What the hell are you on about?
Dude, you need to quit applying the current world political view onto history. Things are NOT the same. The US as you know it may have grown from WWII, but it did NOT exist at that time.
You seriously need to take some history lessons and adjust your viewpoint to be a wee bit less biased. It's really showing through.
To your points then:
I didn't ask you to recall how Japan entered the war to show how dropping the bomb was justified. I brought that up to remind you that Japan was the AGGRESSOR here. Whether you agree with how they did it or not, the US had to do something to end things decisively. They had to ensure it wouldn't happen again. They chose the bomb. It worked. War ended, hasn't happened again.
Also, if you hadn't noticed, Japan's doing pretty good these days and isn't exactly expected to invade the US any time soon or vice versa.
Next:
If you really think the US dropped the bomb to humiliate Japan, wow...You've got a big chip on your shoulder buddy. I'm starting to think that you have some pretty serious hatred of the US for some reason that has nothing to do with this.
The US most certainly had NOT won the war at that point. It was ascertained that they most likely would, but it was also going to cost a HUGE amount in American lives to do so. They not only had to invade and occupy Japan proper, they also would have had to clear out the Japan occupation in the indo-pacific islands which would have had as many or more casualties incurred. (As an interesting tidbit: Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicron covers this aspect quite a bit I believe.)
Indeed. Which rather suggests that the American requirement of unconditional Japanese surrender was not entirely sincere, and in fact rather foolish.
You quite obviously do not understand how either WWI or WWII ended if you can make that statement.
The US wasn't looking for unconditional surrender, the problem was the Japanese couldn't give _conditional_ surrender. All the Japanese offered as surrender was a statement that they would withdraw and cease hostilities.
Not exactly reassuring at the time.
By all means, ask away, never suggested otherwise.
However, I have to disagree somewhat in your reasoning. I simply do not agree that what the US did in Japan can even remotely be compared to an act of terrorism in the modern deffinition. (If one wishes to be pedantic, we could of course argue all day on the deffinition of terrorism, lets not.)
Japan, the sovereign nation, wilfully and unprovoked chose to attack the US. Just about the entire nation of Japan was involved in it's war machine. Japan was the agressor, NOT some small fringe group of well-armed terrorists. Japan and Osama cannot be compared. They are not the same thing. While it is obvious how nuking big chunks of the mideast would be more than uncalled for when dealing with the likes of Osama, (and to most, obvious how even occupying through conventional means is as well), Japan was not the same thing.
Think about it. What's Osama got? A (relative) bit of money and a small group of devout followers.
What did Japan have? A history of warfare. A recent history of aggressiveness. A massive military force including full blown navy, air force, army. A culture that has to retain face, creating a civilian population that was a lot closer tied to it's military, and when provoked would pretty much have to pick up and fight. Not to mention a culture that bred the concept of suicide missions.
Need I go on? Lets just call a spade a spade shall we?
Now, to make you feel better, as I believe I understand the motive behind sentiments like yours. My motives are the same. War sucks. I'd rather there was never another war. Not likely, however I believe the only way we have a chance to eventually get there is to learn from our past.
I believe we do ourselves a HUGE disservice when we begin trying to pick apart parts of a war and draw lines as to what is right and what is wrong.
It's ALL wrong. That part should be painfully obvious, however it's not. Rather it has become diluted to the point where it hardly even registers.
I hope that helps explain why I'd rather call a spade a spade than compare apples to oranges.
What? That has nothing to do with it. You cannot win a war decisively against an aggressor by simply letting them go home. History has shown time and time again that while they may go home, they will most certainly come back and stronger than the last time.
Don't get me wrong, I hold no animosity towards Japan or Japanese people today. However...
If you believe the sentiments of most of the people in this thread, you'd have to believe that the US attacked innocent little Japan out of the blue and then bombed the shit out of them. Talk about revisionist history!
People NEED to remember history here. Not revise it to fit your current moral standard. I am FUCKING SICK AND TIRED of people condemning the states for ending the war with Japan.
