Goodbye Hong Kong. Nice knowing you....

[kingofsurrey]

6 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

?

 

Do you want to elaborate on this?

I am referring to  Canada / Vancouver offering  up our  housing  to  wealthy HK investors  looking for a potential soft landing when s hits the fan in HK .....

 

 

[Ryan Strome]

3 hours ago, Ronaldoescobar said:

Wait a sec..... Is CBC not fake news socialist communist fascist government propaganda anymore?

You forgot liberal loving.

[Ryan Strome]

2 hours ago, Violator said:

My statement wasnt me being happy that it will happen just seems like it will be inevitable.

I agree but I think that's when the US will square off against China. Two reasons, in defense of Taiwan but most importantly a perfect excuse to engage China militarily, they can say it's defending Taiwan but in reality it's to knock China down.

[Lancaster]

4 hours ago, Ronaldoescobar said:

Wait a sec..... Is CBC not fake news socialist communist fascist government propaganda anymore?

I just happen to choose CBC as some other news sites has paywalls.

[Kragar]

1 hour ago, gurn said:

No, Japan had been stopped, they just wouldn't admit it.

Too bad an offshore island couldn't have been nuked instead. Then send a cable saying the next one goes on a city.

Would have been nice, but they didn't quit after one, so doing a small island first likely wouldn't have much effect.

 

They were warned, government and citizens alike, repeatedly, after Hiroshima.  The government wouldn't budge.

[Gurn]

5 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Would have been nice, but they didn't quit after one, so doing a small island first likely wouldn't have much effect.

 

They were warned, government and citizens alike, repeatedly, after Hiroshima.  The government wouldn't budge.

I know, but it might have saved one city.

I do believe that despite the death toll of both bombs more lives would have been lost in an invasion.

[Ryan Strome]

14 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Would have been nice, but they didn't quit after one, so doing a small island first likely wouldn't have much effect.

 

They were warned, government and citizens alike, repeatedly, after Hiroshima.  The government wouldn't budge.

They nearly didn't surrender after the 2nd one the emperor cast the deciding vote.

7 minutes ago, gurn said:

I know, but it might have saved one city.

I do believe that despite the death toll of both bombs more lives would have been lost in an invasion.

The Americans killed more people in carpet bombing raids than Hiroshima.

[Kragar]

37 minutes ago, gurn said:

I know, but it might have saved one city.

I do believe that despite the death toll of both bombs more lives would have been lost in an invasion.

Perhaps, but as Strome points out, it was a close call as it was.

 

We'll never know, of course.  Here's hoping we don't see them used again.

[Ronaldoescobar]

1 hour ago, Lancaster said:

I just happen to choose CBC as some other news sites has paywalls.

Fair enough.. It was in jest.

[Scottish⑦Canuck]

8 hours ago, gurn said:

I know, but it might have saved one city.

I do believe that despite the death toll of both bombs more lives would have been lost in an invasion.

Unquestionably. 

 

I've visited both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they've both blossomed into really pleasant cities. Humbling of course. It's amazing what the Japanese can do. 

[canuckistani]

13 hours ago, gurn said:

I know, but it might have saved one city.

I do believe that despite the death toll of both bombs more lives would have been lost in an invasion.

Um sure, but that is largely an irrelevant point because war crimes are determined, at least by modern standards, by the # of innocents/civillians killed. Soldiers who have been drafted or volunteer for the job are fair game to slaughter in warfare. civillians are not. This is where the American standard line defense of the nukes being 'more lives were saved this way' is problematic. You can't just kidnap and slowly mutilate a civillian population and go 'see, this slow mutilation and wails of 50,000 innocent civillians got the two armies of 2 million each to stop killing each other, more lives were saved'. One can argue that the UN convention was not in place during that time, so America gets a free pass, which would be true, but it still makes the 'more lives were saved this way' a null and void argument. 

[Lancaster]

1 hour ago, canuckistani said:

Um sure, but that is largely an irrelevant point because war crimes are determined, at least by modern standards, by the # of innocents/civillians killed. Soldiers who have been drafted or volunteer for the job are fair game to slaughter in warfare. civillians are not. This is where the American standard line defense of the nukes being 'more lives were saved this way' is problematic. You can't just kidnap and slowly mutilate a civillian population and go 'see, this slow mutilation and wails of 50,000 innocent civillians got the two armies of 2 million each to stop killing each other, more lives were saved'. One can argue that the UN convention was not in place during that time, so America gets a free pass, which would be true, but it still makes the 'more lives were saved this way' a null and void argument. 

More civilians were killed due to firebombings and the blockage/starvation than the nukes.  

[canuckistani]

30 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

More civilians were killed due to firebombings and the blockage/starvation than the nukes.  

Yes, i know. This doesn't change the argument though. Its still morally invalid argument that killing those civillians saved more soldiers' lives. In war, civillians lives are more valuable and protected than those of soldiers, who signed up to fight and die. Shooting a soldier in warfare is not a war-crime, shooting a civillian is. 

[Kragar]

1 hour ago, canuckistani said:

Um sure, but that is largely an irrelevant point because war crimes are determined, at least by modern standards, by the # of innocents/civillians killed. Soldiers who have been drafted or volunteer for the job are fair game to slaughter in warfare. civillians are not. This is where the American standard line defense of the nukes being 'more lives were saved this way' is problematic. You can't just kidnap and slowly mutilate a civillian population and go 'see, this slow mutilation and wails of 50,000 innocent civillians got the two armies of 2 million each to stop killing each other, more lives were saved'. One can argue that the UN convention was not in place during that time, so America gets a free pass, which would be true, but it still makes the 'more lives were saved this way' a null and void argument. 

