|
|
| Page 4 of 6 |
Macknu
Posts: 636
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 00:34 Post subject: |
|
 |
| Weducks wrote: | | only you that insult me/my country. You all need to get off your high Horse. It is easy to talk so smart, but never get off your ass to do anything about any world problems. |
So tell me, what can a single person do?
And if you think its only 20people that think the way you read here about america your really stupid, half the world does + some more.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 00:43 Post subject: |
|
|
I don`t have any bad feelings about americans or any other nation on this world.
I just hate people that abuse their might.
I like to make my own conclusion with the information I can get.
Try to validate, try to filter, try to see the truth behind the "truth"...
And I`m sure, I never insulted you!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 00:43 Post subject: |
|
|
If you think the rest of the world thinks like you, then you are really stupid.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Macknu
Posts: 636
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 01:34 Post subject: |
|
|
| Weducks wrote: | | If you think the rest of the world thinks like you, then you are really stupid. |
I know the rest of the world doesnt think like me, were all different you know but you maybe didnt know that yet.
Why dont you try to change the picture people here on forum and alot of people around the world has about usa (even alot of americans has opened their eyes and can se it)? All you doing here is giving proof on how stupid and ignorant americans can be, instead try to act smart and give us proof that you can be, but you maybe dont know how to act smart?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 01:37 Post subject: |
|
|
No, I rather piss you off.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Macknu
Posts: 636
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 01:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| Weducks wrote: | | No, I rather piss you off. |
Thing is you cant piss me off, only thing you do is giving me proof how stupid and ignorant americans can be (a little thankful for that ofcourse couse that means im right on that point).
Btw, have you ever given a smart and serius answer here? All i se from you is flames, its a wonder that mods havnt perm banned you yet.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 01:50 Post subject: |
|
|
You do not understand the word, FLAME, do you.
You flame my country on your every post.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 01:58 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You do not understand the word, FLAME, do you. |
better look it up again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming
Somehow your replies remember me at something:
| Quote: | Techniques for Flaming
Technique #1: Make it personal!!
A good way to make an effective attack on someone is to take any comment you disagree with and turn it into a personal attack on yourself. For example, if a person disagrees with one of the viewpoints of your chosen political party, say "As a member of the (INSERT political party here) Party, I object to the fact that you think I am an uneducated, worthless, uninformed member of society. I think that you need to rethink your attack on me and my firmly held beliefs and learn to accept alternate views as valid." Don't worry if the offending person said nothing to imply you are undeducated, worthless, or uninformed: people aren't paying that much attention anyway, and will take your word for it. |
Does it fit or does it fit?!
I found it here:
http://www.boredreader.com/links.htm
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 03:01 Post subject: |
|
|
This used to be a pretty interesting thread until Weducks came along and fucked it up.
You succeed with your small-boy flamewar Weducks, and you're also a part of why so many are fucking disgusted when they think of America. Let me tell you, people like you are the ones that make people like me think of America, and see -all bad-. You represent your nation when you're here, you know that?
You might say "well, this is just a little insignificant rant", but it isn't, everyone who reads your post knows you come from the U.S.A. - and they think "typical". And you might think it's funny, and "Ha-ha! I provoked that, I'm so smart... this isn't really what I think", but that just proves that you're even worse - meaning a dishonest prick who is so insecure about himself he can't even do a decent argument.
You're representing your nation here, and like most (and I say most now, because I do believe there are a few decent people from the USA here) - you misrepresent your nation, feeding prejudism.
So, if you're serious about disliking people who "talk trash about the good ole USA", then stop acting like you do, and you'll start realising that we're pretty reasonable people.
But I'll place my bet, and say you'll fail to understand what this post is about - and continue to be a part of what's the biggest problem with your country.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 04:02 Post subject: |
|
|
| fisk wrote: |
But I'll place my bet, and say you'll fail to understand what this post is about |
You won't get good odds on that bet, I assure you.
Also, Weducks may not be American. Doubtful, but a possibility.
back on topic:
the use of nukes is a tricky issue. Less so from a purely moral standpoint as it will always be wrong in that regard. However, worldly events can bring up some tricky dilemmas. imo, the use of 2 nukes was unnecessary.Although, I do feel the U.S. had to show intent by dropping the Nukes on a target as apposed to demonstrating the ability.
