Bush is gay
well on the topic of the Atomic Bombs and lack of respect to human life... i guess i'll rant
70,000 civilians: men, women and children. That’s seventy-thousand people, gone instantaneously, but all’s fair in war, right? Tokyo, a city made of wood, had been firebombed nonstop. Japan’s army, navy, and air force were all nearly destroyed. Was it necessary to drop bombs of such force on civilian targets? Morally, no human being can ever justify vaporizing 70,000 people and inflicting a total of 180,000 casualties.
Making the atom bomb was no easy task. It required years of background knowledge and $2,000,000,000. Even before WWI, German scientists were looking at the power which could be produced by bombarding an atom of a pure element with electrons. By 1942, the United States was well aware that Germany was trying to figure out how to use uranium to make nuclear weapons, thanks to Albert Einstein and two other fellow Jewish scientists who fled Germany for the United States. The US gathered a group of over 15 scientists to work on a top secret mission called “The Manhattan Engineer Project”. Still fearful, in 1943, the US and Britain tried to sabotage Germany’s nuclear weapons program by destroying one of its nitrate plants twice and sinking a boat carrying materials needed to construct an A-Bomb.
By July 16th, 1945, the testing of the atom bomb began. Three were successfully tested in Alamogordo, New Mexico and the US couldn’t wait to show off their new technology, vaporize thousands, and put an end to the war. These tests were conducted over 2 months after May 8, 1945, the date when Germany surrendered to the allies leaving Japan as the only enemy country.
Now, I’m going to go back in time during the war and look at the destruction bestowed upon Japan before the atom bombs were dropped. Leading up to the first atom bomb, the United States had begun round-the-clock bombing of Japan. These bombs were filled with magnesium, napalm or phosphorus. When dropped in large quantities on any city they created massive firestorms, but when dropped on highly populated areas made out of wood, the devastation was complete. The first firestorm created in Tokyo was on March 9th, 1945. This one attack consisted of 334 B-29 bombers and charred 17 square miles and killed between 80,000 and 200,000 people.
A firestorm was created when high explosives and fire bombs were dropped above a city. As the city began to catch fire, the incredibly warm air began to rise and the surrounding cold air was sucked in to take its place, carrying people with it. It also deprived the area of oxygen, so some were lucky enough to pass out before they were sucked in. This created a tornado of fire, with winds that gusted upwards of 150 MPH and in the center of this whirl of hell the temperature reached over 3000 degrees Celsius (or 5432 degrees Fahrenheit).
The Japanese were a resilient people. Even after the mass destruction occurring on their own soil, they continued to fight. As part of “Operation Ten-Go,” on April 6th, 1945 the Japanese launched an attack of 700 kamikaze planes against a US fleet. They destroyed 13 ships. Attacks similar to this one continued until July when the US naval fleet learned how to deal with these kamikaze attacks and fewer ships were lost. In April, the Japanese air force suffered the loss of 2,280 planes (mainly old training planes which comprised most of the remaining fleet) due to kamikaze attacks.
At one point the Japanese had the third largest navy in the world, 10 aircraft carriers, 100 destroyers, 18 heavy cruisers and 18 light cruisers. The destroyers and cruisers were well armed. After June, 1942 and the loss at Midway, the Japanese navy, just like their air force, had been destroyed and would not be revived because of the lack of raw materials to make ships and ammunition.
The only Japanese military force that remained strong and grew in size were the armed forces. In 1945, there were five and a half million soldiers in the army deployed throughout China, the Philippians, Thailand, and the Dutch East Indies. The army, like the navy and air force, lacked supplies. It was impossible to attack foreign countries due to lack of transportation.
With the Japanese military force virtually defeated and many of their cities smoldering ash did the Japanese pose enough of a threat to justify vaporization? The Japanese were given “one last chance” to surrender by President Truman and the other countries attending the Potsdam Conference. One of the orders was for Japan to “…Proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”
My favorite line is the 4th demand “The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.” That’s like asking someone who had just had their arms and legs sliced off to behave rationally. They are writhing on the ground in pain, and pose no real threat, but you ask them to behave rationally? Knowing that the Japanese would not surrender under any circumstances and negotiations and blockades would take too long, the US decided to use its overwhelming power and stop them once and for all with the atom bomb.
On August 6, 1945, a B-29 bomber “the Enola Gay” carried the first atom bomb, nicknamed “Little Boy” to its designated launch point over the Japanese City of Hiroshima where it detonated 2000 ft over the city. The bomb, only 120 inches long and weighing 9,700 pounds destroyed an area of 5 square miles. The number of civilians who died instantly was between seventy and eighty thousand but the after effects of the bomb left 242,437 people dead from either the initial explosion or radiation poisoning years later. The ones who survived either died soon after because of radiation poisoning or died later of cancer. 90% of the deaths were civilian.
On the 9th of August, 1945, the second bomb was dropped, it was nicknamed “Fat Man” because it was bigger than the first. It was dropped on Nagasaki, which was located in the middle of a valley so the casualties were fewer, around 40,000 died instantly and thousands died later on.
There are only 4 main reasons to justify dropping the two bombs on Japan:
-Japan would never surrender; this shock would be the only way to get them to stop.
-The Japanese were so cruel to the POWs at their prison camps and this will be repayment for not only that but also Pearl Harbor.
-To show the superiority of American technology.
-The Manhattan Project (which the US spent $2 billion developing) needed to have a positive outcome in US eyes which meant a successful bombing of Japan.
The first point has been argued against throughout my whole paper. Tokyo was virtually destroyed, their military was destroyed and negotiations or a blockade, or any actual effort would have been more reasonable than dropping atom bombs. After these negotiations, the US would have maintained a more positive approval rating with other countries if they used the atom bombs only as a last resort.
The Japanese were very cruel to the POWs, but the torture inflicted by the atom bombs was so much greater than anything that the Japanese had ever done. Mucus membranes would explode on people who had been affected by the radiation, they also suffered from fevers of up to 106 degrees. The lucky ones who survived faced fierce burns and their clothing melted into their skin. This “pay back” could never justify the dropping of the atom bombs.