Personally, I'm glad we won that war. Although, sometimes I wonder if the world would be better off now if we had lost.
Why is it that everyone convenienty forgets that Japan started the war with the US entirely unprovoked? Why is it that we ignore the Japanese culture that bread some of the fiercest, most loyal fighters in history? Where the hell do you think terrorists got the idea for suicide bombing? The Japanese INVENTED that shit, using it against US.
It's people like this that insist on changing the past rather than learning from the past that will ensure we repeat the tragedies of the past.
Shit man, you weren't very obvious about that wee little fact. You're talking about the offer the US gave Japan, but you presented it as though Japan offered it to the US.
What does it matter if the US offered Japan something similar to what Japan offered Russia? Really now.
I was talking about the only offer that Japan presented to the US.
Why bring up the Japanese occupation of China to demonstrate this? Why not keep it limited to the conflict in question? You can do so and still show that sympathy is largely misplaced.
Why was Japan involved in the war in the first place? Maybe because they attacked the US unprovoked?
They started it. We ended it decisively and then helped them rebuild to be the strong nation it is today. I have no sympathy for either side.
Real nice to condemn our past actions based on an impossible statement isn't it?
Look, Japan entered the war unprovoked. It would not have been acceptable to just let Japan 'withdraw' from the war. (The only 'conditional' surrender situation ever put forth by Japan)
On the other side, Japan's culture made it IMPOSSIBLE for Japan to ever surrender unconditionally. Not unlikely. Impossible.
The only ways to end the war with Japan were: a) Decisively beat Japan. b) Let Japan walk away from the war. (Remembering they were the agressor here) or c) Be beaten by Japan.
Care to account for the facts in your revisionist argument?
Shit man, what side in a war is going to go: "Well, we could beat our enemy by using these technologies, but they aren't nice enough so we won't use them and will have our asses handed to us on a platter, served up using the same technologies we decided not to use."
Sounds great!
Don't parallel something like using the bomb to the attrocities that the nazi's did in Germany. The bomb was used in a battle against our enemy that we did not create. The nazi's were committing genocide against their own people. The people the bomb was dropped on were actively involved in waging war against the US. The people that were killed by the Nazi's were captives, prisoners etc etc. They were most certainly not actively supporting the Allies when they were gassed or whatever else. The entire nation of Japan on the other hand was.
This is not exactly a grey area, save for the moral elite whom have never been anywhere near a real war and feel free to write off their current freedom, stepping on the backs of their ancestors that had to make the hard decisions to do so no less, and attempt to condemn the history that got them to where they are today.
I've read stories about the bombs being dropped on Japan from the point of view of the Japanese that basically state that they were glad that it happened because otherwise they would have had no way to exit the war while saving face. Note that culturally, it was not even an option to do something that wouldn't save face. They could not just surrender unconditionally. Americans just don't get this point.
Also, it's well advised to look into how the Japanese remember what happened, and what they take from it now. I fully believe that the Japanese have learned one HELL of a lot more from WWII than the US has. They will NOT make the same mistakes again. Unfortunately, the US has made numerous mistakes over and over again since then that they wouldn't have if they had actually learned anything from that war.
I find it hard to accept the figure of 1 million US casualties for an invasion of mainland Japan.
Of course you do, because it didn't happen.
Similar has happened since then though that should allow you to reduce your absolutist judgement:
Vietnam War
North Korean War
Afghanistan
Iraq
The first being the most obvious and probably the closest parallel to what could have come of invading Japan.
Thank you. I can't believe how many people today focus entirely on how the US ended the war with Japan, while completely ignoring how Japan came to be in the war in the first place.
Japan entered the war of their own accord, remember? A little thing called Pearl Harbor? Ring any bells everyone?
But we should have been content with letting Japan 'withdraw' from the war instead of surrendering unconditionally? How could that have been an acceptable solution?
'Thanks for agreeing to stop killing us, here's a cookie, please don't do it again.'
