October 25, 20231 yr On 10/23/2023 at 3:07 PM, Toastrel said: 7 of the 9 men running for House speaker voted to overturn the 2020 election results It appears that this is the only qualification to have to get a vote on the floor. If you voted to certify the election you have no chance because the election deniers control the House.
October 25, 20231 yr The GOP is so diverse, all the women nominees for Speaker, says alot to America.
October 25, 20231 yr They should just cover the House chamber floor with mud, throw the gavel in the middle and yell "fumble!".
October 25, 20231 yr It's official Johnson the Insurrectionist, is the Next Speaker of the House. Finally.
October 25, 20231 yr 1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I can't believe Republicans voted in that chuckleF. Yeah, now we can get back to a good gov't shut down, withdraw funding for Ukraine so Putin can threaten the rest of Europe, and back to Biden Impeachment hearings. You know working hard for the American People.
October 25, 20231 yr An election denier that thinks gay people should be rounded up and thrown in prison. Hold on, let me put on my surprised face...
October 25, 20231 yr On 1/25/2021 at 4:24 PM, we_gotta_believe said: I wrote a paper for my history class defending the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the same age. Dumb kids are gonna say dumb things and everyone should be given a chance to grow up and learn from their mistakes. The problem with him, at least, is that he doesn't seem particularly interested or capable in the latter. I have no issues with the way the allied nations ended World War 2. I bet your paper turned out very great. It sounds like you wrote your paper prior to the idea that war is morally wrong regardless of the reasons for said war. World War 2 was a war that was fought for the right reasons and winning that war was a necessity to be honest. Bad things happen in war. That is the reason war should not be taken lightly. Hamas should have considered that fact before they entered Israel a couple weeks ago. Now they are crying because war is nasty business. War is war, if you participate in militant behavior expect a militant response. It's pretty simple really.
October 25, 20231 yr 11 minutes ago, EagleFan85 said: I have no issues with the way the allied nations ended World War 2. I bet your paper turned out very great. It sounds like you wrote your paper prior to the idea that war is morally wrong regardless of the reasons for said war. World War 2 was a war that was fought for the right reasons and winning that war was a necessity to be honest. Bad things happen in war. That is the reason war should not be taken lightly. Hamas should have considered that fact before they entered Israel a couple weeks ago. Now they are crying because war is nasty business. War is war, if you participate in militant behavior expect a militant response. It's pretty simple really. That post was from 2.5 years ago. Not sure how that relates to Hamas other than to say, purposefully targeting and killing innocent civilians was bad then, just as it is now, regardless of who does it.
October 25, 20231 yr 9 minutes ago, EagleFan85 said: I have no issues with the way the allied nations ended World War 2. I bet your paper turned out very great. It sounds like you wrote your paper prior to the idea that war is morally wrong regardless of the reasons for said war. World War 2 was a war that was fought for the right reasons and winning that war was a necessity to be honest. Bad things happen in war. That is the reason war should not be taken lightly. Hamas should have considered that fact before they entered Israel a couple weeks ago. Now they are crying because war is nasty business. War is war, if you participate in militant behavior expect a militant response. It's pretty simple really. His paper supported the bombings. No, war really isn’t war. The good guys go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties and sometimes put themselves at more risk doing so. Some wars can be morally justified, some can’t. There was absolutely no need to drop the nukes in Japan. The Japanese were ready to surrender but they had conditions and we wouldn’t accept anything but an unconditional surrender. We ended up giving them some of the conditions anyway.
October 25, 20231 yr 10 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: That post was from 2.5 years ago. Not sure how that relates to Hamas other than to say, purposefully targeting and killing innocent civilians was bad then, just as it is now, regardless of who does it. I didn’t realize your post was so old.
October 25, 20231 yr 21 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: I didn’t realize your post was so old. i believe EF85 is going through threads and catching up.
October 25, 20231 yr 45 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: His paper supported the bombings. No, war really isn’t war. The good guys go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties and sometimes put themselves at more risk doing so. Some wars can be morally justified, some can’t. There was absolutely no need to drop the nukes in Japan. The Japanese were ready to surrender but they had conditions and we wouldn’t accept anything but an unconditional surrender. We ended up giving them some of the conditions anyway. You are misremembering. Prior to the bombing of Hiroshima, the Japanese were unwilling to surrender at all. After Hiroshima they offered to surrender with conditions. After Nagasaki, they offered to surrender with only one condition -- that they get to keep the Emperor. We accepted. And were also out of nukes. Had we not used the atomic bombs on Japan, millions would have died in a prolonged invasion of the Japanese homeland.
