Honoring Our Fallen

Don't believe me, read some history books.
</blockquote>
Its not the history I don't believe. I know the history.

What I can't believe is how many stupid ignorrant Hicks actually justify murdering millions of innocents because, well, there was just no other way.

Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app

 

If you still believe that "millions" were killed by the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, then you do not know the history.  

 

If you still believe that "millions" were killed by the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, then you do not know the history.
</blockquote>
I'm not talking about just Japan dude. I know the statistics I've actually posted them on gc before.

More children died in the middle east as a direct result of western intervention then in both nuclear terrorist attacks combined.

When Americans die we get angry. But when brown kids die and their families get angry, they are terrorists

Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app

 

People of many colors, races, nationalities, and creeds died on 9/11 in the World Trade Center. 

 

People of many colors, races, nationalities, and creeds died on 9/11 in the World Trade Center.
</blockquote>
I am aware

Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app

 

 
Two things I'd like to say here.
 
1: Tackle points, don't just act shocked and not give a reason for being shocked. You're not moving the conversation forward with any real arguments...
2: Don't insult people. The purpose of an argument is to further your knowledge of a topic or the convert someone else to your line of thinking. Calling someone a retard does not further anyone's knowledge and you're alienating possible converts by insulting them. You wanna debate, you gotta hold back on the insults.
 
 

 
 
Same problem as before, insults without actually explaining what your problems with his argument are.
 

 
Was this worth a post?
 
 
 
 

 
I obviously agree that the crimes committed under the Empire of Japan were atrocious, however punishment of normal civilians is never a viable method of dealing with this as I'm sure you'll agree. Therefore, the crimes committed by those in power in Japan have nothing to do with the discussion.
 
I agree with you again, the A bomb did stop them from continuing. Their usage of the bomb against Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't, in my opinion. I think it would have been better for them to show their power by attacking military bases or uninhabited areas with their new weapons. Why would they continue the fight after a clear display of what they could do to the entire country? You argue that they'd have "gone on with it until every last one of them was dead", yet if they were to do that then they would have continued fighting after Nagasaki. It's desperate how the Japanese continued the fight when it was clear they didn't stand a chance of winning, but they didn't plan on fighting till the last man. It was to obtain better terms for a treaty. The A-bomb would be a big setback and give the Americans a lot more leeway so the introduction of the A-bomb would have signalled the hopelessness of their plans of achieving better ground no matter what the case, whether 0 people died, 1,000, 100,000 people died or even a million people died.
 
 
For the sake of argument, I'll imagine you're right and that they wouldn't have surrendered without losing both cities. Were the Americans still right in bombing Hiroshima? They couldn't have known that the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered within a week of bombing some military bases (in fact, we still don't know to this day ). Even if it would have been hopeless in the end, they didn't know that at the time of bombing Hiroshima.

 

OK, now we're talking about all crimes committed by the US? Anyone wanna talk about Laos? Most bombed country per capita? No? More bombs dropped on the country than all of the bombs dropped in WWII combined? Oh... ok
 
 

 
 
Seriously, shut the hell up with the insults.

 

Lockout, if you've been here frequently within the past few years, you'd notice that debates with garrison aren't an option.

 

I've already sufficiently explained my stance Lockout. Worry about yourself bro, I neither need nor want your advice on how to debate. If I feel like insulting someone who supports mass murder, I'm going to do it. I have no respect for such people, and never will.

The political correctness in this place is ridiculous.

 

I didn't tackle the points because there were none.

The argument was reduced to
Him : Killing innocents to save lives is OK
Me : No it isn't

So yea there really wasn't a discussion.

And I didn't insult him. He is by definition retarded. You wouldn't say a donkey is insulted for being called an ass would you?
Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
 

 

 

 
Garrison isn't forcing anyone to insult him. He's offering his opinion and trying to make valid points about the morality behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and as far as I can see, he's not insulting people (although that post about reading a history book did seem to be more of an insult than an actual point).

 

Laylow didn't name call him. To laylow, garrison is sick in the head which is purely subjective.
 
 
Also, its not an insult to tell garrison he should be a politician, after all he favors them.

 

 
He's made many points, such as the leaflets dropped down into the cities warning civilians and the fact that they didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped.
 
Killing innocents to save much more lives more lives is a dodgy subject. I'd agree with you, but I still enjoy listening to someone talk about when they believe it's necessary.
 
And yes, you were insulting him.

 

He's made many points, such as the leaflets dropped down into the cities warning civilians and the fact that they didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped.

Killing innocents to save much more lives more lives is a dodgy subject. I'd agree with you, but I still enjoy listening to someone talk about when they believe it's necessary.

And yes, you were insulting him.

</blockquote>
Well many points were made over the coarse of the discussion.

You make like I just heard him talk and exploaded on him with insults.

We went back and forth for a while before it degraded unto that

Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app

 

Garrison is a state apologist. He doesn't actually believe anything really, other than the state is always right and must be defended in any way possible. That's why he changed his line. First it was all about getting them to surrender, then once that was shown to be a fallacy, he changed the argument to it being needed to stop more deaths. If that is shown to be wrong, he would just switch to another line of reasoning, ad infinitum. There would never be a point at which he would admit to being wrong, because his belief is blind, it's religious and dogmatic in nature. Real debate isn't possible with garrison. His arguments are always irrational, unless you understand his motivation. The only reason I respond to him is to make sure others are aware of how wrong his statements are, it's not to actually debate with him.

 

Here are the results of a 2005 Gallup poll of Americans, regarding the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Most Americans approve of it.  
 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/17677/majority-supports-use-atomic-bomb-japan-wwii.aspx
 

 
80% said that it saved American lives. 

 

Not that they'd know. You can't really know something like that.
 
Besides, if you really need a poll to help you decide if it was a good thing or not, then you aren't worth the time to discuss it with.

 

Isn't the horrible thing about "terrorists" suppose to be the targeting of civilians?  Yet dropping atomic bombs on cities is "approved" by so many.  Can any statist explain this hypocrisy?