Originally posted by Forumfall

Hope they get it. Should balance things out.

 

Balance is essential for good pvp.

lmao

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Tymoris

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Tymoris

Originally posted by Faxxer

he thinks i want to understand Europeans and their failed socialist policies?   LMAO.

you hit the nail on the head baff....  let me be clear...  Europe sucks.  I'd rather go back to Africa than to England  (at least in Africa the people are sincere and love life.)

What's so bad about England?

I am asking because I worked for a year in London and although not thrilled it wasn't that bad, so I am curious to what you are referring to.

 

See many small business while you were there?

other than a hotdog vendor that is?

 

Now that you mention it no I didn't, except maybe Camden town.

Most of the stores were franchise chains and in general the whole town gave me a "Everything must go" feeling.

Really sucked when I wanted to eat something nice:(

 

The entire system is stacked against ANYONE who tries to even start a business too

Well speaking as someone who runs a "small business" I can tell you that's bullshit. When businesses fail they invariably point the finger of blame in every possible direction they can, but their own. Businesses fail in the UK, just like everywhere else in the world, mostly through incompetence.

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Faxxer

 

I'll bet something happens before Christmas, and I'll be thinking and smiling of Baff when it does.

 

Baff wants to see Iran bombed mate. The sooner the better.

You need to stop viewing the world in terms of Muslims,  Christain and Jews if you want to understand Europeans. We aren't racists.

 

Islam, Christianity and Judaism are religions, not races.

Hmmm I wonder if this basic ignorance affects anything else.

 

he thinks i want to understand Europeans and their failed socialist policies?   LMAO.

you hit the nail on the head baff....  let me be clear...  Europe sucks.  I'd rather go back to Africa than to England  (at least in Africa the people are sincere and love life.)

Actually African countries in general score pretty low on the satisfaction with life index. The ones with the highest satisfaction of life are, unsurprisingly, liberal countries like Scandinavia.
 

Also there are actually loads of small business in Europe. The system is build so that small business get screwed over and can't compete with big chains?

Oh, you mean like Wall Mart?

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Faxxer

 

I'll bet something happens before Christmas, and I'll be thinking and smiling of Baff when it does.

 

Baff wants to see Iran bombed mate. The sooner the better.

You need to stop viewing the world in terms of Muslims,  Christain and Jews if you want to understand Europeans. We aren't racists.

 

Islam, Christianity and Judaism are religions, not races.

Hmmm I wonder if this basic ignorance affects anything else.

 

he thinks i want to understand Europeans and their failed socialist policies?   LMAO.

you hit the nail on the head baff....  let me be clear...  Europe sucks.  I'd rather go back to Africa than to England  (at least in Africa the people are sincere and love life.)

Actually African countries in general score pretty low on the satisfaction with life index. The ones with the highest satisfaction of life are, unsurprisingly, liberal countries like Scandinavia.
 

Also there are actually loads of small business in Europe. The system is build so that small business get screwed over and can't compete with big chains?

Oh, you mean like Wall Mart?

I know right, they act like America has tons of small businesses. Go to Tokyo, there are small businesses all over the place and they are thriving quite well. You will never see a chain, or rarely. Guess what too! They have a socialist healthcare system. And one of the longest life spans for men and women. Wowzers! Bet you didn't see that coming!

Originally posted by billynomates

Originally posted by efefia

Not sure how well publicised this has been in the US, given that the last couple of days coverage have been rightly focused on the Fort Hood shootings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/iran-tested-nuclear-warhead-design

If true this probably proves the intent to weaponise their uranium stocks.

I would be more worried about the US using such weapons,let's face it, the US is the only country that has used them on human beings.

and for good reasons.  Saved hundreds of thousands of our military by dropping Little Boy and Fat Man.  Truman made a good decision.

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by billynomates

Originally posted by efefia

Not sure how well publicised this has been in the US, given that the last couple of days coverage have been rightly focused on the Fort Hood shootings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/iran-tested-nuclear-warhead-design

If true this probably proves the intent to weaponise their uranium stocks.

I would be more worried about the US using such weapons,let's face it, the US is the only country that has used them on human beings.

and for good reasons.  Saved hundreds of thousands of our military by dropping Little Boy and Fat Man.  Truman made a good decision.

I guess General McArthur was a liar when he said he could invade the Homeland with a lot less killed than those that were killed by the two bombs.

