DROPPING THE BOMB

[run_to_win]

So Jesus getting crucified was fine since it happened way back then?  

From sad to pathetic in 2 posts...

[Guru-In-Vegas]

Wow.  Well said, Runz.  And you're supposed to be the smart one in your group of "friends". 

From sad to pathetic in 1 post...

[bsmooth]

Based on what? 

That's really simplifying it.

Hiroshima was the attacked country ending a war.  9/11 was the start of a war.  In this respect it would be more applicable to compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor. 

Another difference is that one was 63 years ago and the other was 7 years ago.  What is and is not acceptable in war has changed.

We specifically targeted cities and civilians to try and break the will of both the Nazi's and the Jap's. Germany got it worst because it was hit by more countries and we had large airbases close enough to saturate bomb the crap out of it. What the Allies did at Dresden was a small scale attempted genocide and a massive warcrime. The city was specifically trageted not for its military value, but its "shock" value. Once the city was fully in flames Allied command kept sending in bombers loaded with incinderary bombs to keep the firestorm going. The column of flame could be see by the crews not long after they took off from England it was that big.
We did the same thing to Tokyo. We repeatedly firebombed a city to try and inflict as much pain on the people as possible. Lucky for them we did not have closer bases where we could send in larger bomber raids as the B-17's, 24's, and 25's could not make the trip which left it to a much smalled B-29 fleet.
That is the problem with history, the victors write it. There is no way a country can enngage in warfare with another country and not commit war crimes. It is the nature of the beast.
RTW you cannot compare the two, not because society has changed, but the type of warfare is different. Which is why those of us who have been over have more in common with the Vietnam vets than the WWII and Korea ones. They do not understand this type of warfare. It would be great if we could have had clearly indentifiable lines, battlegrounds, and enemy troops like they did, but alas it is not to be.
Dave is right. Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc, were all chosen and armaments were selected to inflict the most amount of damage upon the civilian populace as opposed to just trying to destroy of cripple military infrastructure, in the hopes of breaking the will of the people. The masterminds of 9-11 did the same thing when planning their attack.

[ethurst2]

Dropping the bomb was messed up and it should not have been done.

It was more than WWII that led to that happening. For years, the US was trying to get into Japan and manipulate their production and economy starting with Commodore Peary showing up unexpected threatning to bomb Japan into the next stratosphere about 100 years before that. That was a bully move for the US to do.

And what the history books won't tell you (the books are American of course) is that before and during WWI and WWII, the Japanese had a problem with US spies in the region trying to blow up factories and also general businesses. The goal was to use covert operations to get a foothold into Japan.

And not to derail the thread, think about this. How could the Seventh Fleet, who patrolled the Pacific Ocean miss the Japanese on their way to Pearl Harbor? A fleet consists of various ships and submarines and that's not even considering the communication outposts at certain atolls that the US OWNED in the South Pacific that had communications security personnel stationed there. I don't even want to get into that.

The US wanted Japan as a strategic outpost and the Japanese objected so they became bitter enemies. Even at the League of Nations conference, Japan got shafted as far as a military treaty on weapons and walked out.

I was in the Pacific Air Forces Command that covers that area and in talking to many elderly locals, there were still hostilities.

But after the bomb hit, the US government actually thought they had finally made "inroads" to Japan and could control what was happenning. Japan recovered and within ten years and started being major movers and shakers as far as product development and economics.

The fact about Japan is that they didn't launch one missle to get back at the US. They hurt the US where it counted the most...in the economy. They started building better products than the US and wouldn't let cheaply US made products in the country. Then they started buying up tresured US corporations and landmarks, such as the Sears Tower in Chicago.

When the American Auto Industry were putting out cheap ass cars (especially Cryshler) in the late 1970's and 1980's, the big three had to deal with Japan where the engineering of items is damn near perfect. They had to make deals with Mitsubishi, Yamaha, etc. American engines and car products became inferior to the Japanese.

I saw a Datsun B 210 the other day humming along better than an American made new car.

So yeah, dropping the bomb was terrible but the Japanese were smart. The Americans may have won the battle but the Japanese in a sense, ended up winning that war without firing a shot.

They did it with brains.

I worked in intel for years and you won't beleive how certain things are "manufactured" to make it appear that one side is more evil than the other. I hate the thought of nuclear weapons being dropped on any country. There is always a way to do things other than destroy people.

[run_to_win]

We specifically targeted cities and civilians...

We?

What military power involved in WWII didn't?  You explained this yourself when you said, "the type of warfare is different."

What the Allies did at Dresden was a small scale attempted genocide...

Which ethnic, racial, religious, or national group were we attempting to systematically destroy?

Mass murder?  Sure.  Genocide?  No.  

and a massive warcrime.

By today's standards?  Yes.  By 1945 standards though?

Lucky for them we did not have closer bases where we could send in larger bomber raids as the B-17's, 24's, and 25's could not make the trip which left it to a much smalled B-29 fleet.

