Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.


genericus said:
I would say so yes, there's a difference IMO in being aware of and regretful of your course of actions and admitting you have took drastic action to resolve a war you were dragged into and being acrimonious because you were dragged into it in the first place.
Pearl Harbour was a cowardly attack yes but it was an attack on the American military and indeed was provocation enough for the Americans to join the war.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes pure and simple, killing hundreds of thousands of people in a show of military might is unforgiveable and unnecessary however determined the Americans were to end the war.

Too right it should be apologised for, the ends don't justify the means.
Click to expand...

Hundreda of thousands of Japanese people dying is a war crime but hundreds of thousands of Americans dying isn't?

By 1945 the majority of the soldiers in the Pacific will have been conscripts, why is it ok for them to die instead? Were they not civilians before the Japanese attack on pearl harbour?
 
Tadger said:
Well, it isn't that simple is it.

Hopefully it will never happen again but the Japanese made it abundantly clear that unconditional surrender was off the table. The war would have raged on for years and many more would have died.

Total war is total war.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely staggering people think the likes of Bomber Harris and those who ordered the atom bomb drop should have been put up for war crimes imo
 
redandwhiterob said:
It's absolutely staggering people think the likes of Bomber Harris and those who ordered the atom bomb drop should have been put up for war crimes imo
Click to expand...
Anyone who kills thousands of Civilians as part as campaign should be tried, irrespective of country, both Japanese and American leaders should have faced punishment for their roles in atrocities.

Unless you think dropping a bomb and killing hundreds of thousands of people is ok as long as it is perpetrated by the 'good guys' irrespective of who they were killing civilians, I can see the point of it being a difficult decision with a way of ending the war but actions like that are cowardly and should be a last resort.
 
jcrossan said:
The G7 were meeting there
Click to expand...
My mistake. But the point still stands, Obamas statements have largely been token statements to mask the fact he has very little clue about what he's doing. The irony is that if he'd listened to Putin, the world would be a better place.

redandwhiterob said:
It's absolutely staggering people think the likes of Bomber Harris and those who ordered the atom bomb drop should have been put up for war crimes imo
Click to expand...
There's a difference between the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fire bombing of places like Dresden.
 
Last edited:
genericus said:
Anyone who kills thousands of Civilians as part as campaign should be tried, irrespective of country, both Japanese and American leaders should have faced punishment for their roles in atrocities.

Unless you think dropping a bomb and killing hundreds of thousands of people is ok as long as it is perpetrated by the 'good guys' irrespective of who they were killing civilians, I can see the point of it being a difficult decision with a way of ending the war but actions like that are cowardly and should be a last resort.
Click to expand...

Robert McNamara worked compiling statisitics for the U.S airforce in the Far East in World War 2. He was later Secretary of State for Defence in Vietnam. He's the sole participant in 'The Fog of War', where he says this:


McNamara: I analyzed bombing operations, and how to make them more efficient. i.e. Not more efficient in the sense of killing more, but more efficient in weakening the adversary.

I wrote one report analyzing the efficiency of the B—29 operations. The B—29 could get above the fighter aircraft and above the air defense, so the loss rate would be much less. The problem was the accuracy was also much less.

Now I don't want to suggest that it was my report that led to, I'll call it, the firebombing. It isn't that I'm trying to absolve myself of blame. I don't want to suggest that it was I who put in LeMay's mind that his operations were totally inefficient and had to be drastically changed. But, anyhow, that's what he did. He took the B—29s down to 5,000 feet and he decided to bomb with firebombs.

I participated in the interrogation of the B—29 bomber crews that came back that night. A room full of crewmen and intelligence interrogators. A captain got up, a young captain said: "Goddammit, I'd like to know who the son of a bitch was that took this magnificent airplane, designed to bomb from 23,000 feet and he took it down to 5,000 feet and I lost my wingman. He was shot and killed."

LeMay spoke in monosyllables. I never heard him say more than two words in sequence. It was basically "Yes," "No," "Yup," or "The hell with it." That was all he said. And LeMay was totally intolerant of criticism. He never engaged in discussion with anybody.

He stood up. "Why are we here? Why are we here? You lost your wingman; it hurts me as much as it does you. I sent him there. And I've been there, I know what it is. But, you lost one wingman, and we destroyed Tokyo."

50 square miles of Tokyo were burned. Tokyo was a wooden city, and when we dropped these firebombs, it just burned it.


EM: The choice of incendiary bombs, where did that come from?

McNamara: I think the issue is not so much incendiary bombs. I think the issue is: in order to win a war should you kill 100,000 people in one night, by firebombing or any other way? LeMay's answer would be clearly "Yes."

