Europe submits voluntarily

[TSwizzle]

Dear oh dear, what a sorry state of affairs;

At least five people have died and hundreds have been rescued after a wooden fishing boat carrying refugees capsized off the coast of Libya.

Some 550 people, including women and children, were rescued by Navy swimmers, the Italian navy said on Wednesday.

Photographs of the incident show the blue fishing boat rocking precariously before capsizing and sending the refugees into the sea.

Independent

If I was a cynic, I would be tempted to think that this capsize within sight of the Italian Navy was deliberate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course Japan knew the war was lost. This is why it approached the allies through Switzerland for a peace treaty. The allies controlled the air, and sea. It's remaining aircraft didn't have sufficient fuel to counter the daily allied attacks.

Your problem is that you are treating all "peace" treaties as the same.

Japan was attempting to negotiate for continued control of Japan at a minimum. We were unwilling to leave them in power. Those "peace" offers weren't worth the paper it took to print them.

Hiroshima was bombed 07 August and Nagasaki on 09 August. The damage to Hiroshima was still being assessed on 08 August so there wasn't exactly any waiting time allowed before the second bomb.

They knew it was atomic and a city-killer. What more did they need to know?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Your problem is that you are treating all "peace" treaties as the same.

Japan was attempting to negotiate for continued control of Japan at a minimum. We were unwilling to leave them in power. Those "peace" offers weren't worth the paper it took to print them.

Hiroshima was bombed 07 August and Nagasaki on 09 August. The damage to Hiroshima was still being assessed on 08 August so there wasn't exactly any waiting time allowed before the second bomb.

They knew it was atomic and a city-killer. What more did they need to know?

When there is a discussion over peace different parties will have their own agendas. Hostilities could have ceased around June or even May that year. Obviously the allies would not have allowed Japan to retain any of its colonies.

Of course there would have been a lot of haggling over the price of fish this is how things are done in Asia and is all part of how discussions would progress possibly during a cease fire.

Per the article I quoted, the Japanese military were not aware of what had happened until it sent reconnaissance since it was not getting any communications aircraft. With modern communications they would have known immediately something like this happened.

Justifying the use of an atomic bomb because if the US thought the plan was not worth the paper it was printed on, does not absolve the US of the fact this could have been avoided.

Peace talks a few months earlier would have saved a lot of American lives. A few hundred allied prisoners were also killed during the bombing of Nagasaki as well as thousands of conscripted labourers from China and Korea. During this period the Soviets had already invaded Manchuria and taken 600,000 Japanese prisoners.

Even after the Japanese Surrender terms were still discussed for several years and were concluded on 08 September 1951 (San Francisco Peace Treaty). This included compensation for former allied POWs etc and countries which had been under its occupation.

The last amount of compensation was paid to the Philippines in 1976.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your problem is that you are treating all "peace" treaties as the same.

Japan was attempting to negotiate for continued control of Japan at a minimum. We were unwilling to leave them in power. Those "peace" offers weren't worth the paper it took to print them.



They knew it was atomic and a city-killer. What more did they need to know?

When there is a discussion over peace different parties will have their own agendas. Hostilities could have ceased around June or even May that year. Obviously the allies would not have allowed Japan to retain any of its colonies.

It's not just their colonies, we wanted to conquer them and disarm them, not leave them in a position to rearm and try it again.

Of course there would have been a lot of haggling over the price of fish this is how things are done in Asia and is all part of how discussions would progress possibly during a cease fire.

And more people would have died that way than to the bombs.

 

[angelo]

Dear oh dear, what a sorry state of affairs;

At least five people have died and hundreds have been rescued after a wooden fishing boat carrying refugees capsized off the coast of Libya.

Some 550 people, including women and children, were rescued by Navy swimmers, the Italian navy said on Wednesday.

Photographs of the incident show the blue fishing boat rocking precariously before capsizing and sending the refugees into the sea.

Independent

If I was a cynic, I would be tempted to think that this capsize within sight of the Italian Navy was deliberate.

But you're not a cynic are you?

 

[angelo]

Here is an interesting look at Islamism and it's victims.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262936/muslim-world-permanent-refugee-crisis-daniel-greenfield

 

[whichphilosophy]

When there is a discussion over peace different parties will have their own agendas. Hostilities could have ceased around June or even May that year. Obviously the allies would not have allowed Japan to retain any of its colonies.

It's not just their colonies, we wanted to conquer them and disarm them, not leave them in a position to rearm and try it again.

Of course there would have been a lot of haggling over the price of fish this is how things are done in Asia and is all part of how discussions would progress possibly during a cease fire.

And more people would have died that way than to the bombs.

The final peace agreement was issued several years later.
If the firing had stopped and the peace talks started much earlier say in June or July , there would have been a lot of haggling. However, in the end I don't see how the eventual outcome would not have been different other than many lives would have been saved. Of course we would have insisted on disarming Japan an trying war criminals, many of whom escaped prosecution including the emperor.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Dear oh dear, what a sorry state of affairs;



Independent

If I was a cynic, I would be tempted to think that this capsize within sight of the Italian Navy was deliberate.

