I think we all have to remember if people didnt die life wouldnt be so fucking sweet. We have too high of a population anyway, we need to thin out the herd. Natural selection, weaklings die while the strong prosper. Ever wonder why monkeys are stronger than people, we breed with the weak. Weak monkeys die in the wild. Thats why Im issuing a NWO, a battle royal if you will, to separate the strong from the weak. Who is with me say, JIGANOOB.
Now that is certainly debatable.The aftershock of the nuclear radiation had created severe injuries and casualties in Japan long after the war.
Okay, so lets take into account radiation. Not counting long-term effects, the casualties, the bombs killed 214,000 people. Let's just take into account estimations done by the U.S. military, in order to see if continuing the assault or the bombing would cause more casualties and the bombs were by far the better option. Several different estimations put the casualty numbers over a million. Let's say that 750,000 people were injured or died from radiation (a gross over-estimate). That still isn't even one million.
And the US are the strongest supporters of Israel ever since.
Considering that a huge number of Jews came to America during and after the Holocaust and make up a good percentage of our population, there would be HUGE cries of anti-semitism if we weren't supporting Israel. I am personally for Palestine, despite their methods, although I can understand why they chose those methods. However, it would cause riots in the Jewish community.
"instead going there to fight with their military personell and loosing some of our soldiers, its better to bomb their soldiers and all of their civilians aswell to save our soldiers lives!"
good decision there, i'd be really proud...
Yeah, well you can be glad that the casualty count isn't one-two million as opposed to 214 thousand, as a result of that.
Heh. Bomb Iraqi civilians all year round, that's far better. Drop a couple of nukes on Japan, that won't kill ''thousands of women and children'' at all
Normally, in a debate like this, I wouldn't say this, but are you trying to be a jackass?
Did I say anywhere that it didn't kill thousands of women and children? Seems to me like you're just pulling this stuff out of your ass and trying to put those words in peoples mouths.
'america is responsible for untold amounts of deaths in the middle east'
'you started it!!'
And whatever we are responsible, in the time that you had raped the Middle East, the number of people you killed would have at least been tenfold. Hundreds of years, just raping the same land. And to what end?
You have a tendency to twist and oversimplify points. And you are certainly avoiding the points that I have been making. You still haven't discredited me at all.
'they did 9-11!! OMFG!! KILL THEM ALL!!'
'erm, wrong country dudes.. besides, how many of their people have you killed?'
'well, erm.. bomb them anyway. we'll talk about bin laden later? and civilian deaths? OMFG PEARL HARBOUR'
Sweeping generalizations about our country. For one, soon after 9/11 our war in Afghanistan was completely well-founded and supported by everyone. And there are still people there celebrating what we had done for the country. If we had managed Iraq in the same fashion, there would not be as huge of an uproar.
Blah blah blah, you always talk about how many people we killed. Yes, we've killed many people. Check any credible documents showing casualties of any war in any country. There have always been a large amount of civilians killed.
The point has already been made that had our jackass of a president not been such a retard, there would be far less casualties.
Gex, you're basis is completely generalized and skewed. You fail to recognize that the majority of people in our country don't have that view that you seemed to pull out of your ass. In fact, quite the opposite, many don't support the war anymore, simply because our president has handled the issue terribly and irreparable damage has been done. Our best bet would be humanitarian efforts sponsored by our government. So if terrorists want to bomb that stuff, then look who the asshole now?
I have in no way said that I supported the way we have managed the war. My point is that many in this thread, specifically, Brits, have basically said, "Oh look! They're doing a bad job! Let's cling to that issue and tell them how much better we are than them!"
'america nuked japan, affecting them to this day'
'yeah but we didn't lose any soldiors that way!! how dare anyone hate us?! We're the greatest damn country ever and if you don't believe so, you're WRONG'
I'm going to assume this isn't directed as me, as I have never said anything like that.
By the way, the effects of radiation went away a long time ago. A reaalllllyyyy long time ago. Like...40 years ago, give or take by a couple years of so. In fact, I was just in Nagasaki this summer, and everything is perfectly fine. I read the newspaper, I read nothing about lasting effects of radiation. In fact, the cities are flourishing. Not that it justifies our bombing them at all, but it goes to show that there aren't any effects to this day.
It's enviable that you could love something so blindly, and dismiss anything argued against it with such.. disregard.