Japan's actions in WWII ensured that a definitive outcome would be required to end hostilities, one way or the other. We can argue the merits of how that came about all you want but it doesn't change shit.
People would be well advised to remember things that parallel this but are a lot closer to home history wise. We are already repeating past mistakes.
How's about Osama or Sadam? Good parallels here. Known baddies that did attrocious things, that we had opportunities to decisively squash and chose not to. That worked out real well didn't it? (Note, motivations for why this came to be, and how it's been dealt with have NO bearing on this argument)
Did you forget how Japan came into the war in the first place?
Again, it was war. Nothing in war is as simple as your statement makes it out to be. If you really think that the only reason that the bomb was dropped, and not only one, but 2, is just to 'make some petty psychological point', well shit...I strongly suggest you dig into some history of the past few hundred years, especially the parts involving conflict and warfare.
And do NOT assume I'm picking sides in any of this. It wasn't my war. Chances are it wasn't your war either. What it is for us is an opportunity to learn from past mistakes so we don't do it again. Ignoring the truth about war won't help.
Also, I notice you've come very very close to a bit of an epiphany, and unfortunately let it whiz right past. It is well known that the Allies knew all too well what problems the 'unconditional surrender' idea caused after WWI. Those mistakes were not repeated at the end of WWII. Those mistakes were most certainly taken into concideration when looking for ways to end WWII.
It's crap like this (both absolutist views of this argument that is) that will lead to us repeating the same mistakes of the past.
You did it. No, you did it. You're at fault. No, you're at fault. You did horrible things. No, you did horrible things.
War sucks. It's all pain and misery. All sides in WWII did horrible things. It's better that we remember that than try to prove one side was better than another in retrospect.
Remember this if nothing else: WWII is history. It cannot be changed, it can only be learned from.
I strongly suggest learning about WWII over fighting about WWII, lest we condemn ourselves to repeat our past mistakes.
I had a new teacher in college who had just finished a 3 year stint at MS. He was teaching OpenGL in C++. He was the most arrogant programmer I have EVER met. Weird, because he was a fairly quiet, normal, down to earth guy. But when it came to programming, and graphics especially, he could do no wrong.
He gave me a D- on my first project in that class. (It was our 3rd semester, 3rd C++ class). My project was excellent in many ways. I was one of only a few people in the class who even remotely got OpenGL. I personally helped mentor probably a dozen other people through that project.
I disputed it with my program director, whom was our core professor as well. After a code review, my project was re-graded to A+, the teacher in question seriously reprimanded, and he never marked any of our projects again.
That was also his first, and last course tought at that school.
Yes, but what if your boss had already come to you and said "Hey, I found a NULL pointer dereference in your device driver!", and you said: "BS, that's impossible!".
And it was also reported all over the internet, and you said: "BS, that's impossible!".
What would get you to change your mind? Or would you rather be fired?
IMHO, you'd deserve the public humiliation.
Shit, MS and even BG himself have been repeatedly publicly humiliated over security issues. Maybe this isn't as simple as fixing one single bug in code?
I don't know why I am bothering replying to an obvious troll, but just to counter the BS for anyone that cares:
Apache is indeed the most popular. Latest stats show it at ~69%. Correct, you get a cookie.
On the other hand, your statements about IIS are completely off base and unfounded. IIS is solidly at number 2 with ~20%. IIS is not the least secure web server. And apache is not, 'by anyone's measurement', the standard in web servers.
Give it up already. Apache and IIS are both robust, mature web servers. There is no benefit to be had in trying to promote a server monoculture so why bother? What's your agenda?
OK, nuff feeding of the trolls.
Re:Only going to work if it became standard
on
Advocating Dvorak
·
· Score: 1
Likely not something you require your organization to provide for you.
You running windows? Windows Messenger provides application sharing. 2K+ provides RDC. Just 2 free simple examples there...
No doubt. What is money 'worth' if one does nothing with it.