But you're not a cynic are you?

You mean they tried to drown themselves on purpose? These boats are often unfit for travel and I doubt needed much effort. There again anything is possible

 

[angelo]

But you're not a cynic are you?

You mean they tried to drown themselves on purpose? These boats are often unfit for travel and I doubt needed much effort. There again anything is possible

They knew the Italians wouldn't let that happen. It wouldn't look good would it?

 

[Jayjay]

You mean they tried to drown themselves on purpose? These boats are often unfit for travel and I doubt needed much effort. There again anything is possible

They knew the Italians wouldn't let that happen. It wouldn't look good would it?

I think it's more likely that the occupants all moved to one side of the boat to have a look at the Italian ship, which caused it to capsize. The capsizing needn't have been deliberate to explain the coincidence.

 

[TSwizzle]

This will become more common as the warmer weather starts;

Dozens of refugees are feared to have died after a boat trafficking people to Europe sank off the Libyan coast, according to the Italian coastguard, the second major deadly incident in as many days. A spokesman said 88 people had been rescued from a capsized wooden fishing vessel by coastguard vessels working as part of the EU mission in the Mediterranean.

Independent

I'm sure some wag will propose just go get them direct from the jetty/beaches and bypass the people smugglers.

 

[KeepTalking]

They knew the Italians wouldn't let that happen. It wouldn't look good would it?

I think it's more likely that the occupants all moved to one side of the boat to have a look at the Italian ship, which caused it to capsize. The capsizing needn't have been deliberate to explain the coincidence.

If the ship was that close, it could also be that the wake of the Naval vessel caused the boat to capsize. By far the least likely scenario is that the people in the ship deliberately caused it to capsize.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not just their colonies, we wanted to conquer them and disarm them, not leave them in a position to rearm and try it again.

Of course there would have been a lot of haggling over the price of fish this is how things are done in Asia and is all part of how discussions would progress possibly during a cease fire.

And more people would have died that way than to the bombs.

The final peace agreement was issued several years later.
If the firing had stopped and the peace talks started much earlier say in June or July , there would have been a lot of haggling. However, in the end I don't see how the eventual outcome would not have been different other than many lives would have been saved. Of course we would have insisted on disarming Japan an trying war criminals, many of whom escaped prosecution including the emperor.

What was essential to avoid megadeaths was the occupation of Japan. Your approach doesn't provide for that.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Here is an interesting look at Islamism and it's victims.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262936/muslim-world-permanent-refugee-crisis-daniel-greenfield

Refugees actually come from the war torn areas in Syria, Afghanistan an Iraq arising out of wars generated by the West.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's not just their colonies, we wanted to conquer them and disarm them, not leave them in a position to rearm and try it again.

Of course there would have been a lot of haggling over the price of fish this is how things are done in Asia and is all part of how discussions would progress possibly during a cease fire.

And more people would have died that way than to the bombs.

The final peace agreement was issued several years later.
If the firing had stopped and the peace talks started much earlier say in June or July , there would have been a lot of haggling. However, in the end I don't see how the eventual outcome would not have been different other than many lives would have been saved. Of course we would have insisted on disarming Japan an trying war criminals, many of whom escaped prosecution including the emperor.

What was essential to avoid megadeaths was the occupation of Japan. Your approach doesn't provide for that.

The final treaty took years to conclude and even then the Allies didn't get everything it stated it was seeking. The important thing was to initiate a cease fire and peace talks which could have taken place.
Whether we are being diplomatic or warlike about something our goals are the same.

As Chau En Lai said, 'Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means.'

 

[angelo]

Many here think this site is islamphobic. But this is a very good question!
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/05/has-the-pope-abandoned-europe-to-islam

 

[bilby]

Many here think this site is islamphobic. But this is a very good question!
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/05/has-the-pope-abandoned-europe-to-islam

The answer is 'No'.

It wasn't a good question at all.

And that site is the epitome of islamophobic websites.

Reading that crap actually reduces your overall level of knowledgeability. You should stop, while you are still in positive territory - if it's not already too late.

 

[angelo]

Many here think this site is islamphobic. But this is a very good question!
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/05/has-the-pope-abandoned-europe-to-islam

The answer is 'No'.

It wasn't a good question at all.

And that site is the epitome of islamophobic websites.

Reading that crap actually reduces your overall level of knowledgeability. You should stop, while you are still in positive territory - if it's not already too late.

Already far too late for moslem apologists such as yourself I'm afraid!

 

[bilby]

The answer is 'No'.

It wasn't a good question at all.

And that site is the epitome of islamophobic websites.

Reading that crap actually reduces your overall level of knowledgeability. You should stop, while you are still in positive territory - if it's not already too late.

Already far too late for moslem apologists such as yourself I'm afraid!

LOL

I'm no Muslim apologist; Islam is fucking stupid.

But so is Islamophobia.

 

[bigfield]

I'm no Muslim apologist; Islam is fucking stupid.

Then why do you want the terrorists to win?