Discussion: The Iraq War

[Cho Chang]

And you dont address the point.

I answered your question, whyd you get all huffed about that?

You didn't give me a point to address and how am I supposed to be expected to know the zip code even if you did?

 

[Cho Chang]

You caught me. Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste.

I love that song.

 

[Admiral_N8]

I don't know, maybe I'm paranoid, but I think I found a vague, subtle, hidden reference to me being homosexual in this post.

No, you could also be a homophobe. Just curious how thats the first thing that popped into your mind.

Of course I dont think you are either, its just funny

 

[JLBats]

No, you could also be a homophobe. Just curious how thats the first thing that popped into your mind.

Of course I dont think you are either, its just funny

Well, you know what homophobia really says about you, right?

 

[Carter]

Make sure to use all your well learned politess

 

[Admiral_N8]

Not really, since killing a lot of innocent people was essentially the plan.

So do you think all the bombings we did in Germany and Europe was also terrorism?

And the plan was not to kill " a lot of innocent people". IT was to destroy a lot of buildings. If the plan was to kill innocents, it was a sloppy idea....because our firebombs were a lot more effective at doing that.

We wanted to show we could destory entire military complexes and armies with one bomb.

 

[Carter]

So do you think all the bombings we did in Germany and Europe was also terrorism?

And the plan was not to kill " a lot of innocent people". IT was to destroy a lot of buildings. If the plan was to kill innocents, it was a sloppy idea....because our firebombs were a lot more effective at doing that.

We wanted to show we could destory entire military complexes and armies with one bomb.

If part of the plan is killing innocent people then it's wrong.
Unintentional collateral damage is different.

What is so hard for everyone to understand?

 

[Admiral_N8]

Yes anything can be justified in a seemingly reasonable way, a-ny-thing.

As for your second point I fail to see how targetting the Pentagon (or supposedly the White House/Senate) counts as a civilian target. The truth is there were probably much more reasonable and quieter ways to end the conflict between us and the Japanese, but we wanted to show off the new bomb we created.

However if you want civilian targets perhaps we should look at Andrew Jackson who slaughtered most of Americas living Native American population, or the blind eye we turned from 1910-1950 to the culture of lynching, even allowing the KKK to run the sheriffs offices in most states (northern and southern). And those were in our own country.

I said World Trade Centers...never mentioned the Pentagon. Dont put words into my mouth plz. The Pentagon is a military target, however when your weapon is a tube full of innocent civilians it really doesnt matter WHAT you target. I am sure you would agree with me on that.

We wanted to show off the new bomb? ok, and we wanted to end a 6 year long war that killed more than any other war ever without losing our own people too.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

So do you think all the bombings we did in Germany and Europe was also terrorism?

And the plan was not to kill " a lot of innocent people". IT was to destroy a lot of buildings. If the plan was to kill innocents, it was a sloppy idea....because our firebombs were a lot more effective at doing that.

We wanted to show we could destory entire military complexes and armies with one bomb.

Its a wee bit different when you drop a bomb which you know will wipe out every living and standing structure within a three kilometer radius and causing damages for another 2.5 kilometers...with fatal radiation exposure for another 500 meters.

 

[Admiral_N8]

You didn't give me a point to address and how am I supposed to be expected to know the zip code even if you did?

You asked a question, then got upset at me answering...thats all you did.

 

[Admiral_N8]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really anti-government.
Personally I dont care who we nuke. It's not me pushing the button.
But when all this talk about what's wrong and what's not comes about, you have to be honest and acknowledge that nuking Japan was morally wrong.

How? We saved our own lives, as well as theirs if we had to invade them.

We killed 100,000 in 2 hours of bombings of Tokyo.

So IF You care about the innocents, you would prefer a QUICK end, not us bombing them to hell to break their back so we can invade.

People just get upset about these civillians dyins simply because it was from one single bomb. you NEVER hear about the other people dying [who were more numerous] from our other bombs.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I said World Trade Centers...never mentioned the Pentagon. Dont put words into my mouth plz. The Pentagon is a military target, however when your weapon is a tube full of innocent civilians it really doesnt matter WHAT you target. I am sure you would agree with me on that.

We wanted to show off the new bomb? ok, and we wanted to end a 6 year long war that killed more than any other war ever without losing our own people too.

And I already explained how the WTC counts as a strategic target, it they wanted to committ simply civilian causualities without inflicted strategic damages they would have attacked the sears tower.

I should also remind you that the 911 deaths amount to 2,985, while the atomic bomb deaths number 210,000

I should also remind you that the documents held by the military that accounted for the civilian populations of that area (approx 400,000 by our best guess) were all burned after the bomb dropped.

 

[Carter]

Are the principles of right and wrong really this hard to understand?

Innocents killed on purpose - wrong
Innocents killed accidentally - not wrong

 

[Admiral_N8]

If part of the plan is killing innocent people then it's wrong.
Unintentional collateral damage is different.

What is so hard for everyone to understand?