October 25, 20231 yr 16 minutes ago, vikas83 said: You are misremembering. Prior to the bombing of Hiroshima, the Japanese were unwilling to surrender at all. After Hiroshima they offered to surrender with conditions. After Nagasaki, they offered to surrender with only one condition -- that they get to keep the Emperor. We accepted. And were also out of nukes. Had we not used the atomic bombs on Japan, millions would have died in a prolonged invasion of the Japanese homeland. Truman's own Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, contends that Japan was ready to surrender. Even Ike agreed. There were other options to be exhausted prior to a mainland invasion, and I think it's always been a bit of a false dichotomy to paint it as a foregone conclusion. Maybe that still would've been the case, we'll never know obviously. But the consensus among the top military officials of the day, that dropping the bomb on two cities was the only way to avoid a mainland invasion, was far from unanimous. https://www.usna.edu/Ethics/blog/2020/Were_the_A-Bombs_the_Last_Resort.php
October 25, 20231 yr 32 minutes ago, vikas83 said: You are misremembering. Prior to the bombing of Hiroshima, the Japanese were unwilling to surrender at all. After Hiroshima they offered to surrender with conditions. After Nagasaki, they offered to surrender with only one condition -- that they get to keep the Emperor. We accepted. And were also out of nukes. Had we not used the atomic bombs on Japan, millions would have died in a prolonged invasion of the Japanese homeland. Not to mention that the Japanese knew exactly where we were going to invade the mainland, anyway. Pretty much because it was the only reasonable place to invade. Iwo Jima was 8 square miles and it took over a month to capture. It took over 80 days to capture Okinawa, and that island was less than 500 square miles. Both islands gave the Allies about 75,000 casualties. The Soviets were of no use in aiding an invasion of the home islands as they lacked the naval capabilities to project power, and allowing the Soviets to make any gains anywhere would have been a strategic blunder given how it was seen that after the war they’d likely be the next biggest competitor. They were gearing up to attack Manchuria and Korea, but they had way more difficulties in attacking the Kurils than they should have. So they were of no use in an attack on the mainland. A naval blockade of the island would have caused even more civilian deaths through starvation than the two bombs did. And even then after dropping the two bombs and the emperor wanted to accept the terms, there was the Kyujo incident. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were valid strategic targets. The fire bombings of Tokyo killed about the same amount of people as either of the two bombs Had Operation Downfall been conducted, it was estimated that there’d be 2+ million Allied casualties and 5-10 million dead Japanese, compared to the up to ~225k Japanese civilians and military killed in the two bombings.
October 25, 20231 yr 43 minutes ago, vikas83 said: You are misremembering. Prior to the bombing of Hiroshima, the Japanese were unwilling to surrender at all. After Hiroshima they offered to surrender with conditions. After Nagasaki, they offered to surrender with only one condition -- that they get to keep the Emperor. We accepted. And were also out of nukes. Had we not used the atomic bombs on Japan, millions would have died in a prolonged invasion of the Japanese homeland. Not misremembering at all, what you described is exactly what we are taught in school, I choose not to buy that story. The Japanese started to lose their "never surrender” attitude when the Soviets invaded Manchuria. The Japanese knew that couldn’t fight a war on two fronts and weren’t too keen on the idea of the communist invading their homeland. "As early as April 11, 1945, the Joint Intelligence Staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was reporting that "If at any time the USSR should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable."”
October 25, 20231 yr 24 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: Not misremembering at all, what you described is exactly what we are taught in school, I choose not to buy that story. The Japanese started to lose their "never surrender” attitude when the Soviets invaded Manchuria. The Japanese knew that couldn’t fight a war on two fronts and weren’t too keen on the idea of the communist invading their homeland. "As early as April 11, 1945, the Joint Intelligence Staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was reporting that "If at any time the USSR should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable."” Yep we (or I, at least) definitely didn't learn in history class that 7 of the 8 five-star generals disagreed with the decision. Not to say it was necessarily the wrong decision in the end, only that it might not have been the no-brainer of a choice between only two remaining options like it is often framed as. But in September 1946, after John Hersey’s graphic "Hiroshima” article ran in the New Yorker, the admiral told reporters: "The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. It was a mistake to ever drop it.” He blamed the scientists, who "had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.” This outburst angered a group of scientists, who wrote Admiral Nimitz to complain. Nimitz replied that neither the scientists nor the military were responsible for the bomb: "I am informed that the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made at a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” ... But with 75 years of hindsight, one is struck by the pervasiveness of anti-atomic bomb sentiments across the top echelon of the military. In 1945, eight Americans (four generals, four admirals) held five-star rank. Seven later stated that the bombings were either unnecessary to end the war, morally indefensible, or both. That fact is all the more arresting when you consider that their professional code discouraged second-guessing the decisions of superiors, and that they were discussing an event that had already happened, and thus could not be reversed. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/atomic-bombings-ian-w-toll
October 25, 20231 yr To be clear, I also disagree with Admiral Halsey's attempts to blame the decision on the scientists who developed it. Oppenheimer, for all his flaws, was a great scientist and should be forever revered as an American hero.
October 25, 20231 yr 18 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: To be clear, I also disagree with Admiral Halsey's attempts to blame the decision on the scientists who developed it. Oppenheimer, for all his flaws, was a great scientist and should be forever revered as an American hero. My argument isn’t really about the morality of the decision or placing blame though I agree with the scientists. I just think we have enough evidence that shows Japan was on the verge of surrender and we knew they were.
October 25, 20231 yr 1 hour ago, Tnt4philly said: Not misremembering at all, what you described is exactly what we are taught in school, I choose not to buy that story. The Japanese started to lose their "never surrender” attitude when the Soviets invaded Manchuria. The Japanese knew that couldn’t fight a war on two fronts and weren’t too keen on the idea of the communist invading their homeland. "As early as April 11, 1945, the Joint Intelligence Staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was reporting that "If at any time the USSR should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable."” Uh. The Soviets invaded Manchuria the same day we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. Maybe you should have paid more attention in school.
Create an account or sign in to comment