PDA

View Full Version : A few questions for the supporters of the president.



Pages : [1] 2

jbander
06-02-2018, 11:36 AM
Is this what you wanted for this country when you voted for him. Do you think it is OK that the president lies non stop dailly on every subject he is confronted with or do you think he is telling the truth. Is this man what you want as a example for your children. If your a evangelical, how do you overlook this mans ungodly faults or is he your type of christian. Also are the issues that he pursues and the way he acts show any level of christianity. Do you support his hatred and attacks of all the institutions of this country or are these something you think should be changed so you support him. What has he done to improve this country. Do you care one way or the other on how much influence that other countries seemingly had in deciding the last election. Do you think that all of your presidents people having all these meeting with russian agents is just nothing to worry about or do you not care how The president got into office. Do you think that Your presidents actions would be found to be acceptable , if it wasn't for the media. Do you think the media is as critical or more critical then any other period of time during the last few decades. Do you perceive that you and your president is treated unfairly and how. Just hoping that maybe some of you right wingers would explain this support of the president or is it simply blind support. I am a progressive but I really want to know why you support your president.

Peter1469
06-02-2018, 11:41 AM
I didn't vote for him because he ran as a republican. I do like some things that he does, primarily with the economy and the federal judicial appointments- that will help our Nation for generations.

Other than that, I don't get wrapped up over Trump. I don't tweet (Twitter emails go to my spam folder). I understand he is not a politician - he says what he thinks, rather than says what you want him to say. I think the former is preferable to the latter. Unless you believe lies are cool if the words make you feel good.

Oh, I don't think that Trump lies every day. That is a sigh of TDS.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

Captdon
06-02-2018, 11:52 AM
I voted for my best interests.

There any moral difference in the two.

I wanted the policies he espoused. I have been satisfied with his keeping his word on that. He has done more for us in 15 months than Obama did in 8 years.

You have your answer and you won't like it.

Now, do you think we should have voted for a corrupt, lying, unfeeling stupid Hillary Clinton?

DGUtley
06-02-2018, 12:22 PM
@jbander (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2684), you're new here. Welcome aboard.

I voted for Trump b/c of the dangers that a HRC-appointed SCOTUS would've posed to this country constitutionally and structurally. I read and studied her positions. For me, it was all about the Court and the judiciary. None of this will impact me financially and I'm too old for any of it to impact me structurally. I don't get all exercised about what Trump says or does, much of which is despicable. They were both despicable candidates and I had to choose the lesser of two evils: which one would best preserve our Constitutional system for future generations by appointing SCOTUS justices committed what our founders intended structurally. That was an easy decision for me. Very easy. To help you better understand this rationale, read this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/07/the-supreme-court-oral-argument-that-cost-democrats-the-presidency/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.355421a4a2e5


Is this what you wanted for this country when you voted for him.

I honestly thought that this election was probably our last chance (yes last chance) to save her. To save her structurally. To save her constitutionally. To save her from a far left wing nut job administration and far left Court from which their would've been no turning back. European socialism. I understand many on here disagree. We've been over this ad nauseum. Think though how the left is trying to quash free speech in this country and imagine if they had the WH and the Courts behind them. That's just one issue. So, "wanted for this country" … some of us where trying to save our country.

Do you think it is OK that the president lies non stop dailly on every subject he is confronted with or do you think he is telling the truth.

I think he likes to tweak the media, put a stick in their eye, so to speak. Like Obama, he takes a hair of truth and spouts off. The media calls him on it b/c they loathe him. They loved Obama


Is this man what you want as a example for your children.

My children are old enough to make their own decisions. My two daughters are both professionals -- pharmacists. One despises him. One likes some of what he does but hates his twitter and his big mouth. There's many things that I wouldn't want my grandchildren to emulate about Trump. Many.


If your a evangelical, how do you overlook this mans ungodly faults or is he your type of christian.

I am not an evangelical.


Also are the issues that he pursues and the way he acts show any level of christianity.

He has shown many acts of kindness and charity in his life. You won't read about them in the media you read.


Do you support his hatred and attacks of all the institutions of this country or are these something you think should be changed so you support him.

I'm not sure what you mean here? "all of the institutions of this country". I think that he thinks that many of these institutions (if I understand you correctly) have been corrupted by career politicians. I don't think he hates any "of the institutions" of this country.


What has he done to improve this country.

To name a few, in no particular order:

1. He has taken the jack boot of governmental regulation off of the neck of businesses.
2. Cut taxes for Americans.
3. Preserved a conservative Court to enable us to continue to bicker within the boundaries of what our founders set up.
4. Have you seen the unemployment rate?
5. Have you seen consumer confidence?
6. Have you seen the African American unemployment rate?



Do you care one way or the other on how much influence that other countries seemingly had in deciding the last election.

I haven't seen any evidence of it, except the FB stuff. You realize the Russians' intent was to sow discontent and confusion. Guess what? It worked.


Do you think that all of your presidents people having all these meeting with russian agents is just nothing to worry about or do you not care how The president got into office.

All what meetings? No more or no less than HRC's people. You realize that foreign influence in Washington is a problem, right? I haven't seen or read that any of this is illegal (or that it happened).



Do you think that Your presidents actions would be found to be acceptable , if it wasn't for the media.

The media despises and attacks Trump daily. What are you talking about. I make my own independent judgment regardless of what the media says.


Do you think the media is as critical or more critical then any other period of time during the last few decades.

Is the Pope Catholic? Do you think if the media was 1/2 as critical of The Obama as they are of Trump that he'd have stood a snowball's chance in hell of being elected or being re-elected? C'mon man.


Do you perceive that you and your president is treated unfairly and how.

He is definitely treated unfairly b/c they lie about him. I want the media to be extremely critical of him and all of the government, to force the government to prove its legitimacy each and every day. They can do so without making it up.


Just hoping that maybe some of you right wingers would explain this support of the president or is it simply blind support.