Good reasons to kill civilians? Hmm, interesting ideologies. I guess you think that the means justify the ends. Then I bet you would also say to nuke the whole middle east because then we would have a more peaceful world. The means justify the ends!

Originally posted by xanphia

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by billynomates

Originally posted by efefia

Not sure how well publicised this has been in the US, given that the last couple of days coverage have been rightly focused on the Fort Hood shootings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/iran-tested-nuclear-warhead-design

If true this probably proves the intent to weaponise their uranium stocks.

I would be more worried about the US using such weapons,let's face it, the US is the only country that has used them on human beings.

and for good reasons.  Saved hundreds of thousands of our military by dropping Little Boy and Fat Man.  Truman made a good decision.

I guess General McArthur was a liar when he said he could invade the Homeland with a lot less killed than those that were killed by the two bombs.

Good reasons to kill civilians? Hmm, interesting ideologies. I guess you think that the means justify the ends. Then I bet you would also say to nuke the whole middle east because then we would have a more peaceful world. The means justify the ends!

It ended the war now, didn't it. My mistake, without the bombs, it would of cost millions of lives.  Truman took the lesser of two evils.

The Bomb That Saved Millions

Preceding the bombing of Hiroshima the Americans had pledged that if the Japanese did not agree to an unconditional surrender and an immediate conclusion to all hostilities that they would bomb Japan with atomic weapons. The Japanese called the Americans on a bluff or simply dismissed the American's words as tough talk and nothing more, unfortunately for the Japanese, the Americans did have the weapons they claimed they did, and weren't afraid to use them.

Hiroshima was destroyed, though a catastrophe for the Japanese, it still did not mean their surrender. The Japanese, urged by their military establishment to continue the pursuit of victory still did not respond to the American threat. It took the Japanese another lost city in Nagasaki three days later to commence peace negotiations.

Now, if Iran threatens Israel, what do you think will happen? Should we put them in "Time Out"?

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by xanphia

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by billynomates

Originally posted by efefia

Not sure how well publicised this has been in the US, given that the last couple of days coverage have been rightly focused on the Fort Hood shootings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/iran-tested-nuclear-warhead-design

If true this probably proves the intent to weaponise their uranium stocks.

I would be more worried about the US using such weapons,let's face it, the US is the only country that has used them on human beings.

and for good reasons.  Saved hundreds of thousands of our military by dropping Little Boy and Fat Man.  Truman made a good decision.

I guess General McArthur was a liar when he said he could invade the Homeland with a lot less killed than those that were killed by the two bombs.

Good reasons to kill civilians? Hmm, interesting ideologies. I guess you think that the means justify the ends. Then I bet you would also say to nuke the whole middle east because then we would have a more peaceful world. The means justify the ends!

It ended the war now, didn't it. My mistake, without the bombs, it would of cost millions of lives.  Truman took the lesser of two evils.

The Bomb That Saved Millions

Preceding the bombing of Hiroshima the Americans had pledged that if the Japanese did not agree to an unconditional surrender and an immediate conclusion to all hostilities that they would bomb Japan with atomic weapons. The Japanese called the Americans on a bluff or simply dismissed the American's words as tough talk and nothing more, unfortunately for the Japanese, the Americans did have the weapons they claimed they did, and weren't afraid to use them.

Hiroshima was destroyed, though a catastrophe for the Japanese, it still did not mean their surrender. The Japanese, urged by their military establishment to continue the pursuit of victory still did not respond to the American threat. It took the Japanese another lost city in Nagasaki three days later to commence peace negotiations.

Now, if Iran threatens Israel, what do you think will happen? Should we put them in "Time Out"?

 

You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of Japanese culture. Here's the deal: they don't give up. The Americans knew they weren't going to surrender. I would wager the American leadership knew this but wanted to test out it's new toy and scare the Soviets. Which it did, but then the Soviets stockpiled their onw nukes. Joy.

Point is, war could of been any number of ways, and many scholars agree the bomb wasn't the only way. It's just popular myth that it was.

The other way was to wait for Russia to bring it's gi-normous uber army to invade Japan.

An invasion that Russia didn't really want to do.  Russian lives that Russians valued above all others. Understandably, they were dragging their heels. Something like 1/4 Russian citizens were already dead at that point.

And each day of waiting more allied soldiers would die. Another ship sunk. Another plane shot down. Another soldier suicide bombed.

Each day casaulites for the war went up from 50 million to 50 million plus some more. Up and up with no limits to the tiotal number predictable. Every day more dead. Everyday familiy members and friends lives and limbs still in jeopardy. 

