A personal question

[QUOTE][B]Sadly, most theists do it out of fear of being punished and in the case of Christians of going to hell. They even try to "save" those of us who don't believe as they do because they believe that they will be rewarded.[/QUOTE][/B][QUOTE][B]A non-religious person is more likely to be moral because they have everything to lose whereas a religious person has nothing to lose. This is our only life, as far as we know, and most of us aren't too likely to risk it. [/QUOTE][/B]Ok, so Christians are morally inferior because they supposedly do or do not do things for fear of being punished...however a nontheist is more moral because they are more afraid of than the Christians are of punishment?

[QUOTE][B]Afraid of what?[/QUOTE][/B]Punishment in various forms, and ultimately, execution. After all, this is what you wrote: [QUOTE][B]A non-religious person is more likely to be moral because they have everything to lose whereas a religious person has nothing to lose. This is our only life, as far as we know, and most of us aren't too likely to risk it.[/QUOTE][/B]Basically it looks like you are attacking Christians for behaving out of fear and then suggest nontheists behave for fear of earthly punishment. I'm not sure I agree with either but from your apparent perspective they seem pretty much the same.

[QUOTE][B]I believe that this was a cowardly act as well.[/QUOTE][/B]I think it was absolutely necessary. When the war is over, the fleet is rebuilt, and the draft is ended it's quite easy to gloss over certain things. Anyway, this is the sort of thing that happens when you mix military targets with civilian population centers.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-17-2002]

[QUOTE][B]The Cold War did far more self-inflicted damage than the so-called enemy could have ever done.[/QUOTE][/B]I strongly disagree. "The enemy" had about 22,000 state-of-the-art ICBM-guided thermonuclear warheads just waiting to generate airbursts over cities of the United States *and* its allies. Then of course there is the other side, in which we launch our 19,000 nukes at Soviet targets with similar results.

[QUOTE][B]What agencies, like the CIA, weren't telling the USA is that during the 20 to 30 years before the fall of the USSR that it was little more than a third world nation itself and really not the big threat they had made it out to be. There was much profit in hating, and fearing, the USSR.[/QUOTE][/B]So the Soviet Union wasn't dangerous because of its financial status? Hmm, 22,000 warheads in an economically stable, coup-free government with well-payed scientists and adequate means of accounting for those weapons vs. 22,000 warheads in an unstable, coup-threatened nation where the scientists barely can keep food on the table and that cannot afford to keep up with their weapons?

[QUOTE][B]ANyway, wasn't the Taliban made in USA? They were part of the Communist-battling troops sponsored by AMerica to fend off Soviet troops, as a puppet of the Cold War. No wonder they were put up again as another puppet, this time to make Islam seem anachronistic and cruel[/QUOTE][/B]No, the Taliban is a product of extreme Islamic schools in Pakistan. As I understand it they were even backed by Pakistanis during the Afghan coup of 1996.Osama is one of the Mujahadeen(sp?) who received US backing to fight the Soviets during their invasion in the 80s. Saddam Hussein was also one of our boys in his war against Iran, during which he actually tested chemical weapons against his own people.

[QUOTE][B]Actually, no, it was not neccessary at all.[/QUOTE][/B]Right now there is some speculation about that but hindsight is always 20/20. Like I said, the war has been over for a long time and you might have had a different opinion if you had been drafted and were in a boat waiting on a very bloody invasion of Osaka.It also flies in the face of Japanese military culture in 1946, that surrender=shame and those that surrender were not worthy of humane treatment (hence the summary execution of downed American aviators, the Bataan Death March, and dozens of other atrocities).We had to gave them two heavy-duty doses of reality before they were ready to sign the treaty. And doing so is no more cowardly than when we use airpower to hit Iraq, it saves our troops from getting killed in the process.Quite the contrary, I think the decision to drop the bomb was a brave one because it might have failed to detonate and then the prize of the Manhattan Project would then be in enemy hands. There is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that Japan had been attempting a crash nuclear program, with help from Germany. [QUOTE][B]The Japanese were willing to surrender with only one condition, that they be allowed to keep their emperor as leader.[/QUOTE][/B]The Japanese were unwilling to surrender before the nuking began.You might notice one obvious point, we had to drop TWO of them before they started talking to us. The reason being they hoped that maybe we only had one bomb and they could still beat us at a war of attrition on the ground in Japan. [QUOTE][B]The Americans wanted a totally unconditional surrender and wouldn't accept even this small request.[/QUOTE][/B]Actually we did grant them this request, they retained their emperor in the post-war government. [QUOTE][B]The two targets had no military value at all, in fact they were choosen for that very fact.[/QUOTE][/B]That's also incorrect. Hiroshima had quite a bit of military infrastructure. This is from the official homepage of the City of Hiroshima:"Army troops deployed around Hiroshima Castle, which was the center of Hiroshima as a military city, were nearly annihilated."Also:"In Hiroshima, a center of military affairs since the Sino-Japanese and the Russo-Japanese wars, military installations were expanded and various heavy industries developed rapidly."And as for Japan surrendering without the bombings, we have this:"However, after Japan, which had been victorious in the early stages of the war, lost the battle of Guadalcanal in 1943, the military situation grew steadily worse, and it appeared that the mainland of Japan would be turned into a battlefield. The army hurriedly prepared for a decisive battle on the mainland. With these preparations Hiroshima was to take on a new role."In other words, the Japanese war machine was planning to repulse an American invasion, rather than to surrender.http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/...ho/toukei/History-E/c03.htmlAlso, I think it should be added the Truman recorded in his personal diary and also in a speech announcing the bombing of Hiroshima, that Hiroshima was "a military base". Apparently he was misinformed but the fact remains it was a military target. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the first cities in the war to be bombed to destroy military infrastructure, they were only the first to be hit with atomic weapons.And as for Nagasaki, it was not the primary target but it also was of military significance:"Like Hiroshima, Nagasaki was chosen as a target because it was a major naval and shipbuilding center. In fact at the time of the bombing, the Nagasaki shipyards were the largest privately-owned shipyards in Japan." — I've deliberately tried to use Japanese sources but I'm going to suggest the following link as well, which lists the factors used in determining the targets:Page Not Found | Yale University

