US needs to beef up its Air Force. Thoughts?

[walrus]

Miles all you look at was a bomb dropped on Japan and how the people felt. How did the victims of Nanking feel. How about the victims of every country Japan occupied since the 30’s. How about Pearl Harbor, remember the US was neutral until the Japanese attacked. Others here were calling for the nukes to be dropped on North Korea. One crazy warmongering white guy.

I know and Donald Trump needs to calm down with that Twitter. Fighters fighting fighters is totally cool. Killing innocent people is not. In Japan you crossed the line. In Vietnam you chaps lost the plot. Surely you can see that. In Vietnam the Japanese were kicked out and Ho Chi Minh requested his independence. Totally snubbed. The Nazi's had to be beaten, as did the Japanese, but like I say you don't carry out genocide to prove a political point. That is known as evil too.

That’s all the Nazis and Japan did was genocide

[Gandalf]

Miles all you look at was a bomb dropped on Japan and how the people felt. How did the victims of Nanking feel. How about the victims of every country Japan occupied since the 30’s. How about Pearl Harbor, remember the US was neutral until the Japanese attacked. Others here were calling for the nukes to be dropped on North Korea. One crazy warmongering white guy.

I know and Donald Trump needs to calm down with that Twitter. Fighters fighting fighters is totally cool. Killing innocent people is not. In Japan you crossed the line. In Vietnam you chaps lost the plot. Surely you can see that. In Vietnam the Japanese were kicked out and Ho Chi Minh requested his independence. Totally snubbed. The Nazi's had to be beaten, as did the Japanese, but like I say you don't carry out genocide to prove a political point. That is known as evil too.

That’s all the Nazis and Japan did was genocide

That does not make it okay for you to do the same. You lead by example, not terror. In Vietnam all that needed to happen was for elections to take place as soon as possible. It was agreed by all that 2 years would be enough. Minh would likely have dominated and that's all she wrote in Vietnam. American involvement by pretty much all accounts made everything worse. Even US troops were saying things like 'We don't know why we are here'. France said stop. The UK said stop. Johnson would not listen. His ego had taken over. He was sacrificing children on the other side of the world for no better reason than to fight the 'bogeyman'. Would he go and fight? Would Trump? Would Bush? Would Clinton? No, they would sooner send working class and white and black kids. People who have no voice.

[Gandalf]

Anyways, I am not holding you personally responsible or anything Walrus, just expressing my opinion based on my own research and readings. I just think it was a very bad situation and I am sure you understand my position. Vietnam today remains a market based Communist country. Nothing was gained or achieved by any of it. I think the same way about Afghanistan where the Taliban refuses to go away. I think the same about Iraq which was based on lies and failed to consider just how divided a country Iraq was already. It just did not need to happen. There was no reason it could not have been managed peacefully. There were no WMD. This does not look good and I am sure like with the chaps in Vietnam you end up questioning 'What is this for?' and more so when the truth finally comes out like The Gulf of Tonkin, or no WMD, or what have you.

[TitoFan]

Not my argument, but I don't think walrus is defending Vietnam, nor has anyone on this thread as far as I can tell. Personally I think it was a huge waste of time, resources, and human lives. It's the soldiers that went over there I mostly feel sorry for. Most of them were drafted, and were teenagers or just past teenage stage. The party line on the war was to keep Communism from spreading to South Vietnam. Flimsy excuse... the U.S. should've left well enough alone. One of those wars that stick out as not having a legitimate purpose. It also dragged and dragged and dragged. Finally the U.S. ended up withdrawing and you're right..... nothing was gained. A lot of deaths for nothing.

Your real point of contention is with the nukes dropped in Japan. I see both your points on that one, but if pushed I would probably side with Miles. The argument that a conventional war would've been drawn out and bloody is a good argument, but still fails to fully consider all possible scenarios. And why Japan and not Germany? 'Cause Germany is surrounded by other European countries? That would be a weak argument. Why didn't the U.S. just fly over and drop a big Fat Man on Germany to make the Nazis surrender quicker and avoid more life losses? I don't know...... the whole Atomic Bomb thing is just a bit much for me. Two entire cities incinerated. I think the U.S. was capable of a huge push against Japan that would've eventually defeated them. At the very least, why was Nagasaki bombed? I've read up on it and seen a lot of BS answers, but none of them seem to justify that second act of carnage. Don't get me wrong, I know the U.S. had to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. I just have to ask whether it was really necessary to obliterate two cities.

[brocktonblockbust]

No, no, that is not Miles" "real point of contention" .... It's as clear as day what his point is. America fucking blew it enormously with it's tough guy/crossing the line/losing the plot EVIL SHIT on so many levels and fronts over the past 70 years it's GUARANTEED BAD KARMA which even an imbecile can see is happening to America now since 2001.

[walrus]

Not my argument, but I don't think walrus is defending Vietnam, nor has anyone on this thread as far as I can tell. Personally I think it was a huge waste of time, resources, and human lives. It's the soldiers that went over there I mostly feel sorry for. Most of them were drafted, and were teenagers or just past teenage stage. The party line on the war was to keep Communism from spreading to South Vietnam. Flimsy excuse... the U.S. should've left well enough alone. One of those wars that stick out as not having a legitimate purpose. It also dragged and dragged and dragged. Finally the U.S. ended up withdrawing and you're right..... nothing was gained. A lot of deaths for nothing.