It isn't blind support. I'm critical when it's called for. Are you supportive when it's called for? Are you cheering him on with this NK thing? Hoping that he succeeds?


I am a progressive but I really want to know why you support your president.

It is obvious you're a progressive.

Common
06-02-2018, 01:29 PM
Is this what you wanted for this country when you voted for him. Do you think it is OK that the president lies non stop dailly on every subject he is confronted with or do you think he is telling the truth. Is this man what you want as a example for your children. If your a evangelical, how do you overlook this mans ungodly faults or is he your type of christian. Also are the issues that he pursues and the way he acts show any level of christianity. Do you support his hatred and attacks of all the institutions of this country or are these something you think should be changed so you support him. What has he done to improve this country. Do you care one way or the other on how much influence that other countries seemingly had in deciding the last election. Do you think that all of your presidents people having all these meeting with russian agents is just nothing to worry about or do you not care how The president got into office. Do you think that Your presidents actions would be found to be acceptable , if it wasn't for the media. Do you think the media is as critical or more critical then any other period of time during the last few decades. Do you perceive that you and your president is treated unfairly and how. Just hoping that maybe some of you right wingers would explain this support of the president or is it simply blind support. I am a progressive but I really want to know why you support your president.

He lies less than other presidents especially obama, hes more upfront than any president in my lifetime and ive been voting since 1967

He has every right to attack some institutions like the media who lie about him daily, create negative stories and refuse to give him credit for anything. 90% negative coverage by the biased liberal press.

gamewell45
06-02-2018, 01:36 PM
Like another poster in here said, "I voted for my best interests" I was a write in candidate. I can't stand either Trump nor Clinton.

Both cannot be trusted as I feel is the case with most candidates on the state and federal level. Both do not have the country's best interests in their hearts. I was glad when Hillary lost and yet sad when Trump won; anything would have been better then trump winning, a Libertarian candidate, a Green Party Candidate, a Working Families party candidate, a lawn chair, a soap dish, anything would have been better then having Trump in the White House.

Mechanic
06-02-2018, 02:01 PM
I find it hard to believe his supporters have not seen his lies and hate for America and Americans. His propaganda must be very good to still be working this far into his "show" of failures.

donttread
06-02-2018, 02:43 PM
Is this what you wanted for this country when you voted for him. Do you think it is OK that the president lies non stop dailly on every subject he is confronted with or do you think he is telling the truth. Is this man what you want as a example for your children. If your a evangelical, how do you overlook this mans ungodly faults or is he your type of christian. Also are the issues that he pursues and the way he acts show any level of christianity. Do you support his hatred and attacks of all the institutions of this country or are these something you think should be changed so you support him. What has he done to improve this country. Do you care one way or the other on how much influence that other countries seemingly had in deciding the last election. Do you think that all of your presidents people having all these meeting with russian agents is just nothing to worry about or do you not care how The president got into office. Do you think that Your presidents actions would be found to be acceptable , if it wasn't for the media. Do you think the media is as critical or more critical then any other period of time during the last few decades. Do you perceive that you and your president is treated unfairly and how. Just hoping that maybe some of you right wingers would explain this support of the president or is it simply blind support. I am a progressive but I really want to know why you support your president.


How does any of that differ from Bushbama? Lies, war,foreign policy and the point of a knife, manipulation? The one thing that may differ is he might be helping the economy. It will take time to see. However if he keeps over spending and running up debt it will seem same as always to me.

Peter1469
06-02-2018, 03:08 PM
How does any of that differ from Bushbama? Lies, war,foreign policy and the point of a knife, manipulation? The one thing that may differ is he might be helping the economy. It will take time to see. However if he keeps over spending and running up debt it will seem same as always to me.
He already has helped the economy. The question is whether his trade wars will cause more damage than good. If they are really just places to start trade negotiations, we may end up with better trade deals.

stjames1_53
06-02-2018, 03:38 PM
I find it hard to believe his supporters have not seen his lies and hate for America and Americans. His propaganda must be very good to still be working this far into his "show" of failures.

what hatred and for who?

stjames1_53
06-02-2018, 03:40 PM
Is this what you wanted for this country when you voted for him. Do you think it is OK that the president lies non stop dailly on every subject he is confronted with or do you think he is telling the truth. Is this man what you want as a example for your children. If your a evangelical, how do you overlook this mans ungodly faults or is he your type of christian. Also are the issues that he pursues and the way he acts show any level of christianity. Do you support his hatred and attacks of all the institutions of this country or are these something you think should be changed so you support him. What has he done to improve this country. Do you care one way or the other on how much influence that other countries seemingly had in deciding the last election. Do you think that all of your presidents people having all these meeting with russian agents is just nothing to worry about or do you not care how The president got into office. Do you think that Your presidents actions would be found to be acceptable , if it wasn't for the media. Do you think the media is as critical or more critical then any other period of time during the last few decades. Do you perceive that you and your president is treated unfairly and how. Just hoping that maybe some of you right wingers would explain this support of the president or is it simply blind support. I am a progressive but I really want to know why you support your president.

the vitriol and hatred is coming from you.

Trumpster
06-02-2018, 03:45 PM
I find it hard to believe his supporters have not seen his lies and hate for America and Americans. His propaganda must be very good to still be working this far into his "show" of failures.

Why don't you give us a list of some of his lies that are really troubling to you, and then give examples of how he hates America and Americans.

Lummy
06-02-2018, 03:53 PM
... I am a progressive but I really want to know why you support your president.
Trump doesn't lie. He changes his mind sometimes though. I hope he drives Kim Jong Un nuts.

He's a real deal American citizen amateur-politician elected to office, just like in the American legend, and when was the last time anything that wonderful happened?

