Is it me or does this serve no purpose?
No purpose and that's why I'm here.jord wrote:
Is it me or does this serve no purpose?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
No, I say it because my Grandpa was a Marine in the Pacific that had survived Pearl Harbor and the Invasion of Okinawa.TheAussieReaper wrote:
STFU if all your going to say is "yeah well, the Japs and Germans would've nuked us" because it's a pointless exercise. Don't lower yourself to those standards and you won't get criticized as often as you do.
The invasion of the Japanese home Islands would have killed millions on both sides.
Well see right there, you took a few words, mostly some pretty silly ones, and then you shoved them in our mouths using those quotes as little crowbars to pry our mouths open. Could you at least find some better words the next time you're putting them in our mouth? These taste pretty bad.TheAussieReaper wrote:
STFU if all your going to say is "yeah well, the Japs and Germans would've nuked us" because it's a pointless exercise. Don't lower yourself to those standards and you won't get criticized as often as you do.
I disagree. Japan and Germany were aggressivley researching and getting close. If you don't think Japan (with what they were doing to the Chineese) and Germany (with what they were doing to the Jew) were above using nukes then... well.. I don't think you have an accurate grasp on WWII.TheAussieReaper wrote:
STFU if all your going to say is "yeah well, the Japs and Germans would've nuked us" because it's a pointless exercise. Don't lower yourself to those standards and you won't get criticized as often as you do.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2008-08-06 09:01:19)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
So, it wont be a matter if russia send a bunch of nukes to usa in a future war to prevent some more million deaths?
I agree, and I already said that.SgtHeihn wrote:
The invasion of the Japanese home Islands would have killed millions on both sides.
My point is you don't defend using the Nuclear weapons simply by saying well they would've used it too...TheAussieReaper wrote:
Invading Japan could have potentially been even more costly to both sides.
Yeah, bad stuff happened on both sides.
The US probably and more than likely saved lives by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki but the reaons they were used was because IT WAS TO SAVE LIVES. Not because those savage Japs would have done it to us!
I understand that yes such a weapon could and may have been used by the Axis powers, but I don't like hearing a defense by the Americans that it was a hit them before they hit us scenario.
That was never the reasoning behind using them.
The casualties suffered in taking Iwo Jima along with the other island hopping tactics used by the US forces proved that the invasion of the Japanese homeland would have been too costly to both sides.
Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-08-06 09:07:26)
Post of the year. You win. Russia should nuke the US to "prevent some more million" deaths.Ottomania wrote:
So, it wont be a matter if russia send a bunch of nukes to usa in a future war to prevent some more million deaths?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
The Germans might have done, if those Norwegian dudes hadn't blown up Telemark I think it was.TheAussieReaper wrote:
STFU if all your going to say is "yeah well, the Japs and Germans would've nuked us" because it's a pointless exercise. Don't lower yourself to those standards and you won't get criticized as often as you do.
How would it ever save lives, now that both sides have nukes? Cold War strategies would reign supreme.Ottomania wrote:
So, it wont be a matter if russia send a bunch of nukes to usa in a future war to prevent some more million deaths?
holy cow... I had no idea we were at war with Russia... lol ?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Post of the year. You win. Russia should nuke the US to "prevent some more million" deaths.Ottomania wrote:
So, it wont be a matter if russia send a bunch of nukes to usa in a future war to prevent some more million deaths?
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2008-08-06 09:09:28)
Love is the answer
You are a fucking idiot.Ottomania wrote:
So, it wont be a matter if russia send a bunch of nukes to usa in a future war to prevent some more million deaths?
We are not at war with Russia.
I have read some of your post history and I am done responding to any of your threads because you have no grasp on reality.
Oh and from a Marine that has seen combat in Iraq..
Kisses
do you think that bombing villages will do any affects on enemy? would you surrender or get eager to fight if your citizens get bombed?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Like we killed more people with the bomb than with firebombing missions.Would you like us to invite them to afternoon tea? I'd like to see what you think about tactical air support if you were actually on the ground, fighting a war you have no direct political will over.Ottomania wrote:
Bomb civilians if you cant handle armed forces. nice idea, every single german/japan/vietnamese/iraqi holding guns aiming you, so they deserved to be burned.
I said a possible future war.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
holy cow... I had no idea we were at war with Russia... lol ?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Post of the year. You win. Russia should nuke the US to "prevent some more million" deaths.Ottomania wrote:
So, it wont be a matter if russia send a bunch of nukes to usa in a future war to prevent some more million deaths?
