1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

10 New Unpublished Photos of Hiroshima

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by guerilla, May 8, 2008.

  1. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #121
    Did "Joey" teach you how to use quotes?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D09SQRW7Xt4
     
    browntwn, May 9, 2008 IP
  2. Jim Guinn

    Jim Guinn Peon

    Messages:
    971
    Likes Received:
    52
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #122

    Of course, Guerilla, but not unexpected....not specifically, but generally. We are at war with these people. Have been for almost 30 years. These people know how to fight. They are not concerned with the Geneva Convention. So, why should we be?

    They know how to hit where it hurts. We are so concerned with "niceties". A BIG mistake on our part fighting an enemy like this.
     
    Jim Guinn, May 9, 2008 IP
  3. Jim Guinn

    Jim Guinn Peon

    Messages:
    971
    Likes Received:
    52
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #123
    No, I typed it correctly.

    Jim
     
    Jim Guinn, May 9, 2008 IP
  4. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #124
    Jim, so, if I'm hearing you right, prior to the S.U. obtaining nuclear weapons, we should just have nuked the crap out of them - our erstwhile allies - is this an accurate reflection of your statement? When I say "tidy," I am using it in the sense you seem to be indicating - this imposed world order, at the end of nuclear devastation, wherever needed - would have ushered in an era of unprecedented peace. That about it?

    In fact, wherever American interests lie, weapons of mass destruction should be used, as the quickest, most efficient means to achieve those interests - is this your view?
     
    northpointaiki, May 9, 2008 IP
  5. Jim Guinn

    Jim Guinn Peon

    Messages:
    971
    Likes Received:
    52
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #125
    No; you are not hearing me right. I would not nuke anyone unless we were pulled into a war with them. BTW...I would not have referred to the SU as our "ernstwhile allies". They were "allies of convenience." I think Patton had the right idea. We should have marched right up to the Kremlin. It would have avoided the cold war.

    It would not necessary usher in an era of unprecendented peace, but I am sure no one would mess with us. Let them fight one another, but they wouldn't try it with us. And, if they want to fight with one another, it is of no concern of ours.....until such a time they might step on our toes.

    If conventional weapons cannot end the war decisively, in the shortest amount of time, with the fewest casulties to our side and with minimal damage to our nation as a whole, then let the weapons of mass destruction be used as a means of ending the conflict decisively and quickly.

    Jim
     
    Jim Guinn, May 9, 2008 IP
  6. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #126
    Then what did you mean by:

    Who, besides the Soviet Union, were you referring to? Germany? They were defeated already. Japan? We did. Who else should we have pre-emptively bombed with nukes?


    I will have to disagree. I believe this is a woefully shortsighted, and, quite honestly, a wantonly irresponsible view, in my opinion.
     
    northpointaiki, May 9, 2008 IP
  7. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #127
    He said bomb them, not "nuked the crap out of them".

    As you well know, many times it has happened where a country has been bombed in a precise fashion to keep it from acquiring nuclear weapons. I support each of the instances it has happened that I am aware of.
     
    browntwn, May 9, 2008 IP
  8. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #128
    Would you be ok with bombing a country to remove their nuclear weapons?

    Or is it just a game where countries have to secretly get nukes, like Israel and Pakistan did, before someone attacks them and stops them?
     
    guerilla, May 9, 2008 IP
  9. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #129
    It depends on the situation and the threat that country poses to America's interests - both long and short term. I am not sure of the safety or feasibilty of such action, but supposing it was both, I can envision circumstances where I would support it. Do I think it should be done on any current nuclear power - not based on what I know of the threat they pose.

    Yeah, it is kind of a game. If I were a non-nuclear power country, I would certainly try to build a nuclear capacity. I think doing it secretly is the only way to succeed. From my perspective as an American I do not want to see any additional nuclear armed countries.
     
    browntwn, May 9, 2008 IP
  10. godisgood

    godisgood Banned

    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #130
    It is impossible to debate with people like this because no matter how many times you prove them wrong they will say otherwise. You will prove a point and they will dismiss it. You will counter their argument and they will twist your words to make you say something else. We all know you are right in this debate. You and others have clearly won this debate.
     
    godisgood, May 9, 2008 IP
  11. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #131
    We were sitting back. America was strongly non-interventionist after WWI. It took Pearl Harbor to gain the consent to join the war officially. The blockade encouraged the attack at PH, which apparently is now being exposed as something that FDR knew about in advance, and did nothing to warn the soldiers about to come under attack.

