American/Canadian Relations

[Rick_Donald]

The States bombed Japan to end a long and costly war and bring peace to the Pacific. The war in Europe was over and everyone was sick and tired of a war that kept devouring America‘s young. How much longer do you think the Pacific war would have dragged on if not for the bomb?

Besides what about when the Japanese attacked Hollywood with a submarine and was beaten off by a single cigar smoking American pilot?

 

[DogOfWar]

[No message]

 

[Goober]

Woa, post a few OBJECTIVE opinions and you get flamed by trolls and moderators alike. Excuse me if I thought people could have an itelligent conversation here. I was through off by the web address. I seen a ".ca" at the end.

Originally posted by The WetGrunt:
[qb]

Originally posted :
[qb] Japan wanted to cripple the US military, not kill its innocent citizens.

[/qb]

Oh yeah Japan was so compassionate, they didn‘t commit any war crimes.

It couldnt possibly be due to the fact that the Japanese had mixed their weapons making facilities into civilian areas. I mean the entire point of the nuke was to kill children right??

Wait a minute- mixing military and civilian targets? Thats a little similar to hording weapons in Mosques and schools....last time I checked the WTC towers werent anywhere near a military target. Stop comparing Americans to these terrorist animals. Just because the Americans are stepping up and saying "fine fight like cowards- we will still bring the fight to you" [/qb]

Re-read my post in its entirety, I never said anything about the terrorists targeting military targets. Please don‘t post ignorant remarks.

You said the Japanese mixed thier military bases in with civilian infrastructure... well guess what, so do we. I live in Halifax, our military arms and scattered throughout the civilian infrastructure to hide them.

I make one remake stating the US‘s terrorist actions of bombing 200,000 innocent citizens. And innocent men, women and children still to this day are feeling the effects of the radiation.

Originally posted by The WetGrunt:
[qb]

Originally posted by Goober:
[QB]
I‘ve never known "The Islamics" to blow up anything. Thier religion teaches peace. Its terrorists that blow things up.

People confuse the two far too much. The Islam religion condems violence.

This is tripe. Islam teaches peace for other memebers of Islam. I doubt this forum is the appropriate place for this debate but you watch to much CNN "talk news". If you made your own opinions and educated yourself you‘d know this.
But you are to busy pointing out the "brilliance" of the pearl harbour strike even though it was a huge blunder and many mistakes were made.

Cheers,

Aaron. [/qb]

CNN is an acronym for the American Propaganda Network. I don‘t watch it. Please refrain from showing your ignorance. Read a book about Islam, or the Koran for that matter before you tell me Islam DOES NOT teach peace.

Originally posted by The WetGrunt:
[qb] Im a little sick of people attacking the decision really. Its been proven over and over agian to be the only real choice. It conserved lives. Thats not good enough for some people. They‘d rather call the Americans "terrorists". [/qb]

If the US really wanted to concerve lives they should focus on thier own intra-country problems and stop creating wars around the world.

Originally posted by The WetGrunt:
[qb] Im a little sick of people attacking the decision really. Its been proven over and over agian to be the only real choice. It conserved lives. Thats not good enough for some people. They‘d rather call the Americans "terrorists". [/qb]

Your just talking from your arse here. No need for a reply to that.

 

[Goober]

Before anyone posts any flames. Let me remind you to read the very first post in the thread, which asks what we think. I posted what I think in an objective way. Trolls please stay out.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Goober:
Japan hit Pearl Harbour, a military base, and uterly decimated it. It was a briliant military strike. Then the US came back and nuked aprox. 200,000 of Japan‘s citizens. In your first paragraph, you stated terrorism was against the people. This act by the US was terrorism, plain and simple. They wanted to most possible damage. Much like Osama and crew wanted when they hit the World Trade Towers in NYC.

I suggest you hit the books a little more.

First of all, it is spelled Pearl Harbor, as it is an American installation and Noah Webster decided to lose the superfluous "u" when he helped create a distinctly American language.

But I digress...

Pearl Harbor was not severely damaged (actually, the literal definition of "decimated" is that 1 out of 10 people are killed), in fact, the Japanese ignored the fuel reserves altogether, and most of the ships hit at Pearl Harbor saw service again. The harbor itself was not damaged all that badly, though a lot of aircraft were destroyed. Many of these were obsoclescent types in any event.

