Tight Poker

[qingdaoman]

BigDil,

Temper, temper, big boy...hit a nerve there, did we?

I SAID DISTINCTLY THAT I DONT BELIEVE IT WAS THE RIGHT TIHNG DO DO

No, actually, what you said was:

The whole point is to AVOID CASUALTIES ON YOUR SIDE, AND INFLICT CASUALTIES ON THE OTHER SIDE, which was the point in dropping the bomb. It might not be the shining hour for our country, but lets not be too judgemental because you simply weren't there

Now the way I read that is, "It wasn't a nice thing, it wasn't a thing to be proud of, but it was necessary, and we can't condemn it".

That's a far cry from "it was the wrong thing to do".

...and you seem to think that the people loved it, that they toasted that success with beers and champagne afterwards

I don't see anywhere here that I've said anything remotely like that. Please, feel free to quote any post where I even implied such a thing.

Dude for the most part I agree with a lot of things you say, but you are making no sense

Actually, my entire response was to this specific point. You said that what I said didn't make sense. I responded by explaining it again, and stating why I felt it was logical, and made sense.

Nowhere was I saying that you specifically believed those things. It is a thing called rhetorical argument. So I'm afraid you got all bent out of shape over something that wasn't even specifically directed at you, other than as an explanation of my arguments.

P.S. -- I am, however, curious as to your interpretation of 9/11, in regards to your statement that "The whole point is to avoid casualties on your side, and inflict casualties on the other side". By that argument 9/11 was a pretty damned impressive success.

P.P.S. -- Hehe, this is fun Haven't had a good political debate in awhile!

[miamipuck]

Eruu,

It is a documented, historical fact that there was debate about whether the bomb should be dropped in Europe, or in Japan. And the leaders at the time -- both American and British -- decided that it would be more "politically acceptable" (within their own countries) to bomb Asians than to bomb whites.

THAT was the reason for the selection of Japan. Had the bomb been dropped on Germany, it would have inevitably caused Japan's surrender, also.

The logic evades me.

First a Quote: "I tell You, War is Hell!" . . . From Sherman's speech to graduating Ohio Cadets in 1880.

Lets do a little time line:

Pearl Harbor- December 7, 1941 Japan attacked us!

VE day- May 8, 1945

Hirosima- August 6, 1945

Nagasaki- August 9, 1945

VJ Day- August 15, 1945

So let me get this straight.................. There is documented fact that even though the first successful test of an Atomic bomb was July 16th 1945 people were actually debating whether to drop a bomb on Germany after they surrendered unconditionally?

If you are going to use a bullshit argument at least get some facts straight. The bomb was dropped on Japan long after the War in Europe was over. So I guess you are correct why bomb a bunch of whities whan you have good old yellow people to bomb............... oh brother!

Also QingdaoMan in pasting the Wikipedia you must have missed this nugget:

Although supporters of the bombing concede that the civilian leadership in Japan was cautiously and discreetly sending out diplomatic communiques as far back as January 1945, following the Allied invasion of Luzon in the Philippines, they point out that Japanese military officials were unanimously opposed to any negotiations before the use of the atomic bomb.

While some members of the civilian leadership did use covert diplomatic channels to begin negotiation for peace, on their own they could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire. Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and this cabinet was dominated by militarists from the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Navy, all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal. A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan with the military increasingly determined to fight despite the costs and odds. Many continued to believe that Japan could negotiate more favorable terms of surrender by continuing to inflict high levels of casualties on opposing forces and end the war without an occupation of Japan or a change of government.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson points to the increased Japanese resistance, futile though it was in retrospect, as it became obvious that the result of the war could not be overturned by the Axis powers. The Battle of Okinawa showed this determination to fight on at all costs. More than 120,000 Japanese and 18,000 American troops were killed in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan's final surrender. In fact, more civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa than did in the initial blast of the atomic bombings. When the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, and carried out Operation August Storm, the Japanese Imperial Army ordered its ill-supplied and weakened forces in Manchuria to fight to the last man. Major General Masakazu Amanu, chief of the operations section at Japanese Imperial Headquarters, stated that he was absolutely convinced his defensive preparations, begun in early 1944, could repel any Allied invasion of the home islands with minimal losses.

After the realization that the destruction of Hiroshima was from a nuclear weapon, the civilian leadership gained more traction in its argument that Japan had to concede defeat and accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. Even after the destruction of Nagasaki, the emperor himself needed to intervene to end a deadlock in the cabinet.

