|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: WAR (Read 21013 times)
|
Draco
Zebranky food
 Offline
Posts: 7
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|
 |
Re: WAR
« Reply #45 on: March 04, 2003, 07:21:12 am » |
|
I dont remember who said this but it is a very true statement
"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."
Think about it
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ErekLich
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 247
One Ring to rule them all, eh you know the rest.
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #46 on: March 04, 2003, 07:37:28 am » |
|
Again, killing civilians to save soldier's lives
No, they killed civilians to end the war. If the war had continued without the use of the bomb, more people would have died. Period. The U.S. Forces would have had to fight virtually every Japanese male who could carry a gun before it was over. Come to think of it, in no war since has the U.S. been very good about ending the war properly. In Vietnam and Korea we kept slogging in, sending in troops whose "duty" it was to die, only to make no gains.
When Roosevelt bombed Japan he made a choice. The world is not always black and white, and the choice he made was grey. But he got what he decided to get -- the war ended right then and there. (the pacific part anyway.)
GN, the atomic bomb DID, in the long run, prevent more deaths than it caused. I will not say it "saved lives" but it did prevent deaths. Japanese AND American deaths.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Oh God, please don't let me die today! Tomorrow would be SO much better!
|
|
|
Draco
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 7
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #47 on: March 04, 2003, 08:40:14 am » |
|
Ya but do the ends truly justify the means? I highly doubt it, the use of the bomb was a terrible waste of civilian life. It could have backfired just as easily, other nations could have used the united states bombing to justify their own, would the US surrender if the war was brought to them and they found themselves overwhelmed? probably not. they would fight every last one of them. so why not nuke them? they proved themselves that it is the best way to force a country into submission.
The use of the A-Bomb was a very questionable thing to do, you may or may not agree with it, personaly i do not agree they should ever be used.
The Bombing seemed like a good idea saving thousands of american soldiers but... really it destroyed cities and forever radiated the land. people in and around Hiroshima are dying of many diseases.
here is a exerpt from http://www.tao.ca/~peter/praxis/warmachine/nagasaki-hiroshima.html
Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb attacks
The 1945 US-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been marked among the worst nuclear disasters in history. These two Japanese cities were the targets of two atomic bombs during the Second World War, the first atomic bombs ever to be used in warfare. A total of 110,000 to 150,000 people were killed immediately after bombing,125,000 to 175,000 have died since, and many are still dying from the effects.
Hiroshima was bombed first, on August 6 at 8:15 a.m., by US Air Force B-29 bomber Enola Gay. A single atomic bomb was dropped in the center of the city, immediately killing 70,000 to 80,000 people, injuring an estimated 70,000, and destroying half of the cityÕs structures. Within five years, an estimated 75,000 to 125,000 more had died, of cancer, radiation sickness, and other bomb-related causes. In the decades that followed, tens of thousands more died from serious illness, including thousands of children unborn at the time of the bombing. Before the bombing Hiroshima was a city of 350,000 people.
The bombing of Nagasaki occurred only three days later, on August 9. The bomb immediately killed 40,000 to 70,000 people, injured a similar number, and also destroyed half of the cityÕs structures. Within five years, up to 100,000 people died from illness and other bomb-related causes. And like Hiroshima, tens of thousands died in the decades that followed. Prior to the bombing, Nagasaki was a city of 230,000 people.
In both cities, people are still feeling the nuclear effects of the bombings. Survivors and their children are still dying of deformities, cancer, and other radiation illnesses.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
GermanNightmare
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 311
Eddie wants Ur-Quan Trophies!
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #48 on: March 04, 2003, 05:23:04 pm » |
|
Ya but do the ends truly justify the means? I highly doubt it, the use of the bomb was a terrible waste of civilian life. It could have backfired just as easily, other nations could have used the united states bombing to justify their own, would the US surrender if the war was brought to them and they found themselves overwhelmed? probably not. they would fight every last one of them. so why not nuke them? they proved themselves that it is the best way to force a country into submission.
