Pages: 1 2 3 … 5

 

2006-05-12 22:02:58
specops10-4
Member
+108|6983|In the hills
I just dont understand it, people talk about loss of life like numbers.  I was reading the thread about USA being a major aggressor and I noticed a trend of posts saying things like "Oh, well the European Allies would have won without US intervention, but who the fuck cares we could have done it on our own."(combination of thoughts from Nehil and other guys.)  Come on, you cannot justify your "UNITY" when talking about the loss of MORE lives.  If you think that us Americans have to butt in and take all the glory, then you have no respect for the lives lost. 

If you feel that America was the aggressor in WWII, then you have a real problem knowing what is good for the world and what is bad so you have no say in world affairs.  AND dont give me any shit about the bombs, I know they killed TONS of people but the end result saved SO many lives that would have been lost in the invasion and probable resistance similar to that of the Iraqis!

Over and out- All I want is something CONNECTED TO THIS TOPIC!!!!!!!!
2006-05-12 22:05:45
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|6912|Colorado
you lost me, what was the question again ?
2006-05-12 22:21:55
specops10-4
Member
+108|6983|In the hills
TO CLARIFY MY POOR GRAMMAR

I just got pissed and I had to rant....
BASICALLY-people consider deaths as statistics and seem to have little respect for those dead... 
Random example: "nooo, does the bombing of thousands of innocent Iraqis equal 911?"

It doesnt show respect to either, death cannot be compared in numbers, it is just bad (except for people like Hitler). 

WWII part- why should someone bragg about Europe's power when not having US help would kill more Europeans.  It would be pointless loss of life but thier fucking pride blinds them from the consequences!


ERRRRRR, I just have bad grammar today!!!!! SORRY...

Last edited by specops10-4 (2006-05-12 22:31:20)

2006-05-12 22:38:06
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|6912|Colorado
thanks for clearing things up, I think the tv is to blame for desensitising many generations to death.

WWII was won by the allies so bragging on themselves is like bragging on us.
2006-05-12 22:45:49
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6877|Westminster, California
The people who try to throw out those numbers usually aren't amoung those who felt the heart break of 9-11 and felt the pain of their fellow countrymen who were killed FOR THE MOTHERFUCKING SIN OF GOING TO WORK THAT DAY.
Sorry I yelled.
    Many have forgotten what it felt like that day, but not all of us here, and certainly not me.
    A lot of Europeans have survivors guilt. I am a history buff and read the ENTIRE WW2 ENCYCLOPEDIA by time life books. It was 2800 pages of the driest shit you can imagine but I wanted to understand.
    Europeans brought Hitler on themselfs. Muslims brought Osama on themselfs and he has hurt them more than he has hurt us.
    To hell with any fool who doesn't get THAT!!!
2006-05-12 23:04:48
destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
+154|6867|Canada
ya its sad, like Bush passing legislation that no-one shud lower tha flags to half mast when a soldier is killed. mind u that the flags would have to b half-mast continuously /w the army's death rate. sickning
2006-05-13 00:13:03
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6801
You do know that the Japanese attempted to surrender before the bombs were dropped, the only condition being that the Imperial house wasn't removed, something the US didn't want to do anyway?
2006-05-13 03:48:11
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

destruktion_6143 wrote:

ya its sad, like Bush passing legislation that no-one shud lower tha flags to half mast when a soldier is killed. mind u that the flags would have to b half-mast continuously /w the army's death rate. sickning
the armies death rate?? now don't get me wrong all of our soldiers deaths are significant and a great loss but geez.....We lost over twice as many brave men in 1 day ( normandy ) then we have in 4 years at war.
there is definately a strong regard for the safety of our soldiers in the field.
2006-05-13 03:51:12
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

You do know that the Japanese attempted to surrender before the bombs were dropped, the only condition being that the Imperial house wasn't removed, something the US didn't want to do anyway?
I didn't check your facts on this but I do believe the allies would only accept an "unconditional" surrender.

Plus my friend, think about all the lives that were lost because of Germany and Japan starting the war in the first place.
2006-05-13 04:12:25
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6915|Canberra, AUS

Bubbalo wrote:

You do know that the Japanese attempted to surrender before the bombs were dropped, the only condition being that the Imperial house wasn't removed, something the US didn't want to do anyway?
You do know that dropping the bombs was the best alternative, considering the other was an invasion of Japan? You do know that would result in HALF A MILLION UNITED STATES MILITARY DEATHS? MILLIONS OF CIVILIAN DEATHS? TWO COUNTRIES SCARRED PERMANENTLY?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-05-13 05:37:40
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

specops10-4 wrote:

TO CLARIFY MY POOR GRAMMAR

I just got pissed and I had to rant....
BASICALLY-people consider deaths as statistics and seem to have little respect for those dead... 
Random example: "nooo, does the bombing of thousands of innocent Iraqis equal 911?"