The A-bombs (here we go again) were dropped because Allied planners anticipate 1 million Allied casualties would be suffered in an invasion of the mainland of Japan. Experience in Okinawa showed that Japanese civilians would commit suicide and resist fanatically, and their casualties would also likely result in hundred of thousands of casualties, if not millions.

The bombs, in the end, were the only way to convince the Emperor not to listen to the ruling military elite, and seek peace. They saved lives in other words, many more than were lost.

Japan could have declared peace at any time. They chose not to.

They also waged aggressive war in China, and perpetrated genocide. They routinely abused prisoners, including the 1500+ Canadians they didn‘t manage to kill at Hong Kong in December 1941. Of those they did kill, some were laying in hospital beds at the time. Others died in captivity.

And what did the US do after WW II? Did Japan get punished? No, they rebuilt the country and today Japan competes keenly on the world market - cars, electronics, even anime cartoons. Japan has been helped enormously by the United States.

You really do need to do some research before making these kinds of claims. Pearl Harbor was not a devastating attack looking back with hindsight (more people died in the twin towers than at Pearl Harbor, incidentally), and the atomic bombings actually ensured that Japan would be a world economic power today. An invasion would have crippled the home islands and resulted in mass slaughter of the population, mostly by their own hands.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Whats a "troll"?

Very good points in your post michael.

 

[Goober]

I‘m sorry, maybe my opinions are a little skewed because I believe military targets should be just that. Military.

The killing of innocent civilians is the cowards way to do damage. Isn‘t that what people say about the WTC bombings?

Pearl Harbour is the harbour of Pearl City. Its a harbour, last time I checked my spelling of harbour was correct.

 

[Goober]

Originally posted by Ghost778:
[qb] Whats a "troll"?

Very good points in your post michael. [/qb]

Definitions of troll on the Web:

An outrageous message posted to a newsgroup or mailing list or message board to bait people to answer. Trolling is a form of harassment that can take over a discussion. Well meaning defenders can create chaos by responding to trolls. The best response is to ignore it. Also, the person who posts such messages.
www.walthowe.com/glossary/t.html


A purposely stupid, inflammatory, or downright wrong article (closely related to flamebait). Its purpose is to get people mad and make them look stupid and gullible
www.aol.com/netfind/newsgroup/glossary.html


Samuel Johnson, Dictionary - (1) To roll; to run round.
etext.lib.virginia.edu/stc/Coleridge/resources/dictionary.html


This is the Scandanavian term for elf. Sometimes they are described as being hairy and ugly, although they are able to change their shape into anything they please. They are said to have lots of treasure, and live in beautiful palaces.
www.pixietricks.com/dic/


Deliberately post an offensive or contentious message in a public message base, with the specific intent of provoking flames.
associate.com/camsoc/ctt/gloss-t.html


A post that is intentionally inflammatory and which is typically an attempt to start a flamewar. One who posts trolls.
www.sff.net/people/lucy-snyder/gloss.html


An annoyance usually on Messageboards who posts for the purpose of causing a disturbance. Often by making comments of a slanderous nature, accusatory, or just general pain-in-the-assness.
www.sanguinarius.org/~sarasvati/terms.htm


A term used to define a public message (either on a USENET newsgroup or other public message board on an online service) that is posted for the sole purpose of offending people and/or generating an enormous flood of non-topic replies. (submitted by Brett Palmer)
www.cyberalaska.com/alaska/webpage/dictionary.html


n. A mythical creature, first found in Scandinavian folklore, that is portrayed with a variety of personalities: as a friendly, mischievous dwarf or as a giant (often of evil disposition) who lives in caves or under bridges. Warcraft III art
www.warcraftiii.net/articles/glossary.shtml


A rare creature that absorbs and feeds on ambient magical energy from the environment.
www.khoras.net/Khoras/Glossary/T.htm


A feral race living primarily in the mountains, trolls are a tribal race somewhat taller than humans and far stronger. Their appearance is rather ghastly from their ability to crossbreed with virtually any race (which their repugnant behavior often indulges in, with or without consent). Trolls are best known for their amazing powers of healing ("regeneration") that will allow them to survive most wounds, even those thought mortal, and even regrow limbs (save for the head). [See also: Feral Race, Dark Troll]
vergotha.com/info/glossary/pg10.html


the place to check in or buy at the door admission to an event.
www.wm.edu/SO/SCA/new/define.html