Actually, he has done a great job so far, and I think that's because he remains disinterested in politics and doesn't play angles and so forth, and focuses on the job he's doing. You can thank your lucky stars, or whatever, that Hillary isn't in the white house because this country would already be a place that you really wouldn't like and might not even recognize if she had won. She belongs in prison, as does Obama and a lot of other democrats.

The Donald rocks! :flag:

Mechanic
06-02-2018, 03:53 PM
Why don't you give us a list of some of his lies that are really troubling to you, and then give examples of how he hates America and Americans.I will be so busy I won't have time to golf. If you do not know which is what there is no telling you as the brainwashing is deep in you.

stjames1_53
06-02-2018, 03:53 PM
Why don't you give us a list of some of his lies that are really troubling to you, and then give examples of how he hates America and Americans.

he'll lie about those "lies"

Trumpster
06-02-2018, 04:00 PM
I will be so busy I won't have time to golf. If you do not know which is what there is no telling you as the brainwashing is deep in you.

Amazing! You have absolutely nothing to back up your accusations against Trump.

stjames1_53
06-02-2018, 04:21 PM
I will be so busy I won't have time to golf. If you do not know which is what there is no telling you as the brainwashing is deep in you.

so, your answer is nothing............you don't have a list. Your insults and hatred will not result in a win in 2020

stjames1_53
06-02-2018, 04:22 PM
Amazing! You have absolutely nothing to back up your accusations against Trump.
I stated he would lie about his lies............I was right. Those Alt-Lefties are an easy read.......

Captdon
06-02-2018, 04:50 PM
I find it hard to believe his supporters have not seen his lies and hate for America and Americans. His propaganda must be very good to still be working this far into his "show" of failures.

We saw what his supporters wanted and voted for Trump.

Captdon
06-02-2018, 04:52 PM
Why don't you give us a list of some of his lies that are really troubling to you, and then give examples of how he hates America and Americans.

Yea, I think the DNC has a toll free number for that.

Captdon
06-02-2018, 04:55 PM
I will be so busy I won't have time to golf. If you do not know which is what there is no telling you as the brainwashing is deep in you.

That's what troubles you? How old are you? I'm troubled by a lot of things in this country and that isn't on my list.

Here's a hint- hyperbole.

nathanbforrest45
06-02-2018, 09:17 PM
I voted for President Donald Trump because of the policies he espoused. They were quite similar to my own beliefs. So far he has lived up to his promises and I believe will continue to do so. The "lies" non stop daily exist in your head and very few other places.

I absolutely love it when non Christians tell us how we should judge our fellow Christians. I have found nothing that I would characterize as "non Christian" in any of his actions, unless you mean "unchistian is not communist.

As for being "ungodly", we are all ungodly, for Christ himself tells us we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. The only truly Godly person wasn't on the ballot and I doubt if you would have voted for Him anyway.

Do you really think entering a forum with a smirk and a better than you attitude will get you points?

Just AnotherPerson
06-02-2018, 10:32 PM
I voted for President Donald Trump because of the policies he espoused. They were quite similar to my own beliefs. So far he has lived up to his promises and I believe will continue to do so. The "lies" non stop daily exist in your head and very few other places.

I absolutely love it when non Christians tell us how we should judge our fellow Christians. I have found nothing that I would characterize as "non Christian" in any of his actions, unless you mean "unchistian is not communist.

As for being "ungodly", we are all ungodly, for Christ himself tells us we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. The only truly Godly person wasn't on the ballot and I doubt if you would have voted for Him anyway.

Do you really think entering a forum with a smirk and a better than you attitude will get you points?

Is this religious too??? Is this the "Christian way"? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/us/politics/pentagon-civilian-casualties.html

Mister D
06-02-2018, 10:35 PM
Ummm that's a lot of religious stuff...…..is this religious too??? Is this the "Christian way"? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/us/politics/pentagon-civilian-casualties.html
We killed many more people in an afternoon during World War Two. Repeatedly.

Mister D
06-02-2018, 10:41 PM
I should add that it wasn't "collateral damage". It was purposeful.

Just AnotherPerson
06-02-2018, 10:55 PM
We killed many more people in an afternoon during World War Two. Repeatedly.
100K up to 400K people die per year in the US by medical malpractice, that does make killing civilians right? There are no acceptable casualties. A life is a life and each is the same precious. Your child is not more precious than another persons child they are equally precious. I was just making a point about the whole godly talk...…. you must have missed the point. It is more like sarcasm.

It's only acceptable until your house gets bombed, then it wouldn't be acceptable to you anymore.

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/deaths-by-medical-mistakes-hit-records

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

Ransom
06-02-2018, 11:28 PM
Like another poster in here said, "I voted for my best interests" I was a write in candidate. I can't stand either Trump nor Clinton.

Both cannot be trusted as I feel is the case with most candidates on the state and federal level. Both do not have the country's best interests in their hearts. I was glad when Hillary lost and yet sad when Trump won; anything would have been better then trump winning, a Libertarian candidate, a Green Party Candidate, a Working Families party candidate, a lawn chair, a soap dish, anything would have been better then having Trump in the White House.

Gamewell….if you'd rather have a soap dish then you voted for Hillary who was the only chance in keeping the soap dish from taking office. And I'm enjoying watching you squirm.

Cletus
06-03-2018, 02:02 AM
We killed many more people in an afternoon during World War Two. Repeatedly.
42,000 in Hamburg. Between 35,000 and 150,000 in Dresden.

Those were both done in a matter of days.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 06:15 AM
42,000 in Hamburg. Between 35,000 and 150,000 in Dresden.

