By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Add to that the fact that the Japanese high command had ample opportunity to surrender prior to the dropping of the atomic bomb. It is estimated that not having to invade the Japanese mainland saved over a million American solider's lives.
Those on the left also ignore the atrocities committed by Stalin, Amin, Pot, Mao, Guevara, Mugabe etc in the name of Communisism, Marxism and Socialism.
Remember it is only the west, especially capitalist America who commit atrocities, or cause atrocities to be committed.
[Post edited 27 Jul 2015 21:25]
There we go again, "those on the left", a saying those on the right like to use I presume. People oppose the use of nuclear bombs from all of the political spectrum, and eg CND as members from Tories as well as left wing people.
AS far as Stalin is concerned, his main victims were from the left. All those you mentioned, all apart from Che, might have called themselves Communists, etc but were not, I could call myself a Tory, but it wouldn't make me one. Tony Blair called himself Labour, but he wasn't.
Agree with the sentiment but I don't think anyone could say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary responses. Indiscriminately dropping an atom bomb can't ever be justified...
Agree. They did not know what the full affects would be, so for that reason it was indiscriminate.
Since 1945, the wars that've taken place haven't involved any of the world's major nations (in terms of GDP) being pitted against each other, for the longest time in history.
The reason? Nuclear deterrence. It simply rules out the possibility of a direct conflict due to the certainty that your own nationhood would be destroyed. Can there possibly be a better reason for retaining a nuclear deterrent?
In the place of such conflict, the major nations are forced to try to work through their differences by other means. So they have to talk to each other, and by that process we're gradually - in fits and starts - getting to understand how much we share in common. Of course, there's loads of well-publicised posturing; Putin, Bush, Ahmadinejad, Hussein. Even the pushing of local boundaries, such as Hussein into Kuwait, Putin into the Crimea; but compared with what's gone before, these are containable without the need to move towards full-scale conflicts.
Those on the left who believe in nuclear disarmament are, as in so many areas, off the mark in terms of the reality of human nature and the forces that shape the real world.
[Post edited 27 Jul 2015 23:06]
I disagree that the arms race prevented other wars.
Dim just because I support a view that is very widely supported. Makes you very ignorant :)
It's widely supported by dimwits :P I put it to you that the cold war prevented Russian expansionism, take the Soviet-Afghan war, it's failure was the result of a flailing economy investing in arms in an attempt to match the USA. The Afghan war was the catalyst for the collapse of the whole union and resulting liberation of those under the Iron Curtain, but it is unlikely to have happened without the strain on the Russian economy to compete with the West.
I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them.
0
When will this stop? on 08:00 - Jul 28 with 2351 views
When will this stop? on 21:56 - Jul 27 by 49thseason
Hardly indescriminate, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted and duely hit.The second bomb was dropped to prove that the first was not some sort of freak event and to make the Japanese realise that the game was up. Without the nuclear intervention, the war against the Japanese could heve continued for years with huge American losses. The idea that we should never use a nuclear bomb is more dangerous by far than the idea that we retain the ability to do so, if only because it encourages some nutcase regime to test our resolve. Better to let the world know we have the balls to defend ourselves with massive force than allow the idea to spread that we would never use it.
I don't disagree about the benefits of nuclear deterrent but I am not sure how anyone can think that killing hundreds of thousands of people and devastating any possibility of regeneration in those areas for decades is an acceptable measure.
We are weighing up the potential loss of life of soldiers in armed combat, which we will never know how many, because there are so many variable factors vs. definitely killing hundreds of thousands of people at the time and in the subsequent years. 95% of which were civilian.
Regardless of what your political leanings are - that systemic killing on a mass scale is genocide by any conventional definition, but is badged as necessary.
To pre-empt what some people may say, I don't disagree the Japanese Imperial Army and High Command did some abhorrent things preceding ad during WW2, but it doesn't negate the fact that dropping two nuclear bombs was abhorrent as well.
There we go again, "those on the left", a saying those on the right like to use I presume. People oppose the use of nuclear bombs from all of the political spectrum, and eg CND as members from Tories as well as left wing people.
AS far as Stalin is concerned, his main victims were from the left. All those you mentioned, all apart from Che, might have called themselves Communists, etc but were not, I could call myself a Tory, but it wouldn't make me one. Tony Blair called himself Labour, but he wasn't.