Again, I will assume that this is directed at me, as I have provided factual evidence supporting my stance, as opposed to you, who has been arguing out of memory and I have corrected you on several occasions that would go to show how you could come to the conclusion that all Americans are ignorant.
---
I'd like to make a statement that doesn't only apply to this argument, but discussion in general.
Making sweeping generalizations about anything is wrong. You are bound to be wrong. There are few absolutes in this universe, and saying that, for example, that all Americans are blind-patriots, as about as accurate as saying that all Mexicans are lazy or that all Middle Easterners and Southwest Asians are terrorists.
i never made any generalizations and i usually only talked about each administration taking the decisions, not people. about:
Did I say anywhere that it didn't kill thousands of women and children? Seems to me like you're just pulling this stuff out of your ass and trying to put those words in peoples mouths.
i didnt put anything in your mouth. As you notice its not a quote, its a sarcastic comment.
What i really ment was that killing say, 214000 people, most of them civilians isnt the best way to end a war where u try to act like the good guy.
also about:
Yeah, well you can be glad that the casualty count isn't one-two million as opposed to 214 thousand, as a result of that.
well, you said that it might have come close to 1 million due to the radiation. None can be sure how many there would have been if the US started a full attack. Sure thing is that the ones that died (or were born mutated and are considered monsters) were civilians too. I'm still not convinced it was the best thing to do.
Making sweeping generalizations about anything is wrong. You are bound to be wrong. There are few absolutes in this universe, and saying that, for example, that all Americans are blind-patriots, as about as accurate as saying that all Mexicans are lazy or that all Middle Easterners and Southwest Asians are terrorists.
well, you said that it might have come close to 1 million due to the radiation.
I just said that 750,000 suffering from radiation is a gross over-statement. Not just from facts, but just from common sense, think about it. How many people do you think would have moved back to a place like that after it was just completely obliterated?
i didnt put anything in your mouth. As you notice its not a quote, its a sarcastic comment.
What i really ment was that killing say, 214000 people, most of them civilians isnt the best way to end a war where u try to act like the good guy.
It was written in a cynical manner and implied that someone had said that it didn't kill women and children. And I am absolutely sure I didn't say anything like that.
Ending a war killing any number of people is a bad thing. Many would rather see a war end with diplomacy rather than dead bodies. However, it was a fast solution that ultimately resulted in far less casualties than if the war was continued. Even if you take into account people affected by radiation.
Being a good guy is simply a matter of perspective. In an objective sense, there is no such thing as good. Just the assumption that we know what is best. But that is an entirely different debate.
I just said that 750,000 suffering from radiation is a gross over-statement. Not just from facts, but just from common sense, think about it. How many people do you think would have moved back to a place like that after it was just completely obliterated?
i might have a look to see how many were affected by radiation post-war.
And about how many would have moved to that place? More than you think. People didnt know the consequenses of a nuclear bomb during that time. Dont forget these bombs were 2 of the very first ever built and the first and only to be used against human targets.
Ending a war killing any number of people is a bad thing. Many would rather see a war end with diplomacy rather than dead bodies. However, it was a fast solution that ultimately resulted in far less casualties than if the war was continued. Even if you take into account people affected by radiation.
i always prefer diplomacy to solve any issues. We (humanity as a whole) forget that there's room for everyone in the world and keep argueing and fighting (mainly talking about making war) about the most stupid things. Ending a war is sure harder than starting one, thats why i'm so negative towards the US politics atm. Opening fronts all the time isnt a good way to bring stability to the world. (I dont think that the US want stability, since they're the biggest weapon seller in the world atm, but thats a completely different debate aswell).
Being a good guy is simply a matter of perspective. In an objective sense, there is no such thing as good. Just the assumption that we know what is best.
about WW2, the Allies are supposed to be the "good" guys in a more objective way (we kinda got attacked one way or another before we jumped in). But ur right about good an evil in general terms, its really completely subjective.
In the years between 1950 and 1990, it is statistically estimated that hundreds of deaths are attributable to radiation exposure among atomic bomb survivors from both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Well, Wikipedia says that estimations were put around the hundreds. I guess even I made a gross over-estimation.
i always prefer diplomacy to solve any issues. We (humanity as a whole) forget that there's room for everyone in the world and keep argueing and fighting (mainly talking about making war) about the most stupid things. Ending a war is sure harder than starting one, thats why i'm so negative towards the US politics atm. Opening fronts all the time isnt a good way to bring stability to the world. (I dont think that the US want stability, since they're the biggest weapon seller in the world atm, but thats a completely different debate aswell).
