"Kill Everybody" | Murder like a Video Game | Confessions of an American Soldier

Internet forums bro.

 

i was in 2 wars i can judge very very well...ive been in much worse situations than your heavily armed storm troopers but never fired a bullet...but i also have a huge problem with killing somebody and im a crazy person who values human life more than politics...

it was an execution...they burst in and opened fire without warning...no "put your hands up or we will shoot"...2 priests were shot with beards and cloth and a crucifix around the neck like the ones you would see in any small church...the father died and the son survived...

this of course does not represent the norm in the US "army for hire" but it went completely unpunished...no war crime no execution no nothing...this type of irresponsible conduct encourages other hired guns to do the same being that there is NO PUNISHMENT so out lives are , realistically, just video games for your hired guns...

the fears of the civilians of japan were justified...yes it was ww2 but the USA firebombed about 1.000.000 japaneese civilians to their death and later on went to nuke civilians 2x without any warning and completely unnecessarily...some will argue that it ended WW2 for japan but this is just playing dumb to the fact that there was no need to nuke civilians the US could have tested its new toy on one of japans many less inhabited islands...

the civilians of japan never asked for WW2 and were punished for the actions of a handful of people in their "government"...i dont deny pearl harbor and the whole war but punishing civilians in such a way is just plain terrorism...

 

The atomic bomb wasn't a toy. It was dropped in order to prevent more loss of American lives, which it certainly did. The Japanese were committed to fighting to the death. That means we would have had to kill every man, woman, and child before they surrendered. Instead, they chose to drop the bomb on one city. Japan still didn't surrender after the first bomb!

Sitting around in "Serbia" or wherever the hell you're supposedly from, the issue must appear much different than it does to the rest of us who live in "consensus reality."

 

I think you mean a "propaganda-induced coma".

 

consensus reality is not when you claim that every man woman and child were committed to fighting to the death...this is an absurd claim and you know it and im not willing to debate it any further its too silly...

the japan war machine was heavily damaged and a shadow of its former self it was nowhere near as much of a threat as before...

japans emperor did not surrender after the first bomb this is one man and a handful of people behind him kinda like saddam...he was a crazy mother Fer and was in no position to surrender (in his crazy head) and the US knew this...still no excuse to punish women and children and the old and the guys who just didnt want to fight??

you ignore, ever so conveniently, the FACT that you could have nuked a less inhabited island instead of 100.000-s of civilians 2x...

but if this was america in question theres no doubt you would see it my way you would also agree with me wholeheartedly about using less populated areas as "demonstration" and giving civilians time to evacuate it would be such bloody murder if the japs did this to you...

propaganda induced coma LOL at least you know what youre suffering from...heartless borg invaders LOL

 

The nutshell of it:

Japan near the end of the war was exhausted militarily.

The Russians were poised to act as the other "claw" in a final pincer on Japan; their Sunday walk through Manchuria proved to them Japan had nothing left, and they were right.

The Emperor, as well as a growing pro-peace faction in the military, were both searching for a means to end the war without losing his throne.

The "hotheads," the Manchurian crew, whatever you want to call it, would have none of it - they would preserve the "Imperial Way" at any cost.

Many other plans for ending the war with an allied victory were floated - to include a credible plan floated by Macarthur himself, obviating the need or use for the atomic bomb. None of these won the day.

The bomb, it seems to me, was an unnecessary thing for ending the war, and a horrible thing to use as a "demonstration effect" on our soon to be erstwhile ally, the Soviet Union.

Easy enough to armchair quarterback from the vantage point of the future.

 

i agree with the rest but its never hard to tell if using nuclear bombs on civilians is wrong or right...its always wrong past / present or future im no armchair quarterback when i say its mindless mass murder...if you were referring to yourself as the armchair quarterback then please ignore my error...

