# Will America start WW lll ??



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

Thoughts, opinions????



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

The *United States* developed the first atomic weapons during World War II out of the fear that Nazi Germany would first develop them. It tested its first nuclear weapon in 1945 ("Trinity"), *and remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons against another nation*, during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (see: Manhattan Project). It was the first nation to develop the hydrogen bomb, testing it ("Ivy Mike") in 1952 and a deployable version in 1954 ("Castle Bravo").


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 11, 2006)

I think we're already in it: West vs Radical Islam is going to blow up.  

There will be some kind of bombing in Denmark & probably another one here & shit will hit the fan.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

I worry about Kim Jong Il.


----------



## Steele20 (Feb 11, 2006)

I can't tell  you who will start it but I can tell you who will win it.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

Steele20 said:
			
		

> I can't tell you who will start it but I can tell you who will win it.


No one...........


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I worry about Kim Jong Il.


It won't be North Korea that uses it though. NK has a history of selling weapons to anyone.  No matter the weapons, no matter the buyer.  I bet that they develop nuclear technology and sell it to Muslims who'll use it against the US, Israel, or another Muslim country.

If the target is the US, we'll have to respond in kind or look weak.   There is the very slim chance that we won't (a Democrat president).  If it's used against Israel, they will definitely strike back with a nuke.  If the target is another Muslim country, I'll buy him a beer.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

I have a out of topic question, I never really looked into this but is it a fact that Democrats shy from war while Republicans are more gun ho?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 11, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I have a out of topic question, I never really looked into this but is it a fact that Democrats shy from war while Republicans are more gun ho?



Absolutely.  As much as I hate this administration, I won't vote dem if we are in the middle of a good ole war.  That is why I hope McCain runs, if they have a far right leaning pres, I may have to consider taking Arabic classes and voting dem.



			
				min0 lee said:
			
		

> I worry about Kim Jong Il.




Why, he love you long time.


I find it funny that all the pussy countries (I.e., France) are going to get nailed by terrorists because of a shitty little cartoon that was not even drawn very well.  I am being honest here, but I say we don't help them, let the Muslims have the French, that almost guarantees a victory for us.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I have a out of topic question, I never really looked into this but is it a fact that Democrats shy from war while *Republicans are more gun ho?*


Dumb shits usually enjoy picking fights more than educated people..


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

And so called "educated" people like to ride on the backs of others.  For both their daily bread and their safety.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> And so called "educated" people like to ride on the backs of others.  For both their daily bread and their safety.


Stop smoking the crack


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

Nice counter-point.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Nice counter-point.


Ok I will actually tell you what I think....

*Live by the sword die by the sword*. Most of our problems with other nations is  because of our interference and meddling in their affairs....


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

Welcome to how the world really works.  Or are we the only one who moves to influence the world?  Now or in the in past?  Have all peoples of the world set aside the sword?

Most of the "meddling" was done during the Cold War, when the world was a chess board and the players were the USA and the USSR.  The USA pited its economy against that of the USSR to see who would collapse first.  Every move on the chess board came with a price tag.  If the USA had done nothing, the USSR would have won be default.  How much better would the world be then?


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Welcome to how the world really works. Or are we the only one who moves to influence the world? Now or in the in past? Have all peoples of the world set aside the sword?
> 
> Most of the "meddling" was done during the Cold War, when the world was a chess board and the players were the USA and the USSR. The USA pited its economy against that of the USSR to see who would collapse first. Every move on the chess board came with a price tag. *If the USA had done nothing, the USSR would have won be default. How much better would the world be then*?


 
Not a very good one.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

That is a very childish view of the world.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

It's not childish, it's simplified for our conversation.  That does nothing to change the fact that it's true.  I notice that once again your post lacks any sort  of rebuttal.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

What is Terrorism?

Well that brings us back to the question, what is terrorism? I have been assuming we understand it. Well, what is it? Well, there happen to be some easy answers to this. There is an official definition. You can find it in the US code or in US army manuals. A brief statement of it taken from a US army manual, is fair enough, is that terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear. That???s terrorism. That???s a fair enough definition. I think it is reasonable to accept that. The problem is that it can???t be accepted because if you accept that, all the wrong consequences follow. For example, all the consequences I have just been reviewing. Now there is a major effort right now at the UN to try to develop a comprehensive treaty on terrorism. When Kofi Annan got the Nobel prize the other day, you will notice he was reported as saying that we should stop wasting time on this and really get down to it. 

But there???s a problem. If you use the official definition of terrorism in the comprehensive treaty you are going to get completely the wrong results. So that can???t be done. In fact, it is even worse than that. If you take a look at the definition of Low Intensity Warfare which is official US policy you find that it is a very close paraphrase of what I just read. In fact, Low Intensity Conflict is just another name for terrorism. That???s why all countries, as far as I know, call whatever horrendous acts they are carrying out, counter terrorism. We happen to call it Counter Insurgency or Low Intensity Conflict. So that???s a serious problem. You can???t use the actual definitions. You???ve got to carefully find a definition that doesn???t have all the wrong consequences.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

Very childish, there other ways to influence the world then starting wars and placing dispicable people into power and then arming them with weapons. Sure the time comes when we have to blow the shit out of someone.....we just do it way more than it is needed thus creating more problems then necessary.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

An Easy Way To Reduce The Level Of Terror

We certainly want to reduce the level of terror, certainly not escalate it.  There is one easy way to do that and therefore it is never discussed. Namely stop participating in it. That would automatically reduce the level of terror enormously. But that you can???t discuss. Well we ought to make it possible to discuss it. So that???s one easy way to reduce the level of terror.

Beyond that, we should rethink the kinds of policies, and Afghanistan is not the only one, in which we organize and train terrorist armies. That has effects. We???re seeing some of these effects now. September 11th is one. Rethink it.

Rethink the policies that are creating a reservoir of support. Exactly what the bankers, lawyers and so on are saying in places like Saudi Arabia. On the streets it???s much more bitter, as you can imagine. That???s possible. You know, those policies aren???t graven in stone. 

And further more there are opportunities. It???s hard to find many rays of light in the last couple of weeks but one of them is that there is an increased openness. Lots of issues are open for discussion, even in elite circles, certainly among the general public, that were not a couple of weeks ago. That???s dramatically the case. I mean, if a newspaper like USA Today can run a very good article, a serious article, on life in the Gaza Strip???there has been a change. The things I mentioned in the Wall Street Journal???that???s change. And among the general public, I think there is much more openness and willingness to think about things that were under the rug and so on. These are opportunities and they should be used, at least by people who accept the goal of trying to reduce the level of violence and terror, including potential threats that are extremely severe and could make even September 11th pale into insignificance. Thanks.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Very childish, there other ways to influence the world then starting wars and placing dispicable people into power and then arming them with weapons. Sure the time comes when we have to blow the shit out of someone.....we just do it way more than it is needed thus creating more problems then necessary.


So, what would your solution to the Cold War have been?  What are the "other ways"? 

Another liberal credo: Maybe if we do nothing, good things will happen.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> So, what would your solution to the Cold War have been?  What are the "other ways"?
> 
> Another liberal credo: Maybe if we do nothing, good things will happen.


We are not talking about the cold war here, feel free to start a thread about that topic if you like. America has a huge history of political and military meddling.




Like schoolyard bullies who shout ???He hit me first!???, war planners know that it is irrelevant whether the opponent really did ???throw the first punch.??? As long as it can be made to appear that the attack was unprovoked, the bully receives license to ???respond??? with force. Bullies and war planners are experts at taunting, teasing and threatening their opponents. If the enemy cannot be goaded into ???firing the first shot,??? it is easy enough to lie about what happened.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> So, what would your solution to the Cold War have been?  What are the "other ways"?
> 
> Another liberal credo: Maybe if we do nothing, good things will happen.




Not nessasarily, but maybe if we don't start illegal wars, we won't get screwed over years down the road by an islamo-facist whose son was killed in one of our bombings.  More deaths = More Terror.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> We are not talking about the cold war here, feel free to start a thread about that topic if you like. America has a huge history of political and military meddling.



If you think that our currently "meddling" has nothing to do with the Cold War, then you need to go back to school.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> If you think that our currently "meddling" has nothing to do with the Cold War, then you need to go back to school.


*1846: The Mexican-American War*
*CONTEXT* After Mexico???s revolution in 1821, Americans demanded about $3,000,000 in compensation for their losses.1 Mexico abolished slavery in 1829 and then prohibited further U.S. immigration into Texas, a Mexican state. In 1835, Mexico tried to enforce its authority over Texas. Texans, rallying under the slogan "Remember the Alamo!???, drove Mexican troops out of Texas and proclaimed independence. For nine years, many Texans lobbied for US annexation. This was delayed by northerners who opposed adding more slave territories to the US and feared a war with Mexico.2
 In 1844, Democratic presidential candidate, James Polk, declared support for annexing Texas and won with the thinnest margin ever.3 The following year, Texas was annexed and Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the US. Polk sent John Slidell to Mexico offering $25 million for New Mexico, California and an agreement accepting the Rio Grande boundary. Mexican government officials refused to meet the envoy.4
*PRETEXT* John Stockwell, a Texan who led the CIA???s covert 1970s war in Angola, summed up the start of Mexican American war by saying ???they offered two dollars-a-head to every soldier who would enlist. They didn't get enough takers, so they offered a hundred acres to anyone who would be a veteran of that war. They still didn't get enough takers, so [General] Zachary Taylor was sent down to parade up and down the border -- the disputed border -- until the Mexicans fired on him.... And the nation rose up, and we fought the war.???5
 President Polk hoped that sending General Taylor???s 3,500 soldiers into Mexico territory, would provoke an attack against US troops.6 ???On May 8, 1846, Polk met with his Cabinet at the White House and told them that if the Mexican army attacked the U.S. forces, he was going to send a message to Congress asking for a declaration of war. It was decided that war should be declared in three days even if there was no attack.???7
 When news of the skirmish arrived, Polk sent a message to Congress on May 11: ???Mexico has passed the boundary of the U.S. and shed American blood on American soil.???8 Two days later Congress declared war on Mexico.9
*RESPONSE* Newspapers helped the push for war with headlines like: ??????Mexicans Killing our Boys in Texas.???10
 With public support secured, U.S. forces occupied New Mexico and California. US troops fought battles across Mexico and stormed their capital. A new more US-friendly government quickly emerged. It signed over California and New Mexico for $15 million and recognized the Rio Grande as their border with the US state of Texas.11
 General Taylor became an American war hero and he rode his victory straight into the White House by succeeding Polk as president in 1849.
*REAL REASONS* The US secured over 500,000 square miles from Mexico, including Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, California and parts of Colorado and Wyoming.
 The war was a boon to US nationalism, it boosted popular support for a very weak president and added vast new territories to the US where slavery was allowed.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

1898: The Spanish-American War

CONTEXT Cubans fought several wars to free themselves from Spanish colonial rule, including 1868-1878, 1879-1880 and 1895-1898.12 In 1898, Cubans were on the brink of finally winning their independence. The US government agreed to respect Cuba???s sovereignty and promised they would not step in.

"On January 24, [1898] on the pretext of protecting the life and safety of Mr. Lee, U.S. consul in Havana, and other U.S. citizens in the face of street disturbances provoked by Spanish extremists, the Maine battleship entered the bay of Havana.???13

PRETEXT On February 15, 1898, a huge explosion sank the USS Maine killing 266 of its crew.14

In 1975, an investigation led by US Admiral Hyman Rickover concluded that there was no evidence of any external explosion. The explosion was internal, probably caused by a coal dust explosion. Oddly, the ship's weapons and explosives were stored next to the coal bunker.15

RESPONSE The Maine???s commander cautioned against assumptions of an enemy attack. The press denounced him for "refusing to see the obvious." The Atlantic Monthly said anyone thinking this was not a premeditated, Spanish act of war was "completely at defiance of the laws of probability."16

Newspapers ran wild headlines like: ???Spanish Cannibalism,??? ???Inhuman Torture,??? ???Amazon Warriors Fight For Rebels.???17 Guillermo Jimpnez Soler notes: ???As would become its usual practice, U.S. intervention in the war was preceded by intensive press campaigns which incited jingoism, pandering to the most shameless tales and sensationalism and exacerbated cheap sentimentality. Joseph Pulitzer of The World and William Randolph Hearst from The Journal, the two largest U.S. papers... carried their rivalry to a paroxysm of inflaming public opinion with scandalous, provocative and imaginary stories designed to win acceptance of U.S. participation in the first of its holy wars beyond its maritime borders.???18

US papers sent hundreds of reporters and photographers to cover the apparent Spanish attacks. Upon arrival, many were disappointed. Frederick Remington wrote to Hearst saying: ???There is no war .... Request to be recalled.??? Hearst???s now-famous cable replied: "Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." For weeks, The Journal dedicated more than eight pages per day to the explosion.19

Through ceaseless repetition, a rallying cry for retaliation grew into a roar. ???In the papers, on the streets and in???Congress. The slogan was "Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain."20

With the US public and government safely onboard, the US set sail for war launching an era of ???gunboat diplomacy.??? Anti-war sentiments were drowned out by the sea of cries for war. On April 25, 1898, the US Congress declared war on Spain.

