PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: hood2k4 on August 25, 2002, 11:29:11 AM
-
who was the worst president ever in your opinion? personally bill clinton takes the top stop with a commanding lead over andrew jackson at the number 2 spot, i mean come on what did those idians ever do to him?GO LIONS!
-
no Nixon?
and Clinton? what a foolish idea of placing him as the worst. True he had some indiscrepencies, but so did JFK. Clinton helped give the country the healthiest economy we ever had, the quality of life with Clinton in office was amazing.
Just because someone may have a sketchy personal life doesn\'t mean it effects his job, look at pro athletes. Dennis Rodman had a strange personal life, but that never stopped him from being the best rebounder the game had ever seen. Hell Michael Jordan cheated on his wife, yet he still be a helluva baller.
-
I dont think any of the presidents were that bad...of course they all made bad choices...as well as good ones.
-
Speaking as a non-American, I thought Clinton did a reasonable job. Just a pity that he couldn\'t keep his "man stick" under control whilst he was in office.
I would have gone for Nixon as worst president.
-
Where do you get Dubya as the worst?
-
I vote for William Henry Harrison, was in office less than a month, got drunk, passed out in the snow, and died....worst ever
-
Originally posted by theomen
I vote for William Henry Harrison, was in office less than a month, got drunk, passed out in the snow, and died....worst ever
Lol, sounds like a likely scenario if Kopking ever was president.
-
/me votes himself.....later realizing that he was never in office
i would make the worst president....although that is why i am not into politics.
-
i think this poll sucked i made it out of boredom feel free to rip on the dam thing and hell even piss on it if you want
-
i think this poll sucked i made it out of boredom feel free to rip on the dam thing and hell even piss on it if you want
-
welcome to the fourms hood....in the future...try not to double post :) The mods really hate that stuff
-
watch out, Sammy will molest you for double posts.
-
Man, they\'re all ghey. Watch out for all of \'em.
-
Oh whatever Soul Reaver.. you\'re ghey too. You jus want him to let his guard down so you can be the first to take his manhood. :p
Personally, I\'m glad Clinton was usin the office to get him a lil sometin sometin. Like you all wouldn\'t. :rolleyes: Expecially if you was married to Hillary and had a kid as ugly and annoying as Chelsie. Anyhow, the only real critique I have of him is that he didn\'t bag a better lookin chick. Thomas Jefferson was doin one of his fine ass slaves, Rosevelt had a lil cutie secretary on the side, Lincoln used to visit whorehouses regularly.. and who can forget the president who bagged America\'s #1 sex symbol Maryln Monroe. With that kinda power.. he could have done a lot better than Monica.
As a president.. he did a fair job. Not bad.. not too good.. but average. He did a lot of good things, and he made a few f*ckups. (Like sending cruise missles to do the job of ground troops). Anyhow.. it\'s not like he had Altzheimers disease and let his cabinet run the whole show cause he couldn\'t even remember what his name was.. and it\'s not like he picked a fight with Iraq and then backed out right when they were on the verge of overthrowing Saddam leaving alot of our arab allies with their asses hanging in the wind. Why do people blame Clinton for Iraq when it was BUSH who didn\'t have the scrotom strenth to finish the job in the first place??
Bah.. go crawl back under a rock and keep listening to Rush Limbaugh.
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
Oh whatever Soul Reaver.. you\'re ghey too. You jus want him to let his guard down so you can be the first to take his manhood. :p
Bah! You pooh pooh head! Were just gonna scare him away if we keep this up. :nerd:
-
he\'s right im already starting to worry *looks down to check for "obstruction"*
-
uhhh, Andrew Jackson created democracy, if it werent for him we\'d all be peasents... he was like the common man\'s president. I would know I did a report on him.
Carter did nothing wrong, leave him alone.
George W. is handling our world crisis, leave him alone.
Clinton knows how to get the chicks, leave him alone!
My opinion would be andrew JOHNSON
-
Nixon should be on there. He was the worst.
Another historically bad one was Grant.
Oh, and Dubya should be high on the list. Clinton should not. Sure, what he did may not have been the best thing with Monica and all, but it was blown way out of proportion. Overall, he was a great president who led us through a stable period of time.
Oh, and if you want the best President...look no further than Mr. James K. Polk, our 11th president.
-
Dude, Jackson ruled.
-
our best president IMO was JFK
Polk broke a lot of promises during his presidency, he even gave up some of our land to canaduh and supported slavery.
Lincoln was a man of high principles...
"with malice towards none..."
EDIT: Canaduh was not a country at the time, so in actuallity it was to britain he gave it to. Just wanted to clarify facts.
and yes, Jackson did rule.
-
dude, lyndon johnson was a cowboy-ass idiot. he totally botched the vietnam war and has the blood of 58,000+ young americans on his hands.
he gets my vote for worst ever.
:evil:
-
Goerge Bush And His Son!.!
-
most over rated president = JFK
-
Originally posted by theomen
most over rated president = JFK
He wasn\'t bad at all. He did good during the cold war.
-
he was good, but sometimes I think people just really make him out to be much more than he was.
-
Originally posted by The Hurricane
Polk broke a lot of promises during his presidency, he even gave up some of our land to canaduh and supported slavery.
Bullshit. Polk kept all of his major campaign promises: To settle the Oregon Territory question, to bring Texas into the union, to serve only one term, to build an independant treasury, and to add the lands including Arizona, New Mexico, and California to the union. He never gave up any of our land, he simply settled the Oregon Territory with the Brits, avoiding war, and giving them less than we ended up with. That was, in the end, a very good deal for us. He ended up adding significant lands to the union, led us through a quick easy war when Americans were killed on American soil, and never made any strong actions to support slavery. He remained almost completely neutral on the issue.
Originally posted by Soul Reaver
He wasn\'t bad at all. He did good during the cold war.
Did good? You\'ve got to be kidding me. It was during his presidency that we came closest to nuclear war.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
Did good? You\'ve got to be kidding me. It was during his presidency that we came closest to nuclear war.
Back then everybody wanted to try their new toy out, the H-Bomb. I don\'t think it would be totally his fault for almost causing a nuclear war.
Anyway, suddenly everybody forgot about Nixon.
-
he done f*cked up with the Bay of Pigs
-
Boy, anybody who thinks Clinton did a damn thing for this country is off my Christmas list.
He did what he did for himself. His biggest freak\'n concern is what his legacy will be.
As far I\'m concerned his only legacy is he had really bad taste in women.
Ace
-
What did he do, other than that one Monica thing, that was so bad? Overall, he led us through a prosperous economic period and a relatively peaceful time.
-
1) JFK also saved us from nuclear war. :)
2) Polk was biased towards the south getting more slave territory than free. What happened to 54\'40\' or fight?
-
How about he was selling pardons in the last days of being in office.
Also, and here\'s a biggie . . . he lied under oath and HE WAS IMPEACHED!
You might argue that it was for a stupid reason, but it still happened. He has also been disbarred.
Now we want to giggle that he got his rocks off in the Oval office but the fact remains HE WAS IMPEACHED!
Ace
-
Originally posted by The Hurricane
1) JFK also saved us from nuclear war. :)
2) Polk was biased towards the south getting more slave territory than free. What happened to 54\'40\' or fight?
That wasn\'t his slogan.
And Clinton, whatever your feel about those minor issues, led to a very good time for our country while he was in office. That is what matters.
-
Those are not minor issues.
Ace
-
That was indeed Polk\'s campaign slogan, and did the North get what he had promised. No. Maybe he did accomplish a lot in one term, but he certainly was supporting the south in slave fight.
-
What did Polk ever do that was so bad to the north? He brought at least 6 current states into the union, most of which became free states. His treasury also benefitted the north as a whole.
He never promised to take all of Oregon, he promised to settle the Oregon Territory question. If you look at your history, you\'ll see this was true.
And yes, those things with Clinton WERE minor issues.
-
That\'s why we are doomed. The bar is so low now that anyone can jump over it.
Ace
-
If an issue doesn\'t affect the daily lives of Americans beyond just adding gossip, then it isn\'t major. He didn\'t hurt anyone when he did that stuff with Monica except himself and his family.
-
The fact is Polk ran w/ the campaign slogan 54\'40\' or fight, and won. At first it would appear that all was well, but britain made a deal that differed from 54\'40 and favored the south in terms of territory. He promised territory and got only half of his so called slogan, and he did it with little fight. Look in your history book.
-
So are you saying in a period when we were just done fighting Mexico, the right thing to do would be to once again go to war with Britain?
-
Well, I am not surprised. That\'s how a lot of people feel.
Ace
-
They all suck. Where\'s Hitler when you need him? j/k :laughing:
-
Originally posted by Ace
Well, I am not surprised. That\'s how a lot of people feel.
Ace
And are you saying that\'s wrong?