[QUOTE][B]In that case why don't you nuke Iraq. It sure will save a lot of American lives.[/QUOTE][/B]Because we can use precision conventional weapons to neutralize Saddam's regime. Because Iraq does not yet possess nuclear weapons it is not a significant threat to the United States and there is no need for total war. Warfare has changed since the second World War. While we still use dumb bombs to kill enemy troops in huge numbers we no longer have to drop dumb bombs and incendiary weapons on cities to get the job done and hope they get near the target.In the war against Japan they had nothing but dumb bombs (conventional or otherwise) and a very large, relatively unskilled, draft army. Today we have a highly skilled, relatively small professional army that is capable of very rapid deployment almost anywhere. They would not have had that capability in a hypothetical ground war in Japan (no helicopters). We can get in and out of Iraq very rapidly and destroy targets even in densely populated areas with near surgical precision.However if Saddam were to use a nuclear weapon against the United States or otherwise pose a serious threat to US sovereignty I would advocate immediate use of nuclear weapons against Iraq.Note that WWII was a total war and all wars since have been restrained wars.One more thing: when we hit Iraq it will almost certainly be a route, perhaps even a massacre. Most US casualties will probably be friendly fire. [QUOTE][B]They also did whatever their emperor said to do since he was their living god.[/QUOTE][/B]Theoretically but who was calling the shots, the emperor or the generals? As I understand it the generals were, they attacked the US after having promised the emperor that no American bomb would ever fall on Japan (they would have elminated our carriers at Pearl). [QUOTE][B]They were not given enough time to respond before dropping the second one. Plus, you must remember that it wasn't like it is today, the Japan of then was still quite primative.[/QUOTE][/B]They had telephones and they had teletype machines. They also had a considerable shortwave radio broadcasting capability that they used to wage a propaganda war against American servicemen.In fact that is how the surrender came through. While the cabinet debated the emperor secretly (fearing his own subordinates) recorded a surrender message and broadcast it on August 14. That night there was an attempt at a coup to continue the war but it failed, the US acceptance came the next day. So it took about 24 hours for the actual surrender.The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6. The second was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9, three days later.Clearly the Japanese had ample time to surrender first. [QUOTE][B]The Nazis were not about to share such things, even with their "allies", afterall there was after the war if they won.[/QUOTE][/B]Then why, in March of 1945, was a U-boat (number 234, in fact) intercepted en route to Japan carrying V-2 rocket parts, jet fuel, and approximately 1,200 pounds of uranium oxide? By the way, that uranium may have eventually reached Japan, after having been confiscated by the United States and used to produce the bombs we dropped there.Besides you are only speculating. By this time it was obvious to everyone that there would be no "after the war" for the Third Reich. [QUOTE][B]I know that American history education is as bad as their science education, but it is a fact that they were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped.[/QUOTE][/B]Repeating yourself isn't going to make your position true. And you might notice that I've been using primarily Japanese references, not American.And actually I think it is Canadian education that is failing this test, having fallen prey to political correctness and revisionist history.But I digress... [QUOTE][B]But he is not their absolute ruler, and not concidered their living god. He is nothing more than a figurehead.[/QUOTE][/B]Irrelevant, he was still there, we didn't drag him out in front of a war crimes tribunal and hang him like we wanted to, he lived until 1989. This despite forcing ten-year-old girls to work in brothels and his complicity in the atrocities his nation committed during the war."The postwar Occupation authorities prevented Hirohito from being hauled before a war crimes tribunal to avoid provoking resistance among the populace, who had viewed the emperor as a living god."ForbiddenWe (MacArthur actually) spared him. [QUOTE][B]By the time of the bombings the infrastructure of Japan was in near chaos.[/QUOTE][/B]That contradicts my previously cited references, including the official website of the City of Hiroshima, which explicitly pointed out that the city was being prepared to play a significant role in a major campaign on Japanese soil. You can't pull things like this out of thin air when I'm using sources and you are not. (Again, Canada's educational system fails. In the US students are taught to cite sources in this sort of thing.) [QUOTE][B]The main reason why these cities were chosen was not because of what military potential they had, but because of the size and the shape of the city[/QUOTE][/B]Size and shape of the city had nothing to do with it. In fact Nagasaki was a lousy target because its topography prevented maximum
destructive yield. However it was a major shipyard and needed to be
destroyed. Hiroshima was a tactical center stuffed full of military installations. Both were tactically significant. This is pointed out on their official website, which I previously cited. [QUOTE][B]Because Hiroshima had not been bombed, ascertaining the effects of the A-bomb on buildings[/QUOTE][/B]Not being bombed was a factor, as was the type of buildings involved.
I'll give you that because it was included in one of my prior cites (therefore you are attacking a strawman).However, it was primarily an issue of tactical significance and demoralizing Japan. Again, two really big reality checks. [QUOTE][B]and a large civilian population would be relatively easy. [/QUOTE][/B]If we had wanted to kill the largest number of civillians possible we would have hit Tokyo instead.Now, if the Japanese were falling over themselves to surrender, why did it take TWO bombs? [QUOTE][B]That is why a purely military target such as a base, and the like, was not chosen as well. The civilian population was a major factor in their choice.[/QUOTE][/B]What evidence do you have of that? I have Truman's diary and speech that say that he intended for the target to be exclusively military, therefore implying that the civilian casualties were incidental (as happened in Dresden and several other cities during the war). [QUOTE][B]At the Yalta Conference in February 1945 the USSR had secretly agreed to join the war against Japan within three months of Germany's surrender. The USA wanted to force Japan to an unconditional surrender before the USSR could enter the war to secure a stronger political position in the area as they did in Europe.[/QUOTE][/B]Uh yeah. We nearly fought WWIII over Berlin and had we built a wall in Tokyo we might not be around to type this today.By the way you need to check your history. We did NOT force Germany to an unconditional surrender, we left that to the Soviets and so we had to divide Germany. We took care of Japan ourselves and didn't have to give half of them over to communism.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-18-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Of course they were formed on their own. He was saying that the USA (CIA) helped them out with weapons to fight the Soviets and as a result they were able to take over Afghanistan.[/QUOTE][/B]Well he is wrong. The Taliban did not exist prior to the 1990s. They are a product of Pakistan, possibly the Pakistani government.The people they overthrew were the Mujahadeen, the people the CIA trained to fight the Soviets.http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9610/05/taleban/

[QUOTE][B]What they didn't tell you was that many of those missile tubes were empty. And much of their capabilities was mostly propaganda. What I had meant was that the USA didn't really have to worry about an all out nuclear strike from the USSR.[/QUOTE][/B]Are you making this up or do you have sources?Look, the current treaties we're tossing around are to reduce both Russian and American warheads down to no more than 4,250 per side before January 1, 2003.Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II) How many Americans do you think can be killed with 4,250 hydrogen bombs? And that's a current goal of arms reduction. How many do you think there were during the height of the Cold War?Well, according to this (Japanese) site:"It follows from this that the Soviet Union had outstripped the U.S. in the number of nuclear weapons by the end of the 1970's."http://www.cnfc.or.jp/plutonium/pl10/sympo.e.html[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-18-2002]

[QUOTE][B]The main reason why they won't use nukes is because they want the oil.[/QUOTE][/B]That has nothing to do with it. We could nuke every square inch of Iraq and it wouldn't affect the oil. [QUOTE][B]Japan had nothing worth taking.[/QUOTE][/B]What did "taking" have anything to do with it? They started a war with us and we ended it. [QUOTE][B]Isn't that the norm now?[/QUOTE][/B]That's what happens when you are the world's only remaining superpower and you have overwhelming force. [QUOTE][B]And who calls the shots now, Bush or his "advisers"?[/QUOTE][/B]Red herring. We are talking about the command structure of the Empire of Japan as it was in 1946, in case you forgot. [QUOTE][B]Would you believe it at first that anyone would use such a wepon on people?[/QUOTE][/B]Would you believe they would attack Pearl Harbor? [QUOTE][B]How long would it take you to react?[/QUOTE][/B]If I were the emperor we not would have had the war in the first place.But I would have surrendered within a matter of hours of the first bomb, assuming I had not actually considered the state of my country and done the only rational thing I could do in that situation and ended the war weeks before rather than foolishly waiting around with no hope for victory and only a massive spilling of blood in my backyard. [QUOTE][B]Tokyo wasn't a good target because of many other factors.[/QUOTE][/B]Mere assertion. [QUOTE][B]I didn't say that they were "falling over themselves to surrender". I had said that they were willing to surrender.[/QUOTE][/B]Then why did they wait until we had dropped TWO bombs? [QUOTE][B]Do you have evidence of this?[/QUOTE][/B]You are the one that has been consistently failing to provide cites. [QUOTE][B]I see from your reply that you go more for the "official" version[/QUOTE][/B]I prefer it to the revisionist version. Especially when you are making up the revisionist version as we go. [QUOTE][B]I have a feeling that even if they had surrendered instantly the USA would have still dropped the second bomb.[/QUOTE][/B]"A feeling" ? [QUOTE][B]He wanted the target to be military only, but other factors forced him to choose this.[/QUOTE][/B]Wrong. He didn't choose the target at all. [QUOTE][B]Germany didn't attack you on your own "soil" and humiliate you either.[/QUOTE][/B]Yes they did attack us on our own soil, the FBI arrested several German sabateurs on US soil during the war. And they sank our boats within clear view of the New Jersey beaches. We nearly managed to bomb one that ran aground near Lantana, Florida but it managed to escape.However, would you like to show that revenge had something to do with it or am I supposed to take you on your word? [QUOTE][B]It was mostly a case of revenge in regards to Japan.[/QUOTE][/B]Mere assertion. Besides if we just wanted revenge we would have nuked Tokyo. After all, revenge was the purpose of the Doolittle Raid and Tokyo was our target that time.Now, why didn't the Japanese surrender after the FIRST bomb, if the bombs were not necessary at all? For that matter, why had they not already surrendered if the nation was in chaos?

[QUOTE][B]Which should be easy to do for the Russians.[/QUOTE][/B]Mere assertion. [QUOTE][B]Or appeared to.[/QUOTE][/B]You are new to this debate.This is how it works.I present historical evidence that says I am right, and then you present historical evidence in your rebuttal.You are just making things up as we go and it isn't very convincing. [QUOTE][B]The victor gets to write, or influence, the official history.[/QUOTE][/B]Ah. I'm sure you deny the holocaust, don't you? Since we won the war and got to write the history we probably just made that all up to make us look better.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-19-2002]

[QUOTE][B]It isn't considered ridiculous to the LDS church to simply deny that homosexuality even exists, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.[/QUOTE][/B]Oh please.

[QUOTE][B]The link you provided me about the LDS stance on homosexuality repeatedly refers to "so-called" homosexuality. This strongly suggests to me that the LDS church doesn't think that homosexuality is a real or valid state of being.[/QUOTE][/B]What? This is the link I gave you.http://www.mormon.org/...y/answer/0,9777,1601-1-60-1,00.htmlPlease read it in context. [QUOTE][B]People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians.[/QUOTE][/B]Probably meaning people that live the gay or lesbian lifestyle. Not necessarily those who just have strong inclinations toward homosexuality.Then he points out that people DO have strong inclinations, including toward homosexuality: [QUOTE][B]They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times.[/QUOTE][/B]He isn't denying homosexuality can be a powerful in-born temptation.Where you got the idea that he is saying that homosexual tendencies do not exist is certainly beyond me because he actually says the opposite but I would appreciate it if you do not misrepresent my religious beliefs.

[QUOTE][B]The point of the passage, it seems clear and obvious to me, is that while people may find the urge to do the immoral act of same-sex sexual activity, it is never someone's nature to BE a homosexual - someone for whom it is natural to have a loving, romantic, same-sex relationship.[/QUOTE][/B]You believe it is someone's rightful nature to be homosexual? [QUOTE][B]What would be your guess as to what it is about? Drug addiction? Gambling problems? Temptation to cheat on your spouse?[/QUOTE][/B]Excellent point! Some people are predisposed to domestic violence by nature of their genetics. Others are predisposed to chemical addiction. Some turn into flat out psychopaths.That doesn't mean that drug addiction, or compulsive stealing, murder, or rape are "natural states of being" or morally acceptable. [QUOTE][B]The LDS church treats homosexuality like these, not as a naturally occuring version of sexuality.[/QUOTE][/B]If homosexuality is natural because it is a genetically predisposed trait and occurs in nature, then aren't the above immoral behaviors equally "natural", and therefore, equally acceptable.Being gay is not the only temptation that comes "naturally" to some individuals.And in the same vein, if gay bonobos means that gay behavior in humans is perfectly permissable, then what about cannibalism in bonobos? Doesn't that become a "natural" thing for people to do?