And the American and Commonwealth generals all saying "we don't have enough troops to guarentee a ground victory in Japan".

The bomb wasn't the only way, but at the time we were trying every way possible and that one happened to work first.

Originally posted by xanphia

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by xanphia

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by billynomates

Originally posted by efefia

Not sure how well publicised this has been in the US, given that the last couple of days coverage have been rightly focused on the Fort Hood shootings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/iran-tested-nuclear-warhead-design

If true this probably proves the intent to weaponise their uranium stocks.

I would be more worried about the US using such weapons,let's face it, the US is the only country that has used them on human beings.

and for good reasons.  Saved hundreds of thousands of our military by dropping Little Boy and Fat Man.  Truman made a good decision.

I guess General McArthur was a liar when he said he could invade the Homeland with a lot less killed than those that were killed by the two bombs.

Good reasons to kill civilians? Hmm, interesting ideologies. I guess you think that the means justify the ends. Then I bet you would also say to nuke the whole middle east because then we would have a more peaceful world. The means justify the ends!

It ended the war now, didn't it. My mistake, without the bombs, it would of cost millions of lives.  Truman took the lesser of two evils.

The Bomb That Saved Millions

Preceding the bombing of Hiroshima the Americans had pledged that if the Japanese did not agree to an unconditional surrender and an immediate conclusion to all hostilities that they would bomb Japan with atomic weapons. The Japanese called the Americans on a bluff or simply dismissed the American's words as tough talk and nothing more, unfortunately for the Japanese, the Americans did have the weapons they claimed they did, and weren't afraid to use them.

Hiroshima was destroyed, though a catastrophe for the Japanese, it still did not mean their surrender. The Japanese, urged by their military establishment to continue the pursuit of victory still did not respond to the American threat. It took the Japanese another lost city in Nagasaki three days later to commence peace negotiations.

Now, if Iran threatens Israel, what do you think will happen? Should we put them in "Time Out"?

 

 

You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of Japanese culture. Here's the deal: they don't give up. The Americans knew they weren't going to surrender. I would wager the American leadership knew this but wanted to test out it's new toy and scare the Soviets. Which it did, but then the Soviets stockpiled their onw nukes. Joy.

Point is, war could of been any number of ways, and many scholars agree the bomb wasn't the only way. It's just popular myth that it was.

Hello, self contradiction. If the Japanese "don't give up," and using the bomb made them give up, then it was evidently the only way -- at least from YOUR way of explaining this.

Personally, I'm not so sure either way -- but from what YOU said, it was necessary.

He makes the same mistake they all do Fish.

He starts with the assumption that America was always going to win the war and works backwards from there.

That's not how it happened.

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Tymoris

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Tymoris

Originally posted by Faxxer

he thinks i want to understand Europeans and their failed socialist policies?   LMAO.

you hit the nail on the head baff....  let me be clear...  Europe sucks.  I'd rather go back to Africa than to England  (at least in Africa the people are sincere and love life.)

What's so bad about England?

I am asking because I worked for a year in London and although not thrilled it wasn't that bad, so I am curious to what you are referring to.

 

See many small business while you were there?

other than a hotdog vendor that is?

 

Now that you mention it no I didn't, except maybe Camden town.

Most of the stores were franchise chains and in general the whole town gave me a "Everything must go" feeling.

Really sucked when I wanted to eat something nice:(

 

The entire system is stacked against ANYONE who tries to even start a business too

I think the statistic is something like 1 in every 2 worker in Britain is self employed. I don't know if that is lot or not comparatively speaking.

Just as a previous poster, I've had a few small business during my time as a British citizen. Perhaps 10 or so. (On the other end of the scale I've also worked for 2 multi-nationals).

Originally posted by baff

The U.N. did recgnise Israels right to exist. But only after they ilegally invaded Palestine. Prior to 1948 the U.N. was doing everything in it's power to stop the mass migration of european Jews to Palestine.

In 1948 the U.N. also recognised the State of Palestine and Jerusalam as it's capital city.

 

Theres no point you pretending that Israels neighbours forced them to invade Jerusalem to defend themselves. That's not what happened.