Using the bombs would show that America had great technologies and could destroy 5 square miles of land instantly. It was an ego booster for America to drop those bombs and “single handedly” finish WWII. I still can’t see how superiority justifies slaughter.
Finally, $2 billion dollars was a lot of money to spend on a military project, but that doesn’t mean that just because you made it you have to use it. Just the knowledge of the destruction the atom bomb could cause would be more than enough to scare the Japanese into surrender. Most men would surrender if confronted with a high caliber rifle pointed at his forehead. Japan was like that man only with his limbs cut off, defenseless to begin with. If the United States had detonated the bomb in a prearranged location so the Japanese rulers could have observed it from a safe distance and realized its power, the war would have probably been over. But, if Japan decided that they wanted to fight to the death the US could then use bombs in populated areas to end the war.
I don’t think that the atom bomb should have been the solution. There should have been more peace talks or other alternatives (such as the viewing) which would have taken more thought and more time, (considering Japan really had no chance of staging any attacks). It would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and this earth would still have its atomic virginity. There is no way to justify the actions taken by the United States in killing so many civilians. They should have done everything in their power to prevent killing the innocent and only used the weapon as a very last resort.
now, if you can justify A bombing japan.. lets see it
70,000 civilians: men, women and children. That’s seventy-thousand people, gone instantaneously, but all’s fair in war, right? Tokyo, a city made of wood, had been firebombed nonstop. Japan’s army, navy, and air force were all nearly destroyed. Was it necessary to drop bombs of such force on civilian targets? Morally, no human being can ever justify vaporizing 70,000 people and inflicting a total of 180,000 casualties.
Making the atom bomb was no easy task. It required years of background knowledge and $2,000,000,000. Even before WWI, German scientists were looking at the power which could be produced by bombarding an atom of a pure element with electrons. By 1942, the United States was well aware that Germany was trying to figure out how to use uranium to make nuclear weapons, thanks to Albert Einstein and two other fellow Jewish scientists who fled Germany for the United States. The US gathered a group of over 15 scientists to work on a top secret mission called “The Manhattan Engineer Project”. Still fearful, in 1943, the US and Britain tried to sabotage Germany’s nuclear weapons program by destroying one of its nitrate plants twice and sinking a boat carrying materials needed to construct an A-Bomb.
By July 16th, 1945, the testing of the atom bomb began. Three were successfully tested in Alamogordo, New Mexico and the US couldn’t wait to show off their new technology, vaporize thousands, and put an end to the war. These tests were conducted over 2 months after May 8, 1945, the date when Germany surrendered to the allies leaving Japan as the only enemy country.
Now, I’m going to go back in time during the war and look at the destruction bestowed upon Japan before the atom bombs were dropped. Leading up to the first atom bomb, the United States had begun round-the-clock bombing of Japan. These bombs were filled with magnesium, napalm or phosphorus. When dropped in large quantities on any city they created massive firestorms, but when dropped on highly populated areas made out of wood, the devastation was complete. The first firestorm created in Tokyo was on March 9th, 1945. This one attack consisted of 334 B-29 bombers and charred 17 square miles and killed between 80,000 and 200,000 people.
A firestorm was created when high explosives and fire bombs were dropped above a city. As the city began to catch fire, the incredibly warm air began to rise and the surrounding cold air was sucked in to take its place, carrying people with it. It also deprived the area of oxygen, so some were lucky enough to pass out before they were sucked in. This created a tornado of fire, with winds that gusted upwards of 150 MPH and in the center of this whirl of hell the temperature reached over 3000 degrees Celsius (or 5432 degrees Fahrenheit).
The Japanese were a resilient people. Even after the mass destruction occurring on their own soil, they continued to fight. As part of “Operation Ten-Go,” on April 6th, 1945 the Japanese launched an attack of 700 kamikaze planes against a US fleet. They destroyed 13 ships. Attacks similar to this one continued until July when the US naval fleet learned how to deal with these kamikaze attacks and fewer ships were lost. In April, the Japanese air force suffered the loss of 2,280 planes (mainly old training planes which comprised most of the remaining fleet) due to kamikaze attacks.
At one point the Japanese had the third largest navy in the world, 10 aircraft carriers, 100 destroyers, 18 heavy cruisers and 18 light cruisers. The destroyers and cruisers were well armed. After June, 1942 and the loss at Midway, the Japanese navy, just like their air force, had been destroyed and would not be revived because of the lack of raw materials to make ships and ammunition.
The only Japanese military force that remained strong and grew in size were the armed forces. In 1945, there were five and a half million soldiers in the army deployed throughout China, the Philippians, Thailand, and the Dutch East Indies. The army, like the navy and air force, lacked supplies. It was impossible to attack foreign countries due to lack of transportation.
With the Japanese military force virtually defeated and many of their cities smoldering ash did the Japanese pose enough of a threat to justify vaporization? The Japanese were given “one last chance” to surrender by President Truman and the other countries attending the Potsdam Conference. One of the orders was for Japan to “…Proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”
My favorite line is the 4th demand “The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.” That’s like asking someone who had just had their arms and legs sliced off to behave rationally. They are writhing on the ground in pain, and pose no real threat, but you ask them to behave rationally? Knowing that the Japanese would not surrender under any circumstances and negotiations and blockades would take too long, the US decided to use its overwhelming power and stop them once and for all with the atom bomb.
On August 6, 1945, a B-29 bomber “the Enola Gay” carried the first atom bomb, nicknamed “Little Boy” to its designated launch point over the Japanese City of Hiroshima where it detonated 2000 ft over the city. The bomb, only 120 inches long and weighing 9,700 pounds destroyed an area of 5 square miles. The number of civilians who died instantly was between seventy and eighty thousand but the after effects of the bomb left 242,437 people dead from either the initial explosion or radiation poisoning years later. The ones who survived either died soon after because of radiation poisoning or died later of cancer. 90% of the deaths were civilian.
On the 9th of August, 1945, the second bomb was dropped, it was nicknamed “Fat Man” because it was bigger than the first. It was dropped on Nagasaki, which was located in the middle of a valley so the casualties were fewer, around 40,000 died instantly and thousands died later on.
