Game grading!

[AJWcoins 1]

Just been chatting with a friend about grading/slabbing etc. and apparently the video game world is starting the same thing! Check this link! vggrader.com don't people like to play games any more!

[davidrj 194]

Just been chatting with a friend about grading/slabbing etc. and apparently the video game world is starting the same thing! Check this link! vggrader.com don't people like to play games any more!

I knew I should have kept those cassette tapes for the BBC computer!

David

Edited August 1, 2011 by davidrj

[Peter 615]

No wonder the USA is going bust.

Maybe its time to grade the political parties.

[Peckris 579]

Just been chatting with a friend about grading/slabbing etc. and apparently the video game world is starting the same thing! Check this link! vggrader.com don't people like to play games any more!

It's the same with vinyl records. And no doubt ANYTHING is collectable.

[argentumandcoins 70]

No wonder the USA is going bust.

Maybe its time to grade the political parties.

Easy;

Shite, shite and self serving shites... and I would definitely slab every single politician I could lay hands on (nice big granite slabs should do it!)

Edited August 1, 2011 by argentumandcoins

[RLC35 288]

Peter, I have an update on the USA Congress...we have passed a new debt ceiling... so I guess we are going to print some more money!!!! LOL! When I was in grade school, the English Pound was worth 5 American Dollars. If we keep borrowing, it is going to be back there again!........

[Peter 615]

Peter, I have an update on the USA Congress...we have passed a new debt ceiling... so I guess we are going to print some more money!!!! LOL! When I was in grade school, the English Pound was worth 5 American Dollars. If we keep borrowing, it is going to be back there again!........

Hi Bob

I bought a few coins when recently it was $2 to £....can't wait

Gold will rocket as will all your exports but you will become prisoners in your own country.

Bill Clinton seems a good idea again.

[RLC35 288]

You are right Peter...having Obama as President even makes Bill Clinton look good! LOL! Oh for the old days, and Harry Truman!

[Red Riley 2]

You are right Peter...having Obama as President even makes Bill Clinton look good! LOL! Oh for the old days, and Harry Truman!

My big claim to fame is that one day President Eisenhower waved to me.

I was only 5 at the time...

According to Keynes, an economy should raise taxes in the good times and spend what they have saved in the bad. Nowadays governments (on both sides of the Atlantic) spend all their money in the good times and panic in the bad!

Edited August 2, 2011 by Red Riley

[declanwmagee 122]

Harry Truman!

now there was a man who knew the meaning of Shock and Awe

[Peckris 579]

Harry Truman!

now there was a man who knew the meaning of Shock and Awe

..for which the Japanese are still paying

[Peter 615]

Harry Truman!

now there was a man who knew the meaning of Shock and Awe

..for which the Japanese are still paying

It is an argument on which I could easily bat on both sides. :unsure

Thankfully it is the only time the A/bomb has been used in war.

If it wasn't used then I don't think it wouldn't have been kept in cotton wool for the past 65 years.

[Peckris 579]

Harry Truman!

now there was a man who knew the meaning of Shock and Awe

..for which the Japanese are still paying

It is an argument on which I could easily bat on both sides. :unsure

Thankfully it is the only time the A/bomb has been used in war.

If it wasn't used then I don't think it wouldn't have been kept in cotton wool for the past 65 years.

Tell that to the residents of Hiroshima. Actually no, tell it to the residents of Nagasaki, a city A-bombed quite unnecessarily after the US had received firm indications the Japs were ready to surrender. But no, Truman had to make a BIG GESTURE to the Soviets, "Look what we got, and we're not afraid to use it". I hate the man.

[Peter 615]

Harry Truman!

now there was a man who knew the meaning of Shock and Awe

..for which the Japanese are still paying

It is an argument on which I could easily bat on both sides. :unsure

Thankfully it is the only time the A/bomb has been used in war.

If it wasn't used then I don't think it wouldn't have been kept in cotton wool for the past 65 years.

Tell that to the residents of Hiroshima. Actually no, tell it to the residents of Nagasaki, a city A-bombed quite unnecessarily after the US had received firm indications the Japs were ready to surrender. But no, Truman had to make a BIG GESTURE to the Soviets, "Look what we got, and we're not afraid to use it". I hate the man.

Wasn't the surrender down to the Soviet intervention in the Pacific?

History can't be re written.Imagine the pussy footing that goes on today was about in 1946.

The decision to bomb the Japs was a decision made easy after Pearl Harbour and the barbaric treatment of captured allied soldiers.

If the persecution of the jews was public knowledge at the time the Germans may of got one too and joe public would have clapped his hands.