    Without WWII, FDR wasn't doing such a hot job of managing his GREAT SOCIETY or the Depression. And of course, it justified getting women out of the house and into the work place, nearly doubling the tax base.

    I don't agree with your rationale, but if you believe we really intervened, then you don't believe Japan attacked us first. Which is my point.

    The funny thing about people like you is that you confuse patriotism with blind obedience to the state and war mongering. You're intoxicated with your own sense of moral superiority. You may call it spin, I call it inconvenient history. Now not everything I propose is black and white, and I do have my own bias on the interpretation, but when the government has to fabricate war by lying to it's people, how can the war be in the best interest of the people, or for a moral cause?

    Which is ironic, because you rail about the morality of stopping Japan, yet you don't have any moral qualms about massacaring innocent civilians when your enemy is practically on his knees. I'm not a religious man, but I pray for your soul.

    This is just petty name calling.

    I could easily call you a human disgrace. An animal. Pure evil. A tool of the devil. Disgusting. Etc.

    But would that name calling accomplish any more than what you accomplish by exposing your wanton lust for murder and hypocrisy with each new post to this thread?

    I doubt it.
     
    guerilla, May 9, 2008 IP
  12. Jim Guinn

    Jim Guinn Peon

    Messages:
    971
    Likes Received:
    52
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #132
    I probably should have specified "conventional bombing" to prevent others from developing nuclear weapons.


    To each his own.

    Jim
     
    Jim Guinn, May 9, 2008 IP
  13. Jim Guinn

    Jim Guinn Peon

    Messages:
    971
    Likes Received:
    52
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #133

    But no one in this debate has been proven "wrong", because there is no "right" answer. It is a debate.

    It is not "twisting words". It is putting the opposite spin on them.

    Someone said it was a shame the US demanded unconditional surrender, because if we had let the Emperor stay, Japan would have surrendered.

    I said it is a shame the Emperor wouldn't take the US demand of unconditional surrender seriously and step down. He could have prevented the nuclear bombing of his country...twice.

    One view wants to blame the US. The other puts the responsibility on the Japanese for their actions. or rather lack of the Emperor's actions.

    It's all in the spin.
     
    Jim Guinn, May 9, 2008 IP
  14. lightless

    lightless Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,850
    Likes Received:
    334
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #134
    I am laughing my bass off at the stupidity of some of the remarks in this thread :D

    Carry on gentlemen .......
     
    lightless, May 9, 2008 IP
  15. Jim Guinn

    Jim Guinn Peon

    Messages:
    971
    Likes Received:
    52
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #135
    You never answered my question. You just went off on a tangent.

    Come on...a Blockade is quite different from a bombing. Use some logic, man.

    The funny thing about people like YOU is that YOU think it is blind obedience. You have a very different opinion from me. For every expert you can drag out on the subject, I can drag one out, too. I don't have any moral superiority, never claimed I did. Not sure where you are coming up with that. I just have a different view. As you, I can also have my own bias. You want to hang onto your belief that we fabricated this war. I see you twisting it that way. You have quite a track record on this forum for knocking America.

    I did not "rail" about that. I was just pointing out your inconsistencies. Once again, as far as I am concerned, morality plays no part in war. You do what you have to do. The Emperor would not step down. Japan may have been "close" to surendering, but the fact remains they would not give in on that one point, so they were really miles from surrendering.


    So, you got your name calling in....but I guess you don't see it that way. Oh, now I have a "wanton lust for murder and hypocrisy". You are a hoot, Guerilla.

    Jim
     
    Jim Guinn, May 9, 2008 IP
  16. Cyrus255

    Cyrus255 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    17
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    150
    #136
    :eek:

    Hohoho, that was funny. "They are evil, so why shouldn't we be evil?".

    So to defeat the terrorist, you must become a terrorist?

    With that logic, if your government is not afraid of killing enemy civilians, why would they hesitate to kill U.S. citizens to start a wanted war?!?!?

    Then you have nothing left worth protecting. Silly neocons, tricks are for kids.

    It's just so amazing, whenever America wants something, they magically get attacked so they can take that something! Amazing!

    "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Herman Goering, Nazi Reichsmarschall, Hitler's designated successor, at the Nuremburg trials.

    Remember, even the Germans had to have the Reichstag fire to give up their freedoms (sound familiar?).