According to some Japanese historians, Japanese civilian leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, as were the military men in the war cabinet. (Because the cabinet functioned by consensus, even one holdout could prevent it from accepting the declaration.) Thus the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender. Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisors, stated: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." According to these historians and others, the pro-peace civilian leadership was able to use the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to convince the military that no amount of courage, skill and fearless combat could help Japan against the power of atomic weapons. Akio Morita, founder of Sony and a Japanese Naval officer during the war, also concludes that it was the atomic bomb and not conventional bombings from B-29s that convinced the Japanese military to agree to peace.

Supporters of the bombing also point out that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option—as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month. Firebombing had killed well over 100,000 people in Japan since February of 1945, directly and indirectly. That intensive conventional bombing would have continued prior to an invasion. The submarine blockade and the United States Army Air Forces's mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan's imports. A complementary operation against Japan's railways was about to begin, isolating the cities of southern Honshu from the food grown elsewhere in the Home Islands. This, combined with the delay in relief supplies from the Allies, could have resulted in a far greater death toll in Japan from famine and malnutrition than actually occurred in the attacks. "Immediately after the defeat, some estimated that 10 million people were likely to starve to death," noted historian Daikichi Irokawa. Meanwhile, in addition to the Soviet attacks, offensives were scheduled for September in southern China and Malaysia.

The Americans anticipated losing many soldiers in the planned invasion of Japan, although the actual number of expected fatalities and wounded is subject to some debate and depends on the persistence and reliability of Japanese resistance and whether the Americans would have invaded only Kyushu in November 1945 or if a follow up landing near Tokyo, projected for March of 1946, would have been needed. Years after the war, Secretary of State James Byrnes claimed that 500,000 American lives would have been lost—and that number has since been repeated authoritatively, but in the summer of 1945, U.S. military planners projected 20,000–110,000 combat deaths from the initial November 1945 invasion, with about three to four times that number wounded. (Total U.S. combat deaths on all fronts in World War II in nearly four years of war were 292,000.) However, these estimates were done using intelligence that grossly underestimated Japanese strength being gathered for the battle of Kyushu in numbers of soldiers and kamikazes, by factors of at least three. Many military advisors held that a worst-case scenario could involve up to 1,000,000 American casualties.

The atomic bomb hastened the end of the Second World War in Asia liberating hundreds of thousands of Western citizens, including about 200,000 Dutch and 400,000 Indonesians ("Romushas") from Japanese concentration camps. Moreover, Japanese troops had committed atrocities against millions of civilians (such as the infamous Nanking Massacre), and the early end to the war prevented further bloodshed.

Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944. The order dealt with the disposal and execution of all Allied POWs, numbering over 100,000, if an invasion of the Japanese mainland took place.[30] It is also likely that, considering Japan's previous treatment of POWs, were the Allies to wait out Japan and starve it, the Japanese would have killed all Allied POWs and Chinese prisoners.

In response to the argument that the large-scale killing of civilians was immoral and a war crime, supporters of the bombings have argued that the Japanese government waged total war, ordering many civilians (including women and children) to work in factories and military offices and to fight against any invading force. Father John A. Siemes, professor of modern philosophy at Tokyo's Catholic University, and an eyewitness to the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima wrote:

"We have discussed among ourselves the ethics of the use of the bomb. Some consider it in the same category as poison gas and were against its use on a civil population. Others were of the view that in total war, as carried on in Japan, there was no difference between civilians and soldiers, and that the bomb itself was an effective force tending to end the bloodshed, warning Japan to surrender and thus to avoid total destruction. It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of war against civilians."[31]

Some supporters of the bombings have emphasized the strategic significance of Hiroshima, as the Japanese 2nd army's headquarters, and of Nagasaki, as a major munitions manufacturing center.

Some historians have claimed that U.S. planners wanted to end the war quickly to minimize potential Soviet acquisition of Japanese-held territory.

[miamipuck]

BTW I am Jewish and contrary to Merv both sides are equally complicit and so full of bullshit that it comes out their collective ears!

Just for the record both sides mean the Palestinians and the Israeli's. By and large if you took a poll of the common people most would want peace. However like in our country the Hawks have all the power!

Hezbollah are full of shit too. They are just a quasi-para military terrorist oirganization that is a proxy for the nutballs in Syria and Iran, that should be disbanded! They have no bearing on the issues between Palestinians nor Israelis and as such should be wiped off the map.................... as an organization.


That is all I am done with this bullshit!

[bigdil511]

BigDil,

Temper, temper, big boy...hit a nerve there, did we?