Well, depends on what you mean by stability. I would agree that their selling of weapons is possibly a method of spreading their influence and if their customers happen to succeed, that's one more ally.
about WW2, the Allies are supposed to be the "good" guys in a more objective way (we kinda got attacked one way or another before we jumped in). But ur right about good an evil in general terms, its really completely subjective.
But the thing is, if you really want to get into a debate of good and evil, you'd have to understand that the more that live the merrier, isn't exactly an ultimate good. As a gross number of any species would imbalance nature, causing a huge number of people to die as a result.
Sometimes you wonder if world peace can exist, or if it is as unlikely to exist as a utopia. In a way they both base themselves off the same thing. Utopia is the perfect society. In a perfect society, everybody obviously must be happy, but does anyone really believe that can happen? And if that can't happen in one society, how can it happen on a global scale?
But the thing is, if you really want to get into a debate of good and evil, you'd have to understand that the more that live the merrier, isn't exactly an ultimate good. As a gross number of any species would imbalance nature, causing a huge number of people to die as a result.
Don't come saying that humans aren't imbalancing nature already. Can you name any other creature in the top of the food chain that numbers 6 billion?
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
'america is responsible for untold amounts of deaths in the middle east'
'you started it!!'
As the reader can see from these accounts the attorcities commiitted on the Christian side were anything but "Christian". The total number of deaths due to the crusades had been estimated at around nine million, at least half of which were Christians. Many of these were simply innocent civilians caught in the carnage.
i love how this started from 9/11 then onto all of this...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you ever meet a hafling and a hungry dragon you dont have to outrun the dragon, you only have to outrun the hafling.
I lost dozens of friends to that attack. As in, three funerals a day for weeks on end, and missing funerals because of scheduling conflicts. Do not doubt that they were very, very real. I cannot describe the immensity of the pain you have just caused me by just writing that. You can keep your goddamn conspiracy theories to yourself next time, asshole.
The next time a cloud of ash from the corpses of your friends floats over your house, you can comment. Until then, keep your goddamn mouth shut.
thanks dragoon, im sorry you had to remember that pain. these two are correct. 9-11 the attacks as well as the effects were very real. i think the hating people that are unsatisfied with their lives are the ones that question the events, or make up conspiracy theories. notice that they didnt present these ideas until about a year after the attacks, mostly because they were afraid to start hating so readily. if they thought that this was the real truth, they would have announced it within a month of the attacks.
o by the way, did you guys hear?? Saddam Hussein has been found guilty and will be put to death.....old fashion style. i wish it was more old fashion, but it does fit his identity. true evil is hanged, and he will be too. i hope they also televise it here in the US, but knowing those bleeding heart liberals, we wont get to see it because they hate the idea of ending lives. even the lives of such evil and destructive people.
At least you didnt see them die, I saw my uncle getting run over by a bus. Uhh it wasnt pretty, but he was a drunken asshole who beat up his wife so I really didnt care. And lets just say his body didnt exactly stay together.
My government is full of corrupt bleeding heart nosy ninnys worried about protecting "the childeren". Why do we to protect the childeren, were just turning them into a bunch of politically correct faggots with carbon copy opinions. fuck'em fuck'em all, fuck the government and fuck the children and fuck 911.
This was your Murderface short and sweet rant of the day.
brought to you by Camel "Pleasure to Burn"
Some of us were destroyed internally of the 9-11 attack. Some of use have lost family and friends and do not wish others to state that 9-11 was a fake when so many have died.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Those before me shall quiver in my wake as I unleash the fury within!
So, back to the issue. Does anyone not believe that 9/11 was real?
I dont think anyone is stupid enough to think that 9/11 wasnt real. The thing is that it came at a time when Bush really needed it and he had most profit from it. That was the main point of the thread i think. Many innocent people died there, as many innocent people got killed (murdered?) in other places with other people responsible.
To be honest, i think Bush (the puppet) knew about it and let it happen. In fact, the things i've seen in Fahrenheit 9/11 (pretty valid proof) proved he knew about the possibility of such an attack and did nothing. He could have stopped it. But it suited him more not to.
