A US warship, the USS Blue Ridge, caused controversy as it docked at a Nagasaki harbor, despite refusal of entry from the mayor and regional governor.
Ordinarily stationed in Yokosuka (near Tokyo), the purpose of the ship’s arrival was to promote friendship between Japan and the United States, however the pacifist Nagasaki local government does not want to be friends with a nuclear armed US.
As per an agreement made in 1960, local officials are unable to refuse US ships from entering their ports, and neither Japan nor the Navy was prepared to take any notice of them. Several hundred citizens, including atomic bomb survivors, mounted a protest as the vessel arrived.
It is the seventh such visit by a US naval vessel; Nagasaki itself is right by the US naval base at Sasebo.
Osamu Yoshitomi, an official in Nagasaki City, the second city razed by atomic weapons, gave the following statement:
We don’t want to see the US flag flying at this port, and this feeling will not change until the United States takes a policy towards the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Following the arrival of current US president Barack Obama, some bomb survivors had somehow convinced themselves he would move the US towards a policy of abolitionism.
The USS Blue Ridge itself is a “Blue Ridge” class command and control ship; non-nuclear and carrying only light defensive armaments, its purpose is apparently to serve as a floating hotel for officers when it is not directing amphibious landings.
Via Yahoo News.
Gaisensha at Kashihara Shrine: “Itasha for Crazy Nationalists”
Racing Miku Nendoroid Set
Top 10 Cutest Things Guys Do On Dates
Hirasawa Ui Tiny Bikini Figure
Zero no Tsukaima F Yuri Skinship Anime
Yozora Mikazuki & Sena Kashiwazaki Figures
To Love-Ru Darkness Totally Tentacular
Ano Hana Naruko Anjo Anal Dress Figure
Top 10 Most Followed Seiyuu
Wonder Festival 2012 Winter Wondrous As Ever
Ciel nosurge: “Your Date With Ion = $170″
Nisemonogatari – “Where Did All The Ero Go!?”
Police Hunt Ushijima for “Public Indecency”
Cops Bust Cop in Nude BDSM Club Raid
K-ON! “Causes Keionbu Girl Band Boom”
Vippers vs Vankers: 2ch Targets “Korean Propaganda”
Overflow Delays “Final” Game: “We Are Not Going Bankrupt!”
Ritsu Topless Manga Time – “She Has Boobs After All!”
Top 10 Most Boring Anime of Winter 2012
Behold: The ONACOUNTER
Lenfried Sakuya Anal Tail Ero-Cosplay
Wonder Festival 2012 Winter Cosplay
“Post The Highest Level Cosplay Ever!”
“Share The Cutest Cosplay Ever”
“Dolls vs Figures – Which is Best?”
“Why Do Girls Always Have Such Cute Rooms!?”
Ranka Lee Wedding Dress Cosplay by Tomia
Shoko-tan’s Madoka & Ika-chan Cosplay “Excessively Cute”
Guilty Crown Yuzuriha Inori Cosplay by Sasa
IdolMaster G4U: “Who Needs 3D Idols Now?”
i live in neither country so i dont really have a say on the matter, (in fact, my country did almost nothing being so small)
but from my POV, it looked like the US was helping in small amounts on the English/European side before japan did the pearl harbor incident, in which US just for lack of a better word "snapped" and wanted japan to STFU and bombed it once offering it time to surrender when that was declined they did it again, im thinking that if japan declined again the US would have bombed again.
no one is excused of what they did and the time that has passed history may be a little warped so the whole discussion is best left in the past, at least japan is fine now
and on the topic of this boat, i think there is more to it that the story states
If my history serves me, we didn't have a third bomb at the time. Fat Man and Little Boy were our two aces in the hole, although I do remember that after the first one went off, videos were "leaked" by America showing that we had silo's of them. Of course, that wasn't true at the time, but it seems to have been effective.
Why so serious? I don't like this thread. Can't we go back to Korea bashing and not U.S. bashing?
As an American, I stand for the abolition of salted squid guts.
Day when all ICBM's are disarmed:
Man says,"Hooray NO MORE nuclear weapeans"
*GRU soldier detonates briefcase*
Face it, if the Soviets had invaded Japan in WW2, we wouldn't be getting all this glorious and truly wonderful random shit since 1952.
nagasaki...
well i see the reason
even i will not like it. us military(culprit) visiting
I understand that the otaku community of this board has a penchant for ignoring all the evil of the world in favor of cartoons, but asking the United States to disarm is ludicrous. We got caught with our pants down once at Pearl Harbor; forget about that happening again. If we're attacked, I'm all down for retribution.
