Page 1 of 2
#1
--a date which will live in infamy

(the speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vw_bL3RyGQ )

It is that time of year again, I remember the last discussion on similar topic (which had an interesting talk about Canadian bagged milk?) I guess this is general discussion on the topic, but things like, "could we have prevented it (9/11 poetic irony)," "should we have gone to total war," and "should we have used atomic weapons against Japan," might be places to start.
Lord Gold feeds from your orifices and he wants to see you sweat.
Lord Gold probes you publicly and makes your pussy wet.
Now say his name.....
#4
First of all: I'm an American.

Secondly, I hate when people say the US was "blindly attacked" by Japan. We were cutting off their supplies and oil. We had to assume they were going to do something about it.
#7
Well,we bombed Japan with atomic weapons to put a quick end to the war and save ourselves the massive loss of allied troops that a ground war in Japan would bring supposedly,but by doing so we ushered in the atomic era and opened a Pandora's box that has the potential to destroy us all thousands of times over.

In hindsight,a ground war doesn't seem that bad compared to total nuclear ass rape.

WARNING!: THIS USER HAS BEEN KNOWN TO BE AN OPINIONATED ASS. ALWAYS USE CAUTION WHEN READING POSTS AND NEVER USE NEAR AN OPEN FLAME.USE ONLY AS DIRECTED.KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.







#8
why was it a love story, why?
Sell and Promote your music TuneHub!



wy is yer mad at muy gramhar fer?


Quote by jimmyled
jimmybanks youre a genius.


aparently i ar smrt?
Quote by dyingLeper
jimmybanks youre a genius


GO SENS GO
#9
Quote by MossyMan
F**k U Whale! F**k U Dorphin!

Yay for South Park.
Tonight I kill your fucking face.
I killed your face.


HG FC: 4211 7971 0287
Plt FC: 3052 1000 9033
#10
Quote by Pr0gNut
Well,we bombed Japan with atomic weapons to put a quick end to the war and save ourselves the massive loss of allied troops that a ground war in Japan would bring supposedly,but by doing so we ushered in the atomic era and opened a Pandora's box that has the potential to destroy us all thousands of times over.

In hindsight,a ground war doesn't seem that bad compared to total nuclear ass rape.


Just my opinion of course, but I think the atomic era was imminent anyways, and things would have gone much worse if the first nuclear attacks had occured 10 years later when both sides had nuclear capabilities.
Up The Boro!
#11
People need to get over Pearl Harbor.

For months were were up in japan's face, slapping them, shoving them, and saying "Yeah? What are you gonna do about it, huh? Hit me! I dare you! Hit me, you loser!" And finally when japan hits back we go "ZOMG I CANT BELIV U HIT ME U R TEH WORST!"
Check out my band Disturbed
#12
I went there and saw the Arizona Memorial. It felt kind of haunted.
#13
Quote by Oddsbodkins
Just my opinion of course, but I think the atomic era was imminent anyways, and things would have gone much worse if the first nuclear attacks had occured 10 years later when both sides had nuclear capabilities.


Yeah,it was an inevitable evil .

I just think it's ironic that we tried to save ourselves from heavy causalities but ended up unleashing something that can kill all of us so easily.

It's like bringing a shotgun to a fist fight,it's just overkill.

WARNING!: THIS USER HAS BEEN KNOWN TO BE AN OPINIONATED ASS. ALWAYS USE CAUTION WHEN READING POSTS AND NEVER USE NEAR AN OPEN FLAME.USE ONLY AS DIRECTED.KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.







#14
Quote by Tempoe
I went there and saw the Arizona Memorial. It felt kind of haunted.

I am not into site seeing, I didn't really feel much from the various monuments in DC, but I actually want to see this. I think it is different to view a monument of something where it actually happened.
Lord Gold feeds from your orifices and he wants to see you sweat.
Lord Gold probes you publicly and makes your pussy wet.
Now say his name.....
#15
Lived at Hickam AFB for 4 years. (Literally RIGHT next to Pearl Harbor)
I've been to the Arizona Memorial numerous times and there is a pretty eerie feeling.
Not like other war monuments in D.C./etc., but because the wrecked ship and dead bodies are right beneath you, and that's actually where it went down.