-
Yes I am.
I\'m hitting the hay and I\'ll be more than happy to discuss this more tomorrow.
Nitey nite. :)
Ace
-
I guess I just think it\'s wrong that a president is judged so much for things that don\'t affect people in any real way, and so little at times by what they actually did politically.
-
funny story about Polk
It was Junior year history and my teacher was talking about how popular Polk. He was acting it out, like he was some type of Polk fanatic, and he started to bow to the word Polk on the white board, and just as he bent over he said "everyone was like (bends over) Polk This and Polk that"
in short, he bent over and said Polk this, and the crowd erupted, he got pissed and through everyone out of the classroom.
-
everyone thinks that the prosperous economy was Clinton\'s doing. Nope. It\'s a little thing called Reaganomics. Reagan\'s economic plan extended for 20+ years, Clinton just rode it uot and did nothing to keep it rolling.
-
I agree CHIZZY.
Now back to the Clinton years. Yes the media focused on oral sex in the Oval Office, but there were plenty of other more important issues. How about Hillary making $100,000 profit from a $1,000 investment? The list goes on and on. File gate . . . etc, etc, etc.
Ace
-
And you\'re telling me Bush and Cheney haven\'t been making money hand over foot from what they\'ve been doing in the white house?
BTW, it was not Reaganomics. Reaganomics doesn\'t work.
-
Clinton was an emberassment, but my word, Carter was a total freaking dolt. The country was in total termoil during and after that guy. Ugh....
-
It\'s a little thing called Reaganomics. Reagan\'s economic plan extended for 20+ years - Chizzy
LoL @ Chizzy, yeah.. I\'m sure he meant to send the economy spiraling further and further into a ressession for 12 years until a Democratic President came along. Reganomics dosen\'t work.. or better.. it didn\'t work for the time it was implimented. All it ended up doing was giving tax breaks to the rich and causing inflation to spiral out of control. Not to mention help to triple the national debt from 1 trillion to over 4 trillion dollars. Of course.. that was all just part of his plan wasn\'t it?
There are two major things which helped to contribute to the economy we had..
1. Alan Greenspan\'s agressive slashing of intrest rates which stymied inflation.
2. The computer/technology revolution.
Of course you probably won\'t believe me. Who can possibly think that man who once said, "Eighty percent of air pollution comes from plants and trees." could possibly be full of shyt??
-
I voted Clinton. After all he "never had sexual relations with that woman, miss Lewinsky".
-
Back to Polk, maybe he saved us from war, but we could have easily won the war.
So was it wrong? Yes. He instead lied and gave up on the entire territory all together.
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
As a president.. he did a fair job. Not bad.. not too good.. but average. He did a lot of good things, and he made a few f*ckups. (Like sending cruise missles to do the job of ground troops).
Call me crazy but wouldn\'t you rather cruise missiles then losing soldiers?
-
Originally posted by The Hurricane
Back to Polk, maybe he saved us from war, but we could have easily won the war.
So was it wrong? Yes. He instead lied and gave up on the entire territory all together.
If England put their all into a war at that point, they would have crushed us. Same thing with the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. Luckily, we got them to settle for a basic draw in 1812, when they never put everything into it, and in the Revolution they didn\'t take us seriously, then the French came. This would have been different. They weren\'t at war, and they would have crushed us.
Besides, we got more territory, and better territory. And by the way, 54 40 or fight was a general democratic slogan, and was never promised by Polk himself.
-
Call me crazy but wouldn\'t you rather cruise missiles then losing soldiers? - Skyrider666
See.. the problem with cruise missles is that they fire.. and blow up. They don\'t chase the enemy.. they don\'t stick around to make sure the job got done.. they don\'t help the locals reconstruct their homes when one of em goes astray. Would you have felt satisfied if the only retaliation we put forth from 9/11 was to launch a volley of cruise missles into Afghanistan and then patted our selves on the back for a job well done.
They blow up the USS Cole.. we launch cruise missles.. they hide in Afghanistan and their network grows stronger
They blow up the US Embasy in Tanzinia(?).. we launch cruise missles.. they hid in Afghanistan and their network grows stronger
They ram jet liners into the World Trade Center.. we send in ground troops and special forces.. Afghanistan is no longer a hiding spot and their network (while operational) is in complete dissarray.
Had our military not f*cked up and bombed the wrong escape route out of Tora Bora.. we\'d have wiped out the entire Afghani central cell of Al Queda. Bush did it right.. but the military let them go. Clinton didn\'t even bother to TRY and do the job right. That was a f*ck up.. and if he had led our troops against Al Queda back in 1998, the events of 9/11 might not have happened.
-
Originally posted by The Hurricane
George W. is handling our world crisis, leave him alone.
Yeah by Starting even more World Trouble Spots
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by serrano007
They all suck. Where\'s Hitler when you need him? j/k :laughing:
All kidding aside..and the fact he was a nasty person..hitler was actually a great leader.
-
Originally posted by luckee
All kidding aside..and the fact he was a nasty person..hitler was actually a great leader.
Yea, if he just wasn\'t into the genocide thing and didn\'t want to take over the world, he probably would be an alright leader.
-
Originally posted by Soul Reaver
Yea, if he just wasn\'t into the genocide thing and didn\'t want to take over the world, he probably would be an alright leader.
Too bad he was into that shit..he really turned germany around in a short period of time. I
wonder if that was his plan all along.. or shortly after noticing how much power he had, is when he took a turn for the worse.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
Yeah by Starting even more World Trouble Spots
:rolleyes:
We started nothing. There were two building that were leveled and 2800 plus people died just because they went to work.
We take out Saddam and that region will thank us.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
We started nothing. There were two building that were leveled and 2800 plus people died just because they went to work.
We take out Saddam and that region will thank us.
Ace
We started by not minding our own business. Thats a big reason why alot of countries cant stand the US.
No they will not thank us, it will only provoke more trouble. Taking out Saddam for no reason now would be one of the worst mistakes the US could make now.
-
I respectfully disagree, Luckee.
They hate us because of our success. That\'s why they chose the WTC towers. It was very symbolic for them to hit those towers.
Ace
-
That wasnt the only reason. They hit the towers to take many lives and choke the economy and they achieved both.
Our success is not really the reason, but more about how we became so successful. We take what ever we want. Supporting Isreal is also a reason for many..looks like favortism.
-
I just don\'t see it from that point of view.
Ace
-
Reality and what you and I perceive are totally different things :)
-
Originally posted by Ace
We started nothing. There were two building that were leveled and 2800 plus people died just because they went to work.
We take out Saddam and that region will thank us.
Ace
Yes, and everyone in the regions we\'re ****ing with was in on that :rolleyes:
By the way, we tried to take out Saddam before. Most people, in fact, did not thank us. In case you hadn\'t noticed, that entire region hates us. I don\'t blame them either.
Originally posted by Ace
I respectfully disagree, Luckee.
They hate us because of our success. That\'s why they chose the WTC towers. It was very symbolic for them to hit those towers.
Ace
Oh, so it wasn\'t that we\'ve interfered with national level politics in other nations at a rate of once ever 9 months since World War 2? Or the fact that we try to police the world? Well, that\'s a relief :rolleyes:
-
I don\'t think I said what your stating. If you want to be a self hating American, be my guest. It\'s free country. Isn\'t it?
If Saddam is gone there will be one less distabilizing influence in the region.
The world often comes to us for help, and guess what . . . we go and help.
Stop rolling your damn eyes at me. :)
Ace
-
Sorry...my eyes have a mind of their own sometimes :nut:
And I\'m not a self hating American. I think to be a true patriot in our system, you shouldn\'t blindly follow the government, but rather find where it goes wrong, and try to improve it. There are definite faults in our government, and I\'m just saying I want to improve them to make our country better. :)
-
Well gee.. look what happened last time we tried to just stay outta things and mind our own buisness. Hitler rampaged clear to the Atlantic.. with the tiney lil island country of England bein all that stood between him and complete European dominance. Yeah.. yeah.. so he lied about Poland, Denmark, Belgium, France, and England... but I bet he would have stopped there. :rolleyes:
Not to mention we had another nation on the complete opposite side of the globe completely decimate our Naval forces in the Pacific in only 4 hours, costing us over 3,000 American lives and nearly crippling our war effort permenantly. (Had they hit our oil reserves just a few miles away.. they would have)
Hmm.. yep.. that policy work real good dosen\'t it. Gee.. I guess we jus never should have fought the communists. So what if they\'re taking over countries at alarming rates and sneaking medium range Nuclear missles into small, impovershied, communist nations right in our back yard. It\'s none of our buisness, after all.
-
And you don\'t think Iraq is just a little bit different than Russia or Germany? Besides, World War 2 was very different. What nations are being taken over by Iraq right now? I don\'t see Iraq bringing nukes into other nations. In fact, I don\'t even see them having nukes. I personally do not believe they have weapons of mass destruction.