No one would be this stupid. Even if the US had less weapons there is still the NATO. If someone attacks one of its members he will have to fight all the others as well.
Yeah, right.
Recent survey conducted amongst citizens of "old" NATO members (those who were in alliance pre-1999) gave an obvious outcome that most of the people recommends to abandond the eastern allies, if the alternative is sending own forces for a war with Russia.
I have to grant that survey was only conducted in Europe, excluding United States and Canada from the results. I don't think it would have any impact, though.
@fabian: maybe i naven't been speaking precisely. The question was "What would you recommend to your government in case of Russia attacking some of the post-1999 NATO members". While the thesis seems unlikely, the answers gave some feel about attitude of western europeans.
-_- Ignore my comment....it seems it didn't post the entire thing do to me using one of the arrows.
Nowadays it's pretty unlikely that Russia would attack any of the member states directly unless someone provokes them. Why would Europeans want to start a war with someone who isn't their enemy any more?
The cold war is over, though a few right-wings dorks didn't get that yet.
<_.< It could happen, but at the same time I look at it from a different view maybe its just better if the U.S. steps down from being the World Police.
Can't really blame them. Especially considering that there were atomic bomb survivors among the crowd. I'd hold a grudge too, if a bomb was dropped on me and wiped out thousands of people.
All pros, cons, excuses and reasons aside, if I was a survivor of a nuclear bombing that literally vaporized my home, probably most of my family, my friends, colleagues and generally most of the people I knew out of existence, I too wouldn't be so fond of the "aggressors" parading in at the harbor of my rebuild hometown.
But given the role my country had during the war, I better not comment further on the issue.
has anybody heard the Balikatan in the philippines? zomg, they're here in my region, most of the people unwelcomed them, but still, they're persistent. they said they're on a humanitarian mission, but as ofcourse, it's all about the hidden agenda...
In war there are no right and wrong, only what is left.
It's a shame that America only had two bombs.
"Drop the nukes!"
"Admit you committed atrocities and war crimes like the rest of the countries."
"... KEEP THE NUKES!"
LOL.
America saving others? they only save their own interests. And if that was not enough, they think the enemy is out there while America´s true enemy worked it from inside out with this economic crisis. Only in America you can ruin the country (and the entire World) and earn a prize of billions of dollars while an old lady kills herself out of desperation. hahahaha.
lol seriously? silly japs, we still own ur country and u dont even realize it! hahaha!
And The japanese say this after what they did to the surrounding countries? When the Japanese got nuked the only people that didn't hate them was the chinese and the Germans
The 2010 Nuclear Security Summit, a dream come true!
P.S.
The previous message would've been a lot longer, but I lost the motivation to try to convince you otherwise.
Dear Nagasaki,
It has come to my attention that you despise nuclear weapons and wish to have them dismantled. Let me give you a little 411 on what would happen if the United States abolished its nuclear weapons program.
First, note your two closest neighbors, China and North Korea.
As we all know, China has an enormous army and lots of nukes. Do you really think that they would not take the opportunity to invade your country if the U.S. missile program didn't exist? The Japanese people may make jokes about China all the time, but, believe me, China is just as Imperialistic as the next world super power. Let's also not forget that they have an army large enough to annihilate your SDF and subvert your people through force. Need I remind you that China still has a grudge against Japan for World War II. It's difficult to ignore old wounds, especially when genocide is committed.
Next, let's look at your other neighbor, North Korea. As you're probably all very aware of, THEY ARE FIRING MISSILES OVER YOUR COUNTRY! Missiles that could potentially harbor nukes, even! Do you think they'll get rid of THEIR nuclear program if the United States did? Hell no! Kim Jong-Il would rather launch a dozen or so nukes at both Japan and the U.S. and laugh than quit his nuke program!
Because of the nuclear arsenal that the United States possesses, your country remains safe. Do I advocate the use of nuclear weapons? No, but I would rather have them and not need them than need them and not have them.
Signed,
A United States Citizen
What? I like nukes.
They are cool.
And they are also great problem-solvers.
they actually are great problem solvers
people are scared of nukes do to the possiblility of someone misusing them, but there have been no serious wars between major nations since ww2 because most of those nations have nukes. russia and the US might not exist right not if each didn't have nukes that were ready to fire at each other at anytime
The truth is simple. Despite the image of friendship and cooperation for peace (bla, bla, bla), Japan is still under American occupation. This is USArmy, that stays in Japan since the II World War, not Japanese Army that makes a fortified camp in Los Angeles Harbor. And even there is no Japanese Army - there are only Self Defence Forces, not very officially, but very efficiently controlled by USArmy.