I SAID DISTINCTLY THAT I DONT BELIEVE IT WAS THE RIGHT TIHNG DO DO

No, actually, what you said was:

The whole point is to AVOID CASUALTIES ON YOUR SIDE, AND INFLICT CASUALTIES ON THE OTHER SIDE, which was the point in dropping the bomb. It might not be the shining hour for our country, but lets not be too judgemental because you simply weren't there

Now the way I read that is, "It wasn't a nice thing, it wasn't a thing to be proud of, but it was necessary, and we can't condemn it".

That's a far cry from "it was the wrong thing to do".

I don't agree with it, I don't like it, and you seem to think that the people loved it, that they toasted that success with beers and champagne afterwards

I don't see anywhere here that I've said anything remotely like that. Please, feel free to quote any post where I even implied such a thing.

Dude for the most part I agree with a lot of things you say, but you are making no sense

Actually, my entire response was to this specific point. You said that what I said didn't make sense. I responded by explaining it again, and stating why I felt it was logical, and made sense.

Nowhere was I saying that you specifically believed those things. It is a thing called rhetorical argument. So I'm afraid you got all bent out of shape over something that wasn't even specifically directed at you, other than as an explanation of my arguments.

P.S. -- I am, however, curious as to your interpretation of 9/11, in regards to your statement that "The whole point is to avoid casualties on your side, and inflict casualties on the other side". By that argument 9/11 was a pretty damned impressive success.

Actually this is not even close to me being bent out of shape, I am simply responding to your obvious arrogance and the my opinion is hollier-than-thou-art attitude, I really don't care for that. It isn't something you said, its the arrogance behind what you say and how you say it, you are taking specific points out of context and are completely misinterpreting them. Also make it a point if you don't want to get people aggrivated to leave their families out of it? No point talking about what if is there? Doesn't matter what could happen, its about what has happened. Also I stated that my opinions are not fact, I also am not arguing your opinions (I just really don't care, you believe what you want thats up to you). My point was, don't fucking preach and say and act like your opinions are fact, when they are not, and don't tell other people not to preach their opinions as facts, when thats exactly what you are fucking doing. END OF DISCUSSION.

P.S. Your last statement is a perfect example of your arrogance. You really are good at taking things out of context and interpreting them to suite your argument (well done).

P.P.S. I was not arguing your points to begin with, your opinion is up to you, I just don't like hipocritical statements.

P.P.P.S. I am not an all knowing person, there are a great many things I don't know, I don't act like I know all, and I keep an open mind to everyone's opinions. I like to ask questions and try and make people widen the horizon a little bit, but I see that I am failing miserably with you, b/c you still have not grasped the point to anything I said. Let me tell you though, you should be a lawyer, you are great at pulling things out of context to suite your needs.

[bigdil511]

BTW I am Jewish

I am sorry to hear that .

[poormanbilly]

I feel like I should add my thoughts to this thread......

[miamipuck]

BTW I am Jewish

I am sorry to hear that .

I just want to make it painfully clear that although some might think I am biased, it is easy for me to say both sides suck major ass!

[qingdaoman]

Thanks, Miami...glad to see someone calling me out on my claims!

Now, in regards to the dropping of the bomb, you are quite correct that at the time the bomb was deployed, the war in Europe was over. However, the bomb was being planned for a long time before that, and discussions were held as to where it would be used. At that time, before the war in Europe was finished, a decision was made that when the bomb was ready, it should be used on Japan, not on Europe. Because citizens of both Europe and America would not accept their government using such a weapon against "their own kind".

I am sorry, I don't have the reference for this at present, but I will find it and post it later. (I don't expect you to accept it just because I say so)

In regard to your second argument, nowhere have I claimed that the Japanese were blameless, or did not do terrible things. Hell, dude, I live in China, where I am plastered with anti-Japanese propoganda on an almost daily basis. Nor have I anywhere debated that the Japanese were planning to surrender before the bomb was dropped.

You are using the typical red herring argument. You try to point to all the things they did, while entirely avoiding the questions I have asked over and over again.

So, for the record:

Yes, the Japanese military were right royal bastards, vicious bloodthirsty demons whose disregard for human life was deploreable.

And yes, there is a decent argument to be made that, without dropping the bomb, the war could have continued quite a while longer, and more Allied lives would have been lost.

You still have failed to answer my questions. So let me restate them for you...I hope that if I repeat them often enough, someone will finally have the balls to answer, rather than continue with these red herrings and evasions.