It doesnt show respect to either, death cannot be compared in numbers, it is just bad (except for people like Hitler). 

WWII part- why should someone bragg about Europe's power when not having US help would kill more Europeans.  It would be pointless loss of life but thier fucking pride blinds them from the consequences!


ERRRRRR, I just have bad grammar today!!!!! SORRY...
Well I am kinda leaning toward the Muslim terrorists/insurgents as the ones that have little regard for life. Americans treasure life and freedom.
2006-05-13 05:53:45
{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank
U.S. > Iran
+497|6818|Florida

lowing wrote:

Well I am kinda leaning toward the Muslim terrorists/insurgents as the ones that have little regard for life. Americans treasure life and freedom.
Suicide bombers belive it is their duty to sacrifice their lives to kill, terrorize, or demoralize others.  Why the hell they think this i dont know, too bad we cant find them all before they kill themselves, then round them all up and put them on some stupid ass remote island in the middle of the ocean, and let them kill each other.
2006-05-13 07:29:19
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6801

lowing wrote:

I didn't check your facts on this but I do believe the allies would only accept an "unconditional" surrender.
Yes, that's my point, the Allies could have said "Hey, you know, we reckong that's a good idea anyway, so how about we suck it up and let them have that one.

lowing wrote:

Plus my friend, think about all the lives that were lost because of Germany and Japan starting the war in the first place.
Uh-huh.  And we're just going to ignore all the Germans who starved to death because of the conditions imposed after World War I.  And the fact that Japan was *forced* onto the international stage by the US.


Spark wrote:

You do know that dropping the bombs was the best alternative, considering the other was an invasion of Japan? You do know that would result in HALF A MILLION UNITED STATES MILITARY DEATHS? MILLIONS OF CIVILIAN DEATHS? TWO COUNTRIES SCARRED PERMANENTLY?
Actually, as I just said, the alternative was to accept a surrender with a condition which didn't actually change anything.  I also feel I should point out that you're being a bit melodramatic: 500,000 deaths would *not* permanently scar the US.  Not only that, but many of the deaths would probably have actually been Soviet thanks to Roosevelt asking Stalin for help.  But Roosevelt's foolishness is another matter entirely........
2006-05-13 07:44:50
rawls
Banned
+11|7055|California, USA

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

I didn't check your facts on this but I do believe the allies would only accept an "unconditional" surrender.
Yes, that's my point, the Allies could have said "Hey, you know, we reckong that's a good idea anyway, so how about we suck it up and let them have that one.

lowing wrote:

Plus my friend, think about all the lives that were lost because of Germany and Japan starting the war in the first place.
Uh-huh.  And we're just going to ignore all the Germans who starved to death because of the conditions imposed after World War I.  And the fact that Japan was *forced* onto the international stage by the US.


Spark wrote:

You do know that dropping the bombs was the best alternative, considering the other was an invasion of Japan? You do know that would result in HALF A MILLION UNITED STATES MILITARY DEATHS? MILLIONS OF CIVILIAN DEATHS? TWO COUNTRIES SCARRED PERMANENTLY?
Actually, as I just said, the alternative was to accept a surrender with a condition which didn't actually change anything.  I also feel I should point out that you're being a bit melodramatic: 500,000 deaths would *not* permanently scar the US.  Not only that, but many of the deaths would probably have actually been Soviet thanks to Roosevelt asking Stalin for help.  But Roosevelt's foolishness is another matter entirely........
Looks like you have it all figuired out. Oh but wait, that war happened over 60 years ago. You have had the luxury of reading and listening to a plethora of info on the subject.
2006-05-13 08:04:15
IRONxWyvern
Member
+14|7081|Atlanta, GA

Bubbalo wrote:

Uh-huh.  And we're just going to ignore all the Germans who starved to death because of the conditions imposed after World War I.  And the fact that Japan was *forced* onto the international stage by the US.
Let's try to remember that the the Treaty of Versailles conditions were insisted upon by the leading European powers, primarily France and Belgium, who wanted to punish Germany and also maintain and expand their respective Empires and Colonies.  The US lobbied heavily against the punitive portions of the Treaty.

