14 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I am not down on Dillard too much, but comparing him to Peters and Mailata is a bit of a false equivalency.    There's a HUGE difference between the investment of a UDFA (Peters) and a 7th round pick (Mailata) and trading up in the first round (Dillard).   When trading up in the first round, you need to have done your homework.  And if you didn't do the homework... then you don't make the trade.

My point in the comparison is that there was a lot of tape on his games and an athletic profile that compared favorably to other successful LTs.  I wasn't really comparing the value but the Eagles did invest a 1st for Jason Peters. I think I can excuse them not working out Dillard.  I am not sure a work out would have changed the pick.  I also think an interview wouldn't have ferreted out any issues necessarily but you would think better foresight would have led them to have him on their radar.  I do think there's probably a scouting issue if his negatives weren't known.  I am unsure if his negatives would have taken him off their board.  

34 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Ahhhh.  So youre a jaded OSU fan thinking Smith is the next coming because of what he did to your garbage defense.  Too bad.  Not really.  

Smith is now my number one choice at 12. 

This is what I said earlier , was no need to kill so many civilians.

 

By Geoffrey Shepherd

Professor of Economics

 

And with each passing year the historical record is ever clearer that dropping the A-bombs was unnecessary, repugnant and very likely a war crime.

The bombings probably killed more than 200,000 Japanese civilians and maimed untold more. Such destruction of life stirs me to sorrow and outrage. That’s even more true given that there was an alternative available: the US could have dropped an A-bomb in or near Tokyo Bay. Such a warning shot could have persuaded the Japanese to end the war, and its humane nature would have enhanced the US’s moral standing.

The atomic bombings are often framed as the only alternative to a land invasion of a Japan that wouldn’t surrender under any but the most-dire circumstances. The possible need for an invasion loomed throughout 1945, and Americans naturally feared many US casualties. Much of a fanatic Japanese soldiery—and possibly many citizens—might fight to the last inch. One early study estimated 40,000 American soldiers’ deaths, yet President Harry Truman and others soon spoke of "half a million.”

38 minutes ago, MillerTime said:

He weighs 175, Waddle weighs 183, why does Waddle project better?

no way he is 175

4 minutes ago, Original Sin said:

This is what I said earlier , was no need to kill so many civilians.

 

By Geoffrey Shepherd

Professor of Economics

 

And with each passing year the historical record is ever clearer that dropping the A-bombs was unnecessary, repugnant and very likely a war crime.

The bombings probably killed more than 200,000 Japanese civilians and maimed untold more. Such destruction of life stirs me to sorrow and outrage. That’s even more true given that there was an alternative available: the US could have dropped an A-bomb in or near Tokyo Bay. Such a warning shot could have persuaded the Japanese to end the war, and its humane nature would have enhanced the US’s moral standing.

The atomic bombings are often framed as the only alternative to a land invasion of a Japan that wouldn’t surrender under any but the most-dire circumstances. The possible need for an invasion loomed throughout 1945, and Americans naturally feared many US casualties. Much of a fanatic Japanese soldiery—and possibly many citizens—might fight to the last inch. One early study estimated 40,000 American soldiers’ deaths, yet President Harry Truman and others soon spoke of "half a million.”

 

Dropping a bomb in the bay wouldn't have persuaded Japan to surrender.  They didn't surrender after we dropped on Hiroshima, it wasn't after second one dropped on Nagasaki. 

 

Also pure anti-American rubbish that only 40k people would have died in a land invasion of Japan.  You had 10s of thousands dieing per island battle out in the Pacific.  A mainland Japan invasion would have been terrible for both sides.  And who knows how or if that would have ever resolved itself.  Would we have been stuck there for years and leave without victory like Vietnam while Japan stayed an aggressive hostile military force?  If nothing else dropping those bombs on Japan took an absolute military power out of the game entirely to this day due to the devestation they expierenced with the bombs. 

3 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

Dropping a bomb in the bay wouldn't have persuaded Japan to surrender.  They didn't surrender after we dropped on Hiroshima, it wasn't after second one dropped on Nagasaki. 

 

Also pure anti-American rubbish that only 40k people would have died in a land invasion of Japan.  You had 10s of thousands dieing per island battle out in the Pacific.  A mainland Japan invasion would have been terrible for both sides. 

