Political Crossfire Forums

[AllAmericanMan]

Just curious if you dont support abortion, do you support our use of the A bomb? It seems to me like if you value innocent life, you wouldnt support the targeting of civilians in the way we did. Such are my beliefs anyways.
Even though the bomb may have saved Americans soldiers lives, they ended many innocent civilians' lives. So heres a pro lifer asking you other pro lifers, what do you think?

P.S. Pro choicers of course can respond anywhere they want on this thread, im just curious what other pro lifers think.

[ew713]

I think this is a good question...the way that I feel about the A bomb is not in military lives v. civilian lives...it was something that without it, the human cost would be many times greater...

I wish we never had to use it...but for some reason war is something humans can't seem to avoid...but abortion we can...if ppl stop putting their selfish desires for sex above that of the irresponsibly created life...PEOPLE NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE!

[steen]

ew713 wrote: PEOPLE NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE! Doesn't that go for the pro-lifers instead? You want fewer abortions, yet don't want to incur any efford that hists yourself. All the burden on your personal morality and wishes are being dumped on the woman. No fight for better contraception (Could that be because so many pro-lifers hypocritically oppose this?), no fight for better, more effective, scientific sex-ed (Could that be because so many pro-lifers hypocritically oppose this?), no support for the pregnant woman (Could that be because so many pro-lifers hypocritically oppose this, instead pushing welfare reform?),.

Not all pro-lifers are like this, but many are, and certainly when we get to the political arm of the pro-life movement, then this hypocricy is nearly universal.

What about the pro-lifers duty to be responsible and personally start making some sacrifices instead of cowardly dumping all the burden onto the pregnant woman?

Until this happens, there is no way you can convince us that you are NOT using this as merely a means to punish and oppress the woman into being forced to live their lives according to your personal brand of theocratic morality. Pro-lifers are big on talking about responsibility, but never seem to owe up to it themselves. That makes you hypocritical, not to mention hate mongering misogynists.

[straw man]

Truman is guilty of the same crime as Osama Bin Laden. For his cause he specifically targetted civilians for demolition the same as Osama did for 9/11/01. Yes I understand one cause is just and the other is not, but relatively speaking, the means to the end are both of the same evil.

Both targets were specifically chosen so as to take out a chunk of the civilian powered war machine. The plans actually called for several different targets which could be chosen last minute depending on weather and what not, but the targets were meticulously selected to take out the biggest chunk of their civilian infrastructure possible. They literally sat around a table debating which targets would kill the most people. I can't exactly distinguish that from the Muslims sitting a cave plotting in the exact same manner.

How do we stop them? We don't kill the ones who shoot bullets at us, no we incinerate those who make the bullets.

And to top it all off, contrary to popular opinion, the atomic bomb droppings were NOT necessary. Japan was evicted from the Asian territories and the Pacific Islands and was relegated back home where we can just blockade the heck out of them until their economy is screwed far worse than the a-bombs could screw it.. You can still continue to conventionally bomb them too. They weren't going anywhere.

We OWNED them. The a bombs were dropped to get the fastest OFFICIAL surrender so we could get on with it and have our darn V-J day parade already.

In fact an alternative was emphasised so much to deceive us into being on board with the plan, that being an actual invasion which would cost AMERICAN lives. To spare our boys from the invasion we do this... except that's just the alternative used as a sales pitch for the bomb, considering there was no need to invade in the first place! Contrary to popular opinion, the heinous attacks were never necessary.

[name]

steen wrote: Doesn't that go for the pro-lifers instead? You want fewer abortions, yet don't want to incur any efford that hists yourself. All the burden on your personal morality and wishes are being dumped on the woman. No fight for better contraception (Could that be because so many pro-lifers hypocritically oppose this?), no fight for better, more effective, scientific sex-ed (Could that be because so many pro-lifers hypocritically oppose this?), no support for the pregnant woman (Could that be because so many pro-lifers hypocritically oppose this, instead pushing welfare reform?)

Agreed. Sex-ed is severely lacking; even our good schools teach it too late- I got the whole deal senior year- and put little emphasis on it for fear of offending people who think that basic knowledge of the function and consequences of sex will encourage teen sex. This is ridiculous. I also learned the consequences of drinking and driving, have I smashed into a pedestrian in a drunken rage? No.