These are the rules of THIS world: it is impossible to lose the war (especially self-started) and not be under the victorer's occupation until the occupied nation takes over by force - economical or military, but by force. The similar situation is with Germany - This is USArmy, that sits in camps in Germany, not Bundeswehra walking on the 5-th Avenue (in spite the fact, that Germany belongs as an equal member to the NATO treaty). Poland also belongs to this treaty, but in Poland there are no USArmy camps. At last without Polish authorities' consent (as far as I know).
The fact, that there is no longer mass slaughtery, victims, bombardments and night air alarms does not change anything. This is USNavy ship which docks in Nagasaki in spite of Japanese objections, not "Something" Maru that enters the San Francisco harbor whenever she wants to.
If Japan was under Soviet occupation, The Soviet battleship would enter Nagasaki and every Japanese, that would publicaly disagree with Japanese - Soviet "friendship" would be at least imprisoned. This is the difference.
I am not American. I am Polish. And I am pretty far from both sides of the conflict. Poland also was under occupation for a long time, first, from 1939 under Germano-Russian and after the IIWW only under Soviet. Formally, after IIWW, Poland was an independent and sovereign state, but every Polish minister had a Soviet friend-advisor-viceminister and in every polish army division there resided soviet friend-komissar (co called "politruck" - political guide, from russian: "politicheskij rukovoditiel"). And this was the Red Army occupying many, closed for Polish citizens, towns and localities, ready to intervene in case Poles had some dreams on independence and freedom form communism. Formally Poland was independent, free and paceful. Moreover, USArmy rather does not keep Japanese in prisons, does not hang and shots them for the dreams of free Japan, as Soviet occupant did with Poles even in 80'ties of last century. Red Army left Poland officially and in fact in 1992 (or 1994, or so - I do not remember precisely)
So I understand Japanese, how they feel. This is absolutely sincere and it should be this way, but they deserved for it. Absolutely. Even if they were provoked to attack Pearl harbor - they should not do it. But they risked the war hoping, that Imperial Army is invincible. Every man entering the cassino hopes, that he will win a fortune. Bets - spins - looses and bears a grudge to a winner, that takes his money. This is the way world works. All the speeches of freedom, international friendship, ONZ, UNICEF, NATO, bla, bla, bla is the circus for the stupid crowd. IN THE WORLD THE RULER IS THE STRONGER. And nothing will change it. Because this is the nature's law. Like the law of energy conservation. German and Soviet occupation of Poland for total 50 years, contrary, was undeserved: Poland has never started any major war in it's history. The only our blame and shame was, that we were weak militarily (altough there never was lack of will to fight - especially compared with ex. France of that time). And for this we can have regrets only towards ourselves.
Japan didn´t attack Pearl Harbor out of pride for an "invencible army" you dumbass, but because USA and Europe were doing a blockade to starve the japanese to death and them dominate the entire Asia. You don´t see that fact in History books, now do you?
And for war crimes, you can search the definition for such debauchery. USA already made every single one of those. But since they own the World, the last word is theirs'. Remember that there are still "USA and territories (Hawaii for an example)".
Wow, that was well said.
Spare me your babbling. I'm from Poland also and I hate seeing other Poles on the internet, who will take any ocasion to offtop and elaborate on completely unimportand and uninterestig details of Polish history.
US bases in Germany may as well be the single reason that Soviet tanks didn't ruch through Germany before the 90's. Now there is some consideration in USA that bases in Germany are no longer needed, and that it would be reasonable to move them towards the east. Personally, I would be very happy to see US bases in Poland, since I certainly prefer theirs "occupation" than Russian.
You are already they're occupation stupid poles.
Oh I'm sure you can backup this claim with some real facts. You just don't want to!
Excuse me, but since you write so on the international forum... The World would think, that every Polish is like you. I begin understand, where the stereotype of "stupid Pole" comes from. From Poles, that are ashamed, that they are Poles.
Some other nations do not have to be ashamed of millions humans burnt in furnaces, thousands murdered in "medical" experiments, tens thousands of prisoners of war killed in camps and long death marches through the jungle or arctic frost, but Poles should be ashamed, that they are Poles and cannot show such impressive results. RIDICULOUS! Is the World like a thieves' gang, that it is a shame when a member of it was catched stealing a wallet in a metro, not that he just tried to steal?
The main your mistake is, that you make assumption, that some other than our home army MUST reside in Poland. If it is not Russian, then German, if not German, then American. You are right, I also prefer cholera than the plague, but why a priori consider the situation "we must be ill". Better is to think "we must not be ill". I would prefer, that every army sits in it's homeland and there is real order and peace.