I think japan would disagree that a land war would have been more terrible than getting an A bomb dropped on them.

9 minutes ago, Original Sin said:

This is what I said earlier , was no need to kill so many civilians.

 

By Geoffrey Shepherd

Professor of Economics

 

And with each passing year the historical record is ever clearer that dropping the A-bombs was unnecessary, repugnant and very likely a war crime.

The bombings probably killed more than 200,000 Japanese civilians and maimed untold more. Such destruction of life stirs me to sorrow and outrage. That’s even more true given that there was an alternative available: the US could have dropped an A-bomb in or near Tokyo Bay. Such a warning shot could have persuaded the Japanese to end the war, and its humane nature would have enhanced the US’s moral standing.

The atomic bombings are often framed as the only alternative to a land invasion of a Japan that wouldn’t surrender under any but the most-dire circumstances. The possible need for an invasion loomed throughout 1945, and Americans naturally feared many US casualties. Much of a fanatic Japanese soldiery—and possibly many citizens—might fight to the last inch. One early study estimated 40,000 American soldiers’ deaths, yet President Harry Truman and others soon spoke of "half a million.”

Yes, the resulting Tsunami would have been harmless.

Anywhere you drop a A-bomb where it would be visible enough to create "shock and awe" is going to kill a lot of people.

40,000?  Check the battle for Okinawa:

The Americans bore over 49,000 casualties including 12,520 killed. Japanese losses were even greater—about 110,000 Japanese soldiers lost their lives. It's estimated between 40,000 and 150,000 Okinawa citizens were also killed.

So an invasion of Japan would have killed not only American soldiers, but what, a million plus Japanese?

2 minutes ago, Utebird said:

I think japan would disagree that a land war would have been more terrible than getting an A bomb dropped on them.

 

Well maybe they shouldn't have attacked us then.  

1 minute ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Well maybe they shouldn't have attacked us then.  

Unite with the fascists and get nuked. Granted innocent people died, but that's on their Government. 

29 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

If the Eagles go CB in round 1 this year and land Horn, Surtain or Newsome and can land Stingley next year.....OHHHHH BOOOY.

I'm going to repeat this for the umpteenth time 

Teams can win the super bowl without allocating lots of resources to CB.

Drafting two corners in the first round in back to back drafts would constitute as allocating a high amount of resources to corner.

2017 Eagles won allocating the least amount of money to corner and one of the highest to safety.

Chiefs won with very average corner play and not a lot allocated to Corner 

The bucs top 3 corners were 2 Second round picks and a 3rd round pick.

I think the best value for corner will be in the 2nd and 3rd round.

Drafting first round corners hasn't shown to be the key to winning.

And while it would be nice to have all pro corners it's not necessary to winning.

 

 

1 minute ago, Utebird said:

I'm going to repeat this for the umpteenth time 

Teams can win the super bowl without allocating lots of resources to CB.

Drafting two corners in the first round in back to back drafts would constitute as allocating a high amount of resources to corner.

2017 Eagles won allocating the least amount of money to corner and one of the highest to safety.

Chiefs won with very average corner play and not a lot allocated to Corner 

The bucs top 3 corners were 2 Second round picks and a 3rd round pick.

I think the best value for corner will be in the 2nd and 3rd round.

Drafting first round corners hasn't shown to be the key to winning.

And while it would be nice to have all pro corners it's not necessary to winning.

 

 

In the end if the BPA at 12 is a CB you do pull the trigger or trade back. We need just about every position on this team so honestly I dont mind a CB at 12 if they are the best option at that point. I actually agree DBs in general are good in the 2nd-3rd rounds but all depends on who is avail at the time. 

6 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Yes, the resulting Tsunami would have been harmless.

Anywhere you drop a A-bomb where it would be visible enough to create "shock and awe" is going to kill a lot of people.

40,000?  Check the battle for Okinawa:

The Americans bore over 49,000 casualties including 12,520 killed. Japanese losses were even greater—about 110,000 Japanese soldiers lost their lives. It's estimated between 40,000 and 150,000 Okinawa citizens were also killed.

So an invasion of Japan would have killed not only American soldiers, but what, a million plus Japanese?

Regardless , no justification for killing hundred of thousands of civilians.

it was unnecessary to drop one bomb let alone two, and if I’m not mistaken at a busy time of day .