Quote from "DragoonWraith »
The next time a cloud of ash from the corpses of your friends floats over your house, you can comment. Until then, keep your goddamn mouth [I]shut[/I'].
too bad the civilians in Iraq/Lebanon etc dont have internet to open their mouths and talk.
Quote from "Carloseus" »
o by the way, did you guys hear?? Saddam Hussein has been found guilty and will be put to death.....old fashion style. i wish it was more old fashion, but it does fit his identity. true evil is hanged, and he will be too. i hope they also televise it here in the US, but knowing those bleeding heart liberals, we wont get to see it because they hate the idea of ending lives. even the lives of such evil and destructive people.
i hope they televise the execution of the ones that supported him in the first place in Greece too. I'd also like to see the execution of the one that was responsible of bombing hospitals and refugee caravans. Would be a good thing to see more "evil" get hanged, dont u think?
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Considering that a huge number of Jews came to America during and after the Holocaust and make up a good percentage of our population, there would be HUGE cries of anti-semitism if we weren't supporting Israel. I am personally for Palestine, despite their methods, although I can understand why they chose those methods. However, it would cause riots in the Jewish community.
Yeah, well you can be glad that the casualty count isn't one-two million as opposed to 214 thousand, as a result of that.
Normally, in a debate like this, I wouldn't say this, but are you trying to be a jackass?
Did I say anywhere that it didn't kill thousands of women and children? Seems to me like you're just pulling this stuff out of your ass and trying to put those words in peoples mouths.
And whatever we are responsible, in the time that you had raped the Middle East, the number of people you killed would have at least been tenfold. Hundreds of years, just raping the same land. And to what end?
You have a tendency to twist and oversimplify points. And you are certainly avoiding the points that I have been making. You still haven't discredited me at all.
Sweeping generalizations about our country. For one, soon after 9/11 our war in Afghanistan was completely well-founded and supported by everyone. And there are still people there celebrating what we had done for the country. If we had managed Iraq in the same fashion, there would not be as huge of an uproar.
Blah blah blah, you always talk about how many people we killed. Yes, we've killed many people. Check any credible documents showing casualties of any war in any country. There have always been a large amount of civilians killed.
The point has already been made that had our jackass of a president not been such a retard, there would be far less casualties.
Gex, you're basis is completely generalized and skewed. You fail to recognize that the majority of people in our country don't have that view that you seemed to pull out of your ass. In fact, quite the opposite, many don't support the war anymore, simply because our president has handled the issue terribly and irreparable damage has been done. Our best bet would be humanitarian efforts sponsored by our government. So if terrorists want to bomb that stuff, then look who the asshole now?
I have in no way said that I supported the way we have managed the war. My point is that many in this thread, specifically, Brits, have basically said, "Oh look! They're doing a bad job! Let's cling to that issue and tell them how much better we are than them!"
I'm going to assume this isn't directed as me, as I have never said anything like that.
By the way, the effects of radiation went away a long time ago. A reaalllllyyyy long time ago. Like...40 years ago, give or take by a couple years of so. In fact, I was just in Nagasaki this summer, and everything is perfectly fine. I read the newspaper, I read nothing about lasting effects of radiation. In fact, the cities are flourishing. Not that it justifies our bombing them at all, but it goes to show that there aren't any effects to this day.
Again, I will assume that this is directed at me, as I have provided factual evidence supporting my stance, as opposed to you, who has been arguing out of memory and I have corrected you on several occasions that would go to show how you could come to the conclusion that all Americans are ignorant.
---
I'd like to make a statement that doesn't only apply to this argument, but discussion in general.
Making sweeping generalizations about anything is wrong. You are bound to be wrong. There are few absolutes in this universe, and saying that, for example, that all Americans are blind-patriots, as about as accurate as saying that all Mexicans are lazy or that all Middle Easterners and Southwest Asians are terrorists.
i didnt put anything in your mouth. As you notice its not a quote, its a sarcastic comment.
What i really ment was that killing say, 214000 people, most of them civilians isnt the best way to end a war where u try to act like the good guy.
also about:
well, you said that it might have come close to 1 million due to the radiation. None can be sure how many there would have been if the US started a full attack. Sure thing is that the ones that died (or were born mutated and are considered monsters) were civilians too. I'm still not convinced it was the best thing to do.
couldnt agree more, btw.