[RLC35 288]

Peckris,

You are way off base on the atom Bomb attacks. The japanese were NOT ready to surrender. It was felt that there would be near a million casualties (dead, wounded), if The Japanese Islands were invaded, by the allies. I don't know how old you are, but the large casualty issue was, well known, and the main reason to short circuit the war with the a-bomb.

BTW...that is not the reason I like Truman. It is because he fired General Douglas McArthur, proving who ran the U.S. Army...the Commander-in-Chief (President)...not some pompous General. McArthur's dismissal was completed during the Korean Conflict. He wasn't missed....

[Red Riley 2]

Peckris,

You are way off base on the atom Bomb attacks. The japanese were NOT ready to surrender. It was felt that there would be near a million casualties (dead, wounded), if The Japanese Islands were invaded, by the allies. I don't know how old you are, but the large casualty issue was, well known, and the main reason to short circuit the war with the a-bomb.

BTW...that is not the reason I like Truman. It is because he fired General Douglas McArthur, proving who ran the U.S. Army...the Commander-in-Chief (President)...not some pompous General. McArthur's dismissal was completed during the Korean Conflict. He wasn't missed....

Peter is right, it is easy to look at these things in hindsight, but the public would have jumped on anything that promised to end the war quickly and the well-known attrocities that the Japanese commited in the Far East meant that there was no sympathy whatever among the populace at large for even the most innocent Japanese citizen. Not nice looking back but it was true.

As I understood it (and I haven't checked this), the Japanese had not responded to the American ultimatum after Hiroshima and hence got the second bomb at Nagasaki. Incidentally, this bomb was actually intended to destroy the vast Mitsubishi works on the outskirts of the city but drifted off course with catastrophic results.

I do have a personal interest on this, as my father was en route to join the invasion force when the Nagasaki bomb went off. He got as far as the Bay of Biscay...

[Peckris 579]

Peckris,

You are way off base on the atom Bomb attacks. The japanese were NOT ready to surrender. It was felt that there would be near a million casualties (dead, wounded), if The Japanese Islands were invaded, by the allies. I don't know how old you are, but the large casualty issue was, well known, and the main reason to short circuit the war with the a-bomb.

BTW...that is not the reason I like Truman. It is because he fired General Douglas McArthur, proving who ran the U.S. Army...the Commander-in-Chief (President)...not some pompous General. McArthur's dismissal was completed during the Korean Conflict. He wasn't missed....

No, you're wrong. You're talking about the pre-Hiroshima situation, not Nagasaki. That's why Hiroshima "bought it", and you can retrospectively argue until the cows come home about the rights and wrongs of it (if it ensured an atomic war would never be fought, then perhaps that's a glimmer of hope from an appalling event, and perhaps the death of 000,000s of civilians was "worth it" to protect the lives of soldiers??). However, after Hiroshima the Japanese WERE ready to surrender. They just baulked at one solitary condition of those the Allies imposed, to do with the Emperor, whom they revered almost as a god. For that one bit of unnecessary stubbornness on the part of the Allies (and let's not forget - the condition about the Emperor was imposed for no strategic reason, but to ensure total humiliation) the Nagasaki bomb was dropped.

Much of the real history of that period and the ending of the war in the East, has only been made known comparatively recently. All sides were expert propagandists, and that's what was fed us as "history" for decades.

[Colin G. 147]

All sides were expert propagandists, and that's what was fed us as "history" for decades.

And they still are

[RLC35 288]

Harry Truman!

now there was a man who knew the meaning of Shock and Awe

..for which the Japanese are still paying

Here is the generally accepted reason for the attack on Japan.....

The USA was facing the prospect of invading Japan to subdue it. The last few battles, Iwo Jima and Okinawa particularly, were incomprehensibly bloody. Japan had no regard for its own citizens' lives and planned to turn their whole island into a fortress. It was estimated that casualties would be 1 million Americans and half a million British in the first invasion alone. Some cynics say we used it to scare Stalin as well, but the fact remains that they ignored an ultimatum on 27 July 1945 after enduring the worst conventional bombs could do. A powerful argument remains that the Bomb saved allied and Japanese lives.

The Allies demanded unconditional surrender of the Axis. In the Pacific Theatre, the Allies, led by the United States, rolled up the Japanese expansion island by island. When Guam was taken, the Allies had a base from which stage an invasion. The estimates of American casualties for an invasion of mainland Japan was in excess of 1 million Americans. Possibly in excess of 2 million Americans. The United States dropped two atomic bombs to save American lives and speed the end of the war. Prior to using the atomic bomb, Japan was given ultimatums to surrender along with warnings of the dire consequences. The Japanese government ignored the warnings. While the use of the atomic bomb was a technological and strategic turning point in both WWII and all future diplomatic and strategic activities, there were more people killed, maimed, and injured during the Tokyo firebombing campaigns than by the atomic bomb.