[ew713]

steen wrote: ew713 wrote: PEOPLE NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE! Doesn't that go for the pro-lifers instead? You want fewer abortions, yet don't want to incur any efford that hists yourself. All the burden on your personal morality and wishes are being dumped on the woman. No fight for better contraception (Could that be because so many pro-lifers hypocritically oppose this?), no fight for better, more effective, scientific sex-ed (Could that be because so many pro-lifers hypocritically oppose this?), no support for the pregnant woman (Could that be because so many pro-lifers hypocritically oppose this, instead pushing welfare reform?),.

Not all pro-lifers are like this, but many are, and certainly when we get to the political arm of the pro-life movement, then this hypocricy is nearly universal.

What about the pro-lifers duty to be responsible and personally start making some sacrifices instead of cowardly dumping all the burden onto the pregnant woman?

Until this happens, there is no way you can convince us that you are NOT using this as merely a means to punish and oppress the woman into being forced to live their lives according to your personal brand of theocratic morality. Pro-lifers are big on talking about responsibility, but never seem to owe up to it themselves. That makes you hypocritical, not to mention hate mongering misogynists.

To a point I agree with you that many of the pro-lifers preach responsiblity but when it comes down to it most dont attack the problem on both sides...

When I said people need to be responsible I meant is more than one way:

1. People need to treat sex as something sacred. What I mean is that I feel sex is treated as something you do if your date turns out well...I personally believe that more marriages would not end in divorce if it were for people saving sex for the one person to whom they have made vows with in marriage. (sex protection would never be necessary in this case)

2. People need to understand that a pregnancy is not one persons responsiblity, but two - the man and woman's. If a woman is pregnant then it is the couple's responsibility to care for it or give it to someone who will...just because physically the woman bears the responsibility does not mean that the man is free to leave.

3. People need to practice sex protection if they are not desirious of bring life into the world...personally this is a double edged sword (do teens think that if we teach them safe sex that sex at 14, 15, 16, 17 is ok? I cannot help but wonder...) but we must teach them at the very least the results of unsafe sex...

4. Parents need to take responsibility and teach their children safe sex or abstinence, if that is what the parents believe in. So much blame is placed on the school system when the parents should be the one to teach the child what they want the child to learn...less problems with deciding the curiculum that way.

Long story short...abortions would be virtually unnecessary by anyone's standards if responsibility was taken...

[AllAmericanMan]

ew713 wrote: steen wrote: ew713 wrote: PEOPLE NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE! Doesn't that go for the pro-lifers instead? You want fewer abortions, yet don't want to incur any efford that hists yourself. All the burden on your personal morality and wishes are being dumped on the woman. No fight for better contraception (Could that be because so many pro-lifers hypocritically oppose this?), no fight for better, more effective, scientific sex-ed (Could that be because so many pro-lifers hypocritically oppose this?), no support for the pregnant woman (Could that be because so many pro-lifers hypocritically oppose this, instead pushing welfare reform?),.

Not all pro-lifers are like this, but many are, and certainly when we get to the political arm of the pro-life movement, then this hypocricy is nearly universal.

What about the pro-lifers duty to be responsible and personally start making some sacrifices instead of cowardly dumping all the burden onto the pregnant woman?

Until this happens, there is no way you can convince us that you are NOT using this as merely a means to punish and oppress the woman into being forced to live their lives according to your personal brand of theocratic morality. Pro-lifers are big on talking about responsibility, but never seem to owe up to it themselves. That makes you hypocritical, not to mention hate mongering misogynists.

To a point I agree with you that many of the pro-lifers preach responsiblity but when it comes down to it most dont attack the problem on both sides...

When I said people need to be responsible I meant is more than one way:

1. People need to treat sex as something sacred. What I mean is that I feel sex is treated as something you do if your date turns out well...I personally believe that more marriages would not end in divorce if it were for people saving sex for the one person to whom they have made vows with in marriage. (sex protection would never be necessary in this case)

2. People need to understand that a pregnancy is not one persons responsiblity, but two - the man and woman's. If a woman is pregnant then it is the couple's responsibility to care for it or give it to someone who will...just because physically the woman bears the responsibility does not mean that the man is free to leave.

3. People need to practice sex protection if they are not desirious of bring life into the world...personally this is a double edged sword (do teens think that if we teach them safe sex that sex at 14, 15, 16, 17 is ok? I cannot help but wonder...) but we must teach them at the very least the results of unsafe sex...