The use of the A-Bomb was a very questionable thing to do, you may or may not agree with it, personaly i do not agree they should ever be used.
I completely agree on that. And I like your saying from the top of the page!
Earthquakes do appear naturally though and there's nothing you can do to prevent them. Wars can be prevented. Once either one of them starts though, you're stuck in'em, sadly enough.
One of the best examples about the use of nukes comes from the guys who made them: the scientists. When the first one exploded in the desert, they were glad and proud it worked. When FatMan and LittleBoy were used, the scientists' attitude towards nuclear weapons changed 180°.
Although I have to admit that the explosion and rising mushroom cloud shows some sort of natural beauty (since the chain reaction is a natural occuring) - I'd rather not see them go off because I know of the consequences.
I'd like to think that the 10.000s of nukes were only built to never ever be used. Hopefully noone proves my wrong.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 04, 2003, 05:28:41 pm by German_Nightmare »
|
Logged
|
Greetings from the German Nightmare - Up the Irons!
|
|
|
ErekLich
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 247
One Ring to rule them all, eh you know the rest.
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #49 on: March 04, 2003, 05:39:36 pm » |
|
Would you seriously rather have fought a drawn out, extended conflict that would have lasted years longer? I think not. I don't think you two remember your Pacific WWII history; the Japanese armies fought to the last man. As late as the 70s a few rouge Japanese soldiers from WWII on some islands were still fighting, because they hadn't had many communications so they didn't believe the war was over. Roosevelt had a choice: A) kill virtually every Japanese male on the face of the earth at a large and bloody cost to both Japanese and American lives, wrecking Japanese cities all the while, or B) drop the bomb. Oh, and regarding your "what if it didn't work" comments, it's called a calculated risk. People take those in war. You can say Roosevelt didn't make the "right" choice, but there was no "right" choice to be made.
Using nuclear weapons today is a different issue because more people have them. This is not hypocrisy, this is practicality! The risks have increased, and the rewards have not. Thus, using them is not a valid option with any other choice.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Oh God, please don't let me die today! Tomorrow would be SO much better!
|
|
|
|
|
ErekLich
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 247
One Ring to rule them all, eh you know the rest.
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #51 on: March 04, 2003, 07:42:05 pm » |
|
Well, I think we could agree on one thing: Dropping the bomb was a bad decision to prevent worse decisions from having to be made.
Yes, I agree with you there.
As for the prolonged war - I don't know for sure whether the U.S. would have used nuclear weapons to end the war in Europe if the Germans hadn't surrendered on May 8. There might have been a difference (this is NOT PC and NOT my opinion!) between a European and an Asian when considering the means by which the U.S. fought.
If you mean WWII Americans regarded Europeans differently from Asians, I think that sadly enough you are correct. No, it isn't PC, but it was the truth back then. I don't know if we'd've used the bomb or not, but I am glad we never found out.
(You could also call a hammer a weapon of mass destruction if someone uses it to kill a whole bunch of people?)
Actually just what does constitute a "weapon of mass destruction" is highly debateable. The National Foresnics League (High School Speech and Debate) had a debate topic last year about weapons of mass destruction, or "wmd" as we called them for short.
the U.S. government considers 3 things to be wmd: nukes, biological weapons, and chemical weapons. Most people agree that those are wmd, although a few don't agree that bio or chem weapons are wmd. Some people tried to say that land mines or guns are wmd collectively, although I personally disagree with looking at such things collectively. (That said, land mines are evil and should be outlawed!) I doubt anyone would consider a hammer wmd; the capacity fo an individual hammer to cause human death is nowhere near high enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Oh God, please don't let me die today! Tomorrow would be SO much better!