And don\'t get me started on the Cold War...
-
Originally posted by Ace
The world often comes to us for help, and guess what . . . we go and help.
Ace
Only when something in our best intrest is at stake..IE..gulf war was about oil instead of poor little kuwait.
-
The US helping everyone isn\'t something to brag about. I\'d much rather us be into isolationism.
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
Well gee.. look what happened last time we tried to just stay outta things and mind our own buisness. Hitler rampaged clear to the Atlantic.. with the tiney lil island country of England bein all that stood between him and complete European dominance. Yeah.. yeah.. so he lied about Poland, Denmark, Belgium, France, and England... but I bet he would have stopped there. :rolleyes:
Not to mention we had another nation on the complete opposite side of the globe completely decimate our Naval forces in the Pacific in only 4 hours, costing us over 3,000 American lives and nearly crippling our war effort permenantly. (Had they hit our oil reserves just a few miles away.. they would have)
Hmm.. yep.. that policy work real good dosen\'t it. Gee.. I guess we jus never should have fought the communists. So what if they\'re taking over countries at alarming rates and sneaking medium range Nuclear missles into small, impovershied, communist nations right in our back yard. It\'s none of our buisness, after all.
Once again we weren\'t minding our own affairs. Japn attacked us because we created anti-trade agreements with countless other countries against them. not only that, but we had a naval blockade on their homeland.
THAT is why they attacked us at pearl harbor. granted we did the blockade to stop them from taking over china, but the point remains, if we didnt ban them from trading goods, they probably wouldnt have bothered with us.
The Germans declared war on us..probably b/c of retalliating against their allies in Japan.
-
Originally posted by Bozco
The US helping everyone isn\'t something to brag about. I\'d much rather us be into isolationism.
I often feel the same way. Sometimes I think we should just let it all go to hell and build a giant wall around our country.
Ace
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
See.. the problem with cruise missles is that they fire.. and blow up. They don\'t chase the enemy.. they don\'t stick around to make sure the job got done.. they don\'t help the locals reconstruct their homes when one of em goes astray.
Well you Americans had better get your weapon builders on the job.Geez and here was me thinking you guys were so technical.
J/K :D
-
The only time we should ever get into anything is if their is going to be a world war. Things like 9/11 wouldn\'t have happened if we didn\'t feel the need to get into every countries business.
-
Even then we should stay out of it untill we are attacked.
-
Well until were atleast being threatened.
-
The only problem with that kind of thinking is if the world is going to hell in a hand basket then we will probably be next. Then it might be too late for all of us.
Ace
-
Are you serious?..if anything, it should be a little easier with them killing themselves. I dont think it would ever be the end of the US unless we continue to piss people off and making more enemies.
-
Originally posted by Ace
The only problem with that kind of thinking is if the world is going to hell in a hand basket then we will probably be next. Then it might be too late for all of us.
Ace
How??????? Some parts could go to hell but its not our problem if two middle east countries want to annilate eachother.
-
You guys pounce very quickly. :)
Is it not a smart idea to try and foster democratic ideals on a troublesome country?
I flip flop on this a lot and I can be persuaded to let the rest of the world sink into the ocean.
Ace
-
We try to help one country only to make more enemies.
-
We dont want our country to be a lame duck and keep to themselves, that makes us look VERY weak.
Ah so afganistan(sp?) hijacked multiple plains, killed several thosand people and destroyed symbols of our country. We\'ll just ask them to not do that again and move on. Yeah right. :rolleyes:
And why do you ask that we were so involved. Cause good ole Osama felt that bombing a few US Embassies would do the world good. We should have let him bomb more. Yeah right. :rolleyes:
We do things for a reason, you cause trouble in our country and we will get you. We aint a bunch of pussies!
-
Originally posted by The Hurricane
We dont want our country to be a lame duck and keep to themselves, that makes us look VERY weak.
Who cares if we LOOK weak, keeps our people alive.
And why do you ask that we were so involved. Cause good ole Osama felt that bombing a few US Embassies would do the world good. We should have let him bomb more. Yeah right. :rolleyes:
If you thought for half a second you would relize that if the US didn\'t butt into all the middle eastern affairs then Osama would have no problem with us.
Ah so afganistan(sp?) hijacked multiple plains, killed several thosand people and destroyed symbols of our country. We\'ll just ask them to not do that again and move on. Yeah right. :rolleyes:
Refer to above. We don\'t butt in, we don\'t get attacked.
We do things for a reason, you cause trouble in our country and we will get you. We aint a bunch of pussies!
Yes, we look like hardasses. Now we make plenty of enemies.
-
Originally posted by Ace
You guys pounce very quickly. :)
Is it not a smart idea to try and foster democratic ideals on a troublesome country?
I flip flop on this a lot and I can be persuaded to let the rest of the world sink into the ocean.
Ace
Those dummy governments the US is notorius for setting up only further hurts things usually. People get all pissy b/c they feel we are forcing our way of life upon them.
IMO it\'s our vanity that allows us to think that we have a moral right, scratch that, obligation to go around righting the worlds wrongs. Every time we do it, all we get is grief.
The Europeans think we\'re a bunch of warmongers. The Arabs think OBL is a hero, the Somalians shot at us for trying to feed them. The vietnamese ran us out too.
We need to start applying our ideals to our foriegn policies. We believe in freedom and letting people live thier lives even if we don\'t agree with them. That\'s the theory at least. Let\'s let other nations alone and let them live thier lives the way they choose. If they want new leadership they\'ll get it the same way we did in 1776.
-
Originally posted by The Hurricane
We dont want our country to be a lame duck and keep to themselves, that makes us look VERY weak.
Ah so afganistan(sp?) hijacked multiple plains, killed several thosand people and destroyed symbols of our country. We\'ll just ask them to not do that again and move on. Yeah right. :rolleyes:
And why do you ask that we were so involved. Cause good ole Osama felt that bombing a few US Embassies would do the world good. We should have let him bomb more. Yeah right. :rolleyes:
We do things for a reason, you cause trouble in our country and we will get you. We aint a bunch of pussies!
If it were only that simple huh? Thats not the beginning..
-
I am not sure if we can just cover our eyes and hope the outside world leaves us alone.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
I am not sure if we can just cover our eyes and hope the outside world leaves us alone.
Ace
You don\'t get the point. If we stay out of other countries business we won\'t cause nearly as many problems. Once countries threaten us, then we act.
-
There\'s a difference in staying out and protecting our interests. If Saddam is building weapons of mass destruction we better be ready to act.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
I am not sure if we can just cover our eyes and hope the outside world leaves us alone.
Ace
Think of it this way..look at how many potential and future murders and rapists we have here in america...we can\'t just go around imprisoning and putting to death the ones that are suspected to do something in the future.
Sometimes we have to just wait and see how things pan out.
-
Originally posted by Ace
There\'s a difference in staying out and protecting our interests. If Saddam is building weapons of mass destruction we better be ready to act.
Ace
Why? Then why do we have them..why does India,Pakistan, Ireal and the soviets have them?
Basically the US says only we can have these weapons and curb others from having as many or any at all.
-
Hmmm, sounds like a dangerous proposition.
Ace
-
Lets not forget the small fact that we won the war with Iraq. We make the rules.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Bozco
You don\'t get the point. If we stay out of other countries business we won\'t cause nearly as many problems. Once countries threaten us, then we act.
Its all comes down to territory. If you threaten the US, you are threatening our territorial rights. All animals, including humans, are very territorial. If someone comes into our back yard and does it often, you get pissed and aim a shotgun at the person. If we are bombed, we go after the people responsible until they are dead or caught. When you break it down, every war and problem is about territory.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Lets not forget the small fact that we won the war with Iraq. We make the rules.
Ace
Thats doesnt change the fact that it is wrong does it? Whether we won or lost. I dont see why that gives us the right to dictate who gets what. We are no better than anyone else in that sense. Yet another reason why alot hate us..that kind of thinking.
Hmmm, sounds like a dangerous proposition.
As are future murders and rapists.
-
Originally posted by Titan
Its all comes down to territory. If you threaten the US, you are threatening our territorial rights. All animals, including humans, are very territorial. If someone comes into our back yard and does it often, you get pissed and aim a shotgun at the person. If we are bombed, we go after the people responsible until they are dead or caught. When you break it down, every war and problem is about territory.
And people wonder why shit like 9/11 and embassey bombings happen to us. If we minded our bounds..alot of this could be solved.
-
If we never pushed anyone around there would be no reason for someone to bomb us in the first place.