Thats exacty what happened. In 1948 just prior to the massive Arab attack Golda Meir pleaded with the King of Jordan to not attack. If he did attack any lands the arabs lost as a result would be forefeit. The arabs attacked and they lost land. They were warned but they came anyway. Jersualem was slated to be an open international city, but the Arabs blew it. Yes I know the evil Israelis took the western part of the city but guess what the innocent Arabs violated the same international agreement and took the eastern part of the city, and then proceeded to prevent the Jews access to their holistest site until 1967.

 My heart does not bleed for the Jews who illegally invaded Palestine. I do not lie awake at night think "what a bum deal they got". The irony of what happened to them under the Germans and what they have themselves become is not lost on me.

Maybe if England and Switzerland would have overcome their underlying racial bias and allowed them to escape from Germany there would have been no need for a Jewish homeland? This monster is Europe's fault. The Jews wanted a place in the world where their fate was in their own hands. What more logical place than their original homeland?

 

Many arabs have had to give the Palestinians their homes. Those refugees displaced by the european invaders have all had to go some where, why do you think they are all so annoyed? If you want someone to give up their homes for a Jew, why not give up yours? Why not let your neighbouring countries take you in so a Jewish migrant can have your house and use your land to grreater profit?

Unlike in most countries they are welcome in the United States. Why should I give up my home there is plenty of room for all here even you. Besides I donate $50 a month towards a fund that helps move Jews to Israel.

 

Israel isn't a democracy mate. Democracy is about consentual rule not military occupation.

The democracy/not democracy chart lists them as #47 of about 80 democracies. Not perfect by far but well ahead of all the middle eastern countries. The Palestinian have their own government it is listed as 79th on the list.

 

All the Israeli's want is a little more land to live on. They make good use of it. Just a little living space. Is that so unreasonable, the arabs can take in the Palestinians who live there instead.

Liebenstrausse. It's all the Nazi's wanted too.

Israel has done nothing but give up land since 1977. If the Arabs really truly cared about the fate of the Palestinians they would have let them have land in the Sinai (plenty of it), or north western Saudi Arabia and used the money they could have saved on the 3k+ tanks they managed to loose in 67 & 73 and purchased enough desalinzation plants to turn it into a garden. They chose hate instead.

 

The Israelis' are a morally indefensible people mate.  The won't stop pushing and expanding until someone stops them.

They have done nothing but give up territory since 1977. I can understand though why you have this position you can't help yourself. You have been bombared by biased European media for 36 years. Your governments want to guarntee that the oil tap will never be shut off again because they the Arabs got their tails kicked in a war of aggression against Israel. Ever since they cut you off in '73 your media has been all about the poor Palestinians.

The israeli's have no right to that land. They are just aggressors plain and simple. And yes, they are being rocket attack by Palestians. What did you expect? That the Palestinians would lie down and go quietly into the night?

The Israelis have wiped Palestine off the map. 

What Palestine? Tell me when there was a Palestine between 1300 B.C. and 1948? You can't The Israelis lived on that land for 1400 years as a independent nation.  In between 70 and 1948 the land was occupied by a variety of nations and races. There has never been a Palestine with self determination until Israel created it by giving up land.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by efefia

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Aetius73

And because Isreal's neighbors do the same  that makes it right? That like saying murder is ok because everyone is doing it.

The Austrailians wanted him indicted for trying to incite genocide. Apparently it comes out of his mouth enough that someone besides the Jews and the U.S. thinks he is serious.

www.theage.com.au/news/national/charge-iranian-president-with-inciting-genocide-labor/2007/03/05/1172943356983.html

apparently this group thinks so too.

www.iheu.org/node/1896

I can under stand why European anti-jewish sentiment is growing though so many of your countries have large muslim minorities.

 

 

Anti jewish sentiment is growing in many of our countries because of their illegal and brutal occupation Palestine.

You don't have to be muslim to watch the pictures on TV.

The U.N. recognized Israel's right to exist as a state in 1948. As soon as you brits left six muslims nations attacked. The muslims deserved what they got. If they had not attacked Israel they would not have lost territory. If the arabs where that broken up over the fate of the Palestinians they would have given them homes long ago. They let the Palestinians rot as refugees to generate sympathy in Europe and anti-jewish sentiment. I can see it is working. Personally I think they have showed a good deal of restraint considering they get hit with rockets every time you turn around. They could have simply kicked them all out of the occupied territories, but they didn't. Until recently Israel was the only democracy in the middle-east. You'd think other democracies would be supportive of that.

They took a barren desert and turned it into a very productive high standard of living nation. With almost more GDP than their two largest neighbors who have a populations and land many times the size.