It's what we do with our money that can bring us wealth. That wealth being entirely subjective of course, one may consider owning many expensive cars to be great wealth while another may consider providing for a healthy family to be great wealth.
If you just make money and horde it, it's pretty hard to find any real worth in that.
Unfortunate that money as wealth is the current all-encompasing goal of our society.
Slashdot Mirror
By all means, ask away, never suggested otherwise.
However, I have to disagree somewhat in your reasoning. I simply do not agree that what the US did in Japan can even remotely be compared to an act of terrorism in the modern deffinition. (If one wishes to be pedantic, we could of course argue all day on the deffinition of terrorism, lets not.)
Japan, the sovereign nation, wilfully and unprovoked chose to attack the US. Just about the entire nation of Japan was involved in it's war machine. Japan was the agressor, NOT some small fringe group of well-armed terrorists. Japan and Osama cannot be compared. They are not the same thing. While it is obvious how nuking big chunks of the mideast would be more than uncalled for when dealing with the likes of Osama, (and to most, obvious how even occupying through conventional means is as well), Japan was not the same thing.
Think about it. What's Osama got? A (relative) bit of money and a small group of devout followers.
What did Japan have?
A history of warfare.
A recent history of aggressiveness.
A massive military force including full blown navy, air force, army.
A culture that has to retain face, creating a civilian population that was a lot closer tied to it's military, and when provoked would pretty much have to pick up and fight. Not to mention a culture that bred the concept of suicide missions.
Need I go on?
Lets just call a spade a spade shall we?
Now, to make you feel better, as I believe I understand the motive behind sentiments like yours. My motives are the same. War sucks. I'd rather there was never another war. Not likely, however I believe the only way we have a chance to eventually get there is to learn from our past.
I believe we do ourselves a HUGE disservice when we begin trying to pick apart parts of a war and draw lines as to what is right and what is wrong.
It's ALL wrong. That part should be painfully obvious, however it's not. Rather it has become diluted to the point where it hardly even registers.
I hope that helps explain why I'd rather call a spade a spade than compare apples to oranges.
What? That has nothing to do with it. You cannot win a war decisively against an aggressor by simply letting them go home. History has shown time and time again that while they may go home, they will most certainly come back and stronger than the last time.
This has nothing to do with pride.
Most all of those 'civilians' were employed fueling the Japanese war machine.
You know, building the bombs and guns that were used to aggressively confront our side unprovoked?
You want to sympathize, go right ahead. Don't mind me if I less than agree though.
Bleeding hearts need not apply to a war you don't understand that was probably over before your parents were even born.
This _really_ needs to be modded up.
Don't get me wrong, I hold no animosity towards Japan or Japanese people today. However...
If you believe the sentiments of most of the people in this thread, you'd have to believe that the US attacked innocent little Japan out of the blue and then bombed the shit out of them. Talk about revisionist history!
People NEED to remember history here. Not revise it to fit your current moral standard. I am FUCKING SICK AND TIRED of people condemning the states for ending the war with Japan.
Personally, I'm glad we won that war. Although, sometimes I wonder if the world would be better off now if we had lost.
Why is it that everyone convenienty forgets that Japan started the war with the US entirely unprovoked? Why is it that we ignore the Japanese culture that bread some of the fiercest, most loyal fighters in history? Where the hell do you think terrorists got the idea for suicide bombing? The Japanese INVENTED that shit, using it against US.
It's people like this that insist on changing the past rather than learning from the past that will ensure we repeat the tragedies of the past.
Shit man, you weren't very obvious about that wee little fact. You're talking about the offer the US gave Japan, but you presented it as though Japan offered it to the US.
What does it matter if the US offered Japan something similar to what Japan offered Russia? Really now.
I was talking about the only offer that Japan presented to the US.
No, the only surrender offer from the Japanese was an offer of conditional surrender that amounted to nothing but withdrawal.
...after stripping him of all but his label. Kinda important point don't you think? He was left as a figurehead only with no power whatsoever.