-
Not that I\'m an ass kisser or nothing but in WW2 when the U.S got involved they saved Australia\'s ass.I know that the only reason they did was cause of pearl harbour,but if they had not then I would probably be living in New Japan.So not every thing affects you guys in a bad way.I know Australia only has 1 submarine,1 crop spraying plane with a guy throwing rocks and 3 soldiers with knives but I think because of this earlier help Australia will always be with America.I also heard Aussie troops in England were not even told that England had found out about an up coming attack on Australia!!And we were supposed to be part of the same commonwealth??
-
Originally posted by luckee
And people wonder why shit like 9/11 and embassey bombings happen to us. If we minded our bounds..alot of this could be solved.
Very true. I guess the US just wants a world of peace and harmony which will never be achieved. There will never be peace in the world. Once group will always fight another group. That\'s what human behavior is like and will never be changed.
-
Peace? I was thinking more along the lines of money and resources...
-
Luckee, we are coming from oppisite directions.
We better be damn sure we are aware of who has what and if we can stop a mad man like Saddam we better do it.
To tell you the truth, I really don\'t care why someone hates us. We have to look out for our best interests.
Ace
-
There is a difference between knowing what other countries have, and butting are head into things that aren\'t our business.
-
My belief is it is our business what Iraq is doing.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Bozco
There is a difference between knowing what other countries have, and butting are head into things that aren\'t our business.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Ace..It is not our business untill he attempts something else. We cant just go running around jumping the gun.
Just to play devils advocate..we go storm iraq and kill him..guess what..he has children..and from I understand..his son is even more irational and sicker than his old man. It is going to come and bit us in the ass severely if we dont stop this world policing.
Eventually it will only lead to more hatred and more enemies...less allies...etc..etc
-
We need to eliminate the threats from the world. If they aren\'t done now, the world is screwed up the bum (in terms of nuclear war)
-
Ace-
You didn\'t understand what I meant by that at all.
-
Originally posted by Ace
To tell you the truth, I really don\'t care why someone hates us. We have to look out for our best interests.
Ace
Ironic, because based on what you\'ve posted, I\'d say you embody why people hate the US.
Why the hell do you think the rest of the world would go to hell without us policing them? The people out there are just as good as us, and that is a very arrogant view point.
Yes, we won a war with Iraq, but that doesn\'t mean we can control them forever. The reason they would create powerful weapons wouldn\'t be to attack us, but to defend themselves against us.
And by the way, as for fostering democratic ideals in a nation, since world war 2, we have taken away democratically elected leaders and replaced them with dictators for political reasons more often than we have done the reverse. We do it because the democratically elected ones aren\'t always in our best interest. For example, people elected by nations during the cold war era from the communist or socialist workers parties. And besides, who the hell are we to tell the rest of the world how they should run their nations? We don\'t even have a real democracy anyway.
-
Originally posted by Titan
We need to eliminate the threats from the world. If they aren\'t done now, the world is screwed up the bum (in terms of nuclear war)
Uhm..that would include us.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
Ironic, because based on what you\'ve posted, I\'d say you embody why people hate the US.
Why the hell do you think the rest of the world would go to hell without us policing them? The people out there are just as good as us, and that is a very arrogant view point.
Yes, we won a war with Iraq, but that doesn\'t mean we can control them forever. The reason they would create powerful weapons wouldn\'t be to attack us, but to defend themselves against us.
And by the way, as for fostering democratic ideals in a nation, since world war 2, we have taken away democratically elected leaders and replaced them with dictators for political reasons more often than we have done the reverse. We do it because the democratically elected ones aren\'t always in our best interest. For example, people elected by nations during the cold war era from the communist or socialist workers parties. And besides, who the hell are we to tell the rest of the world how they should run their nations? We don\'t even have a real democracy anyway.
Chill my man.
Until Iraq allows us to do what we need to do, according to the treaty, we can do what ever we please.
If that\'s distasteful to you than look away or bury your head in the sand. I wonder how many countries would cry to us if we decide to just sit back and let the chips fall where they may.
I am frightened by the fact that you think Iraq would only use a powerful weapon to just protect themselves from the evils of the US. I am glad that thinking is not prevalent.
Again, I just think we are coming from two different directions and it\'s cool if that\'s you position.
Ace
-
Don\'t worry, I am "chilled" :)
I often post sounding like I\'m pissed in topics like that, but I never am. I never take any of it personally, or hold any of it against anyone either. *shrug*
Anyway, I guess I just believe we should be doing things differently, and I don\'t believe that Iraq even has weapons like that. Ever heard of Scott Ridder? He was one of the former chief weapons inspectors over there. I basically tend to agree with his position. (He also happens to live a few blocks from me. woo! :))
Anyway, it\'s cool to have different opinions. Afterall, that\'s what makes democracy necessary, no?
-
That\'s cool! I love a good political debate.
Give Scott a dope slap for me and ask him who is lining his pockets to make a 180 about everything he said in the past.
Ace
-
Same here Ace..no problems here. I know how sometimes in these discussions things can seem to be on a level of which it is far from.
You still wont convince me though ;)
-
And you don\'t think Iraq is just a little bit different than Russia or Germany? Besides, World War 2 was very different. What nations are being taken over by Iraq right now? I don\'t see Iraq bringing nukes into other nations. In fact, I don\'t even see them having nukes. I personally do not believe they have weapons of mass destruction. - Viv
WWII is directly linked to WWI as the result of the rules the Leauge of Nations imposed on Germany with the Versai Treaty. WWI can all be traced back to the assassination of 1 man. If Archduke Ferdanan hadn\'t been killed.. neither World War would have happened.. and as a result, the Cold War probably never would have occured either. Of course, the problems in Israel and the middle east in general can also be traced back to the influx of Jew fleeing German and (later) Russia. In those times tho, America was an isolationist country. We didn\'t want to have to fight other people\'s wars for them.. it wasn\'t our buisness. We, and the collective world community, let events snowball into a series of events which would begin tearing the world apart.
Now-a-days, we would never let it get that far. By having our hand in the pot, we can control what happens to a certain digree.. and at least try to diffuse potential world problems before they have a chance to snowball out of control. Come on guys.. this is basic History Channel knowlage.
Christ.. you all talk about keeping American lives safe. How safe are we by turning our backs to the problems of the world? Purposely blinding ourselves like we did in the past which lead up to two world wars where hundreds of thousands of American soldiers died. People are still going to attack us.. regardless. We can\'t totally withdrawl from the rest of the world.. we need trade partners and allies. As big balled as we yanks are.. we couldn\'t have won even a fraction of the wars we\'ve fought without the help of forigen allies. What are we gonna do if we ignore everyone.. and wait until our allies are overrun and the wolf is at our door before considering dirtying our hands.
Ya know.. I agree that the scale in which we meddle in the affairs of others needs toned back a bit. But Isolationism is WRONG... plain and simple. It hasn\'t worked in the past, and it will not work now. To think otherwise is just insane, IMO, expecially when you can still feel the aftershocks of it\'s effects in most corners of the world.
-
You make some great points but terrorism was not a big deal untill we started getting our nose\'s in everything possible and supporting the isrealis(sp)?
Im pretty positive that as a country we shouldnt just fly blind, but we dont need to have soldiers occupying other territory.
With the gulf war..we should have let Iraq take kuwait. That was business that only concerned us b/c of our oil intrest. When Hussein started to choke our oil supply off is when we should have moved. Thats basically what we did anyway..but I dont think we should have moved untill it came to that point.
Hussein and the rest of the tyrants out there now... We should just let sleeping dogs rest. Monitor them..but from a distance. No need for saftey and eapons inspectors poking around everywhere. If they really want to have nuclear weapons, they will get them. Its obvious the US is NOT a threat for them to pursue it. Id be willing to bet Saddam wouldnt even use a nuke (if he does not already have one now) unless his country was in trouble..which by that point, its his right to defend his country. My second guess is that he may launch it at Isreal if they did something again.
-
Luckee.. Terrorism was a big deal even before the US got our interests entangled in it. Thousands of Jewish refugees were flooding out of Europe into Palestinian territory. What\'s the point of putting Nazi war criminals up on trial if we\'re jus going to let the jews walk into another holocaust? Both groups had equal claim to the land.. expecially since the Palestinians didn\'t have any internationally acknolwaged land. They were like the Native Americans.. nomads. The UN sat down and devided up Isriel into a fair settlement.. which both parties agreed to. However the Jewish refugees kept pushing and pushing into Palestinian land and caused the initial conflict.
I personally sympathise with the Palestinians, not their actions, but their situation. However, strategically, Isriel is a VERY VERY important ally to have. They are our base in which we can operate out of to keep stability in the region. It\'s basically blackmail.. since we have no other allies like that in the regieon. We have to protect them if we want to keep a presence over there.
Unfortunately.. that gets us into a whole mess of trouble because as Isriel pushes further and further into Palestinian territory.. the Palestinians become on big Muslim charity case that religeous fanatics use to justify their causes. Since we cannot afford to loose Isriel (Politically now, as well as strategically), we support them.. and through that support channel many muslims anger towards us.