42 Israel 202,101

49 Egypt 162,617

68 Syria 54,803

Per Capita GDP really shows the difference

29 Israel 28,409

111 Syria 2,768

117 Egypt 2,162

It is pretty obvoius who is making better use of the land. Why is Europe so dead set against a democracy? They have even given back 90% of territories conquered. How much more reasonable can you get? If they are as evil as you purport them to be why haven't they used their nukes on the muslims?

 

 

I've yet to see any relevent justification for the above. It's theft, pure and simple and trying to justify it with GDP figures is as completely fucking ridiculous as it is irrelevent.

Also worth remembering that we pulled our troops out of Palestine, enabling the creation of the Israeli state because we were put under pressure by the US, which effectively meant the US administration backed the terrorist campaign against us. I don't think you meant to imply any blame but I thought it was worth pointing out as others may have come to that conclusion.

To a capitalist that is a firm believe in democracy GDP figures everything. We only have so much land on this earth. To waste so much of it with second rate dictatorships why so many starve is such a waste. Like the United States and many European nations Israel spends a considerable amount of money on trying to educate Africans so that they can improve their lot in life. They aren't as evil as biased European media portrays them as. They aren't perfect by any means, but they run the only indepedently functioning parlimentary democracy in the middle east. One that has fought off vastly superior arab attackers to keep that freedom. As a member of a country that did the same thing I can't help but admire them for that.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by xanphia

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by xanphia

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by billynomates

Originally posted by efefia

Not sure how well publicised this has been in the US, given that the last couple of days coverage have been rightly focused on the Fort Hood shootings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/iran-tested-nuclear-warhead-design

If true this probably proves the intent to weaponise their uranium stocks.

I would be more worried about the US using such weapons,let's face it, the US is the only country that has used them on human beings.

and for good reasons.  Saved hundreds of thousands of our military by dropping Little Boy and Fat Man.  Truman made a good decision.

I guess General McArthur was a liar when he said he could invade the Homeland with a lot less killed than those that were killed by the two bombs.

Good reasons to kill civilians? Hmm, interesting ideologies. I guess you think that the means justify the ends. Then I bet you would also say to nuke the whole middle east because then we would have a more peaceful world. The means justify the ends!

It ended the war now, didn't it. My mistake, without the bombs, it would of cost millions of lives.  Truman took the lesser of two evils.

The Bomb That Saved Millions

Preceding the bombing of Hiroshima the Americans had pledged that if the Japanese did not agree to an unconditional surrender and an immediate conclusion to all hostilities that they would bomb Japan with atomic weapons. The Japanese called the Americans on a bluff or simply dismissed the American's words as tough talk and nothing more, unfortunately for the Japanese, the Americans did have the weapons they claimed they did, and weren't afraid to use them.

Hiroshima was destroyed, though a catastrophe for the Japanese, it still did not mean their surrender. The Japanese, urged by their military establishment to continue the pursuit of victory still did not respond to the American threat. It took the Japanese another lost city in Nagasaki three days later to commence peace negotiations.

Now, if Iran threatens Israel, what do you think will happen? Should we put them in "Time Out"?

 

 

You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of Japanese culture. Here's the deal: they don't give up. The Americans knew they weren't going to surrender. I would wager the American leadership knew this but wanted to test out it's new toy and scare the Soviets. Which it did, but then the Soviets stockpiled their onw nukes. Joy.

Point is, war could of been any number of ways, and many scholars agree the bomb wasn't the only way. It's just popular myth that it was.

 

Hello, self contradiction. If the Japanese "don't give up," and using the bomb made them give up, then it was evidently the only way -- at least from YOUR way of explaining this.

Personally, I'm not so sure either way -- but from what YOU said, it was necessary.

Give up during conventional warfare, sorry I didn't put the asterick there. The only reason that they surrendered was because the emperor felt it was the only way to keep more civilian lives from being taken. The military wanted to continue. I think this is well known.

Also, General MacArthur said he could win the ground war without anymore need of troops. He was rather confident he could. Not only that but we had Japan cornered, we could of blockaded them easily into submission. Japan is very small and doesn't have close to the level of natural resources to wage a war. There were many wars to win the war but we wanted a glorious and spectacular end. I don't agree with it though. Using the bomb definitely put how devastating this weapon is into perspective, but it also triggered an arms race between the Soviets and US which we still feel the aftershocks of-today.