There are only 4 main reasons to justify dropping the two bombs on Japan:
-Japan would never surrender; this shock would be the only way to get them to stop.
-The Japanese were so cruel to the POWs at their prison camps and this will be repayment for not only that but also Pearl Harbor.
-To show the superiority of American technology.
-The Manhattan Project (which the US spent $2 billion developing) needed to have a positive outcome in US eyes which meant a successful bombing of Japan.
The first point has been argued against throughout my whole paper. Tokyo was virtually destroyed, their military was destroyed and negotiations or a blockade, or any actual effort would have been more reasonable than dropping atom bombs. After these negotiations, the US would have maintained a more positive approval rating with other countries if they used the atom bombs only as a last resort.
The Japanese were very cruel to the POWs, but the torture inflicted by the atom bombs was so much greater than anything that the Japanese had ever done. Mucus membranes would explode on people who had been affected by the radiation, they also suffered from fevers of up to 106 degrees. The lucky ones who survived faced fierce burns and their clothing melted into their skin. This “pay back” could never justify the dropping of the atom bombs.
Using the bombs would show that America had great technologies and could destroy 5 square miles of land instantly. It was an ego booster for America to drop those bombs and “single handedly” finish WWII. I still can’t see how superiority justifies slaughter.
Finally, $2 billion dollars was a lot of money to spend on a military project, but that doesn’t mean that just because you made it you have to use it. Just the knowledge of the destruction the atom bomb could cause would be more than enough to scare the Japanese into surrender. Most men would surrender if confronted with a high caliber rifle pointed at his forehead. Japan was like that man only with his limbs cut off, defenseless to begin with. If the United States had detonated the bomb in a prearranged location so the Japanese rulers could have observed it from a safe distance and realized its power, the war would have probably been over. But, if Japan decided that they wanted to fight to the death the US could then use bombs in populated areas to end the war.
I don’t think that the atom bomb should have been the solution. There should have been more peace talks or other alternatives (such as the viewing) which would have taken more thought and more time, (considering Japan really had no chance of staging any attacks). It would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and this earth would still have its atomic virginity. There is no way to justify the actions taken by the United States in killing so many civilians. They should have done everything in their power to prevent killing the innocent and only used the weapon as a very last resort.
now, if you can justify A bombing japan.. lets see it
Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2007-05-09 21:27:22)
Sighhhhhh you made me wikipedia you...........I feel so dirtyCommieChipmunk wrote:
well on the topic of the Atomic Bombs and lack of respect to human life... i guess i'll rant
70,000 civilians: men, women and children. That’s seventy-thousand people, gone instantaneously, but all’s fair in war, right? Tokyo, a city made of wood, had been firebombed nonstop. Japan’s army, navy, and air force were all nearly destroyed. Was it necessary to drop bombs of such force on civilian targets? Morally, no human being can ever justify vaporizing 70,000 people and inflicting a total of 180,000 casualties.
Making the atom bomb was no easy task. It required years of background knowledge and $2,000,000,000. Even before WWI, German scientists were looking at the power which could be produced by bombarding an atom of a pure element with electrons. By 1942, the United States was well aware that Germany was trying to figure out how to use uranium to make nuclear weapons, thanks to Albert Einstein and two other fellow Jewish scientists who fled Germany for the United States. The US gathered a group of over 15 scientists to work on a top secret mission called “The Manhattan Engineer Project”. Still fearful, in 1943, the US and Britain tried to sabotage Germany’s nuclear weapons program by destroying one of its nitrate plants twice and sinking a boat carrying materials needed to construct an A-Bomb.
By July 16th, 1945, the testing of the atom bomb began. Three were successfully tested in Alamogordo, New Mexico and the US couldn’t wait to show off their new technology, vaporize thousands, and put an end to the war. These tests were conducted over 2 months after May 8, 1945, the date when Germany surrendered to the allies leaving Japan as the only enemy country.
Now, I’m going to go back in time during the war and look at the destruction bestowed upon Japan before the atom bombs were dropped. Leading up to the first atom bomb, the United States had begun round-the-clock bombing of Japan. These bombs were filled with magnesium, napalm or phosphorus. When dropped in large quantities on any city they created massive firestorms, but when dropped on highly populated areas made out of wood, the devastation was complete. The first firestorm created in Tokyo was on March 9th, 1945. This one attack consisted of 334 B-29 bombers and charred 17 square miles and killed between 80,000 and 200,000 people.
A firestorm was created when high explosives and fire bombs were dropped above a city. As the city began to catch fire, the incredibly warm air began to rise and the surrounding cold air was sucked in to take its place, carrying people with it. It also deprived the area of oxygen, so some were lucky enough to pass out before they were sucked in. This created a tornado of fire, with winds that gusted upwards of 150 MPH and in the center of this whirl of hell the temperature reached over 3000 degrees Celsius (or 5432 degrees Fahrenheit).
The Japanese were a resilient people. Even after the mass destruction occurring on their own soil, they continued to fight. As part of “Operation Ten-Go,” on April 6th, 1945 the Japanese launched an attack of 700 kamikaze planes against a US fleet. They destroyed 13 ships. Attacks similar to this one continued until July when the US naval fleet learned how to deal with these kamikaze attacks and fewer ships were lost. In April, the Japanese air force suffered the loss of 2,280 planes (mainly old training planes which comprised most of the remaining fleet) due to kamikaze attacks.
At one point the Japanese had the third largest navy in the world, 10 aircraft carriers, 100 destroyers, 18 heavy cruisers and 18 light cruisers. The destroyers and cruisers were well armed. After June, 1942 and the loss at Midway, the Japanese navy, just like their air force, had been destroyed and would not be revived because of the lack of raw materials to make ships and ammunition.
The only Japanese military force that remained strong and grew in size were the armed forces. In 1945, there were five and a half million soldiers in the army deployed throughout China, the Philippians, Thailand, and the Dutch East Indies. The army, like the navy and air force, lacked supplies. It was impossible to attack foreign countries due to lack of transportation.