I don't think anyone liked using nuclear bombs, but it saved over a million lives at the end of WW2. Whether you are pro or anti nuclear dropping the bomb saved lives and shortened the war.
All those leaders I quoted killed millions of their own people In the name of left wing policies. I think most of the world called them Communist China, Communist Russia etc. Again it maybe an inconvient truth that during the last century countries ruled by extreme left parties have had a predilection for violence.
Again, I am sure that Tony and many others would class him as being Labour. Not all Labour supporters are Marixists who write for the Morning Star just as not all Tory supporters are racist xenophobes.
[Post edited 28 Jul 2015 9:31]
0
When will this stop? on 09:30 - Jul 28 with 2312 views
I don't disagree about the benefits of nuclear deterrent but I am not sure how anyone can think that killing hundreds of thousands of people and devastating any possibility of regeneration in those areas for decades is an acceptable measure.
We are weighing up the potential loss of life of soldiers in armed combat, which we will never know how many, because there are so many variable factors vs. definitely killing hundreds of thousands of people at the time and in the subsequent years. 95% of which were civilian.
Regardless of what your political leanings are - that systemic killing on a mass scale is genocide by any conventional definition, but is badged as necessary.
To pre-empt what some people may say, I don't disagree the Japanese Imperial Army and High Command did some abhorrent things preceding ad during WW2, but it doesn't negate the fact that dropping two nuclear bombs was abhorrent as well.
The Japanese were well beaten and knew this. They could have surrendered prior to the bomb being dropped. The high command wanted America to invade the mainland which would have costs more in terms of civilian lives than dropping the bombs has. Not to mention the at least one million lives of American servicemen. Also nobody forced the Japanese to bomb Pearl Habor.
Although it was a horrible decision to have to make, but it was made to save lives. It was done in a targetted way and avoided larger population such as Toyko.
It was hardly genocide. Look at Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Nazi Germany etc when people were targetted from within their own population for being Muslim, Hutu, educated or Jewish. That is genocide.
0
When will this stop? on 11:40 - Jul 28 with 2244 views
When will this stop? on 02:26 - Jul 28 by Birchy915
It's widely supported by dimwits :P I put it to you that the cold war prevented Russian expansionism, take the Soviet-Afghan war, it's failure was the result of a flailing economy investing in arms in an attempt to match the USA. The Afghan war was the catalyst for the collapse of the whole union and resulting liberation of those under the Iron Curtain, but it is unlikely to have happened without the strain on the Russian economy to compete with the West.
Quite frankly to be called a dimwit by someone like you is a honour. There are many so called dimwits with far more knowledge than you you , who would disagree with you, but that would be their VIEW not a fact, as what you say is a VIEW not a fact. There is no proven right or wrong in this area, as with many areas of politics, it viewpoints not facts that determine what people say on it. On this I am firmly on the side of CND, and even TACT ,Tories Against Cruise and Trident .
It's a view you hold NOT a fact or truth, we just hold different viewpoints.
As it happens, I believe the original "inconvenient truth" to be far from proven, but I used it as an example coming from a point of view I suspect you'd agree with.
The historical perspective simply can't be denied, and if you have an alternative theory as to why, for the longest time in recorded history (i.e. ever) the major nations haven't taken up conventional arms against each other, you owe us that alternative explanation, rather than just dismissing what is a genuine inconvenient truth for you.
The Japanese were well beaten and knew this. They could have surrendered prior to the bomb being dropped. The high command wanted America to invade the mainland which would have costs more in terms of civilian lives than dropping the bombs has. Not to mention the at least one million lives of American servicemen. Also nobody forced the Japanese to bomb Pearl Habor.
Although it was a horrible decision to have to make, but it was made to save lives. It was done in a targetted way and avoided larger population such as Toyko.
It was hardly genocide. Look at Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Nazi Germany etc when people were targetted from within their own population for being Muslim, Hutu, educated or Jewish. That is genocide.
I don't disagree that it brought an end to the war, but I question the assertion that more lives would have been lost if it hadn't have been done, particularly the one million american servicemen bit.