REAL REASONS Within four months ???the US replaced Spain as the colonial power in the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico, and devised a special status for Cuba. Never again would the US achieve so much???as in that ???splendid little war,??? as???described at the time by John Hay, future secretary of state.???21

Historian Howard Zinn has said that 1898 heralded ???the most dramatic entrance onto the world scene of American military and economic power.??? The war ushered in what Henry Luce later referred to as the American Century, which really meant a century of American domination.???22


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

1950: The Korean War

CONTEXT There is ???extensive evidence of U.S. crimes against peace and crimes against humanity??? KWCT committed after they occupied southern Korea in September 1945. The US worked to ???create a police state???using many former collaborators with Japanese rule, provoke tension???between southern and northern Korea, opposing and disrupting any plans for peaceful reunification. The U.S. trained, directed and supported ROK [South Korea] in systematic murder, imprisonment, torture, surveillance, harassment and violations of human rights of hundreds of thousands???, especially???nationalists, leftists, peasants seeking land reform, union organizers and/or those sympathetic to the north.???49

University of Hawaii professor, Oliver Lee, notes a ???long pattern of South Korean incursions??? into the north. In 1949, there were more than 400 border engagements. A US Army document states: ???Some of the bloodiest engagements were caused by South Korean units securing and preparing defensive positions that were either astride or north of the 38th parallel. This provoked violent North Korean actions.???50

PRETEXT On June 25, 1950, the North Korean military were said to have moved three miles into South Korea territory.

Dr. Channing Liem, the former South Korean ambassador to the UN (1960-1961) wrote: ???For Washington, the question, ???who fired the first shot???? carried special significance???. Assistant Secretary of State for UN Affairs???[revealed] before the Senate Appropriations Committee, 1950, the US had devised a plan prior to the start of the war to gain approval from the UN to send its troops to Korea under the UN flag in the event that South Korea was attacked. It was imperative, therefore, that the ???first shot??? be fired by the North, or at least that such an argument could be made.???51

ROK President Syngman Rhee triggered the war ???with behind the scene support of John Foster Dulles,??? the former-U.S. Secretary of State who met Rhee (June 18, 1950) just days before the pretext incident. Dulles told Rhee that ???if he was ready to attack the communist North, the U.S. would lend help, through the UN???. He advised Rhee???to persuade the world that the ROK was attacked first, and to plan his actions accordingly.???52

Albert Einstein told Liem in 1955 that ???the US was manipulating the UN???. [It] was being exploited by the great powers at the expense of the small nations???. He went on to say great powers do not act on the basis of facts only but manufacture the facts to serve their purposes and force their will on smaller nations.???53

I.F.Stone was perhaps the first to expose how a US diplomat deceived the UN Secretary General into believing there had been an unprovoked North Korean attack.54

North Korea claimed the attack began two days earlier when ROK divisions launched a six-hour artillery attack and then pushed 1 or 2 kilometers across the border. They responded to ???halt the enemy's advance and go over to a decisive counterattack.???55

RESPONSE Secretary of State, Dean Acheson was ???quick to seize the opportunity to blame the war on North Korea regardless of the evidence.??? North Korea was accused of ???brutal, unprovoked aggression.???56

The public was told that this ???invasion??? was the first step in Soviet plans for world domination. Anyone opposing the war was called a communist. McCarthyism was on.

On June 27, 1950, Truman orders US troops to support South Korea, Congress agrees and the UN Security Council approves the plan.57

About three million civilians were killed, two-thirds in North Korea.58

REAL REASONS To maintain power, South Korea required major US military support. One month before the pretext, Rhee suffered a terrible electoral defeat. Opposing North Korea, diverted public attention from Rhee???s repression to the communist north.

The war was used to triple the Pentagon budget, boost NATO???s military build-up and create a new military role for the UN that could be manipulated by the US.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

*1964: The Vietnam War*
*CONTEXT* Long before WWII, Vietnamese fought for independence from French Indochina. Resistance continued when Japanese troops occupied the colony during the war. Much of the region reverted to French control after the war. As early as 1950, the US aided French efforts to defeat the Ho Chi Minh???s revolutionary forces. When France lost a decisive battle in 1954, the Geneva Accord recognized the independence of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Vietnam was ???temporarily??? divided. Ngo Dinh Diem???s repressive regime in South Vietnam was backed by thousands of US military ???advisors.??? A military coup overthrew Diem in November 1963.59
 That same month, President Kennedy -- who had resisted escalating the war -- was assassinated. President Johnson took power and began intensified US involvement in Vietnam.
*PRETEXT* On July 30, 1964, enemy torpedo boats supposedly attacked a US destroyer, the USS Maddox, in North Vietnam???s Gulf of Tonkin. This lie of an ???unprovoked attack??? against a ???routine patrol??? threw the U.S. headlong into war.
 The Maddox was actually involved in ???aggressive intelligence gathering in coordination with actual attacks by South Vietnam and the Laotian Air Force against targets in North Vietnam.???60 They wanted to provoke a response ???but the North Vietnamese wouldn't bite. So, Johnson invented the attack.???61
 The US task force commander for the Gulf of Tonkin ???cabled Washington that the report was the result of an ???over-eager??? sonarman who picked up the sounds of his own ship's screws and panicked.???62
*RESPONSE* On August 5, 1964, although he knew the attack had not occurred, Johnson couldn???t resist this opportunity for a full-scale war.
 Johnson went on national TV to lie about the Tonkin incident and to announce a bombing campaign to ???retaliate.??? The media repeated the lie ad nauseum. The fabricated assault was ???used as justification for goading Congress into granting the president the authorization to initiate a protracted and highly lucrative war with North Vietnam.???63 Johnson asked Congress for powers ???to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the US and to prevent further aggression.???64
 Before the war ended in 1975, about four million in Southeast Asia were killed.
*REAL REASONS* *As during the Spanish-American war, the American business elite sought to acquire colonies from failing imperial powers.*
*President Dwight Eisenhower propounded the ???Domino Theory??? in 1954.65 If South Vietnam ???fell,??? then other countries would too, ???like a set of dominos.??? The Vietnam War was a threat to all revolutionaries and their supporters.*
*The war also gave a huge boost to US war industries. Other US corporations wanted access to region???s markets and resources, like tin, tungsten, rubber.66*


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

*1983: The Invasion of Grenada*
*CONTEXT* For decades, Eric Gairy dominated the tiny British colony of Grenada. Gairy ???a vicious dictator???[was] the only Caribbean leader to maintain diplomatic relations with Pinochet???s Chile.??? When his ???notorious security forces??? returned from training in Chile ??????disappearances??? became frequent.???67 ???Gariyism??? was so bad that when Britain offered independence, Grenadans united to ???shut down the country???prior to Independence Day, February 7, 1974."68
 The New Jewel Movement (NJM) led a successful uprising on March 13, 1979. The NJM ???organized agrarian reform???, expanded trade union rights, advanced women's equality???, established literacy programs and instituted free medical care.???69
 The CIA "relentlessly used every trick in its dirty bag??? including "an unending campaign of economic, psychological and openly violent destabilization." Reagan met Caribbean leaders, the US urged "regional governments to consider military action" and CIA chief, William Casey, met Senate Intelligence Committee members "to discuss CIA involvement." Gairy began ???recruiting mercenaries from???the Cuban exile community in Miami.???70 (ER BS p.3-5)
 In October1981, a US military exercise simulated an invasion of Grenada ostensibly to rescue Americans and "install a regime favorable to the way of life we espouse."71
 In March 1983, Reagan exclaimed on TV that Grenada???s tourist airport threatened US oil supply routes.72
 On October 19, 1983, NJM leader Maurice Bishop, and others, were put under house arrest during an coup by NJM???s Deputy PM Bernard Coard. Oddly, they were freed by a "well organized crowd???including counter-revolutionary elements???with anti-communist banners???. [led by] well known businessmen???. Who organized this rally, planned so well, and in advance?" Freed NJM leaders were whisked away and as a ???crowd gathered???the soldiers, apparently panicked by explosions, opened fire.??? something provoked them, leading to a massacre." NJM leaders surrendered to soldiers and were soon executed.73
 Significantly, "Pentagon officials informed Members of Congress that they had known of the impending coup???two weeks in advance."74
 The coup plotters were charged with the murders but their lawyer, former US Attorney General Ramsey Clarke believe them innocent of the murders.75 It seems the coup was hijacked by US interests to kill some NJM leaders, jail the rest and set the stage for an invasion.
*PRETEXT* In his Naval Science course, Captain M.T.Carson lists the invasion???s "stated reasons" as "protect Americans, eliminate hostage potential; restore order; requested by OECS [Organization of Eastern Caribbean States]."76
 The US helped form the OECS, and then got it and the Grenadan governor to "request" an invasion. Under ???potential problem,??? Carson notes "Act fast with surprise and present world with fait accompli. If not, world opinion of U.S. invasion of tiny country will be critical. So: · ???Get OECS to request action.??? · ???Get Governor Scoon to request action.??? · ???Emphasize students-in-danger aspect"77
 Carson quotes a "medical school official": "Our safety was never in danger. We were used as an excuse by this government to invade???. They needed a reason???and we were it." MTC Most students "insisted??? that they were ???not???in any danger before the US invasion; only afterwards."78
*RESPONSE* On October 22, 1983, "Operation Urgent Fury" was ordered.79 Three days later, the invasion hit like a cyclone.
 The Organization of American States "deeply deplored" the invasion and the UN Security Council voted 11 to 1 against it.80
*REAL REASONS* *Grenada threatened the US by providing a powerful example of viable alternative ways to organize social, political and economic structures.*
 Carson lists these reasons: · "Chance to eliminate Communist regime and replace with pro-U.S. government??? · ???Demonstrate U.S. military capabilities??? · ???President Reagan commented that U.S. military forces were back on their feet and standing tall."81
 US military morale was damaged two days before the invasion when 241 Marines were killed in Lebanon.82
 The Wall Street Journal said the invasion made Grenada a "haven for offshore banks."83


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

1989: The Invasion of Panama

CONTEXT The Panama Canal has dominated Panama???s history. US military invasions and interventions occurred in 1895, 1901-1903, 1908, 1912, 1918-1920, 1925, 1950, 1958, 1964 and 1989.84

In November 1903, US troops ensured Panama???s secession from Colombia. Within days, a treaty gave the US permanent and exclusive control of the canal.85

Former Panamanian military leader, Manuel Noriega, recruited by US military intelligence in 1959, attended the US Army School of the Americas in 1967 and led Panama???s military intelligence the next year. By 1975, the US Drug Enforcement Agency knew of Noriega???s drug dealing. He met, then-CIA Director, George Bush in 1976.86

In 1977, Presidents Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos, signed a treaty to return the canal to Panamanian control in 1999. Other Americans undermined the treaty using ???diplomatic???and political pressure, through to economic aggression and military invasion.???87

In the early-1980s, Noriega???s drug smuggling helped fund the contras in Nicaragua. He took control of Panama???s National Guard in 1983 and helped rig elections in 1984. Falling from US favour, the US indicted Noriega for drug crimes in 1988.88

On April 14, 1988, Reagan invoked ???war powers??? against Panama. In May, the Assistant Defense Secretary told the Senate: ???I don???t think anyone has totally discarded the use of force.???89

PRETEXT On December 16, 1989, there was what media called an ???unprovoked attack on a US soldier who did not return fire.???90 The soldier was killed when driving ???through a military roadblock near a sensitive military area.???91 Panama???s government said ???U.S. officers???fired at a military headquarters, wounding a soldier and???a 1-year-old girl. A wounded Panamanian soldier???confirmed this account to U.S. reporters.???92 The wife of a US officer was reportedly arrested and beaten.