I would write something about "pańszczyźniany chłop" (landless peasant) mentality, that even does not imagine the situation, that he has land and house and assumes, that he will be landless, poor and exploited by his lord for whole his life. If he thinks so, he will be exploited. Because he never tries to do something for the change. Pitful. Sitting and crying. All we can do. Change your source of information. You see Poland as if it was depicted by dr. Joseph Goebbels. Hopeless, helpless, last hole in the world, that even cannot govern by itself in it's homeland and needs foreign army to occupy it brutally to be happy. Ridiculous.
And if our history is not interesting for you, it means, that you have severe complexes. Why do you assume, that Poland is totally uninteresting country, Poles are inferior to any other nation and... Are you ashamed being Polish? What did our ancestors do and what do we have to be ashamed of? Did they burn several millions of people in the crematory furnaces? did they perform "medical" experiments on prisoners in concentration camps like gen. Shiro Ishii, Joseph Mengele or bombarded cities full of innocent civilians with atomic (and conventional) bombs? Do you know, that Poles in Allied Forces during WWII refused to fly over German cities and bombard them?
World will never understand this. The worse for the world. I (as every human being) have the right to be proud of my homeland's history.
Yes, world certainly cherishes power. Only somebody, who kills, occupies and steals can walk with head lifted high. Those, who are robbed, killed, those who fight even against hope - are just "stupid poles", or just stupid.
If anyone wants to tell me, that Poles are stupid - write it in Polish. I will never discuss this question with anybody who cannot write, read and speak Polish properly. Excusez le mot. This is not the question to be discussed in any other language.
I have never publicly said, that any nation is stupid. Because it is not true.
Hey, you know that by inserting here even more unimportand babbling you've COMPLETELY backed up my point?
It would be better if the guys and gals in the background are holding bazooka's and other heavy military equipment which are targeted to the two there. lol
If he wants to promote friendship between the US and Japan, he should blow up 4kids, and than tell all english dub companies to do a better job...oh and all video game companies to release dual audio games >__>
Interesting debate is interesting.
Thanks for the read guys!!!! =D
Man those protesters are really annoying. I live in sasebo, Japan at the naval base and when the USS Lincoln came to port at are base, there was soo many protesters that we rallying in front of the gate to the base. The base pretty much closed down and I couldn't even get out of the base for like almost 4 hours, and I had too!
I don't even know why they protest, the ships are powered by nuclear generators, they don't carry nuclear weapons! And also noting that Japan also have nuclear power plants themselves and they don't want a ship that is nuclear powered to be in Japan? Really doesn't make sense here.......
Especially considering the US forces are now there at the request of the Japanese, they even pay towards the base upkeep... They might be better served protesting their own government.
It's simple, hatred of the USA is "the thing to do". Forget how the USA has helped your country become what it is and just bash them when you can so you feel better.
It's like in High School when the Student President is also the best jock and academic person in the school. Most below are envious.
THIS.
It seems our role in life to be whipping boys for the rest of the world.
-_-
id agree with you more if i couldnt read that with an AMERICA, FUCK YEAH! attitude...
Well... Agreement is an agreement- n.n;
depends on your definition of agreement...
Stupid americans.
At least we didn't side with Hitler.
Alas, some of us did.
"Stupid americans"
...get in line
IBM?
A sad irony...
Or Prime Minister Toujo, for that matter.
Where on earth did they get the idea that Obama would abolish nuclear weapons...
Well, Obama did state that (in a pre-election video) it is one of his goals but sounds more like rhetoric to appeal to antiwar, far left-wingers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtwRcZXrz0k
Nothing but a pipedream...
Well in Obama's first press conference the other day, he did say that he wishes to abolish nuclear weapons. I wasn't really paying too much attention but I'm sure he discussed it quite a bit.
Lawl, yeah we're gonna give up our nukes. Dream on.
He is black and asking for change, whats not to tell them to "believe" for a better future.
Err, there is a difference between believing and delusional.
you mean like the US?
Well the reason behind an anti-nuke agreement can be summed up in one anagram, MAD. If we feel we can prevent another country from using their nukes or preventing damage to us, then we'll be more likely to go do a nuclear war. Of course I'm sure the US probably has some anti-nuke devices hidden somewhere in case of an emergency.....
The Japanese (not all), like most countries, don't like the U.S. Kinda like Germany. The old Germans respect the U.S. while the younger Germans don't really understand why the U.S. is there. Which is understandable, because the U.S. know longer have a reason to be in most places. So seeing as most people only learn about WWII in history class and haven't actually witnessed it, they decide to take a "world peace" stance which usually means hating the U.S.
It isn't until another expansionist country comes in and begins taking things over that everybody suddenly starts asking the U.S. to save their ass's.