 

ATV, I'm saying that neither you nor I lived then; we had not lived through this global war; live through a time when we painted a nation of "yellow devils" who painted us, equally, as nations of "white devils:; we had not lived in a time when every indication was that Germany was working on the same weapon, and wouldn't have hesitated to use it; when Japan, if it had the weapon, would not have hesitated as well.

This is why I say that all of us, not living then, are necessarily armchair quarterbacking. I don't condone its use, and believe it forever changed the map of the world, and not for the better, having opened a Pandora's Box that could never be truly closed again; but I stop short of presuming I, living in that time and place, would have had the preternatural ability to make the right choice in the instant.

 

theres always a few days to spare,japans army was on life support, a few days to bomb some small island first and evacuate civilians, but a "power move" needed to be made and i dont buy the urgent need to bomb 100.000-s of civilians for one second...

its kind of a silly point to debate IMO...there so many ways it could have been pulled off without the nuclear hollocaust...

 

I agree - as I said in my original post. There were many ways to accomplish the same aim, without the bomb, or so it could be plausibly argued today.

What you miss is that you and I have had time to evaluate all these things, from the vantage point of 60 years, with information transparently available: "Japan is weak - how weak?" "USSR is ready to step in - when, where, to what extent?" The Emperor is ready for peace - how committed? How able to exact his wishes on the Tojo regime and its army hotheads?," etc.

For the reasons I gave in my last post, I both condemn the bomb and its use, and stop short of presuming I'd have chosen any differently were I alive and in charge in that time and place.

 

Of course.

Use of force like that is basically admitting defeat!

 

Japan was warned and chose to ignore the warning. Japan could have prevented it.

The fact that Japan refused to surrender even after the first bomb makes your notion that they would have surrendered after bombing a small island totally unrealistic.

 

The common man yearns for freedom and democracy, but the man who has made his wealth off the back of others never experienced hardship, never experienced freedom and never experienced democracy. His goal is to consolidate his power no matter what end and at the cost of the freedom of others. Look at the 2 choices we have for president. Will they really do what is best for the american people? Business as usual huh.

 

Nuking a less inhabited island in Japan wouldn't have done anything. Might as well be dropping a nuke above the pacific ocean. Hiroshima was the perfect place to hurt them. America didn't choose it's target based on the civilians.

Japan didn't even surrender after the first nuke (yeah, should have dropped one on a smaller place huh?! ). That's when we dropped another one on Nagasaki. Losing all the innocent people is a sad loss. But the fact is, the war had to be ended.

 

Yeah, it was a bad situation. Unfortunately war is war and there are going to be some innocent lives lost if you are willing to take measures that are needed to win one. I just find it ironic that the atomic bombs are brought up in numerous discussions about killing people. Somehow it goes overlooked that thousands of Russian women and children were raped throughout the war and Hitler wasn't just killing innocent people, but he was torturing them too.

That time was a pretty dark time for history for almost every nation. Everyone was raping eachothers women, innocent lives were being lost or mistreated on both sides of the fence, and we're sitting here complaining as if one nation out of the many involved should have "known better". Yet again, just another silly discussion in the P&R section...

 

What a disgusting post

 

.... o.o

I just said it like it is. How's that disgusting? America nuked Japan to end the war. Is this your first time you realized that it was "disgusting"? Have you even ever heard of Hiroshima?

 

This is probally, the biggest terrorist attack in history, the bombs on innocent Nagasaki and Hiroshima and you speak about it as if they deserved it and that they were in the wrong, it was only the civillians that suffered because of the actions.

 

Show me one word I used to lead you to believe that I think the innocent civilians deserved it. I said that America did not choose it's target based on the CIVILIANS. And I said it is a sad and devestating loss. You're acting as if I said something along the lines of "eh fu** those japs, they all deserved it".

You're also saying that the atomic bombs did not end WW2 ?

 

so, if there is no videos than there is just an urban legend?
duh, when can I move to your country?
If I committed a crime, and there is no video than my crime will be just an urban legend?

do you really need that video prove that much? no video no prove?