*moved* What's up with the weak U.S.?

Oh my God.....It's like debating with a child.


You don't make any sense. Your posts are boring and repetitive. You don't even understand the origanal argument. Lastly, you resort to personal insults and attack my Nick!? With a Nick like yours I think you should be the last person to judge anyone else's... Very pathetic.




:rofl: KorpDeath?


Anyway, as I stated before......


Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.


Welcome to my ignore list.....PM me when you learn how to debate.... ;)

IT is starting to look like Jupiter Media should change the name of the site to antiamerican.com

Is this a flame war or a cohernt conversation? geez cmon guys...

Quote:

---

Umm.. good point. However, finishing the job doesn't really include killing hundreds of thousands of people in the blink of an eye, does it?

---

I believe there was much debate whether they would drop this bomb in the first place.... I dont think the idea of nuclear fallout was on their minds so much as the tragedy that struck Pearl Harbor.

Quote:

---

"Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan." - President Franklin D. Roosevelt

---

We didnt ask for it and it was a difficult decision to retalliate. After the 2 bombs were dropped and the US saw the true effects of the detonation, have we ever set one off on another country? NO.

Quote:

---

what if he actually did it? replace Iraq with US and Saddam with Bush, now, what if he actually did it? would either case effect the universal? most likely not, unless it becomes nuclear.

---

would it affect the universal? are you kidding me. If saddam/bush used a nuclear weapon you better damn well be sure it would affect the entire world. because as soon as iraq gets attacked it is going to attack turkey who is in alliance with other countries thus bringing upon WW3 you tell me, does this affect everyone? I think so. I personally dont want to see what would happen if someone does decide to resort to using nuclear weapons again.

Can anyone out there honestly say that they want to go to war? or would they like a peaceful resolution. I would have to say that the patience that President Bush has placed on this event displays how much he really does want to go about this the proper way and not force the loss of american life. Let me correct this Worldwide life. America is not the only country subject to terrorist attacks. Hell September 11th was an attack on the world, sure it may have been on US soil but that was an International trade/business building. Lots of people from other countries were there. Why? Because of Religious backings, because we shouldnt be able to practice a religion they dont believe in. I think that leave everyone of us susceptable to attack. So whats next, we keep practicing freedom of religion and next we get a nuke? Dirty bomb? where does it end? Terrorism will never come to an end just like world wide peace cant happen when mankind is alive. Even the most primal of animals dont sustain peace they have boundries and take eachothers lives. Either which way i am ranting, maybe its cause I am hyped on caffine or because its late at night here, but sit back and think do you want an unstable government/leader/country having weapons that could wipe your country off the planet? Take it one step further in this hypothetical.
Lets say Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Now lets say he dies, one of his sons (much more aggresive much more deadly) take over for him. Now you have a very unstable person with a worlds supply of oil at their fingertips and WMD under their other fingertips. Do you want to find yourself in this situation. This is why they are trying to disarm them. I really think they need to concentrate just as much time and consideration to N. korea.

Now I dont think that you can take the words of a psycho bomber to heart or too serious. Sure some of the points are valid like what determines a WMD. I guess that is up to the UN to decide...

JMHO

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by KorpDeath
Really? And you came up with that all on your own, (V)/\><?

---

Watch out (V)/\><... you've got respond before KorpDeath accuses you of not answering his questions (there's 2 of 'em in there!).

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by KorpDeath
My opinion of McVeigh is not an issue. I can and, thank God, am able to think what I want and express it how I choose. That's what makes my country great.

---

Ummmm... you made it an issue when you were the first to respond to this thread with this...

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by KorpDeath
This is precious. Consider the source..

---

No, I don't agree with everything that's been said, but I can't deny that McVeigh's letter had some very valid points..... that's why it was posted! The beauty of a good debate is that it will make others think. Maybe what's said in this debate (if you can call it that) won't change anybody's mind, but thought provokation is a good thing - it teaches people to reason and think for themselves.

Games like "why didn't you answer my questions" (that were OBVIOUSLY rhetorical, in most cases) are not good debate tactics. Bad debate tactics and poor grammer/wording ruin a person's credibility in my eyes. So, I find myself in a dilemma... which non-credible person do I listen to? You or McVeigh?

Keep up the debate, but make good though-provoking posts and you never know who's mind you might change.

I think it is not about the Iraq or Bin laden or North korea and it is not about the oil too. I think what it is about is terrorism and to punish those who harbour terrorists and are enemy of democracy and freedom and willing to kill anyone who is not muslim just like Hitler who was ready to kill anyone who is not pure German.

I think animals only allowed in jungle and not in the cities and if they come to cities to slaughter humans we should kill them because if we won't kill them they will kill us just because they are animals and it is their nature and they don't know anything better.