There is also a difference between bombing/torpedo-ing a military target and dropping a nuke on a largely civilian area. That's the indiscriminate bit and that's the bit that violates just war principles.
The component parts of what was done are tantamount to genocide. Genocide doesn't need to be limited to your own population - the Nazis exterminated Jews across Europe. It's really about the systemic mass murder of people indiscriminately who have not directly harmed you. So while attacks against Japan could be legitimately justified - wiping out over 300,000 Japanese people and that's not counting all the miscarriages etc. due to radiation poisioning - the overwhelming majority of whom weren't involved in attacking Pearl Harbour - then you struggle to see the justification.
Surely if WW2 was about preserving life and stopping indiscriminate murder - it also violates those aims? Or do we dehumanise the "enemy" enough that we can do anything we want. Oh wait, we did that and ended up with Abu Ghraib.
0
When will this stop? on 13:44 - Jul 28 with 2131 views
Wow this has gone off track from the original , bit like chinese whispers ! Wasnt the original post about muslim/asian grooming gangs... What worries me about all this is the fact that we are only scraping the tip of the iceberg and as soon as things come to light , another "celebrity" paedo is outted! The powers that be have known about all these celeb paedos all along and I believe have been keeping them under wraps until a convenient time arose to spread the word and deflect from the grooming gangs. They also have another agenda with the high profile ones who they want to keep away from the media due to national security. Let us not deflect ourselves from these gangs since they are far more prevalent than many would know.
0
When will this stop? on 13:54 - Jul 28 with 2113 views
As it happens, I believe the original "inconvenient truth" to be far from proven, but I used it as an example coming from a point of view I suspect you'd agree with.
The historical perspective simply can't be denied, and if you have an alternative theory as to why, for the longest time in recorded history (i.e. ever) the major nations haven't taken up conventional arms against each other, you owe us that alternative explanation, rather than just dismissing what is a genuine inconvenient truth for you.
But it is not an inconvenient truth for me. I don't owe an explanation to any viewpoint I have, especially when the answer would take ages to explain. I can easily see why people believe in the theory that multi nuclear arming can keep the world more peaceful, but it is lazy to believe it, as it is the majority view thrown out by society, so must be true then, like the view that the commies were coming to get us.
I will however offer a very quick reason why I believe the world had the kind of "peace" you talk about. The formation of the United Nations world wide, and in Europe the formation of the Common Market (or whatever it was called when it was set up). After WW2, no one wanted that kind of horror to happen again, and therefore there was a lot more cooperation between countries. In other words, diplomacy not the threat of nuclear wipout of the world, kept the major powers from fighting each other, as well as the sheer cost of such wars, that none of the countries could afford.
Quite frankly to be called a dimwit by someone like you is a honour. There are many so called dimwits with far more knowledge than you you , who would disagree with you, but that would be their VIEW not a fact, as what you say is a VIEW not a fact. There is no proven right or wrong in this area, as with many areas of politics, it viewpoints not facts that determine what people say on it. On this I am firmly on the side of CND, and even TACT ,Tories Against Cruise and Trident .
"Quite frankly to be called a dimwit by someone like you is a honour. " The Irony! Pretty sure you mean "AN honour" you grammatical nincompoop.
Pacifists are suicidal - discuss.
I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them.
0
When will this stop? on 13:59 - Jul 28 with 2105 views
I don't disagree that it brought an end to the war, but I question the assertion that more lives would have been lost if it hadn't have been done, particularly the one million american servicemen bit.
There is also a difference between bombing/torpedo-ing a military target and dropping a nuke on a largely civilian area. That's the indiscriminate bit and that's the bit that violates just war principles.
The component parts of what was done are tantamount to genocide. Genocide doesn't need to be limited to your own population - the Nazis exterminated Jews across Europe. It's really about the systemic mass murder of people indiscriminately who have not directly harmed you. So while attacks against Japan could be legitimately justified - wiping out over 300,000 Japanese people and that's not counting all the miscarriages etc. due to radiation poisioning - the overwhelming majority of whom weren't involved in attacking Pearl Harbour - then you struggle to see the justification.
Surely if WW2 was about preserving life and stopping indiscriminate murder - it also violates those aims? Or do we dehumanise the "enemy" enough that we can do anything we want. Oh wait, we did that and ended up with Abu Ghraib.