Question One -- Do you believe that it is justifiable for a soldier, on the ground, to deliberately target and slay defenseless children and babies, gunning them down or slitting their throats? If your answer is "yes", then fine, you are consistent in your beliefs that using a atom bomb is acceptable. If your answer is no, move on to the next question.

Question Two -- If it is not justifiable for a soldier to do that in person, why is it justifiable for the same soldier to do the same thing by dropping a bomb on those children and babies? And I am not talking here about an attack on a military target that happens to kill a few civillians; I am talking about specifically targeting civillians to be killed, when it is entirely unnecessary for taking out a military target.

Question Three -- Do you agree that foreign powers have the right to deliberately target an American civillian population with WMDs, if by doing so they will save the lives of their own soldiers? If your answer is "yes", then fine, you are consistent in your beliefs that using a atom bomb is acceptable. If your answer is no, move on to the next question.

Question Four -- If it is not justifiable for foreign powers to deliberately target American civillians with WMD, why is it okay for the US to do so to Japan (or anyone else)?

Those are my questions. Simple enough. I've asked them often enough. Still waiting for someone to stop dancing around and actually answer them.

[qingdaoman]

Funny to me how many people get upset every time I get into these debates and argue for the very simple principle that Japanese civillians deserve the same respect, protection, and rights that any other human being does; and that those rights are not abrogated or lost because A) their gov't/military does terrible things or B) we can save some soldier's lives by doing so.

To add one more question to my previous ones:

Question Five -- If we had a theoretical situation where the killing of a large American civillian population would lead to the saving of soldier's lives, would such a thing be condoned? If not, again, how is it acceptable to do this to a Japanese civillian population?

All of this comes down to one very simple item for me -- arguments supporting the deliberate targeting of a Japanese civillian population are based on an implicit assumption that Japanese civillian lives have less value than American civillian lives.

And that is at the core of my ENTIRE debate here. Anyone who wants to condemn me for "preaching" such an atrocious concept of "equality" can feel free do to do so

[miamipuck]

Red Herring:

a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments.


Yes, I agree the argument you are using is a ridiculous usage of a Red Herring!

Those questions have absolutely no bearing on whether or not we should have used the Atomic Bomb in 1945. Which I believe we should have given Truman's options.

If you want to compare 9/11. I think it is a completely disingenuous argument to equate that with the dropping of the Atomic Bomb!

1.) It was used at a time when almost the entire world was at War.................. a Declared war.

2.) No matter how you slice it it saved many lives. Both ours and theirs.

3.) It followed with the standard war doctrine of the day.

My lord why is it everyone wants to rewrite history or distort facts and make links between then and now.
Truman did what he thought he had to do. Ask him if he would do the same thing over again? Oh wait you can not he is dead.

Just like I can not go and get Hitler and beat the piss out of the little midget.

[mervhage]

BTW I am Jewish

Say word?! That's funny that Miami and I get along great. We are hombres and we speak very often and don't disagree on anything. We are a constant source of moral support for each other, as both of us live very trying lives. What's funny is, the conflict is not between Arabs and Jews, it's between the fucking leaders!! Back in my music days, I wrote a dope-ass song detailing the whole thing. Unfortunately, we couldn't get it to the light of day and until now, I forgot about it.

Anyways, the point is, the media would have you believe that Arabs want to drive Israel into the sea. If my best friend thought that was true, he wouldn't be my friend. Our "leaders" lie to us and trick us into fighting for them, while they sit back and act like this is a fucking video game.

Miami, just so you know, I definitely feel that both sides (leaders) are full of shit. I'm sure I mentioned it in another post.

Qman, don't make BigD angry, you won't like him when he's angry!

I'd love to write a short essay, but I have exactly 45 minutes to watch High Stakes Poker on DVR, if I don't watch it now, I won't get to watch until Sunday.

[qingdaoman]

Miami

lol -- I love ya'!

Still don't have the balls to answer my questions, but hey, they're obviously loaded

If you want to compare 9/11. I think it is a completely disingenuous argument to equate that with the dropping of the Atomic Bomb!

1.) It was used at a time when almost the entire world was at War.................. a Declared war.

2.) No matter how you slice it it saved many lives. Both ours and theirs.

3.) It followed with the standard war doctrine of the day.

Okay, my responses:

1) Bin Laden had long ago declared his intent to attack the U.S. But okay, lets say it was not a declared war. TODAY, it is definitely a declared war...so do you argue that if the SAME THING was done now, it would be acceptable?

