American politics

[Best-Of]

What if a criminal organisation that lives in...well, let's say Chicago, would sink the Golden Gate Bridge into the sea, and the American publick demanded Bush to revenge the strike? Would Bush send commansdos to the bace of the criminals, and tell the commandos to avoid any casualties, including the criminals, so that they could be arrested? Yes. Would Bush start a huge random bombing in Chicago, since there are terrorists there, and kill thousands of civilians in the random bombings, causing more sufferings,damage and death to kill the terrorists Than the terrorists had and would have ever caused? No. But he did the second thing in Afganistan. The way Bush treated Afganistan and would not treat Chicago, proves the way that at least all the politics in U.S.A think. If you had to chose the death of either 100 americans or 1000 foreigns, a model american would choose to kill the foreigns. I can't agree with that. If I had to choose between 99 americans (or finnish) and 100 non-americans, I'd choose for the americans (or finnish) to die. If the numbers were egual, then I'd try and talk to each of the ppl I'm gonna have to choose, and then kill the ones that would propably cause less happiness to ppl around them.

What would you choose if you had to make the choose between 100 americans and for excample 110 foreigns? What if you had to either kill 10 terrorists or 2 american, wich would you choose?

[FUNKbrs]

wow, good topic. I would have to say, if the numbers were equal, always the foreigners. Because at the end of the day I know that foreign people dont give a damn about me. But if the numbers are higher for the foriegners and lower for my country, it really depends on who the foreigners are. If the foriegners actually do give a damn about me, then I would have to choose my own country to limit the loss of life. But if the foriegners have already staged huge protests and hate rallies against my country, I have a hard time feeling pity for them. Which is why I supported the war in Iraq. You don't spit in someones face and expect to get away scot free, escpecially when the person you spit on is much more powerful than you.

[WadeFulp]

As far as terrorists in Chicago that would be left to the FBI, not the US military. The FBI would do whatever they'd have to do to take them out.

As far as going afte terrorists in another country and killing more people there than the terrorists killed... Well, for starters do we know how many civilian deaths there were in Afghanistan? Were there more than 3,000? Also you have to realize that this was a country of people harboring terrorists. They refused to stand up against them, so we had to go in and deal with it.

[misterx2000]

Yes a very thoughtful topic. Sometimes during the Afghan war, I really think that Bush wanted to equalise the Afghan civilian count and the 3000 or so killed on Sept 11. Just to placate the public.
Then again, the public doesn't like civvie losses. But this might be a special case.

And regarding your question - I'd choose the route that caused least suffering.

[Nirvana13666]

In my eyes a life is a life and killing is never justified.

The obvious choice for most would be to save the Americans. I think if it came down to it kill whoever is committing criminal activity whether they be American or not.

I don't think the U.S. has done anything to stop its own terrorists.

"In 1998, the State Department issued a report listing Cuba amongst those nations alleged to "sponsor terrorism". Curious about this, I called up the State Department and was connected to what they called "The Terrorism Desk", where a man told me that Cuba was included because "They harbor terrorists."

"So does the United States," I replied. "The Cuban exiles in Miami have committed hundreds of terrorist acts, in the U.S. and abroad."

The gentleman exploded. "Sir," he cried in a rising voice, "that is a fatuous remark and I will not listen to such nonsense!" And he hung up.

It's always fascinating to observe how a True Believer reacts to a sudden, unexpected and unanswerable threat to his fundamental ideological underpinnings.

The Cuban exiles are in fact probably the longest lasting and most prolific terrorist group in the world, and they're still at it. In the past year or so they've been busy bombing hotels in Havana, all directed from Miami. {3}

Cubans are not the only terrorists enjoying safe haven in the United States. There are Haitians, Salvadoreans, Guatemalans, Indonesians, and others guilty of terrible crimes against humanity, walking around free as can be in the United States. They were, and perhaps still are, allies of U.S. foreign policy objectives. {4}"

http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/propagandhi/blum2.shtml

[Jimsween]

Your entire argument is flawed, first of all it is impossible to know how many moe Americans would have been killed if the Taliban stayed in power but it would surely have been more so you can't say we killed more people than we saved. So you can't use Afghanistan to justify your argument because that doesnt even fit into what you are talking about, and there were no bombing raids on afghanistan the onyl places bombed were air bases and military locations, any other bomb was accidental and couldnt have been forseen therefore you cannot say that he chose to kill those civilians.

Second, the US would not bomb Chicago because there are easier ways to get the mobsters which result in much less civilian casualties, however in afghanistan the Taliban was the ruling regime so it would have been impossible to get them all and doing so would have not only resulted in more civlian casualties (because many civilians were hostile too) but resulted in more American casualties as well.

Third, Bush is a horrible president and you can't compare America to him, he is not anywhere close to the model American and certainly not the best (or even a mediocre) American president.