Once the United States neutrality was breached in WWII, they became the world police. Going into Vietnam, so on and so forth. The list keeps going and won't stop until the U.S. government decides to take the stance "everybody can defend themselves". <.< Which won't probably happen for a good long while.
>_< Wrong post to respond to.
New to this whole posting thing and when I clicked reply to the last post about the guy and the base it said "posting to fast slow down" and thus I didn't know my post was still there.
Curses the interwebz!
I certainly hope they will not, do to some obvious reasons. Mainly do to the fact that the technology is now out there and can be used, thus if the United States decides to disarm then the United States will be floating targets.
So I say anti-nukes before dismantling all nukes.
but since the agreement between the Russia and united states still stand (i think) then we will most likely continue having nukes since the US and Russia seem to have made a stupid agreement not to develop any anti-nuclear devices.
>_<
And no US President, or Presidential candidate, has ever so much as questioned the US nuclear deterrent, let alone called for abolition...
It isn’t until another expansionist country comes in...
another expansionist country...
expansionist...
I agree. Whoever thought that was just plain stupid. Seriously might as well expect Obama to start giving out unicorns and rainbows in a bottle.
What! Obama's giving out unicorns and rainbows in a bottle!!??
Do want.
Sadly no unicorns. Do you want a trillion dollars instead basilio?
Btw, that was me...
UNICORNS AND RAINBOWS :D COOLIES!!
Ewww...
Abolition? No. However he is trying to reduce the amount of nukes held by the US and Russia to 1,000 each.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5654836.ece
I can't say I'm too surprised given how popular Obama is in Japan. But the fact remains that the abolition of nuclear weaponry is nigh impossible in today's world. I won't criticize Japan for their stance on the matter considering the past but it's not practical in my opinion.
CHANGE!!!
1. Obama is working toward reducing nuclear weapons, according to recent stories like the link posted.
2. I'm fairly far to the left on lots of issues, but if the comparatively responsible big nuclear powers have too few nuclear weapons, it makes the small-scale nuclear powers, and terrorists, more likely to use theirs.
3. There is at least room for debate on whether the Nagasaki bomb was a "war crime" or not. It is arguable, though not certain, that it accelerated the end of the war and reduced casualties, overall.
4. I must admit to conflicted feelings when I hear some Japanese decrying US war crimes, while other Japanese (the same Japanese?) refuse to admit Japan's own.
5. Steaming into port against the wishes of the locals doesn't seem calculated to improve relations between Japan and the US. But i understand that the US felt it had to do it to show that the agreement was still in place.
Although I consider myself more on the other end of the spectrum in most issues, I agree with everything you said.
Very well stated!
Yep that about sums this up. As for the Nagasaki debate, that will be argued until the next time a nuke goes off.
Totally agree, well said.
I can feel their pain. US committed one of the worst war crimes on humanity that day and no one was ever brought to justice for that. Of course that is because US was the winner.
Unfortunately for most, history is written by the victorious...
Let's not give the Japanese a free pass; or did you forget about Nanking? Oh wait, we don't talk about Nanking. Lawl.
I think Xavi forgot the massive war crimes Japan did to China and Korea. How about what Hitler did to the Jews? Oh forget those millions of people that were killed in far worse ways than a nuclear bomb. Let's just focus on the 220,000 killed instead.
Funny how people pick on the USA but Japan certainly wouldn't be where they are now if it wasn't for the USA. Who paid for most of the rebuilding in Europe and Japan? Oh right the U S A. Who forgave most of those debts? Oh right the USA again.
Got to love the envy and jealousy of the world. Bunch of ingrates.
EXACTLY.
Also
>If they wanted to be fair they would first immobilize their military, even with nuclear weapons, then start blackmailing Japan to stop fighting.
>fair
Right, since Japan bombing Pearl Harbor was fair or any war for that matter.
Woah, you should be a military genius or something.
>Of course I would never say that Japan was righteous attacking Pearl Harbor or China, not to mention allying with the axis. That’s a whole different story though.
>That’s a whole different story though.
No it's not.
>No it seems like you’ve completely >missed the point of your initial >post.
>It’s been fun to see you slowly back >down from ....
Are you hallucinating?
>And you continue to act like a >butthurt little weeaboo.
I can assure you I am not "hurt" at all, you on the other hand sound pretty agitated.
>From all of the war crimes they >had committed they had it coming
>anyway.
Nice Biblical reason you got there, you should be proud.
>I’ve had fun trolling!
Your words...
>Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both >military targets - both were >coastal cities that hosted large >IJN
Maybe compared to other cities, yes, but you can't just mark a whole city as a military target. Cities are a vital part of warfare for all countries, you don't just desolate them and then call it "military action". Generalize that example and we would not have any cities left on the face of the earth.