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #53 on: March 04, 2003, 09:59:43 pm » |
|
I am confused by your comparison - a 1000 pound bomb can be highly effective - so are you saying that ABC protection is worthless?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 04, 2003, 09:59:53 pm by Death_999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
gammaray
Guest
|
 |
Re: WAR
« Reply #55 on: March 04, 2003, 11:03:35 pm » |
|
Another Finn here. Now that I've finally read all this, I thought I'd say something on the case myself. Perhaps I'll even register a nickname after I'm done.  (appreciate that smiley - you won't get many of those)
Firstly, let's get one thing clear: I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-Bush  . Elect a new president and if he can tell why a war is needed, he can have it, for all I care. I'd like to comment on the Bush/Gore election, but... Well, it's another matter - a very fishy - Orzy, if you prefer - matter.
---
The weapon inspections are slow. Does that mean we need a war to speed things up? 
I'm sure Iraq will cough up its nukes, bio-weapons and what not when it has to. I just don't think that the US will like the way Iraq presents them - and unless the US troops in the area (e.g. those who are currently - illegally - stationed in Turkey, bearing no markings at all) have some kind of portable nuke protection device, they're going to get fried. Of course, I'm sure that the US has lotsa satellites with fusion blasters  or something stationed in the orbit, but if that's the case, they're breaking yet another treaty, as space weapons are forbidden to all.
Oh, that brings us to another question: why hasn't the US ever allowed anyone - the UN, for example - to check its own WMD arsenal? The US just keeps crying about other countries developing WMDs when it's doing the same itself.
---
And somebody said something about most of Europe having a dark past... Hmm.
#define "Most of Europe":
- It's pretty safe to say that Germany's got a dark past with the world war thing and all.
- Finland's dark past might be helping Germany against the Soviets.
- Great Britain... Well, they were once slavers and such. Otherwise I think they're pretty decent folk  .
- Italy also helped Germany in the great war. ... ... ...
Well, right. Most do have something dark in their past (don't we all?). Something mearning singular.
If we treat both WW's as one war - which they practically were, with, as I believe, WW2 (in the mind of the common German) being Germany's la revanche on France (bear in mind that it was the nazis who exterminated jews. Not every German. Serving in the German Wehrmach (Army) and Volksturm (Militia) didn't mean you were a nazi. Just somebody who was tricked with propaganda) - even (I lack a better word. "Even" sounds bad, I know) Germany could learn from a single mistake.
Did the US learn from a single mistake? Hell no. It just keeps waging wars where there should be peace.
So couldn't Saddam learn from his mistake in Kuwait? Bush sure seems to think "Hell no!". But still he's afraid to speak with him. Remember Saddam's interview a while ago? He proposed an international, unmoderated and uncensored television argument with Bush. The interviewer asked him if he was serious, and he said yes. Yet the Bush ... administration, you called it? ... throws it back at his face, practically calling him a liar? Could this be because they're so damn scared of the truth? :-/
---
Well, I'm pretty much done. Don't know if you got anything out of my babbling, but at least I told you what I think.
gammaray - That's what you get from nukes. Gamma rays.
P.S. I recently heard that only 47% of Americans support Bush. WAY TO GO! Just keep those ratings dropping. I'd *love* to see him out of the White House.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ErekLich
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 247
One Ring to rule them all, eh you know the rest.
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #56 on: March 04, 2003, 11:48:57 pm » |
|
So, what? if some other person had given all the reasons Bush did, you'd support the war? If the answer is yes, then you really are pro-war and you're just letting your disdain for Bush cloud the issue. The question of war or no war is NOT about Bush. Bush just happens to be the symbol of the "pro-war" camp and so people who really want to bash WAR bash BUSH... sigh...
As for U.S. wmd, according to the non-proliferation treaty the U.S. is one of the nations allowed to have nukes. Others include, I believe (and I could be wrong, so don't get angry) China, Russia, and ??France?? and perhaps some others, I'm not sure. Basically those who had nukes when the treaty was made. So that's why the U.N. has no athourity of American nukes, because by U.N. law (ie the treaty) we're allowed to have them. And if you're going to complain about that, my pre-emptive response is "whine to the UN, not me" because, right or wrong, that's the way it is. I neither endorse nor condemn this state of affairs; I only state a fact.
