BF2S Forums Lack of respect to life

herrr_smity wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

{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)

the bomb didn't save any lives, the japanese were trying to surrender all that summer.

No? Japanese children and women were taught to throw themselves towards american tanks with mines and shit, and to attact Soldiers with bamboo sticks. Nasty. Throwing the A-bomb were one of the better things the US could do at the moment. Sure, there probably were better alternatives, but they wanted it to be qiuck, and so it was.

ok pelle, we all know how sane Stalin was.

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........

Let us also not forget that war could have been avoided if Germany Japan and Italy didn't start the damn thing.

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.

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.

Well then just like WW2 maybe Germany better make sure they can cash the checks they write when they start wars. I will save my sympathy for those that are victims of wars and not perpetrators of them, like Germany, Japan, Italy, and the majority of the middle eastern countries.

Last edited by lowing (2006-05-13 17:28:01)

Not that I'm agreeing with what Bubbalo has to say, but durring WWI had Wilson issued a trade embargo the US would have been able to stay out of the war, not because none of our ships would be sunk, but because at that time we were exporting so many natural resources (nearly 50% of our oil produced durring that time was exported, dont you wish we had saved some?) and food, that freedom of the seas would have been guarented to us by Germany and the other Allies. 

And related to this topic, I think we can all agree that war is the most terrible thing man has ever created.  But don't get me wrong, I'm not the kind of ass hat who would call a 'Nam vet a baby killer, or disrespect any body who is in our nations service.  I think killing for your country is the ultimate sacrifice for your country.  Doing it so that others won't have too.

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?

yep. but remember that thats only one side and there may have been a classified legit us reason as to not accepting that surrender. or it could have just been anger at pearl harbor.

lowing wrote:

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.

taking iraq is just a little bit different than storming the beaches of normandy....
if your gonna compare at least use similar battles with differnt death rates.

Nicholas Langdon wrote:

lowing wrote:

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.

taking iraq is just a little bit different than storming the beaches of normandy....
if your gonna compare at least use similar battles with differnt death rates.

Well it seems you missed the point.....but that is ok..I said it plainly enough

Bubbalo wrote:

Ender2309 wrote:

you nailed it on the motherfucking head. appeasement bitches. europe would have lost the war without the US though...it was britian as the only people fighting germany and i think germany would have won that fight.

Actually, Germany would have lost WWII anyway, as they couldn't defeat Russia.  What would have happened if to Western Europe if America hadn't intervened can be debated, but then, it's not like the US went into WWII to be nice.  They refused to enter until they were attacked.

Ummmmmm by reading your past posts, I have been drawn to assume that you think the US govt. was chomping at the bit to go to war and we only were lacking an excuse. Now I am lead to believe that you think the US had no interest in going to war and we only did so relunctantly because we were attacked....which one you gunna go with??

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ummmmmm by reading your past posts, I have been drawn to assume that you think the US govt. was chomping at the bit to go to war and we only were lacking an excuse. Now I am lead to believe that you think the US had no interest in going to war and we only did so relunctantly because we were attacked....which one you gunna go with??

Which posts?  WWII dragged the US out of an isolationist policy, so that now they act aggressively and globally.

Ya know what? I will retract my last post to you, maybe it was in another thread but I thought I read a comment from you somewhere that the US couldn't wait to get into the war but Roosevelt needed an excuse to do so and got one with Pearl Harbor. My apologies for jumping the gun.

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ummmmmm by reading your past posts, I have been drawn to assume that you think the US govt. was chomping at the bit to go to war and we only were lacking an excuse. Now I am lead to believe that you think the US had no interest in going to war and we only did so relunctantly because we were attacked....which one you gunna go with??

Which posts?  WWII dragged the US out of an isolationist policy, so that now they act aggressively and globally.

If the US was as agressive as you make us out. Tell me why we let Saddam have his country back when we could have finished this 15 years ago?

Tell me why we help our enemies rebuild their nations, literally days after we force them to surrender unconditionally?

Tell me why are "agressive" posturing does NOT include locking down our borders and we allow 10s of thousands illegal aliens in our country everyday.They are literally dying to get to America. Is CHina, or North Korea or Iran having these problems?

Tell me why the whole world has their hands extended for aid from such an agressive nation such as America? Hell, even our enemies expect us to give them handouts!

I will paraphrase Collin Powell.........All America ever asks is for a place to bury our dead when we are done fighting for you.

Uhhh, pretty good although a bit off topic but...

WHO THE HELL GAVE ME - KARMA "for being an arrogant American"...  Why am I so arrogant when I am trying to see both sides!  I am saying it is bad for anyone to be killed, but by saying killing Iraqi's makes up for killing Americans is very disrespectful as well.  I really don't understand what your saying...