The point of the above synaps, is that this conflict has been going on a long time... and US directed Anger is a reletively new development. Or need I remind you of the noumerous terrorist attacks aganst Jewish Temples in Germany, riots in Egypt, the Munich Olympics?
As far as Iraq, granted we put him in power and supplied him with weapons.. but he\'s proven to break every promise he made to us and break just about every rule he could whenever it damn well pleased him. Example: Use of gas as an offencive weapon of war was banned by the UN/LoN ever since WWI. We gave him gas to use in the defense of his own country.. and what did he do? He used it against Iranian soldiers in the Iran/Iraq war.. and later used it against the Kuwaities and even his own people. There is also strong evidence that he has been developing biological weapons, and has used them on his own people to test their effectiveness. Based on precidence.. I don\'t think the use of nukes is beyond him.
As far as Iraq taking over Kuwait.. I agree that military actions by Iraq were justified considering how Kuwait was trying to choke off Iraq\'s income. However, the digree and severity of his attack called for action from the US and it\'s allies to secure our oil supply from the upheaval it would have caused in OPEC.. and to keep stability in the region. If the US and it\'s Allies hadn\'t interviened.. Kuwaiti allies would have attacked Iraq.. allies that didn\'t have near the military capability we had. It would have been a very bloody and drawn out war. Iran/Iraq all over again.. and this time our Saudi and Isralie allies would have been at risk. If we lost them.. we\'d loose our influence in the regieon.
Like I said earlier.. the US military (idealistically) is trying to put a stop to conflicts before they grow out of control. The Gulf War was that policy in action... as well as padding our own pockets with oil.
-
I knew I shouldnt have started to drink. I think ill hit these good topics tomorrow man :)
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
WWII is directly linked to WWI as the result of the rules the Leauge of Nations imposed on Germany with the Versai Treaty. WWI can all be traced back to the assassination of 1 man. If Archduke Ferdanan hadn\'t been killed.. neither World War would have happened.. and as a result, the Cold War probably never would have occured either. Of course, the problems in Israel and the middle east in general can also be traced back to the influx of Jew fleeing German and (later) Russia. In those times tho, America was an isolationist country. We didn\'t want to have to fight other people\'s wars for them.. it wasn\'t our buisness. We, and the collective world community, let events snowball into a series of events which would begin tearing the world apart.
Oh, come on, you can\'t really trace all that back to the Archduke\'s assassination. With the alliances being built up, and the tension in the area at the time of World War I, a war was inevitable. It just needed a spark. Had this not been the spark, something else would have been.
Even if there was no World War I, Hitler still could have come to power due to the economic situation created by the depression. Had that happened, and he retained the views without a war happening earlier, which is likely, then there is still a World War II.
Had there not been a World War I or World War II, there would have probably been a Communist revolution in Russia. With the two superpowers still being Communist and Capitalist nations, the cold war would most likely have still happened.
It\'s late, I\'m tired, I just wanted to talk through this :)
And Ace, I too always enjoy a political debate. And it\'s not who\'s lining Scott\'s pockets, but who\'s lining the pockets of those who give reports that conflict with his :). This whole Iraq thing is just a case of Bush trying to finish his father\'s war. They\'re just building up propoganda to justify it. I actually know some people who predicted this when Bush was elected.
-
With the alliances being built up, and the tension in the area at the time of World War I, a war was inevitable. It just needed a spark. Had this not been the spark, something else would have been. - shockwaves
You\'re right, and had the Archduke not been assassinated then I would be tracing this line back to some other event. The Archduke is a jus a detail.. I\'m tracing it all back to the spark which ignited the powderkeg regardless of what that spark is. The point is, the US is trying to keep conditions around the world from getting to the point where a spark from anywhere can ignite the powderkeg again.
Even if there was no World War I, Hitler still could have come to power due to the economic situation created by the depression. Had that happened, and he retained the views without a war happening earlier, which is likely, then there is still a World War II. - shockwaves
That depression the world was in was heightened in Germany by the fact that Versaii treaty crippled the country and they had no aid in rebuilding their nation. Why do you think the US spends millions of dollars to bomb the shit outta some country.. and then spends billions to rebuild it? It\'s to keep situations like this from happening again.. it was a mistake of the old-world which we corrected when we saw it\'s impact. I, however, seriously doubt Hitler could have still risen to power without a broken a despirated nation to gull into his facist leadership. Nazism promised to rebuild the country bigger and better than it had ever been, and rebuilt their spirits by giving them somone to blame for Germany\'s defeat.. the Jews. It started out as a promise of simple deportation and relocation.. and grew from that into the concentration camps we know existed by the end of the war.
Had there not been a World War I or World War II, there would have probably been a Communist revolution in Russia. With the two superpowers still being Communist and Capitalist nations, the cold war would most likely have still happened. - SW
The communist revolution started well before WWII actually, if my memory serves. Wasn\'t Tzar Nicolas and his family killed sometime in the late 1920\'s? Anyhow.. yes we would still have ended up in some sort of a conflict with the communists. The digree of which is just wild speculation. However, the cold war between the US and the USSR did in fact start with a single country.. post WWII Germany. They wanted to add it to their iron curtain.. we wanted to rebuild them into a democratic nation. The line was drawn, and a wall was built.. and Berlin became a keystone. Either side attempting to take the other would trigger an all out war. The biggest fear of the Cold War was of course, nuclear holocaust. Who built the first Atomic bomb? The US did to strike against Japan in WWII. Why did we build it? Because we knew damned well the Germans were already well underway with their own nuclear weapons program. Germany\'s technology was what made it so valuable to both sides of the one time Allies. Granted, nuclear weapons would have been built regardless.. but I doubt they would have come so soon without two major World Wars to spurn their development.
All in all, I\'d say how things turned out was pretty good. The US built the first bomb.. and while it was a tragedy for Japan.. it put the fear of armageddon into the hearts of the world. Without those haunting scenes from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think the superpowers would have been less apt to think things through before launching nuclear weapons against each other. I think things could have turned out very differently if it wasn\'t for lessons learned and fear instilled from those first two bombs. Granted, while we did live in fear for 50 years.. it\'s a helluva lot preferable to living in ashes I think.
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
That depression the world was in was heightened in Germany by the fact that Versaii treaty crippled the country and they had no aid in rebuilding their nation. Why do you think the US spends millions of dollars to bomb the shit outta some country.. and then spends billions to rebuild it? It\'s to keep situations like this from happening again.. it was a mistake of the old-world which we corrected when we saw it\'s impact. I, however, seriously doubt Hitler could have still risen to power without a broken a despirated nation to gull into his facist leadership. Nazism promised to rebuild the country bigger and better than it had ever been, and rebuilt their spirits by giving them somone to blame for Germany\'s defeat.. the Jews. It started out as a promise of simple deportation and relocation.. and grew from that into the concentration camps we know existed by the end of the war.
The communist revolution started well before WWII actually, if my memory serves. Wasn\'t Tzar Nicolas and his family killed sometime in the late 1920\'s? Anyhow.. yes we would still have ended up in some sort of a conflict with the communists. The digree of which is just wild speculation. However, the cold war between the US and the USSR did in fact start with a single country.. post WWII Germany. They wanted to add it to their iron curtain.. we wanted to rebuild them into a democratic nation. The line was drawn, and a wall was built.. and Berlin became a keystone. Either side attempting to take the other would trigger an all out war. The biggest fear of the Cold War was of course, nuclear holocaust. Who built the first Atomic bomb? The US did to strike against Japan in WWII. Why did we build it? Because we knew damned well the Germans were already well underway with their own nuclear weapons program. Germany\'s technology was what made it so valuable to both sides of the one time Allies. Granted, nuclear weapons would have been built regardless.. but I doubt they would have come so soon without two major World Wars to spurn their development.
All in all, I\'d say how things turned out was pretty good. The US built the first bomb.. and while it was a tragedy for Japan.. it put the fear of armageddon into the hearts of the world. Without those haunting scenes from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think the superpowers would have been less apt to think things through before launching nuclear weapons against each other. I think things could have turned out very differently if it wasn\'t for lessons learned and fear instilled from those first two bombs. Granted, while we did live in fear for 50 years.. it\'s a helluva lot preferable to living in ashes I think.
I guess I just figure that if facism could rise in Italy, a nation on the winning side (eventually) in WWI, and Spain, a neutral, it could have happened in Germany too, war or not.
Anyway, the Communist Revolution pulled Russia out of WWI, but it had been building since well before the war. I think that with the nations there the way they were, a cold war was inevitable, as was the development of nuclear weapons. However, I think that the bombings of Japan, on some level, were about Russia, and not Japan. We knew what was going to happen post war. We already feared them, and we already saw a power struggle coming. The bombs were launched to send a message to Russia just as much as they were to end the war with Japan. Why else launch 2? I\'d think one would have been enough.
