North Korea claims to have conducted hydrogen bomb test

[afc wimbledon]

to put all this in perspective the Japanese army killed 6 to 10 million Chinese civilians from 1937 to 45. They did groundbreaking work infecting whole populations of cities with anthrax and bubonic plague in an attempt to develop weapons, up to a half a million died from these 'experiments' so it's fairly clear unconditional surrender was an absolute necessity.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

Gunter BLOODCLOT Grass a Nobel prize winner, said this

George **** Wald, Harvard scientist, Nobel prize winner.

But please go on telling me how I'm just some educated fool who thinks he's dropping 'mad knowledge'. Tell me how it is I am living in some sort of 'John Lennon wonderland'. Then turn around and claim I'm the one going ad hominem and insulting people. No wonder you have 34,000 posts, your posts are about as intelligent, long and informed as a fortune in a Chinese cookie. Hope mums basement is nice and coazy, and with your Doritos and laptop charger you can hopefully keep on keeping on, probably be at 70,000 posts before long. Preying on threads, literally refreshing them every minute, responding to yourself, what a joke.

Well if that's the case than I am guilty as charged, a deranged madman who knows nothing along with Einstein, Ban Ki Moon, Gunter Grass, George Wald and a number of other people who literally take poops with a higher intelligence quotient than all of the posters in this thread combined.

The real war crime was attacking Pearl Harbor without declaring war first. One could say that was a gutless war crime.

What did your two nobel winners say about the fire bombings 6 months before the atomic bombs? In one night over 100,000 died in Tokyo and the Emperor still wouldn't surrender. Weren't the firebombings that killed over 200,000 civilians considered war crimes in their brilliant minds?

Personally I'm not even sure the 2 atomic bombs ended the war, I think the Emperor was more afraid when the Soviets declared war on them than anything else.

I think Japan was lucky to have a country after the crap they did during and leading up to the war against the USA, war crime my arse.

[Fuzz]

Seams relevant....

[Lanny_McDonald]

Just have to mention that the eastern world versus western world concept was established back in the battles between the Greek city states and Persia. It was the Battle of Marathon where the east versus west chasm was really established. Crumpy is correct in what he is saying in this regard.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

This is an essay by Albert Frikin Einstein. Hope it doesn't cause your brain any damage nik.

All this says is that Einstein was a devout pacifist. Should we debate the morality of pacifism? Is that your position?

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

Noam Bloody Chomsky said this. He's a fringe, lunatic conspiracy theorist who writes books that nobody reads.

I think you were trying to be sarcastic and yet managed to hit the nail basically on the head here.

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

Ban God Damn Ki Moon said this. He's some stupid Korean dude who somehow worked his way into possibly the top position in global politics.

I don't think anyone you're arguing against here would disagree with his statement, nor do I think it supports the position you appear to have taken on as a hamburger hill...

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

Gunter BLOODCLOT Grass a Nobel prize winner, said this
George **** Wald, Harvard scientist, Nobel prize winner.

Well, here I'm just going to have to go to the obvious appeal to authority issue... these are two brilliant guys with no particular knowledge of international law. Why would you consult George "****" Wald, a specialist in human physiology, on the rightness or wrongness of the use of nuclear weapons?

[blueski]

Brack Swan

[PepsiFree]

It'd be pleasing to read Crumpy's opinions if they weren't littered with insults, outrage, and the odd "And did you know how SMART I am??"

Solid points, petulant delivery.

[nik-]

The frustrating thing is the total arrogance obviously developed because he thinks the information he's presenting is completely new to everyone else but him. Not realizing that everyone is aware of both sides of the argument on this, including the theory that the dropping of the bombs was unnecessary.

What a hilariously ridiculous poster.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by T@T

The real war crime was attacking Pearl Harbor without declaring war first. One could say that was a gutless war crime.

What did your two nobel winners say about the fire bombings 6 months before the atomic bombs? In one night over 100,000 died in Tokyo and the Emperor still wouldn't surrender. Weren't the firebombings that killed over 200,000 civilians considered war crimes in their brilliant minds?