On another note. It's not that we were "blindly" attacked by them. The U.S. expected retaliation, just not a suicide aerial attack which seemed randomly timed.
It was an obscure idea and shocked our Army.
"Here we are, Juggernaut."

/C/R/A/C/K/ my anti-dru...
#16
Quote by StewieSwan
People need to get over Pearl Harbor.

For months were were up in japan's face, slapping them, shoving them, and saying "Yeah? What are you gonna do about it, huh? Hit me! I dare you! Hit me, you loser!" And finally when japan hits back we go "ZOMG I CANT BELIV U HIT ME U R TEH WORST!"


This.
and i sit and wonder, falling under .
#17
Quote by 1_wise_guy
Lived at Hickam AFB for 4 years. (Literally RIGHT next to Pearl Harbor)
I've been to the Arizona Memorial numerous times and there is a pretty eerie feeling.
Not like other war monuments in D.C./etc., but because the wrecked ship and dead bodies are right beneath you, and that's actually where it went down.

On another note. It's not that we were "blindly" attacked by them. The U.S. expected retaliation, just not a suicide aerial attack which seemed randomly timed.
It was an obscure idea and shocked our Army.


There was no suicide attack. Kamikaze wasn't til 1944.
#18
Quote by Pr0gNut
Yeah,it was an inevitable evil .

I just think it's ironic that we tried to save ourselves from heavy causalities but ended up unleashing something that can kill all of us so easily.

It's like bringing a shotgun to a fist fight,it's just overkill.


to be honest if they had just used it on a military target or even just once it would have had the same effect. it was a war crime.
i don't agree that it started the atomic era, since many countries were developing their own already- bombing Japan didn't speed up the USSR's development or anything.

Pearl Harbour was actually a very useful event, stopped the US being d!cks about the war and finally getting involved.
#19
Quote by imthehitcher
to be honest if they had just used it on a military target or even just once it would have had the same effect. it was a war crime.
i don't agree that it started the atomic era, since many countries were developing their own already- bombing Japan didn't speed up the USSR's development or anything.

Pearl Harbour was actually a very useful event, stopped the US being d!cks about the war and finally getting involved.


Of course bombing Japan sped up the USSRs nuclear development program! When the USSR suspected western scientists were developing nuclear weapons they began a program themselves. This was aided through espionage; getting blue prints of the USA's nukes. The bombing of Japan, signaling the end of WW2, meant that both the US and USSR were the remaining the superpowers, the US with atomic bombs. This worried the soviets for obvious reasons, and so efforts were increased to produce a nuclear weapon ASAP.

Saying that your ideological enemy using the most powerful weapon known to man at the time wouldn't make you speed your own development is ridiculous.
Last edited by MossyMan at Dec 7, 2009,
#20
Quote by KwikKopy
First of all: I'm an American.

Secondly, I hate when people say the US was "blindly attacked" by Japan. We were cutting off their supplies and oil. We had to assume they were going to do something about it.

Also, it's not like we couldn't have seen it coming. It was a military base, after all, and it's not like radar wasn't invented then. I don't think we should've been blindsided like we were.

However, that being said, a lot of good men lost their lives for a foolish war and I in no way mean to belittle the efforts they made fighting for my country.
#21
Quote by MossyMan
Of course bombing Japan sped up the USSRs nuclear development program! When the USSR suspected western scientists were developing nuclear weapons they began a program themselves. This was aided through espionage; getting blue prints of the USA's nukes. The bombing of Japan, signaling the end of WW2, meant that both the US and USSR were the remaining the superpowers, the US with atomic bombs. This worried the soviets for obvious reasons, and so efforts were increased to produce a nuclear weapon ASAP.

Saying that your ideological enemy using the most powerful weapon known to man at the time wouldn't make you speed your own development is ridiculous.


the Soviet Union knew aboutthe manhatten projects success before Roosevelt even did, as soon as Stalin heard about it's completion he was incensed and demanded that the Soviet's production of their own was sped up, at this point they could afford to concentrate hard on this project since the Werhmacht was in full retreat.
#22
*cue America bashing*


Anyway, it was an unfortunate happening, but it's sort of hard to say "RIP" or something, since a lot of those guys, had they not died in the attack/the war that followed, would probably be dead now or close to it.
Quote by Diet_coke_head
I love taking a nice dip of some horse shit, so good.
#23
Quote by KwikKopy
First of all: I'm an American.

