The Right To Bear Arms

[Rigby5]

You are a member of the militia.

as are we all. the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".

/----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons. In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.

It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.

Except that Japan had been trying desperately to surrender for half a year before the nukes.
It was just that they only had direct communications with the Soviets, and Truman and Stalin had agreed to pretend to be confused when they discussed the Japanese surrender offers at Potsdam. Read the Truman "Potsdam Diaries".

"Desperately"???? LOL!

They didn't work at it very hard if they were as desperate as you say they were.

Yes they did.
They thought they had succeeded.
The only reason they had not succeeded, is that we were lying to them.
They only wanted some sort of assurances over the Emperor, because he is also a religious figure.
We said we would privately, but then publicly denied that and demanded an unconditional surrender.
If we had not lied and publicly accepted something only slightly different than an unconditional surrender, it would have been over 6 months earlier, with about a million innocent lives saved, including many US lives.

 

[Rigby5]

It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.

This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.

The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of grass for both countries.

That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.

Arm yourselves.

The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out. The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.

No point in any siege at all.
It is easy to turn a whole island into a penal colony.
You just trade food shipments for any POWs they might have had on the mainland.

The holdup was, they had to surrender first.

No, the hold up was we had to stop publicly demanding an unconditional surrender.
Essentially no sane person would ever surrender unconditionally.
Only a blood thirsty lunatic would ever make such a demand.
Everyone surrendering always demands women not be raped, children not be killed, no one to be tortured, etc.
Anyone demanding unconditional surrender should be shot for treason, because we are supposed to be a nation based on the inherent rights of ALL people, not just citizens.

 

[Rigby5]

It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.

This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.

The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of grass for both countries.

That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.

Arm yourselves.

The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out. The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.

Or kick their ass and get it over with, which is exactly what happened.

Very poor choice because no matter how one tries to justify it, it was totally and completely illegal to attack whole cities of civilians.
There is no way to ever make that anything but a serious war crime, that sets an incredibly bad precedent.
You could almost justify attacking civilians in an democratic republic, where each individual is somewhat responsible for that the government does, but the civilians in imperial Japan were totally and completely innocent, since they had no part in starting the war.

You should try reading a history book if you believe that our use of atomic weapons was the first time a civilian population had been targeted during war time.

Of course it was not the first time civilians had been deliberately targeted, but it still is illegal each time it is done, like Dresden.
Plenty of Germans and Japanese were convicted and executed for their crimes against civilians, but so should a lot of Allied commanders, including Truman.

 

[Rigby5]

You are a member of the militia.

as are we all. the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".

/----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons. In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.

It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.

Except that Japan had been trying desperately to surrender for half a year before the nukes.
It was just that they only had direct communications with the Soviets, and Truman and Stalin had agreed to pretend to be confused when they discussed the Japanese surrender offers at Potsdam. Read the Truman "Potsdam Diaries".

they had radio.

You can't negotiate a surrender over a radio.
First of all, they had tried to use the radio, and we pretended we did not believe who they were.
You can not verify identity over a radio.
Second is that it is not secret, and anyone can be listening in.

 

[DandyDonovan]

This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.

The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of grass for both countries.

That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.

Arm yourselves.

The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out. The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.

Or kick their ass and get it over with, which is exactly what happened.

Very poor choice because no matter how one tries to justify it, it was totally and completely illegal to attack whole cities of civilians.
There is no way to ever make that anything but a serious war crime, that sets an incredibly bad precedent.
You could almost justify attacking civilians in an democratic republic, where each individual is somewhat responsible for that the government does, but the civilians in imperial Japan were totally and completely innocent, since they had no part in starting the war.

You should try reading a history book if you believe that our use of atomic weapons was the first time a civilian population had been targeted during war time.

Of course it was not the first time civilians had been deliberately targeted, but it still is illegal each time it is done, like Dresden.
Plenty of Germans and Japanese were convicted and executed for their crimes against civilians, but so should a lot of Allied commanders, including Truman.

No one was charged or convicted for such.

How many cities were bombed with conventional weapons prior to our use of atomic weapons, from both sides, and no one was tried for that.

 

[Flash]

as are we all. the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".

/----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons. In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.

It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.

Except that Japan had been trying desperately to surrender for half a year before the nukes.
It was just that they only had direct communications with the Soviets, and Truman and Stalin had agreed to pretend to be confused when they discussed the Japanese surrender offers at Potsdam. Read the Truman "Potsdam Diaries".

"Desperately"???? LOL!

They didn't work at it very hard if they were as desperate as you say they were.

Yes they did.
They thought they had succeeded.
The only reason they had not succeeded, is that we were lying to them.
They only wanted some sort of assurances over the Emperor, because he is also a religious figure.
We said we would privately, but then publicly denied that and demanded an unconditional surrender.
If we had not lied and publicly accepted something only slightly different than an unconditional surrender, it would have been over 6 months earlier, with about a million innocent lives saved, including many US lives.

I am not sure that the Japs would have surrendered earlier with an assurance the Emperor would be spared. That is kinda revisionist history and is not compatible with the fact that the military leadership tried to prevent a surrender by the Emperor even after the bombs were drops.

However, all that conjecture is moot now, isn't it? We kick their ass and we let them keep their stupid Emperor and nowadays (in relative terms) the Japs are good boys and girls.

 

[Rigby5]

The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out. The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.

Or kick their ass and get it over with, which is exactly what happened.

Very poor choice because no matter how one tries to justify it, it was totally and completely illegal to attack whole cities of civilians.
There is no way to ever make that anything but a serious war crime, that sets an incredibly bad precedent.
You could almost justify attacking civilians in an democratic republic, where each individual is somewhat responsible for that the government does, but the civilians in imperial Japan were totally and completely innocent, since they had no part in starting the war.

You should try reading a history book if you believe that our use of atomic weapons was the first time a civilian population had been targeted during war time.

Of course it was not the first time civilians had been deliberately targeted, but it still is illegal each time it is done, like Dresden.
Plenty of Germans and Japanese were convicted and executed for their crimes against civilians, but so should a lot of Allied commanders, including Truman.

No one was charged or convicted for such.

How many cities were bombed with conventional weapons prior to our use of atomic weapons, from both sides, and no one was tried for that.

Deliberately bombing civilian populations with conventional weapons is clearly a war crime. The reason the Germans and Japanese were not charged with that is because they never did it. When London was bombed, it was the industrial centers that were targeted, not residential centers. And Hitler only stupidly attacked London at all because the British had first bombed Berlin, in June of 1940, and he reacted emotionally, as the British had hoped.

{...
When the Second World War began in 1939, the President of the United States (then a neutral power), Franklin D. Roosevelt, issued a request to the major belligerents to confine their air raids to military targets.[4] The French and the British agreed to abide by the request, with the provision that this was "upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents".[5]

The United Kingdom had a policy of using aerial bombing only against military targets and against infrastructure such as ports and railways of direct military importance. While it was acknowledged that the aerial bombing of Germany would cause civilian casualties, the British government renounced the deliberate bombing of civilian property, outside combat zones, as a military tactic.[6] This policy was abandoned on 15 May 1940, two days after the German air attack on Rotterdam, when the RAF was given permission to attack targets in the Ruhr, including oil plants and other civilian industrial targets that aided the German war effort, such as blast furnaces that at night were self illuminating. The first RAF raid on the interior of Germany took place on the night of 10 – 11 May (on Dortmund).[7] The Jules Verne, a variant of the Farman F.220 of the French Naval Aviation, was the first Allied bomber to raid Berlin: on the night of 7 June 1940 it dropped eight bombs of 250 kg and 80 of 10 kg weight on the German capital.
...}
Bombing of Berlin in World War II - Wikipedia

There can be no doubt at all that the Allies were the first and only parties guilty of the war crimes of deliberately targeting civilian populations from the air. The fact those crimes were never prosecuted itself is just another crime.

 

[danielpalos]

It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.

This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.

The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of grass for both countries.

That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.

Arm yourselves.

The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out. The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.

No point in any siege at all.
It is easy to turn a whole island into a penal colony.
You just trade food shipments for any POWs they might have had on the mainland.

The holdup was, they had to surrender first.

No, the hold up was we had to stop publicly demanding an unconditional surrender.
Essentially no sane person would ever surrender unconditionally.
Only a blood thirsty lunatic would ever make such a demand.
Everyone surrendering always demands women not be raped, children not be killed, no one to be tortured, etc.
Anyone demanding unconditional surrender should be shot for treason, because we are supposed to be a nation based on the inherent rights of ALL people, not just citizens.

The threat of a siege should have been sufficient.

 

[Rigby5]

/----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons. In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.

It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.

Except that Japan had been trying desperately to surrender for half a year before the nukes.
It was just that they only had direct communications with the Soviets, and Truman and Stalin had agreed to pretend to be confused when they discussed the Japanese surrender offers at Potsdam. Read the Truman "Potsdam Diaries".

"Desperately"???? LOL!

They didn't work at it very hard if they were as desperate as you say they were.

Yes they did.
They thought they had succeeded.
The only reason they had not succeeded, is that we were lying to them.
They only wanted some sort of assurances over the Emperor, because he is also a religious figure.
We said we would privately, but then publicly denied that and demanded an unconditional surrender.
If we had not lied and publicly accepted something only slightly different than an unconditional surrender, it would have been over 6 months earlier, with about a million innocent lives saved, including many US lives.

I am not sure that the Japs would have surrendered earlier with an assurance the Emperor would be spared. That is kinda revisionist history and is not compatible with the fact that the military leadership tried to prevent a surrender by the Emperor even after the bombs were drops.

However, all that conjecture is moot now, isn't it? We kick their ass and we let them keep their stupid Emperor and nowadays (in relative terms) the Japs are good boys and girls.

The atomic bombs had absolutely no strategic value at all. We did far more damage and killed more in every single incendiary air raid before the atomics were used. The atomic bombs had absolutely nothing at all to do with the surrender. They never even had time to get investigators to the sites to evaluate anything.

And the reason it is not at all moot is because law is based on precedent, so we established the precedent that put the world back to Medieval days, where civilian populations were routinely targeted in order to intimidate surrender. No matter what we claim to be civilized law, we have established the fact that whomever can commit the worst terror attacks against innocent civilians, wins. So not only can you expect a lot of terrorists attacks, but they are all our own fault. We established the precedent.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Very poor choice because no matter how one tries to justify it, it was totally and completely illegal to attack whole cities of civilians.

Yes, and EVERYBODY did it during WW2, so take that self-righteous horseshit and get the fuck out. If nobody is obeying the rules, the rules don't exist.

All is fair in love and war.

Quit making the U.S. out to be the bad guy.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.

I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.

You are a member of the militia.

as are we all. the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".

Anyone who would believe that myth is beyond the pale of reality.

 

[Rigby5]

This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.

The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of grass for both countries.

That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.

Arm yourselves.

The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out. The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.

No point in any siege at all.
It is easy to turn a whole island into a penal colony.
You just trade food shipments for any POWs they might have had on the mainland.

The holdup was, they had to surrender first.

No, the hold up was we had to stop publicly demanding an unconditional surrender.
Essentially no sane person would ever surrender unconditionally.
Only a blood thirsty lunatic would ever make such a demand.
Everyone surrendering always demands women not be raped, children not be killed, no one to be tortured, etc.
Anyone demanding unconditional surrender should be shot for treason, because we are supposed to be a nation based on the inherent rights of ALL people, not just citizens.

The threat of a siege should have been sufficient.

And the siege was to make Japan eager to surrender.
In fact, the main reason Japan surrendered was the mining of the ocean between China and Japan.
We dropped mines from bombers.
Japan was starving, because all the merchant ships attempting to cross had been sunk.
They were desperate to surrender.
The only reason the surrender did not occur is because we refused to acknowledge it, because we wanted to test our atomic bombs that we had spent billions perfecting.

 

[danielpalos]

The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out. The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.

No point in any siege at all.
It is easy to turn a whole island into a penal colony.
You just trade food shipments for any POWs they might have had on the mainland.

The holdup was, they had to surrender first.

No, the hold up was we had to stop publicly demanding an unconditional surrender.
Essentially no sane person would ever surrender unconditionally.
Only a blood thirsty lunatic would ever make such a demand.
Everyone surrendering always demands women not be raped, children not be killed, no one to be tortured, etc.
Anyone demanding unconditional surrender should be shot for treason, because we are supposed to be a nation based on the inherent rights of ALL people, not just citizens.

The threat of a siege should have been sufficient.

And the siege was to make Japan eager to surrender.
In fact, the main reason Japan surrendered was the mining of the ocean between China and Japan.
We dropped mines from bombers.
Japan was starving, because all the merchant ships attempting to cross had been sunk.
They were desperate to surrender.
The only reason the surrender did not occur is because we refused to acknowledge it, because we wanted to test our atomic bombs that we had spent billions perfecting.

Not surrendering earlier could have been a lesser Good.

 

[Rigby5]

Very poor choice because no matter how one tries to justify it, it was totally and completely illegal to attack whole cities of civilians.

Yes, and EVERYBODY did it during WW2, so take that self-righteous horseshit and get the fuck out. If nobody is obeying the rules, the rules don't exist.

All is fair in love and war.

Quit making the U.S. out to be the bad guy.

Oh, so when did the Axis powers ever deliberately target civilian populations?
The closest you could try to get to that might be Nanking in 1937, but since that did not bother anyone else, I doubt that was sufficient.
And if you were to quote Iris Chang's book on the "Rape of Nanking", you would find it was discredited for being so poorly written and full of errors.

All is never fair in love or war.
For example, can you ever find a justification for rape?
Don't think so.
Rules of war have to always exist if we intend to have a society worth living in.
A society that does not obey the rules of war is useless and has to be destroyed so someone can start over with something worthwhile.
Those who do not obey the rules of war can not come back and be trusted citizens any more.
They are damaged goods, to be locked up safely.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.

I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.

You are a member of the militia.

as are we all. the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".

Anyone who would believe that myth is beyond the pale of reality.

It is well documented that the Japanese never intended to even attack Australia, because they realized even that was way beyond their capabilities.

 

[Rigby5]

No point in any siege at all.
It is easy to turn a whole island into a penal colony.
You just trade food shipments for any POWs they might have had on the mainland.

The holdup was, they had to surrender first.

No, the hold up was we had to stop publicly demanding an unconditional surrender.
Essentially no sane person would ever surrender unconditionally.
Only a blood thirsty lunatic would ever make such a demand.
Everyone surrendering always demands women not be raped, children not be killed, no one to be tortured, etc.
Anyone demanding unconditional surrender should be shot for treason, because we are supposed to be a nation based on the inherent rights of ALL people, not just citizens.

The threat of a siege should have been sufficient.

And the siege was to make Japan eager to surrender.
In fact, the main reason Japan surrendered was the mining of the ocean between China and Japan.
We dropped mines from bombers.
Japan was starving, because all the merchant ships attempting to cross had been sunk.
They were desperate to surrender.
The only reason the surrender did not occur is because we refused to acknowledge it, because we wanted to test our atomic bombs that we had spent billions perfecting.

Not surrendering earlier could have been a lesser Good.

No good came out of using the nukes.
It created the current balance of terror, where civilian populations are held hostage to the military safely in their bunkers and submarines.
It not only is the least civilized of all possibilities, but enshrines terrorism against civilians as the whole strategy.

 

[Flash]

I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.

I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.

You are a member of the militia.

as are we all. the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".

Anyone who would believe that myth is beyond the pale of reality.

It is well documented that the Japanese never intended to even attack Australia, because they realized even that was way beyond their capabilities.

You are confused. They did attack Australia.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/jap...n-remembered-76-years-on-20180219-h0w9yp.html

Japanese attack on Darwin remembered 76 years on

 

[Uncensored2008]

NRA RUNNING LOW ON AMMO?

2018 Was A Bad Year For The NRA, And The Worst Could Be Yet To Come

Fuck the NRA. It was once a good outfit until hijacked by radicals in 1977.

The NRA is the only legitimate Civil Rights group in America; no wonder a Stalinist like you hates us.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.

I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.

If you support civil rights, support the NRA. If you oppose civil rights, join the democrats.

Simple choice,

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
as are we all. the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".

So, exactly the same reason democrats have not marched Christians off to death camps, then.....