|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jun 29, 2016 12:26:55 GMT -5
There must be a comics-centric equivalent involving the citation of Rob Liefeld's name. Once you invoke Rob Liefeld you have de-feeted your own argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2016 12:52:03 GMT -5
As sad as the loss of civilian life was in these horrific and tragic events, President Truman was faced with a tough choice. Japan itself was working on an atomic bomb, a main component of which was scheduled to be completed on August 19th, just a few weeks after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If completed, it would have been used on the U.S. Unfortunately, the war could have gone on much longer and killed many more Americans and Japanese. It was considered very dishonorable in Japanese culture to surrender (which is why American POWs were treated so poorly in their POW camps) and it would have dragged out much longer without a quick end. Truman's decision unquestionably saved the lives of many Allies. Unfortunately, civilians were killed by the two bombs. Again, horrific, but in the end they probably saved many more lives than the bombs took. That is why President Obama went to Hiroshima and met with survivors and spoke against the usage of nuclear weapons, but he did not in any way apologize for the U.S. or Harry Truman. I do agree with you that a good deed doesn't erase a bad one, but in this circumstance I think that the bombings, while tragic, were necessary. Well, obviously I disagree, but I understand the logic of your argument. Appart from the fact that many specialist consider that the dropping of the bombs were unecessary at this point a s Japan was getting crushed in every direction and this probably served no other purpose than testing ones (even more problematicly on civilians...), I happen to have read this book when I was about 18 : www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/anders/Anders1962BurningConscienceEatherlyOCR.pdfThis is a collection of the epistolary conversations between one member of the crew who dropped the bombs and the philosopher Günther Anders. This was one of the most profound reading of my life. There's nothing to agree or disagree with, it's just first hand experience by the only voice of the team that tried to escape the latter monitoring of the defense department (several movie attempts about his life were halted). He may have been a largely sketchy and unreliable character, but his feelings about the affair afterwards seem guenuine, and the distance from Anders is enough to make it highly relevant, a supremely interesting book in many regards, whatever your feelings are about the question. Even if Earthly may have lied about some aspects of his story, the message is more important and was at the time it manifested mostly absent from public debate. edit : here's a critique - librarianshipwreck.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/the-attempt-to-keep-conscience-alive-reflections-on-the-book-burning-conscience/I must continue to disagree with you, but I understand fundamentally why you feel the way you do. My father met Charles Sweeney, the pilot of Bockscar that dropped one of the bombs, and he had no regrets about what he did. Here is Sweeney's take on it, taken from a 1997 book: "I took no pride or pleasure then, nor do I take any now, in the brutality of war, whether suffered by my people or those of another nation. Every life is precious. But I felt no remorse or guilt that I had bombed the city where I stood. The true vessel of remorse and guilt belonged to the Japanese nation, which could and should call to account the warlords who so willingly offered up their own people to achieve their visions of greatness." Also, I had several relatives who fought in the war and they agreed with my perspective that, though it was terrible, it saved American lives. As a history major I also did substantive research into the circumstances and also in the fall looked up the arguments of the famous Enola Gay exhibit controversy at the Smithsonian Institution. And having done so it strengthened my resolve in regards to this decision made by President Truman. But we both agree that it was tragic that so many people died, which is the main point. Also, I agree with you Roquefort Raider about what war basically is. War is just a terrible thing in the first place. People die and bad things happen. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jun 29, 2016 13:06:50 GMT -5
There must be a comics-centric equivalent involving the citation of Rob Liefeld's name. Once you invoke Rob Liefeld you have de-feeted your own argument. You sir have now been sentenced to the pun-itentiary for that one. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 29, 2016 13:21:09 GMT -5
Very true. We all did our part but it is the Russians who ultimately won the war against Germany. Now that I agree with. Of course, they had a little help from the weather, too... They would have won even without General Winter. Just would've taken a bit longer. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 29, 2016 14:18:11 GMT -5
Now that I agree with. Of course, they had a little help from the weather, too... They would have won even without General Winter. Just would've taken a bit longer. Rule #1 about world conquest : "don't invade Russia". Just try holding onto those green countries when playing Risk!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Jun 29, 2016 15:19:11 GMT -5
Ah, in the end, I still doubt that the UK will make it economically outside EU :/ Very curious to see who will pull the trigger with article 50 though.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jun 29, 2016 15:20:47 GMT -5
Ah, in the end, I still doubt that the UK will make it economically outside EU :/ Very curious to see who will pull the trigger with article 50 though. We will be fine. We did not need the EU half as much as it needed us. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Jun 29, 2016 15:23:42 GMT -5
So you feel, I hope for your sake you're right... There's always been this feeling that UK never really was in it for anything else but the benefits and always negotiated special exceptions, which in turn made it less usefull for the rest then you believe. But yeah, good luck if you leave  |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 29, 2016 15:25:34 GMT -5
They would have won even without General Winter. Just would've taken a bit longer. Rule #1 about world conquest : "don't invade Russia". Just try holding onto those green countries when playing Risk!!! Remember the quote attributed to Stalin (and Mao): "We have more people than you have bullets." Chilling. Although, Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Jun 29, 2016 15:32:19 GMT -5
I fully expect France to leave, and frankly, that's fine with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 29, 2016 15:43:41 GMT -5
Rule #1 about world conquest : "don't invade Russia". Just try holding onto those green countries when playing Risk!!! Remember the quote attributed to Stalin (and Mao): "We have more people than you have bullets." Chilling. Although, Afghanistan. The Brits didn't do so well in Afghanistan either. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 29, 2016 15:56:42 GMT -5
Remember the quote attributed to Stalin (and Mao): "We have more people than you have bullets." Chilling. Although, Afghanistan. The Brits didn't do so well in Afghanistan either. The last one who did was Alexander the great, and even that didn't last long! |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Jun 29, 2016 16:04:36 GMT -5
The Brits didn't do so well in Afghanistan either. The last one who did was Alexander the great, and even that didn't last long! Genghis Khan and Tamerlane would dispute that. I miss nine pages and this thread is off to Afghanistan and World War II? |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Jun 29, 2016 16:08:00 GMT -5
I did read a good joke online about how England Soccer coach Roy Hodgson should be the next UK Prime Minister because he's proven his skills in getting England out of Europe.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2016 16:27:42 GMT -5
In fairness, that's not unique to Roy - pretty much all of our managers have been adept at that
|
|