[Alejandro1]

At 6/17/03 10:07 PM, mwazzap wrote: However i think you made the wrong simile. AND you people forget a far more atrocious incident.

U know. With the Atom bomb and the 100,000 Japanese civilians killed.

You call that an atrocious incident? How about December 7, 1941? Of course its ok because the Japanese were killing American military personal not involved in the war so that they could take over the Dutch East Indies for the resources they needed to continue their campaign; hmm, that makes sense to me.

Do you really think that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocious? Actually, it's quite opposite. It was estimated that about one million Allied soldiers would have been killed in a full scale invasion of Japan, not to mention the millions of Japanese soldiers that would have been killed as well; therefore, by dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, Truman saved millions of lives by killing thousands. Kind of ironic when you think about it that way.

Not to mention the Japanese/Asian prison camps. Strangely akin to the interrogation of any sort of, well, brown person, acting suspiscious.

Yes, I'll agree that the Nisei internment camps were wrong and the government made a wrong decision to confine its own citizens; however, I see you failed to mention the terrible conditions of the POW camps set up by the Japs. In American camps, you had about a 90% survival chance or more. In Japanese camps, you had about a 30% survival chance or less. And you also failed to mention how the Americans led prisoners on the Bataan death march, o wait, that was the Japanese too.

[Commander-K25]

At 6/17/03 10:07 PM, mwazzap wrote: U know. With the Atom bomb and the 100,000 Japanese civilians killed.

We dropped a bomb to end a long and bloody war that would have cost massive casualities to end by conventional means. You're also making a very one-sided argument because you ignore the numerous Japanese atrocities. Ever heard of the Rape of Nanjing? Bataan? The pillaging of Manila? Probably not, or you're simply not bringing it up because all you seem to know is Blame America.

I blame the religious people.

I stand corrected. You also know the tactic of Blame Religion.

At 6/18/03 12:13 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 6/17/03 10:07 PM, mwazzap wrote: U know. With the Atom bomb and the 100,000 Japanese civilians killed.

We dropped a bomb to end a long and bloody war that would have cost massive casualities to end by conventional means. You're also making a very one-sided argument because you ignore the numerous Japanese atrocities. Ever heard of the Rape of Nanjing? Bataan? The pillaging of Manila? Probably not, or you're simply not bringing it up because all you seem to know is Blame America.

Then why was it dropped on civilians? At least when Japan attacked America they had the common courtesy of attacking military personel and no civilians on your home turf.

[Alejandro1]

At 6/18/03 01:28 PM, nailbomb wrote: Then why was it dropped on civilians? At least when Japan attacked America they had the common courtesy of attacking military personel and no civilians on your home turf.

The atomic bombs weren't just dropped on some random civilian areas; the bombs were dropped on major industrial cities with lots of factories that the Japanese needed to continue their campaign. Bombing of factories was very common at the time, considering we did it to the Germans on several occasions. These bombs were also dropped to prove a point: the Japanese had no chance in hell of winning the war.

The Japs attacked Pearl Harbor so that they could continue their conquest of Southeast Asia; you criticize the US for retaliating against this attack(remember, the US were neutral in the war up to Dec. 7, 1941).

BTW, when the Japanese surrendered to us unconditionally, we could have gone down the line and shot every third person if we wanted to, but you know what? We didn't. We rebuilt their government and economy and look how well it's doing today.

[Jimsween]

Here is a little known fact that is actually very important, there were a few things that happened near the end of the war that could ahve turned it completely. There was a german submarine headed for japan containing vital plans and such for an atomic bomb and many other technologies but the war ended before it got there. The japansese had developed a jet fighter all on thier own and if we had not ended the war they could have not only wiped out all of our navy but started bombing runs on the US. And there was a helicopter that the Japanese had developed that also could ahve turned the war around.

So the outcome of the war wasnt so certain considering that the kamikazee missions would have been much more effective with a jet fighter that could get through the defenses of a cruiser of carrier.

[Slizor]

The atomic bombs weren't just dropped on some random civilian areas

The bombs were dropped on the cities that had the least damage done to them, thus the full extent of the power of an atomic weapon could be shown. America had already been bombing cities vital for the war effort, and these cities would have been bombed if they were vital for the war effort. Thus it was dropped on a specific Civilian area.

As for Mr. Weenie. The Germans had got absolutely no where with the atomic bomb, so their research would have helped them very little.

[Commander-K25]

At 6/18/03 04:41 PM, Slizor wrote: The bombs were dropped on the cities that had the least damage done to them, thus the full extent of the power of an atomic weapon could be shown. America had already been bombing cities vital for the war effort, and these cities would have been bombed if they were vital for the war effort.

I don't know where you're pulling these assertions from. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been left untouched before the atomic bombs were dropped and we certainly had not been able to suppress Japanese industry beforehand, despite the conventional bombing, because Japan was still in wartime production.