As far as the U.S. not learning:
while I consider the Vietnam and Korean wars America's biggest mistakes ever, the fact that they were wars was not in and of itself the mistake. America's mistakes in foreign policy have been not being able to properly end a war; not focusing on a goal. Desert Storm, on the other hand, was a huge success. Why? The American army had one goal, and that was it, and they focused on achieving it. When we went after Afghanistan, we had a goal: remove the Taliban. We focused on that and achieved it.
Now, we have a simple goal which, it appears is shared by much of the free world to some extent: To remove Hussein from power. The contention seems to be on HOW to do this. Hopefully we can achieve it.
On the debate:
While it is clear you dislike Bush, that's no reason to go making unfounded assumptions about his mental state. What gives you this idea about Bush being afraid? According to Bush he is refusing the debate in order to say that there is nothing to debate: Iraq must disarm, and that's that. What would they debate anyway? "I'm cooperating with inspectors!" "Are not!" "Am too!" There would be no point.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Oh God, please don't let me die today! Tomorrow would be SO much better!
|
|
|
gammaray
Guest
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #57 on: March 05, 2003, 12:21:56 am » |
|
if some other person had given all the reasons Bush did, you'd support the war?
No. I just wouldn't care.
The question of war or no war is NOT about Bush.
Well, it's about the US, the leader of which is Bush... So what's the big difference? He's the chosen leader, so presumably his views reflect those of the majority. If they don't, there's something really wrong.
As for U.S. wmd, according to the non-proliferation treaty the U.S. is one of the nations allowed to have nukes. Others include, I believe (and I could be wrong, so don't get angry) China, Russia, and ??France?? and perhaps some others, I'm not sure.
True. USA, Russia, China, France, Great Britain and two others I don't remember are allowed to have nukes. But that's nukes, not bio-weapons or chemical weapons which we all know the US is developing. Or are they? Just as much as Iraq is! Just why doesn't the US have to prove anything?
we had a goal: remove the Taliban. We focused on that and achieved it.
Yeah, and I'm sure you had lotsa food packages duct-taped on those cruise missiles. And why aren't we hearing anything
from Afghanistan anymore? It suddenly became the fairy kingdom where everything is from a fairy tale?
Now, we have a simple goal which, it appears is shared by much of the free world to some extent: To remove Hussein from power.
*Sigh*. Another oh-so-romantic term. "Free world". I wish you Americans would stop trying to be so damn bright all the time. Being like the US - and some people really seem to believe that every nation should be like the US - doesn't mean you're "free". Basically you're a slave to the US, forced to comply with it whenever it feels the need to wage yet another war. If you don't, you're an enemy and you must be destroyed.
Oh... Somebody really should tell Bush that he looks absolutely ridiculous waving his finger around in all the interviews. No wonder most Europeans dislike him... "We WILL bring Freedom(tm) to Iraq! We WILL remove the Evil(tm) Saddam from power! We WILL yada yada yada..." The cowboy look is really out of fashion. Find a new drama teacher.
While it is clear you dislike Bush, that's no reason to go making unfounded assumptions about his mental state. What gives you this idea about Bush being afraid?
Indeed, I hate Bush!
The fact that he doesn't have the... guts ...to speak with Hussein from half the world away. Saddam spoke of a argument where Bush would talk from the USA and he himself from Iraq. So where's the danger, why doesn't Bush agree?
According to Bush he is refusing the debate in order to say that there is nothing to debate: Iraq must disarm, and that's that.
Well, one explanation is as good as the other. I personally think that everybody should disarm.
What would they debate anyway? "I'm cooperating with inspectors!" "Are not!" "Am too!" There would be no point.
According to Saddam, he'd like to point out what he dislikes in "the American way" and Bush could point out what he doesn't like about "the Iraqi way".
gammaray - That's what you get from nukes. Gamma rays.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mika
Core Team
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 121
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #58 on: March 05, 2003, 12:48:29 am » |
|
Now this is getting way too offtopic. Remember that this board should be about discussing UQM only Thread locked.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
|
|
|
|
|