 

 

I didn't want to quote any one person on this subject - I just want to add my 2 cents and then go back to football. Over 75 years have passed since the dropping of bombs on Japan so of course our perception has changed. But any notion that we didn't need to do it or shouldn't have is simply revisionist history. I'm glad the Japanese declined the invitation to witness the test, they still wouldn't have surrendered. They simply would have tightened their defenses and made dropping a bomb more difficult. Dropping in Tokyo Bay would have been a waste of time and bomb. The Japanese would have decided that we were inept and couldn't hit our target (Tokyo) - again not surrendered - again tightened their defenses. 

The world needed to see - really see - the awesome destructive power that we (humans) had created to have the adequate fear necessary for a deterrent. Imagine the Cuban missile crisis without the context of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My dad served in WWII in Europe - He and every WWII vet I've ever talked to believes it was the right thing to do at the time. For all the destruction those 2 bombs caused - they actually saved lives - as was pointed out - millions of lives. It doesn't surprise me at all though that in today's cancel culture, we're now questioning the bombings and trying to cancel Truman. 

12 hours ago, BigEFly said:

Well they did try not to drop the bombs.  They did invite Japan to witness the test bomb.   I always have wondered if they dropped the second too fast.   But as a factor to the Japanese surrender, it has to be viewed from the context of Curtis Lemay’s firebombing of Tokyo.  May be the closest to a war crime from the US of anything we ever did but it did demoralize the people and hurt the support for the war hawks.  It also led to the attempt on the emperor’s life.  My dad, who had joined up and was in the occupation forces in Japan, always thought Harry saved his life.  

I think it's hard to read about the aftermath and the suffering of the people impacted by the bombings of Hiroshma and Nagasaki and not feel terrible.  Thousands of innocents lost their lives or endured other tremendous suffering from the bombs.  After going down the road of Howard Zinn and others in my early 20s, I felt the bombings were wrong and maybe needless.  As I have read more and, in particular, more from the Japanese perspective, I don't know that the bombings weren't necessary to end the war with less suffering.  Certainly the bombs saved the lives of your father and thousands of other soldiers.  It also likely spared the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens if not more. 

11 minutes ago, Infam said:

Unite with the fascists and get nuked. Granted innocent people died, but that's on their Government. 

So if Iran got a nuke and nuked the US , that is on our government? Because we helped Iraq slaughter Iranians for 8 years , let’s hope that is not how it works , because there would be a long line of countries willing to drop a bomb on our civilians 

25 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

Well maybe they shouldn't have attacked us then.  

Yes this narrative that the great USA stepped into to save the world from the Axis of evil is a nice story until one realized the part being left out about how many americans including politicians and military leaders supported Hitler and the 3rd Reich 

They didn't join the war until after Pearl Harbor, up to that point millions had already died or fallen to the 3rd Reich in Europe but the US couldn't be bothered as it wasn't their problem, then japan made it a US problem and we get the famous awake a sleeping giant quote.

War is awful and ugly and even when necessary it's ugly and awful and the US has their part in that awful ugliness and continue to do so today.

https://time.com/5414055/american-NSDAP-sympathy-book/

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-NSDAPs-took-manhattan

6 minutes ago, Original Sin said:

Regardless , no justification for killing hundred of thousands of civilians.

it was unnecessary to drop one bomb let alone two, and if I’m not mistaken at a busy time of day .

 

 

Do you not think there would have been massive civilian casualties in a land invasion?  The entire mentality of Japan of that era is that they would die before surrendering.  Kamakazes were the original suicide bombers.  A land invasion would not have been a quick event. It would have added years to the war and casualties on a WW1 level. 

8 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

F Japan of that era. Their government owns those deaths and if it saved 1 USGI then f the 200k, too. It's war and they slaughtered our people at Pearl and had no limits to their brutality. 

I was just about to add to my post that - they started it. 

There is a quote attributed to Napoleon "China is a sickly, sleeping giant. But when she awakes the world will tremble" which is believed the inspiration for the script quote at the end of "Tora Tora Tora" by Isoroku Yamamoto "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." 