Those were both done in a matter of days.
The US and Germany had declared war on each other. We do not have standing declarations of war on the places we are bombing civilians now.
Aside from that, it never ceases to amaze me how right-wingers can be so anti-abortion and pro-life, then insist we annihilate anyone we perceivce as an enemy. It's like it's a totally unforgiveable sin to kill a baby before it's born, but after it draws it's first breath, it must be either enslaved or outright murdered.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 06:23 AM
Is this what you wanted for this country when you voted for him. Do you think it is OK that the president lies non stop dailly on every subject he is confronted with or do you think he is telling the truth. Is this man what you want as a example for your children. If your a evangelical, how do you overlook this mans ungodly faults or is he your type of christian. Also are the issues that he pursues and the way he acts show any level of christianity. Do you support his hatred and attacks of all the institutions of this country or are these something you think should be changed so you support him. What has he done to improve this country. Do you care one way or the other on how much influence that other countries seemingly had in deciding the last election. Do you think that all of your presidents people having all these meeting with russian agents is just nothing to worry about or do you not care how The president got into office. Do you think that Your presidents actions would be found to be acceptable , if it wasn't for the media. Do you think the media is as critical or more critical then any other period of time during the last few decades. Do you perceive that you and your president is treated unfairly and how. Just hoping that maybe some of you right wingers would explain this support of the president or is it simply blind support. I am a progressive but I really want to know why you support your president.

Welcome to the forum:) You have just entered the prison yard of forums. You never know when you will get word-shanked by some inbred morons with swastika tattoos. Prepare to have your words spun around and around until you cannot remember your original post. It is alot like dropping the soap, 4 or 5 unruly crazies will take turns assaulting you until you crawl away violated:) Best advise, wear your armor, don't drop the soap(stay sharp), and feel free to express your own opinions despite what anyone else says.

P.S.- You might as well get prepared now. You are a "leftist", a "marxist", and an "evil liar". It doesn't matter what your views are, if it's not extreme right, you automatically default to extreme left.

stjames1_53
06-03-2018, 06:25 AM
The US and Germany had declared war on each other. We do not have standing declarations of war on the places we are bombing civilians now.
Aside from that, it never ceases to amaze me how right-wingers can be so anti-abortion and pro-life, then insist we annihilate anyone we perceivce as an enemy. It's like it's a totally unforgiveable sin to kill a baby before it's born, but after it draws it's first breath, it must be either enslaved or outright murdered.

we call it ................Post Birth Abortion.
So, you're pro-life, but defend PP...............what a conflict that becomes in your mind...........
Get your facts right. Germany declared war on the world. If there were no interference, you'd be speaking German today, or maybe Japanese. But hey, you're just ducky with that. Germany was on the verge of using nukes, Japan was ok with sacrificing Pearl Harbor in their quest for world domination. (that was done by a sneak attack. They took a pre-emptive strike)

stjames1_53
06-03-2018, 06:26 AM
Welcome to the forum:) You have just entered the prison yard of forums. You never know when you will get word-shanked by some inbred morons with swastika tattoos. Prepare to have your words spun around and around until you cannot remember your original post. It is alot like dropping the soap, 4 or 5 unruly crazies will take turns assaulting you until you crawl away violated:) Best advise, wear your armor, don't drop the soap(stay sharp), and feel free to express your own opinions despite what anyone else says.

If you don't like this forum, you have two choices.
1. Leave
2. Start your own forum
You get what you give in here. Stop your fricking whining.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 06:29 AM
If you don't like this forum, you have two choices.
1. Leave
2. Start your own forum
You get what you give in here. Stop your fricking whining.
Wow, I guess I offended you. The truth has a way of offending, I suppose.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 06:33 AM
we call it ................Post Birth Abortion.
So, you're pro-life, but defend PP...............what a conflict that becomes in your mind...........
Get your facts right. Germany declared war on the world. If there were no interference, you'd be speaking German today, or maybe Japanese. But hey, you're just ducky with that. Germany was on the verge of using nukes, Japan was ok with sacrificing Pearl Harbor in their quest for world domination. (that was done by a sneak attack. They took a pre-emptive strike)
I don't know where you got this from. It must be "make sh*t up day" for you. In case you don't remember, we also declared war on germany. They declared war on basically everyone. Thank you for so eloquently pointing out the truth in my earlier comment about being prepared to have your words spun around in circles.

DGUtley
06-03-2018, 06:40 AM
I don't know where you got this from. It must be "make sh*t up day" for you. In case you don't remember, we also declared war on germany. They declared war on basically everyone. Thank you for so eloquently pointing out the truth in my earlier comment about being prepared to have your words spun around in circles.

Germany declared war on the United States after the United States declared war on Japan post Pearl Harbor. It was after that that the USA declared war on Germany.

stjames1_53
06-03-2018, 06:44 AM
Wow, I guess I offended you. The truth has a way of offending, I suppose.

I'm hardly ever offended............the truth is your the hater, not me. Just because we stand against you? We're the haters?
What have you done that is positive? All you've done is present the negative or spun the positive with everything you post. You get what you give in here.

stjames1_53
06-03-2018, 06:46 AM
I don't know where you got this from. It must be "make sh*t up day" for you. In case you don't remember, we also declared war on germany. They declared war on basically everyone. Thank you for so eloquently pointing out the truth in my earlier comment about being prepared to have your words spun around in circles.
I am an avid history buff. We declared war on Germany after they attacked our shipping and sank a US civilian cruise ship. they started this mess. You're trying real hard to blame us.
Japan started their war by attacking Pearl Harbor via a sneak attack.
Who started that war again?

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 06:55 AM
Germany declared war on the United States after the United States declared war on Japan post Pearl Harbor. It was after that that the USA declared war on Germany.
The whole point I was making is that when we bombed civilians in WW2, we were officially at war. We are bombing civilians now without such a declaration.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 06:57 AM
I'm hardly ever offended............the truth is your the hater, not me. Just because we stand against you? We're the haters?
What have you done that is positive? All you've done is present the negative or spun the positive with everything you post. You get what you give in here.

