RE: Threat to world peace???????

RE: Threat to world peace??????? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Sinergy -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 7:43:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy While I can understand the use of the one on Hiroshima as a means of saving American lives, the Japanese were suing for peace through the Swiss and the United States refused to meet with them until they tested the plutonium device on Nagasaki. So the logic of using nuclear weapons to save American lives breaks down when you apply it to Nagasaki. That was an the US government using Japanese civilians as guinea pigs in a freakish experiment. Would you mind sourcing this bit of history? FirmKY FirmhandKY: Actually it was in mid 1943 that the Japanese first started trying to surrender via the Russians. If you were to avail yourself of John Tolands "The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire" you will find ample documentation of this. thompson Thank you, thompsonx. The source materials I have from it, apart from ones you can find googling, involved the Japanese trying to go through the Swiss delegation. Sinergy

thompsonx -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 7:53:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tetherboy quote: ORIGINAL: ladysekhmetka Bwa ha ha ha, a threat to World Peace? Sure, he's that and a threat to so many of our other rights ::glares at Patriot Act:: I mean, the last I knew, having taken American Gov. and what not in high school, is that a President has to ask permission from Congress to declare war. The whole checks and balance thing [sm=rolleyes.gif] Wanted to clear up a little misunderstanding on this. The president has the power to wage war for 90 days without permission from Congress. To continue from that point, would require a formal declaration of war via the Congress. Correct me please if I am wrong, but Congress did consent to the military action. tetherboy: well kinda....that is true if the president wants to use the army navy or the airforce....but not the marine corps. The only person the president needs to ask to use the marines is the commandant of the marine corps...whom the president appoints. While the marine corps is small in comparrison to the army or the navy or the air force it still larger than the entire british army thompson

thompsonx -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 8:20:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY FR: To correct a few mis-understandings about the US entry into WWII: The American people didn't want anything to do with any of it, and it took some statesman on our side of the pond to try marginally to prepare for it. Actually they were politicians trying to make a buck not statesmen. In particular, the Lend Lease program was started by a horror strong President who went against the popular will, and the political winds within the US. There were talk of gasp impeachment because of many of the blatantly illegal methods used by Roosevelt to give some aid to the UK prior to the US's entry. Roosevelt did not give anything to the UK....it was sold to them and a handsome profit made. The draft was passed by a single vote in congress, before Pearl Harbor, by a statesman who voted against his own desires, and popular opinion on his district. And gasp, even though it was the Japanese that attacked us, Roosevelt made the obviously wrong decision to put the bulk of American war effort against Germany - who hadn't really done much to us. Certainly they hadn't attacked us - it was the Japanese, damnit! Actually it was the U.S, who attacked Japan. Remember Claire Chenault and the flying tigers. The term "isolationist" came from this period of American history, and so, yes, I think it's quite appropriate to say that the US was dragged kicking and screaming into the second world war. Actually it was the politicians who manufactured a climate that would overcome the isolationist. If it hadn't been for a strong, visionary President who was accused of being a dictator, and if it wasn't for the suprise attack at Pearl Harbor that woke up the major of the American citizens to the danger, then we would have certainly taken a "miss" on that little European scuffle. Pearl Harbor was hardly a surprise. Roosevelt had ample knowledge of the impending attack. The Japanese codes had been broken and no less than the U.S. ambasador to Japan sent Roosevelt official documents stating clearly Japans intentions to bomb Pearl Harbor. What you refer to as "that little European scuffle" was several orders of magnitude greater than the war in the pacific. For example the Germans lost about as many men in the battle for Moscow (which they lost) as the U.S, lost during the whole war in both theaters. Substitute "Bush" for "Roosevelt" and "Iraq" for "Germany", and there seems to be a lot of similarities to me. Other than dead bodies I don't see any similarity thompson FirmKY

thompsonx -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 8:26:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation How did you win that war? Manufacturing. Our factories had oceans to protect them against bombing and we built stuff a lot faster than it could be destroyed. WyrdRich: You have been watching the history chanel again....the Russians won WW II not the U.S, thompson