RESPONSE George Bush called the attack on US soldiers an ???enormous outrage???93 and said he ???would not stand by while American womanhood is threatened.???94 Noam Chomsky questions why Bush ???stood by??? when a US nun was kidnapped and sexually abused by Guatemalan police only weeks earlier, when two US nuns were killed by contras in Nicaragua on January 1, 1990, and when a US nun was wounded by gunmen in El Salvador around the same time.95

The US media demonized Noriega and turned the ??????Noriega??? issue into an accepted justification for the invasion???. Colonel Eduardo Herrera, ex-Director of [Panama???s] ???Public Forces,??????said: ???If the real interest of the US was to capture Noriega, they could have done so on numerous occasions. [They] had all of his movements completely controlled.???96

On December 20, 1989, ???Operation Just Cause??? began. More than 4,000 were killed. US crimes included indiscriminate attacks, extra judicial executions, arbitrary detentions, destruction of property (like leveling the Chorrillo neighborhood), use of prohibited weapons, erasing evidence and mass burials.97

A US-friendly president, Guillermo Endara, was soon sworn in on a US military base.

REAL REASONS The Carter-Torrijos Treaty was torn up and the Panama???s military was dismantled.

A right-wing, US think tank stated in 1988 that: ???once [Panama] is controlled by a democratic regime???.discussions should begin with respect to a realistic defense of the Canal after???2000. These discussions should include the maintenance, by the US, of a limited number of military installations in Panama???to maintain adequate projection of force in the western hemisphere.???98

The invasion was a testing ground for new weapons, such as the B-2 bomber (worth US $2.2 billion) that was used for the first time.

The invasion also: · rectified ???Bush's ???wimpy??? foreign relations image??? · gave a ???spectacular show of U.S. military might in the final months before the Nicaraguan elections, hinting???that they might want to vote for the ???right??? candidate.??? · ???sent a signal???that the US???[would] intervene militarily where the control of illegal drugs was ostensibly at stake. · ???demonstrated the new U.S. willingness to assume active, interventionist leadership of the ???new world order??? in the post-Cold War period.???99


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Not nessasarily, but maybe if we don't start illegal wars, we won't get screwed over years down the road by an islamo-facist whose son was killed in one of our bombings.  More deaths = More Terror.



What you want to do and what you have to do aren't always the same thing.  It would have been nice to not have to get involved so much around the world.  As a matter of fact, many Americans were isolationists and wanted nothing to do with the rest of the world, but someone had to do something about the Soviets.  That period of our history had unpleasant ramifications our or involvment in the world now.  Just look at how little interest and action the USA took in the world before WW2.

Oh, and good post.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

There are dozens of other examples from US history besides those summarized here. The ???Cold War??? was characterized by dozens of covert and overt wars throughout the Third World. Although each had its specific pretexts, the eradication of communism was the generally-used backdrop for all rationales.100

Since the Soviet Union???s demise, US war planners have continued to use spectacular pretext incidents to spawn wars. Examples include Iraq (1991), Somalia (1992), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995) and Yugoslavia (1999).

Throughout this time, the US ???War on Drugs??? has been fought on many fronts. Lurking behind the excuse to squash illicit drug trafficking, are the actual reasons for financing, training and arming right-wing, US-backed regimes, whose officials have so often profited from this illegal trade. The CIA has used this trade to finance many of its covert wars.101 The ???War on Drugs??? has targeted numerous countries to strengthen counter-insurgency operations aimed at destroying opposition groups that oppose US corporate rule.

Military plotters know that the majority would never support their wars, if it were generally known why they were really being fought. Over the millennia, a special martial art has been deliberately developed to weave elaborate webs of deceit to create the appearance that wars are fought for ???just??? or ???humanitarian??? reasons.

If asked to support a war so a small, wealthy elite could shamelessly profit by ruthlessly exploiting and plundering the natural and human resources in far away lands, people would ???just say no.???

We now face another broad thematic pretext for war, the so-called ???War Against Terrorism.??? We are told it will be waged in many countries and may continue for generations. It is vitally important to expose this latest attempt to fraudulently conceal the largely economic and geostrategic purposes of war. By asking who benefits from war, we can unmask its pretense and expose the true grounds for instigating it. By throwing light on repeated historical patterns of deception, we can promote skepticism about the government and media yarns that have been spun to encourage this war.

The historical knowledge of how war planners have tricked people into supporting past wars, is like a vaccine. We can use this understanding of history to inoculate the public with healthy doses of distrust for official war pretext narratives and other deceptive stratagems. Through such immunization programs we may help to counter our society???s susceptibility to ???war fever.???


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Oh, and good post.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

Foreman, can't you read and then summarize your findings into a single post or just post the links to the anti-war page you're cutting-and-pasting from instead of flooding a thread with no-thought posts?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

>



Hey, he earned it.  They were his own words and well written.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Foreman, can't you read and then summarize your findings into a single post or just post the links to the anti-war page you're cutting-and-pasting from instead of flooding a thread with no-thought posts?


If you don't take the time to read what I posted then you can not make an intelligent comment about it.....


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

Opps I see you didn't.....again..


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> We are not talking about the cold war here, feel free to start a thread about that topic if you like. America has a huge history of political and military meddling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Much like the Spanish American war in which the US said a boat was sunk by the Spanish when in fact they never did.

It happens, we don't live a sinless life.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> If you don't take the time to read what I posted then you can not make an intelligent comment about it.....



If you can't find the time to form a salient point, I won't find the time to read it.

Cutting-and-pasting isn't a shortcut to an intelligent conversation.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> If you can't find the time to form a salient point, I won't find the time to read it.
> 
> Cutting-and-pasting isn't a shortcut to an intelligent conversation.


 It seems all you do is bitch and moan about every post........It's not intelligent enough...it's not your own words..........I posted one opinion of Americas actions in the poast....read it or not, but get off your high horse and engage in a discussion or don't post....the spin thing is very boring.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

How am I spinning?  I said that we had engage in the world theater to counter the soviets, you replied with several cut-and-pastes about wars (most of which happened after WW2, just as I had said).  It wasn't until the Cold War (which started right after WW2) that we became involved in other governments in earnest.  Before that, we mostly concerned ourselves with matters in North America.

If it appears as though I'm on a high horse, it's only because you're in the intellectual dirt.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Ok I will actually tell you what I think....
> 
> *Live by the sword die by the sword*. Most of our problems with other nations is  because of our interference and meddling in their affairs....




I agree with this 100% percent. Wow, I never thought I would agree with Foreman on any topic.


----------



## LexusGS (Feb 11, 2006)

I have the official answer. No. The war will be started by the small country of Ethiopia in 2011. Just wait and see.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

KelJu said:
			
		

> I agree with this 100% percent. Wow, I never thought I would agree with Foreman on any topic.




You and Foreman agree on everyone...


----------



## LexusGS (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> You and Foreman agree on everyone...


Change your name to LilDyl., since you area 135lb. bitch.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 11, 2006)

LexusGS said:
			
		

> Change your name to LilDyl., since you area 135lb. bitch.




Change your location to "I'm a gonad", cuz you are.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)




----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

Sorry  but insults are a poor replacement for intelect....If you are incapable of commenting on a short summery then I can't help you.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> commenting on a short summery then I can't help you.




I'll tell ya, Foreman, it ain't feelin too summery over here in the Northeast, what with all the snow and all.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I'll tell ya, Foreman, it ain't feelin too summery over here in the Northeast, what with all the snow and all.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Sorry  but insults are a poor replacement for intelect....If you are incapable of commenting on a short summery then I can't help you.


I've made my case.  The US was forced into the world arena by the Cold War.  Otherwise, we would be the same ol' isolationists that we were.

You're the one that started with the insults.  It's bothers you that my insults are better.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I've made my case.  The US was forced into the world arena by the Cold War.  Otherwise, we would be the same ol' isolationists that we were.
> 
> You're the one that started with the insults.  It's bothers you that my insults are better.


Again the topic at hand is not the cold war....I don't know why you keep trying to change the subject.


----------



## LexusGS (Feb 11, 2006)

He Does It Because He Is Only Capable Of Being Gay


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

LexusGS said:
			
		

> He Does It Because He Is Only Capable Of Being Gay





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> You're the one that started with the insults.  It's bothers you that my insults are better.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Again the topic at hand is not the cold war....I don't know why you keep trying to change the subject.


The topic is the "meddling" of the US in world affairs.  I'm giving you the root cause.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> The topic is the "meddling" of the US in world affairs.  I'm givng you the root cause.


It began before the cold war.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>


Even _you _have better insults than that.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> It began before the cold war.



Not by your own posts.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Not by your own posts.


I have posted here on several times in history......You need to go back and read again.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

LexusGS said:
			
		

> He Does It Because He Is Only Capable Of Being Gay


You're either a white boy of 9 years old or you're black.  Which is it?


----------



## LexusGS (Feb 11, 2006)

foreman, why are you acting like a little bitch all the time?


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

LexusGS said:
			
		

> foreman, why are you acting like a little bitch all the time?


----------



## LexusGS (Feb 11, 2006)

bitch, you just did it again motherfucker.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

LexusGS said:
			
		

> bitch, you just did it again motherfucker.


----------



## LexusGS (Feb 11, 2006)

ok. now i understand.


----------



## kbm8795 (Feb 11, 2006)

*Will America start WW lll ?? *

Heck yeah. . .war is the ultimate Republican wet dream.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

Can anyone correctly associate Presidents with wars, please don't name Presidents who were voted into a war.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

Mention World War 3 and Conservatives dicks get rock hard.



So does Topolo's.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

Presidents during wartime
George Washington: war with Native Americans in Ohio 
Thomas Jefferson: Tripolitan War, 1800-1805, against the Barbary pirates 
James Madison - War of 1812, 1812-1814, against the British 
James Monroe - First Seminole War, 1817-1818 
Andrew Jackson - Black Hawk War, 1832 
Martin Van Buren - Aroostook War, 1839; Second Seminole War - ended 1842 
William Henry Harrison - Second Seminole War - ended 1842 
John Tyler - Second Seminole War - ended 1842 
James Polk - Mexican War 
James Buchanan - beginning of the Civil War 
Abraham Lincoln - Civil War, 1861-1865 
William McKinley - Spanish-American War, 1898; Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1900 
Woodrow Wilson - WWI, 1914-1918 
Warren Harding - formally concluded WWI 
Franklin Roosevelt - WWII, 1941-1945 
Harry Truman - conclusion of WWII, Korean War - 1950-1953 
Dwight Eisenhower - conclusion of Korean War 
John Kennedy - Bay of Pigs Invasion, 1961; beginning of Vietnam War 
Lyndon Johnson - Vietnam War, Dominican Republic, 1965 
Richard Nixon - Vietnam War 
Ronald Reagan - Grenada Invasion, 1983 
George Bush - Invasion of Panama, 1989-1990; Persian Gulf War, 1990-1991 
George W. Bush - War against the Taliban, Iraq, 2001 to present


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

Clinton is a bitch for not starting a War.  He did something much worse than starting a war.  He got some head.  What a bastard!


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Clinton is a bitch for not starting a War. He did something much worse than starting a war. He got some head. What a bastard!


 
Make love not war!


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Make love not war!



What?  No, you got it all wrong.  What he did was infinity + 1 times worse than war.  Geez... why is that so  hard to understand... 

His whole term, he was just riding on the coat tails of Bush 1's and Reagan's intelligent economic decisions.  



That being said, I'm not a fan of Clinton.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Clinton is a bitch for not starting a War.  He did something much worse than starting a war.  He got some head.  What a bastard!


True story

Bombing and murduring women and children is gods work
But getting head is an evil sin


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Clinton is a bitch for not starting a War.  He did something much worse than starting a war.  He got some head.  What a bastard!



Clinton gave the impression to the Muslims that attacking America wasn't a risk.  Look at the all the attack Osama did before 9/11.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Clinton gave the impression to the Muslims that attacking America wasn't a risk.  Look at the all the attack Osama did before 9/11.




How did he give that impression?   

Because he didn't start a war?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

Because they were attacking us and the worst that we did was blow up an asprin factory.  It emboldened them to attack more often and harder.


----------



## Nick+ (Feb 11, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I think we're already in it: West vs Radical Islam is going to blow up.
> 
> There will be some kind of bombing in Denmark & probably another one here & shit will hit the fan.



