Acriku Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 You are bound to come on to good points, so for that I read your posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 You are bound to come on to good points, so for that I read your posts. by the way, Acriku: what is your opinion on these two points:1. Us Government, friend or enemy?2. Removing Hussein From Power through Coalition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 so whats the plan huh? leave shaddam to himself so he may kill more kurds ( he has already killed 1.2m)? (oh and stop the anti-us we massacare crap, early 1900 russia was WAY the hell worse I'm talking about 20 million civys dead 10k ploish oficers massacared) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 So just because someone is worse, that means it's okay for you to massacre people as long as it's less than the other guys massacre? ::) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 1. It's a bit more complex than that. Local and state are friends, but federal is the kind of friend that is doing what it can do keep national security at whatever cost. 2. Through coalition of the US and UN? I'd say it would be good if that happens, but if necessary without the UN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 1. It's a bit more complex than that. Local and state are friends, but federal is the kind of friend that is doing what it can do keep national security at whatever cost. 2. Through coalition of the US and UN? I'd say it would be good if that happens, but if necessary without the UN. thank you, Acriku for sharing that opinion. In all this political mess of threads, i never knew what your views actually were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 So just because someone is worse, that means it's okay for you to massacre people as long as it's less than the other guys massacre? ::)yea but hte US has only massacared about 2m and that was when we nuked nagasaki and hiroshima and it still saved millions of japanese, russians, and americans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 No it didn't. Japan was ready to surrender, but Truman nuked them anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Just like they were ready to sign a peace treaty, before they attacked Pearl Harbor ::) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 No it didn't. Japan was ready to surrender, but Truman nuked them anyway.Japan was NOT ready to surrender. In fact it was beafing up it's defenses of the mainland with the notion that, in defeat, they would take out as many americans as possible. They would not even surrender after the first bomb. Where do you get this ridiculous information that you continuously post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 No it didn't. Japan was ready to surrender, but Truman nuked them anyway.Japan was NOT ready to surrender. In fact it was beafing up it's defenses of the mainland with the notion that, in defeat, they would take out as many americans as possible. They would not even surrender after the first bomb. Where do you get this ridiculous information that you continuously post?lol. everytime you quote edric i have to read it. Japan was going to surrender? Please. they were fierce warriors, going so far as to commit suicide before surrenduring. Besides, Edric has stated in this forum more than once given the circumstances and less than a full understanding of Atomic weaponry, the bombs dropped on Japan were not condemnable acts.i could attempt to dig up those posts, but I'm hoping he will fess up shortly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 edric, just because there is great evil in war, doesnt mean that it wont stop now. War itself is evil to begin with. You cannot idealize war as you do. try to not see things so much through rose colored classes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Edrics right. The Japanese were ready to negotiate. Not because the nukes that would otherwise follow would kill many civilians, but because the US might consider nuking their emperor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Edrics right. The Japanese were ready to negotiate. Not because the nukes that would otherwise follow would kill many civilians, but because the US might consider nuking their emperor.and how do you know this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quoudam72 Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 ::) We have been over this Japan being bombed by the US before it is the same conversation as it was before do we have to have another deja vu? Why can we not just stay on topic with the ones on the list. Emprworm as Gob pointed out yes I was talking about some of the other situtions where it is not so easy to defend the actions of America. Brazil, Congo/Zaire, Cambodia, Dominican Republic just to name a few to start. I will have to agree with some eariler posts that this guy might want to look at his information a little better. I think in the way of good information he gets a little carried away. Most of his finger pointing should go towards the early 50' to late 70's with most things happening later because of the US actions during that 20-30 year span. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 lol. everytime you quote edric i have to read it. Japan was going to surrender? Please. they were fierce warriors, going so far as to commit suicide before surrenduring. Besides, Edric has stated in this forum more than once given the circumstances and less than a full understanding of Atomic weaponry, the bombs dropped on Japan were not condemnable acts.i could attempt to dig up those posts, but I'm hoping he will fess up shortly.Go right ahead - try to dig them up. You'll find that my understanding of atomic weaponry tends to be very good, thank you very much.And yes, Japan was ready to negotiate a peace treaty. It wasn't unconditional surrender, though, and that's what Truman didn't like. So he decided to kill a few hundred thousand people to drive the point home... ::) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.