Personally I'm not even sure the 2 atomic bombs ended the war, I think the Emperor was more afraid when the Soviets declared war on them than anything else.

I think Japan was lucky to have a country after the crap they did during and leading up to the war against the USA, war crime my arse.

Japan is lucky to have a country?
I would say the USA is lucky to have escaped the ICC.
History won't be kind to the USA and their war crimes that's for sure. From Hiroshima to abugraib there will be volumes of books written on it. Believe you me.


Admiral Husband E Kimmel. A member of the US navy had this to say in May 1940

"I feel that a surprise attack (submarine, air, or combined) on Pearl Harbor is a possibility, and we are taking immediate practical steps to minimize the damage inflicted and to ensure that the attacking force will pay."

Many many people have come out and said they are suspicious of the fact the whole naval fleet was moved from San Diego where they always stayed, to Pearl harbour, basically on a platter for the Japanese. A number of navy personnel resigned over this matter.

Not to mention the Japanese attacked a navy. They didn't drop an atomic bomb on Kansas City and St.Louis.

You are clearly completely ignorant on this topic. It was a war crime, as it is today, to target civilians, especially since Japan was literally screwed and so close to surrender.

I know many of you are familiar with the other side. However the fact you speak of dropping a nuclear weapon on a civilian population as a justified act of mercy that saved millions of lives is laughable and provokes a response from any compassionate human being. It's cute how you throw in "the theory" that dropping the bombs wasn't nessicary. Yeah - that theory is called diplomacy Einstein

I honestly don't care if some trolls on a sports forum didn't like what I had to say. I didn't say it for the likes.

I am a bit arrogant when it comes to topics like these. You know, obviously ludicrous crimes against humanity that some people were taught to think of as heroic.

PepsiFree, I post on a number of forums, and my posts usually reflect who and what I am talking about or to. If I'm talking to a ignorant troll it's different than when I am talking to a polite MENSA society level scholar. If I'm talking about the flames it's different than if I'm talking about war crimes. Also what you are saying sounds a lot like, wow crumpy makes some great points, I kind of agree with him, but since he insulted people who kind of insulted him first, I disagree.
Ok mate, up to you.

It's who I am, I'm a passionate, opinionated, crumpy-gunt. But the sweet thing is you don't have to like it or agree with me

LMFAO Corsihockeyleague - you seriously regard Noam Chomsky as a fringe lunatic conspiracy theorist? Care to explain why ?


And Wimbledon your main point is Japan had millions of people, we only killed 300,000 we could have basically killed way way more.

DERP.

So because more could have been killed, and weren't - it isn't a heavy handed response, a war crime, but a justified act to end the war?

Well.. I have nothing to say about logic like that. I mean how can you argue with sound logic like that. You've just converted me to believing what you believe.


So Wimbledon. Is Canada apart of the western world?

Or are you going to continue copy pasta from the Internet on how many people lived in Japan in the 1940s and how they all could have been killed, but weren't.

Anyhow I love how butthurt some people in this thread are.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't know what this posters main malfunction is, he's not debating, he's yelling like an angry old man shaking his fist angrily at the bright yellow god in the sky.

Its easy to pull out later analysis and critic decisions based on what you know 5 or 10 or 50 years after a decision is made because frankly you have a lot more information at that time then the decision makers had in their time, thus you can revise the debate based on information that wasn't available at the time.

First and foremost, you look at the conduct of Japan and how they fought the war, and the decision that Japan would become a meat grinder for an American invasion. America couldn't afford to lose the rest of their next generation of young men, and the American public wouldn't have supported the kind of death toll that a seaborne invasion would have had.

The Japanese High Command were basically exhorting the death of their own society instead of surrender as it was it took two bombs to finally give the Emperor enough influence to push for peace over the Hawks in Japan.

The unconditional surrender had to happen, the government had to be replaced, because frankly the whole honor system that Japan existed in and fought with especially in WW2 was horrific and caused massive war crimes.

you also had Stalin in the east who suddenly didn't have a war to fight in Germany that was already looking at snatching territories in Japan and China, we were headed towards and open war with Russia.