Well! ...How convienient......  There's nothing like a nice war.


----------



## Nick+ (Feb 11, 2006)

I am getting sick and tired of these polls .

Why the the hell don't certain Americans, just get together and stop the madness spread by Bush?

To be quite honest, this whole heap of shit happened under Hitler before.


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 11, 2006)

My testicles are at war right now, they itch.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> My testicles are at war right now, they itch.




Yeah, but are you getting a rock hard erection from a possible WW3?


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> I am getting sick and tired of these polls .
> 
> *Why the the hell don't certain Americans, just get together and stop the madness spread by Bush?*
> 
> To be quite honest, this whole heap of shit happened under Hitler before.


 
Do you mean assassinate?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 11, 2006)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> I am getting sick and tired of these polls .
> 
> Why the the hell don't certain Americans, just get together and stop the madness spread by Bush?
> 
> To be quite honest, this whole heap of shit happened under Hitler before.




Our government is not like the French, it can't be overthrown with 4 cripples and a couple sticks of deodorant.


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 11, 2006)

Nick+ said:
			
		

> I am getting sick and tired of these polls .
> 
> Why the the hell don't certain Americans, just get together and stop the madness spread by Bush?
> 
> To be quite honest, this whole heap of shit happened under Hitler before.


 I've tried to avoid your stupid comments but I can't avoid this. What the FUCK does this mean? Show me a war where every country involved fully supported it, and the opposing soldiers were picking dasies and dancing around in a field. By your pretence, every war in the history of mankind would be similar to what happened under Hitler. I would love to know how you arrive at your idiotic, empty ramblings. I find it hard to believe that someone can posess such incredibe ability to misconstrue the actual events that take place in the world.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> I've tried to avoid your stupid comments but I can't avoid this. What the FUCK does this mean? Show me a war where every country involved fully supported it, and the opposing soldiers were picking dasies and dancing around in a field. By your pretence, every war in the history of mankind would be similar to what happened under Hitler. I would love to know how you arrive at your idiotic, empty ramblings. I find it hard to believe that someone can posess such incredibe ability to misconstrue the actual events that take place in the world.


Racist


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Racist


 Racists hate people of a certain race. I guess that means that i'm a moronist.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> Racists hate people of a certain race. I guess that means that i'm a moronist.


Nick is white
You fight with Nick
100% proof that you hate white people


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> My testicles are at war right now, they itch.



Which one is the Muslim testicle?


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Nick is white
> You fight with Nick
> 100% proof that you hate white people


 I can not deny this. I think BigDyl is also a racist. He is white, and always talks about killing himself, so he wants to kill whites.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Our government is not like the French, it can't be overthrown with 4 cripples and a couple sticks of deodorant.



Three.  It was _three _cripples.


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Which one is the Muslim testicle?


 I don't know but one of them is acting just like Heinrich Himmler, the leader of the SS, and the other is acting just like Gandhi. My left one (Himmler) has alredy thrown all my pubes into a "pube camp" where they are being forced to smooth the wrinkles out of my balls. This leads me to the conclusion that he's an American, because it's a Testicle War and this same thing happened under Hitler, so maybe the right one will overthrow him, it's the sensible thing to do.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> I can not deny this. I think BigDyl is also a racist. He is white, and always talks about killing himself, so he wants to kill whites.


That must mean he is also a homophobe.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> That must mean he is also a homophobe.


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 11, 2006)

*RACIST*


			
				BigDyl said:
			
		

>


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> I don't know but one of them is acting just like Heinrich Himmler, the leader of the SS, and the other is acting just like Gandhi. My left one (Himmler) has alredy thrown all my pubes into a "pube camp" where they are being forced to smooth the wrinkles out of my balls. This leads me to the conclusion that he's an American, because it's a Testicle War and this same thing happened under Hitler, so maybe the right one will overthrow him, it's the sensible thing to do.




Just be careful.  You never know where he'll attack.  Just keep and eye on your anus is all I sayin'.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> *RACIST*



You misunderstood his emoticon.  This emoticon , means "Look, I'm not showing any teeth.  Do what feels right."


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

>


I find the use of that smiley highly offensive.

Just look at his lips and his  skin color. They are making fun of Black Chinese people..


----------



## wetnwild (Feb 11, 2006)

talking about politics and wars is  the worst subject evere, no one really
knows whta the hell is going on anyway. The governemt doesn't tell you 
a thing and the things you do found out are not secrets.  STop the maddness
  These topics can go on forever. What's the point?


----------



## brogers (Feb 11, 2006)

Let's imagine what would happen if the islamo-fascists had the power of the US military at their disposal.  I wonder if they would be as reserved as the United States is?


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Let's imagine what would happen if the islamo-fascists had the power of the US military at their disposal.  I wonder if they would be as reserved as the United States is?


I wonder if they would drop two atomic bombs on big  citys filled with women, children and old peolle......we all know America would not do something like that.


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Let's imagine what would happen if the islamo-fascists had the power of the US military at their disposal.  I wonder if they would be as reserved as the United States is?


 Nick+ heard a theory that the CIA hired Ewoks to come here from planet Endor to fund the Islamic terrorism that in turn will spawn a war with every country in the world so we can kill them all, revel in the glory of Bush, bathe in his urine then fly at light speed (technology that the CIA stole from Hitler) to the planet Hoth, which has become a tropical oasis due to global warming caused by the U.S. government and live the rest of our days out basking in the three suns of Hoths solar system and feast on the souls of the free people from earth that the US government captured and put in "soul boxes" for later consumption. Frankly, I believe him.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I wonder if they would drop two atomic bombs on big  citys filled with women, children and old peolle......we all know America would not do something like that.



And the Muslims do that sort of shit daily. They've done far more than two times.  If they had nukes, they would use the with far less constraint than the US.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> Nick+ heard a theory that the CIA hired Ewoks to come here from planet Endor to fund the Islamic terrorism that in turn will spawn a war with every country in the world so we can kill them all, revel in the glory of Bush, bathe in his urine then fly at light speed (technology that the CIA stole from Hitler) to the planet Hoth, which has become a tropical oasis due to global warming caused by the U.S. government and live the rest of our days out basking in the three suns of Hoths solar system and feast on the souls of the free people from earth that the US government captured and put in "soul boxes" for later consumption. Frankly, I believe him.



Gotta' love those acid induced posts.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> And the Muslims do that sort of shit daily. They've done far more than two times.  If they had nukes, they would use the with far less constraint than the US.


And America does that kind of shit daily as well. The only reason we have not dropped another Atomic bomb is because it only takes one or two great punches to make someone your bitch


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> And America does that kind of shit daily as well. The only reason we have not dropped another Atomic bomb is because it only takes one or two great punches to make someone your bitch



The Muslims would show no such constraint.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> The Muslims would show no such constraint.



 The only reason we have not dropped another Atomic bomb is because it only takes one or two great punches to make someone your bitch ]


----------



## brogers (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I wonder if they would drop two atomic bombs on big citys filled with women, children and old peolle......we all know America would not do something like that.


 
A ridiculous comparison.

However, as DOMS said, the islamo-fascists are already bombing as many women, children, old people, and pretty much anyone they can.  It's a good thing they are too stupid to develop or obtain nuclear weapons.  It is certain they would use them with the sole intention of killing as many people as possible to escalate conflict.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> *A ridiculous comparison.
> *
> However, as DOMS said, the islamo-fascists are already bombing as many women, children, old people, and pretty much anyone they can.  It's a good thing they are too stupid to develop or obtain nuclear weapons.  It is certain they would use them with the sole intention of killing as many people as possible to escalate conflict.




No it is not.....you  justify it because its your country and also you are not capable of thinking for yourself.....if you were then this might be an interesting and thought provoking discussion.


----------



## brogers (Feb 11, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> Nick+ heard a theory that the CIA hired Ewoks to come here from planet Endor to fund the Islamic terrorism that in turn will spawn a war with every country in the world so we can kill them all, revel in the glory of Bush, bathe in his urine then fly at light speed (technology that the CIA stole from Hitler) to the planet Hoth, which has become a tropical oasis due to global warming caused by the U.S. government and live the rest of our days out basking in the three suns of Hoths solar system and feast on the souls of the free people from earth that the US government captured and put in "soul boxes" for later consumption. Frankly, I believe him.


 
His idiocy is truly amazing.  It is no wonder france is trampled by everyone, even adolescent muslims.  You know, the riots that the CIA and Mossad incited?


----------



## brogers (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> No it is not.....you justify it because its your country and also you are not capable of thinking for yourself.....if you were then this might be an interesting and thought provoking discussion.


 
Japan began the war in the Pacific with a sneak attack against Pearl Harbor.  The Atomic Bombs were dropped to bring about a quick end to the conflict, which they did fantastically.  The muslim fanatics use bombs to escalate conflict and create chaos, the US used them to bring about peace.  

The muslims desire war, they want to get their 72 virgins.

In the 1940's we had leaders who were willing to do whatever it took to win a war.  I'm afraid we do not have that anymore.  We stick our boys in harms way instead of decimating the enemy.  Our benevolence is our weakness.  There is no peace without victory.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Japan began the war in the Pacific with a sneak attack against Pearl Harbor.  The Atomic Bombs were dropped to bring about a quick end to the conflict, which they did fantastically.  The muslim fanatics use bombs to escalate conflict and create chaos, the US used them to bring about peace.
> 
> The muslims desire war, they want to get their 72 virgins.
> 
> In the 1940's we had leaders who were willing to do whatever it took to win a war.  I'm afraid we do not have that anymore.  We stick our boys in harms way instead of decimating the enemy.  Our benevolence is our weakness.  There is no peace without victory.



Didn't we know about Pearl Harbor ahead of time?  I mean, our goverment?


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> His idiocy is truly amazing. It is no wonder france is trampled by everyone, even adolescent muslims. You know, the riots that the CIA and Mossad incited?


The CIA are pretty good at doing certain things, I'll leave it at that.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Didn't we know about Pearl Harbor ahead of time?  I mean, our goverment?



It depends on whether you thought the X-Files were a documentary or not. :shurg:

All joking aside, no were didn't know they were coming, but we did provoke them.  The US government knew that Japan needed to be stopped, but the people didn't wan't to get involved (much like the war in Europe) with a war (Japan vs. China) that didn't include them.  Even if there would be dire consequences in the long term.  So, along with other countries, the US helped to blockade the Japanese islands (cutting them off from oil and other materials needed for war) thus provoking an attack from the Japanese so that the US citizens would feel the need to fight back and the US could stop the Japanese exapansion.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Japan began the war in the Pacific with a sneak attack against Pearl Harbor.  The Atomic Bombs were dropped to bring about a quick end to the conflict, which they did fantastically.  The muslim fanatics use bombs to escalate conflict and create chaos, the US used them to bring about peace.
> 
> The muslims desire war, they want to get their 72 virgins.
> 
> In the 1940's we had leaders who were willing to do whatever it took to win a war.  I'm afraid we do not have that anymore.  We stick our boys in harms way instead of decimating the enemy.  Our benevolence is our weakness.  There is no peace without victory.


Again you embrace American Terrorism and don't even realise it......murdering a hundred thousand + women and children with two bombs is the worst act of terror this world has ever seen....


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Again you embrace American Terrorism and don't even realise it......murdering a hundred thousand + women and children with two bombs is the worst act of terror this world has ever seen....



And here I thought that war was all hugs and kisses.


----------



## brogers (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Didn't we know about Pearl Harbor ahead of time? I mean, our goverment?


 
Our ambassador to Japan had told Washington that Japan might launch a surprise attack if there was trouble with the US.


----------



## brogers (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Again you embrace American Terrorism and don't even realise it......murdering a hundred thousand + women and children with two bombs is the worst act of terror this world has ever seen....


 
Beating the shit out of someone who sucker punches you isn't terrorism, it's justice.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Beating the shit out of someone who sucker punches you isn't terrorism, it's justice.




That's not a valid analogy.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Beating the shit out of someone who sucker punches you isn't terrorism, it's justice.


I have no problem droping nukes on their fleet or military baces.....but murdering a hundred thousand + women and children is disgusting; America showed it's true colors that day.

If you were German you would be justifing the exicution of 6 million Jews.....you have 0 free will son.


----------



## brogers (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I have no problem droping nukes on their fleet or military baces.....but murdering a hundred thousand + women and children is disgusting; America showed it's true colors that day.
> 
> If you were German you would be justifing the exicution of 6 million Jews.....you have 0 free will son.