4. Parents need to take responsibility and teach their children safe sex or abstinence, if that is what the parents believe in. So much blame is placed on the school system when the parents should be the one to teach the child what they want the child to learn...less problems with deciding the curiculum that way.

Long story short...abortions would be virtually unnecessary by anyone's standards if responsibility was taken... I agree, especially with #2.

[steen]

ew713 wrote: To a point I agree with you that many of the pro-lifers preach responsiblity but when it comes down to it most dont attack the problem on both sides...

When I said people need to be responsible I meant is more than one way:

1. People need to treat sex as something sacred. Why? No more than eating special dinners is "sacred." It is a personal experience that people do for whatever reason they choose. I'll be damned if I have others dictate why I do things and what emotional/religious significance I have to attach to it. That's way over the line in intruding into other people's lives. Would you accept others having a say in (personally or through legislation) whether your personal actions are "sacred" or not?

Quote: What I mean is that I feel sex is treated as something you do if your date turns out well...I personally believe that more marriages would not end in divorce if it were for people saving sex for the one person to whom they have made vows with in marriage. Funny how people who waited until marriage ALSO have divorces. It is not sex that causes divorces. It is the stuff couples fight about, namely money, time, attitude toward the commitment, differences in child rearing style etc.

Quote: (sex protection would never be necessary in this case) Why? Are you saying that married people never use protection, that married people always welcome every pregnancy? About 1/4th of all abortions are to married couples.

Quote: 2. People need to understand that a pregnancy is not one persons responsiblity, but two - the man and woman's. If a woman is pregnant then it is the couple's responsibility to care for it or give it to someone who will...just because physically the woman bears the responsibility does not mean that the man is free to leave. Sure. And if one gets sick, the other should stick with them etc. Again, attempting to legislate what you feel is moral is a bad idea.

Quote: 3. People need to practice sex protection if they are not desirious of bring life into the world... That would be nice. People also need to not smoke and to eat healthy and exercise. Interestingly enough, we also still treat the unwanted outcomes when they are not listening.

Quote: personally this is a double edged sword (do teens think that if we teach them safe sex that sex at 14, 15, 16, 17 is ok? I cannot help but wonder...) really? You wonder? So you are making pure speculation without having actually bothered to look up the studies? they, by the way, are concluding that no the teens do not have such an attitude. Sex-ed does not promote sexual activity. yes, pro-life moralistic fundies like to give that impression so they can further excuse imposing yet another moralistic absolute onto others, but that fiction is proven false. That doesn't stop the pro-lifers from pushing that deception, though.

Quote: but we must teach them at the very least the results of unsafe sex... Sure. That would be done very well through good, accurate, scientific sex-ed.

Quote: 4. Parents need to take responsibility and teach their children safe sex or abstinence, if that is what the parents believe in. And when they don't? Send them to prison?

Quote: So much blame is placed on the school system when the parents should be the one to teach the child what they want the child to learn...less problems with deciding the curiculum that way. As the parents are not doing it, the school does that just fine.

Quote: Long story short...abortions would be virtually unnecessary by anyone's standards if responsibility was taken... Actually, the number of abortions after failure of contraception is almost 60%. Now, some of this is per poor sex-ed that didn't teach people how to use the contraception correctly (Again, if fundie pro-lifers want to hide facts from kids, then the kids will get pregnant. There is no way around that double-standard).

So "responsibility" certainly includes the pro-lifers being responsible for very poor sex-ed, lack of accessibility to contraception, and lack of financial and social support of pregnant women and new families. The failure of these conservative policies can directly be seen in the US Abortion rate being much higher than other western countries where there are no such fundie policies or moralistic oppression and lying to kids.

[ew713]

steen wrote: ew713 wrote: To a point I agree with you that many of the pro-lifers preach responsiblity but when it comes down to it most dont attack the problem on both sides...

When I said people need to be responsible I meant is more than one way:

1. People need to treat sex as something sacred. Why? No more than eating special dinners is "sacred." It is a personal experience that people do for whatever reason they choose. I'll be damned if I have others dictate why I do things and what emotional/religious significance I have to attach to it. That's way over the line in intruding into other people's lives. Would you accept others having a say in (personally or through legislation) whether your personal actions are "sacred" or not?

