h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't fit neatly into a party. I'm mostly inline with the Republican Party except their bedroom issues. I'm sort of on the line between Libertarians, Republicans and the moderates.

You didn't write Post 3.

I don't know what was at Nagasaki. General Groves kept trying to put Kyoto on the target list, but the Seecretary of War kept rejecting it because of its cultural signifcance. Nagasaki was put on its place, but the history I have doesn't address why.

a misstype - post 13 ofcourse

Nagasaki had historic places and factories and a lot of people. Your average city. By anyones definition of terrorism it aquired that too and radiation sickness and deformities and a lot of dead people.

they do that..., they are just so... some way or other. That is clear and simple stereotyping, a thing I try very hard not to do.

"Because Americans are nothing but a bunch of ignorant, pig-headed morons."

"instead of behaving like the Fascists they are."

"do they even know what christanity is?"

"No, they just pick out the bits they like and ignore the main message"

I am American and I do none of those things you are attributing to us simple people whose major infraction is they were born on this continent. I don't disagree that our government has led us into some serious problems that just scream for immediate attention, and it's got all mine believe me, but I do resent being labeled as a certain sort of low life by virtue of where I was born. So please refrain if you could, or I shall be forced to dig up what ever sort of typical English behaviour that generally holds true and is not of a becoming nature. Or if it turns out you, and you know who I am talking to I am sure, are of some other nationality, well I doubt I will have much problem finding some unflattering stereotypes, no matter what it is. I would just bet at any rate, except for the one who said he is but acts like he wishes he wasn't, that you have in fact no idea what it is like to be an American.

One thing I am very clear on though, if this type of bashing of participants based solely on their nationality is encouraged around here, well I have certainly shown up in the wrong place. In fact I am hoping that soon someone with at least the appearance of some authority is going to show up here and advise people to avoid such direct insults, as would be expected from such an advanced and civilized lot. If they don't then perhaps I will just show them the way. I will not meekly tolerate being called a pig headed moron facist no matter where in the world you are.

"do they even know what christanity is?"

I said this and it was aimed at conservatives (that's conservatives of any country). You'd know that if you were paying attention.

"So please refrain if you could, or I shall be forced to dig up what ever sort of typical English behaviour that generally holds true and is not of a becoming nature."

I'm not English. T'mershi isn't and Zagreb may not be happy if you called him English.

Perhaps you could read propperly what is said.

you would know that I don't care where you are from. You still have no right to make broad insults aimed at me as an American. Which you didn't really, but you sure jumped right in there to defend the practice didn't you?

I finally dug up the reasons Nagaskai was bombed. For some reason, it's not in the offical history.

This is from http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/northamerican/TheAtomicBombingsofHiroshimaandNagasaki/chap7.html:

'The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.'

There you go, it was a military target.

"defend the practice" - really? show me where I did that.

"you would know that I don't care where you are from." Well you threatened to say bad things about the English at us. So I guess prejudice is ok with you.

I may not agree with two bit on many things but he forms argument is participating here.

"'The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.'

There you go, it was a military target."

Thats a very loose definition, esp when nuking so many civilians. I'm gong home (it being 5pm) but shall be back with something reasoned.

Turns out I won't be back.

First of all War and Terrorism are both different sides of the same coin, it just depends on whose side you are on, and both are equally despicable.

In Feb 1945, the US invaded Iwo Jima (a little island in the middel of the Pacific) and in savage fighting over 100,000 Japanese were killed as well as several thousand US troops. This was pretty much the same wherever the US fought the Japanese, where Japanese invariably fought to the death resulted in massive numbers of casualties, including the civilian populations. At no more after any of thsese battles did the Japanese consider that they were losing the war and should think about surrendering.

The bombing of Nagasaki caused 80,000 casualties and at that point the Japanese finally conceded defeat. The US estimated that an invasion of Japan would result in at least 1,000,000 causalties to the US forces alone. And if the Japanese continued to fight as doggedly as they had, how many more would have died.

So if it comes down to just numbers, 80,000 plus is a lot, but a million is a lot more.