I am the hater? That is fair. I can see how you would think that because I pointed out that the pro-lifers are usually the loudest voices for murder. Spin it how you need to.

stjames1_53
06-03-2018, 07:02 AM
The whole point I was making is that when we bombed civilians in WW2, we were officially at war. We are bombing civilians now without such a declaration.
That is why we need to get rid of the UN. War is war. Period. It has been around since man first found the club. There is no clean war. Those in the Mideast are killing civilians enmasse everyday. What about the nightclub bombings in EU? What about those bombings throughout the Mideast where those brave soldiers of Allah are killing children everyday by strapping bombs to children then sending them into market.
I don't hear you b!tching about that, just us........

What do you advise? That we turn a blind eye to this? There is no negotiating with them.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 07:05 AM
I am an avid history buff. We declared war on Germany after they attacked our shipping and sank a US civilian cruise ship. they started this mess. You're trying real hard to blame us.
Japan started their war by attacking Pearl Harbor via a sneak attack.
Who started that war again?
Again, I made the point that we were at war when we bombed civilian poulations during WW2. We already declared victory in the middle east, and yet we are still bombing civilians in Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Yemen, etc.
As for Pearl Harbor, maybe you haven't heard that we knew the Japanese were going to hit Hawaii, maybe even California. We let them as an excuse to engage the US in WW2. Just like the Maine in the Spanish-American war, the Lusitania for WW1, the Gulf of Tonkin incident for the Vietnam war, and Weapons of Mass Destruction for Gulf war 2.
Who has started these wars? Who profits from them? Banks that loan them money to go to war. Don't worry, I don't blame you.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 07:11 AM
That is why we need to get rid of the UN. War is war. Period. It has been around since man first found the club. There is no clean war. Those in the Mideast are killing civilians enmasse everyday. What about the nightclub bombings in EU? What about those bombings throughout the Mideast where those brave soldiers of Allah are killing children everyday by strapping bombs to children then sending them into market.
I don't hear you b!tching about that, just us........

What do you advise? That we turn a blind eye to this? There is no negotiating with them.

Now we can begin to agree. I think it's horrible what goes on in those places where Islamic fundamentalism is in control. I myself would shoot someone I saw acting in such unhuman ways. But, I would not take it out on others, nor would I order an airstrike on his apartment building to get him. We are using bombs where a few well-placed bullets are far more effective and humane.

DGUtley
06-03-2018, 07:11 AM
Again, I made the point that we were at war when we bombed civilian poulations during WW2. We already declared victory in the middle east, and yet we are still bombing civilians in Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Yemen, etc.

"We are still bombing civilians" -- where? You realize the efforts we go through not to be "bombing civilians"?



As for Pearl Harbor, maybe you haven't heard that we knew the Japanese were going to hit Hawaii, maybe even California. We let them as an excuse to engage the US in WW2. Just like the Maine in the Spanish-American war, the Lusitania for WW1, the Gulf of Tonkin incident for the Vietnam war, and Weapons of Mass Destruction for Gulf war 2.

We let them? I've read most of the books on this topic and we had anecdotal evidence that Hawaii was going to be hit, sure; but when -- no. As an excuse? C'mon man.



Who has started these wars? Who profits from them? Banks that loan them money to go to war. Don't worry, I don't blame you.

Ok. Now, I see.

stjames1_53
06-03-2018, 07:16 AM
Again, I made the point that we were at war when we bombed civilian poulations during WW2. We already declared victory in the middle east, and yet we are still bombing civilians in Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Yemen, etc.
As for Pearl Harbor, maybe you haven't heard that we knew the Japanese were going to hit Hawaii, maybe even California. We let them as an excuse to engage the US in WW2. Just like the Maine in the Spanish-American war, the Lusitania for WW1, the Gulf of Tonkin incident for the Vietnam war, and Weapons of Mass Destruction for Gulf war 2.
Who has started these wars? Who profits from them? Banks that loan them money to go to war. Don't worry, I don't blame you.

http://tactical.facepalm.de/images/facepalm.jpg

Of course the bankers finance BOTH sides................sheesh
But your history still fails you. Brush up on it a bit. Japan and Germany declared war, we responded. So, were we wrong or should we have just let it slide..........

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 07:37 AM
"We are still bombing civilians" -- where? You realize the efforts we go through not to be "bombing civilians"?




We let them? I've read most of the books on this topic and we had anecdotal evidence that Hawaii was going to be hit, sure; but when -- no. As an excuse? C'mon man.




Ok. Now, I see.

Where are we bombing civilians? All over the place.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/19/new-rules-allow-more-civilian-casualties-air-war-against-isil/83190812/

The last I heard was that up to 30 civilians could be killed to get 1 bad guy. The article cited says 10. So if there are 5 bad guys in an are, civilian casualties up to 50 would be acceptable. And that is if the US openly conducts the strike.
Here is one month last year:
http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-war-civilian-deaths-syria-577353

This is an article from January 2018, which claims a 50% increase in airstrikes since the year before, and a 200% rise in civilian deaths:
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/trump-brings-bombs-deaths-first-year-president/

I won't pretend it is easy to kill a bad guy who hides among civilians. But bombs? Shouldn't this be handled by the CIA? And alot of these targets are selected, not because of eyewitnesses or reliable intel, but by metadata gathering. You and I are posting and communicating, so if I did something bad, the metadata would say we were connected too. You would be targeted, and up to 10 civilian casualties would be acceptable when they dropped one on you. I assume if they killed more than 10 civilians, they might have to fill out some paperwork and clean toilets for 3 days as punishment.

stjames1_53
06-03-2018, 07:40 AM
Where are we bombing civilians? All over the place.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/19/new-rules-allow-more-civilian-casualties-air-war-against-isil/83190812/

The last I heard was that up to 30 civilians could be killed to get 1 bad guy. The article cited says 10. So if there are 5 bad guys in an are, civilian casualties up to 50 would be acceptable. And that is if the US openly conducts the strike.
Here is one month last year:
http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-war-civilian-deaths-syria-577353

This is an article from January 2018, which claims a 50% increase in airstrikes since the year before, and a 200% rise in civilian deaths:
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/trump-brings-bombs-deaths-first-year-president/

I won't pretend it is easy to kill a bad guy who hides among civilians. But bombs? Shouldn't this be handled by the CIA? And alot of these targets are selected, not because of eyewitnesses or reliable intel, but by metadata gathering. You and I are posting and communicating, so if I did something bad, the metadata would say we were connected too. You would be targeted, and up to 10 civilian casualties would be acceptable when they dropped one on you. I assume if they killed more than 10 civilians, they might have to fill out some paperwork and clean toilets for 3 days as punishment.

so, it is acceptable that we lose 30 operatives trying to get one man................GREAT!!!