Why bring up the Japanese occupation of China to demonstrate this? Why not keep it limited to the conflict in question? You can do so and still show that sympathy is largely misplaced.
Why was Japan involved in the war in the first place? Maybe because they attacked the US unprovoked?
They started it. We ended it decisively and then helped them rebuild to be the strong nation it is today. I have no sympathy for either side.
That statement, while sound, is extremely misleading and out of place in this context.
The bombs were not dropped out of revenge.
The violence did end.
There is no justice to be had in war.
JESUS F'ING CHRIST PEOPLE!
Real nice to condemn our past actions based on an impossible statement isn't it?
Look, Japan entered the war unprovoked. It would not have been acceptable to just let Japan 'withdraw' from the war. (The only 'conditional' surrender situation ever put forth by Japan)
On the other side, Japan's culture made it IMPOSSIBLE for Japan to ever surrender unconditionally. Not unlikely. Impossible.
The only ways to end the war with Japan were:
a) Decisively beat Japan.
b) Let Japan walk away from the war. (Remembering they were the agressor here)
or c) Be beaten by Japan.
Care to account for the facts in your revisionist argument?
Shit man, what side in a war is going to go: "Well, we could beat our enemy by using these technologies, but they aren't nice enough so we won't use them and will have our asses handed to us on a platter, served up using the same technologies we decided not to use."
Sounds great!
Don't parallel something like using the bomb to the attrocities that the nazi's did in Germany. The bomb was used in a battle against our enemy that we did not create. The nazi's were committing genocide against their own people. The people the bomb was dropped on were actively involved in waging war against the US. The people that were killed by the Nazi's were captives, prisoners etc etc. They were most certainly not actively supporting the Allies when they were gassed or whatever else. The entire nation of Japan on the other hand was.
This is not exactly a grey area, save for the moral elite whom have never been anywhere near a real war and feel free to write off their current freedom, stepping on the backs of their ancestors that had to make the hard decisions to do so no less, and attempt to condemn the history that got them to where they are today.
I've read stories about the bombs being dropped on Japan from the point of view of the Japanese that basically state that they were glad that it happened because otherwise they would have had no way to exit the war while saving face. Note that culturally, it was not even an option to do something that wouldn't save face. They could not just surrender unconditionally. Americans just don't get this point.
Also, it's well advised to look into how the Japanese remember what happened, and what they take from it now. I fully believe that the Japanese have learned one HELL of a lot more from WWII than the US has. They will NOT make the same mistakes again. Unfortunately, the US has made numerous mistakes over and over again since then that they wouldn't have if they had actually learned anything from that war.
Thank you. I can't believe how many people today focus entirely on how the US ended the war with Japan, while completely ignoring how Japan came to be in the war in the first place.
Japan entered the war of their own accord, remember? A little thing called Pearl Harbor? Ring any bells everyone?
But we should have been content with letting Japan 'withdraw' from the war instead of surrendering unconditionally? How could that have been an acceptable solution?
'Thanks for agreeing to stop killing us, here's a cookie, please don't do it again.'
Japan's actions in WWII ensured that a definitive outcome would be required to end hostilities, one way or the other. We can argue the merits of how that came about all you want but it doesn't change shit.
People would be well advised to remember things that parallel this but are a lot closer to home history wise. We are already repeating past mistakes.
How's about Osama or Sadam? Good parallels here. Known baddies that did attrocious things, that we had opportunities to decisively squash and chose not to. That worked out real well didn't it?
(Note, motivations for why this came to be, and how it's been dealt with have NO bearing on this argument)
That's sick? Dude, that's war.
Did you forget how Japan came into the war in the first place?
Again, it was war. Nothing in war is as simple as your statement makes it out to be. If you really think that the only reason that the bomb was dropped, and not only one, but 2, is just to 'make some petty psychological point', well shit...I strongly suggest you dig into some history of the past few hundred years, especially the parts involving conflict and warfare.