thompsonx -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 8:57:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Missturbation, I love you madly, but you are allowing your emotions to lead you astray. If at the time the US had got itself into position to launch a ground strike on Japan, your decision, and you saw estimates of the likely casulties to your own troops, and an alternative ie Nuclear Weapons existed....what would you do ? Incidently, to get close enough to Japan had cost enormous loss of life, fighting for the islands in the Pacific. seeksfemmeslave: Could you enumerate what you mean by "enormous loss of life fighting for the islands in the pacific. The numbers I come up with are less than 50,000 which would be less than 5% of what the germans lost in the battle for Stalingrad. Since the Japanese had been trying to surrender since the battle of Midway the claims of a million casualities in taking the home islands of Japan seem more than a little disingenious. In the end the Japanese got the terms that they started the negotians with ie: the preservation of the emperor. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 9:06:58 AM)
Ah my sweet i now own at least six corsets and three very nice burlesque skirts which i of course will wear to serve your whisky and cuban cigars missturbation: I will pass on the cigars and whiskey but if you have some tequila reposada and a fatty blunt it would be my pleasure to have you put on your corsette and serve them to me[;)] thompson

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 9:09:55 AM)
Tequila yes, fatty blunt ???? Was that an insult lol? I'm happy to serve whatever you wish as long as that wasn't an insult lol.

mnottertail -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 9:12:00 AM)
LOLOLOL, A fatty blunt is a huge chunk of good marihuana, wrapped in a cigar wrapper (like a panetella blunt) LOLOLOL, Ron

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 9:17:29 AM)
Hey, no laughing at the thick girl [:(] Oh to it being draw, no can do. I get high of the smell, giggle a lot, get twinkie and want to do nothing but watch porn and have sex !!

thompsonx -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 9:26:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation How about you answer my question i have now asked three or four times? Would you care to state and prove how you were dragged into world war two? It's just a guess here, but I'd surmise that it wasn't exactly a joyous and enthusiastic decision to join the war considering the fact that it took the bombing of Pearl Harbor, where the Japanese killed 2402 people, injured at least 1238 others, sank or severely damaged 18 ships, and destroyed 161 American planes, for the people of the United States to change their mind about staying out of it. losttreasure: Do you think the people of the United States would have been in favor of the war with Japan if they knew how Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into the attack on Pearl Harbor? Did you know that of the 8 battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor only one stayed on the bottom (the Arizona) and that 6 of the remaining 7 were tactically operational in less than 6 months. That all of the battle ships at Pearl Harbor were half the size of the the more modern battleships in the USN and that only two of the battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor had 16" guns while the rest mounted only 14" guns. The hardware that the Japanese destroyed at Pearl Harbor was antique junque. The fact that the administration knew in advence of the attack they stocked the harbor with junque and prepared it so that it could be refloated and made operational with a minimum of effort. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 9:30:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Hey, no laughing at the thick girl [:(] Oh to it being draw, no can do. I get high of the smell, giggle a lot, get twinkie and want to do nothing but watch porn and have sex !! misturbation: You are clearly my kind of woman. thompson

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 9:33:45 AM)
What thick and highly sexed on draw lol? [;)]

FirmhandKY -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 9:59:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY No, Bush shouldn't be tried. "Public opinion" is not necessarily either a reliable measure of morality, nor legality nor of possiblity. It's often a reflection of who has the loudest microphone, and who can most effectively manipulate the emotions. Not to mention how the questions are asked. You won't get any kind of reasoned discussion about this issue here, for the simple fact that on one side, you have enough emotionally involved people who will scream at the top of their voices about every other emotional issue, and they attempt to shout down and shut out opposing viewpoints. But good luck. FirmKY This is just the opposite of one of your previous post in which you mention the "national zietgiest" ie: public opinion as ample justification for waging war. You even cited constitutional justification for international facism and thugery. It appears that you are a little inconsistant in your opinions. thompson Not at all, thompson. I don't think we are talking about the same things at all. I'm pretty sure that I've never made the argument that "public opinion" is adequate in and of itself for a declaration of a war. You are confusing a nebelous term (zeitgeist) with "public opinion" as in popular opinion polls. I'm not sure that the term zeitgeist is as open and shut as what a poll would give you. I think there is a lot of room for discussion and disagreement about what a "zeitgeist" even is, but I meant it previously as the overall feeling and world-view of not just the popular opinion, but of policy-makers, military personnel, and such. And I decline to accept your characterization of "international facism and thugery". These are emotional terms, not rational terms of a discussion. They inherently prejudge actions, and give me the sense of a mind already made up and therefore not open to any real discussion. As an example, when you asked me to provide "proof" that actions such that you describe as "international thugery" were authorized by the US Constitution, and I did so, you were unable or unwilling to address my points, and simply reverted to sarcasm (thanks for telling me you agree with thugery or such). An emotional argument, not a logical one. That's not a very strong or effective rebuttal seems to me. FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 10:07:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Actually it was in mid 1943 that the Japanese first started trying to surrender via the Russians. If you were to avail yourself of John Tolands "The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire" you will find ample documentation of this. thompson Thank you, thompsonx. The source materials I have from it, apart from ones you can find googling, involved the Japanese trying to go through the Swiss delegation. Read the answers.com (or wiki) source that you provided earlier, Sin. If you are attempting to say "Ooops, it wasn't the Swiss, it was the Soviet embassy" (but that they were trying to surrender to someone) then you need to reread the source, and what - exactly - they were trying to accomplish. But, even accepting your version, how would an attempt to surrender to the Soviets (who didn't actually have much of a dog in the fight against Japan), and not to the US who had troops and forces closing in - somehow still make Truman's decision to drop the bombs immoral? You are getting further and further away, not closer. FirmKY