Quote: What I mean is that I feel sex is treated as something you do if your date turns out well...I personally believe that more marriages would not end in divorce if it were for people saving sex for the one person to whom they have made vows with in marriage. Funny how people who waited until marriage ALSO have divorces. It is not sex that causes divorces. It is the stuff couples fight about, namely money, time, attitude toward the commitment, differences in child rearing style etc.

Quote: (sex protection would never be necessary in this case) Why? Are you saying that married people never use protection, that married people always welcome every pregnancy? About 1/4th of all abortions are to married couples.

Quote: 2. People need to understand that a pregnancy is not one persons responsiblity, but two - the man and woman's. If a woman is pregnant then it is the couple's responsibility to care for it or give it to someone who will...just because physically the woman bears the responsibility does not mean that the man is free to leave. Sure. And if one gets sick, the other should stick with them etc. Again, attempting to legislate what you feel is moral is a bad idea.

Quote: 3. People need to practice sex protection if they are not desirious of bring life into the world... That would be nice. People also need to not smoke and to eat healthy and exercise. Interestingly enough, we also still treat the unwanted outcomes when they are not listening.

Quote: personally this is a double edged sword (do teens think that if we teach them safe sex that sex at 14, 15, 16, 17 is ok? I cannot help but wonder...) really? You wonder? So you are making pure speculation without having actually bothered to look up the studies? they, by the way, are concluding that no the teens do not have such an attitude. Sex-ed does not promote sexual activity. yes, pro-life moralistic fundies like to give that impression so they can further excuse imposing yet another moralistic absolute onto others, but that fiction is proven false. That doesn't stop the pro-lifers from pushing that deception, though.

Quote: but we must teach them at the very least the results of unsafe sex... Sure. That would be done very well through good, accurate, scientific sex-ed.

Quote: 4. Parents need to take responsibility and teach their children safe sex or abstinence, if that is what the parents believe in. And when they don't? Send them to prison?

Quote: So much blame is placed on the school system when the parents should be the one to teach the child what they want the child to learn...less problems with deciding the curiculum that way. As the parents are not doing it, the school does that just fine.

Quote: Long story short...abortions would be virtually unnecessary by anyone's standards if responsibility was taken... Actually, the number of abortions after failure of contraception is almost 60%. Now, some of this is per poor sex-ed that didn't teach people how to use the contraception correctly (Again, if fundie pro-lifers want to hide facts from kids, then the kids will get pregnant. There is no way around that double-standard).

So "responsibility" certainly includes the pro-lifers being responsible for very poor sex-ed, lack of accessibility to contraception, and lack of financial and social support of pregnant women and new families. The failure of these conservative policies can directly be seen in the US Abortion rate being much higher than other western countries where there are no such fundie policies or moralistic oppression and lying to kids.

You are right...in one thing...morals cannot be controlled nor dictated by the government...i was simply expressing that people need to have morals...and take responsibility...dont say that is religious...not killing someone originally came from religion...

It is funny how when a person tries to step over his beliefs and compromise with the other belief, how he is rediculed...no wonder this nation cannot agree on anything...

FYI when you chastised me for speculation...just so you know I was merely asking a question...is there something wrong with admitting that you dont know something...i was hoping someone would answer it, but in a much different manner...

1. I apologize for not expressing that the use of the word "sacred" was meant to be interpretted very liberally...of course what is sacred to you will not be sacred to me...and i dont want others to tell me when and how...this isnt about law this is about personal and individual responsibility

did you notice how i said "i personally believe" that was to help you to tell the difference between my arguement and what i think, but cannot support.

2. about your sick thing...you might want to clarify it made no sense

3. again individual responsiblity...yes we do, but if people didnt smoke and drink having to treat it would be minimized...that is no arguement

again, i was practicing a little stream of consciousness...how can a person be sure of everything?

4. then those people should not have children...having a child is a commitment, not a oops...at least it shouldnt be...i have a solution to that one but there isnt near enough room for that

i dont mind both...but the schools have to be careful to be unbiased...i hope you agree with that...?

i dont believe in hiding facts from kids...

and i think that you are just as guilty of making sweeping generalization as i am, except one thing...i made it clear when i made one...

[steen]

ew713 wrote: You are right...in one thing...morals cannot be controlled nor dictated by the government...i was simply expressing that people need to have morals...and take responsibility... For their own moral decisions, yes. And to some people, abortion is perfectly moral and is to take responsibility for the situation themselves. So when you say "responsibility," exactly what do you mean?