Condoning the nuclear strike is only acceptable if it meant a quick end to a ghastly war for which there was hard evidence that many would have suffered. Unfortunately it is unclear if such a clear cut scenario was present. As previously mentioned it is possible that other factors were involved in making the decision. Personally, I believe there was a research element to the bombings.
I strongly disagree with the utilitarian approach but the real world cannot uphold the Kantian approach unless everyone used it, which is impossible in a war situation as to be in that situation means that one party is immoral, if not both parties.
To the original poster, if what occurred between Japan and China is true, then Japan should own up, although I can see why they would not want to admit to such atrocities and would rather sweep it under the carpet.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Serben
Banned
Posts: 1428
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 06:23 Post subject: |
|
|
| Buena_Vista wrote: | | if the bombs werent dropped it would have cause many more soldiers, both american and japanese, and many more citizens, to die. |
| Jenni wrote: | 100 million will die to protect the Emperor.
The dropping of the Atomic weapons on Japan was an evil, but a necessary one.
If you all step back a few months and see what happened to the civilian population in Okinawa, you'll see that the Japanese were fanatical at the time. |
Hey i'm sorry for raping you last night, mmkay? But i was only doing it to protect you! All the other guys there had STD's, and if they had raped you first you'd have gotten STD's, so i raped you first to prevent the others from doing it. You should be thanking me!
Gigabyte S-Series GA-G33-DS3R, Intel C2D Quad Q6600 OC @ 3.2Ghz, 4gb Kingston PC8500 1066Mhz DDR2, Geforce 7800GTX (will get a 9800GTX when they are released), 2 x 250Gb HD's and a case with built in paper and lotion dispenser.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MAD_MAX333
Moderator
Posts: 7020
Location: Toronto, Canada...eh
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 08:16 Post subject: |
|
|
say good bye to weducks everyone... it was a pleasure knowing him
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 14:34 Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you Maxie!
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 22:02 Post subject: |
|
|
Say goodbye to Serben too.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 22:04 Post subject: |
|
|
| MAD_MAX333 wrote: | | say good bye to weducks everyone... it was a pleasure knowing him |
Thank you really much...
"Why don't you zip it, Zipfero?" - fraich3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 22:55 Post subject: |
|
|
| Jenni wrote: | | Say goodbye to Serben too. |
Is it ok to inquire, why?
You do realise he's just paraphrasing in his post in this thread?
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Fri, 12th Aug 2005 23:56 Post subject: |
|
|
The analogy he used was highly offensive to me.
He could have used a lot more scenario's than that one, but tried to insult me.
His temp ban has now expired and he can post again.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 01:00 Post subject: |
|
|
| Jenni wrote: | The analogy he used was highly offensive to me.
He could have used a lot more scenario's than that one, but tried to insult me.
His temp ban has now expired and he can post again. |
Well, I think he's sorry for hurting your feelings, but I am positive that the 200ยด000+ japanese would've been glad to have had just their feelings hurt.
If you react this strongly for feeling threatened by his analogy, how come the murder of hundreds of thousands aren't as offensive?
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 02:19 Post subject: |
|
|
Because it was a sound military decision.
Not dropping the bombs would have equated to tens of thousands of allied deaths. Probably millions of Japanese civilian deaths too. Not to mention the remaining large force of Japanese. Japan was not about to surrender. Yes they did put broadcasts out over Moscow radio, but even when Manchuria was invaded the Japanese refused to surrender.
Plus America had to show the world they had the bomb. A bomb that's kept the peace in Europe since the end of world war 2.
Remember the Bushido code: "Death before dishonour".
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 03:06 Post subject: |
|
|
Finally a moderator with some knowledge/common sense.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 03:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| Jenni wrote: | Because it was a sound military decision.
Not dropping the bombs would have equated to tens of thousands of allied deaths. Probably millions of Japanese civilian deaths too. Not to mention the remaining large force of Japanese. |
Still you can't confirm that, beacuse that is just what you THINK.
There is no evidence for that.
| Jenni wrote: |
Plus America had to show the world they had the bomb. A bomb that's kept the peace in Europe since the end of world war 2. |
Why did they "need" to show it?