I just said that 750,000 suffering from radiation is a gross over-statement. Not just from facts, but just from common sense, think about it. How many people do you think would have moved back to a place like that after it was just completely obliterated?
It was written in a cynical manner and implied that someone had said that it didn't kill women and children. And I am absolutely sure I didn't say anything like that.
Ending a war killing any number of people is a bad thing. Many would rather see a war end with diplomacy rather than dead bodies. However, it was a fast solution that ultimately resulted in far less casualties than if the war was continued. Even if you take into account people affected by radiation.
Being a good guy is simply a matter of perspective. In an objective sense, there is no such thing as good. Just the assumption that we know what is best. But that is an entirely different debate.
i might have a look to see how many were affected by radiation post-war.
And about how many would have moved to that place? More than you think. People didnt know the consequenses of a nuclear bomb during that time. Dont forget these bombs were 2 of the very first ever built and the first and only to be used against human targets.
i always prefer diplomacy to solve any issues. We (humanity as a whole) forget that there's room for everyone in the world and keep argueing and fighting (mainly talking about making war) about the most stupid things. Ending a war is sure harder than starting one, thats why i'm so negative towards the US politics atm. Opening fronts all the time isnt a good way to bring stability to the world. (I dont think that the US want stability, since they're the biggest weapon seller in the world atm, but thats a completely different debate aswell).
about WW2, the Allies are supposed to be the "good" guys in a more objective way (we kinda got attacked one way or another before we jumped in). But ur right about good an evil in general terms, its really completely subjective.
i dont think we'd be argueing in that one.
Well, Wikipedia says that estimations were put around the hundreds. I guess even I made a gross over-estimation.
Well, depends on what you mean by stability. I would agree that their selling of weapons is possibly a method of spreading their influence and if their customers happen to succeed, that's one more ally.
But the thing is, if you really want to get into a debate of good and evil, you'd have to understand that the more that live the merrier, isn't exactly an ultimate good. As a gross number of any species would imbalance nature, causing a huge number of people to die as a result.
Don't come saying that humans aren't imbalancing nature already. Can you name any other creature in the top of the food chain that numbers 6 billion?
As the reader can see from these accounts the attorcities commiitted on the Christian side were anything but "Christian". The total number of deaths due to the crusades had been estimated at around nine million, at least half of which were Christians. Many of these were simply innocent civilians caught in the carnage.
i love how this started from 9/11 then onto all of this...
I'd rather not get into a debate about good and evil and the balance of nature.
So, back to the issue. Does anyone not believe that 9/11 was real?
this is a very touchy issue especially for anyone in NYC DC or western Pa
I lost dozens of friends to that attack. As in, three funerals a day for weeks on end, and missing funerals because of scheduling conflicts. Do not doubt that they were very, very real. I cannot describe the immensity of the pain you have just caused me by just writing that. You can keep your goddamn conspiracy theories to yourself next time, asshole.
The next time a cloud of ash from the corpses of your friends floats over your house, you can comment. Until then, keep your goddamn mouth shut.
o by the way, did you guys hear?? Saddam Hussein has been found guilty and will be put to death.....old fashion style. i wish it was more old fashion, but it does fit his identity. true evil is hanged, and he will be too. i hope they also televise it here in the US, but knowing those bleeding heart liberals, we wont get to see it because they hate the idea of ending lives. even the lives of such evil and destructive people.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
This was your Murderface short and sweet rant of the day.
brought to you by Camel "Pleasure to Burn"
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
I dont think anyone is stupid enough to think that 9/11 wasnt real. The thing is that it came at a time when Bush really needed it and he had most profit from it. That was the main point of the thread i think. Many innocent people died there, as many innocent people got killed (murdered?) in other places with other people responsible.
To be honest, i think Bush (the puppet) knew about it and let it happen. In fact, the things i've seen in Fahrenheit 9/11 (pretty valid proof) proved he knew about the possibility of such an attack and did nothing. He could have stopped it. But it suited him more not to.
too bad the civilians in Iraq/Lebanon etc dont have internet to open their mouths and talk.
i hope they televise the execution of the ones that supported him in the first place in Greece too. I'd also like to see the execution of the one that was responsible of bombing hospitals and refugee caravans. Would be a good thing to see more "evil" get hanged, dont u think?