Quote: dont say that is religious...not killing someone originally came from religion... Are you sure of that? There were no prohibitions against killing others BEFORE there was religion?

Quote: FYI when you chastised me for speculation... I didn't. I pointed out that what you speculate on is already documented to not be so. That I then also pointed out that pro-lifers in general don't put much stock in actual evidence when it goes against their beliefs, that's another story.

Quote: 1. I apologize for not expressing that the use of the word "sacred" was meant to be interpretted very liberally...of course what is sacred to you will not be sacred to me...and i dont want others to tell me when and how...this isnt about law this is about personal and individual responsibility And to the person whose personal life and choices are "sacred," having an abortion is perfectly sacred and is felt to be to act for the purpose of personal, individual responsibility.

So that argument only works when you look solely at your moral schema as template for everybody else. "Responsibility" is a fudge word. It almost always is proxy for "What I want to force others to accept as the going morality."

Quote: did you notice how i said "i personally believe" that was to help you to tell the difference between my arguement and what i think, but cannot support. Yes.

Quote: 2. about your sick thing...you might want to clarify it made no sense There are a lot of things we "should" do. That doesn't mean that we are forced or obligated to do them.

Quote: 3. again individual responsiblity... And each individual feel they live up to their individual responsibility in each their own way.

Quote: yes we do, but if people didnt smoke and drink having to treat it would be minimized...that is no arguement It is an argument for better sex-ed and contraception, helping to prevent unwanted pregnancies while NOT restricting access to abortion if the unwanted outcome does occur.

Quote: again, i was practicing a little stream of consciousness...how can a person be sure of everything? OK.

Quote: 4. then those people should not have children... Which is elitism. You decide whether others have the right to be parents or not. This is eugenics.

Quote: having a child is a commitment, not a oops...at least it shouldnt be... "should"? Who decide what "should" be?

Quote: i have a solution to that one but there isnt near enough room for that Does it involve theocratic oppression of others?

Quote: i dont mind both...but the schools have to be careful to be unbiased...i hope you agree with that...? And what is more unbiased than science?

Quote: i dont believe in hiding facts from kids... And yet you speculate if we should? Could you clarify?

Quote: and i think that you are just as guilty of making sweeping generalization as i am, except one thing...i made it clear when i made one... All I have to go by is what you write. It is fine to write twice as much and then be clear.

[ew713]

steen:

I think that I came off a little ticked...sorry...i think this issue will never be solved if people get angry, rather they need to recognize differences...

I just wanted to address a few things:

Maybe this will help you see my view a little clearer...would you sit by and watch as people you believe are innocent are murdered? That is what I see...even if others have different views on when a fetus becomes a life and such...if you believe something like a murder is happening you probably wouldn't just pass by...hopefully that helps you just to understand my view, but you don't have to agree...

As far as my comment that people shouldn't have children unless they are willing to support them, i don't think that is elitism...i think that is practicality...if someone doesn't care to raise a child they shouldn't put themselves in the position...same as if i didn't want to chance loosing my money, i wouldn't invest in the stock market...logic

the "should" i would hope would be decided by the individual, and i guess that i do have a slant my way, but if a person believes something strong enough and is not doing it out of convenience, I am able to ignore my personal beliefs, it is the ones that feel that they can play around all they want and then oops...i got pregnant...that goes back to the first point

actually the solution that someone presented me with that would help to eliminate the bad family life type situations was presented to me by a very secular liberal...but like i said too long for this forum...maybe i will start a topic with it...we'll see

now science is not unbiased...science is slanted towards science...the only way to present unbiased instruction is to teach all spectrums (science, contraseptives, abstinence, etc...) but for the most part science is unbiased...mostly

thank you though for making me aware of your view...I might have my opinions, but they are always subject to change - as I hope yours are...

[straw man]

Oh man. And here I thought we were going to discuss the A bombs..

:?

[ew713]

straw man wrote: Oh man. And here I thought we were going to discuss the A bombs..

:?

the only problem with your earlier arguement is that the United States was at war with Japan, while Osama never declared war against the United States...one is terrorism-sporatic attempts at trying to evoke terror to gain fear in the people, the other was to evoke fear in the government of japan...i can see how you can see it that way tho

[steen]

ew713 wrote: Maybe this will help you see my view a little clearer...would you sit by and watch as people you believe are innocent are murdered? That is what I see...even if others have different views on when a fetus becomes a life and such...if you believe something like a murder is happening you probably wouldn't just pass by...hopefully that helps you just to understand my view, but you don't have to agree... I understand and don't agree. You're right.