America has never been a country of combat moral.
All war they have been in have ended with a number of civilian deaths.
They was the one that was ready to do ANYTHING to win.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 04:12 Post subject: |
|
|
(They was the one that was ready to do ANYTHING to win.)
That is war, if you fight to not to win, you will lose.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 05:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| Jenni wrote: | | Because it was a sound military decision. |
No, it was not - this is where I think you are totally wrong.
ANY military decision that results in lots of civilian casualties is a piss poor military decision. And explicitly targeting civilians is not war, it's war crimes.
Any military leader that use civilians as a means for military conquest is a crazy genocidal prick. Period.
How the hell anyone can defend this atrocity is so insane, what differs this from regular terrorism? "That they are wrong, and USA are right"?
That decision was no sound military strategy, not anywhere. You do not defeat your enemy by becoming them.
Ie. you do not stop terrorism by behaving equally unhuman.
| Quote: |
Not dropping the bombs would have equated to tens of thousands of allied deaths. |
It would, would it? Since we're out of any logic here, speculating and pulling amateur guesswork for conclusions - let's say Japan were the fanatical imperialist idiots most people picture them as, why the hell would they surrender because 200000 civilians died? Wouldn't that be motive to continue the war even further?
Since it was their fanaticism that supposedly "forced" USA to make the nuke-decision, why the hell would they stop being "crazy gook fanatics" after two atomic bombs?
There's no rhyme or reason here.
| Quote: | | Probably millions of Japanese civilian deaths too. Not to mention the remaining large force of Japanese. |
So, this is the guesswork and speculation which you rationalise the murder of hundreds of thousand civilian women, children, and men with..
| Quote: |
Japan was not about to surrender.
|
They weren't? ... And who says so? You?
| Quote: |
Plus America had to show the world they had the bomb.
A bomb that's kept the peace in Europe since the end of world war 2.
|
This is probably, hats off, the stupidest statement I've read by you on these forums ever. I would've expected it from Weducks, but you Jenni?
| Quote: | | Remember the Bushido code: "Death before dishonour". |
Yes, by watching a couple of movies, you've got a real grasp about what Bushido is. Really. 
There is no honour in being defeated by your opponent killing innocent civilians - no victory for your armies, not even a battle won or lost. Just senseless destruction.
Ralph A. Bard knew better:
| Quote: |
TOP SECRET
REGRADED UNCLASSIFIED
ORDER SEC ARMY BY TAG PER
721164
CLASSIFICATION CHANGED
UNCLASSIFIED
To...........
By authority of: SEC ARMY
BY TAG per 710554
Date 9/29/71 WHC-NARS
Copy 1 of 2 copies each
of 1 pages series A
MEMORANDUM ON THE USE OF S-1 BOMB:
Ever since I have been in touch with this program [referring to the nuclear program] I have had a feeling that before the bomb is actually used against Japan that Japan should have some preliminary warning for say two or three days in advance of use. The position of the United States as a great humanitarian nation and the fair play attitude of our people generally is responsible in the main for this feeling.
During recent weeks I have also had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender.[b] Following the three-power conference emissaries from this country [b]could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.
I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program. The stakes are so tremendous that it is my opinion [u]very real consideration should be given to some plan of this kind. I do not believe under present circumstances existing that there is anyone in this country whose evaluation of the chances of the success of such a program is worth a great deal. The only way to find out is to try it out.
[signature]
RALPH A. BARD
27 June 1945 |
source: http://www.dannen.com/decision/bardmemo.html
| Quote: | | The last few years show a marked tendency toward increasing ruthlessness. At present our Air Forces, striking at the Japanese cities, are using the same methods of warfare which were condemned by American public opinion only a few years ago when applied by the Germans to the cities of England. Our use of atomic bombs in this war would carry the world a long way further on this path of ruthlessness. |
source: http://www.dannen.com/decision/45-07-03.html
[Source for number of signers of July 3 petition: Szilard to Frank Oppenheimer, July 23, 1945, Robert Oppenheimer Papers, Library of Congress, Washington D.C.]