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 07:42 AM
http://tactical.facepalm.de/images/facepalm.jpg

Of course the bankers finance BOTH sides................sheesh
But your history still fails you. Brush up on it a bit. Japan and Germany declared war, we responded. So, were we wrong or should we have just let it slide..........

I liked the pic:) So are you saying that I was wrong when I said we were at war when we dropped bombs on German civilians in WW2? Is that the error you couldn't let slide?
C'mon. You can't take something I didn't say and use it against me.

DGUtley
06-03-2018, 07:45 AM
Where are we bombing civilians? All over the place.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/19/new-rules-allow-more-civilian-casualties-air-war-against-isil/83190812/

The last I heard was that up to 30 civilians could be killed to get 1 bad guy. The article cited says 10. So if there are 5 bad guys in an are, civilian casualties up to 50 would be acceptable. And that is if the US openly conducts the strike.
Here is one month last year:
http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-war-civilian-deaths-syria-577353

This is an article from January 2018, which claims a 50% increase in airstrikes since the year before, and a 200% rise in civilian deaths:
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/trump-brings-bombs-deaths-first-year-president/

I won't pretend it is easy to kill a bad guy who hides among civilians. But bombs? Shouldn't this be handled by the CIA? And alot of these targets are selected, not because of eyewitnesses or reliable intel, but by metadata gathering. You and I are posting and communicating, so if I did something bad, the metadata would say we were connected too. You would be targeted, and up to 10 civilian casualties would be acceptable when they dropped one on you. I assume if they killed more than 10 civilians, they might have to fill out some paperwork and clean toilets for 3 days as punishment.

I don't know where you heard this 30/1 ration allowance thingy, but I don't believe it. Secondly, I have friends and family over there at all levels. I have been advised that the Taliban and AQ make up civilian deaths for the US media to see. I'm sure there is collateral damage, it's unavoidable. It is clear that we try to avoid it:

"The officials all say commanders go to great lengths to avoid killing innocents. They attack at night, for example, when buildings are less likely to be occupied. They select bombs that spew fewer deadly fragments and direct laser-guided bombs away from targets when civilians stray too close to ground zero. Military lawyers oversee operations to ensure laws of war are followed."

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 07:45 AM
so, it is acceptable that we lose 30 operatives trying to get one man................GREAT!!!

I see that argument. I wouldn't want to send 30 people to die just to get one villian. But the alternative is that in bagging one bad guy with a semi-discriminate bomb, we become the villains.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 07:48 AM
http://tactical.facepalm.de/images/facepalm.jpg

Of course the bankers finance BOTH sides................sheesh
But your history still fails you. Brush up on it a bit. Japan and Germany declared war, we responded. So, were we wrong or should we have just let it slide..........
Just an FYI RadioGod has an IQ of 144+ and has read over 10,000 books. He used to read Readers Digest condensed novels, and entire encyclopedias, as punishment as a child. Thanks to that he is a F'ing genius. So when you try to make it sound like he is some "ding bat" be careful it is the furthest from the truth.

Prepare yourself to be in it for the long haul!

stjames1_53
06-03-2018, 07:52 AM
I liked the pic:) So are you saying that I was wrong when I said we were at war when we dropped bombs on German civilians in WW2? Is that the error you couldn't let slide?
C'mon. You can't take something I didn't say and use it against me.

and Germany's bombing of London wasn't? Listen, Germany killed a lot of people during the bombing of civilian targets. Should have not gotten involved? I'd bet a shiny nickel. Brits would have a different idea about that. Again, should we have let all of that slide?
Japan bombed PH, but they killed civilians during that attack. How many civilians died then? Should we have not declared war against Japan? \
Current history.....Mad Muslims blow up civilian daily. Should we NOT respond?
War is hell, but sometimes it is necessary. Should we have let 9/11 slide? how many military people died in those towers? Were those towers a military value?

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 07:57 AM
I don't know where you heard this 30/1 ration allowance thingy, but I don't believe it. Secondly, I have friends and family over there at all levels. I have been advised that the Taliban and AQ make up civilian deaths for the US media to see. I'm sure there is collateral damage, it's unavoidable. It is clear that we try to avoid it:

"The officials all say commanders go to great lengths to avoid killing innocents. They attack at night, for example, when buildings are less likely to be occupied. They select bombs that spew fewer deadly fragments and direct laser-guided bombs away from targets when civilians stray too close to ground zero. Military lawyers oversee operations to ensure laws of war are followed."

Yeah, I can't remember where I heard the 30:1, so I just cited the 10:1 for reference. Since you have friends and family in some of those places, I am actually more inclined to take your word than anything in the press. I am sure nobody wants to go after civilians as a standard practice.

spunkloaf
06-03-2018, 07:58 AM
Just an FYI RadioGod has an IQ of 144+ and has read over 10,000 books. He used to read Readers Digest condensed novels, and entire encyclopedias, as punishment as a child. Thanks to that he is a F'ing genius. So when you try to make it sound like he is some "ding bat" be careful it is the furthest from the truth.

Prepare yourself to be in it for the long haul!

When they don't want somebody smarter than them controlling the conversation, they steamroll it by making stupid attacks like these.

You can't blame them. Look at who they watch on TV, and who they voted into the WH. It's their modus operandi.

stjames1_53
06-03-2018, 07:58 AM
Just an FYI RadioGod has an IQ of 144+ and has read over 10,000 books. He used to read Readers Digest condensed novels, and entire encyclopedias, as punishment as a child. Thanks to that he is a F'ing genius. So when you try to make it sound like he is some "ding bat" be careful it is the furthest from the truth.

Prepare yourself to be in it for the long haul!

ahhhhh, a cheering section. I don't care what his intelligence level is. He is spinning history in his favor. If he has such a high IQ does he not recognize that Man has been killing Man since he found the club? Does he not acknowledge that there is evil around every corner? Are we just to lay down and let it run over us?
War is an evil necessity. No one wins at war. Both sides lose, but the ones that start the aggression need to be stopped. Do you not agree?
As far as the long haul goes, I've been here longer than you and I'm still here, so I'm in it for the long haul.

spunkloaf
06-03-2018, 08:05 AM
ahhhhh, a cheering section. I don't care what his intelligence level is. He is spinning history in his favor. If he has such a high IQ does he not recognize that Man has been killing Man since he found the club? Does he not acknowledge that there is evil around every corner? Are we just to lay down and let it run over us?
War is an evil necessity. No one wins at war. Both sides lose, but the ones that start the aggression need to be stopped. Do you not agree?
As far as the long haul goes, I've been here longer than you and I'm still here, so I'm in it for the long haul.

War is only as necessary as humans make it. Treating it like it is inevitable and necessary only makes us more likely to use it as an acceptable and normal response to any provocation. And that's exactly how our attitude of war has progressed. We've been in perpetual war for decades.

And I have been part of this community since 2007, WAY before you came around. So...Yeah.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 08:14 AM
ahhhhh, a cheering section. I don't care what his intelligence level is. He is spinning history in his favor. If he has such a high IQ does he not recognize that Man has been killing Man since he found the club? Does he not acknowledge that there is evil around every corner? Are we just to lay down and let it run over us?
War is an evil necessity. No one wins at war. Both sides lose, but the ones that start the aggression need to be stopped. Do you not agree?
As far as the long haul goes, I've been here longer than you and I'm still here, so I'm in it for the long haul.
Well we see you like to play the game twister, and twist peoples words around. You are say that RadioGod said things that he never said. Anyone who can read will see that you are twisting. RadioGod is a humanitarian and is on the side of Liberty and Justice for all! He understands completely and that is why he is here. You either don't understand his words or are not reading them correctly or are just twisting on purpose. But I see you do it to everyone who you think might be a leftist.

Your pain towards the so called left reminds me of the feminists. They have been harmed by a man at some point in their life and so they automatically hate all men, and when they see a man they release all the pain they have pent up in them from all men, on the one man in front of them Even if they just met him, they treat him like he is all the men in the world who have harmed her.

Your pain is pretty much the same. You think you see a leftist, like the guy who posted this thread it is his first ever thread in the forum and you talk to him like you have been arguing with him personally since the dawn of time. He really didn't even say anything to insight such a reaction. But it is good let us conversate together. I like you guys more every day. I am understanding you better every day.

again I am not a leftist! We are here to hash it out. There is nothing wrong with that. We should!

What you said about war being an evil necessity. I do not agree and you are not accounting for the fact that many times we start these wars by arming the rebels. We created the Taliban "freedom fighters" and Isis and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We start it where we need to it's all business. You cant have missed it. It is in your face! It's net even conspiracy, it is conspirifact!

I only told you he's in the long haul because you asked him to leave. Just because you wanted him gone, maybe he has decided to stick around a while.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 08:16 AM
ahhhhh, a cheering section. I don't care what his intelligence level is. He is spinning history in his favor. If he has such a high IQ does he not recognize that Man has been killing Man since he found the club? Does he not acknowledge that there is evil around every corner? Are we just to lay down and let it run over us?
War is an evil necessity. No one wins at war. Both sides lose, but the ones that start the aggression need to be stopped. Do you not agree?
As far as the long haul goes, I've been here longer than you and I'm still here, so I'm in it for the long haul.
Oh yeah and I do appreciate your reply it was very level headed. At least you explained it well. I can appreciate that.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 08:17 AM
and Germany's bombing of London wasn't? Listen, Germany killed a lot of people during the bombing of civilian targets. Should have not gotten involved? I'd bet a shiny nickel. Brits would have a different idea about that. Again, should we have let all of that slide?
Japan bombed PH, but they killed civilians during that attack. How many civilians died then? Should we have not declared war against Japan? \
Current history.....Mad Muslims blow up civilian daily. Should we NOT respond?
War is hell, but sometimes it is necessary. Should we have let 9/11 slide? how many military people died in those towers? Were those towers a military value?

When we throw feces at other people, why do we get upset when they throw some back? I'm not saying 911 was OK. In fact, I believe so may things don't add up about 911, which leads me to put on my tinfoil hat about that whole situation. But even if 911 was an attack done to us by a group, why not just kill that group? Why go after entire countries that may or may not have had anything to do with it?
As for civilians being bombed, what about Japan? They were on the ropes after our Pacific push-back and were ready to throw in the towel. Instead of letting them surrender, we dropped 2 different nuclear weapons on them, then accepted their surrender.
All of the countries were guilty of targeting civilians. It is part of the psychological strategy. You take out some critical infrastructure for a country's war effort, and at the same time crush the will of the people to support any continuation of the war. At least, that is the theory. I think in reality it goes 50/50. Sometimes people will want to lay down and quit, sometimes it makes them ready to fight to the death to the last man.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 08:21 AM
Well we see you like to play the game twister, and twist peoples words around. You are say that RadioGod said things that he never said. Anyone who can read will see that you are twisting. RadioGod is a humanitarian and is on the side of Liberty and Justice for all! He understands completely and that is why he is here. You either don't understand his words or are not reading them correctly or are just twisting on purpose. But I see you do it to everyone who you think might be a leftist.

