253 replies to this topic

[Tom]

LOL the japanese fucked hitler up. He said that to them. He said attack Russia and i'll declare war on America. They said yes, he declared war and nothing happened in russia lol.

And on reading your point of the unpopularity of the patriot act, i bet you there will be more. In fact, i expect it, its the type of thing that they would do to ensure complete control over their population.

[Silent_Killa]

pffft, if Bush passes another patriot act, I'll move... dead fucking serious, I'll back my bags, and move to Mexico... tequila anyone?

besides, Bush won't be around for long, Clinton '08 most likely

[Tom]

Still 3.5 more years of him, i bet they are able to pass alot of it under the noses of the people. Even that guy at congress said they don't read half of the bills that come in, they just pass them. Not like they really care.

[MSpencer]

If he tries to pass something like the Patriot act again, it has to be more severe, and nobody likes severe government bills. He'll have to create a terrorist threat to pass something like that.
I guarantee you, by November 3rd, 2007, Bush is going to be declared Dictator for Life.

[Tom]

Well at least i'm not the only one who thinks thats a possibility. I was just scared of stating it incase i get attacked by pro-bush fanatics

[Allied General]

i still believe vietnam was an overkill and yeah i heard about more bombs dropped on vietnam then during WWII.

However was it really nessecary to develop napalm and chemical agents which are now banned under the Geneva convention?

I mean honestly developing chemicals which continue to burn even if you jump into water, you got to be pretty tasteless

Also Vietnam, the recent memorials for 30 years since the fall of Saigon.

In Ho Chin Minh city (1st ever)
The parades show shopping trollies and floats of western airlines which are supported by American Express ...

The country in the end is slowly turning more democratic, it was unessecary, to save them from communism, the people and economcy determine that now.

What I'm most annoyed at is the dumping of agent orange and other chemical agents which ruined agriculture and caused untold numbers of illness related death which thus hindered its economic growth and escape from 3rd world poverty.

Edited by Allied General, 03 May 2005 - 01:06 PM.

[Tom]

Again another bunch of conservatives who are blinded by ignorance of their actions. Consequences only come out later, and eventually they will regret it. I'm still watching for news on depleted uranium in iraq because i was true statistics, not pentagon crap.

[F-G]

LOL. There could be communism with democracy in the one party, but i hardly see the point.

There was only ONE democratic communist/marxist government...

[Silent_Killa]

are you blind? have you not seen the attrocities commited by the vietnames government? genocide... GENOCIDE: killing based off of ethnicity, we dropped bombs, we developed new weapons, same thing happens in every war, that doesn't make it right, desperate times call for desperate measures

[Allied General]

are you blind?  have you not seen the attrocities commited by the vietnames government?  genocide... GENOCIDE: killing based off of ethnicity, we dropped bombs, we developed new weapons, same thing happens in every war, that doesn't make it right, desperate times call for desperate measures

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also don't use the whole GENOCIDE, the whole allied army during WWII did jack all about that until it was nearly too late.

so how desperate do you get? tatical nukes next time round? Thats inexcusable now cause the media and its tenatcles spread throughout the world.

also of course bad stuff is happening but i'm asking YOUR government to account for his actions, you DO NOT add fuel to the fire (i.e. if a situation is bad you don't go down to the enemies level, WHATEVER happens)

If your saying it was excusable then you are completly hyprocitical in your terminology of demoracy,

two evils don't = a right

Edited by Allied General, 04 May 2005 - 11:05 AM.

[MSpencer]

Next time someone creates a string of fortifications that make Europe invincible and indestructable from all directions except Russia, we'll be sure to throw about six million men at it and have them all killed. Then you'll just say that's stupid, but if we don't do anything and wait until June 6th, 5 years into the war, to invade Europe, you'll say we're doing nothing.
Can the world ever win against you or are you perfect and everyone else constantly makes mistakes?

[Allied General]

Next time someone creates a string of fortifications that make Europe invincible and indestructable from all directions except Russia, we'll be sure to throw about six million men at it and have them all killed. Then you'll just say that's stupid, but if we don't do anything and wait until June 6th, 5 years into the war, to invade Europe, you'll say we're doing nothing.
Can the world ever win against you or are you perfect and everyone else constantly makes mistakes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also didn't russia basically do that?

How willingy is the USA in protecting its ideas of demoracy? Only when it is AFFECTED.

all actions are negative, its that newton theory crap equal force, what comes up, must come down ..

USA joining war? good
USA becoming the most industrial, bad ass armour producing machine? good
USA being late and only offically supporting after pearl harbour? bad
USA dropping nuke? bad

Everyone does something wrong but USA is in the spotlight and in the retrospective hindsight, etc, etc.

Edited by Allied General, 04 May 2005 - 11:17 AM.

[MSpencer]

No no, you said the ENTIRE Allied Army, which means everyone fucked up. That's right, AG is trying to say the entire British army should have smashed itself on the Atlantic Wall.
Also the Russians never had an Atlantic Wall to deal with, neither did they have an amphibious landing to do. All they had to do was take their huge army of levies and smash them against Hitler's eastern front.
You know, if D-Day wasn't so well planned, and it had just been done on the spur of the moment in 1942 like you're supposedly saying the Russians did, we'd all be speaking German right now. The Allied Expeditionary Force would have been obliterated before reaching the beach, or on the beach, and Hitler would have been free to push more soldiers to the eastern front to push back Stalin. Couple years later, Hitler would be in Moscow.
Also, Einstein even urged President Truman to use the nuclear bomb, because apparently, Hitler was pursuing one. After Germany had fallen, it was either an invasion of mainland Japan which would have ended in high six digit casualty figures for the US, and probably millions of Japanese casualties. Think Iraq but a little more fanatical, more house to house street to street fighting, more IEDs, and more people just fanatically charging an entire squad with an unloaded rifle and a bayonet. It was either 200,000 deaths or over 2 million. Really, is it even a choice? Either the end of Japan as a nation and a people, as well as the deaths of millions, or just two nuclear bombs to force a surrender.