Secondly, I hate when people say the US was "blindly attacked" by Japan. We were cutting off their supplies and oil. We had to assume they were going to do something about it.


Well, they were kind of stupid.

"Hey America I'm going to sink all your ships so you give me stuff again, kthnxbai"

Quote by StewieSwan
People need to get over Pearl Harbor.

For months were were up in japan's face, slapping them, shoving them, and saying "Yeah? What are you gonna do about it, huh? Hit me! I dare you! Hit me, you loser!" And finally when japan hits back we go "ZOMG I CANT BELIV U HIT ME U R TEH WORST!"


I second this.
No muerde, no calla
Sin sangre no hay arte
Nada ni nadie
De nada más

#24
Quote by thankyougermany
*cue America bashing*


Anyway, it was an unfortunate happening, but it's sort of hard to say "RIP" or something, since a lot of those guys, had they not died in the attack/the war that followed, would probably be dead now or close to it.


i'm not sure what you mean, they had their lives cut short. It sounds like you are legitimising murder by saying that people's death is inevitable anyway.
#25
Quote by imthehitcher
i'm not sure what you mean, they had their lives cut short. It sounds like you are legitimising murder by saying that people's death is inevitable anyway.


Not exactly, it just seems less relevant now that time has passed. Saying "Rest in Peace" on the 10th anniversary of the attack was no doubt much more powerful than saying it on the 68th anniversary, because it would still be fresh in the minds of those who were there... now, a lot of the people who were there are gone.

It's kind of like saying "today's the anniversary of the Boston Massacre... RIP " it's different because it's history now.

Not trying to argue, just kind of pointing that out.
Quote by Diet_coke_head
I love taking a nice dip of some horse shit, so good.
#26
Quote by thankyougermany
Not exactly, it just seems less relevant now that time has passed. Saying "Rest in Peace" on the 10th anniversary of the attack was no doubt much more powerful than saying it on the 68th anniversary, because it would still be fresh in the minds of those who were there... now, a lot of the people who were there are gone.

It's kind of like saying "today's the anniversary of the Boston Massacre... RIP " it's different because it's history now.

Not trying to argue, just kind of pointing that out.


that's fair, to be honest RIP is merely an expression to show once condolences for lives lost. I, personally, don't think time diminishes it's meaning. particularly in the context of WWII sinc eit is still fresh in the psyche and such a grave event for our world.
#27
Quote by imthehitcher
i'm not sure what you mean, they had their lives cut short. It sounds like you are legitimising murder by saying that people's death is inevitable anyway.


So is it murder when Japanese bombs killed American civilians at Pearl Harbor, or only when American firebombs killed Japanese civilians? Or both?
#28
Quote by blackthought
So is it murder when Japanese bombs killed American civilians at Pearl Harbor, or only when American firebombs killed Japanese civilians? Or both?


well i didn't mean to imply that killings in the context of war are murder, i just meant what he said was akin to justifying murder by the fact they would have died anyway.

The firebombing of Japanese civilians was one of the most horrendous war crimes, it really does sicken me to hear about it- irregardless of what the axis powers did it does not give the allies the right to do things like that (or indeed the bobing of Dresden and other war crimes)
#29
Quote by lordofthefood1
--a date which will live in infamy

(the speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vw_bL3RyGQ )

It is that time of year again, I remember the last discussion on similar topic (which had an interesting talk about Canadian bagged milk?) I guess this is general discussion on the topic, but things like, "could we have prevented it (9/11 poetic irony)," "should we have gone to total war," and "should we have used atomic weapons against Japan," might be places to start.

Wait, bagged milk is real?
#30
Quote by Unourrit01
whats a pearl harbor. (im 12 and i live in america)


Haha Fail

I dont really have a say in why the Japs attacked we were boundd to join in on the war eventually, and Remeber tommorrow is the Official Political declaration of War by the U.S. and John Lennon and Dimebag Darrel were assasinated ALL IN THE SAME DAY... different dates of course
Rofl?







Lol Cross. The Power of LOL Compels you!
#31
ITT; People who know NOTHING whatsoever about the attack on Pearl Harbour, or the events leading up to it.
#32
Quote by imthehitcher
well i didn't mean to imply that killings in the context of war are murder, i just meant what he said was akin to justifying murder by the fact they would have died anyway.

The firebombing of Japanese civilians was one of the most horrendous war crimes, it really does sicken me to hear about it- irregardless of what the axis powers did it does not give the allies the right to do things like that (or indeed the bobing of Dresden and other war crimes)


Who gives anybody the right to do anything? Is there really much difference between burning to death and being shot? The end result is the same.
#33
Quote by imthehitcher
the Soviet Union knew aboutthe manhatten projects success before Roosevelt even did, as soon as Stalin heard about it's completion he was incensed and demanded that the Soviet's production of their own was sped up, at this point they could afford to concentrate hard on this project since the Werhmacht was in full retreat.


Indeed, but during the war it was mostly an intelligence gathering operation. It was after the defeat of Japan that the nuclear development program was put at full speed.
Klaus Fuchs of the Los alamos facility handed the soviets the "fatman" bomb design in June 1945, with victory over Japan coming in August of that year. It was after the bomb was dropped, proving that the US was willing to use such weapons, and after the designs were obtained, that the production of a nuclear device was sped up considerably. Knowing your enemy has a powerful weapon would make you hurry, but seeing it being used will make sure you get your skates on.
#34
Quote by blackthought
Who gives anybody the right to do anything? Is there really much difference between burning to death and being shot? The end result is the same.


well yes, but i'm sure those civilians would have been shot if they had not been firebombed. I honestly have not got a clue what your point is

Indeed, but during the war it was mostly an intelligence gathering operation. It was after the defeat of Japan that the nuclear development program was put at full speed. Klaus Fuchs of the Los alamos facility handed the soviets the "fatman" bomb design in June 1945, with victory over Japan coming in August of that year. It was after the bomb was dropped, proving that the US was willing to use such weapons, and after the designs were obtained, that the production of a nuclear device was sped up considerably. Knowing your enemy has a powerful weapon would make you hurry, but seeing it being used will make sure you get your skates on.


i was unaware that there had been significant changes to the Soviet's nuclear program after the war, i assumed that Stalin's fury at the manhatten prjects success was the final push. Although your point is well taken that seeing their willingness to use it would make it seem all the more pressing.
Last edited by imthehitcher at Dec 7, 2009,
#35
Quote by imthehitcher
well yes, but i'm sure those civilians would have been shot if they had not been firebombed. I honestly have not got a clue what your point is


My point is, you're making a value judgment, and I was inquiring as to what you were basing it on.
#36
Quote by ClaptonWannabe
ITT; People who know NOTHING whatsoever about the attack on Pearl Harbour, or the events leading up to it.


If you find this true, then back your statement up with evidence. I agree alot is wrong, but at least I'm trying to let people know what happened as far as I can, such as no kamikaze attacks at pearl harbour. Just coming into the thread and going " ALL IS WRONG! FOR I KNOW THE TRUTH!", without anything to back it up, makes you look ignorant.
#37
Quote by blackthought
My point is, you're making a value judgment, and I was inquiring as to what you were basing it on.


ofcourse i am! i'm basing it on the simple right to human life and general decency, the bombing of civilians can never be justified in the context of such a war. My point is really that the west (allies at the time) like to put themselves on a moral pedestal but time and time again show that their morals are more than flexible to suite their purpose of economic, social, international hegemony.
#38
Quote by imthehitcher
ofcourse i am! i'm basing it on the simple right to human life and general decency, the bombing of civilians can never be justified in the context of such a war. My point is really that the west (allies at the time) like to put themselves on a moral pedestal but time and time again show that their morals are more than flexible to suite their purpose of economic, social, international hegemony.


It's part of being human, you look out for yourself first. You're right about the moral pedestal thing, it's stupid and we shouldn't make such claims about ourselves.
#40
Quote by blackthought
It's part of being human, you look out for yourself first. You're right about the moral pedestal thing, it's stupid and we shouldn't make such claims about ourselves.


but things like the firebombing and bombing of Dresdon were purely for the purpose of revenge/bloodlust/damaging morale as opposed to survival
Page 1 of 2