Originally posted by baff

He makes the same mistake they all do Fish.

He starts with the assumption that America was always going to win the war and works backwards from there.

That's not how it happened.

At the point when we dropped the two bombs, Japan was in a very losing position. Their one position to bank on were the Allies losing lots of casualties due to an invasion. But, support was very strong on the allies side, so I doubt any number of casualties would of stymied that support from the public. So, we actually were in a winning position and it may have taken another year if we didn't drop the bombs, but the Russians were gearing up to kick the Japs out of Manchuria and a blockade would of destroyed any outside resources reaching the homeland.

It could of easily happened in any number of ways. The bombs were never the great one solution.

Originally posted by xanphia

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by xanphia

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by xanphia

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by billynomates

Originally posted by efefia

Not sure how well publicised this has been in the US, given that the last couple of days coverage have been rightly focused on the Fort Hood shootings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/iran-tested-nuclear-warhead-design

If true this probably proves the intent to weaponise their uranium stocks.

I would be more worried about the US using such weapons,let's face it, the US is the only country that has used them on human beings.

and for good reasons.  Saved hundreds of thousands of our military by dropping Little Boy and Fat Man.  Truman made a good decision.

I guess General McArthur was a liar when he said he could invade the Homeland with a lot less killed than those that were killed by the two bombs.

Good reasons to kill civilians? Hmm, interesting ideologies. I guess you think that the means justify the ends. Then I bet you would also say to nuke the whole middle east because then we would have a more peaceful world. The means justify the ends!

It ended the war now, didn't it. My mistake, without the bombs, it would of cost millions of lives.  Truman took the lesser of two evils.

The Bomb That Saved Millions

Preceding the bombing of Hiroshima the Americans had pledged that if the Japanese did not agree to an unconditional surrender and an immediate conclusion to all hostilities that they would bomb Japan with atomic weapons. The Japanese called the Americans on a bluff or simply dismissed the American's words as tough talk and nothing more, unfortunately for the Japanese, the Americans did have the weapons they claimed they did, and weren't afraid to use them.

Hiroshima was destroyed, though a catastrophe for the Japanese, it still did not mean their surrender. The Japanese, urged by their military establishment to continue the pursuit of victory still did not respond to the American threat. It took the Japanese another lost city in Nagasaki three days later to commence peace negotiations.

Now, if Iran threatens Israel, what do you think will happen? Should we put them in "Time Out"?

 

 

You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of Japanese culture. Here's the deal: they don't give up. The Americans knew they weren't going to surrender. I would wager the American leadership knew this but wanted to test out it's new toy and scare the Soviets. Which it did, but then the Soviets stockpiled their onw nukes. Joy.

Point is, war could of been any number of ways, and many scholars agree the bomb wasn't the only way. It's just popular myth that it was.

 

Hello, self contradiction. If the Japanese "don't give up," and using the bomb made them give up, then it was evidently the only way -- at least from YOUR way of explaining this.

Personally, I'm not so sure either way -- but from what YOU said, it was necessary.

 

Give up during conventional warfare, sorry I didn't put the asterick there. The only reason that they surrendered was because the emperor felt it was the only way to keep more civilian lives from being taken. The military wanted to continue. I think this is well known.

Also, General MacArthur said he could win the ground war without anymore need of troops. He was rather confident he could. Not only that but we had Japan cornered, we could of blockaded them easily into submission. Japan is very small and doesn't have close to the level of natural resources to wage a war. There were many wars to win the war but we wanted a glorious and spectacular end. I don't agree with it though. Using the bomb definitely put how devastating this weapon is into perspective, but it also triggered an arms race between the Soviets and US which we still feel the aftershocks of-today.

Okay, correction noted. Gotcha. Again, I don't know if it was necessary or not, and I still struggle with it. I feel would would have won either way, but I wonder if the cost of American lives would have been worth it.

The arms race with the soviets was gonna happen either way, so I don't know if that was a factor -- in fact, I think getting it first was one of the many factors that led to us winning the Cold War. That and communism is a failure by nature. You either liberalize like China or die like the Soviets did.

However this stuff is best left to speculative writers like Harry Turtledove :)

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by xanphia

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by xanphia

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by xanphia

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by billynomates

Originally posted by efefia

Not sure how well publicised this has been in the US, given that the last couple of days coverage have been rightly focused on the Fort Hood shootings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/iran-tested-nuclear-warhead-design

If true this probably proves the intent to weaponise their uranium stocks.