To force Japan to surrender without further fighting. Japan surrendered very quickly thus saving the lives of over 100,000 American soldiers and perhaps as many as 1,000,000 Japanese who would have died if we had invaded Japan.

Many additional explanations have been brought forward in the succeeding years, as there are always theorists, that can't be helped...it is always easier to say what we should have done!

[Peckris 579]

Harry Truman!

now there was a man who knew the meaning of Shock and Awe

..for which the Japanese are still paying

Here is the generally accepted reason for the attack on Japan.....

The USA was facing the prospect of invading Japan to subdue it. The last few battles, Iwo Jima and Okinawa particularly, were incomprehensibly bloody. Japan had no regard for its own citizens' lives and planned to turn their whole island into a fortress. It was estimated that casualties would be 1 million Americans and half a million British in the first invasion alone. Some cynics say we used it to scare Stalin as well, but the fact remains that they ignored an ultimatum on 27 July 1945 after enduring the worst conventional bombs could do. A powerful argument remains that the Bomb saved allied and Japanese lives.

The Allies demanded unconditional surrender of the Axis. In the Pacific Theatre, the Allies, led by the United States, rolled up the Japanese expansion island by island. When Guam was taken, the Allies had a base from which stage an invasion. The estimates of American casualties for an invasion of mainland Japan was in excess of 1 million Americans. Possibly in excess of 2 million Americans. The United States dropped two atomic bombs to save American lives and speed the end of the war. Prior to using the atomic bomb, Japan was given ultimatums to surrender along with warnings of the dire consequences. The Japanese government ignored the warnings. While the use of the atomic bomb was a technological and strategic turning point in both WWII and all future diplomatic and strategic activities, there were more people killed, maimed, and injured during the Tokyo firebombing campaigns than by the atomic bomb.

To force Japan to surrender without further fighting. Japan surrendered very quickly thus saving the lives of over 100,000 American soldiers and perhaps as many as 1,000,000 Japanese who would have died if we had invaded Japan.

Many additional explanations have been brought forward in the succeeding years, as there are always theorists, that can't be helped...it is always easier to say what we should have done!

I don't argue with most of this. The only thing I take issue with is that you've conflated a very short period of history (a few days) into a single phrase, when it's now known that a hell of a lot went on behind the scenes between those two bombs.

However, this isn't the argument of "theorists", it's actually the work of historians trying to uncover the truth behind the contemporary propaganda. Yes, I'm sure people can argue even for the necessity of the propaganda, but that's a separate issue.

[bilnic 0]

RLC35

Posted 03 August 2011 - 08:53 PM

The Japanese government ignored the warnings.

As all governments are wont to do, until something blows up in their face?

Bill.

[Sylvester 15]

The last few battles, Iwo Jima and Okinawa particularly, were incomprehensibly bloody. Japan had no regard for its own citizens' lives and planned to turn their whole island into a fortress...

...The United States dropped two atomic bombs to save American lives and speed the end of the war. Prior to using the atomic bomb, Japan was given ultimatums to surrender along with warnings of the dire consequences. The Japanese government ignored the warnings.

And in a nutshell there it is. The bomb was dropped to save lives (military in many cases), and the people on the other end of the bomb were tragically civilians, who were treated as cannon fodder by their own side anyway.

Without the bomb many more people (millions), this includes soldiers and civilians caught in the cross fire, would have died. With the bomb many millions did die.

All in all the situation was an horrific catch 22, screwed if you do, screwed if you don't. Not a decision I would want to have to make, knowing how many lives would be affected.

Whether it was morally right to drop the bomb really depends on who you sympathise with. If you or your relatives were British/US soldiers about to head into what would have amounted to a suicide mission dropping the bomb was the right thing to do. If you lived in Nagasaki or Hiroshima or had relatives there, then dropping it results in nothing more than the mass murder of innocents.

It was the leaders in Japan who were driving the war effort, not necessarily the civilians. And of course the poor unlucky souls who survived the bomb have been disfigured for life, living in constant pain for 40-50 years and knowing all too well that it's only a matter of time before they will probably die of cancer. That bomb was a death sentence for millions either instant or living under the close shadow of death for 70+ years.

As for my own opinion I tend to have most sympathy for the Japanese civilians in those two places, but at the end of the day any bitterness is not going to change what happened, what's done is done.

With regards to the comment above about the possible nuking of Germany if people had been aware of how they treated the Jews. Well I very much doubt that, it should be noted that countries of Europe at that time, including the UK, were not exactly falling over backwards to help the Jews during the war. After the horrors of the War were revealed you'd think attitudes would be much more sympathetic? Well when many surviving displaced Jews wanted to emigrate to British controlled Palestine, the US and UK were more concerned about the mass migration upsetting the resident muslim population of that area because it might affect our oil contracts. Sound familiar?