I've been looking at some information about this. The 1 million figure is not one that I have seen. I have seen 300,000 American dead. I read in some military literature that it may have been misread in some offical documents. The actual estimate was in the tens of thousands of American dead.

Okay, my numbers are garnered from "popular" history books rather than specific research, but even if your figure is the right one, its still more than 120,000 (Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined). One might argue that it is an estimate and could still be wrong, but considering the allies consistently under estimated the casualty figures for every campaign they fought in, but we will never now for sure.

Soemthing else to bear in mind. You're the Commander of the allied forces in the Pacific, you have been fighting for four years, and your troops want to all go home. You have got a weapon that could possibly end the war in one fell swoop. Would you use it and possible cause unnecessary suffering to a hated enemy, or would you commit your troops to more hard fighting and the risk of further casualties.

My brother is in the REME's and there is always the chance he may be sent out to the Gulf (if Bush has his way). If someone gave me the choice between letting him use Smart bombs, depeleted Uranium slugs, cluster bombs and daisy cutters, or going into battle with less effective weapons in order to avoid unnecessary casualties to the enemy which way do you think I am going to vote. If you were responsilbe for the Pacfic forces in WWII, who all have there own family, what decision would you make?

I think they made the right call.

What if you were a civilian who had little or no control over the actions of your government. Would you really be happy to give up the life of yourself and your family to save people who are getting paid to risk their lives, and in modern times, choose to as a profession?

I'd be upset about it.

If I were a civilian who lived in a totalatarian regime where the government did things in my name against my will (Britain under Blair for example), then I would be annoyed in said government got me involved in an armed conflict and I was at risk.

However, that does not mean that the UN should refrain from using military sanctions when there is a risk of civilian casualties. In Bosnia and the Gulf war there were civilian casualties caused by UN/NATO forces. They were not targeted deliberately and efforts were made to avoid attacking civilians, if only in order to avoid bad publicity. In both cases the intention was to prevent further loss of life caused by leaders who thought it was okay to invade other countries, massacre civilians, and carry out ethnic cleansing. It is not an ideal option, but maybe it was not as bad as the alternatives.

I would also argue that use of overwhelming force, or "Full Spectrum Dominance" which is the current buzz word, actually prevents larger casualties in the long term. By dealing an enemy a knock blow right of the start of a conflict, it may be possible to avoid a long war of attrition. Look at the difference between the Iran/Iraq of the 80's and the Gulf war. Which one do you think caused more civilian casualties.

paulie: I am responsible for two of the quotes you mention.

My remarks were aimed, not at the general public, but at the leaders of the US and UK. I thought this was clear. By implication this includes anyone who supports our discriminatory foreign policies, including the practice of bashing any nation that doesn't play ball according to our rules. If the cap fits, wear it; if not, I sincerely apologise for having offended you.

I have now removed the word "fascists". Would the phrase "power-crazed control freaks" be acceptable?

D.

I'm unsure about Nagasaki. The arguments are clearly too complex to analyse with the data we have. How about something more recent? Can anyone justify My Lai?

D.

why thank you, that was very gracious of you. I have cooled down considerably now, and am just a bit embarrassed by my outburst. I know there are plenty of people who fit that bill in America, and the sad part is that most of them are the ones in control. It's just that I try hard not to be that way and I know others do too. So even if we are in the minority, we are still Americans. I guess the way I handle it when I talk bad about Americans is to use qualifiers like "most" or "some". Or about any group of people that I know has to be made up of many different kinds of people, good and bad. At any rate h2g2 folks have already told me that it did not cross the line, I guess it's fashionable to be contemptuous of Americans here. So you didn't have to apologize. The fact that you did proves I misjudged you. Please accept my apology too.

"If I were a civilian who lived in a totalatarian regime where the government did things in my name against my will (Britain under Blair for example),"

You are not seriously suggesting are your that Britain is a totalatirian regime just because the PM is doing something you disagree with.

If the Government, any democratic governemnt, only ever acted when there was 100% agreement, nothing would be done, ever. If you disagree you have the opportunity to voice your disagreemnt at the next election. Not something you could do in a totalitarian regime.

Stuart