Part of the plan ALWAYS takes into account the loss of life that will happen. EVERY single large scale military strike has that. The plan wasnt to "kill as many Japanese", it was to destroy a huge area, to destory huge industrial and military capabilities in ONE strike.

THAT was the plan.

 

[Carter]

Part of the plan ALWAYS takes into account the loss of life that will happen. EVERY single large scale military strike has that. The plan wasnt to "kill as many Japanese", it was to destroy a huge area, to destory huge industrial and military capabilities in ONE strike.

THAT was the plan.

And the plan was morally wrong. Obviously.

 

[Admiral_N8]

Its a wee bit different when you drop a bomb which you know will wipe out every living and standing structure within a three kilometer radius and causing damages for another 2.5 kilometers...with fatal radiation exposure for another 500 meters.

How is that different then using 100 bombers to do even MORE damage? As in Tokyo and bombing in Europe?

You people get all upset about the A-Bomb, yet seem to think it was worse then what was done elsewhere?

The moral outrage of the A-Bomb, while silent on everything else that KILLED MORE PEOPLE, is just silly.

The outrage just stems from "it was one bomb", yet we did MORE damage killed MORE people with multiple bombs and people dont mind....curious ey

 

[ShadowBoxing]

How is that different then using 100 bombers to do even MORE damage? As in Tokyo and bombing in Europe?

You people get all upset about the A-Bomb, yet seem to think it was worse then what was done elsewhere?

The moral outrage of the A-Bomb, while silent on everything else that KILLED MORE PEOPLE, is just silly.

The outrage just stems from "it was one bomb", yet we did MORE damage killed MORE people with multiple bombs and people dont mind....curious ey

Only 100,000 died in the Tokyo attack....210,000 died in Hiroshima/Nagasaki...get your facts straight.

 

[Admiral_N8]

Only 100,000 died in the Tokyo attack....210,000 died in Hiroshima/Nagasaki...get your facts straight.

Notice how I said "ONE BOMB" not "TWO BOMBS" Read my post first.

70–80,000 people died from 1st bomb [also notice how i said in ONE day, at the time, not taking into account anything after the war]

40,000 were killed that day from the 2nd bomb.

So in ONE day we killed MORE people then any atomic bomb. Yet there is this huge outrage only about the Abomb? Its ridiculous.

 

[Cho Chang]

Can we get back to the embassy thing being ridiculous?

 

[Cho Chang]

I, for one, think it's ridiculous.

 

[Carter]

Notice how I said "ONE BOMB" not "TWO BOMBS" Read my post first.

70–80,000 people died from 1st bomb [also notice how i said in ONE day, at the time, not taking into account anything after the war]

40,000 were killed that day from the 2nd bomb.

So in ONE day we killed MORE people then any atomic bomb. Yet there is this huge outrage only about the Abomb? Its ridiculous.

That's the issue that sticks out the most, nobody said those other bombings were moral

 

[Admiral_N8]

And the plan was morally wrong. Obviously.

How were we supposed to end the war "morally"? I am sure the answer will be some form of "give peace a chance" or something.


It would have been MORE immoral to invade, bomb the hell out of their cities, and have thousands US soldiers die [tell their mothers "they had to die because it would have been immoral to drop 2 big bombs on them...even though it killed less then our normal weekly bombings on mainland Japan]

So, whats YOUR moral plan?
Anything you do in war is "immoral", but if you dont live in a fluffy dreamworld you have to do "immoral" things to stop people like Hitler.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Notice how I said "ONE BOMB" not "TWO BOMBS" Read my post first.

70–80,000 people died from 1st bomb [also notice how i said in ONE day, at the time, not taking into account anything after the war]

40,000 were killed that day from the 2nd bomb.

So in ONE day we killed MORE people then any atomic bomb. Yet there is this huge outrage only about the Abomb? Its ridiculous.

Oh I gotcha...so as long as they don't died until a few weeks later we can wash our hands of those deaths....and if you want a better answer you should refer to my post where the army burned the papers which estimated the first bombs population around 400,000...that 140,000 deaths is our best estimate.

No one defended the other bombings either...perhaps you should read our posts.

 

[Carter]

How were we supposed to end the war "morally"? I am sure the answer will be some form of "give peace a chance" or something.


It would have been MORE immoral to invade, bomb the hell out of their cities, and have thousands US soldiers die [tell their mothers "they had to die because it would have been immoral to drop 2 big bombs on them...even though it killed less then our normal weekly bombings on mainland Japan]

So, whats YOUR moral plan?
Anything you do in war is "immoral", but if you dont live in a fluffy dreamworld you have to do "immoral" things to stop people like Hitler.

I don't have a moral plan. That doesn't make it right.

 

[Admiral_N8]

That's the issue that sticks out the most, nobody said those other bombings were moral

Nobody said they were immoral though...nobody seems to care about the NUMBER of innocents killed, because we killed a lot more with regular bombs in one week then with the 2 "immoral bombs". They just are upset it happened with one big bomb. People seem to be perfectly okay with killing that many in Europe or Japan with lots of planes with lots of bombs [everyone thinks THATS ok but not the A Bomb?]

ITs so hypicritical its insane.