The practice of trying to lure other Internet users into sending responses.
www.afirst.com/definitions/definitions.htm


A troublemaker who deliberately posts provocative, hostile or annoying messages in a newsgroup or mailing list with the specific intent of starting a flamewar. The practice is known as trolling.Related terms: Flame, Flamewar, Post, POST, Mailing list, Newsgroup
web14.compaq.com/mypresario/glossary/index.asp


An outrageous message posted to a newsgroup or mailing list to bait people to answer. Trolling is a form of harassment that can take over a newsgroup or mailing list. Well meaning defenders can create chaos by responding to trolls. The best response is to ignore it.
www.lapasserelle.com/isc/Delphi_navnet/t.html


A troublemaker who deliberately posts provocative, hostile or annoying messages in a newsgroup or mailing list with the specific intent of starting a flamewar. The practice is known as trolling.
www.cri-ent.com/Support/T.HTM

Courtesy of Google.ca

 

[muskrat89]

The killing of innocent civilians is the cowards way to do damage. Isn‘t that what people say about the WTC bombings?

Pearl Harbour is the harbour of Pearl City. Its a harbour, last time I checked my spelling of harbour was correct.

Boy, we‘re gonna have fun with you

Oh - One definition of troll would have sufficed. If you‘re not going to be constructive, or at least pose your differing opinions in a mature manner, then move along.

Not a suggestion.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Goober:
[qb] I‘m sorry, maybe my opinions are a little skewed because I believe military targets should be just that. Military.

The killing of innocent civilians is the cowards way to do damage. Isn‘t that what people say about the WTC bombings?

Pearl Harbour is the harbour of Pearl City. Its a harbour, last time I checked my spelling of harbour was correct. [/qb]

The name of the military base is Pearl Harbor.

The concept of "legitimate targets" evolved during the 20th Century, beginning probably in the First World War. By 1941, any city was considered a legitimate military target unless declared an "open city".

The bombing of Hiroshima was a legitimate act of war according to international convention, as at that time civilian populations were considered legitimate "military" targets. I don‘t know if that was "legal" according to treaty and convention, but all sides targetted enemy civilians. The people themselves were not the targets so much as civilian dwellings, factories, etc. The idea being that if you deny a factory worker a roof over his head, he can‘t be effective at creating tools of war.

The difference between Hiroshima and WTC was that Japan and the US were in a high intensity conflict (war) and Al Queda had not issued a full declaration of war. They also didn‘t represent the interests of any particular nation state and thus their interests may actually be irrelevant.

Slice it any way you want, Hiroshima was a legitimate target. I would never call the B-29 crews who flew those long and dangerous missions "cowards" in any sense of the word. They did a difficult job, and then the survivors had to live with the moral implications the rest of their lives.

 

[winchable]

*Cough*...well then. (Edit-That was directed at the list of definitions for the word "troll")

Pearl Harbor may have been a brilliant Idea initially (given that Yamamoto had few choices and was of course a patriot and an officer), but it was poorly executed.

The Japanese military (at the time, maybe not now anyone know?) had a system that placed a great deal of power in the hands of young fleet level officers.
Admiral (Nagumo?) (The officer directly responsible for the execution of the attack) made a decision to not send a third wave of planes which would have knocked out fuel reserves, finished off more ships, and perhaps even caught one of the carriers (They missed all the carriers by the way)
Nagumo was skittish and fled after the two waves, despite his own fighter losses being much better than projected.

So no it wasn‘t a brilliant attack by any means, at least it was poorly executed.
The idea was the best option given the choices that Yamomoto was faced with.

As for the Bomb, Mike hit the nail on the head.
I don‘t think anyone would choose 1 Million + Deaths and another five year period (another Europe) that would have included civilians and military alike, over, 200,000 dead in one sweep.

Of course it‘s easy enough to type out the numbers like they mean nothing, but that‘s exactly what the planners had to do.

 

[DogOfWar]

[No message]

 

[Goober]

Originally posted by Che:
[qb] *Cough*...well then. (Edit-That was directed at the list of definitions for the word "troll")

Pearl Harbor may have been a brilliant Idea initially (given that Yamamoto had few choices and was of course a patriot and an officer), but it was poorly executed.