I would be more worried about the US using such weapons,let's face it, the US is the only country that has used them on human beings.

and for good reasons.  Saved hundreds of thousands of our military by dropping Little Boy and Fat Man.  Truman made a good decision.

I guess General McArthur was a liar when he said he could invade the Homeland with a lot less killed than those that were killed by the two bombs.

Good reasons to kill civilians? Hmm, interesting ideologies. I guess you think that the means justify the ends. Then I bet you would also say to nuke the whole middle east because then we would have a more peaceful world. The means justify the ends!

It ended the war now, didn't it. My mistake, without the bombs, it would of cost millions of lives.  Truman took the lesser of two evils.

The Bomb That Saved Millions

Preceding the bombing of Hiroshima the Americans had pledged that if the Japanese did not agree to an unconditional surrender and an immediate conclusion to all hostilities that they would bomb Japan with atomic weapons. The Japanese called the Americans on a bluff or simply dismissed the American's words as tough talk and nothing more, unfortunately for the Japanese, the Americans did have the weapons they claimed they did, and weren't afraid to use them.

Hiroshima was destroyed, though a catastrophe for the Japanese, it still did not mean their surrender. The Japanese, urged by their military establishment to continue the pursuit of victory still did not respond to the American threat. It took the Japanese another lost city in Nagasaki three days later to commence peace negotiations.

Now, if Iran threatens Israel, what do you think will happen? Should we put them in "Time Out"?

 

 

You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of Japanese culture. Here's the deal: they don't give up. The Americans knew they weren't going to surrender. I would wager the American leadership knew this but wanted to test out it's new toy and scare the Soviets. Which it did, but then the Soviets stockpiled their onw nukes. Joy.

Point is, war could of been any number of ways, and many scholars agree the bomb wasn't the only way. It's just popular myth that it was.

 

Hello, self contradiction. If the Japanese "don't give up," and using the bomb made them give up, then it was evidently the only way -- at least from YOUR way of explaining this.

Personally, I'm not so sure either way -- but from what YOU said, it was necessary.

 

Give up during conventional warfare, sorry I didn't put the asterick there. The only reason that they surrendered was because the emperor felt it was the only way to keep more civilian lives from being taken. The military wanted to continue. I think this is well known.

Also, General MacArthur said he could win the ground war without anymore need of troops. He was rather confident he could. Not only that but we had Japan cornered, we could of blockaded them easily into submission. Japan is very small and doesn't have close to the level of natural resources to wage a war. There were many wars to win the war but we wanted a glorious and spectacular end. I don't agree with it though. Using the bomb definitely put how devastating this weapon is into perspective, but it also triggered an arms race between the Soviets and US which we still feel the aftershocks of-today.

 

Okay, correction noted. Gotcha. Again, I don't know if it was necessary or not, and I still struggle with it. I feel would would have won either way, but I wonder if the cost of American lives would have been worth it.

The arms race with the soviets was gonna happen either way, so I don't know if that was a factor -- in fact, I think getting it first was one of the many factors that led to us winning the Cold War. That and communism is a failure by nature. You either liberalize like China or die like the Soviets did.

However this stuff is best left to speculative writers like Harry Turtledove :)

How many innocent Japanese lives were lost though? Thinking only of American lives is rather shallow thinking.

I disagree communism is failure by nature. Soviet communism wasn't even close to what Marx proposed but was rather a corrupt version. Communism sounds nice on paper but is tough to pull off in macro settings.

The arms race might of happened either way, but maybe not the proliferation of nukes. If the US didn't use the nukes, it may not have caused both the US and USSR to stockpile. Nuclear weapons being the one large danger to society today.

No. It isn't shallow thinking.

Thinking about the lives of your loved ones and friends first and above all others is very deep thinking indeed.

Failing to recognise that bond is very shallow thinking.

Originally posted by baff

No. It isn't shallow thinking.

Thinking about the lives of your loved ones and friends first and above all others is very deep thinking indeed.

Failing to recognise that bond is very shallow thinking.

And those Japanese that died didn't have loved ones? They weren't sacrificing the same things that the Americans were sacrificing for their country? Living in Japan, I can tell you they are barely different from us. They have a lot of the same goals and ideals. To think of yourself first is selfish. We are all humans and why you put any disconnect between peoples is why war and hate is so apparent. When you blur the lines between people it's easy to be selfish and cruel.

Shallow thinking indeed.