And Harry S. Truman to the people of the USA (lying as is mandatory behavior by most american presidents)
| Quote: | "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction."
|
Source: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, Containing the Public Messages, Speeches and Statements of the President April 12 to December 31, 1945 (Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1961) page 212. The full text also was published in the New York Times, August 10, 1945, page 12.
http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-ag09.html
---
"Sound military decision", yeah, right.
"Hiroshima, a military base", yeah, right.
"Unfortunately thousands of civilian casualties", yeah, right.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
Last edited by fisk on Sat, 13th Aug 2005 05:38; edited 4 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 05:29 Post subject: |
|
|
| xusnac wrote: | (They was the one that was ready to do ANYTHING to win.)
That is war, if you fight to not to win, you will lose. |
Ah, so it's ok to use any means possible when you're from the USA, England, Israel or Europe ... but whenever it is anyone else, it's ruthless murdering immoral terrorism... I see.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 05:42 Post subject: |
|
|
Fighting from being concurred by the axis, and staying alive, is what WW2 was about. How don't you know this?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 05:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| xusnac wrote: | | Fighting from being concurred by the axis, and staying alive, is what WW2 was about. How don't you know this? |
What do you know about being conquered? You can't even spell it.
There's a big difference between beating your military opponent, and starting to kill civilians to subdue him.
How can you not see this?
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 06:08 Post subject: |
|
|
It needed to be, unconditional surrender. Do you know what that is?
The japs would have fought to the death, and taken many allied troops down with them. How can you not understand simple history?
My speech app gets it wrong sometimes.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Serben
Banned
Posts: 1428
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 06:14 Post subject: |
|
|
Jenni, it wasn't my intention to insult you. I didn't really keep in mind who i was quoting, in this case a woman, who obviously is going to find the subject of rape much more offensive than a man. I only saw your quote and decided to use a similar analogy to prove the error in your logic, before considering who i was quoting. That being said however, you need to grow the fuck up. Did you ever consider the fact that *I* might have found it highly offensive that you and buena_vista whom i also quoted in that post were effectively trying to justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, based on a "what if" scenario that has absolutely no fact to support it. Many people don't know that the Japanese were actually offering to surrender BEFORE the bombs were dropped, but the Americans wouldn't accept it, because the Japanese tried to set certain conditions for the surrender, and the Americans would only accept an unconditional surrender, so they decided to kill hundreds of thousands of them instead, just because of what effectively boiled down to a diplomatic disagreement. Also, it had absolutely NO military merit either, as you seem to claim. Even American generals themselves admitted this.
But you never considered any of this, and instead went straight for the ban button.
Get a grip.
Gigabyte S-Series GA-G33-DS3R, Intel C2D Quad Q6600 OC @ 3.2Ghz, 4gb Kingston PC8500 1066Mhz DDR2, Geforce 7800GTX (will get a 9800GTX when they are released), 2 x 250Gb HD's and a case with built in paper and lotion dispenser.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 08:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| Serben wrote: | Jenni, it wasn't my intention to insult you. I didn't really keep in mind who i was quoting, in this case a woman, who obviously is going to find the subject of rape much more offensive than a man. I only saw your quote and decided to use a similar analogy to prove the error in your logic, before considering who i was quoting. That being said however, you need to grow the fuck up. Did you ever consider the fact that *I* might have found it highly offensive that you and buena_vista whom i also quoted in that post were effectively trying to justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, based on a "what if" scenario that has absolutely no fact to support it. Many people don't know that the Japanese were actually offering to surrender BEFORE the bombs were dropped, but the Americans wouldn't accept it, because the Japanese tried to set certain conditions for the surrender, and the Americans would only accept an unconditional surrender, so they decided to kill hundreds of thousands of them instead, just because of what effectively boiled down to a diplomatic disagreement. Also, it had absolutely NO military merit either, as you seem to claim. Even American generals themselves admitted this.
But you never considered any of this, and instead went straight for the ban button.
Get a grip. |
If Japan was so weak and helpless like many of you are saying, then why were they trying to put conditions on the surrender? Why not simply surrender unconditionally and spare their citizens any further harm if it all just boiled down to a diplomatic disagreement. Why should the losing party, the weaker party who drew first blood, dictate the terms of the peace? Oops, that wouldn't fit with your "US=BAD" mindset.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 4 of 6 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