    But most people don't know Germany also staged a "Polish attack" on a German base in order to invade Poland. Like Americans or any other decent person, the Nazi Germans would not attack someone without a reason.

    Besides, everyone, if you want to blame anyone for Pearl Harbor, blame FDR, he's the one who moved the fleet there, against the advice of everyone with a brain, he fired Admiral Richardson for refusing the order (Admiral Richardson, and as history has proven right, did not want the blood of Americans on his hands) and threatened the next admiral who took his place, Admiral Kimmel.

    Or do you really believe America is so conveniently attacked all the time as we want? Like with 9/11, Pearl Harbor, the Maine, the Lusitania, the U.S.S. Liberty, Gulf of Tonkin, etc.

    The reason we have so many of those type "incidents" that lead to war (vastly more than any other country in the world), is because our populace is, actually stupid enough to fall for it a dozen times. They still believe 550 degree jet fuel can "weaken" steel, even though it hardly cooks my pizza fast enough (still take 15 minutes). My oven goes to 600 just fine, no collapsing. But then again they believe CO2 is gonna kill us all too, so they'll believe anything. :D
     
    Cyrus255, May 9, 2008 IP
  17. Jim Guinn

    Jim Guinn Peon

    Messages:
    971
    Likes Received:
    52
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #137
    If we continue to fight unconventional enemies with conventional thinking, methods and tactics, we will lose. But, somehow I think you would find satisfaction in that and still find a way to blame the US.

    Jim
     
    Jim Guinn, May 9, 2008 IP
  18. Cyrus255

    Cyrus255 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    17
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    150
    #138
    Dude, I AM an American, and I'm proud of my Southern heritage. We have alot of experience with Yankee tyranny if you catch my drift my friend, and we have more honor than to kill innocent women and children on the battlefield pal (unlike Sherman), even if "the disadvantage" leads to our deaths. For death to an honorable and merciful man, means paradise. To a despicable women & children killer, it means hell.

    Like I said, FDR handed the 3,000 american dead to the Japanese on a plate. His admiral Richardson refused to go to Pearl Harbor, because he didn't want blood on his hands and he fired him for it.

    So, when your government is willing to ruthlessly kill men, women, and children in war, what is keeping them from killing U.S. civilians to start a war? Their non-existent (by this point) morality?

    Do you really believe that the "New World Order" George H.W. Bush gives a crap that you're American and not Iraqi? Why would he hesitate to order the CIA to blow up a building so he gets to invade countries and create his "New World Order" he ranted about the FIRST time he attacked Iraq?
     
    Cyrus255, May 9, 2008 IP
  19. Jim Guinn

    Jim Guinn Peon

    Messages:
    971
    Likes Received:
    52
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #139
    Hey "Dude". I assumed you were an American all along. One of those American "dudes" that has nothing good to say about America. According to your thinking, it seems that our government is already willing to kill US citizens....since it looks like you believe we blew up the WTC. There can be no debate with people who think like you do. Say hi to Michael Moore the next time you see him.

    Jim
     
    Jim Guinn, May 9, 2008 IP
  20. Cyrus255

    Cyrus255 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    17
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    150
    #140
    You're the one refusing to debate and using Ad Hominem.

    You realize 99% of Germans in Germany didn't think Hitler set fire to the Reichstag, but guess what? History says Hitler DID burn down the Reichstag to take away personal freedoms!

    History will always repeat itself, because there are enough blind patriots like you and me (I used to spend hours EVEN on this forum attacking truthers, just like you pal). When I actually bothered to research the facts, guess what, you learn.

    You couldn't even answer my ONE question.

    JUST ANSWER THIS:

    Why can't you JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION?!? Because if you say "yes", then you have to examine whether or not the government WOULD kill civilians to get war (like 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Maine, Lusitania, U.S.S. Liberty, Gulf of Tonkin).

    If you say "no", then what stops them? They have nothing to fear, there will always be blind patriots who will refuse to believe any possible evil of their government (such as yourself). Killing a U.S. unarmed girl is just as immoral as killing an Iraqi unarmed girl, so morals are not a factor.

    Why would a government, that follows your advice, and drops nuclear bombs on women and children until their enemy gives up, hesitate to use bombs on their own people to start a war?

    To sum it up: Why would those who kill Iraqi women and children, hesitate to kill US women and children?

    "There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men." Edmund Burke, father of ALL "conservatism" as you know it.
     
    Cyrus255, May 9, 2008 IP