The Japanese military (at the time, maybe not now anyone know?) had a system that placed a great deal of power in the hands of young fleet level officers.
Admiral (Nagumo?) (The officer directly responsible for the execution of the attack) made a decision to not send a third wave of planes which would have knocked out fuel reserves, finished off more ships, and perhaps even caught one of the carriers (They missed all the carriers by the way)
Nagumo was skittish and fled after the two waves, despite his own fighter losses being much better than projected.

So no it wasn‘t a brilliant attack by any means, at least it was poorly executed.
The idea was the best option given the choices that Yamomoto was faced with.

As for the Bomb, Mike hit the nail on the head.
I don‘t think anyone would choose 1 Million + Deaths and another five year period (another Europe) that would have included civilians and military alike, over, 200,000 dead in one sweep.

Of course it‘s easy enough to type out the numbers like they mean nothing, but that‘s exactly what the planners had to do. [/qb]

Thank you for your post Che. I don‘t really articulate my thoughts too well with words, I‘m really a numbers guy. What you said here...

"Pearl Harbor may have been a brilliant Idea initially (given that Yamamoto had few choices and was of course a patriot and an officer), but it was poorly executed."

If I did a bit more research, this is what I would have initially said.

"I don‘t think anyone would choose 1 Million + Deaths and another five year period (another Europe) that would have included civilians and military alike, over, 200,000 dead in one sweep.

Of course it‘s easy enough to type out the numbers like they mean nothing, but that‘s exactly what the planners had to do."

A well precented opinion. Thanks!

 

[Jarnhamar]

Thanks for telling me what the web terms of troll/trolling were. I had no idea.


"Enmity and hatred will reign between us until ye believe in Allah alone."
That comment speaks for itself. Hate everyone that doesnt believe in our god. How do you reason with that?

2 other points. (Sorry for going a little off the direction of the post)

1.It‘s easy to judge the decisions made in the past. These were decisions made during a "world war" that was going on for years. We are judging their decisions as we sit inside our comfy homes on our day off getting fat from fast food and wondering which movie we will go spend $25 on tonight.

2. no one wins when we discuss american/canadian armies-relations-politics or anything else. Most of us can brush the comments off. Most of us know when someone is making a jab on purpose and ignore it. (I admit im often bad for missing these subtle "jokes" myself and take offense). That being said some new readers come here and see comments directed against canadians(or americans, islam, civlians), take offense to it and comment back defensivly which brings the wrath of more members of the bored, usually established members where upon the new poster feels attacked and looses his cool. (I guess this can actually be said for a host of topics).
Anyways maybe people could just keep that in mind and before they feel like they are being attacked and explode, take a breather and don‘t post until your calmed down.

 

[winchable]

Allah just means God.
Not their God, your God, our God whoever‘s God.
Arabic for God.
Yes, Islam means submission to God(which of course taken out of context like anything comes across bad), however it translates into "Peace" as well, so take your pick. I will say however, that until you‘ve read the Qu‘Ran in it‘s original language, in It‘s entirety, it will be very difficult for you to understand a few quotes from a book that is considerably longer than a page.

There‘s quite a bit of violence and wrathfullness in any religious text, given that most of them were written in a time when arbitrators and foreign secretaries did not exist.

In any event, this argument where people call my religion a hateful awful thing gets tired and old. Give me one night in person with anyone who thinks Islam is an evil hate teaching religion and you‘ll see the difference in attitude when they get a [/B]PROPER[/B] lesson in Islam. This proper lesson is sadly, what many young Muslims who burn effagies and the like, are lacking. They fall for the same out of context quotes that people in the West fall for, only they use it for different means. Keep that in mind next time you quote passages and think that you are somehow better than a Muslim Propagandist.

Anyway that has nothing to do with American/Canadian relations. Which is a topic that should probably go into the pile of other circular arguments that religious debate belongs in. However, if anyone would like to continue that we shouldn‘t waste anymore thread space, PM me about it.

 

[DogOfWar]

[No message]

 

[winchable]

Alright; Last post on this.
In certain regional Arabic dialects, Islam has come to translate into Peace as well as the root meaning (which I‘m not arguing is submission to God)
It‘s not a matter of rhyme at all, it‘s a matter of how they spoken and how they are written in Arabic.

And yes, agree to disagree as I have done so many times on this argument.

 

[DogOfWar]

[No message]