GameBanshee Forums

[url="http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_23.htm"]Here's a link[/url]

Why was Nagasaki targeted?

And why should the US in this "be the bigger man" so to speak.
They have suffered numerous thousands in casulties due to the work of few men, and now it is belived that a country support these men, or at least obstruck the possibility to caputre the prime suspect.
Why shouldn't the muslims be the "bigger persons" - especially when we often hear that Islam is a compasionate religion?

The bigger man?
Well it isn't realistic with the feelings on the street that the muslim nations should hand him over without proof or be the bigger man so to speak.
I will repeat again, provide the proof and heck i will go and get him myself.
The Taliban are a blight on the name of islam and so is osama.
But i will not condemn a man without proof.
Second the US is the bigger man already as they already have the moral high ground.
However if you want osama you take away his power among the people.
People are already praising him and calling him a hero.
That is not good and the US should not help in increasing that indirectly by attacking Afghanistan.
The main issue is not one of the moral high ground or one of respect among the muslim people as i have stated it is to get Osama.
I personally feel that bombing the afghani people is not the way to do it.
Provide the proof take away osamas popular support among the people and then get the guy.

Nobody before the 11th September forced any country to not have diplomatic relations with Taleban. It was not looked upon as good, but there was nobody forcing them, and yet at that time only 3 countries had these relations. This is counting numerous Islamic countries. Should this not symbolise dissaprovel.

There were only 3.
And Pakistan still has ties.
Symbolism of disapproval?
Nah more like they have no idea who the freaking leader is.
Of course second they don't care who governs afghanistan as it is not important.

Yes - but again, (as you stated yourself, didn't bother to quote it) the "rapsheet" of European countries are far smaller, and at least we don't hang and maim our political opponets and civilians, in the name of a religion.

Where Denmark violates civil rights (in the eyes of Amnesty International) is in solitude confinment where a suspect is placed, so to not obstruct the investigative work by the police - this I can't compare to what goes on in ei. Afganistan.

Xandax my point was a simple one.
Don't take the fundementalists as the norm in Islamic society.
That was my single point.
I was not comparing what happens in Afghanistan to what happens in europe.

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>Fas - you conveniently skip the fact that they have a second choice - hand over bin Laden.

The US has been betrayed by so many countries, why the hell would the gov't want bin Laden handed over to a middleman? Doesn't work for the American people. They don't trust other countries; they've got no reason to trust them.

Hand over all the evidence? Do prosecuters hand over all their evidence to apprehend a suspect? No. That would destroy their case. They hand over all their evidence during a trial. I've seen enough evidence in the newspapers alone to have bin Laden be suspect enough to be 'legally' aprehended. You want better evidence then let's see bin Laden in a court room.

Carrot and Stick policy?
Yes, yes! Let's throw funds into their country and neighboring areas to gain their support! Just like China, where the corrupt governments squandered the money and the ROC got kicked out and moved to Taiwan! Our so-called peaceful assitance there ended with the unfavorable gov't in power.

Don't you people get it? Peace is all nice and good for idealism, and it's a great concept. But some people don't understand negotiations, don't understand peace. They only understand one thing: a show of power, and war is the only show of power they respect.

We can't live in a truly peaceful world.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilence. The Americans have a freedom to live their lives - the vigilence is holding on to that freedom by denying others the right to take their life.</STRONG>

Looks like i have opened pandoras box.
Hand over Osama, again proof.
But i see you have covered that topic.
Well before you get the person you have a warrant.
And the warrant is issued by the Judicial body of the govt.
What organization is used in this case?
Second the US isn't talking to a like minded group here.
You are dealing with those who hate the US and everything they believe is anti-islamic and the US is the "great satan".
Why should you expect them to hand over Osama?
You should be ready to negotiate.

Now you have pointed out that the US does not trust others.
Then why should other nations trust the US when it says it has proof?
Show the proof and make them believe you.

Also quark i don't understand the reference to china, as it happened during world war 2, and the ROC lost.
The US provided money to fight the Japanese not to establish a friendly govt.
Could you elaborate on the point further?

Peace is an ideal yes.
But Western European has made great strides in that feild.
If Germany and France can live in peace i do think that the rest of the world can as well.
Hope is need, you can't just give up because a bunch of idiots decided killing a few 1000 innocents is a good idea.

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>Ivan, you conveniently ignore the fact that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives. American and Japanese lives.

</STRONG>

You made me break the vow I made earlier today. Still, I am not going to ignore this.

You are ignorant the fact people are still dying from two atomic bombs 56 years ago. It is not only Japanese but also many Koreans and Chinese who were taken from their home countries and forced to work in Japan, were still suffered from cancer, leukemia, ulcer, and so on, and many were born with disabilities.

Don't you dare call it "saving lives".

@Minerva *hugs*

Originally posted by Happy Evil:
<STRONG><snip> - The US is not in the business of jailing people without cause (I hope)unlike the Taliban. Let OSB stand trial. If he is innocent then fine. Let the UN(or somebody) hold court and we will present a case there. Its funny how OSB can spew anti american rhetoric and threats against civilians, yet be portrayed as incapable of pulling this off. Now everyone is shocked that we want to get/kill the invoker of terror. My point is, you would never offer up your entire case to an opposition. I think doing so would expose the sources and allow the terrorists to address their own weaknesses. It would also open up the world forum for endless debates about the validity of said proof, and that would just add to the pile of unsolved problems in the middle east. The "provide proof" (so we can delay and stall any actions for a thousand years) thing is moot. Try something else.

The "Carrot and Stick" thing has worked wonders for the Palestinians hasnt it.(sarcasm alert)

Also, you keep saying dont drop "pop-tarts" on starving people? I'm sure you have plenty to eat as I do. Lets ask the refugees if they would rather die from starvation or eat a pop tart.

[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: Happy Evil ]</STRONG>

If he is innocent?
Happy evil do you think he will get off free if he is innocent after all the media hype.
I don't believe so, and it seems that many muslim nations don't believe that either.
Make the trail the public opinion of the proof.
That would be the best indicator.

Actions speak louder than words happy evil.
If i see the proof and it is solid and concrete, you can have him.
But i will not condemn a man if he is innocent.
NOBODY has commented on the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty.
In Osama's case he is guilty.
You say it is moot.
But then what do you do then?
Let the bombing continue?
Make Osama a martyr and make 30 more like him who hate the US even more.
This is just a spiral downwards.
Validity of the proof will not be questioned if it is valid and solid.

As for the pop tart point, i have said let the people who know their job - the NGO's - let them do it.
My questions to grunt or someone i don't remember as i am talking to like 15 people.
If you have a plane that drops bombs and one that drops food.
Do you wait around to get food or get killed?
Or do you go say to the red cross which provides you with a staple food supply for months?


Also The Red cross had already told the US about its warehouses before the attacks from what i have learnt.

As for Isreale and the PLO.
The carrot and stick let the PLO to the table of negotiation did it not.
It stopped the attacks for a short while.
The failure of the peace process forced teh attacks again.

Do you know what the Japenese culture was like during WWII? Win or die, that simple.

In the Mariana Islands Japanese civilians jumped off cliffs rather than surrender to the Marines. Wars were not won by gaining back your land and declaring 'peace' - most wars were won by gaining total control in the end. The US went island by island, taking all but the homeland and Japan would still not surrender.

I've heard estimates that it would have taken three times as many lives to invade Japan than dropping the bomb. Some are not severe, but my own social studies teacher, who is completely against nuclear arsenal agreed that it saved lives.

Did I say it was humane? No.
Back then they didn't even know about radiation from bombs, though! They didn't drop the bombs knowing it would contaminate the land!

Did I say it was right? No.
I simply stated a widely supported opinion that it saved lives. You think Truman was happy with what he did? He said he did it purely out of the fear of casualties of invasion.

Finally, and most importantly, why the hell are so many of us punished for what happend almost 40 years before I was born?!?!

References to the ROC: The PRC and ROC temporarily ceased hostilities while fighting the Japanese. At the conclusion of WW2, they resumed fighting. The US considered the ROC the 'official' gov't, so we gave them money, training, and weapons. The ROC was even the gov't in the UN with one of the 5 vetos in the Security Council (Nixon later traded that to the PRC for better peace negotiations - talk about sellout considering he switched members of a permanent position). While not communist, the gov't was still quite corrupt and proceeded to waste the money. Pure hedonism on the part of the leaders forced the ROC into losing the war - they fled to Taiwan and claimed it their own.

Not only did the 'assistance' of the US not help the ROC, the end result was a communist China and an island where the natives were controlled by outsiders. I went to high school with a Taiwanese native, do you know how happy she was the day a native was elected to the highest ROC position 1.5 years ago? It took Taiwan around 50 years to be represented by one of it's own again.

Yes, let's give 'assitance' to people who disagree with the Taliban. We're sure to get far if we let them fight their own war.

@Quark: I am not give any opinion, justification, opposition etc. towards whatever you want to say, or everyone else for that matter. And, quite frankly, I don't care what you say now after that post.

I am only saying, the calling atomic bombs who did and still are killing people "saving lives" is not acceptable.

Why don't you go to either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, then give us your opinion? Most of things there cannot be shown on books or TV anywhere in the world, because it's too nasty and ghastly.

@Quark - I know I have no need to politely remind you of the multinational status of this board, and what do my opinions matter anyway in the scheme of things? but you targeted and opinionated on a nation exceptional to the current debate...the past is past... There is no comparison here IMHO....

Finally, and most importantly, why the hell are so many of us punished for what happend almost 40 years before I was born?!?!

Exactly. That also goes for the Germans and the Japanese....

Quark writes:
Finally, and most importantly, why the hell are so many of us punished for what happend almost 40 years before I was born?!?!

Um, who's blaming you? Whom are you defending against on this specific point, here?

I have to wonder if you're not responding to voices you've heard elsewhere about this.

But then, I'm sure since you understand how improper it is to blame the children and grandchildren of people who, in any case, never issued the orders to drop the A-bomb, you'll understand perceive how foolish it is to blame the Afghani people for decisions made by a group of strongmen who seized control of the government by force. And I'm sure you regret, as I do, the continued inadvertent bombing of innocents, even while you approve of the objectives pursued by the Alliance. Correct?

Quark:
Do you know what the Japenese culture was like during WWII? Win or die, that simple.
In the Mariana Islands Japanese civilians jumped off cliffs rather than surrender to the Marines. Wars were not won by gaining back your land and declaring 'peace' - most wars were won by gaining total control in the end. The US went island by island, taking all but the homeland and Japan would still not surrender.

You know this don't justify the bombs over the civilians.(BTW, as I said before nothing justify.)

Quark:
I've heard estimates that it would have taken three times as many lives to invade Japan than dropping the bomb. Some are not severe, but my own social studies teacher, who is completely against nuclear arsenal agreed that it saved lives.

Even if this estimates are true. One live cannot be saved by the cost of other inocent live. One lost inocent live is not something you can measure(atribute valor). 10 innocent lives lost is no more or no less than 1 innocent live lost.
You already know this too.

Quark:
Back then they didn't even know about radiation from bombs, though! They didn't drop the bombs knowing it would contaminate the land!

IMO the simply fact of drop a bomb over civilian is terrible. Drop a bomb that future consequences are not clare was even more terrible.
And anyway, they don't know all about the bomb. We know. We should be responsible in our observations and actions.

Quark:
Finally, and most importantly, why the hell are so many of us punished for what happend almost 40 years before I was born?!?!

What do you mean?
When I call the Hiroshima-Nagasaki "event" was only to trace a paralelal with the actual event.
Psicological punishment?
Feeling of guilty?

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>Did I say it was right? No.
I simply stated a widely supported opinion that it saved lives. You think Truman was happy with what he did? He said he did it purely out of the fear of casualties of invasion.

Finally, and most importantly, why the hell are so many of us punished for what happend almost 40 years before I was born?!?!
</STRONG>

Perhaps it is "widely supported" in the US that the atom bombs "saved lives", this I do not know. I would however not agree with you that the rest of the world widely supports the idea that the bombings have saved lives, especially not the Nagasaki bombing.

You talk about being punished. Do you feel punished because people here on the board don't agree with your political views? If not, who do you mean is punishing who? I don't understand.

My my what fun, a pile on.

I believe today I will refrain.


Just call it Psicological punishment?
Feeling of guilty?


See this is what I love about this world...people with all the answers. LMFAO

Little paralelal.
Sorry
I was about create a new topic. But its content is not that important. And we were talking about something near here; so I'll post here anyway.
[hope the topic starter don't get mad] .

Today Japan broke the Anti-military(intervention) law imposed by the USA(end of WWII). The new law was create to make possible to the Japan give suport in the War against terror. The new law have 2 years of "life" and can be prorrogated for more 2 years.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>See this is what I love about this world...people with all the answers. LMFAO </STRONG>

I seem to recall you "piling on" with others when the pilee was writing something you strongly disagreed with--wasn't that the case with the late, lamented @AT99, @Weasel?

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I seem to recall you "piling on" with others when the pilee was writing something you strongly disagreed with--wasn't that the case with the late, lamented @AT99, @Weasel? </STRONG>

Fable, I respect you and your opinion. I believe I will hand this in a PM.

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>The figure is 7,000. By the time they cleared the wreckage it will be 10,000.

6 or 10 its still sick and inexcusable.</STRONG>

Isn't it more like 4,600. Thats what i've heard on the news.
New York Times, USA Today say total may be more like 3000.

But thats still really really bad.

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>

Finally, and most importantly, why the hell are so many of us punished for what happend almost 40 years before I was born?!?!
</STRONG>

Who's 'us'?
Tell you what:


why the hell are iraqi civilians punished by sanctions because of what one crazy man did?

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
why the hell are iraqi civilians punished by sanctions because of what one crazy man did?

I"ve been trying to figure that one out for at least five years. Saddam lost the war, and won the peace, thanks to the US and UK.