In second world war it was just not about the Japan and using the atomic bomb on them. The reason we used that bomb is to protect the world and lots of people can say here that we cannot justify violence with violence but in my opinion to stop mass killing around the world by Hitler and Japan it was a good choice by US to end the war.

Just imagine people, the hunger of crusaders in world war II all of the Europe was crushed by that madman just because he wanted to create a pure race of Germans and wanted to rule the earth. He was determined to kill anyone who is not German and don't beleive in him. Japan shook hands with him and attacked China killed thousands of innocent people not to mention babies and pregnent womens. The point here is not to judge US atomic attack to Japan but the point is what ever it takes to stop the crusade of these two countries who just want their own rule on the entire world.

US is a very powerful country and it was so powerful nation in world war II but we never started to go after the countries and started the mass killing of Jews or any other race who can or cannot defend them selves. We beleived at that time that live and let live and we still beleive in it. We never asked to be attacked at the first place I bet no country did, but let me say it was like if you finger someone, be ready to take a baseball bat in you A**.

Timothy J. McVeigh is trying to justify his act of terrorism with his speech against the country who fed him and gave him all of those oppertunities that anyone would love to have it. This country gave him so much and never asked anything in return but what he did is just simply blew up the whole building with hundreds of childrens in it. What did he thought of US before coming up with that decision to blow up with kids, and what was his intentions about US I don't want to know because it scares me.

Confirmed_Kill I don't know if you ever lived with a fear that your next door neighbour might be a terrorist or may be you are going to get trap in subway because someone just blew up 110 story building just above the subway station you are waiting for your train on. But I know a lot of people who live with this fear here in US, but we are joined together and stand together with our country in good and in bad times.

I hope this discussion continues in the line of some of the more recent posts and the back and forth in your face posts diminish.

I agree that McVeigh's statements hold some truth but they also point out some severe misconceptions that seem to be plaguing public discourse. The first is that the US started all this stuff. Aside from our Australian friends the US is one of the youngest nations on Earth. Germ warfare? Look to the ancient Greeks and Persians. Mass murder, consider Tamerlane who laid waste whole cities and piled skulls into towers (at one city alone he purportedly killed 200,000 men, women, and children because they had refused to surrender). The fact is that man's inhumanity to man seems fairly limitless and can be viewed throughout history.

The United States did not start these things and, in general, has shown considerable restraint when dominant with certain technologies. Let's consider the use of nuclear weapons. President Truman stated that the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan was one of the most difficult he had ever made. What swayed his decision, the estimate that an invasion of the main islands would cause over 1 million American casualties. Please take into account that on Okinawa the US suffered some 1200 killed, 30000 casualties. The Japanese suffered 100000 military and almost 150000 civilian deaths. If these ratios remained even close then the 1 million American casualties equat to 10-15 million Japanese deaths. Even given the historical horror of the bombs given that same choice today most people would logically choose to drop the bombs. More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than died at either Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Truman also picked the targets for a reason, they were major military targets with a comparatively light civilian population. Even after the first bomb was dropped the Japanese refused to surrender. Even after the second bomb there was a core of die hard militarists that wanted to continue fighting, only the personal influence of Emporer Hirohito forced the conclusion of the war. A move which took great courage on his part and one he is barely remembered for.

The same Truman who used the bomb to end the war with Japan, another mis-fact being bandied here is that it ended the war with Japan and Germany but the war in Europe had been over for months, refused to use the bomb to stop the Chinese entry into the Korean conflict. General McArthur wanted to lay waste to all of the major Chinese cities on the coast (we could not reach the internal cities since ICBM's were still being developed). This would have taken China out of the war and ensured UN (it was a UN conflict not an American one) victory. Why did Truman refuse this time, because the devastation caused was not in accord with the loss of life it would prevent. To kill millions of Chinese to save thousands of Americans and Koreans was not acceptable.

America held a virtual Monopoly on the bomb for more than a decade and never used. Not in Korea, Vietnam, nor in Russia where many generals desired for us to go after WW-II. The reason, because Stalin was considered a monster (I am in agreement with this opinion) and they felt if we didn't fight him today then we would have to tomorrow with a greater disadvantage. History has proven them wrong but the issue was undecided for almost 50 years.

Now for the assertion about the gas in WW-I. We all know that gas was used. Primarily Mustard, CS, and Phosgene but its use started before the US entered the War and almost none of it was manufactured by the US. The US also led the coalition to outlaw its use in future conflicts as well as some other weapons considered too dangerous and devastating (flamethrowers and flechettes were included). Of all of the weapons banned only Biological and Chemical weapons remain a Pariah to the civilized armies of the world (nuclear weapons being added after WWII). Since they were banned in those treaties no Civilized nation has used them in combat. The army had to go through extensive tests to prove that agent orange was not a chemical weapon against the population. Unfortunately they did not test for the long term damage exposure could create.