"McNamara, do you mean to say that instead of killing 100,000, burning to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in that one night, we should have burned to death a lesser number or none? And then had our soldiers cross the beaches in Tokyo and been slaughtered in the tens of thousands? Is that what you're proposing? Is that moral? Is that wise?"

Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command.

Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.

I don't fault Truman for dropping the nuclear bomb. The U.S.—Japanese War was one of the most brutal wars in all of human history. Kamikaze pilots, suicide, unbelievable. What one can criticize is that the human race prior to that time, and today, has not really grappled with what are, I'll call it, "the rules of war." Was there a rule then that said you shouldn't bomb, shouldn't kill, shouldn't burn to death 100,000 civilians in one night?

LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

http://www.errolmorris.com/film/fow_transcript.html
 
It's frightening to think he's even in with a shout, I wouldn't even trust the dopey twat with the remote for the telly.
 
Skellington said:
Robert McNamara worked compiling statisitics for the U.S airforce in the Far East in World War 2. He was later Secretary of State for Defence in Vietnam. He's the sole participant in 'The Fog of War', where he says this:


McNamara: I analyzed bombing operations, and how to make them more efficient. i.e. Not more efficient in the sense of killing more, but more efficient in weakening the adversary.

I wrote one report analyzing the efficiency of the B—29 operations. The B—29 could get above the fighter aircraft and above the air defense, so the loss rate would be much less. The problem was the accuracy was also much less.

Now I don't want to suggest that it was my report that led to, I'll call it, the firebombing. It isn't that I'm trying to absolve myself of blame. I don't want to suggest that it was I who put in LeMay's mind that his operations were totally inefficient and had to be drastically changed. But, anyhow, that's what he did. He took the B—29s down to 5,000 feet and he decided to bomb with firebombs.

I participated in the interrogation of the B—29 bomber crews that came back that night. A room full of crewmen and intelligence interrogators. A captain got up, a young captain said: "Goddammit, I'd like to know who the son of a bitch was that took this magnificent airplane, designed to bomb from 23,000 feet and he took it down to 5,000 feet and I lost my wingman. He was shot and killed."

LeMay spoke in monosyllables. I never heard him say more than two words in sequence. It was basically "Yes," "No," "Yup," or "The hell with it." That was all he said. And LeMay was totally intolerant of criticism. He never engaged in discussion with anybody.

He stood up. "Why are we here? Why are we here? You lost your wingman; it hurts me as much as it does you. I sent him there. And I've been there, I know what it is. But, you lost one wingman, and we destroyed Tokyo."

50 square miles of Tokyo were burned. Tokyo was a wooden city, and when we dropped these firebombs, it just burned it.


EM: The choice of incendiary bombs, where did that come from?

McNamara: I think the issue is not so much incendiary bombs. I think the issue is: in order to win a war should you kill 100,000 people in one night, by firebombing or any other way? LeMay's answer would be clearly "Yes."

"McNamara, do you mean to say that instead of killing 100,000, burning to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in that one night, we should have burned to death a lesser number or none? And then had our soldiers cross the beaches in Tokyo and been slaughtered in the tens of thousands? Is that what you're proposing? Is that moral? Is that wise?"

Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command.

Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.

I don't fault Truman for dropping the nuclear bomb. The U.S.—Japanese War was one of the most brutal wars in all of human history. Kamikaze pilots, suicide, unbelievable. What one can criticize is that the human race prior to that time, and today, has not really grappled with what are, I'll call it, "the rules of war." Was there a rule then that said you shouldn't bomb, shouldn't kill, shouldn't burn to death 100,000 civilians in one night?

LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

http://www.errolmorris.com/film/fow_transcript.html
Click to expand...
That's a fascinating transcript, I'll have a read of the site when I finish work
 
genericus said:
That's a fascinating transcript, I'll have a read of the site when I finish work
Click to expand...

The full documentary is on Netflix - 90% of it is just McNamara sat in a chair speaking to the camera. It's very, very good.
 
andyj73 said:
.. it's embarrassing that some people think others shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion ..
Click to expand...

If you think Trump should be US President then you probably shouldn't be allowed an opinion tbh.

Like you wouldn't give a monkey a machine gun.
 
TK-421 said:
At least he won't steal the batteries out of it like Hillary Clinton would
Click to expand...
Hilary clinton would probably try to change channels using the DVD remote, judging by how f***ing clueless she is with e-mail accounts
 
The Exile said:
If you think Trump should be US President then you probably shouldn't be allowed an opinion tbh.

Like you wouldn't give a monkey a machine gun.
Click to expand...
.. no, I don't think Trump should be President, you completely miss the point .. Trump has a large amount of support in the US and you are saying all those people should not have an opinion.. I have little time for Trump, though even less time for self-appointed self inflated know-it-alls..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top