Yes the nuking of Japan is and was tragic, but at the end of the day, Japan wanted surrender and talked about surrender with the Allies on their terms, and it had already been agreed upon by the Allies that it was unconditional surrender and the destruction of the Japanese government.

War is never pretty, its easy to look back on those battles and decisions and criticize them, but again, we have a fuller basket of information to critic those decisions.

As well don't bring up what Japanese professors were teaching in terms of WW2 unless you're willing to admit that it took Japan a long time to even talk about or apologize for the conduct of their military in the field or their treatment of prisoners and woman captives. Japan was very good at playing the victim card with their own people for a long time.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

[Crumpy-Gunt]

As well don't bring up what Japanese professors were teaching in terms of WW2 unless you're willing to admit that it took Japan a long time to even talk about or apologize for the conduct of their military in the field or their treatment of prisoners and woman captives. Japan was very good at playing the victim card with their own people for a long time.

It's easy to pull up later analysis and judge something from 50 years down? Sure, they say hindsight is 20/20. Does that change the fact a crime committed 50 years ago is still a crime? No. Again you lot have failed to refute a single one of my points, or a single point made by any of the people I quoted.

I didn't bring up what Japanese professors are teaching. I challenged a poster to debate a history professor in Tokyo. I don't actually know what Japanese professors are teaching lol. I can bet they aren't teaching it was an act of mercy to bomb 300,000 civilians.

Actually I can most definitely quote some more intellectuals, who are not Japanese. But I doubt that would cure your ignorance.

The fact is if the Japanese professors are biased because they reside in a nation which was apart of the axis forces. Why can't you accept what we learned in school and what is being propagated in this thread is basically just as biased but from the allied side?

What if the truth is somewhere in the middle. As it usually is.

Either way you sound like a bunch of heartless people. I condemn the attacks. It hurts me, as a human. I think people should be put on trial for it. I think all of these things will happen in time. In fact the first 2 letters Obama got were from the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki regarding the memorial national park built in the USA for the bombs.

Sorry you haven't refuted the fact this was an unjustified criminal act. A war crime. You have just come into the thread repeating all the old nonsense my balding social teacher tried to teach me and the rest of my classmates. We parroted it back, wrote it down over and over. But it still doesn't make sense.

You guys sound like a rare bunch. One thinks west is only a direction, the other thinks Noam Chomsky is a fringe lunatic conspiracy theorist, another thought NPT was only about ensuring no other nations get nukes.

Im now curious what you all do for a living and your level of education. Where you work specifically so I don't send my car to your shop and find its been totally mucked up by nik-

[karl262]

Crumpy-Gunt, what evidence do you have to show that Japan would have surrendered without the nuclear attacks or an invasion?

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know what this posters main malfunction is, he's not debating, he's yelling like an angry old man shaking his fist angrily at the bright yellow god in the sky.

Its easy to pull out later analysis and critic decisions based on what you know 5 or 10 or 50 years after a decision is made because frankly you have a lot more information at that time then the decision makers had in their time, thus you can revise the debate based on information that wasn't available at the time.

First and foremost, you look at the conduct of Japan and how they fought the war, and the decision that Japan would become a meat grinder for an American invasion. America couldn't afford to lose the rest of their next generation of young men, and the American public wouldn't have supported the kind of death toll that a seaborne invasion would have had.

The Japanese High Command were basically exhorting the death of their own society instead of surrender as it was it took two bombs to finally give the Emperor enough influence to push for peace over the Hawks in Japan.

The unconditional surrender had to happen, the government had to be replaced, because frankly the whole honor system that Japan existed in and fought with especially in WW2 was horrific and caused massive war crimes.

you also had Stalin in the east who suddenly didn't have a war to fight in Germany that was already looking at snatching territories in Japan and China, we were headed towards and open war with Russia.