His statement was completely relevant to the discussion, and accurate.  Considering results of previous bombings and the ongoing resistance, general consensus was that far more people, including Japanese citizens, would perish as a result of home island invasions.

 

You bring up war crimes, which never were the topic, and then rightfully rule it out later on... you null and voided your own point, right?

 

[canuckistani]

3 minutes ago, Kragar said:

His statement was completely relevant to the discussion, and accurate.  Considering results of previous bombings and the ongoing resistance, general consensus was that far more people, including Japanese citizens, would perish as a result of home island invasions.

 

You bring up war crimes, which never were the topic, and then rightfully rule it out later on... you null and voided your own point, right?

 

No, i am saying that by 1945 standards, the war crimes argument is a null and void one, since those didn't exist back then.

However, by today's standards, in today's views, the idea that nuking civillians deliberately so that less soldiers would die in battle , along with inescapable collateral damage, cannot be a morally valid position. 

[Lancaster]

8 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Yes, i know. This doesn't change the argument though. Its still morally invalid argument that killing those civillians saved more soldiers' lives. In war, civillians lives are more valuable and protected than those of soldiers, who signed up to fight and die. Shooting a soldier in warfare is not a war-crime, shooting a civillian is. 

Then theoretically any bombing at any non-military target would be a war crime.  Is a munitions factory a military target?  What about the railway that delivers raw material to that plant?  The power station providing electricity?

 

I'm not condoning the death of civilians, but unless there's some kind of agreement where all military conflicts are confined to some dueling scenario like Clanner in Battletech, there is no way around it.  

 

I still think the nuclear bomb, in the grand scheme of things, still saved more lives.  The Japanese were already training their civilians to go all kamikaze if/when the Allies were to land... so civilian deaths would have been unavoidable considering what was planned on both sides of the war.

 

FYI, my father-in-law was at Hiroshima, so my wife's side of the family actually lost members during the attack.  

[Kragar]

29 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

No, i am saying that by 1945 standards, the war crimes argument is a null and void one, since those didn't exist back then.

However, by today's standards, in today's views, the idea that nuking civillians deliberately so that less soldiers would die in battle , along with inescapable collateral damage, cannot be a morally valid position. 

Ok, but the original point was still not irrelevant.  Revisionism, no matter how valid (or how much I agree), does not change the truth of the matter.

 

Since a home island assault would involve more civilian casualties than the atomic bombs, does that not change the perspective as well?

[canuckistani]

Just now, Lancaster said:

Then theoretically any bombing at any non-military target would be a war crime.  Is a munitions factory a military target?  What about the railway that delivers raw material to that plant?  The power station providing electricity?

If you read the UN charter, this is made clear - any infrastructure related to the military capabilities of a nation do fall under military targets. As such, power stations, railway lines, highways, amunitions factories etc. are all 'secondary/ancillary' military targets. What are not military targets, are residential areas, schools, hospitals, government buildings ( outside of the defense secretariat, etc). 

Just now, Lancaster said:

 

I'm not condoning the death of civilians, but unless there's some kind of agreement where all military conflicts are confined to some dueling scenario like Clanner in Battletech, there is no way around it.  

There is a difference between unavoidable collateral damage - where you send a missile to blow up an ammunition factory and it also ends up burning down 2 apartments besides it, and deliberately targeting homes and schools of civillians. 

Just now, Lancaster said:

 

I still think the nuclear bomb, in the grand scheme of things, still saved more lives.  The Japanese were already training their civilians to go all kamikaze if/when the Allies were to land... so civilian deaths would have been unavoidable considering what was planned on both sides of the war.

If Japan was training its civillians to go Kamikazi, they'd be military targets at that point in time. Again, saving more lives is an irrelevant argument when its targetting civillians deliberately. As I said, in war scenarios, military lives are less valuable, aka less protected under UN charter, than civillian lives. This is because military personnel have signed up for the job, a civillian has not. 

Just now, Lancaster said:

 

FYI, my father-in-law was at Hiroshima, so my wife's side of the family actually lost members during the attack.  

Condolences. 

[canuckistani]

3 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Ok, but the original point was still not irrelevant.  Revisionism, no matter how valid (or how much I agree), does not change the truth of the matter.

 

Since a home island assault would involve more civilian casualties than the atomic bombs, does that not change the perspective as well?

That is mostly speculative that it'd have cost more civillian casualties. In reality, the civilian casualties wouldn't be civilian casualties under the premise of 'Japan was training them to be kamikazi fighters'. The moment you pick up a gun and get a rank in the military, you are no longer a civilian but a valid military target- even if it just happened 2 hours ago. 

 

What i simply mean, is we cannot condone the idea that nuking civilians is a legitimate strategy, because it saves more human lives, when the human lives saved were of those who are a fair target in war. 

[Rob_Zepp]

19 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Yes , Hong Kong is the sinking ship.... and Vancouver is the guy jumping in the water to save them..... only to get pulled  under ourselves.  

 

So sad.

 

Two countries in the world i would never visit... spend a dime in... would be Israel and China.

So at least we know where our anti-Semites and anti-Sino base is rooted on CDC.    For a guy who apparently lives in, and rules over, a dangerous gang-infested part of Canada, your halo seems to be on pretty tight.