With the Japanese military force virtually defeated and many of their cities smoldering ash did the Japanese pose enough of a threat to justify vaporization? The Japanese were given “one last chance” to surrender by President Truman and the other countries attending the Potsdam Conference. One of the orders was for Japan to “…Proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”
My favorite line is the 4th demand “The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.” That’s like asking someone who had just had their arms and legs sliced off to behave rationally. They are writhing on the ground in pain, and pose no real threat, but you ask them to behave rationally? Knowing that the Japanese would not surrender under any circumstances and negotiations and blockades would take too long, the US decided to use its overwhelming power and stop them once and for all with the atom bomb.
On August 6, 1945, a B-29 bomber “the Enola Gay” carried the first atom bomb, nicknamed “Little Boy” to its designated launch point over the Japanese City of Hiroshima where it detonated 2000 ft over the city. The bomb, only 120 inches long and weighing 9,700 pounds destroyed an area of 5 square miles. The number of civilians who died instantly was between seventy and eighty thousand but the after effects of the bomb left 242,437 people dead from either the initial explosion or radiation poisoning years later. The ones who survived either died soon after because of radiation poisoning or died later of cancer. 90% of the deaths were civilian.
On the 9th of August, 1945, the second bomb was dropped, it was nicknamed “Fat Man” because it was bigger than the first. It was dropped on Nagasaki, which was located in the middle of a valley so the casualties were fewer, around 40,000 died instantly and thousands died later on.
There are only 4 main reasons to justify dropping the two bombs on Japan:
-Japan would never surrender; this shock would be the only way to get them to stop.
-The Japanese were so cruel to the POWs at their prison camps and this will be repayment for not only that but also Pearl Harbor.
-To show the superiority of American technology.
-The Manhattan Project (which the US spent $2 billion developing) needed to have a positive outcome in US eyes which meant a successful bombing of Japan.
The first point has been argued against throughout my whole paper. Tokyo was virtually destroyed, their military was destroyed and negotiations or a blockade, or any actual effort would have been more reasonable than dropping atom bombs. After these negotiations, the US would have maintained a more positive approval rating with other countries if they used the atom bombs only as a last resort.
The Japanese were very cruel to the POWs, but the torture inflicted by the atom bombs was so much greater than anything that the Japanese had ever done. Mucous membranes would explode on people who had been affected by the radiation, they also suffered from fevers of up to 106 degrees. The lucky ones who survived faced fierce burns and their clothing melted into their skin. This “pay back” could never justify the dropping of the atom bombs.
Using the bombs would show that America had great technologies and could destroy 5 square miles of land instantly. It was an ego booster for America to drop those bombs and “single handedly” finish WWII. I still can’t see how superiority justifies slaughter.
Finally, $2 billion dollars was a lot of money to spend on a military project, but that doesn’t mean that just because you made it you have to use it. Just the knowledge of the destruction the atom bomb could cause would be more than enough to scare the Japanese into surrender. Most men would surrender if confronted with a high caliber rifle pointed at his forehead. Japan was like that man only with his limbs cut off, defenseless to begin with. If the United States had detonated the bomb in a prearranged location so the Japanese rulers could have observed it from a safe distance and realized its power, the war would have probably been over. But, if Japan decided that they wanted to fight to the death the US could then use bombs in populated areas to end the war.
I don’t think that the atom bomb should have been the solution. There should have been more peace talks or other alternatives (such as the viewing) which would have taken more thought and more time. It would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and this earth would still have its atomic virginity. There is no way to justify the actions taken by the United States in killing so many civilians. They should have done everything in their power to prevent killing the innocent and only used the weapon as a very last resort.
now, if you can justify A bombing japan.. lets see it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bom … d_Nagasaki
wikipedia me? what?
I would debate this post with you but herding cats appeals as a more constructive pastime. do a little research into the context of events and the state of the world at the time.
hmm.. do a little research.. did you see my post? i think i did a considerable amount of research ... i think i'm a -1 magnet...
hmm.. do a little research.. did you see my post? i think i did a considerable amount of research ... i think i'm a -1 magnet...
Well in your "research" it seems you are about one of the only ones who think invading Japan would have saved lives over dropping the bomb. I love your 10 minutes of research for a meaningless post, over the probably 1000's of experts who have spent years pondering this very question of, did dropping the bomb save lives? With the vast majority concluding that the answer was yes it did. So I agree with you debating an issue that has long been concluded does seem less entertaining than "herd cats".CommieChipmunk wrote:
I would debate this post with you but herding cats appeals as a more constructive pastime. do a little research into the context of events and the state of the world at the time.
hmm.. do a little research.. did you see my post? i think i did a considerable amount of research ... i think i'm a -1 magnet...
And I didn't - karma you in case you were wondering
Last edited by lowing (2006-05-16 21:08:29)
invading japan? when did i say we should have invaded japan... i was questioning the morality behind the dropping of the atom bombs...to me it sounded like japan was pretty much destroyed and posed no threat (considering they had no real navy and airforce after at this point) its like shooting a dead person in the face
Apologies, must have missed it.lowing wrote:
Bubbalo..I have seen you post on other threads.........when were going to respond to this???lowing wrote:
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.
The fact that you assist enemies to rebuild doesn't make you non-aggressive. Look at Iraq, for example. As America rebuilds, they also draw up plans for permanent army bases. They selected the interim government. They screen army recruits. Creating allies by force is just as aggressive as levelling a country, and a hell of a lot more feasible to boot.
I find your last line particularly amusing. America only fights when it's in their interest. By the time America arrived in WWI the war was just about over, in WWII they only declared war after they were attacked. By contrast, Australian troops died in droves for the French and British during WWI and, to a slightly lesser degree, WWII, when we had our own problems to worry about (Japan). Yet I would still consider Australia under John Howard to be quite aggressive.
And? The fact that an enemy *currently* poses no threat doesn't mean they won't in future. The Japanese had to surrender to ensure they didn't merely rebuild and go back to war.CommieChipmunk wrote:
invading japan? when did i say we should have invaded japan... i was questioning the morality behind the dropping of the atom bombs...to me it sounded like japan was pretty much destroyed and posed no threat (considering they had no real navy and airforce after at this point) its like shooting a dead person in the face
I think we need to redefine agressive here........If it is agressive to protect our own countries interests....ok guilty as charged.....If it is agressive to help those that can't help themselves against an inhumane regime......guilty.......or agressive to seek out and attack those that want to do our nation and its people harm.....yup and thank god for it..Bubbalo wrote:
Apologies, must have missed it.lowing wrote:
Bubbalo..I have seen you post on other threads.........when were going to respond to this???lowing wrote:
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.
The fact that you assist enemies to rebuild doesn't make you non-aggressive. Look at Iraq, for example. As America rebuilds, they also draw up plans for permanent army bases. They selected the interim government. They screen army recruits. Creating allies by force is just as aggressive as levelling a country, and a hell of a lot more feasible to boot.
I find your last line particularly amusing. America only fights when it's in their interest. By the time America arrived in WWI the war was just about over, in WWII they only declared war after they were attacked. By contrast, Australian troops died in droves for the French and British during WWI and, to a slightly lesser degree, WWII, when we had our own problems to worry about (Japan). Yet I would still consider Australia under John Howard to be quite aggressive.And? The fact that an enemy *currently* poses no threat doesn't mean they won't in future. The Japanese had to surrender to ensure they didn't merely rebuild and go back to war.CommieChipmunk wrote:
invading japan? when did i say we should have invaded japan... i was questioning the morality behind the dropping of the atom bombs...to me it sounded like japan was pretty much destroyed and posed no threat (considering they had no real navy and airforce after at this point) its like shooting a dead person in the face
But if you think we America is the agressive state over North Korea, or Iran now I gotta disagree. We are protectors of the free world, there is nothing that shows that we conquorers of it.
Name one humanitarian war the US has been involved in.lowing wrote:
I think we need to redefine agressive here........If it is agressive to protect our own countries interests....ok guilty as charged.....If it is agressive to help those that can't help themselves against an inhumane regime......guilty.......or agressive to seek out and attack those that want to do our nation and its people harm.....yup and thank god for it..
But if you think we America is the agressive state over North Korea, or Iran now I gotta disagree. We are protectors of the free world, there is nothing that shows that we conquorers of it.
As for defending your interests, attacking a country which has no chance of even launching an attack, much less defeating you, is aggressive. By your definition the USSR was peaceful. It is an aggressive defence.
I 'gree with you there.... I certainly do... Games such as BF2 aren't helping (subconsious psychological conditioning.... Or so my father claims....).....TrollmeaT wrote:
I think the tv is to blame for desensitising many generations to death.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Except for that little missed "necessary" action to end the war...........They didn't surrender, they know of the bomb before we dropped the first one, they didn't surrender, they definately knew of the bomb before we dropped the SECOND one, they didn't surrender.CommieChipmunk wrote:
invading japan? when did i say we should have invaded japan... i was questioning the morality behind the dropping of the atom bombs...to me it sounded like japan was pretty much destroyed and posed no threat (considering they had no real navy and airforce after at this point) its like shooting a dead person in the face
The choice was invade, drop the bomb, or surrender.......You seem to forget, that the turning point of the war in the pacific was Midway in June of '42....3 years later.....on Iwa Jima and Okinawa etc.......the Japanese faught to virtually the last man even when the battles could not have been won. Surrender was a disgrace to the Japanese and after Okinawa and the tenacity of their forces, even facing certain defeat, convinced the allies that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would be even more brutal. Hence the bomb. This was a decision that Truman struggled with, he didn't want to make this decision, but he had to and he chose the route that would first, save AMERICAN lives.
When the future of that decision is already known, and the war won by the allies, and America and Japan now prospering as friends. It seems alittle rediculous that you can look back with the gift of hind sight and still criticize the decision.
Iraq was posing to threaten ALL of our "so called" middle eastern allies. That, is a threat to our interests.Bubbalo wrote:
Name one humanitarian war the US has been involved in.lowing wrote:
I think we need to redefine agressive here........If it is agressive to protect our own countries interests....ok guilty as charged.....If it is agressive to help those that can't help themselves against an inhumane regime......guilty.......or agressive to seek out and attack those that want to do our nation and its people harm.....yup and thank god for it..
But if you think we America is the agressive state over North Korea, or Iran now I gotta disagree. We are protectors of the free world, there is nothing that shows that we conquorers of it.
As for defending your interests, attacking a country which has no chance of even launching an attack, much less defeating you, is aggressive. By your definition the USSR was peaceful. It is an aggressive defence.
Only 1, ok.........Granada, how about 2? Somolia,
How about I mention all of the aid during times of crisis for other countries, (even our enemies) for earthquake relief and such. By your definintion of agressive, you can say that the US is agressive to help out where and when it can.....Did the USSR?
Edited:........Maybe you will let me add the Berlin airlift to the list, or the war fought in China by the American Volunteer Group before 1941.
Last edited by lowing (2006-05-17 03:55:37)
There is marked difference between defending ones interests and defend ones nation. Defending ones interests is about making yourself richer and more powerful, at the expense of others.lowing wrote:
Iraq was posing to threaten ALL of our "so called" middle eastern allies. That, is a threat to our interests.
I've never heard of Granada, and I'd appreciate a link to any article which discusses it. As to Somalia, that was never supposed to be war, but an armed intervention to provide relief and cease a civil war. But turning it into a war, the US earned the ire of many Somalians, and started dying, at which point they ran home.lowing wrote:
Only 1, ok.........Granada, how about 2? Somolia,
What aid have you provided to enemies?lowing wrote:
How about I mention all of the aid during times of crisis for other countries, (even our enemies) for earthquake relief and such. By your definintion of agressive, you can say that the US is agressive to help out where and when it can.....Did the USSR?
As for the USSR, the gave Cuba huge amounts of aid prior to collapse. And why did they need to? Oh, that's right, when Fidel Castro started kicking out the American companies who were abusing the local resources and people, America cracked a hissy fit and blockaded them. They were actually pretty amenable to Castro before that though.
The Berlin airlift was part of the Cold War, and largely a strategic consideration. The US couldn't be seen to be defeated by the USSR. As for Americans in China, I feel it bears mentioning that they supported the nationalists, who lacked the popular support of the people AND were far harsher than the communists. But hey, whatever.lowing wrote:
Edited:........Maybe you will let me add the Berlin airlift to the list, or the war fought in China by the American Volunteer Group before 1941.
And as to whoever gave me negative karma (and yes, I do believe it was you lowing), I find that childish and immature. My point in that post was that even is supposed humanitarian wars (and as such none have been named, with the possible exception of Granada) the US is primarily defending strategic interests. If that isn't the case, why aren't they in Sudan?
Japan killed more civilians than the Nazis did but no one cares about Asians dying I guess.
( philipino's chineese and such )
Note: Fulangong
Sp ?
( philipino's chineese and such )
Note: Fulangong
Sp ?
So......two wrongs make a right?
It was "strategic " that we wouldn't let thousands of people stave to death?Bubbalo wrote:
The Berlin airlift was part of the Cold War, and largely a strategic consideration.
What are you talking about here. Defeated? Perhaps bullied would be a more appropriate word?Bubbalo wrote:
The US couldn't be seen to be defeated by the USSR.
Harsher ? The PRC Gov. holds the Record for mass extermination of its own citizens.Bubbalo wrote:
As for Americans in China, I feel it bears mentioning that they supported the nationalists, who lacked the popular support of the people AND were far harsher than the communists. But hey, whatever.
Where have you been?
When has any communist nation needed the popular support of the people? Don't make me laugh. You are falling for this communist sh*t 20 years after the entire world has come to the conclusion its a lost cause.
He gave you a -1 ? Are you OK? shall I call an ambulance ?Bubbalo wrote:
And as to whoever gave me negative karma (and yes, I do believe it was you lowing), I find that childish and immature.
Our strategic interest usually coincide with the worlds well being. Luckily for everyone in Europe, etc., etc.Bubbalo wrote:
My point in that post was that even is supposed humanitarian wars (and as such none have been named, with the possible exception of Granada) the US is primarily defending strategic interests. If that isn't the case, why aren't they in Sudan?
Every place we have bailed on desperately wants us back Vietnam Cuba etc.
Why are you a sad and lonely disgruntled communist hold out? Are you the "Very last Communist" left? What's that feel like? Jump on the team for the big win Kid!
@ lowing: Why did you not ignore this kid " like a bee in a Classroom " Shame on you !
Look at the tripe we must Wade through now, tsk tsk tsk.
Yes, same as it was strategic considerations that stopped the allies from pushing for death camps faster in WWII, or refusing to let the USSR rule half of Germany.Horseman 77 wrote:
It was "strategic " that we wouldn't let thousands of people stave to death?
Funny thing, the Cold War is called the Cold War because there were no actual conflicts between the US and the USSR. Instead, they supported other wars, and fought battles in other fields, including the Space Race, and incidents like the Berlin airlift. But yes, it was an attempt at bullying the allies into giving up all of Berlin.Horseman 77 wrote:
What are you talking about here. Defeated? Perhaps bullied would be a more appropriate word?
Post war, yes, yes they do. That has nothing to do with what happened during the war.Horseman 77 wrote:
Harsher ? The PRC Gov. holds the Record for mass extermination of its own citizens.
Where have you been?
I am under no misconceptions about the fact that both China and the USSR were horribly oppressive and violent regimes. I am under no illusion as to where the sympathies of the citizens lay after they realised what their revolution had done. I am also under no illusions about the fact that a revolution *cannot* be achieved without popular support. That makes is a coup. Nobody refers to the Chinese/Russian coup. Read up on your Russian history before you say who had popular support. It didn't lie with the Tsar.Horseman 77 wrote:
When has any communist nation needed the popular support of the people? Don't make me laugh. You are falling for this communist sh*t 20 years after the entire world has come to the conclusion its a lost cause.
Fine, although I'll still take the ambulance. I'm sure the resale value is excellent. If I cared about my karma I probably wouldn't have posted in the supporting american troops thread.Horseman 77 wrote:
He gave you a -1 ? Are you OK? shall I call an ambulance ?
Which a) doesn't mean you aren't aggressive, just that it's a good thing.Horseman 77 wrote:
Our strategic interest usually coincide with the worlds well being. Luckily for everyone in Europe, etc., etc.
Every place we have bailed on desperately wants us back Vietnam Cuba etc.
and b) isn't necessarily true. In Vietnam you were supporting a corrupt government. In Cuba you were trying to get rid of a man who ousted a corrupt government, and vastly improved the health and education system. And shall we discuss where your sympathies lay in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Cold war?
The communist ideal is in theory, great. So is the capitalist ideal. Neither translate well into reality, but I don't understand where the communism=bad theory comes from. Communists kill and screw over citizens within their borders. Capitalists kill and screw over citizens outside their border. The difference?Horseman 77 wrote:
Why are you a sad and lonely disgruntled communist hold out? Are you the "Very last Communist" left? What's that feel like?
Uh-huh. So, everyone who disagrees with you must be a kid?Horseman 77 wrote:
Jump on the team for the big win Kid!
So if someone doesn't agree with you ignore them? Oh, you're right, you *are* much smarter than me.Horseman 77 wrote:
@ lowing: Why did you not ignore this kid " like a bee in a Classroom " Shame on you !
Look at the tripe we must Wade through now, tsk tsk tsk.
While it's aborhable to think about the lives lost due to America's nuclear "hello" to the world I can't help but think that the Japanese Emperial powers had much to with the necessity of that act.
All I was going to say in this post was..."Rape of Nanking". If you don't know about it, please read up should you find the testicles or the stomach for it. Beyond the sheer brutality of the Japanese march through China we can look at more "Americanization" of thier zealotous science of torture and death. Such as what occured to the American and Philipine soldiers who had surrendered after McArthur's retreat, out of 50k left some 10k came out alive. That one's called the "Batan Death March". Shall we talk about each and every island fortress and the casualties inflicted on US forces attempting to invade those islands? Or perhaps we can discuss the socialogical impact of the pseudo-samurai code which denounced foreigners and called for fanatical loyalty.
What the Japanese did during WW2 is inexcusable. In my opinion the ruling powers were guilty of more war crimes than Hitler and Nazi Germany. Each and every "succesfull" invasion of a Japanese controlled island cost thousands, tens of thousands of lives. Why then would we content ourselves to giving quarter to the butcherous forces setting up to defend the Japanese mainland to the death?
I'm all for objective viewing of history and finding better ways to deal with the future. Try and tell me that the Japanese got it bad and I think I'd disagree, they got off easy in the face of thier actions during WW2.
Scotch
All I was going to say in this post was..."Rape of Nanking". If you don't know about it, please read up should you find the testicles or the stomach for it. Beyond the sheer brutality of the Japanese march through China we can look at more "Americanization" of thier zealotous science of torture and death. Such as what occured to the American and Philipine soldiers who had surrendered after McArthur's retreat, out of 50k left some 10k came out alive. That one's called the "Batan Death March". Shall we talk about each and every island fortress and the casualties inflicted on US forces attempting to invade those islands? Or perhaps we can discuss the socialogical impact of the pseudo-samurai code which denounced foreigners and called for fanatical loyalty.
What the Japanese did during WW2 is inexcusable. In my opinion the ruling powers were guilty of more war crimes than Hitler and Nazi Germany. Each and every "succesfull" invasion of a Japanese controlled island cost thousands, tens of thousands of lives. Why then would we content ourselves to giving quarter to the butcherous forces setting up to defend the Japanese mainland to the death?
I'm all for objective viewing of history and finding better ways to deal with the future. Try and tell me that the Japanese got it bad and I think I'd disagree, they got off easy in the face of thier actions during WW2.
Scotch
Very good post. In fact for Genocide the stats Go like this.-F8-Scotch wrote:
While it's aborhable to think about the lives lost due to America's nuclear "hello" to the world I can't help but think that the Japanese Emperial powers had much to with the necessity of that act.
All I was going to say in this post was..."Rape of Nanking". If you don't know about it, please read up should you find the testicles or the stomach for it. Beyond the sheer brutality of the Japanese march through China we can look at more "Americanization" of thier zealotous science of torture and death. Such as what occured to the American and Philipine soldiers who had surrendered after McArthur's retreat, out of 50k left some 10k came out alive. That one's called the "Batan Death March". Shall we talk about each and every island fortress and the casualties inflicted on US forces attempting to invade those islands? Or perhaps we can discuss the socialogical impact of the pseudo-samurai code which denounced foreigners and called for fanatical loyalty.
What the Japanese did during WW2 is inexcusable. In my opinion the ruling powers were guilty of more war crimes than Hitler and Nazi Germany. Each and every "succesfull" invasion of a Japanese controlled island cost thousands, tens of thousands of lives. Why then would we content ourselves to giving quarter to the butcherous forces setting up to defend the Japanese mainland to the death?
I'm all for objective viewing of history and finding better ways to deal with the future. Try and tell me that the Japanese got it bad and I think I'd disagree, they got off easy in the face of thier actions during WW2.
Scotch
1st place People's Republic of China.. on Chinese citizens
2nd place Imperial Japan................. on Chinese citizens.
3rd place U.S.S.R. ........................... on USSR citizens.*
4th place Nazi Germany ................... on European citizens.
* Recent declassified Soviet documents made available by Russian authorities. Special note of interest is that many of the jews credited to the Nazis were actually exterminated by the USSR under Stalin. The USSR eclipses Nazi Germany in total number of jews killed.
We pushed for the death camps as fast as we could, If we pushed faster we could have lost all together Then were would the jews have been. Germany didn't roll over ala italy or France. the produced more aircraft in the Last year of the war than all the other years combined. ironically if we had lost or didnt insist on unconditional surrender, we wouldn't be fighting over israel now. Dont be under any Allusions that anyone would have came to help us either, then or now.Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, same as it was strategic considerations that stopped the allies from pushing for death camps faster in WWII, or refusing to let the USSR rule half of Germany.
little history lesson here. ty..Bubbalo wrote:
Funny thing, the Cold War is called the Cold War because there were no actual conflicts between the US and the USSR. Instead, they supported other wars, and fought battles in other fields, including the Space Race, and incidents like the Berlin airlift. But yes, it was an attempt at bullying the allies into giving up all of Berlin.
Horseman 77 wrote:
Harsher ? The PRC Gov. holds the Record for mass extermination of its own citizens.
Where have you been?
Are you kidding ? they were nice before and then got grumpy. please get real.Bubbalo wrote:
Post war, yes, yes they do. That has nothing to do with what happened during the war.
have you ever heard of a White Russian? maybe "you" need to brush up on history a bit. These people were peasant farmers mostly and had no idea what was going on and why. Do you think the watched tvs or had radios? if they had time to read it would only be what news papers tell them.Bubbalo wrote:
I am under no misconceptions about the fact that both China and the USSR were horribly oppressive and violent regimes. I am under no illusion as to where the sympathies of the citizens lay after they realised what their revolution had done. I am also under no illusions about the fact that a revolution *cannot* be achieved without popular support. That makes is a coup. Nobody refers to the Chinese/Russian coup. Read up on your Russian history before you say who had popular support. It didn't lie with the Tsar.
Media here in the USA says we are all gay and love liberals and desperately want the government to take our guns away. yet the elections never reflect it
Why did you moo about it to him then ?Bubbalo wrote:
If I cared about my karma I probably wouldn't have posted in the supporting american troops thread.
Horseman 77 wrote:
Our strategic interest usually coincide with the worlds well being. Luckily for everyone in Europe, etc., etc.
Every place we have bailed on desperately wants us back Vietnam Cuba etc.
Propaganda dude, why do the risk their lives floating here on an inner tube? keep it reality based.Bubbalo wrote:
Which a) doesn't mean you aren't aggressive, just that it's a good thing.
and b) isn't necessarily true. In Vietnam you were supporting a corrupt government. In Cuba you were trying to get rid of a man who ousted a corrupt government, and vastly improved the health and education system. And shall we discuss where your sympathies lay in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Cold war?