Yes the nuking of Japan is and was tragic, but at the end of the day, Japan wanted surrender and talked about surrender with the Allies on their terms, and it had already been agreed upon by the Allies that it was unconditional surrender and the destruction of the Japanese government.

War is never pretty, its easy to look back on those battles and decisions and criticize them, but again, we have a fuller basket of information to critic those decisions.

As well don't bring up what Japanese professors were teaching in terms of WW2 unless you're willing to admit that it took Japan a long time to even talk about or apologize for the conduct of their military in the field or their treatment of prisoners and woman captives. Japan was very good at playing the victim card with their own people for a long time.

The Allies begged Stalin to join the war against Japan at the Yalta conference, and they offered up a bunch of territory as a reward.

[pylon]

Crumpy, you are assuming that people defending the dropping of the bombs, are happy for the suffering, misery and mass casualties. Nobody with a head on their shoulders thinks it was a 'good' event. However, at the time, it was a necessary event. The US knew they had a trump card that would stop the war in its tracks. And the cost would be a 150,000 lives now, vs millions of lives later.

I am sure even the men that made that decision, struggled with it, but the net result was better than the alternative. The US will always have that blood on their hands, but so will Japan. Japan did some horrible, horrible things mostly unprovoked. You seem to think Japan was a peace loving nation that didn't have it coming to them. As other posters have alluded to, the death toll of those bombs, is absolutely dwarfed, by what Japan did in China.

[HotHotHeat]

Crumpy-Gunt, serious question. When was the last time you slept?

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It'd be pleasing to read Crumpy's opinions if they weren't littered with insults, outrage, and the odd "And did you know how SMART I am??"

Solid points, petulant delivery.

The problem is I wrote most of these posts in a matter of minutes. I am currently on hour 12 of a project I'm working on. I'm literally coming on CP for my breaks. Also I don't find it nessicary to be a model of good manners with people like nik- who claim to have a monopoly on reality and tell anyone who disagrees with them that they are living in 'John lennons wonderland'. I generally respond to insults with insults. Slaps with slaps, punches with punches.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It'd be pleasing to read Crumpy's opinions if they weren't littered with insults, outrage, and the odd "And did you know how SMART I am??"

Solid points, petulant delivery.

How else is he supposed to live up to his username?

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Crumpy-Gunt, serious question. When was the last time you slept?

Serious answer, about 6am or so yesterday. Whenever the sun began to rise. I work at night and sleep in the day. For a few reasons. I find I'm usually better at what I do at night time, I have a bit more creative juices flowing. Perhaps it has to do with the whole melatonin/serotonin thing. I feel like a zombie when the sun is out, I want to work out, eat, do physical things. But when the sun goes down I do my best work. Being self employed I can basically sleep when I want. It's awesome.

I'm currently doing a project with a few people who are over-seas and they mostly being in India and Thailand are hours ahead of me. But it also makes it easier to coordinate in live time with some of them.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

PepsiFree, I post on a number of forums, and my posts usually reflect who and what I am talking about or to. If I'm talking to a ignorant troll it's different than when I am talking to a polite MENSA society level scholar. If I'm talking about the flames it's different than if I'm talking about war crimes. Also what you are saying sounds a lot like, wow crumpy makes some great points, I kind of agree with him, but since he insulted people who kind of insulted him first, I disagree.
Ok mate, up to you.

My point is that you would be better received and your intelligence remotely respected if you'd tone down the "everyone is butt hurt! Derp! Screw your wittle feewings!" rhetoric. You're not JUST talking to Nik, you're talking in a public forum for everyone to read.

If anything, it makes the very idea that you could even keep pace with any scholar in terms of intelligent discourse completely unbelievable. People are who they are. If you're petulant on a hockey board, you're petulant.

Yes, this is just a board of "hockey fans," no, that doesn't speak to the collective intelligence. You're right, you don't need to be likeable, but unless you want to keep yelling at a cloud while people tune you out, you should at least want to be tolerable.

My opinion only of course. Proceed as you wish, I just hate to see opinions as interesting as yours wasted.