There are many things about your post that are uninformed, uncreative, and just wrong, but I would like to address just one. We actually have an excellent opportunity with World War II because it involved two major theatres of operation which the Allies handled differently. The European theatre was a protracted Air and Ground war that was basically fought to the bitter end--something that you are apparently suggesting that we should have done with Japan. Conversely, the Pacific theatre was a Sea and Air War that culminated in the US dropping two bombs on cities that were, by the way, of major military significance. In the European theatre the civilian deaths just in Germany and Austria (not counting all the other countries the war was fought in) are estimated to be between 1 and 2.7 million. Japanese civilian deaths during the same war including the deaths in Nagasaki and Hiroshima are estimated to be around 600,000. Sooooooo....I'll let you do the math.
Is chess dangerous to the mind?
There are many things about your post that are uninformed, uncreative, and just wrong, but I would like to address just one. We actually have an excellent opportunity with World War II because it involved two major theatres of operation which the Allies handled differently. The European theatre was a protracted Air and Ground war that was basically fought to the bitter end--something that you are apparently suggesting that we should have done with Japan. Conversely, the Pacific theatre was a Sea and Air War that culminated in the US dropping two bombs on cities that were, by the way, of major military significance. In the European theatre the civilian deaths just in Germany and Austria (not counting all the other countries the war was fought in) are estimated to be between 1 and 2.7 million. Japanese civilian deaths during the same war including the deaths in Nagasaki and Hiroshima are estimated to be around 600,000. Sooooooo....I'll let you do the math.
Pwnster
At first I thought you typical of the people I have run across in life that I mentioned in my original post, but now you turn out to be completely thoughtless and morally suspicious. I actually won't do the math on the death of free beings. That's just sick. If governments and generals wish to fight wars they will not get me to go along with it. What you appear to be saying is the bombs had to be dropped 'to save lives'. That's the type of sick propaganda vomited from the mouths of people who have completely suppressed empathy, and therefore are a moral waste. You should try to think empathetically instead of calculating coldly. There was a Star Trek episode where the people on this one planet willingly stepped into suicide machines, because they were listed as casualties in a computer generated war with another planet. In Afghanistan there are unmanned drones programmed from military bases in the U.S., that do not decipher who is fighting against the U.S. occupation, and who isn't, they just fly over weddings, funerals, gatherings, and blow up everyone around. Then the military puts on the newswire that 30, 40, 50 "militants were killed in fighting". I would say that you speak like a computer, but your comments are also so filled with error and arrogance that it would be an insult to computers.
Tryst,
I did not at any time justify the dropping of atomic or hydrogen bombs on innocent civilian populations. What I did say was that USING YOUR LOGIC, it was better that they did that. You suggested that the right decision for Truman to have made was to let the armies duke it out hand to hand on the battlefield ostensibly to minimize civilian casualties. What I was explaining to you is that the theatre of war was about to be Japan and had that happened, more innocent civilians would have died than died in those two cities. In other words, YOUR SUGGESTION would have cost more human life than did Truman's decision, and hence you are, by your own standards, more despicable than him. Not that you made that decision, but if you had been in his shoes you seem to suggest that you would have. Having said that, I happen to be against nuclear weaponry and war in general. I do not like the wars in Iraq and Afganistan and I think that the impersonal killing of people with unmanned drones and tomahawk missiles to be a horrific crime. I am against war precisely because nations cannot fight one another without there being civilian casualties. I just think that your opinion that it would have been better for Japan and America to duke it out on the battlefield to be historically naive (as well as ill-informed and unimaginative).
The Soviets were about to turn to the "Pacific Theater" as promised at Yalta. The U.S. wanted the Japanese to surrender before the Soviets got involved, therefore Truman dropped Atomic bombs on the civilian populations of two cities. The silly propaganda you keep regugitating is a lie, told to the "the greatest generation" to ease their minds about this "great nation" and it's "noble war".
It seems to me humans are wired for violence. If you look at many species in the animal kingdom, the females watch to see who wins the fights between the males so they can mate with the winner. Similarly, in the human race the biggest bully or "bad boy" typically gets the most females. Guys try to punk other guys all the time if they know there's an attractive female watching. This is a kind of psychological violence, good enough to get a positive response from a woman. There are so many examples of women drawn to violence. One good example is Bernhard Goetz, the mousey spectacled man who shot four guys who tried to mug him in a New York subway. He got tons of fan letters from attractive women after the incident. I point no fingers at either gender for this, both genders participate in this twisted ritual. It's sad but I believe war is just a macrocosm of this cycle. Violence is rewarded by nature on the smaller levels with individiuals, and at the grander levels with war. Would violence exist if the violent ones didn't get rewarded?
"Chess is Life"
-Bobby Fischer
We all know how THAT turned out...
There is an element of madness in all of us. But most of us are busy doing other sane things most of the time. Other than heridity, peer pressure and other circumstances can turn people go crazy.
One could argue madness is not a state, but an opinion. For example, I dont' consider myself to be mad, but am I...?
Quite the opposite -- chess teaches people how to structure their thoughts and solve problems. Studies show that students who learn to play chess do better in school, and an informal study by Arnold Denker showed that there were no professional chess players that suffered from alzheimer's disease or dimentia. Chess keeps the brain nimble.
Well said. There must be a whole bunch of variables which determine whether it becomes an "obsession" for some. To the gifted thinkers playing well comes easier, to the rest of us a lot of sweat is needed to excel at it. No one likes losing, so it's a good character assessment to see how someone reacts to losing.
To illustrate my point, check out S.Polgar v. Korchnoi on YouTube. The old chap really flipped when he lost!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9k5oBgaZGI
I don't think it's an honor, TheGrobe. The people chosen to be on money here, in the States, are just past presidents (except for Franklin). So what? Truman is on money , and he gave the order to incinerate over a hundred-thousand people in seconds. What a great reason to be "honored". In England they put Kings and Queens on money, Rome had Nero on money. Yes, being on money is no great honor in my opinion.
I don't recall what bill Truman is on, and I thought this was supposed to be a politics free zone but since you brought it up Truman is generally regarded as a hero for his decision to deploy that particular weapon rather than launch a land invasion of Japan, which undoubtedly would have cost millions of lives on both sides.
Remember it was Japan that started it, with their suprise attack on Pearl Harbor (yeah, they caught us sleeping though - we saw them on our radar screens but thought it was a flight we were expecting).
And I know this is a politics free zone, but had the Nazis or Japanese developed said weapon first do you think they would have hesitated?
Japan didn't start anything. As per usual the instigator in WW2 as in every other war, was a central bank. War drives the economy. The US was well warned about the Japanese fleet by Austrailia and chose to ignore it so they would have a good excuse to get into the war. Until Pearl Harbour the American people wanted nothing to do with what was going on in Europe.
The Soviets were about to turn to the "Pacific Theater" as promised at Yalta. The U.S. wanted the Japanese to surrender before the Soviets got involved, therefore Truman dropped Atomic bombs on the civilian populations of two cities. The silly propaganda you keep regugitating is a lie, told to the "the greatest generation" to ease their minds about this "great nation" and it's "noble war".
A bit of revisionist history here, don't ya' think? The Soviets did enter the Pacific theater--why do you suppose Mao's communists got ahold of all the abandoned Japanese armaments as opposed to Chang's nationalists? Truly the start of the cold war.
I fail to understand why you keep bringing up Hiroshima and Nagasaki as if they were the peak of human destruction delivered by air. Ever hear of Dresden?
The Soviets were about to turn to the "Pacific Theater" as promised at Yalta. The U.S. wanted the Japanese to surrender before the Soviets got involved, therefore Truman dropped Atomic bombs on the civilian populations of two cities. The silly propaganda you keep regugitating is a lie, told to the "the greatest generation" to ease their minds about this "great nation" and it's "noble war".
A bit of revisionist history here, don't ya' think? The Soviets did enter the Pacific theater--why do you suppose Mao's communists got ahold of all the abandoned Japanese armaments as opposed to Chang's nationalists? Truly the start of the cold war.
I fail to understand why you keep bringing up Hiroshima and Nagasaki as if they were the peak of human destruction delivered by air. Ever hear of Dresden?
Ever read previous posts to understand what people are talking about? Is there some reason you're rating air attacks?
I agree with tryst and DMX21x1.
Dropping a-bombs on innocent people was insane. Nuclear proliferation treaties only allow a few big guns to control the world. And I do think the US knew about the attacks on Pearl Harbour, the same as 9-11... too many questions... too many cover-ups.
I have read every post, though I am a moron and my reading comprehension is not what it should be, which may have led you to the mistaken belief that I didn't read the previous posts. These were the statements of yours that I was responding to:
"Truman is on money , and he gave the order to incinerate over a hundred-thousand people in seconds." Your first post regarding the deaths of civillians in wartime. Here, I thought you were referring to Dresden. Spot on historical fact.
"The U.S. wanted to get in the war and pushed the Japanese to attack. Both sides were wrong, but acting like it was some suprising offence that the Japanese did attack, is wrong. It was only suprising to the misinformed public that stated they were suprised. Truman incinerated over a hundred thousand HUMAN BEINGS. If you want war, fight it hand to hand, army against army. Dropping a bomb on a city and vaporizing a bunch of civilians is insane." Your first foray into revisionist history and where I learn you are referring to either Hiroshima or Nagasaki--well, it must have been Hiroshima judging from "over a hundred thousand HUMAN BEINGS." Soldiers are HUMAN BEINGS too.
"The Soviets were about to turn to the 'Pacific Theater' as promised at Yalta. The U.S. wanted the Japanese to surrender before the Soviets got involved, therefore Truman dropped Atomic bombs on the civilian populations of two cities. The silly propaganda you keep regugitating is a lie, told to the 'the greatest generation' to ease their minds about this 'great nation' and it's 'noble war'." This was the post that compelled me to respond. It is, in its entirety, as Reb would say, HOGWASH.
No hard feelings, Tryst. Chess is fun!
I don't think it's an honor, TheGrobe. The people chosen to be on money here, in the States, are just past presidents (except for Franklin). So what? Truman is on money , and he gave the order to incinerate over a hundred-thousand people in seconds. What a great reason to be "honored". In England they put Kings and Queens on money, Rome had Nero on money. Yes, being on money is no great honor in my opinion.
When was Alexander Hamilton president?
BigPoison, you actually took time out, on your computer, to type this. That is what your last post looks like. I don't understand it.
"Your first foray into revisionist history..." What are you talking about? What revision are you talking about? What is "hogwash"? What does your 'soldiers are people too' stuff mean?
I resign.
I don't think it's an honor, TheGrobe. The people chosen to be on money here, in the States, are just past presidents (except for Franklin). So what? Truman is on money , and he gave the order to incinerate over a hundred-thousand people in seconds. What a great reason to be "honored". In England they put Kings and Queens on money, Rome had Nero on money. Yes, being on money is no great honor in my opinion.
When was Alexander Hamilton president?