The Japanese surrendered didn't they?Ottomania wrote:
do you think that bombing villages will do any affects on enemy? would you surrender or get eager to fight if your citizens get bombed?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Like we killed more people with the bomb than with firebombing missions.Would you like us to invite them to afternoon tea? I'd like to see what you think about tactical air support if you were actually on the ground, fighting a war you have no direct political will over.Ottomania wrote:
Bomb civilians if you cant handle armed forces. nice idea, every single german/japan/vietnamese/iraqi holding guns aiming you, so they deserved to be burned.
Are you trying to lose this?Ottomania wrote:
do you think that bombing villages will do any affects on enemy? would you surrender or get eager to fight if your citizens get bombed?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Like we killed more people with the bomb than with firebombing missions.Would you like us to invite them to afternoon tea? I'd like to see what you think about tactical air support if you were actually on the ground, fighting a war you have no direct political will over.Ottomania wrote:
Bomb civilians if you cant handle armed forces. nice idea, every single german/japan/vietnamese/iraqi holding guns aiming you, so they deserved to be burned.
As for the villages, the Japanese were entrenched all along the beaches and every citizen was trained to fight to the death. The tactical reality is each village was more like a small military force.
Looking to the past to what actually happened, citizens bombed in a country without means of retaliation = surrender.
Of course that is the reason and I have never argues against it, but if you don't believe that Japan or Germany would have used nuclear weapons on the Allies, then ok.TheAussieReaper wrote:
I agree, and I already said that.SgtHeihn wrote:
The invasion of the Japanese home Islands would have killed millions on both sides.My point is you don't defend using the Nuclear weapons simply by saying well they would've used it too...TheAussieReaper wrote:
Invading Japan could have potentially been even more costly to both sides.
Yeah, bad stuff happened on both sides.
The US probably and more than likely saved lives by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki but the reaons they were used was because IT WAS TO SAVE LIVES. Not because those savage Japs would have done it to us!
I understand that yes such a weapon could and may have been used by the Axis powers, but I don't like hearing a defense by the Americans that it was a hit them before they hit us scenario.
That was never the reasoning behind using them.
The casualties suffered in taking Iwo Jima along with the other island hopping tactics used by the US forces proved that the invasion of the Japanese homeland would have been too costly to both sides.
I framed that 'us or them argument' due in part to how our boy Otto made the post. He tried to come off as only America's shit stinks.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
The simple fact of the matter is that the OP served no purpose other than trolling...he basically posts anti-american videos with no backing expecting some argument.
The nukes gave enough shock and awe (and less deaths than firebombing IIRC) to make an enemy who was TRAINED NOT TO SURRENDER...surrender. I'd say that's just one of many good reasons for the bomb.
The nukes gave enough shock and awe (and less deaths than firebombing IIRC) to make an enemy who was TRAINED NOT TO SURRENDER...surrender. I'd say that's just one of many good reasons for the bomb.
Point. Set. Game. Match.Poseidon wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is that the OP served no purpose other than trolling...he basically posts anti-american videos with no backing expecting some argument.
The nukes gave enough shock and awe (and less deaths than firebombing IIRC) to make an enemy who was TRAINED NOT TO SURRENDER...surrender. I'd say that's just one of many good reasons for the bomb.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
I'm not saying that the Axis wouldn't have used Nuclear weapons. They were headed down that path anyway. But had the Germans won the war, they would try justifying the Jewish prison camps by comparing it to the lockup of Japanese citizens living inside the US.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Of course that is the reason and I have never argues against it, but if you don't believe that Japan or Germany would have used nuclear weapons on the Allies, then ok.
I framed that 'us or them argument' due in part to how our boy Otto made the post. He tried to come off as only America's shit stinks.
They could argue that they were concentration camps and would have led to an extermination eventually anyway (I know that's not the case, but it's a similar spin to the nuclear case in point).
And yeah, the OP is clearly delusional.
so there is insurgency in iraq because you were killing innocent iraqis on purpose
You know, in war, you ought to care more about the denizens of your country than your opponent. That's exactly what the government was doing. They put their citizens lives ahead of the foreign folk by deciding to use the atom bomb and not invade. The government was looking out for #1, although they knew such a high (for lack of a better word) KDR would bring criticism in the future. We can't even remotely imagine the context of a full-scale war while sitting here in our chairs, typing away at computers.
[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8905191678365185391[/google]
Last edited by Ottomania (2008-08-06 09:24:31)
Wrong.Ottomania wrote:
so there is insurgency in iraq because you were killing innocent iraqis on purpose
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
so you say they dont like democracy and freedom you bring to them?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Wrong.Ottomania wrote:
so there is insurgency in iraq because you were killing innocent iraqis on purpose