2) Bull-shit. Yes, it saved OUR lives, I won't debate that. But I have a hard time with the argument that MORE civillians in Japan would have been killed as a result of an extended war than were killed by those two atomic bombs. SOLDIERS would have died. That's what soldiers do.

Sacrificing children and babies to protect soldiers? Sorry, that just doesn't float my boat.

3) This is probably the most cogent defense that's been given to this point. You are quite right -- it was (arguably) the doctrine of the day. And far more atrocities than just the dropping of atomic bombs were committed by ALL sides in that conflict.

But, again, let me take your argument to its logical conclusion. You are arguing, essentially, that at that time in history, this was considered acceptable, and therefore we cannot judge it by modern standards, or condemn it. By that argument, for a long time, slavery was the standard doctrine of the day in the US. I guess that means that I cannot argue that slavery was wrong until the doctrine changed? That so long as the "doctrine of the day" was that blacks were lesser human beings, it was acceptable to keep them as slaves, and it is wrong for me to say that it was actually wrong to do so?

You see, I have this stubborn tendency to look at those documents that are so central to the existence of the United States of America. Documents that state that equality is a right that belongs to every person.

By that standard, I feel quite confident in condemning slavery in the US, even when it was "the doctrine of the day", because it nevertheless violated the most basic principles upon which the US was founded. And, eventually, the majority of Americans came to agree with that view.

By that standard, I also feel quite confident in condemning the deliberate slaughter of Japanese civillians with atomic weapons, even when it was "the doctrine of the day", because it nevertheless violated those same principles. The consideration given to Japanese civillians was not the same as the consideration that would be given to American civillians.

A final point regarding "the doctrine of the day". It was a doctrine held by some, but certainly not by all. In fact, many of those involved in the actual building of the bomb itself expressed that they felt the use of that bomb against Japan was wrong. And numerous Americans, after the bomb was used, expressed outrage and disgust that such a weapon was used. So it was far from being a universal "doctrine".

Anyway, I appreciate your responses. However, I fail to see how asking about a soldier deliberately killing babies is irrelevant...had US soldiers killed exactly the same number of Japanese children/babies in direct combat, nobody today would be debating if it was right. They'd condemn it out of hand. By today's doctrines, OR by the doctrines of that time. I don't see how the decision to order a soldier to kill them with a gun, or with a bomb, is morally any different. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

[qingdaoman]

Qman, don't make BigD angry, you won't like him when he's angry!

He'll get over it...I'm such a damned charming guy that people just can't stay angry with me for long

I sense this particular debate is likely coming to a close, anyway...it'll soon reach the point where people are just repeating the same arguments. Although Miami's done a good job of pulling in some new ones

[LadyWrestler]

[miamipuck]

BTW don't you think most of the worlds problems stem from people still trying to use stone age doctrine on present day human beings?

I hate beating around the bush yes I mean religion.

Oh thanks for letting me debunk another of your arguments...............

Thanks for making it easy QingdaoMan

But, again, let me take your argument to its logical conclusion. You are arguing, essentially, that at that time in history, this was considered acceptable, and therefore we cannot judge it by modern standards, or defend it. By that argument, for a long time, slavery was the standard doctrine of the day in the US. I guess that means that I cannot argue that slavery was wrong until the doctrine changed? That so long as the "doctrine of the day" was that blacks were lesser human beings, it was acceptable to keep them as slaves, and it is wrong for me to say that it was actually wrong to do so?

You see, I have this stubborn tendency to look at those documents that are so central to the existence of the United States of America. Documents that state that equality is a right that belongs to every person.

By that standard, I feel quite confident in condemning slavery in the US, even when it was "the doctrine of the day", because it nevertheless violated the most basic principles upon which the US was founded. And, eventually, the majority of Americans came to agree with that view.

Kind of funny you mention slavery as the standard doctrine of the day. If you would go to my prior post you would see a quote by William Tecumsah Sherman.

Here let me give you a little background on William T. Sherman. He was a General in a little itty bitty war. In this little itty bitty war more Americans died then in all the Prior and following wars combined. Let me repeat............ More Americans died in that little itty bitty war then in every single other war America has fought combined. The death toll alone was over 600,000 soldiers.

Now a logical fellow like your self would say why on earth did the US fight a war against itself and have that many people die because of it? Here let me tell you.......... It was because of Slavery!

Yeah kind of funny that all those Americans died because of the so called "doctrine of the day". Maybe another way to put it is that a large majority of Americans hated the idea and did not want it to be standard doctrine of the day and hence it never became such! Unless of course your name was Eruu.


Next!