 

2 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Yes this narrative that the great USA stepped into to save the world from the Axis of evil is a nice story until one realized the part being left out about how many americans including politicians and military leaders supported Hitler and the 3rd Reich 

They didn't join the war until after Pearl Harbor, up to that point millions had already died or fallen to the 3rd Reich in Europe but the US couldn't be bothered as it wasn't their problem, then japan made it a US problem and we get the famous awake a sleeping giant quote.

War is awful and ugly and even when necessary it's ugly and awful and the US has their part in that awful ugliness and continue to do so today.

https://time.com/5414055/american-NSDAP-sympathy-book/

 

What are you onrl right now?  Yeah thank God the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and killed over 2k Americans in that attack. Thank God for all the US casualties that occurred on the Pacific Theater.  Japan did us a real solid favor getting us involved in that. 

10 minutes ago, Original Sin said:

So if Iran got a nuke and nuked the US , that is on our government? Because we helped Iraq slaughter Iranians for 8 years , let’s hope that is not how it works , because there would be a long line of countries willing to drop a bomb on our civilians 

 

Let's ignore the whole Iran hostage crisis and the decades that have followed since where Iran and their variously funded groups across the middle east attacking and killing US citizens/military perosnel and allies. 

19 minutes ago, Original Sin said:

So if Iran got a nuke and nuked the US , that is on our government? Because we helped Iraq slaughter Iranians for 8 years , let’s hope that is not how it works , because there would be a long line of countries willing to drop a bomb on our civilians 

Opinions may be arbitrary in the postmodern mind, but I disagree that it all is just a matter of vantage point.

There is right or wrong, better and worse despite the ever changing personal reality of individuals. If anything we should be even more inclined not to water down everything on the altar of misguided tolerance and fight for what took centuries to develop, and is in the great scheme of history working remarkably well. Looking away and saying: To each his own opinion is the worst mistake and playing in the hands of closed societies and populist a-holes all over the world.

The humanistic achievements of the western society are worth protecting from the disgusting ideas of the past. Not everything is equal nor deserves to be seen equal. Fighting wars to spread fascism is different and deserves to be seen for what it ultimately leads to: the despair of (not only) its people. Despite all the faults and errors, the way of living in the free west is superior and worth fighting for. It's hard to make a philosophical argument how one way of living is superior, but that doesn't mean that it isn't in comparison. 

Well , we're talking ww2 now and im a jokester so heres a joke :

How high can a german shepard jump?

 

 

 

 

 

 

About this high 

 

 

19 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

F Japan of that era. Their government owns those deaths and if it saved 1 USGI then f the 200k, too. It's war and they slaughtered our people at Pearl and had no limits to their brutality. 

Yet when Hitler was slaughtering people all over europe the US did nothing, in fact many americans at the time supported Hitler and the general consensus was to stay out of the war as it was none of our business and would be too expensive.

Instead we are force fed the narrative that the US is the savior of the world after they defeated the evil NSDAPs whom prior to PeArl harbor  the US was supportive of or indifferent.

Japan bombing pearl harbor forced the US into the war which japan obviously would later regret but the narrative that the US in all it's honor and glory saved the world out of the goodness of their heart is an agrandized story to drum up national pride when reality is the US didn't give a crap about hitler's war crimes and atrocities against half of europe and some even supported Hitler and nazism until it directly affected them.

It's sad all around, like I said war is sad and ugly and awful and sometimes necessary but still awful. 

 

24 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Yes this narrative that the great USA stepped into to save the world from the Axis of evil is a nice story until one realized the part being left out about how many americans including politicians and military leaders supported Hitler and the 3rd Reich 

War is awful and ugly and even when necessary it's ugly and awful and the US has their part in that awful ugliness and continue to do so today.

War is always ugly and no side stays innocent, but if there ever was an example of a war of good vs evil it was WWII.

The NSDAPs were about as evil as it gets, and thank god the US beat them or we'd all be living in the dark ages now.

(NSDAPs? Lol the filter...)

41 minutes ago, Utebird said:

I think japan would disagree that a land war would have been more terrible than getting an A bomb dropped on them.

One thing not talked about is that nearly as many Japanese civilians died in the firebombing of Tokyo as the attacks on Hiroshima. Were they not as dead because it wasn't a nuclear weapon? How many American and Allied lives were spared because the Japanese surrendered? You'd be fine with a minimum 40,000 Allied deaths if it spared the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I'd like to have seen you sell that to the American public in 1945.