And do NOT assume I'm picking sides in any of this. It wasn't my war. Chances are it wasn't your war either. What it is for us is an opportunity to learn from past mistakes so we don't do it again. Ignoring the truth about war won't help.
Also, I notice you've come very very close to a bit of an epiphany, and unfortunately let it whiz right past. It is well known that the Allies knew all too well what problems the 'unconditional surrender' idea caused after WWI. Those mistakes were not repeated at the end of WWII. Those mistakes were most certainly taken into concideration when looking for ways to end WWII.
It's crap like this (both absolutist views of this argument that is) that will lead to us repeating the same mistakes of the past.
You did it.
No, you did it.
You're at fault.
No, you're at fault.
You did horrible things.
No, you did horrible things.
War sucks. It's all pain and misery. All sides in WWII did horrible things. It's better that we remember that than try to prove one side was better than another in retrospect.
Remember this if nothing else: WWII is history. It cannot be changed, it can only be learned from.
I strongly suggest learning about WWII over fighting about WWII, lest we condemn ourselves to repeat our past mistakes.
Don't exactly have to listen carefully.
He's quite obviously blown to shit.
I had a new teacher in college who had just finished a 3 year stint at MS. He was teaching OpenGL in C++. He was the most arrogant programmer I have EVER met. Weird, because he was a fairly quiet, normal, down to earth guy. But when it came to programming, and graphics especially, he could do no wrong.
He gave me a D- on my first project in that class. (It was our 3rd semester, 3rd C++ class). My project was excellent in many ways. I was one of only a few people in the class who even remotely got OpenGL. I personally helped mentor probably a dozen other people through that project.
I disputed it with my program director, whom was our core professor as well. After a code review, my project was re-graded to A+, the teacher in question seriously reprimanded, and he never marked any of our projects again.
That was also his first, and last course tought at that school.
We're talking about projects at a major corporation with thousands of developers involved. You'd have to be pretty dumb to take it that personally.
You want that kind of weight on your shoulders, you're probably wrapping your own linux distro or something. Then, sure, take it personally.
Yes, but what if your boss had already come to you and said "Hey, I found a NULL pointer dereference in your device driver!", and you said: "BS, that's impossible!".
And it was also reported all over the internet, and you said: "BS, that's impossible!".
What would get you to change your mind?
Or would you rather be fired?
IMHO, you'd deserve the public humiliation.
Shit, MS and even BG himself have been repeatedly publicly humiliated over security issues. Maybe this isn't as simple as fixing one single bug in code?
I don't know why I am bothering replying to an obvious troll, but just to counter the BS for anyone that cares:
Apache is indeed the most popular. Latest stats show it at ~69%. Correct, you get a cookie.
On the other hand, your statements about IIS are completely off base and unfounded. IIS is solidly at number 2 with ~20%. IIS is not the least secure web server. And apache is not, 'by anyone's measurement', the standard in web servers.
Give it up already. Apache and IIS are both robust, mature web servers. There is no benefit to be had in trying to promote a server monoculture so why bother? What's your agenda?
OK, nuff feeding of the trolls.
Likely not something you require your organization to provide for you.
You running windows? Windows Messenger provides application sharing. 2K+ provides RDC. Just 2 free simple examples there...
No doubt. What is money 'worth' if one does nothing with it.
It's what we do with our money that can bring us wealth. That wealth being entirely subjective of course, one may consider owning many expensive cars to be great wealth while another may consider providing for a healthy family to be great wealth.
If you just make money and horde it, it's pretty hard to find any real worth in that.
Unfortunate that money as wealth is the current all-encompasing goal of our society.
Gotta add this.
What about our mass acceptance of cosmetic surgery?
Seriously.
I'd hire a fully tattoed person over a rubber-D-lux botox filled freak any day.
Why?
The fully tattoed person is quite certainly entirely secure with themselves.
The other one? Not so much.
I didn't see it, nor even knew about it until now.
Now that I know about it, I still can't see it because it's not playing anywhere.
It'd certainly do better if it were playing in a reasonable number of theatres.