>For the side that wants to win, >maximizing damage while reducing >risk is the way to go. Obviously.
Please, on the next World War don't hint them, only cockroaches will survive. :p
Seriously though you seem to consider that a nuclear weapon is just another rocket. I am sure that you are aware of the consequences of using such weaponry and I am not referring only to immediate deaths. The aftermath is far worse.
>There were, simply put, no >innocents during the second world >war. There were the guilty, and >the guiltier.
I fully agree on that, well said.
You don't get it do you? You completely miss the point. The act of nuking civilians (twice too) is a war crime. You want to use nukes? Fine, drop them at military targets. End of story.
I don't want to defend Japan or any other country, I am just commenting on the act of nuking innocents (solely on that and that only) and why now Japanese people feel offended by the US presence in their country.
Have your opinion about it but don't try to deform what I am saying. Anyway, I will stop right here because a)Anonymous few posts below covered very nicely what I wanted to remind some of you, b) we all know what arguing on the internet means (it's like special olympics, even if you win you are still a retard :p ).
We don't deform what you say, Xavi. Your ignorance of history merely makes it appear so.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both military targets - both were coastal cities that hosted large IJN bases, complete with naval yards, troop housing, dependents, manufactories for the war-works, you name it. All of which were valid targets (including the dependents - it's what we call "declared, total war, with calls for unconditional surrender rebuffed"). In the mid-20th Century, Japan was just one giant war factory. Like most of the "great" nations, actually. Those that weren't "great" got to host the wars without being able to fight back effectively - not that being a "great nation" meant you were immune - all of the "greats" had attacks on their soil - even the US.
As for "nuking is wrong, nuking is bad," look up the firebombing of Tokyo. Instead of risking one aircrew (well, three with chase planes) and killing around 20k in a single go, the firebombings risked up to 500 aircrews per night, in raids that killed upwards of 100k. For the side that wants to win, maximizing damage while reducing risk is the way to go. Obviously.
Culturally, neither the US nor Japan played by what the other considered to be "the rules." And in war, when that happens, both sides will toss out the rulebook altogether. That means that the Japanese used biological attacks whenever they thought they could get away with it, and the US used atomics.
There were, simply put, no innocents during the second world war. There were the guilty, and the guiltier. The guilty won - which is why we can go through hand-wringing about it now. As opposed to if the guiltier had won, in which case most of us now typing would be dead already.
>You don’t get it do you? You completely miss the point.
No it seems like you've completely missed the point of your initial post.
It's been fun to see you slowly back down from >US committed one of the worst war crimes on humanity that day and no one was ever brought to justice for that.
And you continue to act like a butthurt little weeaboo.
>The act of nuking civilians (twice too) is a war crime
>twice too
Exactly. Japan's government had time to surrender after the first bomb but refused until the second bomb was dropped.
From all of the war crimes they had committed they had it coming anyway.
>don’t try to deform what I am saying
>You continue to assume ...
Likewise.
I've had fun trolling!
HAHA OH WOW
>You continue to assume that because the USA did their share of fucking up this war, Japan was excused to do anything, way to go.
And now you've got your opinion.
>>That’s a whole different story though.
>No it’s not.
Ok get technical fine. You know what I meant with that. You continue to assume that because Japan did their share of fucking up this war, USA was excused to do anything, way to go.
I'm gonna state something glaringly obvious which fits this whole issue:
NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED.
There.
Far as I'm concerned, some people can't let go of a fucking grudge, and milk it for all the pity they can get.
Now... I can sympathize with the loss of loved ones, but war is hell.... Sherman had it right when he said that. If Japan hadn't had US 'interference'.... either starting with Commodore Perry in the 19th Century, or after the surrender at the end of WW2, who knows what Japan would be like today? Probably still an agricultural country struggling with their outdated feudal system. Not to mention the generosity the US showed towards her former enemies after the war...
Unfortunately, our species is driven by conflict still. :(
Why the hell do you think that I am forgetting Japan's war crimes? So if Japan was to blame for atrocities you can excuse entirely what USA did? What kind of logic is that?
And stop the crap about USA helping out Europe in good will. USA enjoyed lending massive amounts of money to Europe while they (European countries) had to struggle fighting Germany and Italy. USA was like a loan shark at that time. They got their money back 100-folds. Many countries still repay them from that time.
Only after the attack on Pearl Harbor USA foresaw that it could no longer stand neutral and decided to end the war after the whole Europe was devastated.
If USA helped England as soon as the war spread, then Germany wouldn't have the chance to take over all of Europe. The decision of staying neutral until things get worse was a smart economical move from USA affecting critically European nations.