I think it is still unlikely though, without WW2, that there is a nuclear holocaust. We knew full well what the bombs would do. The amount of nuclear testing we did of those bombs is amazing (and in some cases, disturbing). We knew about the deadly impact, we knew about the radiation, we knew what would have happened.
Sure he situation in WWII escalated the whole thing though, with Russia taking over half of Europe to Germany at the end of the war, and that entire half, strangely enough, becoming communist. I still think that the Cold War would have happened on some level anyway though.
-
We already feared them, and we already saw a power struggle coming. The bombs were launched to send a message to Russia just as much as they were to end the war with Japan. Why else launch 2? I\'d think one would have been enough. - SW
We dropped two, because it took the descimation of two cities to get the Japaneese to surrender. Every man, woman, and child in that country were told that the Americans would come and kill their families, rape their women, and eat their children. They were order by devine right (Hirohita was thought to be a decendant of the gods) to fight until death. We had to drop the bomb, first of all, to try to intimidate Japan into surrendering because we knew a ground invasion would have increadibly tough and bloody. Everyone complains about how it was a tragedy and cost so many lives.. but the combined deaths by the two atomic bombs we dropped were nothing comaired to the lives lost in our firebombing raids of Japan\'s major cities. This is why the Japaneese didn\' surrender at first.. because it wasn\'t anything they hadn\'t already seen before. However, it was a bluff.. we let them think we had a whole arsenal of these bombs when in fact we only had two. Considering the scale at which we were dropping conventional bombs.. Japan simply couldn\'t withstand the force of continued bombing runs using nuclear weaponry.
Two bombs and two targets were picked as much as for testing as they were for military purposes. The Manhattan project staff out at Los Alamos was devided into two camps.. and each worked on a different way of detonating the bomb. Their projects turned out to be, Fat man and Little boy. There were three bombs prepared at the outset I\'m thinking. One that was detonated in the desert.. and the two that were shipped to Japan. The actual battle field application of the bombs gave us a much greater understanding of the potentials and pitfalls of the weapons themselves, and their designs.
That\'s why there were two bombs dropped.
As far as the Cold War, yes it probably would have happened in some fashion regardless. But think of it this way.. had WWI and WWII not started, and we kept our noses out of everyone\'s buisness.. just how far do you think a hostile USSR gov\'t would have spread? Would they have stopped at Europe or Africa? I don\'t think so. So right then again.. we have the wolf at our door eventually, and our allies gone or in severe danger. Keeping our nose out of world affairs would only have ended up backing us in a corner. We KNEW they were a threat.. and that\'s why German was such a big deal. If the Russians had gotten ahold of German Atomic secrets and the research into V2 rockets and jet engines.. it would have been disasterous for the Allies. That\'s how it started, and grew to represent a line in the sand.. a barrier to communist expansion in Europe which we had to defend at any cost.
-
Shocky hit up alot of stuff I was going to say, but I do have a thought about minding our own business.
Look at the nuetral countries. While I dont know much about the small few, I dont seem to remember great violence and threats upon them by hostile countries.
-
I think that, given more time to realize what had happened, Japan would have surrendered after the first bomb. I also think it would have made more sense to bomb millitary bases rather than cities of civilians with those bombs. There was also a lot more testing after the war, that is what I referring to. There obviously wasn\'t that much before it was first used, because we wanted it to be a secret, and we wanted it ready as soon as possible.
Also, just because I think we were wrong to interfere in other nations the way we have doesn\'t mean I don\'t think Russia was wrong too. Sure, some of what we did was necessary. I would have gone to WW2 believing in my cause had I been alive then. Fighting the facists who had attacked other nations for no real reason. I don\'t agree with the idea of Korea or Vietnam though.
-
I agree with shocky. WWII was a must join and we saw that while some of the other small things that we joined, we had no business bumping in to.
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
Hmm.. yep.. that policy work real good dosen\'t it. Gee.. I guess we jus never should have fought the communists. So what if they\'re taking over countries at alarming rates and sneaking medium range Nuclear missles into small, impovershied, communist nations right in our back yard. It\'s none of our buisness, after all.
IIRC the US had nukes in Turkey that were in striking distance of the Soviet Union.
The Russians saw this as a threat and shipped nukes to Cuba.. (and they did not remove them before the US agreed to take away their nukes from Turkey.. Most people don’t know about that)
Same thing really.. Got to see it both ways. (oh noo.. Russian = teh ultimate evil empire!)
-
Originally posted by fastson
IIRC the US had nukes in Turkey that were in striking distance of the Soviet Union.
The Russians saw this as a threat and shipped nukes to Cuba.. (and they did not remove them before the US agreed to take away their nukes from Turkey.. Most people don’t know about that)
Same thing really.. Got to see it both ways. (oh noo.. Russian = teh ultimate evil empire!)
Wasn\'t that the "cuban missile crisis"? Or am I just relating two similar things together here?
-
I think that, given more time to realize what had happened, Japan would have surrendered after the first bomb. - SW
And why is that? Because of the radiation? Because of the scale of the destruction? Frankly, like I said, this wasn\'t anything Japan hadn\'t see before. True, they hadn\'t seen radiation poisioning, but they saw thousands upon thousands of their citizens with 3rd digree burns from the fires. At the time, most japaneese buildings were still made out of wood and paper.. not brick and mortar like most other countries cities. When we started dropping bombs, those whole citys would go up like tissue paper extending the damage far -FAR- from where the bombs had originally impacted at. Look at WWII footage of post war Japan.. Tokyo looked every bit as decimated as both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was like the great Chicago fire all over the nation of Japan.. our pilots even complained of the stench of burning flesh they could smell rising from these citys on their high altitude bombing runs. I really don\'t think that Japan would have surrendered with just one bomb... because the devistation it caused wasn\'t all that major compaired to our other bombing runs. However, like I said, if they feared that we had an entire arsenal of these bombs compairable to our conventional weapons.. then we could kill every last living creature in that nation. That\'s something they wanted to avoid since Hirohito never wanted to "Fight till the last man stands".. they simply wanted to make it so bloody a stalemate that the Americans would back off without having to disgrace Japan into an actual surrender.
As far as military targets go.. many of their military installations were INSIDE major cities. It\'s kind of hard to descriminatnly bomb specific targets inside a major city with nuclear weaponry. Besides.. most of their military targets had already been wiped out by our firebombing raids. By the end of the war, they didn\'t even have flack cannons to shoot at our B-57\'s, which allowed us pretty much free reign over Japan\'s skies. An invasion of Japan wouldn\'t have met with much resistance from their convential army.. it would have been a gurrella war with the citizens.
I don\'t agree with the idea of Korea or Vietnam though. - SW
I don\'t quite agree with Vietnam either, since we had plenty of bases in that region anyhow. I agree, that was someone else\'s war.. the French. What happened there is, we sent in troops to aid French leigeons in Vietnam and as our troops began succumbing to poor leadership and a fanatical enemie.. we began sending more and more troops in for protection and retaliation. The whole war jus snowballed from there.
Korea, I agree with tho. Our bases in the philipines were directly at risk of Communist advancements.. and the lesson of WWII was.. keep those islands safe at all costs. It\'s how we defeated the Japaneese, by island hopping and securing safe naval passage. So we went in and beat the Korans up to the 38th parallel... pulling off some of the most specatular military tactics under Joe McArthur that our nation has ever seen. Now he wanted to push the communists all the way back to Moscow.. but as the Chineese army reinforced the North Koreans, Eisenhower withdrew McCarthy as commander of our pacific forces because he feared where war with China would lead us. Chineese involvment in the Korean war was kept under wraps for quite a few years because our rules of engagement state that if any of their soldiers attack us... we have to retaliate.
(The same thing happed in Vietnam when we found Russian Air combat pilots making bombing runs of our troops.. we didn\'t say anything because it would have set the rules of engagement into motion and triggered a Nuclear War. Same thing with the Cuban Missle Crisis.. we had a jet fighter shot down while taking reconnosance photos for a Cuban invasion plan. We ignored it because it would have blown all the diplomacy the Kennedys were working hard to keep flowing and forced us into a war.)
Bozco - My point is that if we hadn\'t been such isolationists and had tried to stop the events leading up to WWII, that war might have been over before the Germans ever crossed Poland into France.. or better yet.. might have stopped WWII all-together.
Look at the nuetral countries. While I dont know much about the small few, I dont seem to remember great violence and threats upon them by hostile countries. - Luckee
Almost nobody was neutral in WWII Luckee. The countries who remained neutral had "bought" their peace at the price of trade of valuable minerals and supplies for Germany\'s war effort. Some countries such as Switzerland even went a step further and allowed Germany to use their country as a hotbed training ground for Axis spies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/105037.stm
And exactly how long after America and Brittan were conquered do you think it would have taken for Germany to turn on those countries as well? After all.. Germany was trading bloodmoney stolen from Holocaust victims to Russia in exchange for food and clothing materials for their troops prior to 1941. Didn\'t stop Hitler from attacking Russian troops and taking over Russian settlements, (ultimately his downfall) which brought Russia into the war.
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
And exactly how long after America and Brittan were conquered do you think it would have taken for Germany to turn on those countries as well? After all.. Germany was trading bloodmoney stolen from Holocaust victims to Russia in exchange for food and clothing materials for their troops prior to 1941. Didn\'t stop Hitler from attacking Russian troops and taking over Russian settlements, (ultimately his downfall) which brought Russia into the war.
Germany would have never conquered America, had we not entered the war. They wouldn\'t have tried either. With how far over seas we were, their navy couldn\'t have handled it. Besides, France, England, etc. would have risen up before long anyway. The German soldiers would have been spread too thin. Besides, Russia would have taken care of Germany anyway :).
I just think we didn\'t give them enough time after Hiroshima for them to fully realize what had happened. Had we waited a little longer, I\'d bet they\'d surrender. Especially if we made it clear that we could do the same thing again. And by the way, why not just target a major city with military in it? Hell, what did Hiroshima do to deserve that attack? They not only had no military there, but also very little industry. Why that target?
And if they were still a threat to us, they would still have major military targets. If they didn\'t, then they wouldn\'t be much of a threat, and the bombing was totally unneeded.
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
And why is that? Because of the radiation? Because of the scale of the destruction? Frankly, like I said, this wasn\'t anything Japan hadn\'t see before. True, they hadn\'t seen radiation poisioning, but they saw thousands upon thousands of their citizens with 3rd digree burns from the fires. At the time, most japaneese buildings were still made out of wood and paper.. not brick and mortar like most other countries cities. When we started dropping bombs, those whole citys would go up like tissue paper extending the damage far -FAR- from where the bombs had originally impacted at. Look at WWII footage of post war Japan.. Tokyo looked every bit as decimated as both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was like the great Chicago fire all over the nation of Japan.. our pilots even complained of the stench of burning flesh they could smell rising from these citys on their high altitude bombing runs. I really don\'t think that Japan would have surrendered with just one bomb... because the devistation it caused wasn\'t all that major compaired to our other bombing runs. However, like I said, if they feared that we had an entire arsenal of these bombs compairable to our conventional weapons.. then we could kill every last living creature in that nation. That\'s something they wanted to avoid since Hirohito never wanted to "Fight till the last man stands".. they simply wanted to make it so bloody a stalemate that the Americans would back off without having to disgrace Japan into an actual surrender.
Yup..Im really surprised it didn\'t take a 3rd bomb to make them surrender. They prided themselves in dying with honor, which meant they HAD to fight with a pencil if need be.
Almost nobody was neutral in WWII Luckee. The countries who remained neutral had "bought" their peace at the price of trade of valuable minerals and supplies for Germany\'s war effort. Some countries such as Switzerland even went a step further and allowed Germany to use their country as a hotbed training ground for Axis spies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/105037.stm
And exactly how long after America and Brittan were conquered do you think it would have taken for Germany to turn on those countries as well? After all.. Germany was trading bloodmoney stolen from Holocaust victims to Russia in exchange for food and clothing materials for their troops prior to 1941. Didn\'t stop Hitler from attacking Russian troops and taking over Russian settlements, (ultimately his downfall) which brought Russia into the war. [/B]
Cool reading..I certainly didnt know alot of which you and that linked provided me. I always knew about those countries not "fighting" but I didnt know how they got around not being directly involved.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
Germany would have never conquered America, had we not entered the war. They wouldn\'t have tried either. With how far over seas we were, their navy couldn\'t have handled it. Besides, France, England, etc. would have risen up before long anyway. The German soldiers would have been spread too thin. Besides, Russia would have taken care of Germany anyway :).
When you conquer land..alot of ppl will fall into place. So if say germany would have captured and controlled all of europe..it is likely there forces would nearly double..as well as resources, weapons..etc. I dont think they would have stopped once they figured out the roll they were on.
-
IIRC the US had nukes in Turkey that were in striking distance of the Soviet Union.
The Russians saw this as a threat and shipped nukes to Cuba.. (and they did not remove them before the US agreed to take away their nukes from Turkey.. Most people don’t know about that)
Same thing really.. Got to see it both ways. (oh noo.. Russian = teh ultimate evil empire!) - Fastson
First off, our Titan missles were strictly for the defense of Turkey in case they were invaded. They were short range and posed no thread to Moscow or 90% of Russia. The missles that the Russians were sneaking into Cuba were inter-mediate range missles capable of striking as far north as Seattle Washington.
Secondly, if the Russians opposed our missle emplacements they should have gone through diplomatic channels to get them removed.. like the Kennedys did to get rid of the missles in Cuba. Sneaking first strike capable missles into Cuba was a very ~VERY~ bad idea which almost triggered a nuclear war. The Russians knew we were putting missles into Turkey when we did it. When they put their missles into Cuba, they did it secretly an lied to the Leauge of American States directly by saying that they had shipped no offensive weapons into Cuba.
Third, our Titan missles were obsolete.. and we did not trade them off. They were scheduled for withdrawl anyhow.. we merely assured the Russians that we would step up their removal to under 6 months. A trade would have only invited more provocations from the Russians to trade off other strategic sites by setting a precidence.. all the while making us look weak.. until they demanded something we couldn\'t give them and it would have been the whole situation all over again.
The big thing that got the missles out of Cuba, was our promise to never invade Cuba or aid others in that venture. Which is why, today, Castro is still in power and Cuba is still Communist.
-
Sonyfan..since we keep getting into different topics in here :) WHat are your views on communism?
All in all...my take on communism is that it makes for a good read and interesting idea, but not an effective government
-
Germany would have never conquered America, had we not entered the war. They wouldn\'t have tried either. With how far over seas we were, their navy couldn\'t have handled it. - SW
Of course they wouldn\'t have attacked us directly. They would have gone after smaller countries by insurection, invasion, and bribery untill they had enough forces over in the Northern Hemisphere to attempt an attack on America... whom they would supply with tanks, funding, food, weapons, commanders, and light to moderate German platoons. Jus like how America.. *gasp* invaded Germany who were half a world away. It would have taken longer than an invasion of say.. Africa.. but they would have done it eventually. The Zimmerman letter we intercepted is proof enough of that. Or don\'t you remember the Zimmerman letter? The letter where the Germans promised Mexico full aid and the land America took durring the Mexican/American war in exchange for declaring war on the US? I guess not.
As far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. remember that America was preparing to fight a gurrella war with Japaneese citizens.. not specifically their military. We picked Nagasaki for it\'s high population.. to show that we can kill entire cities of people before they have a chance to run from the fires or fight back. Hiroshima was chosen also because of it\'s high population and the fact that surrounded by mountains.. and the Army wanted to see what the comression of the blast would do to an area partially enclosed.
The reason why we bombed them into submission is because that was the only way we could get them to surrender. We weren\'t planning to invade Japan because strategy called for it.. we bombed them to hell and back to serve as an example.. and to fulfil the promise made to the American citizens by FDR that we would accept no less than Japans unconditional surrender for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
-
Sonyfan..since we keep getting into different topics in here WHat are your views on communism?
All in all...my take on communism is that it makes for a good read and interesting idea, but not an effective government - Luckee
My take on communism.. mm\'s a great guy.. tho he gets a little trite when n00bs don\'t read the faq or people make fun of his skinny bleached white legs.
As a government.. in the big picutre.. it\'s a great idea. However when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, it\'s not as grand as it seems. Do you really like the thought of being assaigned a job and be forced to do it for the rest of your life? Granted work sucks, and most people hate their jobs.. but you\'re not required by LAW to be there. You can change jobs and careers whenever you want provided you\'re willing to work for your advancement. The gov\'t promises to take care of such things like health-care, police, retirement, ect.. but in the end departments get underfunded and ignored. It\'s also far to easy for dictators to rise in a communist gov\'t. With Democracy, the people (for the most part) choose who we want representing us.. and there are delicate checks & balances set up to keep any one person or branch of gov\'t from gaining too much power. It\'s slow, it\'s clunky, and it\'s innefficent.. but it\'s also the best solution to give people a voice and to keep ideas/mythos fresh.
Power tends to corrupt (Democracy), Aboslute power corrupts absolutely (Communism).
-
My take on Communism: I think it is a pretty good idea. I\'d love to see it tried sometime. Russia, China, Cuba, etc...not communist. Not by what Communism originally was.
And luckee, there is no chance that most of the people would fight with Germany if conquered. It wasn\'t just a question of territory. They were completely different groups of people with different languages and customs, which just happened to not particularly like eachother.
I think that the problem, honestly, isn\'t that no one could lead a nation like that without being corrupted. It is that the people who could aren\'t the type of people who would ever end up in that position.
Well, anyway, you want a real governmental system, try Socialism :D
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
First off, our Titan missles were strictly for the defense of Turkey in case they were invaded. They were short range and posed no thread to Moscow or 90% of Russia.
Yes, but they still possessed a threat to the Russians. You would never tolerate such missiles being placed by your boarders, why should they?
If the Russians would have been attacked by you (we know now that this would not happen. But did the Russians know that then?), they needed a place from where they could launch nukes on your army bases or missilesilos (or cities). Cuba was the only location where they could have a permanent base which could strike quickly.
The missles that the Russians were sneaking into Cuba were inter-mediate range missles capable of striking as far north as Seattle Washington.
Yes I know.
Secondly, if the Russians opposed our missle emplacements they should have gone through diplomatic channels to get them removed.. like the Kennedys did to get rid of the missles in Cuba.
Yes, but you know how the Russians are ;)
And I agree that they should have taken the diplomatic route.. But would the Americans have listened? Would Turkey feel betrayed? Maybe the Russian nukes in Cuba was a way of getting the American attention (and the worlds attention aswell)?
Sneaking first strike capable missles into Cuba was a very ~VERY~ bad idea which almost triggered a nuclear war. The Russians knew we were putting missles into Turkey when we did it. When they put their missles into Cuba, they did it secretly an lied to the Leauge of American States directly by saying that they had shipped no offensive weapons into Cuba.
Like I said before.. It was a bad idea and thank god JFK did not listen to his trigger happy generals.
Because if the Americans would have tried to invade Cuba they would have launched short distance nukes on the battleships.. and then a nuclear holocaust would have erupted.
We need to see this from the American perspective and the Russian perspective.
The big thing that got the missles out of Cuba, was our promise to never invade Cuba or aid others in that venture. Which is why, today, Castro is still in power and Cuba is still Communist. [/B]
And Castro is still going strong, despite CIAs assassination attempts :) (I heard he had to quite smoking the cigars though)
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
And luckee, there is no chance that most of the people would fight with Germany if conquered. It wasn\'t just a question of territory. They were completely different groups of people with different languages and customs, which just happened to not particularly like eachother.
Are you kidding? Basically what they would do is pretty simple.
"you fight with us"?
"NO"
BANG
Then every other person who values their life will be more than willing to do their part in any way, shape, or form.
-
Originally posted by Ace
We started nothing. There were two building that were leveled and 2800 plus people died just because they went to work.
We take out Saddam and that region will thank us.
Ace
First 9/11 has NO PROVEN link to the IRAQ
Second the America GOVERMENT Can NOT USE this as a an Excuss or REASON to START even more Conflicts
and third on the region thanking you .....SURE they will :rolleyes:
just like you Stabilised Afghanistan and won over its people :rolleyes:
Oh what why don\'t we drop food packages near carpet bomming zones...and hey why don\'t we make the packages the same shape and colour as Cluster bomblets
more people were killed by this mistake than were saved by the aid drops
and
War on Iraq ?
lets face it this plan is madness
George W "the Village IDIOT" bush ......"Gee lets get rid of one murdering “government” group and replace them with another.......... Awooooo heck lets just start war i want to see what these new weapons do"
Big mistake !
i man i don\'t know what the American Media is Feeding you BUT
All of the Arab Nations are Against it
Most of Europe is against it
Even the Yanks "LAP DOG" i.e. My (British) goverment is against it
Desert Storm 2 ?....more like Vietnam Mark 2
Because something tells me that you will be going it alone in this Suicide mission.
Originally posted by luckee
Are you kidding? Basically what they would do is pretty simple.
"you fight with us"?
"NO"
BANG
Then every other person who values their life will be more than willing to do their part in any way, shape, or form.
yeah that would work :rolleyes:
i mean its onlt the entire Arab World thats Against it.
And now most of Europe.
LMAO
It would be quicker for YOUR Goverment just to Declare War on the "REST of the World"
-
Originally posted by ooseven
yeah that would work :rolleyes:
i mean its onlt the entire Arab World thats Against it.
And now most of Europe.
LMAO
It would be quicker for YOUR Goverment just to Declare War on the "REST of the World"
Ok slick..go back and re-read..you will see what I was talking about. I will even clue you in..it wasnt the arabs...
-
Erm, actually ooseven.. most of us are against going to war with Iraq. Most of the people here are jus being isolationists and want to bury their heads in the sand until some hostile -MAKES- us take it out. I definately think Saddam needs to be ousted, but going to war with him without provocation is wrong. It\'ll be the first time in history that the US started a war without provocation.. and really.. it makes us no better than the Nazi\'s, Communists, or Imperialists in that respect.
We need a smoking gun.. but developing weapons of mass destruction isn\'t enough, because dozens of smaller countries around the globe are already waist deep in super weapons.. and the US/UN dosen\'t seem to mind one bit. That\'s not a reason to go tearing down on world gov\'ts. Oh.. but Al Queda may be hiding there.. that makes them a threat. Of course.. no more a threat than the hundreds of Al Queda operatives hiding out in Britan, Spain, Germany, Italy, and the good ole USA itself.
Unless we find a direct link between Saddam\'s regime and Al Queda.. or until he attacks one of our allies.. we should be pushing a hardline of inspections and diplomacy. If Saddam f*cks up and dosen\'t fall into line with that.. or worse.. gets taunted into attacking a neighbor.. then we will have every right to invade and oust him.
Oh, and BTW fastson.. the CIA attempts to assassinate Castro don\'t count. You can destroy a gov\'t and replace it with a more hospitable one without invading. It\'s called a Coup.. and has very, VERY little in common with invasions. We were well within our rights to try and kill Castro.. we just couldn\'t send the military in to destory defensive positions, take POW\'s, and occupy land... nor help others do that.
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
Oh, and BTW fastson.. the CIA attempts to assassinate Castro don\'t count. You can destroy a gov\'t and replace it with a more hospitable one without invading. It\'s called a Coup.. and has very, VERY little in common with invasions. We were well within our rights to try and kill Castro.. we just couldn\'t send the military in to destory defensive positions, take POW\'s, and occupy land... nor help others do that.
Well within our rights? You don\'t see anything wrong with that? Applying similar logic, I can go kill you "off the legal record of course" b/c I dislike you, your ideals, or the way you run your life.
I know Im stretching it abit here, but I think you can see my point.
I dont deny that osama..saddam, and castro are bad people, but as of recent, only one of them has actually given us reason to go after them.
As unfortunate as it is, the right thing to do is to wait untill an attack or significant threat is made. It all goes back to what i said earlier...we know there are a ton of future rapists and murders running around, but they havent done anything as of yet. They aren\'t "attacked"(legal system" untill they have actually done what ppl suspected them of.
-
First of all, Luckee, you would be surprised, in that situation, how many people would still refuse to fight. And when you have people refusing in a group, you got the beginnings of something. They would revolt, no question about it.
ooseven, honestly, I pretty much agree with everything you said. And as for "what the media is feeding us", believe me, our media here is a joke. I honestly think it is the worst of any nation I\'ve seen.
And SonyFan, there is no way we are within our rights sending the CIA to kill Castro. I don\'t even think the trade embargos we have against Cuba are right.
And as for starting this war with Iraq...not only would I bet we\'ll do it without any further provocation, but I\'ll be we strategically do it right at election time. Now that\'s what the American government is all about :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
First of all, Luckee, you would be surprised, in that situation, how many people would still refuse to fight. And when you have people refusing in a group, you got the beginnings of something. They would revolt, no question about it
Yes, but there would be an amazing amount of people who would fight b/c they feel they have no choice, dont want to die imediately, or figure they may as well roll with the waves.
And as for starting this war with Iraq...not only would I bet we\'ll do it without any further provocation, but I\'ll be we strategically do it right at election time. Now that\'s what the American government is all about :rolleyes: [/B]
little bush has had a hard-on for saddam ever since his dad sent the troops over. I\'d also be willing to bet that if anything does happen, it will be done shortly before he starts to campaign for re-election
-
They would go into the army, but they wouldn\'t fight once there. There would be mass mutinies. I mean, it would come down to arming the people you had just been fighting, and then trying to trust them to fight with you against their allies.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
They would go into the army, but they wouldn\'t fight once there. There would be mass mutinies. I mean, it would come down to arming the people you had just been fighting, and then trying to trust them to fight with you against their allies.
They could also be utilized in other aspects that would require less trust. Plus fear is a big reason..fear would drive alot to fight with those who just tried to kill them. Strange how it works sometimes..but it can.