 
Sometimes, the end justifies the means, especially in the efforts to end a bloody war.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

Pearl Harbor was a military base, America was involved in the war by shipping arms to the alies...ect, Japan was an ally of Germany.....simple math...Japan bombed a military base of their enemy...

I'm, glad Japan got there ass kicked....fuck those scum.....but America was the one to cross the line and murder innocent women and children by the ten's of thousands.


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Pearl Harbor was a military base, America was involved in the war by shipping arms to the alies...ect, Japan was an ally of Germany.....simple math...Japan bombed a military base of their enemy...
> 
> I'm, glad Japan got there ass kicked....fuck those scum.....but America was the one to cross the line and murder innocent women and children by the ten's of thousands.


 Maybe they should listen when we say "Quit fucking around"


----------



## brogers (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Pearl Harbor was a military base, America was involved in the war by shipping arms to the alies...ect, Japan was an ally of Germany.....simple math...Japan bombed a military base of their enemy...
> 
> I'm, glad Japan got there ass kicked....fuck those scum.....but America was the one to cross the line and murder innocent women and children by the ten's of thousands.


 
*The President and our Generals' duty is to the American people*,* the same people who make up our military, not the Japanese*.  Protecting American lives is priority number one.  The Atomic bombs ended the war and no more Americans had to die.  Mission accomplished.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> *The President and our Generals' duty is to the American people*,* the same people who make up our military, not the Japanese*.  Protecting American lives is priority number one.


I agree......so you are saying we should tell the world we no longer will obey any of the rules of war???


----------



## brogers (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I agree......so you are saying we should tell the world we no longer will obey any of the rules of war???


 
In the case of the Japanese, no we should have not obeyed a single rule of war.  They attacked us without a declaration of war, and their treatment of our POWs was horrific.

If our enemy will not follow the rules of war, neither should we.  Don't you agree?


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> In the case of the Japanese, no we should have not obeyed a single rule of war.  They attacked us without a declaration of war, and their treatment of our POWs was horrific.
> 
> If our enemy will not follow the rules of war, neither should we.  Don't you agree? *Hell yes!!!*


If America had a history of being honest and justified when they started wars then I might agree with you.....but we have done worse than Japan did to us.......and we are still doing it now.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> If America had a history of being honest and justified when they started wars then I might agree with you.....but we have done worse than Japan did to us.......and we are still doing it now.



You know nothing of what the Japanese did.  Nothing.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

Another post with nothing to offer to this discussion...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

My posts offer far more than yours.

This: "but we have done worse than Japan did to us" tells me that the extent of your knowledge about the US vs. Japan war is: 

- They attacked Pearl Horbor
- We nuked them twice

No one who knew the details would ever say, "but we have done worse than Japan did to us".


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

What are the details?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> What are the details?



I don't know of any website that provides all the details in one place.  My knowledge of the events comes from years of reading books, watching history shows, and talking to others.  

I think you'd enjoy reading up on the pre-1945 Japanese.  They were a very different people.  That did things that make the Nazis look cute and cuddly.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

No they don't..

Please explain all the "bad" things they did in detail.....please do not cut and paste..


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> No the don't..
> 
> Please explain all the "bad" things they did in detail.....please do not cut and paste..



I've no interest in being your history teacher.  If you knew any of the details and wanted to discuss a detail or two, I'd be fine with that.  If you'd liked to know more, please visit your local library.

Oh, and I seldom just cut and paste.


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I've no interest in being your history teacher.  If you knew any of the details and wanted to discuss a detail or two, I'd be fine with that.  If you'd liked to know more, please visit your local library.
> 
> Oh, and I seldom just cut and paste.


Oh, and I seldom just cut and paste also


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

Case and point........hypocrite


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 11, 2006)

isn't it case in point?


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> *i*sn't it case in point?


 Isn't it a capital I????


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Isn't it a capital I????


Isn't it only one question mark?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Case and point........hypocrite


How is that hypocrisy?  There have been numerous books written about that era and what happened between the US and Japan and appearently you've not read any of it.  It's quite likely the extent of your knowledge on this subject comes solely from your history classes in school and the occational, shallow, television show.

I'm not here to make up for your not reading up on a subject.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> Isn't it only one question mark?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


I like my question marks like my women, many and more.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I like my question marks like my women, many and more.



Bent and skinny?


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

All you are is a circle talker....I'm bored with your simple tricks to avoid intelligent debate. See ya.


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I like my question marks like my women, many and more.


 Not to mention black, small, curved at the top, always having a period, 12 point font and only used in questionable situations.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

How did you know about that??????????????????


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> How did you know about that??????????????????


 ?


----------



## brogers (Feb 11, 2006)

Japanese soldiers were known for tossing chinese babies in the air and catching the on their bayonets. They were a pretty brutal people. I'm glad they channeled their brutality into making cheap electronics for us.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> All you are is a circle talker....I'm bored with your simple tricks to avoid intelligent debate. See ya.



You've said that the US had done far worse to the Japanese than they had done to us, when you don't even know what they did to us.

The real problem is your inability to articulate your thoughts and a lack of knowledge about the topic at hand.


----------



## wetnwild (Feb 11, 2006)

I am going to go get naked take a bath and play with my
toys.  You guys have a nice night.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Japanese soldiers were known for tossing chinese babies in the air and catching the on their bayonets. They were a pretty brutal people. I'm glad they channeled their brutality into making cheap electronics for us.



We'll, at least someone knows what the Japanese used to be like.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Japanese soldiers were known for tossing chinese babies in the air and catching the on their bayonets. They were a pretty brutal people. I'm glad they channeled their brutality into making cheap electronics for us.


Yu was one of the 40,000 or so Koreans arrested by the Japanese in the aftermath of the failed March First Movement of 1919, wherein patriotic Koreans of all social spectrum joined in a nationwide march for Korea's independence.  She was only 18 at the time and died from 20-month long barbaric tortures by the Japanese savages.  Today, she is worshipped as Korea's Jean d'arc by the under-40 generations of Korea. 



 Yu was born in 1902 into a Christian family.  Her father (Yu Jung-kwun  류중권) was an early convert and established a Christian school with his own money.  Yu attended the Yi-wha Girls' School (called the Yi-wha Girls' High School today) and became an ardent nationalist and a Christian.  When she prayed, she held the Korean flag close to her bosom. 
 On March 1, 1919, Yu joined the "March to Death" squad with five other students. When the Japanese closed down her school after the March, she returned to her home town of Chunahn (천안) and carried on her work for Korea's independence.  She persuaded villagers to join her on a march on April 1, 1919.   The Japanese security forces attacked the marchers with guns and swords.   Her father and mother were among the victims of the Japanese atrocity.
 Yu was fingered as the main instigator of the march and was arrested.  She was tortured by the arresting police in Chunahn, by the prosecutors in Gongju, and by the Japanese interrogators in Seoul.  She was defiant to her last moment.  She shouted "Long Live Korea" while being transported from jail to jail.  On one occasion, a Japanese police escort struck her with his sword to silence her. At her trial, she threw a chair at her prosecutor.  Her torturers inserted a water hose into her vagina and forced cold water into her.  Her torturers placed her outdoors in freezing cold and then dowsed her with icy water. When she was half frozen, they revived her by placing her next to a hot stove,  They would repeat this process again and again.  
 After 20 months of non-stop torture, she died in October 1920.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

We all know.....get off your high horse....again


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

I'm sure the civilians that were bombed in Japan were oppressed by their government.  Just because there government was evil, doesnt mean babies/children that got blown up were.


----------



## brogers (Feb 11, 2006)

Imperialist Japan was not that much unlike our muslim fanatics of today.  They both desired to die for their cause.  Yhe muslims for allah, the japanese for their emperor.  This was programmed into their brains in school, just like the radical clerics are doing to young children in muslim countries.

Some more interesting parallels that I hadn't even thought about until now really.... Suicide Bombers, Using planes as missiles


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Yu was one of the 40,000



Most of South-East Asia hates the Japanese to this very day.


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Japanese soldiers were known for tossing chinese babies in the air and catching the on their bayonets. They were a pretty brutal people. I'm glad they channeled their brutality into making cheap electronics for us.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Most of South-East Asia hates the Japanese to this very day.


I hate the Japs to this day....the most disgusting culture in the world today by far.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I'm sure the civilians that were bombed in Japan were oppressed by their government.  Just because there government was evil, doesnt mean babies/children that got blown up were.



The people would follow the order of the government, even to the death.  Japan was, and still is, the most structured culture on the planet.  Really BigDyl, read up on it. I think you might find it very interesting.

In the period preceding WW2, it was the military that ran the nation.  The emperor was nothing more than a figurehead.  The emperor wanted to surrender, but the military wouldn't allow it.  After all, the Japanese had never been defeated before.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> We all know.....get off your high horse....again



Get up out of the intellectual dirt and _*learn*_.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I hate the Japs to this day....the most disgusting culture in the world today by far.



Ever heard of Muslims?


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Get up out of the intellectual dirt and _*learn*_.


 I was wrong, how can I expect a slave to rise out of the darkness of his own ignorance. I forgive you for your inability to form original thought.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I was wrong, how can I expect a slave to rise out of the darkness of his own ignorance. I forgive you for your inability to form original thought.



You do realize why you're bitching don't you?  You spouted off about something you know little about and are upset that I won't condense my years of reading into a sound-bite of a post.  So, if you know nothing about the details of the Six Day War (which seems more and more plausible) and it came up as a topic, you'd expect me to boil it all down for you?

You're the one who either cut-and-pastes or needs to have every concept spoon fed to you.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

No I posted an opinion and you attacked, then you changed the subject.....typical. I posted some facts/opinions about a few American wars and you attacked again.....you did not prove them wrong nor did you give your opinion on any of the wars I posted.....sorry son but you have done nothing here but insult and avoid any counter points. Very lazy and juvenile.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> No I posted an opinion and you attacked, then you changed the subject.....typical. I posted some facts/opinions about a few American wars and you attacked again.....you did not prove them wrong nor did you give your opinion on any of the wars I posted.....sorry son but you have done nothing here but insult and avoid any counter points. Very lazy and juvenile.


 Truthfully, you're also quite caustic.  But I'm willing to set it aside and focus on the topic.

On topic:

You stated that the US did worse to the Japanese than the Japanese did to us.  This is not true.  The Japanese did far, far worse; To the US and to all their enemies.  Where the Nazis were systematic and clinical about the slaughter of their enemies, the Japanese took particular interest in being as cruel as possible.  There are numerous accounts of this.  Just Google for some, they're not hard to find.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Truthfully, you're also quite caustic.  But I'm willing to set it aside and focus on the topic.
> 
> On topic:
> 
> * You stated that the US did worse to the Japanese than the Japanese did to us.*  This is not true.  The Japanese did far, far worse; To the US and to all their enemies.  Where the Nazis were systematic and clinical about the slaughter of their enemies, the Japanese took particular interest in being as cruel as possible.  There are numerous accounts of this.  Just Google for some, they're not hard to find.


Please show me that post......*I never said that*, you are reading into something else I said and changing it.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Please show me that post......*I never said that*, you are reading into something else I said and changing it.


It's possible.



			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> If America had a history of being honest and justified when they started wars then I might agree with you.....*but we have done worse than Japan did to us*.......and we are still doing it now.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> It's possible.


I looked back but missed it...
It depends on how you look at it....as far as acts of torture they were far worse, but

In Hiroshima, of a resident civilian population of 250 000 it was estimated that 45 000 died on the first day and *a further 19 000 during the subsequent four months*. In Nagasaki, out of a population of 174 000, 22 000 died on the first day and *another 17 000 within four months*. Unrecorded deaths of military personnel and foreign workers may have added considerably to these figures.


So you have 36,000 civlians dieing a horrible tortuous death slowly + 67,000 killed instantly.....seems to me this is much worse that what the Japs did....on pure numbers  that is.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I looked back but missed it...
> It depends on how you look at it....as far as acts of torture they were far worse, but
> 
> In Hiroshima, of a resident civilian population of 250 000 it was estimated that 45 000 died on the first day and *a further 19 000 during the subsequent four months*. In Nagasaki, out of a population of 174 000, 22 000 died on the first day and *another 17 000 within four months*. Unrecorded deaths of military personnel and foreign workers may have added considerably to these figures.
> ...