Not that it's important, but the 29 had between 2 and 5 times the bomb load of the other bombers you listed.

There is no way a country can enngage in warfare with another country and not commit war crimes. It is the nature of the beast.

It depends on how broad your definition of "war crimes" is, and how long you wait.  Not only are we looking at the agressor nations as the victims and totally ignoring the facts that their actions caused all the events we're discussing, but we're also judging 1945 actions by 2008 standards.  

[run_to_win]

Dropping the bomb was messed up and it should not have been done.

Tell that to the millions of soldiers and Japanese civilians it saved.

[Guru-In-Vegas]

^ So if the Japanese dropped an atomic bomb on us and you survived you would be thankful that at least the war was over?  That's a pretty optimistic view of an extraordinarily fucked up event.

[simeon]

^ So if the Japanese dropped an atomic bomb on us and you survived you would be thankful that at least the war was over?  That's a pretty optimistic view of an extraordinarily fucked up event.

Dude thats messed up !!!!!!!
It happened and it saved lives, case closed.

[ethurst2]

I wouldn't believe them since Mcvey was basically a white supremest. Involving Iraq would go agaisnt his nature. Blaming Iraq on everything is propoganda at its finest.

Man, I hate to get into this kind of stuff.

Terrorism is based on the highest bidder, not a culture, not a country. Terrorists are high paid mercenaries that go to the highest bidder.

If you look up what Al-Quieda means, you will find out that it was an operative word for actions in the Soviet-Afghan conflict and that it is a CIA funded operation...

"These terrorist cells, namely al-Qaeda, are invariably linked to the CIA. They have been consistently supported by U.S. intelligence. What we are dealing with is a process, which consists in fabricating an enemy. The creation of Al-Qaeda is an intelligence operation used as a pretext to justify a war of conquest. "

John F. Kennedy signed his death certificate when he did two things:

1.    When he failed to get Cuba back for the Mafia and get Castro out of power.
2.    When he went about to dismantle the CIA.

When those two items came up, it was determined that he had to die and his brother, who as Attorney General, had the right to call investigations into various agencies had to go too.

Think Iran-Contra, Air America and operations in Germany.

My previous roommate went to training camp with McVeigh and said that everyone hated him. He came across as an aloof klutz. The government HAS certain people in the military and in government that they do condition to carry out certain assignments. The most BASIC level of that condition is of course BASIC military training but there are other levels higher than that.

When I was in the force, we had to wear dress blues and sit at attention for five minutes in the dark. This was a part of our "training" and then they would roll a "propaganda" film on our enemies during horrible things and showing anti-American stuff. I only realize in looking back that some of the footage seemed like it was shot from a script.

The Oklahoma City bombings show that the blast came from INSIDE of the building. I'll leave it to you to figure out the rest.

And I don't want to get into the 911 stuff.

The CIA has a payroll which includes White Supremacists, Black Panthers, Russians, Middle Eastern people and just about everyone who can be bought. Other countries do too. These people work as double agents. It's part of the game of life. We are the pawns that can be sacrificed at any time.

[ethurst2]

Dude thats messed up !!!!!!!
It happened and it saved lives, case closed.

Let me see, if I'm hearing you correctly.

If Cuba dropped an A-bomb and destroyed South Florida, is that justified when there could have been other alternatives instead of just anihilating people? Is that what I'm hearing?

[ethurst2]

Tell that to the millions of soldiers and Japanese civilians it saved.

Cmon run_to_win! The US could have used other means to topple Japan instead of dropping the bomb. The US at that time had all the military might in the world and had stuff already sitting in the Pacific and at Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Japan was basically surrounded during that time by US military might. I'm not for any country destroying people.

[Defense54]

The Japanese back then were Ruthless. The question I ask is if they had the Bomb would they have dropped it on us? You betcha.

As far as using Nukes in Iraq and Iran as well as North Korea..........this is a different world now. We start doing that then we had better be prepared to lose a few cities ourselves.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The Japanese back then were Ruthless. The question I ask is if they had the Bomb would they have dropped it on us? You betcha.

That doesn't justify it.  I am not saying that the bombing can not be justified on the basis of military options, but your line of reasoning absolutely fails.

A war crime is a war crime regardless of what the other side did or is doing. 

[run_to_win]

If you look up what Al-Quieda means, you will find out that it was an operative word for actions in the Soviet-Afghan conflict and that it is a CIA funded operation...

So the CIA named gave Al-Qaeda their name and Osama kept it?

"These terrorist cells, namely al-Qaeda, are invariably linked to the CIA. They have been consistently supported by U.S. intelligence. What we are dealing with is a process, which consists in fabricating an enemy. The creation of Al-Qaeda is an intelligence operation used as a pretext to justify a war of conquest. "

Where'd you get this circa 1980 tidbit from?

[run_to_win]

The US could have used other means to topple Japan instead of dropping the bomb.

All would have prolonged the war and increased the number of casualties on both sides.

I'm not for any country destroying people.

An invasion would have destroyed more than two cities.