The figure I have used of over one million American serviceman was taken from Max Hastings' book called Nemisis about the last year of the war in The Pacific. Doing a quick Google search brought up the following results:
There are some very interesting comments on some of the links, many you would agree with. The reality is that the Japanese military command would have fought an invasion to the last. They did not care about civilian deaths at all. Millions more Japanese people would have died, never mind the American service men that you appear to care little about.
The efforts by the Allied forces during WW2 helped to preserve millions of lives . In fact the actions of Stalin and Mao after the end of the war caused more casualties than both World Wars put together.
0
When will this stop? on 14:09 - Jul 28 with 2084 views
But it is not an inconvenient truth for me. I don't owe an explanation to any viewpoint I have, especially when the answer would take ages to explain. I can easily see why people believe in the theory that multi nuclear arming can keep the world more peaceful, but it is lazy to believe it, as it is the majority view thrown out by society, so must be true then, like the view that the commies were coming to get us.
I will however offer a very quick reason why I believe the world had the kind of "peace" you talk about. The formation of the United Nations world wide, and in Europe the formation of the Common Market (or whatever it was called when it was set up). After WW2, no one wanted that kind of horror to happen again, and therefore there was a lot more cooperation between countries. In other words, diplomacy not the threat of nuclear wipout of the world, kept the major powers from fighting each other, as well as the sheer cost of such wars, that none of the countries could afford.
Well thanks for the response, although I'm sure you can do better than making the non-argument that people of an opposing viewpoint are guilty of "lazy" thinking. I appreciate you mightn't have been referring directly to me - you'd be very hard pressed to accuse me of that!
Your point about diplomacy being the prime mover in relative peace is, of course, putting the chicken before the egg. The diplomatic function has been developed due to necessity since armed conflict is no longer an option. There's also cyber-war, of course, and diplomacy demands that both sides deny any attempts to hack each others systems - so much for diplomacy!
When will this stop? on 13:56 - Jul 28 by Birchy915
"Quite frankly to be called a dimwit by someone like you is a honour. " The Irony! Pretty sure you mean "AN honour" you grammatical nincompoop.
Pacifists are suicidal - discuss.
Well I am so sorry your Highness for missing out the n. I didn't realise that this was an English Language exam, but from now on , I will start picking up on your grammatical errors if and when you make them. Now was the missing out of the n a grammatical error or a typo? Work that out Einstien!
Well I am so sorry your Highness for missing out the n. I didn't realise that this was an English Language exam, but from now on , I will start picking up on your grammatical errors if and when you make them. Now was the missing out of the n a grammatical error or a typo? Work that out Einstien!
Well thanks for the response, although I'm sure you can do better than making the non-argument that people of an opposing viewpoint are guilty of "lazy" thinking. I appreciate you mightn't have been referring directly to me - you'd be very hard pressed to accuse me of that!
Your point about diplomacy being the prime mover in relative peace is, of course, putting the chicken before the egg. The diplomatic function has been developed due to necessity since armed conflict is no longer an option. There's also cyber-war, of course, and diplomacy demands that both sides deny any attempts to hack each others systems - so much for diplomacy!
The "lazy" was a general accusation not necessarily aimed at you, but meant to mean it is easy to accept the very popular thinking and views put out by the press, media, politicians etc. Please accept my apologies if you believe I was insunating that you are lazy in regards to this.
It is a viewpoint re the chicken before the egg is one which I can understand, but I don't agree with, I honestly believe what I say, but there is no way of proving it. The rest you say regarding cyber-war is very interesting, and I would probably agree with you, though I have never really thought too much about it, but will try to find out more.
My views on this are not likely to be changed, as I have held these beliefs for 30 odd years, and if anything, as time as gone on I have moved further to support the CND line.
I am however not as good at articulating why I support these views as I would like to be, so therefore cannot adequately answer in a way that I wish I could. I have however, managed to hold my own in many debates within the Labour Party, Trade Unions, with Peace Through Nato people, and others over that time, who are against my views.
We are all going around in circles, and I bet no one as changed their views due to this thread, as no one as put forward an (nearly forgot the n) argument good enough to change anyone's opinion.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