The Japanese killed many US soldier and civilians.  Often in brutal ways.  If the Japanese had gotten the better of the US, their would have many, many more.  Think about it, if the Japanese had won the war, how many more dead would there have been?  Yes, this is a hypothetical, but it points out that we only killed more than they did becuase we won.

When you factor in the deaths cause by the Japanese in the Sino-Japanese war, it isn't even close.  Read up about Prince Yasuhiko Asaka and the Raping of Nanjing (aka The Nanjing Massacre).  There were up to 350,000 murdered.  Men, women, children, and infants were killed.  Not by one huge bomb, but by gun and boynet.  It's believed that nearly every woman who died that night were raped before they were killed.  By women, I mean all females ages 7 - 80 years old.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> The Japanese killed many US soldier and civilians.  Often in brutal ways.  If the Japanese had gotten the better of the US, their would have many, many more.  Think about it, if the Japanese had won the war, how many more dead would there have been?  Yes, this is a hypothetical, but it points out that we only killed more than they did becuase we won.
> 
> When you factor in the deaths cause by the Japanese in the Sino-Japanese war, it isn't even close.  Read up about Prince Yasuhiko Asaka and the Raping of Nanjing (aka The Nanjing Massacre).  There were up to 350,000 murdered.  Men, women, children, and infants were killed.  Not by one huge bomb, but by gun and boynet.  It's believed that nearly every woman who died that night were raped before they were killed.  By women, I mean all females ages 7 - 80 years old.


My brother is a huge war buff.....he knows every detail of every war from WWl-Nam.....I hear about it from him all the time. I will ask him if the Japs murdered over 104,000 Americans...1/3 by Torture in WW2 ( and most civilians).


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> My brother is a huge war buff.....he knows every detail of every war from WWl-Nam.....I hear about it from him all the time. I will ask him if the Japs murdered over 104,000 Americans...1/3 by Torture in WW2 ( and most civilians).



You've missed the point of the my first paragraph.  We killed more only because we won.  Similar in concept to the Anthropomorphic Principle.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

But, we could have killed far less and still won.


This includes less of us dying.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You've missed the point of the my first paragraph.  We killed more only because we won.  Similar in concept to the Anthropomorphic Principle.


It's the way we killed the civilians that is my reason for saying we were worse.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> But, we could have killed far less and still won.
> 
> 
> This includes less of us dying.



You've entered the realm of speculation.  I really don't see how we could have won the war with less deaths on both sides.  I can see us not using the bombs and loosing more soldiers and who knows how many deaths, or using the bombs with the associtated deaths, but not less deaths on both sides.


----------



## brogers (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> But, we could have killed far less and still won.
> 
> 
> This includes less of us dying.


 
You're a better strategist than our generals eh?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> It's the way we killed the civilians that is my reason for saying we were worse.



It only bothers you that so many died with just two bombings.  How many others died in that war to convential bombs?

So, it would have been better if the US military faught its way onto the Japanese islands foot by foot with both the Japanese military and civilians fighting against them?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Most of South-East Asia hates the Japanese to this very day.



I hear that sentiment DOMS, as I live in South East Asia.  

Many Koreans still harbour resentment, understandably.

And the Australains.  Most Aussies don't care that much, but the Japanese did bomb Darwin, Australia.  An Aussie mate of mine who is 51 had an Uncle who died at the River Kwai.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> You're a better strategist than our generals eh?



Go easy on him.  He's holding a perfectly acceptable conversation.  Explain why it couldn't happen that way, don't knock him down.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> I hear that sentiment DOMS, as I live in South East Asia.
> 
> Many Koreans still harbour resentment, understandably.
> 
> And the Australains.  Most Aussies don't care that much, but the Japanese did bomb Darwin, Australia.  An Aussie mate of mine who is 51 had an Uncle who died at the River Kwai.



The Japanese aren't helping anything by using doctored textbooks in their history classes.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> The Japanese aren't helping anything by using doctored textbooks in their history classes.



Yes, that really p*sses people off.  I still hear it today.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

Oh, and Mr_Snafu, of all the people here, I figured you know the most about what I'm talking about.  The one thing I don't know about WW2 was how many US soldiers were killed by the Japanese.  I've simply never come across this number.  Do you happen to know?


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

From what I've read, the Japanesse were ready to surrender.  Sure they were never defeated before, but they weren't stupid either.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> It only bothers you that so many died with just two bombings.  How many others died in that war to convential bombs?
> 
> So, it would have been better if the US military faught its way onto the Japanese islands foot by foot with both the Japanese military and civilians fighting against them?



It is the idea of one or two huge acts of terrorism that bothers me.....all innocent death is bad but when 104,000 people ( non-soldiers) are murdered between Aug 6-9 1945 by only two bombs...it tops the list of all time worst Terrorist attack #1 and #2.....


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> From what I've read, the Japanesse were ready to surrender.  Sure they were never defeated before, but they weren't stupid either.



The Japanese Governemnt (the Emporer and such) wanted to surrender, but the military was running the show and they wouldn't.  It would have been to much "loss of face."  The civilians would have fought on if told to.  They weren't stupid, they were simply obedient to their leaders.  Again, this comes back to the way the Japanese society works.

For the record, I did the Japanese and their culture.  Their history makes for compelling reading.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> The Japanese aren't helping anything by using *doctored textbooks in their history classes*.


Who isnt doing that


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> It is the idea of one or two huge acts of terrorism that bothers me.....all innocent death is bad but when 104,000 people ( non-soldiers) are murdered between Aug 6-9 1945 by only two bombs...it tops the list of all time worst Terrorist attack #1 and #2.....



You need to understand that those civilians were being schooled by their leaders to fight the US soldiers once they landed on the islands.  They weren't non-combatants like you think.   Yes, many children and elderly also died, but those were casualties of war.

Also, no matter how much anti-war people would like to redifine the term, terrorist attack do not happen during a war.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> The Japanese Governemnt (the Emporer and such) wanted to surrender, but the military was running the show and they wouldn't.  It would have been to much "loss of face."  The civilians would have fought on if told to.  They weren't stupid, they were simply obedient to their leaders.  Again, this comes back to the way the Japanese society works.
> 
> For the record, I did the Japanese and their culture.  Their history makes for compelling reading.




That is the real arguement then.  Would the Japanesse have surrendered or not?   I have read some works by Chomsky that suggests that they would have.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Who isnt doing that





What they are doing would be tantamount to the Germans saying that the killing of the Jews never happened.  That's a whole lot different than saying that Mr. Luther King was a faithful husband.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Oh, and Mr_Snafu, of all the people here, I figured you know the most about what I'm talking about.  The one thing I don't know about WW2 was how many US soldiers were killed by the Japanese.  I've simply never come across this number.  Do you happen to know?



DOMS, I don't know.

I assume you've hit the search engines for this.  There must be a number, somewhere.  Interesting.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> That is the real arguement then.  Would the Japanesse have surrendered or not?   I have read some works by Chomsky that suggests that they would have.



Because it's a "what if", we'll never really know.  But the Japanese (military) leaders handed out booklets to all abled body people that outlined how to fight to the US soldiers.  Many of the techniques centered around a kamakazi-like attack.  That's to say, a suicide attack.  The logic was that if the body count of the US soldiers was high enough they would withdraw.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You need to understand that those civilians were being schooled by their leaders to fight the US soldiers once they landed on the islands.  They weren't non-combatants like you think.   Yes, many children and elderly also died, but those were casualties of war.
> 
> Also, no matter how much anti-war people would like to redifine the term, terrorist attack do not happen during a war.


 Any person would defend his home.....thats not the point...what we did was wrong....we will have to agree to disagree.

And your last point depends on who writes the history books and who wins....America has attacked Countries  who have not given us any valid reason to do so.....guess it's ok when we do it but not when they do..


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> DOMS, I don't know.
> 
> I assume you've hit the search engines for this.  There must be a number, somewhere.  Interesting.



Yeah, I've searched.  Oddly, it's not readily available.  I'll keep looking.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> That is the real arguement then.  Would the Japanesse have surrendered or not?   I have read some works by Chomsky that suggests that they would have.



Noam Chomsky also supported Pol Pot and the North Vietnamese Communists who destroyed the Vietnamese economy.  Since then, he's backed off, in another attempt at his "revisionism."

The Japanese were told several times to surrender.  They refused and were instructed to fight to the death.

The incendiary bombs that hit all major Japanese cities (they were all made out of wood then) also killed more Japanese than that atomic bombs.

A senior Japanese official publicly stated that 'if they had the atomic bomb they would have used it on us.'


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> Noam Chomsky also supported Pol Pot and the North Vietnamese Communists who destroyed the Vietnamese economy.  Since then, he's backed off, in another attempt at his "revisionism."
> 
> The Japanese were told several times to surrender.  They refused and were instructed to fight to the death.
> 
> ...


Proving that  they are as bad as we are.....not the company I would chose to keep


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Any person would defend his home.....thats not the point...what we did was wrong....we will ahve to agree to disagree.



But the Japanese were being specially prepared to do so.  Mainly by suicide attacks.



			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> And your last point depends on who writes the history books and who wins....America has attacked Countries  who have not given us any valid reason to do so.....guess it's ok when we do it but not when they do..



You're ignoring many important differences.  The Japanese were on a land and people conquest.  Their methods of conquering were things the US has never done.  Most of the US wars were done to gain an advantage over the USSR.  I'm not saying were saints, but it's not even close.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Proving that  they are as bad as we are.....not the company I would chose to keep



Come on Foreman, I know you're smarter than this.  They were much, much worse.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> But the Japanese were being specially prepared to do so.  Mainly by suicide attacks. *As we would have been*
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring many important differences.  The Japanese were on a land and people conquest.  Their methods of conquering were things the US has never done.  Most of the US wars were done to gain an advantage over the USSR.  I'm not saying were saints, but it's not even close.


Hey if they launched an offencive against our mainland with 100,000 troops then hell yes nuke their people.....but that  didn't happen.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Come on Foreman, I know you're smarter than this.  They were much, much worse.


Over all...yes they are far worse and still our today.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> Noam Chomsky also supported Pol Pot and the North Vietnamese Communists who destroyed the Vietnamese economy.  Since then, he's backed off, in another attempt at his "revisionism."



How I hate revisionist history!  

It's mostly been used (in the US) to apply current, politically correct, standards back through time.  This includes sanctifying minorities and vilifying whites.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

An interesting thing to note when I mention my sources like chomsky, which can be found on a certain website, is that all of these people are very well read, and intelligent.  They are peaceful, and probably share a humanist psychological view of people: that people are inherently peaceful, and do not wish for war.  They are not into advertising for wealth, or power.  


Hence why I dont believe they are "Crazy liberal commies."  They are extremely smart and peaceful citizens of what ever country they inhabit.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Hey if they launched an offencive against our mainland with 100,000 troops then hell yes nuke their people.....but that  didn't happen.



What the Japanese could get the civiian population to do is something that the US leaders never could have done.  Completely different societies and customs.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Over all...yes they are far worse and still our today.



How are they so bad in this day and age?  I'm well versed in Japanese history and culture and I don't see anything that bad.  Well, except for the rampant pedophilia.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> An interesting thing to note when I mention my sources like chomsky, which can be found on a certain website, is that all of these people are very well read, and intelligent.  They are peaceful, and probably share a humanist psychological view of people: that people are inherently peaceful, and do not wish for war.  They are not into advertising for wealth, or power.
> 
> 
> Hence why I dont believe they are "Crazy liberal commies."  They are extremely smart and peaceful citizens of what ever country they inhabit.



I'm not really sure who you're talking about.  The Japanese, liberal, or the people on that website?


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> How are they so bad in this day and age?  I'm well versed in Japanese history and culture and I don't see anything that bad.  Well, except for the rampant pedophilia.


Just look at there culture...spend some time with the men...they are sick disgusting pigs, if they had the power they would take over the world...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Just look at there culture...spend some time with the men...they are sick disgusting pigs, if they had the power they would take over the world...



Yeah, they are a little backward, but I just don't see them in as poor a light as you do.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I'm not really sure who you're talking about.  The Japanese, liberal, or the people on that website?




Noam Chomsky, the guy who Snafu incorrectly bashed.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Yeah, they are a little backward, but I just don't see them in as poor a light as you do.


I hate many cultures


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Noam Chomsky, the guy who Snafu incorrectly bashed.



I didn't think I was bashing Chomsky, BidDyl.  I've read his stuff and he has good points.

He does back and change his stances.  He did support Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and the Le Duan government of North Vietnam which made dumbest economic decisions I've ever seen.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> I didn't think I was bashing Chomsky, BidDyl.  I've read his stuff and he has good points.
> 
> He does back and change his stances.  He did support Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and the Le Duan government of North Vietnam which made dumbest economic decisions I've ever seen.



I have seen no proof of this, and I don't appreciate your slanderous remarks.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I have seen no proof of this, and I don't appreciate your slanderous remarks.


Racist!!!


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I have seen no proof of this, and I don't appreciate your slanderous remarks.



Proof?

Read Chomsky.  He said it himself.  


Slanderous?  Not sure what you mean.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Noam Chomsky, the guy who Snafu incorrectly bashed.


Don't trust anyone who posits the that some historical moment was "misunderstood" my hundreds (if not thousands) of historians.

Just because someone seems as pleasant and sounds intelligent, it doesn't mean that they know anything.  That's why I'm so caustic.  I know a lot, but come across as a jerk, so you've gotta??? believe me.

*sigh*

That's going to end up as somebody's sig...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> Proof?
> 
> Read Chomsky.  He said it himself.
> 
> ...



It does take humilty to say that you're wrong.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

If what snafu says is correct, which I doubt, that does not negate chomky's genius.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> If what snafu says is correct, which I doubt, that does not negate chomky's genius.



Of course not, be you can't take what he says at face value.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

If you ask a man what he believes at 25...then ask him again at 55 and his answers are almost exactly the same, then that man is an idiot.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> If you ask a man what he believes at 25...then ask him again at 55 and his answers are almost exactly the same, then that man is an idiot.



I don't really find that to be logical.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

Oh, and Foreman, when you've post-whored to 30,000 posts, I'm pretty sure your uterus is going to fall out.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> If what snafu says is correct, which I doubt, that does not negate chomky's genius.



I am not the one saying it, BigDyl, CHOMSKY sais it. 

You can find it easily in books or on the web.


Whether he's a genius or not has nothing to do with what he said and wrote about Pol Pot and the lovely North Vietnamese.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I don't really find that to be logical.


How old are you???? Lest say you are 25 do you really think in 30 years you will not learn anything new???? The world changes as we age,.,,not the world really but we do and the way we see it.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> How old are you???? Lest say you are 25 do you really think in 30 years you will not learn anything new???? The world changes as we age,.,,not the world really but we do and the way we see it.



I'm 33 year old.  Thinking about it, I guess you do have a point. In other words, you're right.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I'm 33 year old.  Thinking about it,* I guess you do have a point. In other words, you're right.*


This is my new sig for all time


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> This is my new sig for all time



No one will believe it.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

So chomsky is still valid then.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

I am a witnesss!


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> If you ask a man what he believes at 25...then ask him again at 55 and his answers are almost exactly the same, then that man is an idiot.


 
After being called a moron and then reading this post I feel better.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> So chomsky is still valid then.





			
				min0 lee said:
			
		

> I am a witnesss!




Ha! A witness to what? You've failed, my friend.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I'm 33 year old. Thinking about it, I guess you do have a point. In other words, you're right.


DOMSQuote:


> Originally Posted by *ForemanRules*
> _This is my new sig for all time _





> No one will believe it.


 
That meddling nincompoop got between my post.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

Cool, so I'm the youngest person arguing.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

1- It's past your bedtime.
2- You need a diaper change


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> No one will believe it.



http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?p=1264371#post1264371


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> DOMSQuote:
> 
> 
> 
> That meddling nincompoop got between my post.



A likely story Mr. Tranny.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Cool, so I'm the youngest person arguing.


32 is not young


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?p=1264371#post1264371



So, Mr. ForemanRules, isn't it true that you do steroids.  And aren't these drugs illegal?  Not are they illegal, but they're Schedule III drugs.  This brings into question  you're character, Mr. ForemanRules.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

I'm the baddest naturally aged 23 year old who is posting on IM instead of going out and drinking and getting laid like cool kids who have a life, don't disrespect me SON!!!!


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> A likely story Mr. Tranny.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I'm the baddest naturally aged 23 year old who is posting on IM instead of going out and drinking and getting laid like cool kids who have a life, don't disrespect me SON!!!!


I know of a 12 year old from IM who would own you. He'll even make you toss his salad.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> So, Mr. ForemanRules, isn't it true that you do steroids.  And aren't these drugs illegal?  Not are they illegal, but they're Schedule III drugs.  This brings into question  you're character, Mr. ForemanRules.


I am a criminal......give me 100,000 and I will kill any person you want.....but no kids.


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I am a criminal......give me 100,000 and I will kill any person you want.....but no kids.


 Ill give you $100,000. You kill yourself and I take my money back.


----------



## <Cyrus> (Feb 11, 2006)

???I???m not sure what weapons we???ll be using to fight world war three, but I do know what weapons we will have at our disposal for WW IV : STICKS AND STONES.???


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> Ill give you $100,000. You kill yourself and I take my money back.


I'm a kid so I can't do that


----------



## god hand (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Pearl Harbor was a military base, America was involved in the war by shipping arms to the alies...ect, Japan was an ally of Germany.....simple math...Japan bombed a military base of their enemy...
> 
> I'm, glad Japan got there ass kicked....fuck those scum.....but America was the one to cross the line and murder innocent women and children by the ten's of thousands.


----------



## god hand (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I agree......so you are saying we should tell the world we no longer will obey any of the rules of war???


There are no rules in war..............I throught u would know that


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> There are no rules in war..............I throught u would know that



Well said!


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

>


Stuff it *Jap!*


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> There are no rules in war..............I throught u would know that


The fact that we have rules of war shows that we humans are total barbarians still.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Stuff it *Jap!*


 
He's a blackenese? --->


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> He's a blackenese? --->


Why do you think he only has a 7 inch penis.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> He's a blackenese? --->



It's funny that you should say this.  The most beautiful people on Earth are the half-black and half-Japanese.  A lot of these came out of the US occupation of Japan after WW2.  However, they do tend to kill themselves more than the norm.


----------



## god hand (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> No they don't..
> 
> Please explain all the *"bad"* things they did in detail.....please do not cut and paste..


    Go to any search engine google or yahoo and type in japanese unit 731 You talk about your country like its commited such horrible crimes. Its obviously you dont know that much or is one bias muthafucka. What goes around comes around, usually harder than it started off. Now you go type that shit in you fuckin sunshine patriot!


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> Go to any search engine google or yahoo and type in japanese unit 731 You talk about your country like its commited such horrible crimes. Its obviously you dont know that much or is one bias muthafucka. What goes around comes around, usually harder than it started off. Now you go type that shit in you fuckin sunshine patriot!


You didn't read the thread.....if you did you would understand the question son.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Why do you think he only has a 7 inch penis.


And do you know this?


----------



## god hand (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> It is the idea of one or two huge acts of terrorism that bothers me.....all innocent death is bad but when 104,000 people ( non-soldiers) are murdered between Aug 6-9 1945 by only two bombs...it tops the list of all time worst *Terrorist attack #1 and #2*.....


WTF? The point is dont start no shit want be no shit. Truman even gave them a chance to surrender before dropping the bombs. That was no terrorist attack fool!


----------



## god hand (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> You didn't read the thread.....if you did you would understand the question *son*.


old man


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> And do you know this?


He posted his dick size....remember  I think he had a thread about it.....wanted to know how to make it bigger...


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> WTF? The point is dont start no shit want be no shit. *Truman even gave them a chance to surrender before dropping the bombs.* That was no terrorist attack fool!


Yes that is true......and probably the only post on this thread that kind of shows me I might be wrong....good job son.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 12, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> WTF? The point is dont start no shit want be no shit. Truman even gave them a chance to surrender before dropping the bombs. That was no terrorist attack fool!




True Story... if you believe everything you read in the mainstream media.


----------



## god hand (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> How old are you???? Lest say you are 25 do you really think in 30 years you will not learn anything new???? The world changes as we age,.,,not the world really but we do and the way we see it.


Actually the world is changing. Global Warming, natural resources exctra.


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> Actually the world is changing. Global Warming, natural resources exctra.



Over your head son.....in 10-30 years you might understand.


----------



## god hand (Feb 12, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> True Story... if you believe everything you read in the mainstream media.


Actually there's flim of him saying this on national television. "There's gonna be a dark cloud over Japan"


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 12, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> Actually there's flim of him saying this on national television. "There's gonna be a dark cloud over Japan"




I don't disagree with that, but I don't agree with everything the mainstream media says about bombing japan either.


----------



## god hand (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Over your head son.....in *10-30 years you might understand*.


I understand that gas prices will be through the roof............if were still using oil.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> He posted his dick size....remember  I think he had a thread about it.....wanted to know how to make it bigger...


 
Yuck! That was him?
I guess he was the smallest in his gym. The brothers may have seen his Japanese PeePee and made fun of him.


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Yuck! That was him?
> I guess he was the smallest in his gym. *The brothers may have seen his Japanese PeePee and made fun of him*.




True Story


----------



## Steele20 (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> It is the idea of one or two huge acts of terrorism that bothers me.....all innocent death is bad but when 104,000 people ( non-soldiers) are murdered between Aug 6-9 1945 by only two bombs...it tops the list of all time worst Terrorist attack #1 and #2.....



Wow. Dropping the bomb saved many more lives than it killed. A long lasting war with japan would have killed many more, both American's and Japs. Second, if you have not got it, if we didn't drop the bomb then American's would have died in war with them. A lot. Japan is the one who killed many innocent people at pearl harbor first (we were not at war with them so they were innocent people, not causalties of war). Btw, at pearl harbor there were non soldies on base at the time that died. Also we did not drop the bombs back to back,  so it seems they didn't care about their people that much. And no, when we dropped the bombs, we were at war, this is not a Terrorist attack. A life is a life, I don't care how old  you are, what color  you are, or what sex you are. And America saved many lives because of Aug 1945.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 12, 2006)

Steele20 said:
			
		

> Wow. Dropping the bomb saved many more lives than it killed. A long lasting war with japan would have killed many more, both American's and Japs. Second, if you have not got it, if we didn't drop the bomb then American's would have died in war with them. A lot. Japan is the one who killed many innocent people at pearl harbor first (we were not at war with them so they were innocent people, not causalties of war). Btw, at pearl harbor there were non soldies on base at the time that died. Also we did not drop the bombs back to back,  so it seems they didn't care about their people that much. And no, when we dropped the bombs, we were at war, this is not a Terrorist attack. A life is a life, I don't care how old  you are, what color  you are, or what sex you are. And America saved many lives because of Aug 1945.





No one has convinced me otherwise that their military wasn't about to surrender.


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

Steele20 said:
			
		

> Wow. Dropping the bomb saved many more lives than it killed. A long lasting war with japan would have killed many more, both American's and Japs. Second, if you have not got it, if we didn't drop the bomb then American's would have died in war with them. A lot. Japan is the one who killed many innocent people at pearl harbor first (we were not at war with them so they were innocent people, not causalties of war). Btw, at pearl harbor there were non soldies on base at the time that died. Also we did not drop the bombs back to back,  so it seems they didn't care about their people that much. And no, when we dropped the bombs, we were at war, this is not a Terrorist attack. A life is a life, I don't care how old  you are, what color  you are, or what sex you are. And America saved many lives because of Aug 1945.


Pearl Harbor was a military target,,,,,,,,we nuked civilians...big differance!!

Soilders die in war.....big deal, better them than innocent babys.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Pearl Harbor was a military target,,,,,,,,we nuked civilians...big differance!!
> 
> Soilders die in war.....big deal, better them than innocent babys.



Wrong.  It's always "Better them, than us."


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Wrong.  It's always "Better them, than us."


To a point I agree.


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> No one has convinced me otherwise that their military wasn't about to surrender.


I would bet you the nukes were dropped so that the military could study the effects it had on the population.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I would bet you the nukes were dropped so that the military could study the effects it had on the population.




I have heard that also.


When people point out the bomb was dropped for a singular reason, they forget all of the benifits it could provide, like:

Research nuclear effects on human population, to scare the Soviet Union, and so leaders could get their rocks off...etc


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> To a point I agree.



Yeah, I guess throwing babies in the air and catching them on a bayonette versus nuking babies... hmm... I don't see a difference...


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I have heard that also.
> 
> 
> When people point out the bomb was dropped for a singular reason, they forget all of the benifits it could provide, like:
> ...


They had 0 good reasons to drop that bomb....if it was such a good reason then why didnt we do it in Iraq or Nam or Koria ect????

The simple fact is it was dropped to show the world who the new king was.....and that if you messed with us we would incenirate 100,000's of your women and children......


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 12, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> While we are on the subject, I may have forgotten or they may be a simple reason for this....why didn't we drop it on the Germans.
> Who fell first? Japan or Germany?



Weren't we still selling war supplies to Germany at that time?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Yeah, I guess throwing babies in the air and catching them on a bayonette versus nuking babies... hmm... I don't see a difference...



They weren't ready yet.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> They had 0 good reasons to drop that bomb....if it was such a good reason then why didnt we do it in Iraq or Nam or Koria ect????
> 
> The simple fact is it was dropped to show the world who the new king was.....and that if you messed with us we would incenirate 100,000's of your women and children......



Don't let the fact that we were at the end of a long war against two very powerful opponents get in the way of your reasoning.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 12, 2006)

That's a good point.  If it's so important to save our soldiers lives (which it doesnt seem to be under the current president  )  Then why do we even send ground troops?  Why don't we just nuke countries??

Vietnam!??


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Don't let the fact that we were at the end of a long war against two very powerful opponents get in the way of your reasoning.


Both were decimated by that point.....no need to nuke them when they were on their knees.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Both were decimated by that point.....no need to nuke them when they were on their knees.



Japan was down but not out and we weren't doing so good either.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> That's a good point.  If it's so important to save our soldiers lives (which it doesnt seem to be under the current president  )  Then why do we even send ground troops?  Why don't we just nuke countries??
> 
> Vietnam!??



There are many who would have wanted that (me included), but the cost of civilian lives would be much higher.


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Japan was down but not out and we weren't doing so good either.



Lets say in a fight you had a broken hand, you had been knocked down 2-3 times and clearly getting your ass kicked......my second wind was comming because my other fight was over and I could focus everything on you......so is it now the time I should kick you in the balls??? Why fight dirty at the end of a fight you have clearly won......only some   bitch in compton would do something like that


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> There are many who would have wanted that (me included), but the cost of civilian lives would be much higher.





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Wrong.  It's always "Better them, than us."


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>



What I said is consistant.  I'd rather bomb *them *into nothing than suffer a single fatality on *our *side.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 12, 2006)

I have heard it is more important not to lose a single american life.

If this is true, than a million civilian deaths shouldn't matter in another country.  


If that's not true, then I need a ratio.


1 american = 100 foreign civilians, or

1 american = 100,000 foreign civilians.


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> What I said is consistant.  I'd rather bomb *them *into nothing than suffer a single fatality on *our *side.



Take that energy and go fight for the American soilders rights to be treated with the best possible medical care.......ever walk around a VA hospital????? You will never see a more crappy medical phacility in this counrty than one of those......this Gov. conldn't give a shit about the men and women who fight for this country.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Take that energy and go fight for the American soilders rights to be treated with the best possible medical care.......ever walk around a VA hospital????? You will never see a more crappy medical phacility in this counrty than one of those......this Gov. conldn't give a shit about the men and women who fight for this country.




This is most certainly true.  So, it is better to kill the enemy wholesale that to have a single US soldier injured!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I have heard it is more important not to lose a single american life.
> 
> If this is true, than a million civilian deaths shouldn't matter in another country.
> 
> ...



You posts are getting better and better!

1 american > 100,000 foreigners from an enemy country


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> This is most certainly true.  So, it is better to kill the enemy wholesale that to have a single US soldier injured!


Actually it is better not to put American soilders in harms way unless totlay necessary...and also better to treat them right.....sadly something that will never happen here.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2006)

Intermission:

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/1562.html


----------



## brogers (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Actually it is better not to put American soilders in harms way unless totlay necessary...and also better to treat them right.....sadly something that will never happen here.


 
I agree completely.  If a country presents a great enough threat to go to war with, we should be willing to destroy them.  If we aren't willing to destroy them, then the threat obviously isn't that great.

While I personally strongly favor using American air power over ground troops, in the Vietnam conflict and the Iraq conflict, our objective was not to destroy the enemy.  Vietnam was a pawn in a chess game between the commies and the United States.  Iraq we were trying to make sure WMDs would not fall into terrorist hands.

That isn't to say I agree with the objectives of either of those conflicts.  Like I said, we should stay the hell out of conflict unless we are willing to decimate our enemy, which is what it takes to win.  Our leaders during WWII knew this, sadly, we don't have such leaders today.

Regarding Japan, an interesting quote I found after the attack on Pearl Harbor:

"Before we're through with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell!" 
Admiral Halsey - December 1941 

This is the type of resolve we lack today.  People have sympathy for those who wish to destroy us, not indignation.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 12, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> "Before we're through with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell!"
> Admiral Halsey - December 1941


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 12, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You posts are getting better and better!
> 
> 1 american > 100,000 foreigners from an enemy country




Thanks.  


Ok, so 1 = 100k.  Thats all I wanted to know.


----------



## GFR (Feb 12, 2006)

???If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.???


----------



## dougnukem (Feb 12, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Take that energy and go fight for the American soilders rights to be treated with the best possible medical care.......ever walk around a VA hospital????? You will never see a more crappy medical phacility in this counrty than one of those......this Gov. conldn't give a shit about the men and women who fight for this country.



Hey now, just because they prescribe Motrin to us for every ailment known to man doesn't mean the facility is crap.


----------



## Super Hulk (Feb 12, 2006)

the aliens will stop WW3


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 12, 2006)

Super Hulk said:
			
		

> the aliens will stop WW3




The adromedan's might, but I doubt the grey's or draconians will:



http://www.exopolitics.org/collier-dsg1.pdf


----------



## maniclion (Feb 24, 2006)

Super Hulk said:
			
		

> the aliens will stop WW3


No they won't they will start it, let us kill each other off and then use Earth as a vacation spot.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 24, 2006)

*Counting real cost of Bush???s war in Iraq*
Joseph E. Stiglitz 

THE most important things in life ??? like life itself ??? are priceless. But that does not mean that issues involving the preservation of life (or a way of life), such as defence, should not be subjected to cool, hard economic analysis. Shortly before the current Iraq war, when Bush administration economist Larry Lindsey suggested that the costs of the war might range between $100bn and $200bn, other officials quickly demurred. For example, office of management and budget director Mitch Daniels put the number at $60bn. 

It now appears that Lindsey???s numbers were a gross underestimate. 


Concerned that the Bush administration might be misleading everyone about the Iraq war???s costs, just as it had about Iraq???s weapons of mass destruction and connection with al-Qaeda, I teamed up with Linda Bilmes, a budget expert at Harvard, to examine the issue. Even we, as opponents of the war, were staggered by what we found, with conservative to moderate estimates ranging from slightly less than a trillion dollars to more than $2-trillion. 


Our analysis starts with the $500bn that the Congressional Budget Office openly talks about, which is still 10 times higher than what the administration said the war would cost. Its estimate falls so far short because the reported numbers do not even include the full budgetary costs to the government. And the budgetary costs are but a fraction of the costs to the economy as a whole. 


For example, the Bush administration has been doing everything it can to hide the huge number of returning veterans who are severely wounded ??? 16000 so far, including roughly 20% with serious brain and head injuries. 

So it is no surprise that its figure of $500bn ignores the lifetime disability and health-care costs that the government will have to pay for years to come. 


Nor does the administration want to face up to the military???s recruiting and retention problems. 

The result is large re-enlistment bonuses, improved benefits, and higher recruiting costs ??? up 20% just from 2003 to last year. 

Moreover, the war is extremely wearing on equipment, some of which will have to be replaced. 


These budgetary costs (exclusive of interest) amount to $652bn in our conservative estimate and $799bn in our moderate estimate. Arguably, since the government has not reined in other expenditures or increased taxes, the expenditures have been debt financed, and the interest costs on this debt add another $98bn (conservative) to $385bn (moderate) to the budgetary costs. 


Of course, the brunt of the costs of injury and death is borne by soldiers and their families. But the military pays disability benefits that are markedly lower than the value of lost earnings. Similarly, payments for those who are killed amount to only $500000, which is far less than standard estimates of the lifetime economic cost of a death, which is sometimes referred to as the statistical value of a life ($6,1m to $6,5m). 


But the costs do not stop there. *The Bush administration once claimed the Iraq war would be good for the economy, with one spokesman even suggesting it was the best way to ensure low oil prices.* As in so many other ways, things have turned out differently: the oil groups are the big winners, while the American and global economies are losers. 


At the same time, money spent on the war could have been spent elsewhere. We estimate that if a proportion of that money had been allocated to domestic investment in roads, schools, and research, the American economy would have been stimulated more in the short run, and its growth would have been enhanced in the long run. 


There are a number of other costs, some potentially quite large, although quantifying them is problematic. For instance, Americans pay some $300bn annually for the ???option value??? of military preparedness ??? being able to fight wherever needed. That Americans are willing to pay this suggests that the option value exceeds the costs. But there is little doubt that the option value has been greatly impaired and will likely remain so for several years. 


In short, even our ???moderate??? estimate may significantly underestimate the cost of America???s involvement in Iraq. And our estimate does not include any of the costs implied by the enormous loss of life and property in Iraq itself. 


We do not attempt to explain whether the American people were deliberately misled by the Bush administration regarding the war???s costs, or whether the administration???s gross underestimate should be attributed to incompetence, as it vehemently argues is true in the case of weapons of mass destruction. Nor do we attempt to assess whether there were more cost-effective ways of waging the war. Recent evidence that deaths and injuries would have been greatly reduced had better body armour been provided to troops suggests how short-run frugality can lead to long-run costs. 

Certainly, when a war???s timing is a matter of choice, as it was in this case, inadequate preparation is even less justifiable. But such considerations appear to be beyond the Bush administration???s reckoning. Elaborate cost-benefit analyses of big projects have been standard practice in the defence department and elsewhere in government for almost a half-century. 

The Iraq war was an immense ???project,??? yet it now appears that the analysis of its benefits was greatly flawed and that of its costs virtually absent. One cannot help but wonder: were there alternative ways of spending a fraction of the war???s $1-trillion- $2-trillion in costs that would have better strengthened security, boosted prosperity and promoted democracy? 


‖Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is professor of Economics at Columbia University and was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Clinton and chief economist and senior vice-president at the World Bank. 

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/opinion.aspx?ID=BD4A159957


----------



## lnvanry (Feb 26, 2006)

the war is good for the economy...at least for my family.


I'm only wish we could lock down Iraqi oil for our use...the chances of that happening in the next 5 years is slim though.  They'd blow up the new facilities before we finished construction.

I'd like to think of Iraq as our future base  for our military for another invasion in the next 10 years...Iran.

Strategically, take look at a map of Iran.   We surround it almost 360 degrees with allies or bought airspace:  Afghan, Iraq, UAE, Saudi, Kuwait, Turkmenistan, and the persian gulf waters.  I'm sure Turkey would even let us in their air space too for the right price.  I believe it will happen sooner if McCain get elected in 2008...but it won't matter whose in officce in the long run.   We'll be forced into it.

Do you think its coincidence that we surround Iran?


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> the war is good for the economy...at least for my family.
> 
> 
> I'm only wish we could lock down Iraqi oil for our use...the chances of that happening in the next 5 years is slim though.  They'd blow up the new facilities before we finished construction.
> ...




So... with that in mind... you still believe we invaded because of a threat?

Everything you just stated are the logical reasons for invasion.............................................


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 26, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> the war is good for the economy...at least for my family.



That's limited thinking, though.

You are saying that it's good that _taxpayers_ pay for you and your family.

Whether you work for a civilian defense contractor, are in the military, or involved in another industry that is profiting from the Iraq campaign. 



> I'm only wish we could lock down Iraqi oil for our use...the chances of that happening in the next 5 years is slim though.  They'd blow up the new facilities before we finished construction.



That's what the Americans though would be easy - getting the oil.



> I'd like to think of Iraq as our future base  for our military for another invasion in the next 10 years...Iran.



Insurgencies usually last 9 years.  The current Iraqi insugency has existed for only three years.  If the Shiites ever take control of most or a part of Iraq they will be allied with the Iranian government - so no - US troops will not be allowed to have a base and deifinately not allowed to launch an attack on their Shiite ally. 



> Do you think its coincidence that we surround Iran?



Don't know.

But a surgical strike - which is all the US can do right now and in the next 10 years may not be adequate.


----------

