. And it's not unjust.
    Johari Nohari

    "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. "--Niccolo Machiavelli

  8. #138
    Supreme Allied Commander Take Five's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Atomic bombs were absolutely justified. The reason two were dropped (instead of one or three), is because it took two for Japan to capitulate. As horrible as they were, they were the least bloody way to end the war. I don't think people who question the atomic bombs appreciate the fighting ferocity of the Japanese - they were the original suicide bombers. The Emperor was a living god, and every Japanese, whether it would be old man, woman, or child was expected to give their life for him and many did with great enthusiasm. The Imperial Army only allowed single men to become kamikazes... so there were incidents when a wife would kill herself and her children so her husband could become a kamikaze. Would YOU want to fight that with convential weapons?

    US Army estimated the casualty rate of 1 million people if Japan was to be invaded D Day style. The atomic bombs killed something like 150,000 people. As bad as that is, a million is worse. The bombs prevented further bloodshed on both sides and saved Japan for a complete destruction that land invasion would involved.

    No excuse for the internment camps, though. That was just plain old racism. Actually, Japenese Americans fought in Italy and became the most decorated unit in the US Army.
    Yes the Bombs were justified, though unfortunate. Ultimately they saved more lives that they took. It should also be noted that Japanese women and children were instructed to kill US troops also. Just because they didn't wear a uniform didn't mean they weren't dangerous.
    Johari Nohari

    "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. "--Niccolo Machiavelli

  9. #139
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Actually the Japanese were trying to negotiate an end to the war since at least May '45 through the Soviets. General Eisenhower himself stated years later it was not necessary to drop the bombs.
    The Japanese wanted to maintain the Tojo government.

    Do you think if Germany said "let's call it quits but you can't touch the Nazis" we would have responded any differently?
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  10. #140
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    The Japanese wanted to maintain the Tojo government.
    Tojo had already fallen by this time. The main condition they asked for was for the Emperor to remain in power. At first we rejected this, but then later agreed to it.

    Do you think if Germany said "let's call it quits but you can't touch the Nazis" we would have responded any differently?
    Well we maintained unconditional surrender even in the face of the German resistance's attempts to overthrow the Nazis. Military historian Basil Liddell Hart argued that this helped prolonged the war unnecessarily.

Similar Threads

  1. Obama's 30 minute commercial (sealing the deal)
    By Didums in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-03-2008, 07:57 PM
  2. [INTP] If you put 30 INTPs in a room together...
    By Sunshine in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 10-20-2008, 06:36 PM
  3. US Army 2008 Modernization Strategy: 30 or 40 Yrs of War
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-02-2008, 07:39 PM
  4. 30-day challenge
    By Randomnity in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-22-2008, 10:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO