Lancaster

Members
  • Content count

    2,766
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Lancaster last won the day on February 19 2014

Lancaster had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,288 Revered

About Lancaster

  • Rank
    Canucks Regular
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

5,107 profile views
  1. Nobody is disputing that Japan was gonna surrender eventually. The real issue was how much more fighting was gonna be needed before they give up. Tokyo was already firebombed with like 120,000 killed.... the Japanese didn't surrender then. There are records stating that Japan was already expecting an invasion of Kyushu by allied forces. Hence all the military preparation.... and they were even had bunkers and stuff in the mountains where they moved a lot of those Imperial treasures and stuff, along with the Imperial family into. They knew they lost, but they had the hope that if the fighting gets too bogged down, that they can get a better deal on the table. More importantly..... the military and the government aren't always on the same page, thus we hear both stories of Japan wanting to surrender, yet also at the same making prepping for the last stand. In regards to "legality", it's war. "All is fair in love and war".... this was the evolution of conflicts where civilians targets and military targets are blurred. This isn't like the Napoleonic days where you have an army meeting another army out in the middle of nowhere to slug it out. The world have seen battles like Stalingrad, Berlin, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc... urban/down to the last man warfare is ugly and civilians will be caught in the middle. As a military commander, you have to figure out how to limit your losses while inflicting more on the enemy. Nothing wrong with that.... but it's easier to engage when the enemy's capacity to wage war is reduced. So you start by attacking military assets.... then you move onto factories and production facilities, which mean civilians labourers will be killed... but that's just part of war. Of course, there aren't cruise missiles and such... so to be certain, you gotta send in many many bombs and bigger the bombs, the better. Defenders will spread out their factories in hopes more will survive the bombings, mostly intermingled with commercial and residential zones. Unfortunate side of total warfare... the population are just parts of the whole war machine of a nation. Atomic weapons were not illegal because nobody knew anything about them yet. Destructive capability can't be the measuring stick on what's ok or not ok either. Do you: A. Go ahead with Operation Downfall? Campaign was planned to last well into 1947. Estimated 500,000 US death, with injured and missing forces numbering into the millions. Japanese death tolls estimated to be 5-10 million, mostly civilians. USSR potentially taking more than just the Kurill Island and take over Hokkaido? B. Starve/Bomb them out. Japan can barely produce enough food to support itself in times of peace... but in times of war, under a blockage, they will be starving. Then constantly rain bombs until the rubble becomes sand? If firebombing killed 100k+.... so do that another 100 times? How many hundreds of thousands/millions will perish.... and it will be the civilians that takes the brunt of all starvation, as the fighting forces will still be relatively well-fed to fight. C. Drop a couple of nukes. Let the Japanese (and the rest of the world) know that the US has power beyond anyone else's comprehension. A couple of hundred thousands dies only. Lets be clear, I'm not saying the nuclear attacks were great. I've been to Hiroshima, seen all the memorials, relics, etc., communicated with some of the survivors there.... it's haunting experience. In the end, there were only bad choices available.
  2. Because it appears to be arbitrarily done with minimal rhyme or reason. I don't mind if she appeared in some limited run, special edition coins/bills whatever, but to simply change up because they want to be PC is just stupid. If they want to put someone new on the bill, it has to be someone who changed the face of Canada or achieved something heroic. I'm expecting something along the line of Louis Riel or someone with that level of greatness. Viola Desmond.... we all know she's under-the-radar, but she just doesn't hold a candle to many other candidates. To use a Canucks analogy, she would be the equivalent of retiring Alex Burrows's number..... he's a good player, with big impact on the franchise, but not quite up there with Linden, Naslund, Smyl, Bure, and Henrik/Daniel (when they do retire).
  3. When did I ever refer to myself? But you do notice the sudden disappearance of Canucks merchandise people display after 2011. It was even very scarce in 2012.
  4. After the riot.... being a Canucks fan is almost like a shameful thing to admit.
  5. Why not the great Aboriginal leader Tecumseh? How about Douglas Jung, the first Chinese-Canadian elected to office, who also served in WW2? Or the war hero Billy Bishop with 72 confirmed kills in WW1.... only some French dude and the Red Baron eclipsed his totals. Maybe even Ezekiel Hart, the first Jewish individual elected in Lower Canada and the British realm? I guess Black is the fashionable colour currently.
  6. He was a true American hero in every sense of the word.
  7. Agree. Money talks. If you really believe in something, put your money where your mouth is and donate. Whether it's to your religious organization, political party, charities, social outreach programs, schools, whatever. Individuals of our society needs to start actually contributing money/time/blood/etc to issues they want addressed. Those that do, good on you, keep up the good work. Those who just believe that government (meaning other people) should do it... that's not altruistic at all, that's just plain selfishness.
  8. I'm aware of that. Hence the overrunning of Manchuria and North Korea by Soviet troops. The Japanese were gonna do down swinging taking as many others down as they can, and the entrance of the USSR wasn't gonna change that fact. The bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima changed their mind.
  9. Not sure what you are responding to. The Japanese were expecting an invasion from the USA, British and other Western allies.
  10. They were. The Japaneses were prepping for a land invasion in Kyushu and was moving all their troops, weaponry and ammo to that area. Massive tunnel networks, mini-subs for kamikaze, planes for "normal" kamikaze runs, were all in place. Population (women and children included) were given swords, spears, slings, etcs, and were instructed to resist to the death. Everyone knew that "waiting them out" wasn't an option.
  11. Because doing the intro scene in Saving Private Ryan times 10.... plus fighting against an entire civilian population that has been mobilized to fight to the death... that is much better? Did you know that the firebombings of Tokyo killed even more people than either nuclear attacks? 200,000 dead or 2,000,000 dead, which is better in your books? Rational people will choose the small number.
  12. Sure it does. As I have explained multiple times to my wife who is from Japan (her father and now my father-in-law is a survivor from Hiroshima), Operation Downfall would have killed way more civilians than both nuclear attacks. It's just unfortunate that hundreds of thousands died.... but it saved potentially millions others.
  13. Their strategy was to cripple the US Pacific Navy. Claim all the colonies in Asia. Then negotiate a peace treaty afterwards (while claiming most of the possessions). Might have been feasible if Britain fell... since it would have been the USA and USSR vs the Axis..... not sure how willing they would be signing up for that kind of scenario. IIRC, Japan didn't stand a chance and they knew it. I think even their top admiral pretty much declared that they have already lost the war the instant he found out the US carriers weren't in Pearl Harbor.
  14. IMO... Sundin staying year 2 fully committed would have pushed the Canucks over the top. His last final full season, he was still PPG. Even if he takes the secondary role and put up only 60pts... that's damn good for a 2nd line centre (chances are he would be at least PPG or more playing alongside Demitra/Kesler/whoever against 2nd pairing). Ehrhoff's presence coincided with the Sedin's back-to-back Art Ross trophy. Not saying he was the reason for it, but when you correlate the amount of points generated with each other, it's pretty much a fact that they all help contribute to each other's success. The Sedins haven't nearly reached that level of production since Ehrhoff left town.
  15. Larsen with a 2-game suspension, amirite? I mean... Edler got suspended by having Hall colliding into him.