Your real point of contention is with the nukes dropped in Japan. I see both your points on that one, but if pushed I would probably side with Miles. The argument that a conventional war would've been drawn out and bloody is a good argument, but still fails to fully consider all possible scenarios. And why Japan and not Germany? 'Cause Germany is surrounded by other European countries? That would be a weak argument. Why didn't the U.S. just fly over and drop a big Fat Man on Germany to make the Nazis surrender quicker and avoid more life losses? I don't know...... the whole Atomic Bomb thing is just a bit much for me. Two entire cities incinerated. I think the U.S. was capable of a huge push against Japan that would've eventually defeated them. At the very least, why was Nagasaki bombed? I've read up on it and seen a lot of BS answers, but none of them seem to justify that second act of carnage. Don't get me wrong, I know the U.S. had to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. I just have to ask whether it was really necessary to obliterate two cities.

it is difficult for us to grasp. It was a world war in the 40’s and we are trying to judge it with today’s eyes. I’ve said it before here, no one hates war more than those who have actually been through it. There is no such thing as a good war, maybe in some cases good reasons for it but never is war good. You could call what happened in Germany even after the surrender genocide. The allies wanted to punish them and 100,000’s died of starvation as they continued to be punished. Bad shit all around

[TitoFan]

Not my argument, but I don't think walrus is defending Vietnam, nor has anyone on this thread as far as I can tell. Personally I think it was a huge waste of time, resources, and human lives. It's the soldiers that went over there I mostly feel sorry for. Most of them were drafted, and were teenagers or just past teenage stage. The party line on the war was to keep Communism from spreading to South Vietnam. Flimsy excuse... the U.S. should've left well enough alone. One of those wars that stick out as not having a legitimate purpose. It also dragged and dragged and dragged. Finally the U.S. ended up withdrawing and you're right..... nothing was gained. A lot of deaths for nothing.

Your real point of contention is with the nukes dropped in Japan. I see both your points on that one, but if pushed I would probably side with Miles. The argument that a conventional war would've been drawn out and bloody is a good argument, but still fails to fully consider all possible scenarios. And why Japan and not Germany? 'Cause Germany is surrounded by other European countries? That would be a weak argument. Why didn't the U.S. just fly over and drop a big Fat Man on Germany to make the Nazis surrender quicker and avoid more life losses? I don't know...... the whole Atomic Bomb thing is just a bit much for me. Two entire cities incinerated. I think the U.S. was capable of a huge push against Japan that would've eventually defeated them. At the very least, why was Nagasaki bombed? I've read up on it and seen a lot of BS answers, but none of them seem to justify that second act of carnage. Don't get me wrong, I know the U.S. had to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. I just have to ask whether it was really necessary to obliterate two cities.

it is difficult for us to grasp. It was a world war in the 40’s and we are trying to judge it with today’s eyes. I’ve said it before here, no one hates war more than those who have actually been through it. There is no such thing as a good war, maybe in some cases good reasons for it but never is war good. You could call what happened in Germany even after the surrender genocide. The allies wanted to punish them and 100,000’s died of starvation as they continued to be punished. Bad shit all around

You got a good point there and none of us here can speak about that from personal experience (I think no one here is THAT old). But c'mon, just like we can say now that segregation was bad in the 50's and 60's, we can also say the dropping of nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities was bad also. Back in the 50's and 60's, different water fountains for whites and blacks was probably a normal, accepted thing. Nowadays it would be looked at with indignation and disbelief. Maybe in the framework of the 40's, dropping atomic bombs on Japan was a good thing due to the "reducing casualties in the end" argument. But looked at now, a counter argument can certainly be made. But still, that 2nd bomb.........

[walrus]

Not my argument, but I don't think walrus is defending Vietnam, nor has anyone on this thread as far as I can tell. Personally I think it was a huge waste of time, resources, and human lives. It's the soldiers that went over there I mostly feel sorry for. Most of them were drafted, and were teenagers or just past teenage stage. The party line on the war was to keep Communism from spreading to South Vietnam. Flimsy excuse... the U.S. should've left well enough alone. One of those wars that stick out as not having a legitimate purpose. It also dragged and dragged and dragged. Finally the U.S. ended up withdrawing and you're right..... nothing was gained. A lot of deaths for nothing.

Your real point of contention is with the nukes dropped in Japan. I see both your points on that one, but if pushed I would probably side with Miles. The argument that a conventional war would've been drawn out and bloody is a good argument, but still fails to fully consider all possible scenarios. And why Japan and not Germany? 'Cause Germany is surrounded by other European countries? That would be a weak argument. Why didn't the U.S. just fly over and drop a big Fat Man on Germany to make the Nazis surrender quicker and avoid more life losses? I don't know...... the whole Atomic Bomb thing is just a bit much for me. Two entire cities incinerated. I think the U.S. was capable of a huge push against Japan that would've eventually defeated them. At the very least, why was Nagasaki bombed? I've read up on it and seen a lot of BS answers, but none of them seem to justify that second act of carnage. Don't get me wrong, I know the U.S. had to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. I just have to ask whether it was really necessary to obliterate two cities.

it is difficult for us to grasp. It was a world war in the 40’s and we are trying to judge it with today’s eyes. I’ve said it before here, no one hates war more than those who have actually been through it. There is no such thing as a good war, maybe in some cases good reasons for it but never is war good. You could call what happened in Germany even after the surrender genocide. The allies wanted to punish them and 100,000’s died of starvation as they continued to be punished. Bad shit all around

You got a good point there and none of us here can speak about that from personal experience (I think no one here is THAT old). But c'mon, just like we can say now that segregation was bad in the 50's and 60's, we can also say the dropping of nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities was bad also. Back in the 50's and 60's, different water fountains for whites and blacks was probably a normal, accepted thing. Nowadays it would be looked at with indignation and disbelief. Maybe in the framework of the 40's, dropping atomic bombs on Japan was a good thing due to the "reducing casualties in the end" argument. But looked at now, a counter argument can certainly be made. But still, that 2nd bomb.........

I’m not sticking for the second bomb nor the first. It’s just people say it like we did it out of the blue. I’m not directing that at u tits just a general observation.