[Allied General]

just two nuclear bombs
===============

what a BS USA statement to make ....

Einstein said it was his greatest mistake and that nuclear legacy is TERRIBLE.

Also D-day could have happen a lot sooner, if you had moved you arse in a lot quicker.

You could have simply blocked them off, used cruisers/bombers and just blasted the crap out of em, you know like you did to several german cities or Cuba. (japan instead of nuking them)

You advocate the use of nuclear weaponary?

Might as well have nuked vietnam and iraq would have saved a lot more lifes.

There is always a choice?

Your actions have CONSEQUENCES. I'm trying to drag you away from the america news channel flag waving, we are all so perfect stance.

Edited by Allied General, 04 May 2005 - 11:34 AM.

[Comrade Kal]

Eisenhower said the Japanese were on the brink of surrender. Truman went against all advice and dropped 2 bombs which never should have been dropped. The figures you suggested if you didn't drop the bombs are ridiculous.

[Tom]

are you blind?  have you not seen the attrocities commited by the vietnames government?  genocide... GENOCIDE: killing based off of ethnicity, we dropped bombs, we developed new weapons, same thing happens in every war, that doesn't make it right, desperate times call for desperate measures

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't you get it? Neoconservatives don't care! They don't care unless they believe can get something from it. Iraq, vietnam, the cold war (they won and managed to get what they wanted - dominance).

If they cared so much, why are people in your country still living in squalors? Or in poverty, or can get the education they needed.

They didn't care about the communists. War is just another business in a way to gain power, dominance, control. Control means they have a say and more money goes to them. Its a game to them. Peoples lives are a game.

The only people that were in their to free the people of vietnam were the soldiers, and god bless them, because they do the job we don't want to. But the reason of war is always hidden, always, disguised by lies, deceit, greed, corruption and hatred.

[Blodo]

Also, Einstein even urged President Truman to use the nuclear bomb, because apparently, Hitler was pursuing one. After Germany had fallen, it was either an invasion of mainland Japan which would have ended in high six digit casualty figures for the US, and probably millions of Japanese casualties. Think Iraq but a little more fanatical, more house to house street to street fighting, more IEDs, and more people just fanatically charging an entire squad with an unloaded rifle and a bayonet. It was either 200,000 deaths or over 2 million. Really, is it even a choice? Either the end of Japan as a nation and a people, as well as the deaths of millions, or just two nuclear bombs to force a surrender.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And of course you forgot to state the fact that japan wanted to surrender but they just didnt want to do it unconditionally. But then again their conditions werent something that would smack the USA right in the face. I mean come on these 2 nukes couldve NEVER been dropped and the war would still end. In the favor of the Allies. And yes without the nonsense 2 million casualties.

But why oh why abandon the occasion to do a nuclear test on a entire city and immidiatly cleanse yourself from this fact because "we have war". Needless to state i have a radio transmission on my hard drive where you can hear Truman reffering to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as MILITARY BASES. Is that still acceptable? Come on already!

[MSpencer]

I'd like to hear that. They were far from it and he knew that, although they were important to production.

[Silent_Killa]

Truman was faced with a difficult decision, Japan would have fought to the bitter end, there would have been a lot of casualties on the US side. The question was should we let American troops die, or Japanese civilians, I personally think he made the wrong choice, but it still wasn't an easy one. It's easy to criticize it now, but honestly, think about it from his point of view, send your own people to die, when you know you could end it with one strike, or take the collateral damage. Like I said, I'm not justifying it, I'm just saying that it wasn't a simple right or wrong choice.

America didn't want to save Europes ass again, we were sick and tired of it after WW I, we didn't want to send our troops to fight somebody elses war. We did not know about the full horror of the holocaust until afterwards.

[Blodo]

I'd like to hear that. They were far from it and he knew that, although they were important to production.

Transcript of his speech (courtesy of http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk, would the government lie to us?)
http://www.learningc...ges/tr3_sr1.JPG

Look specifically for Truman stating that he wanted to reduce civilian losses by dropping a bomb on Hiroshima which he stated was a military base, but in reality it was a full grown city with much over 140,000 people living in it. Nice lies mr. Truman.

Also the whole "invasion or nuke" thing is just nonsense. Surely a diplomat could've thought of a peaceful way to deal with the situation. Guess then either Truman wasnt a diplomat, in which case he shouldnt be a politician either (you chose someone like that for a president, good show) or the attack served his interests. Could be either of them, but probably the latter.

Look what i just found on google btw:

The cabinet meeting over the night of 9-10 August was deadlocked with six in favor of surrender under certain conditions, three to fight on until after the final battle had shown Japan's will, and with five neutral members.  Issues discussed that night were:  that the Emperor must remain; that Japan must disarm her own troops and not surrender arms to a foreign power; and that Japan must try her own war criminals.

Yes obviously a nuke attack was needed to deal with such outrageous arguments, init?

Edited by Blodo, 05 May 2005 - 10:10 AM.