As for Japan being forced onto the World Stage by the US that can be argued with the "Unequal Treaties" beginning with the Convention of Kanagawa, brokered by Commodore William Perry in 1854.  However it does not provide justification for their aggressive behaviors and their belief that they were superior to all other races and nations, East and West.  This was a cultural flaw which induced their behaviors and really had nothing to do with their relations in the west and the War of Aggression they waged.
2006-05-13 08:41:35
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7077
And yet we have another moron From the "USA Sux" camp, Like a Bee in a Class room

" just ignore it and it will go away "
2006-05-13 08:43:33
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7012|PNW

specops10-4 wrote:

AND dont give me any shit about the bombs, I know they killed TONS of people but the end result saved SO many lives that would have been lost in the invasion and probable resistance similar to that of the Iraqis!
The Japanese resistance would have been spectacularly greater than that of the Iraqis, and you would be dealing with Russian troops besides. North Japan vs South Japan war, anyone?
2006-05-13 09:19:41
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6877|Westminster, California

Bubbalo wrote:

You do know that the Japanese attempted to surrender before the bombs were dropped, the only condition being that the Imperial house wasn't removed, something the US didn't want to do anyway?
Thats bullshit, back it up.
2006-05-13 09:28:10
{M5}Sniper3
Typical white person.
+389|7000|San Antonio, Texas

yerded wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

You do know that the Japanese attempted to surrender before the bombs were dropped, the only condition being that the Imperial house wasn't removed, something the US didn't want to do anyway?
Thats bullshit, back it up.
It should be: You do know that some the Japanese attempted to surrender before the second bomb was dropped.

Look in history books, we wanted unconditional surrender, they took too long to make up their minds about it so we dropped the second bomb. (And did a massive "air show" over Japan.)

Last edited by {M5}Sniper3 (2006-05-13 09:28:29)

2006-05-13 09:50:12
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6801

IRONxWyvern wrote:

Let's try to remember that the the Treaty of Versailles conditions were insisted upon by the leading European powers, primarily France and Belgium, who wanted to punish Germany and also maintain and expand their respective Empires and Colonies.  The US lobbied heavily against the punitive portions of the Treaty.
And yet not once did America say: "Here's a thought, lay off or we'll stop trading with you".

IRONxWyvern wrote:

As for Japan being forced onto the World Stage by the US that can be argued with the "Unequal Treaties" beginning with the Convention of Kanagawa, brokered by Commodore William Perry in 1854.  However it does not provide justification for their aggressive behaviors and their belief that they were superior to all other races and nations, East and West.  This was a cultural flaw which induced their behaviors and really had nothing to do with their relations in the west and the War of Aggression they waged.
Kind of like America's current foreign policy?  Regardless, forcing a nation to interact with the wider world then complaining when they declare war is......childish at best.

yerded wrote:

Thats bullshit, back it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%27s_ … tervention

The overall opinion of the Japanese was that they should surrender, and they were attempting to get Soviet assistance to do so without being screwed.  Like, say, the Germans after World War I.


{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

Look in history books, we wanted unconditional surrender, they took too long to make up their minds about it so we dropped the second bomb. (And did a massive "air show" over Japan.)
Uh-huh.  So killing people as a time saving measure is just fine?

In the end, though, the bombs weren't dropped to make Japan surrender, but to scare the Russians.
2006-05-13 10:00:14
LivelyToaster
Member
+60|6960|Sacto, CA

Bubbalo wrote:

yerded wrote:

Thats bullshit, back it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%27s_ … tervention
lmao your sources are wikipedia?!?
2006-05-13 10:20:45
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6801
Sure.  The sources cited are valid.  Would you like me to repeat them here?  Or will I have to, what, magically teleport a copy of the book directly to you desk for perusal.
2006-05-13 10:30:11
{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank
U.S. > Iran
+497|6818|Florida
................................................................................................
2006-05-13 10:37:16
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6956

{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:

................................................................................................
lol...

the end of WW2 was kind of wierd though.,... the a-bomb dropping did save lives, but japanese translators were too slow to say "we surrender" to the US thus the second bomb was dropped. As for the russians... they were scared of the nuke so they built their own by rounding up german scientists (plausible theory)
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2006-05-13 11:11:57
IRONxWyvern
Member
+14|7081|Atlanta, GA

Bubbalo wrote:

And yet not once did America say: "Here's a thought, lay off or we'll stop trading with you".

Bubbalo wrote:

Kind of like America's current foreign policy?  Regardless, forcing a nation to interact with the wider world then complaining when they declare war is......childish at best.
Hmmm, you have a very contradictory view with these two statments.  One view supports us exercising our will on other nations and then another which chides the US for doing just that.  perhaps armchair quarterbacking  historical foreign policy is not such a good idea when you can't maintain just one position.  Your may counter this with that the situations were each in a different context and I say that this is the inherent flaw in your arguement.  It is impossible to set one set of rules for every situation.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard