5,911 Forum Posts by "Jimsween"
At 8/12/05 03:02 PM, MikeZan wrote: Oh and since i got familly in the US like most Canadian im sure many would be more than willing to help us fight back.
Oh yeah, better call in the mounties.
At 8/12/05 02:40 PM, Nietzschean_Ideal wrote: Seeing as you can't even properly dominate the third world, I find that highly improbable. I have to admit though that this thread doeasn't hold its own. Labels mean little, if anything.
Most of Canada and Mexico is no better than the third world. We might have trouble with some of those Quebecians, though.
At 8/11/05 05:24 AM, bradford1 wrote: Now in response, Jimsween, I'll create a team racist towards African-Americans. It's part of my culture. Hypathetically, if I did such a thing my team's name would be changed, and I would be sued instantly. (As a matter of fact, if I heard someone do something like this I'd HELP sue the fucking team) But my point is that it is hateful, and it is a 'part' of our culture that is in need of change, and by the way, I seem to get the impression that you believe that there are tribes that are called 'Redskins' or 'Savages'. Nevermind fucktwat, go back to your NASCAR and beer.
Waah wahh waahhhh.
Your the kind of bitch that complains when the history channel uses the world negro for some programs. None of it is done out of hate, not one bit of it. If you can find an example of it being done out of hate then please present it. They have those names because there was a time in our history where there were alot of natives still around, believe it or not, and they influenced our culture.
We would much rather invade Canada and Mexico than change our name.
Your choice, dominance, or just shut up about the name.
At 8/11/05 05:00 PM, krama89 wrote: But its not only short term damage than can be caused, the topic starter claimed memory loss which is a pretty big issue if your only in your mid 30s or so
Not if thier stupid already. Which alot of people are. And not if theyre just doing manual labor. Which alot of people are.
At 8/11/05 04:10 PM, Empanado wrote: To get divorced, AH-DUHHHH.
Well theres an easy solution, instead of getting married just give people divorces. Skip all the in between.
Hey, I'm going to go against the grain here. Partially for the hell of it.
Meth isn't that bad. The city my school is in, which is right next to my city, is full of meth. I've heard people talk about meth in our city as if it was a family trade, I even heard someone say people came up from Mexico and Colombia to learn how to make meth here. There are plenty of people who go through thier entire lives as meth addicts. They live practically the same, except for the fact that they do meth sometimes. They're poor and for lack of a better term, dirty, but mostly everyone else is too so nobody notices.
A friend of mine started doing meth. He got thinner, other then that he is the same.
It's all well and good for us to look down on them, but for alot of people it is not going to make a difference. They had no future to begin with, meth didn't ruin anything. Theyre going to go on fixing your car and doing meth until they die.
Meth is alot like alcohol. Except one happens to be legal.
At 8/10/05 12:13 PM, TimeFrame wrote: If you want my honest opinion. Then i really dont see the point in them getting married.
Whats the point of anyone getting married?
Buddha can't not be real because buddha isn't any one person. Unless you mean Siddhartha Gautama, in which case he is most certainly real.
But he wasn't fat.
Wierd people....
Hmm.... but why do we even need marriage?
Alot of the stuff in America is named after the Natives. Its part of our culture really.
At 8/9/05 07:07 AM, -TheDoctor- wrote: Alright, let's start from the beginning:
I stated that peasant village massacres were similar in nature to Hiroshima. That the killing of civilians could be justified as a means to demoralise the enemy. I went on to say that this was not the case in Vietnam, as such relatively small and isolated incidents could never be justified, the fact remains though that the American government could have tried to justify these events in the same way they did Hiroshima, but they were sensible, and therefore didn't. You said that an event would have to be on a large scale to have any considerable effect, which was the same thing I mentioned. The nature of the two events is comparable in this way, although the motivation for Hiroshima can be justified to a considerable extent.
If the means and the ends are not similar, then how are they similar. The American government could not have justified My Lai like that, because it niether achieved those effects or was done to achieve them. The A-bomb however, did in fact do both of those. How is the nature the same if neither are alike in any way?
Other than the sudden nature of the attack, relative lack of warning about the full extent of what would happen, and the fact that Japan used tactics such as suicide bombing and torture during the war. Interviews with the crew of the Enola Gay show that soldiers had very low opinions of the Japanese at the time, many hated them due to their methods of warfare, and events like Pearl Harbour. Let us not also forget that the USA is a patriotic nation by nature. There is no concrete proof, but suffice to say it's unlikely the motives to drop the bomb were strictly impersonal.
The pilots of the Enola Gay did not make the deciscion to drop the bomb. Truman did. So really all you have is the sudden nature, and there is absolutely no way to drop an atomic bomb subtley.
If you had a time machine, then that's all very well. But at the time there was no way of knowing what the long-term effects of such an action might be, plus the true extent of the holocaust was not known until after/at the end of the war. There are too many "what if's" in a situation like that to justify the decision at the time.
If the motivation was to bring about an end to the war, then it makes sense, but the holocaust was too much of a grey area at the time to make a decision like that based what you have said.
What? You have forgotten completely what the origin of this was. Of course we couldn't see back in time, but with Japan we were given the chance of seeing into the future. If indeed more people would have died, the atomic bombing would have been completely justified, I used bombing Germany to stop the holocaust as an example of that.
I was merely stating that your persona makes me doubt some of your arguments. I can't help it if I feel that way, but that's the kind of impression you give when debating the way you have been. You really have no one to blame but yourself for that one.
No, if you think someone is an idiot because you are too quick to judge them it is indeed your fault.
And even disregarding that, you would still be using my charachter to prove your argument correct, which is poor debate at best.
Not understanding a specific point is being a moron? Now you are starting to read between the lines in the wrong places. I do not think you are a moron.
Lacking the capacity to grasp a point is being a moron.
Yes... well I think we can leave it at that. This discission has gone way off track, to the point of being somewhat trivial. My original point was that more warning should have been given to Japan and it's citizens, preferable in a demonstration of the A-bomb beforehand. Albeit, this would have had very little effect on the situation, given what we know, but the fact that America hardly even tried is what I find appalling. For me the bomb would have been a very last resort, if anything the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at least deserved to know exactly what was going to happen.
We only had two bombs though, and the Soviet were getting ready to invade. The deciscion was made to end the war fast.
Sorry, missed this part.
At 8/8/05 11:24 PM, yellowsmoke wrote: Actually, we took action against elected administrations that had communistic ideals. IE, countries that elected their people, but didn't elect a fascist administration that bowed to US policy. Basically, once control was in the hands of the working class, we stepped in because we realized that we couldn't take advantage of the governments that were in place.
We never took action against elected administrations. You just think we did because your an idiot and listen to everything other idiots tell you. Really, give me an example.
At 8/8/05 11:24 PM, yellowsmoke wrote: Boy, children these days... good retort kiddo.
I'm not sure, are you trying to make yourself look like an idiot by countering with 'kiddo' and 'children'?
Look em up kiddo. They're not hard to find.
Ah, in other words, you made it up.
Not really but okay.
If its false then prove it wrong.
Hiroshima was an attack on a civilian population. Thats why it was chosen. If you understood your history, you'd realize that very early on during WWII people pretty much gave up on protecting civilian populations.
Not protecting civilian populations is not the same as attacking civilian populations.
See, if you had half a brain cell you'd do some research and realize that the leaflets were dropped roughly 12 hours before the bomb was dropped. Yep, that proves your point that civilians wern't targetted.
You can't leave a city in 12 hours? How hard would it be for Japan to surrender in 12 hours? What makes you so sure the reason we didn't wait to bomb was because nobody was leaving?
Hmmm, one guy eh... he was only the Chief of Staff to two presidents. Thats basically what Karl Rove is to George W.
And Karl Rove sure knew alot about what would happen in Iraq.
And you did not rebut my second point, either.
again, kiddo, you're a twit.
Haha. Thats the funny part about moronic anti-US shitheads, they can never give a rebuttal.
At 8/8/05 09:46 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Naturally, the Soviets were a far greater threat.
Thats awfully convenient. How were the Soviets a greater threat? Just because of greater numbers? In the end the invasion of Germany was done with just 3 million Soviets, not 14 million.
It's interesting that you should mention Weidling. I recently read a book called Soldat about a man who was very close to Weidling in the end. Weidling was under Hitler's direct orders, and he personally traveled to and from the bunker and always left infuriated. The two days of fighting after Hitler's death produced a negligible effect on the overall ferocity of the battle.
Whats your point? They still waited to surrender.
I must admit that the Pacific is not my area of expertise. Perhaps you could offer an example of this?
Hmm, you know what I'm not actually positive which cities were avoided. I know it was used in both the Battle of Leyte and Okinawa.
Surrounding many cities with strong garrisons is dangerous in Europe, because they will attempt mutually supporting breakouts. Not only that, the more troops you use to surround the city, the easier it is for the enemy to counter attack your front line and open a path to the city.
First off, were talking mainly about a militia, not something very good at fighting thier way out of a city. And second, most of our troops were not at the front line, we garrisoned alot. Keeping the garrison in the vicinity of a city is just easier.
No, I mean they were the ones who fought hardest out of fear of the Red Army, and yet their overall impact was negligible.
Ah, so the normal soldiers didn't fight out of fear?
And thats not even a good point, thier impact was negligible not because they didn't fear the Soviets much, but because they are a civilian militia. I can't believe your actually trying to make the point that the Germans didn't fear the Soviets.
Come now. Casablanca was an announcement of policy, and most certainly was binding.
???
Announcement of policy is not binding. Espescially not when it conflicts with an outstanding treaty.
What do you want me to say here, exactly? Go check it if you care enough, the people were afraid of unconditional surrender. I can't explain it to you because I wasn't there, and you can't understand it because you weren't there. Once again, you can rebutt the rationale all you like, but it's a tad late for that.
It doesn't matter if they were afraid of unconditional surrender, they would have been afraid of the guidelines set out by the Atlantic charter anyway, if they were indeed afraid.
Most of the initial force in Vietnam was already there, came in relatively small groups, or were brought in by air. There would be no South Vietnam equivalent in Europe. Also, St. Lo is several miles inland from the beaches of Normandy.. One of the main objectives was to capture Cherbourg, which would replace the man-made harbor that was floated across from England to the landing zones in order to facilitate resupply.
First off, I wasn't claiming St. Lo was a port, my point was that we managed to capture important cities against a large army without even having a port.
Second, you are completely wrong about Vietnam. Only a small contingent was even in Vietnam, your completely full of bullshit on that one. We brought alot of troops in through natural beaches.
These battles are incomparable to Europe. Each island was not expected to hold, but to exact the highest price before being taken. Iwo Jima had only 22, 000 defenders, and had no possibility of being reinforced or resupplied.
How exactly does that rebut the fact that we were able to send huge contingents onto those islands and resupply them without ports?
Then you know nothing about them.
Or perhaps your just making something up about them?
But we are assuming that you cannot use England as a staging ground, which means that all of your supply is coming across the Atlantic, and that you had no place to build up before the invasion took place, other than the ports of the eastern USA.
Notice, Tunis and Sicily.
The Italian Navy was in many ways more impressive than the German Navy (shocking that they did anything right, I know), and assuming that England is not at war with the Axis, Italy would be in control of the Mediterranean at the time of a US invasion of North Africa.
So now you've decided the time of a US invasion of North Africa, and it happens to be before we even acheived naval dominance. Wow, crazy.
Of course we would defeat the Italian navy first.
At 8/8/05 08:37 AM, D2KVirus wrote: the fact is that if the US invaded Japan it would've been a lot easier than made out - there was little food supplies so most of the population were weak and, therefore, unable to fight against an invading army that was well-fed and far better motivated due to recently sinking most of the Japanese navy and invading a hell of a lot of islands on the way.
And they were just bursting with food in Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, and Okinawa. Right?
I mean, it's not as if we saw any casualties there. And we were facing tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers, fighting 7 million would be so much easier.
At 8/8/05 10:07 AM, Gingerwarrior wrote: LOL, i've never taken that phrase the wrong way b4.
But he also said he enjoyed it apparently, i'm not sure on that one.
Where are you getting this from, then?
At 8/8/05 11:44 AM, yellowsmoke wrote: You really have little grasp on history. Being that you're only 16 and probably the product of public school, this really doesn't suprise me.
Hmm... nope I can't seem to find any excuse for your idiocy. That sucks.
Hiroshima was a city of very little military value. They had a very small contingent of soldiers there and a handful of small industries. Essentially, it was akin to nuking NYC. Americans have been repeatedly told that the bomb saved a half-million, even a million, American lives or casualties. This is horseshit. American military planners officially estimated that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would cost 20,000 to 46,000 casualties. Those figures were then increased in postwar justifications into the millions by Truman in justification for using the atom bomb.
First off, sources?
Second, Hiroshima is the headquarters of the 5 division, it most certainly had military value. Large parts of it were designated as military zones. And it was an important port.
And third, it wouldn't matter how goodof a military target it was, only that it was a military target. A war crime can't be designated by how reckless an attack was, only if it was directly targeting civilians.
And the fact that leaflets were dropped alone proves civilians were not targeted.
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages...wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
Fleet Adm. William Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman
So your basing your argument off of one guys opinion? They did not even surrender after the first bomb, there is absolutely no evidence that they were going to surrender beforehand.
Written off as defense against the Soviets? You need to hit the books, son. Our actions in Latin America, terroristic by the definition put forth by our current president, were more to thwart democracy than to prevent Soviet meddling. You're getting good at proving your ignorance kid. Keep it up!
We never once took action against a democracy in Latin America. It was always against dictatorial powers, espescially those that favored the Soviets or Cubans.
Oh, and what happened to you arguing that it was a war crime? Hmm?
At 8/8/05 09:02 AM, -TheDoctor- wrote:
-Exactly the point I was making.
And what happened to-
"It's not so different in nature to when American soldiers slaughtered entire villages in Vietnam."
You're not listening. For the third time: it is similar in nature. A breach of the rules of war resulting in the deaths of many innocents, fueled in part by a hatred towards the enemy. My Lai was not the only case of this happenning. Often it was due to Vietcong presence in villages, leading American soldiers to kill the entire population (or most of it), although they had no substantial grounds on which to justify such an act. The only difference in principal is that Hiroshima had strategic value.
There is absoltely no evidence that Hiroshima was fueled because of hate of the Japanese.
Hmm, there seems to be some confusion about this matter:
Only if we dropped it on Poland, directly on Auschwitz.
This was after I had challenged your view that the A-bomb could have been used to prevent the holocaust. If you meant something different then you should have made it clear.
No, I was referring to you saying that we would kill the victims of the holocaust too. Only if we were to drop the bomb directly on Auschwitz.
And how would that help the situation hmm? You would still kill thousands of innocents, likely a lot more than died as a result of the holocaust.
Hmm.. no. 6 million died in the holocaust. If we dropped a nuke on Berlin in 1943 we would have only killed at the very maximum 1 million germans.
Clearly you don't have a clue how this concept works, or how to implement it into a debate.
No I know exactly how it works. Youre pretending that he isn't an idiot and twisting the dumbass things he said into something more tolerable.
Which makes you seem incredibly arrogant. Arrogant people tend not to listen. One day you might learn that insulting people and denying the possibility that you might be wrong generally doesn't get you very far in life.
So your now using generalizations about my charachter to prove yourself right. That would still be avoiding debate.
Again, you seem to lack the capacity to grasp what I'm trying to explain. If you can't be civil and discuss things like an adult, then you really shouldn't be debating issues like this. I think a lot of the things you have said are wrong, but do I assume you are an idiot? No. You make decent points, I'm not denying that, but just because I disagree with them is no sound basis for making the judgement that you are a fool.
I only ask that I can have a decent discussion without some obnoxious individual insulting me at every given opportunity.
"you seem to lack the capacity to grasp what I'm trying to explain"
"You're a moron"
I contend, there is no difference.
I did not insult you, I insulted the idiot who said Hiroshima was about imperialism. I only insulted you when you tried to defend his idiocy.
At 8/8/05 06:23 AM, The_Light wrote: Nah Americans arent stupid. But Bush and is supporters IQ is enough to get the country in the negatives numbers.
Not entirely true.
At 8/8/05 06:50 AM, -TheDoctor- wrote: ...That's exactly the point I was making in my post. Note the part where I said in nature , this implies that the motivation and ethical implications of this event are comparable to those of Hiroshima.
Thats not at all what you said? What the hell is wrong with you?
I clearly noted how My Lai was different from Hiroshima because it was done for no strategic warfare purposes and could not at all help to end the war. I can't believe how you could have missed that.
You seem to lack the capacity to infer from the things I type. And dropping it on Auschwitz? The result being you kill several Nazi soldiers, hundreds of Jews, and destroy a relatively basic concentration camp. Auschwitz wasn't the only death camp, and they could just have easily constructed more. Such a target would not require an atomic bomb anyway, it's really only a few sheds and houses, plus the Nazis didn't exactly broadcast the locations of these place
Destroying Auschwitz would ultimately accomplish nothing, and doing so with the A-bomb would be a complete waste of life and resources.
Wow, okay, I guess I didn't realize I was talking to a pile of sludge, I thought it was a human being capable of thought.
There were not death camps in Germany, and the only way we could end up killing the victims of the holocaust is by bombing specific camps, not by bombing a city.
I never said they should bomb Auschwitz you idiot, if your not even going to try to read things dont bother posting.
You missed the point (again). I was refering to the way you instantly made the decision that it would have been a good idea to nuke areas of Germany/Poland in an attempt to advert the holocaust, when in fact I have just explained why it would be a terrible idea to do so.
I didn't dumbass. Learn to read. I said dropped a bomb on Germany, I never said on concentration camps.
The problem here being that you take everything at face value. Learn to read between the lines.
So what your saying is that when people say things, I shouldn't interpret what they say as what they meant. I should look for the invisible words that don't really exist and try to interpret those... ahh.. I see.. hmm... no wait... no... thats retarded.
And that pretty much lowers my opinion of the substance of your arguments even more. When people run out of substantial material, they tend to resort to insults.
That trite phrase would have been more pertinent if I wasn't presenting tons of 'substantial material' (substantive?) already. The difference is, I'm proving you wrong, and calling you an idiot, two seperate things.
Which, in the end, would make you the one trying to win your argument without offering substantive material, by claiming my argument is bad because I also am calling you an idiot. Sad, really.
At 8/8/05 05:35 AM, ReiperX wrote: Its still 3 million dollars, there is no way in hell she actually deserves anywhere close to that much for something that she was partially responsible for. If a company continually breaks safety and health guidelines do the one thing that will start to get them to listen. Strip them of their business liscenses.
And why does that work better than a lawsuit?
Lawsuits do what the the Federal Government cant, we want to avoid bureaucracy not create more. So an old lady gets more then she deserves, thats better then letting businesses run rampant or shutting down businesses every time a minor thing comes up.
At 8/8/05 05:26 AM, ReiperX wrote: But I think the line should have been drawn at paying her legitimate medical bills and no father.
Then how is Mcdonalds ever going to learn? Medical bills are nothing to them.
The reason she got 3 million was because that is approximately how much Mcdonalds makes on coffee in one day. Doesn't seem so stupid now does it?
At 8/7/05 07:53 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: $75 million for minor neck and back injuries, this is rediculas. Its not like she can't walk anymore. $75 million is 50 times what she would ever make in her whole life if this crash never happend, and I doubt very much her medical bills are that big. This has got to end.
The amount given is not determined by what they deserve as much as it is determined by how much it would take for the company to get the point.
And this isn't to say she will get that at all, thats what she is requesting, the Judge and Jury can say fuck her and give her less, or they could give her nothing.
At 8/7/05 11:21 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Ive seen ehr under another name on one site as well, but I cant remember what it was. But Im sur ethe only reason you searched for her was to find out her name.
Of course it was, why else?
I needed her name to find porn with her in it.
At 8/8/05 03:08 AM, Sir_Snark wrote: Care to give any decent reasons?
He hasn't done anything to legalize marijuana.
So basically your saying it's our fault because were greedy.
Hmm... no. And FYI, you can't use the invasion of Iraq to justify 9/11, it happened afterwards.
At 8/7/05 08:08 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Russia has Checyna etc.
I like to point this out, Checyna is about the size of Rhode Island.
In your country what seperatism issues do you have and do you feel seperatism is a valid idea. After all in a democracy things are decided by the majority, so unless the majority of the country want to ditch that one part of the coutry shoudl it happen? Or is it unfair to do it this way? And is military type action justifable in the quest for seperation.
Seperatism is a bad thing. Only when a group is being exploited should it be considered. In the end we want more unity. People will always find ways to disagree with eachother.
At 8/7/05 11:43 PM, Empanado wrote: Alright, I can understand Hiroshima, but Nagasaki was, in my opinion, just cold-hearted bad-ass-ness. I just don't see the motive in the second nukeing.
Did they surrender after Hiroshima?
Do we have any evidence Hiroshima made them decide to surrender? Much less any that the US would have seen?
They needed to believe we were going to continue dropping bombs until they surrendered.