Who have we screwed over and killed outside our boarders?Bubbalo wrote:
The communist ideal is in theory, great. So is the capitalist ideal. Neither translate well into reality, but I don't understand where the communism=bad theory comes from. Communists kill and screw over citizens within their borders. Capitalists kill and screw over citizens outside their border. The difference?
Horseman 77 wrote:
Jump on the team for the big win Kid!
Sounds to me like a Freshly educated young man. not steep in experience and reality yetBubbalo wrote:
Uh-huh. So, everyone who disagrees with you must be a kid?
Horseman 77 wrote:
@ lowing: Why did you not ignore this kid " like a bee in a Classroom " Shame on you !
Look at the tripe we must Wade through now, tsk tsk tsk.
Gee thanks !Bubbalo wrote:
So if someone doesn't agree with you ignore them? Oh, you're right, you *are* much smarter than me.
I always hate to interject but there certainly is one point that you are both wrong about.
During the push across Europe towards Germany the Allied forces had little knowledge of the concentration camps in question. It was only after forces had stumbled upon these horrific scenes of genocide that it became a priority to find and liberate these camps as quickly as possible. Before, during and subsequently after Hitler's rule there was little information about the concentration camps that leaked out of the Nazi government. Only after millions of documents had been sorted and cataloged that the true nature of Hitler's concentration camp program was known.
Even during the rise to power and early stages of the "resettlement project" for the nazi party most German's believed the Jews to have been moved out of Germany. Over the course of the war there had to be stories being circulated but outside of Germany little was known of the extent or brutality of Hitler's plan. Realistically most concentration camps were accessible by rail only. Hardly anyone escaped and the SS, who were in charge of the camps, were seasoned against the grissly jobs they undertook as well as fanatical supporters for the Nazi party.
There was no "race" to free the Jewish holocaust victims, no one really knew what was going on untill the first camps were uncovered.
Back to your regular scheduled program: Commie vs. Cappy, both suck equally.
Scotch
During the push across Europe towards Germany the Allied forces had little knowledge of the concentration camps in question. It was only after forces had stumbled upon these horrific scenes of genocide that it became a priority to find and liberate these camps as quickly as possible. Before, during and subsequently after Hitler's rule there was little information about the concentration camps that leaked out of the Nazi government. Only after millions of documents had been sorted and cataloged that the true nature of Hitler's concentration camp program was known.
Even during the rise to power and early stages of the "resettlement project" for the nazi party most German's believed the Jews to have been moved out of Germany. Over the course of the war there had to be stories being circulated but outside of Germany little was known of the extent or brutality of Hitler's plan. Realistically most concentration camps were accessible by rail only. Hardly anyone escaped and the SS, who were in charge of the camps, were seasoned against the grissly jobs they undertook as well as fanatical supporters for the Nazi party.
There was no "race" to free the Jewish holocaust victims, no one really knew what was going on untill the first camps were uncovered.
Back to your regular scheduled program: Commie vs. Cappy, both suck equally.
Scotch
I do agree with you to some level, Truman had to act fast and with an effective way to end the war. After having time to reflect on this point there may have been better alternatives. But the biggest reason I dont have full agreement is in the statement about saving American lives. This thread is about respect to life and you are showing disrespect. I do not truley care if it was the right/wrong decision but what is more important life and prosperity for all life or the life of just one nation.lowing wrote:
Except for that little missed "necessary" action to end the war...........They didn't surrender, they know of the bomb before we dropped the first one, they didn't surrender, they definately knew of the bomb before we dropped the SECOND one, they didn't surrender.CommieChipmunk wrote:
invading japan? when did i say we should have invaded japan... i was questioning the morality behind the dropping of the atom bombs...to me it sounded like japan was pretty much destroyed and posed no threat (considering they had no real navy and airforce after at this point) its like shooting a dead person in the face
The choice was invade, drop the bomb, or surrender.......You seem to forget, that the turning point of the war in the pacific was Midway in June of '42....3 years later.....on Iwa Jima and Okinawa etc.......the Japanese faught to virtually the last man even when the battles could not have been won. Surrender was a disgrace to the Japanese and after Okinawa and the tenacity of their forces, even facing certain defeat, convinced the allies that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would be even more brutal. Hence the bomb. This was a decision that Truman struggled with, he didn't want to make this decision, but he had to and he chose the route that would first, save AMERICAN lives.
When the future of that decision is already known, and the war won by the allies, and America and Japan now prospering as friends. It seems alittle rediculous that you can look back with the gift of hind sight and still criticize the decision.
You need to think about this, Americans are our fellow people, but what if the bomb had not been dropped and a descendant from one of the famalies moved to America became AMERICAN... Hypothetically speaking we could have killed future Americans and doing everyone harm.
I tried to incorperate this to get back onto track...
And why was this, exactly? What difference would it make if the war against Japan lasted another year? If US Presidents didn't care so much about re-election they might think more rationally.I do agree with you to some level, Truman had to act fast and with an effective way to end the war.
Well I couldnt think of a way to get back at this, so I agree even less to Lowing's previous posts, but they still needed to have a way to show that US was the most powerful nation. This might have stopped some other uprisings when the enemies know they can be exterminated with a single bomb. But still we have had time to look back at this and find the better way out.Talon wrote:
And why was this, exactly? What difference would it make if the war against Japan lasted another year? If US Presidents didn't care so much about re-election they might think more rationally.I do agree with you to some level, Truman had to act fast and with an effective way to end the war.
If you read more... I dont agree with the descision all that much, but we have had lots of time to reflect and Truman was on the hotseat, under pressure of US citizcens to get US troops home. If I were under that much pressure it might be a different story than just talking about it on some internet forum.
Dont get the wrong idea though, the bomb was used to preserve US troops over Japanese citizcens. I cannot approve of that even if it might have saved lives in the end, it is the reason that bugs me...
Last edited by specops10-4 (2006-05-17 13:39:29)