denoir 0 Posted January 22, 2004 Quote[/b] ]Actually, you're the only nation in the world who has ever used them. Twice. I suppose we could have invaded Japan and lost massive numbers of soldiers. I don't want to go into this debate as I know where it will lead. You are taught that it was a necessary thing, I was taught that it was one of the worse war crimes comitted during ww2. It is well documented that Japan was going to surrender anyway and that Truman ordered this mostly to prevent the Soviets from invading Japan. But as I said, I don't want to debate this since it's not likely that we will meet eye to eye on this subject. Regardless for what purpose, it remains a fact that USA is the only one in the history of the world that has used nuclear weapons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
m21man 0 Posted January 22, 2004 Quote[/b] ]It is well documented that Japan was going to surrender anyway and that Truman ordered this mostly to prevent the Soviets from invading Japan. I seriously doubt that many of the Japanese generals would have ever considered surrender. It just wasn't part of the culture, if you surrendered you debased yourself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted January 22, 2004 Quote[/b] ]not being an evil means being a saint That's just stupid. You can be not evil and not be a saint (It's amazing how many people do this ). exactly! but you were trying to say that not being Hitler-ish matters on small details, while neglecting whole picture! if US is not hussein, then US should not torture/mistreat its POWs. but they did, so US is not not hussein. Quote[/b] ]But it's not official policy, and the soldiers who do it are punished. not severly enough. usually a court martial is the procedure, but the MP who kicked POW in january was just let go. Quote[/b] ]It's called "Put them in a truck and drive them over the border." uhmm...you are not getting my metaphor....to make it easier, all the roads and landscapes were patrolled inch by inch. Quote[/b] ]Because I can talk to another moderator and get myself unbanned . unfortunately, TBA is not a good moderator in Iraq, and furthermore, is only one there... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted January 22, 2004 I seriously doubt that many of the Japanese generals would have ever considered surrender. It just wasn't part of the culture, if you surrendered you debased yourself. That's one of the most BS theories. If surrender was not in their culture, then they would have not surrendered after they were nuked either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted January 22, 2004 I don't want to go into this debate as I know where it will lead. You are taught that it was a necessary thing, I was taught that it was one of the worse war crimes comitted during ww2. It is well documented that Japan was going to surrender anyway and that Truman ordered this mostly to prevent the Soviets from invading Japan. But as I said, I don't want to debate this since it's not likely that we will meet eye to eye on this subject. since you and i had a lot of discussion about this, i'll not open the can either. however, Soviets were already reluctant to fight Japan, and they only entered the war on asian-front(was going to say Eastern front ) after the a-bombs were dropped. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted January 22, 2004 Quote[/b] ]change we with Iraq and Japan with Kuwait... Â oh wait that's what happened...not with WMD, but with traditional military... Oh, Kuwait is an island with heavily armed troops dug in on all of its beaches? Interesting geography work. mtaphor! sarcasm! even though WMD was in hands, sadam used conventional forces! Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]they don't have one yet, so they can't do a thing. And they will try and try and try until they get one, or until they are wiped out. unfortunately for TBA, UN did good job of dismantling WMD and its program there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
m21man 0 Posted January 22, 2004 Quote[/b] ]if US is not hussein, then US should not torture/mistreat its POWs. but they did, so US is not not hussein. That train of thought requires you to believe that governemnt-sanctioned testicle zapping is basically the same as a lone soldier punching a prisoner (And then being punished). Quote[/b] ]uhmm...you are not getting my metaphor....to make it easier, all the roads and landscapes were patrolled inch by inch. Iraq is large, I highly doubt that the landscape was watched "inch by inch". Quote[/b] ]not severly enough. usually a court martial is the procedure, but the MP who kicked POW in january was just let go. You can get court-martialed for kicking a POW? Where did he kick him? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted January 22, 2004 however, Soviets were already reluctant to fight Japan, and they only entered the war on asian-front(was going to say Eastern front ) after the a-bombs were dropped. If you have the chance, check out an excellent BBC documentary, made in the 70's called "World at war". Back then most of the people that made the decisions in WW2 were still alive, and they were interviewed. In the episode about the A-bombs they had interviews with former Soviet, American and Japanese cabinet members and government officials that actually were part of making those decisions. You'd be surprised what they had to say. Anyway, this is the last thing I'll say on the subject. Can we please go back to the political discussion? You know, Bush, Dean etc? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
m21man 0 Posted January 22, 2004 Quote[/b] ]mtaphor! sarcasm! even though WMD was in hands, sadam used conventional forces! Because using WMDs would have wasted them, the conventional forces rolled in effectively. If the country had been more heavily guarded, then the WMDs might have been used. Quote[/b] ]unfortunately for TBA, UN did good job of dismantling WMD and its program there. Weren't they ejected from the country? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted January 22, 2004 I seriously doubt that many of the Japanese generals would have ever considered surrender. It just wasn't part of the culture, if you surrendered you debased yourself. That's one of the most BS theories. If surrender was not in their culture, then they would have not surrendered after they were nuked either. after seeing what that 'never surrender' policy will cost? Japanese emperor saw that should he continue to resist, his own life was at risk. it's survival instinct that someone will try to live than to end their lives. after surrender, he lived well into 60s and 70s. however, most japanese soldiers took their own lives rather than being a POW. it;s all about beleif and how you can hold on to it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
m21man 0 Posted January 22, 2004 Quote[/b] ]Anyway, this is the last thing I'll say on the subject. Can we please go back to the political discussion? You know, Bush, Dean etc? Bush is being discussed, just look around . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted January 22, 2004 Quote[/b] ]if US is not hussein, then US should not torture/mistreat its POWs. but they did, so US is not not  hussein. That train of thought requires you to believe that governemnt-sanctioned testicle zapping is basically the same as a lone soldier punching a prisoner (And then being punished). a.k.a. Nurenberg. Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]uhmm...you are not getting my metaphor....to make it easier, all the roads and landscapes were patrolled inch by inch. Iraq is large, I highly doubt that the landscape was watched "inch by inch". uhm....i'm really speechless of how you cannot get my point through metaphor...... in strict words, if Iraq wanted a program, they need a place to set it up, and UN inspection prevented that setup. just because Hussein wnated WMD, doesn't mean he got it. UN prevented it through inspection. Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]not severly enough. usually a court martial is the procedure, but the MP who kicked POW in january was just let go. You can get court-martialed for kicking a POW? Where did he kick him? she(MP) kicked him in the groin. yes, mistreating a POW is against Geneva nd USMJ or whatever it is called. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted January 22, 2004 If you have the chance, check out an excellent BBC documentary, made in the 70's called "World at war". Back then most of the people that made the decisions in WW2 were still alive, and they were interviewed. In the episode about the A-bombs they had interviews with former Soviet, American and Japanese cabinet members and government officials that actually were part of making those decisions. You'd be surprised what they had to say. thanx for info. but the fact that Soviets lost to Japan already in war before certainly gives good reason for soviets to not attack Japan unless it was deemed to be weak, and A-bombs certainly helped bolster that analysis from Soviet perspective. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
m21man 0 Posted January 22, 2004 Quote[/b] ]she(MP) kicked him in the groin. That's it, Missy! Off to the court-martial with you! Quote[/b] ]n strict words, if Iraq wanted a program, they need a place to set it up, and UN inspection prevented that setup. just because Hussein wnated WMD, doesn't mean he got it. UN prevented it through inspection. Right, the UN inspected every last square meter of Iraq for hidden WMD labs. Quote[/b] ]uhm....i'm really speechless of how you cannot get my point through metaphor...... Â I can't "get your point" because it is pointless. Quote[/b] ]a.k.a. Nurenberg. Where do those trials come in? The German High Command was sanctioning those crimes, in fact they were giving the orders to do many of the crimes. The US command in Iraq certainly isn't telling soldiers to kill Iraqi prisoners. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted January 22, 2004 Quote[/b] ]she(MP) kicked him in the groin. That's it, Missy! Off to the court-martial with you! that is mistreatment of POW. Quote[/b] ]Right, the UN inspected every last square meter of Iraq for hidden WMD labs. Right, Saddam had WMD built that UN could not find and US will find them. Quote[/b] ]I can't "get your point" because it is pointless. nah, could be the other way Quote[/b] ]Where do those trials come in? The German High Command was sanctioning those crimes, in fact they were giving the orders to do many of the crimes. The US command in Iraq certainly isn't telling soldiers to kill Iraqi prisoners. certainly you are aware that Nurenberg set precedent that no military should follow an order deemed horrendous by reasonable minds and claim that they were not acountable since they were ordered to do so. in other words, each one is accountable for his/her action. and neglecting to court martial a soldier for mistreatment is also a negligence on the organization level. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
m21man 0 Posted January 22, 2004 Quote[/b] ]that is mistreatment of POW. Somehow I think you missed the point of what I said . Quote[/b] ]Right, Saddam had WMD built that UN could not find and US will find them. Perhaps they will, the US has a better chance of finding them as they can't be kicked out. Quote[/b] ]certainly you are aware that Nurenberg set precedent that no military should follow an order deemed horrendous by reasonable minds and claim that they were not acountable since they were ordered to do so. You are missing the point. This MP did this without being ordered to do so. Besides, comparing the crimes being discussed at Nuremburg to kicking someone in the groin is absurd. Quote[/b] ]in other words, each one is accountable for his/her action. and neglecting to court martial a soldier for mistreatment is also a negligence on the organization level. That I agree with. I do not agree with comparing the actions of a few rogue soldiers to the organized mass murder that was executed by the German high command. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted January 22, 2004 Quote[/b] ]that is mistreatment of POW. Somehow I think you missed the point of what I said . bah! i'll kick you in your groin! Quote[/b] ]Perhaps they will, the US has a better chance of finding them as they can't be kicked out. unfortunately TBA has been saying how they have info on where WMD is, and it's been enarly 9 months after the major phase of the war and none is to be found. Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]in other words, each one is accountable for his/her action. and neglecting to court martial a soldier for mistreatment is also a negligence on the organization level. That I agree with. I do not agree with comparing the actions of a few rogue soldiers to the organized mass murder that was executed by the German high command. accountability is the point here. the MP kicked the POW, thus is violation of code if conduct. that means MP should be punished. one might be more sever than the other, but nonethless both are violation. and not being able to set the records straight by courtmartialing is leaving a dangerous precendet IMO. and yes, this has gotten way off form inital thread direction. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Winters 1 Posted January 22, 2004 So, who is gonna win the election? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted January 22, 2004 ask statisticians Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Winters 1 Posted January 22, 2004 Well so far the republicans are tied with the i don't know's Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toadlife 3 Posted January 22, 2004 LOL. yeah that just about sumamrizes it. The polls say something to the effect of... Bush 50% Not Bush 50% Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pipski 0 Posted January 22, 2004 Well, they say Democrats always vote late. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Acecombat 0 Posted January 23, 2004 Well, they say Democrats always vote late. TOO late Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
m21man 0 Posted January 23, 2004 Quote[/b] ]The polls say something to the effect of...Bush 50% Not Bush 50% Last time I checked, Bush was over 50% . Quote[/b] ]accountability is the point here. the MP kicked the POW, thus is violation of code if conduct. that means MP should be punished. one might be more sever than the other, but nonethless both are violation. and not being able to set the records straight by courtmartialing is leaving a dangerous precendet IMO. Even then, she certainly doesn't deserve the same sentencing as the men tried at Nuremburg. Though I do think she should be punished appropriately. Quote[/b] ]and yes, this has gotten way off form inital thread direction. It's offtopic, yet ontopic . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