luckydog1 -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 10:14:24 AM)
Tompson I mean when there is anarchy, people beg for someone to come save them amd restore order. Your post is an example of how you feel about the economically disadvantaged, you are using them as pawns. The Local and state governments made decisions, that if the levee broke, the city had to be evacuated. Unlike in a snow storm, the conditions kept getting worse after the event, the flood. Since New Orleans is BELOW sea level, the flood would not drain away like it would in virtually every other community in the world. Just brininging food to the people there would have caused huge health problems. This is just harsh reality. No one wants to consider this but imagine if more food had been taken to the shelters, every person there would have had to take at least one more crap, and it was causing disease already. There were not facilities to handle it. If they had dropped pallets of food, far more peole would have died. The cows are getting one shot of food till they trample down the snow and are fine. Colorado is using the Colorado guard to help the cows, Lousiana used its guard in the manner it saw fit, untill the situation was incredibly catastrophic, then blamed Bush. Instead of focusing on the real issues of what happened, you use these peoples suffering for Political gain, disgusting At what point would you have had Bush illegally declare himself in charge of NO, and send in the millitary? Before the storm? An evacuation order was issued for NO, some people ignored it, and others were left behind. Should the Millitary have gone into NO and evacuated it by force? Before the storm hit? Hurricanes change direction all the time and there was no garuntee that it would even hit NO. Should every major city be evacuated by force every time there is a serious storm tracking at it? Would you shoot people to evacuate them? How long do you think it would take to evacuatee a city that size?

Emperor1956 -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 10:14:26 AM)
OH DAMN. I had written a thoughtful lengthy reply to the many threads under discussion here including an analysis of Truman's decision to use the two nuclear warheads to ostensibly shorten the war, the liklihood of Japanese surrender without the use of the WMDs, the ramifications of use of nuclear bombs in light of the horrific carpet bombing undertaken by the Allies in central Europe, etc. but then I read this: quote: Missturbation: I get high of the smell, giggle a lot, get twinkie and want to do nothing but watch porn and have sex !! And all I can think of is getting a ticket to the UK and a case of Twinkies. E.

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 10:23:18 AM)
My apologies emperor. I truly believe though that the only topic worthy of discussion left in this thread is getting high, twinkie, porn and having lots of sex!! [:D]

thompsonx -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 10:42:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rumtiger Nope, just was repeating what I learned in 8th grade. You talk about Ancient Civs and i'm your man though. Rumtiger: Which ancient civs we talking about here? Han.Anna Sazi, Druids???? thompson

thompsonx -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 10:49:53 AM)
What exactly has Monkeyboy delivered? Dumbfoundedy yours, Sinergy Sinergy: catlyn was pretty explicit as to what bush & co. has delivered on what he promised. The fact that me, thee and she all agree that we do not like what he delivered does not change the facts. I think you are ringing the wrong bell here. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/22/2007 10:59:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation My apologies emperor. I truly believe though that the only topic worthy of discussion left in this thread is getting high, twinkie, porn and having lots of sex!! [:D] missturbation: I am unsure of your use of the word twinkie....are you speaking of the little cakes filled with whipped cream or is there a more lacivious meaning that I am not aware of? thompson

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875