Like... no one at the time believed that government spending would help the economy when there was so many idle resources.
Everyone thought that government spending during the great depression was stupid. No one believed that Germany would become so powerful because Germany also had a weak economy along with everyone else. Everyone just expected Germany's economy would completely collapse.
You can have more government spending if you want the effect of a war on an economy.
@omnipotentdude that was before WWII the war helped america with its economy if im not mistaken...
Oh US was so rich during this time frame...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
>Why the hell do you think that I am forgetting Japan’s war crimes?
You are.
>So if USA was to blame for atrocities you can excuse entirely what Japan did? What kind of logic is that?
HURP DURP I don't know what kind of logic is that?
@Geerie
>helped america with its economy
Yes because it provided jobs, albeit making tanks, guns, and other military items.
Yeah, the war helped the U.S. But Xavi is saying
"If USA helped England as soon as the war spread, then Germany wouldn’t have the chance to take over all of Europe. The decision of staying neutral until things get worse was a smart economical move from USA affecting critically European nations."
It was a smart move economically because the US wasn't doing good economically in the first place do to the great depression. FDR was trying to find a solution to the depression and found it when we were attacked. Which is sad to say, but at the same time it was inevitable. So the U.S. wasn't gaining much from the european countries because the U.S. was still in the depression.
People can easily say if we were in the League of Nations the tables could have been turned......but thats a WWI discussion....
LOL
Look up Unit 731. Yeah dropping a two bomb on two cities sucked, but dropping poisoned laced supplies into starving villages sucked even more. How much of an asshole can you be when you can just give poisoned candy to children and feel no remorse?
WW2 was an ugly war, but don't act like Japan was the only victim. They were the aggressors. Those fuckers had it coming.
Who told them to keep fighting a war that they were obviously going to lose? If those nukes hadn't fried them to their senses they would have blown themselves up in kamikaze fighters anyway.
Take a look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7yDOXGmtro&feature=channel_page [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7yDOXGmtro&feature=channel_page]
The old geezer talks of gassing people off with methane to death and shows no remorse. And even says that if he was young, he'd do it all over again.
WTF... where is his humanity?
And it's not only about other nationalities, what about the people in okinawa who were told to jump of cliffs or use grenades instead of surrendering to those american monsters?
Problem with some folks in Japan is that if you're gonna talk about war, you better talk about it as a whole. Not selective as if the war ended and started in august 1945.
I know Hitler is the head in Germany at that time, Churchhill England, US truman, so who teh hell is the ringleader in japan anyway?
OOOOPS. Had they won, those people would have been lionized and have become gods and heroes just like those emperors and samurais in the middle age (tokugawa?) As it is, better to sweep the defeat/shame/responsibility under the tatami floor.
lol oh wow this HAS to be a troll post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
Great Nippon can do no wrong right?
Argh! how many times do I have to repeat myself. I am not in favor of what Japan did at that time. Obviously they were to blame for many war crimes, this though doesn't justify USA nuking 2 cities and killing explicitly thousands of civilians.
> I am not Justifying anything about Japan
Oh you're surely not.
But seeing how nuclear bombing made arguably the most pacifist nation out of (arguably too) a most expansionist one, I really, REALLY think that in long-term Hiroshima/Nagasaki caused only good effects. If every country got bombed and turned to absolute pacifism after, this world would be a better place, despite many innocent deaths to achieve it.
I'm not saying that outcome justify the means. It's just that sometimes, people start to forget certain moral values, exactly those making them human beings. And a big, shocking disaster is needed to remind them of.
I find it absolutely hilarious that none one has mentioned the fact that the US immediately sent aide to Japan after they surrendered and helped clean up the mess of the two atomic bombs... name one other country that's directly helped reconstruct their enemy of a war just finished to the point of prospering again.
Xavi, if that doesn't count for something in your book, you are just one warped nut that needs to get a clue about the real world.
War can't be won by sitting on your ass doing nothing, no matter what the Democrats tell you.
Also, considering the kind of people that we were fighting, it was by far and large the best option for BOTH sides. Japan certainly wasn't going to surrender, and for a country that's already getting it's butt handed to it on a silver platter, threats don't weigh very heavily even if they're not bluffs. If the Kyujou incident isn't enough proof of their military's determination even AFTER being bombed, then I don't know what to say.
Once again people it's not about Japan or USA, it is about usage of nuclear weapons, they should be banned (difficult) completely.
Further than that it is my belief that US committed a war crime with the decision of using "weapons of mass destruction" (sic) back then. I am not Justifying anything about Japan, nor do I forgive their wrong doings before they turn to victims in the last part of the 2nd world war.
But invading and causing even more casualaties would have been justified right?
And of course those people killed in the Pearl Harbor bombing were inhuman robot soldiers with no family.
Wanting to end the war with as few casualities as possible sounds pretty justifiable.
Of course in a perfect world there would be no war or war would be FAIR and countries would just surrender with no casualties.
Even though alot of people can say that the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was the worst ever, it was something that NEEDED to be done to end the war. Not only that the options were.
A) United States launches an invasion on Japanese mainland which would cause WAY more casualties.
B) Soviet Union invades Japan and Japan ends up a submissive state to Russia.
C) Launch nukes and hope Japan surrenders.
In all 3, the one with the lowest deaths would have been C. Because whether you like to believe it or not, every japanese (or at least a good couple million) would have taken up arms if we invaded the Japanese mainland, and knowing that and the fact the Tokyo government was lead by militaristic expansionists the odds are both sides would have death rates in the millions before either side would give in.
And lets say the United states does not decide to invade knowing that they would lose such a great amount of forces. Well, in comes Stalin! Seeing as Stalin did his Great Purges he would have no problem in tearing Japan apart in his paranoia.
So which EVER way you look at things, great losses would have happened. So, even though civilians were killed, dropping the nukes was the smartest move at the time.
History might have been written by the victorious, but what if it hadnt been? Are you trying to say that Japan had no other choice other then to bomb pearl harbor? Or Japan had no other choice but attack China? Or Japan had no other choice but sign an agreement with Hitler?
:)
I like Japan and all, and they have come a long way from being blind followers to a dictator.
true
plus its not like the japanese were considering surrender as an option
Ya a mainland invasion would have killed many more civilians, and caused much more damage even more than what was done to Germany.
JP has become a bit more prideful these past few years of coarse all country's have their own levels of denial and patriotism.(US+ Bush...shoot me).
People glaze over the facts with sentiment in order to not face the truth.
IMO JP and the US are 2 of the best country's in the world, now if we could just mate them... and hope its not a dictatorial bastard... I am hoeing more for a functional bureaucratic ditz...
>I can feel their pain.
What? No you can't.
>Unfortunately for most, history is written by the victorious
Deep, brah.... deep.
Anyway This is actually a very well thought out answer.
And I agree whole-heartedly.
I like Japan and the shit they make but I'm not going to overlook their past and what they've done. But at the same time I'm not going to hold it against them.
Of course I would never say that Japan was righteous attacking Pearl Harbor or China, not to mention allying with the axis. That's a whole different story though.
We all know the US excuses as to why they dropped nuclear bombs on TWO major cities. Still, that's covering up their criminal decision to do so. If they wanted to be fair they would first immobilize their military, even with nuclear weapons, then start blackmailing Japan to stop fighting.
In any case they chose the easy route of dropping 2 bombs, targeting ONLY CIVILIANS, to cause shock and awe. It saved them military sources, men and mostly money, not to mention that they had quite a nice chance to test their new weapon toy on a real target.
There is no excuse in massive killing of civilians (that's exactly what Hitler did in a different way) that is the definition of war crime.
What was that, I couldn't hear you over the tens of millions of civilians killed during Japan's "liberation" of Asia...
This last september I had the opportunity to visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. To say that the U.S. targeted just civilians in the bombings is not entirely correct. Hiroshima was home to many warehouses that stored military supplies. Granted that isnt the sole reason Hiroshima was picked as the target, just pointing out that its not as cunt and dry as you make it out to be.
If you are interested in learning more visit.
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/index_e2.html
darn worst typo ever... sorry about that. :(
So you choose the part where the U.S. gives up and leaves in an attempt to politically maneuver Japan out of their ideals (which I guess is the blackmailing part) through simply showing them that "We have a big bomb."
But seeing as the Russians had already declared war on Japan, Stalin would be like "I hate Hitler and Axis, United States has left lets move in." Thus Japan would be invaded by Russia. Because Stalin is known as being Paranoid and Stalin hated Hitler do to Hitler attacking him. So saying that we can add it up by saying that Stalin would do probably what Hitler did to the Jews except it would be the Japanese.
So instead of having about a million civilian casualties, you would have about a good percentage of the entire country.
Look up Stalin and his purges and you will see the paranoid nutjob that is Stalin.
It is said one of the reasons the Japanese surrendered after the 2nd nuke, was because Russia was preparing to roll in.
Criminal? Oh noes people got bombed. Have you ever read/watched anything on WW2? Carpet bombing major cities was pretty much the standard. The US just did it with a big bomb instead of with a few hundred bombs of less tonnage.