[Alejandro1]

At 6/18/03 04:05 PM, jimsween wrote: The japansese had developed a jet fighter all on thier own

Hahahahahahaha.... oh man *whew*. The Japs did not make a jet fighter 'all on their own' Jim. They took that technology directly from the Germans, who were the ones who were really developing it quickly.

Another thing, the Germans did not have plans developed for the atomic bomb. Yes, they were developing that technology at that time just as every country was; likewise, the US was developing jets too, but they weren't our top priority like the atomic bomb. Therefore, the Germans beat us to jets with the Messerschmitt-262 and we beat them to the atomic bomb.

[Jimsween]

Ohhh alejandro you have no idea what you are getting into, I'm a WW2 pro.

At 6/18/03 07:07 PM, alejandro1 wrote:

At 6/18/03 04:05 PM, jimsween wrote: The japansese had developed a jet fighter all on thier own

Hahahahahahaha.... oh man *whew*. The Japs did not make a jet fighter 'all on their own' Jim. They took that technology directly from the Germans, who were the ones who were really developing it quickly.

LMAO, you could BE more wrong. We had intercepted every attempt at the Germans to give the Japanese plans to make a jet. Compared to the Japanese the Germans were developing it very slow, 2 days after the bomb was dropped the Japanese had plans to mass produce the jets.

Another thing, the Germans did not have plans developed for the atomic bomb. Yes, they were developing that technology at that time just as every country was; likewise, the US was developing jets too, but they weren't our top priority like the atomic bomb. Therefore, the Germans beat us to jets with the Messerschmitt-262 and we beat them to the atomic bomb.

Oh you are just making this too easy for me, the germans had no priority whatsoever on the atomic part of the bomb. This was because they were working under the failed concept that the bomb required massive amounts of U:IC245(I might have this wrong) unlike the reality which was that is only required 2.5 pounds of it. This was because they mistakenly caluclated all of the reactions instead of just one path. When we found thier labs all they had was a large amount of U: IC245(I might have this wrong) and the plans for the design of the bomb and would have had enough to make thier bomb (which they soon would have found out only needed 2.5 pounds of it) in about 1 week.

You in check Ale...

[Alejandro1]

At 6/18/03 07:21 PM, jimsween wrote: You in check Ale...

Absolutely. I believe I said that the Japanese didn't develop the original technology, they borrowed that from the Germans. The Japs took that original jet technology and just took off with it. That's what the Japs are espically good with; even in todays society you can see that they take designs made by others and make them better. But yes, it's true that the Japs had developed very effective jet fighters and even had ideas for helicopters as well as air to air missles!

As for the Germans, like you said, they could have built a bomb within a week; but remember, we defeated them before their design came into practice; that's all that really matters. Interestingly enough, jet bombers were still at the top of Hitler's priority list, moreso than fighters or the atomic bomb, even when he lost the battle of the buldge. I guess his lack of judgement greatly attributed to the success of the Allies.

[Jimsween]

At 6/18/03 07:56 PM, alejandro1 wrote:

At 6/18/03 07:21 PM, jimsween wrote: You in check Ale...

Absolutely. I believe I said that the Japanese didn't develop the original technology, they borrowed that from the Germans. The Japs took that original jet technology and just took off with it. That's what the Japs are espically good with; even in todays society you can see that they take designs made by others and make them better. But yes, it's true that the Japs had developed very effective jet fighters and even had ideas for helicopters as well as air to air missles!

I guess your going to have to take your dispute with the history channel because they seem to think that the germans were never able to get the plans for thier jets to japan, and if they did it is amazing that the japanese had seen them because their jets were developed completely different.

As for the Germans, like you said, they could have built a bomb within a week; but remember, we defeated them before their design came into practice; that's all that really matters. Interestingly enough, jet bombers were still at the top of Hitler's priority list, moreso than fighters or the atomic bomb, even when he lost the battle of the buldge. I guess his lack of judgement greatly attributed to the success of the Allies.

But he did in fact have plans to make one, although he theoretically could have made one in 1 week you have to remember, we had the bomb made for wuite a while but didnt use if for quite a time later.

[Alejandro1]

At 6/18/03 11:53 PM, jimsween wrote: I guess your going to have to take your dispute with the history channel because they seem to think that the germans were never able to get the plans for thier jets to japan, and if they did it is amazing that the japanese had seen them because their jets were developed completely different.

Yes, I guess I should clarify a little. The Germans didn't actually send documents that showed the designs of the jet engine, they sent pictures of their engines. I guess the amazing thing was the fact that the Japanese were able to look at the pictures and build their own jets. That's why the Japanese might have developed their jets a little differently. And it's also true that we disrupted the Germans while they were travelling to Japan on several occasions, so the Germans were never able to deliver detailed designs of their jets.