It is for these reasons that I don't think McVeigh's treatise is much more than a rant. Currently it is very popular for to attack the decisions America makes, to ridicule America and its policies. In some ways this is good. I believe the world needs to have open discourse about events. I think America needs to pay attention when so many traditional allies are balking at what she is considering. Does this mean our President is wrong. Not necessarily but if we stop listening and discussing then we become the tyrants many people seem to feel we are. I believe the President has tried to comply with requests and suggestions from our allies. I hope he will continue to do so. However, to then get upset when Americans, or others, question those nations for their attitude is doing to us the same thing that they are complaining we are doing to them.



When France makes negative statements about America they should not be shocked when Americans retaliate. When the German chancellor makes disparaging remarks about us and his cabinet makes personal attacks on our President they should not be surprised that it upsets us (I do admit the cabinet member was sacked immediately). However, this is a part of modern discourse where we have become victims of the sound bite. The inflammatory phrase gets the headlines, the hyperbolic statement gets the camera, the angry mob gets on the evening news. . Just like the flame wars get started on these boards so do they in real life. My hope is that enough people behind the scenes are working and discussing and keeping logical, calm discourse alive to minimize long term damage between allies.

As for our Australian rock dwelling friends I am very appreciative for most of England's ex-Colonies. Australia has historically had an independance and spirit to rival any nation in the world (makes you question those criminal gene studies people are always touting), Canada is a shining beacon for even tempered beer drinking people everywhere, and America wasn't a penal colony we were a religious nut retreat and I thank England for sending those first settlers here. So if anyone is going to pay for a ticket to Australia why waste it on Korpdeath, send it to me and we will have a great, entertaining debate where we will solve all the worlds problems and then suffer the curse of Cassandra. Besides I've always wanted shrimp on the barbie. :)

Quote:

---

(V)/\><:We just ARE here to express our opinions, and we shouldn't take it personally, but war is a REAL LIFE threat and not part of some make-believe "internet world(tm)".

---

Where did I say war was make believe? I wasn't even implying that.

Quote:

---

(V)/\><
and to a small extent it does matter what someone you have never met says on a forum, trace your world line, you do not know who you are going to come into contact with and there are a lot of young impressionable minds reading these forums, and all others like it, and i do not think that hostile or otherwise mistreatment of the subject of war is appropriate because someday it will fall to the next generation and the next and it will matter what they think

---

Excellent point, yet to some extent. I wasn't promoting "hostile or otherwise mistreatment of the subject of war". My whole idea was that it isn't neccessary to take anything personally after being called a "son of a bitch" or "aussie bastard" or whatever the hell they have been bickering about. I'm not going to be offensive if someone insults me because this is a make believe "internet world"(tm) and it isn't going to make a difference to flame someone.




So, if you feel that strongly about your opinion from which you may feel the need to insult someone if they disagree with you, just remember:
"there are a lot of impressionable minds reading these forums" and I for one believe we should set some example.

Anyway, I think I have gone a tad off topic. Sorry

Oh bye the way both KorpDeath and Confirmed Kill have convincing arguments.

Personally I think they are giving the terrorists exactly what they want by putting out pamphlets and websites. The anticipation of death is worse than death itself.

Education about terrorism comes from living through it. There are no classes you can take, no books you can read, no thesis that can truly define the fear you must live with on a daily basis. You cannot begin to understand that fear has no limits, unfortunately because we understand that we exist, this type of manipulation will always be the most powerful.

The only recourse that we have as a civilized society is to pursue and eliminate those that would turn our own fear against us.

I do not prescribe to the idea that one group of people, whether it be a religious group or a social one, should be able to make the entire world hold their breath in anticipation of what MIGHT come to pass.

Those of you who have not felt the most basic type of fear, because you might be far from the center of conflict, have no concept of what kind of courage it takes just to get up every morning and go about your "normal" life under these circumstances. Those of you who are geographically or emotionally detached from this issue have no basis for any type of argument, whether a critical one or semantic one.

This is my opinion and whether I have perfect debating skills or not, is the not at the heart of this issue. What is at the heart of this issue is that I have children that must grow up in a world where at any moment their loved ones or they themselves can be snatched from the living at the whim of a few, very sick individuals.

Call me what you like, criticize me for having a backbone, insult my country, my heritage, and my lifestyle. But I'll be damed if I'll give up protecting my loved ones.



EDIT -Where did I write that the U.S. is the center of the world? You need to learn how to read......"sorry but the us is not the center of the world ". And you call me ignorant?

You know it's one thing not to like the U.S., it's a whole other issue to be anti-American just to be anti-American..

Much better......Controlled, no personal insults, and well thought out.... :)

Is that an apology? Or are you just pandering?

I don't always have to be controlled, I can be irrational with the best of them, especially when slammed in the face with such repulsive, anti-American sentiment. You'd do well to practice what you preach.

If you want to incite people, Conf1rm3d_K1ll, you'd better be willing to take the consequences.