But I do actually understand that better than those who want exception for rape and incest, which alwys strike me as inconsistent in the pro-lifers.

And no, I don't see the embryo or fetus as "innocent." They are guilty of using the woman's bodily resources. If this is unwanted, then the woman has no reason to see them as anything other than a parasitic entity or tumor-like.

That is not pretty imagery, but it is a reality that pro-lifers need to come to terms with if they want a realistic discussion rather than emotional imagery.

Quote: As far as my comment that people shouldn't have children unless they are willing to support them, i don't think that is elitism...i think that is practicality...if someone doesn't care to raise a child they shouldn't put themselves in the position...same as if i didn't want to chance loosing my money, i wouldn't invest in the stock market...logic

the "should" i would hope would be decided by the individual, Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you, then. I read "should" as a goal for wanting to force others to conformity.

Quote: and i guess that i do have a slant my way, but if a person believes something strong enough and is not doing it out of convenience, I am able to ignore my personal beliefs, it is the ones that feel that they can play around all they want and then oops...i got pregnant...that goes back to the first point And it still is their life. People also smoke and end up Ooops with lung cancer, and we treat the unwanted condition. I see that as not at all different than medical treatment for an unwanted pregnancy.

Your body has an unwanted response to a situation, and you seek medical attention to rectify that unwanted outcome. There is no way I can see abortion as anything other than that. It is like tumor surgery. It is like treating blood clots after a heart attack. Nothing different.

[quote]actually the solution that someone presented me with that would help to eliminate the bad family life type situations was presented to me by a very secular liberal...but like i said too long for this forum...maybe i will start a topic with it...we'll see[/quote[]I am curious. I work with bad family life every day in my profession. So if there is an easy, constitutionally valid fix, then that would be great.

Quote: now science is not unbiased...science is slanted towards science... Huh? It is based solely on the evidence. If there is proof, it is accepted, if there is no proof, then it is not accepted. Where is the bias?

Unless you are saying that "bias" towards facts is a bias agains speculation and personal, unsubstantiated beliefs? Is that what you are saying here?

Quote: the only way to present unbiased instruction is to teach all spectrums (science, contraseptives, abstinence, etc...) but for the most part science is unbiased...mostly And how is contraceptives and abstinence not "scientific"? Certainly, their effectiveness has been scientifically evaluated. I don't get what ou are saying here. COuld you clarify, please?

Quote: thank you though for making me aware of your view...I might have my opinions, but they are always subject to change - as I hope yours are... Hey, I operate in a scientific environment. You show me the solid evidence and I will change accordingly. That works very well for me. It is when this doesn't work for others that I get frustrated and annoyed.

[steen]

ew713 wrote: the only problem with your earlier arguement is that the United States was at war with Japan, while Osama never declared war against the United States... I am not sure that he didn't? Certainly, he was threatening to US unless we got out of Saudi Arabia, and did so a long time before the WTC garage bombing, even.

[ew713]

steen:

my believe that science is bias is based on the fact that sometimes there isnt proof...isnt a solid fact to prove/disprove something...just because a book cannot be read by a gorilla does not mean that the story doesnt exist...i am positive that there is a limit to our ability to compute information, just as all other animals have limits...

does that make sense? Let me know...

[ew713]

steen wrote: ew713 wrote: the only problem with your earlier arguement is that the United States was at war with Japan, while Osama never declared war against the United States... I am not sure that he didn't? Certainly, he was threatening to US unless we got out of Saudi Arabia, and did so a long time before the WTC garage bombing, even.

true...

[straw man]

ew713 wrote: straw man wrote: Oh man. And here I thought we were going to discuss the A bombs..

:?

the only problem with your earlier arguement is that the United States was at war with Japan, while Osama never declared war against the United States...one is terrorism-sporatic attempts at trying to evoke terror to gain fear in the people, the other was to evoke fear in the government of japan...i can see how you can see it that way tho

Al-Queada had more than declared war on the western world and the United States. This war is their fundemental ideology. If the USS cole bombing isn't a declaration of war I don't know what is. Their terrorism campaign isn't just their hobby.

[steen]

ew713 wrote: steen:

my believe that science is bias is based on the fact that sometimes there isnt proof...isnt a solid fact to prove/disprove something... Which is why science specifically makes that distinction, yes. So I am not sure what the problem is? Have you ever read anything about science and the vocabulary. Science specifically talk about scientific theories because there always is a risk of being wrong. So science specifically tries to avoid that pitfall. It is inherently unbiased in that very point.

Quote: just because a book cannot be read by a gorilla does not mean that the story doesnt exist... True. And science wouldn't say that "the book doesn't exist." Rather, science would say that "There is no evidence that there is a book to be read by a gorilla."

See the difference? Science doesn't make biased, unsubstantiated conclusions. It makes conclusions ONLY on the data and not outside the scope of that data. Don't confuse the reports ABOUT science with the actual science.

Quote: i am positive that there is a limit to our ability to compute information, just as all other animals have limits... SUre. But within that limit, we are very good at it.

Quote: does that make sense? Let me know... It makes sense, but I still disagree with your characterization of science.

[dkong911]

straw man wrote: Truman is guilty of the same crime as Osama Bin Laden. For his cause he specifically targetted civilians for demolition the same as Osama did for 9/11/01. Yes I understand one cause is just and the other is not, but relatively speaking, the means to the end are both of the same evil.

Both targets were specifically chosen so as to take out a chunk of the civilian powered war machine. The plans actually called for several different targets which could be chosen last minute depending on weather and what not, but the targets were meticulously selected to take out the biggest chunk of their civilian infrastructure possible. They literally sat around a table debating which targets would kill the most people. I can't exactly distinguish that from the Muslims sitting a cave plotting in the exact same manner.

How do we stop them? We don't kill the ones who shoot bullets at us, no we incinerate those who make the bullets.

And to top it all off, contrary to popular opinion, the atomic bomb droppings were NOT necessary. Japan was evicted from the Asian territories and the Pacific Islands and was relegated back home where we can just blockade the heck out of them until their economy is screwed far worse than the a-bombs could screw it.. You can still continue to conventionally bomb them too. They weren't going anywhere.

We OWNED them. The a bombs were dropped to get the fastest OFFICIAL surrender so we could get on with it and have our darn V-J day parade already.

In fact an alternative was emphasised so much to deceive us into being on board with the plan, that being an actual invasion which would cost AMERICAN lives. To spare our boys from the invasion we do this... except that's just the alternative used as a sales pitch for the bomb, considering there was no need to invade in the first place! Contrary to popular opinion, the heinous attacks were never necessary.

I wasn't aware that defeating your enemy WAS NOT the goal of war.

It is common knowledge that X-Day would've resulted in about 1,000,000 dead Americans. The A-Bomb attacks resulted in about 200,000 deaths. Don't give me crap about civilian vs. military; they were training Japanese schoolgirls to attack US soldiers with hidden knives for when we invaded. They had the entire civilian population mobilized for complete defense to the last civilian.

I cannot comprehend how you are advocating that the US should have "blockaded" Japan until they surrendered...we were already doing that. They refused surrender. They were using Kamikazes daily.

Before the A-bomb attacks, we even changed our offer from unconditional surrender to military surrender, with the government retaining its empire and leadership status. They refused, citing our sudden change in tune as a sign of weakness, that their refusal to surrender was working. They knew we had no stomach for casualties.

Blockading Japan for literally years would've resulted in insurmountable material and personnel costs for the USA.

You have to understand the resentment. We were kicked in the balls by Japan when we weren't looking (or when we were looking, but chose to not do anything...that's another story).

Riddle me this, Mother Teresa:

Would Truman be hailed as a hero if he HAD NOT dropped the A-Bombs, resulting in 1,000,000+ casualties, $$$, and more years of war? Countless Japanese soldiers AND civilians would have undoubtedly died during an invasion of Japan, so complete avoidance of Japanese casualties, civilian or otherwise, was impossible.

1,000,000+ dead Americans < 200,000 dead Japanese civilians?
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml

So Truman, as President of the USA should have been thinking that keeping 1 Japanese civilian alive is worth the lives of 5 American soldiers? Bearing in mind that civilians would still have died during X-Day operations.

Think of the backlash that Truman would have faced if he had not given the order to drop the A-Bomb.

It was us or them; Truman was doing what was in the best interest for the USA, not for Japan.