Your pain towards the so called left reminds me of the feminists. They have been harmed by a man at some point in their life and so they automatically hate all men, and when they see a man they release all the pain they have pent up in them from all men, on the one man in front of them Even if they just met him, they treat him like he is all the men in the world who have harmed her.

Your pain is pretty much the same. You think you see a leftist, like the guy who posted this thread it is his first ever thread in the forum and you talk to him like you have been arguing with him personally since the dawn of time. He really didn't even say anything to insight such a reaction. But it is good let us conversate together. I like you guys more every day. I am understanding you better every day.

again I am not a leftist! We are here to hash it out. There is nothing wrong with that. We should!

What you said about war being an evil necessity. I do not agree and you are not accounting for the fact that many times we start these wars by arming the rebels. We created the Taliban "freedom fighters" and Isis and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We start it where we need to it's all business. You cant have missed it. It is in your face! It's net even conspiracy, it is conspirifact!

I only told you he's in the long haul because you asked him to leave. Just because you wanted him gone, maybe he has decided to stick around a while.

Conspirifact. Awesome.

DGUtley
06-03-2018, 08:26 AM
. . . .As for civilians being bombed, what about Japan? They were on the ropes after our Pacific push-back and were ready to throw in the towel. Instead of letting them surrender, we dropped 2 different nuclear weapons on them, then accepted their surrender.

Japan was not ready to surrender. There were elements within Japan that wanted to surrender but the military leadership caste wanted to fight to the bitter death. It wasn't until after the two AB's that the emperor overruled them and decided to "However, it is according to the dictate of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is insufferable. "

spunkloaf
06-03-2018, 08:29 AM
Japan was not ready to surrender. There were elements within Japan that wanted to surrender but the military leadership caste wanted to fight to the bitter death. It wasn't until after the two AB's that the emperor overruled them and decided to "However, it is according to the dictate of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is insufferable. "

Just because that's your opinion doesn't make it correct.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 08:32 AM
Japan was not ready to surrender. There were elements within Japan that wanted to surrender but the military leadership caste wanted to fight to the bitter death. It wasn't until after the two AB's that the emperor overruled them and decided to "However, it is according to the dictate of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is insufferable. "

It's True They tried to surrender, we wanted to test the bomb sounds insane. It is even more insane than it sounds http://fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Japan_surrender_attempts/MS.html

stjames1_53
06-03-2018, 08:32 AM
Just because that's your opinion doesn't make it correct.

regardless ...............what are you historic facts? Don't just call him wrong, fricking prove it

DGUtley
06-03-2018, 08:46 AM
Just because that's your opinion doesn't make it correct.

It's True They tried to surrender, we wanted to test the bomb sounds insane. It is even more insane than it sounds http://fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Japan_surrender_attempts/MS.html

1. The author of the article is David Irving, whom I am very familiar with and who is one of the most famous holocaust deniers in the world. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/david-irving-sentenced-to-jail Zero credibility internationally. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/15/david-irving-youtube-inspiring-holocaust-deniers I followed his suit and read the book on the trial: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008GZ4IGS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

2. No... read the 'article', even the article is dubious and suspect on their true intentions, even if you ignore who the author is, which I cannot. As I said, there were elements that wanted to surrender but the hierarchy wasn't ready. They never "tried to surrender".


3. It is not opinion, it is fact. You cannot revise history to fit your worldview.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 08:51 AM
1. The author of the article is David Irving, whom I am very familiar with and who is one of the most famous holocaust deniers in the world. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/david-irving-sentenced-to-jail Zero credibility internationally. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/15/david-irving-youtube-inspiring-holocaust-deniers I followed his suit and read the book on the trial: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008GZ4IGS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

2. No... read the 'article', even the article is dubious and suspect on their true intentions, even if you ignore who the author is, which I cannot. As I said, there were elements that wanted to surrender but the hierarchy wasn't ready. They never "tried to surrender".


3. It is not opinion, it is fact. You cannot revise history to fit your worldview.
I don't know the credibility of the author, I just grabbed it off the net. But we all know the holocaust was real. A holocaust denier is about the same as a flat earther! No offense to any flat earthers :) I will look into it some more. If I cant find anything then "I" will surrender!

DGUtley
06-03-2018, 08:55 AM
I don't know the credibility of the author, I just grabbed it off the net. But we all know the holocaust was real. A holocaust denier is about the same as a flat earther! No offense to any flat earthers :) I will look into it some more. If I cant find anything then "I" will surrender!

If you get the chance, read the book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008GZ4IGS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 Great read.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 09:01 AM
1. The author of the article is David Irving, whom I am very familiar with and who is one of the most famous holocaust deniers in the world. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/david-irving-sentenced-to-jail Zero credibility internationally. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/15/david-irving-youtube-inspiring-holocaust-deniers I followed his suit and read the book on the trial: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008GZ4IGS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

2. No... read the 'article', even the article is dubious and suspect on their true intentions, even if you ignore who the author is, which I cannot. As I said, there were elements that wanted to surrender but the hierarchy wasn't ready. They never "tried to surrender".


3. It is not opinion, it is fact. You cannot revise history to fit your worldview.

Ok, lets scrap that citation. How about this one?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

"Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them.American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad."We knew they wanted to negotiate a surrender. But we needed to test our new weapons on live targets. This sent a signal to the world that we stand ready to vaporize any agressors, and fulfilled the great scientific learning about realistic nuclear after effects at the same time.

spunkloaf
06-03-2018, 09:10 AM
regardless ...............what are you historic facts? Don't just call him wrong, fricking prove it

I am not historic facts. I am a person.

I was merely pointing out that DGUtley was presenting an opinion, not a fact. I can't argue against an opinion.

stjames1_53
06-03-2018, 09:14 AM
Ok, lets scrap that citation. How about this one?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

"Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them.American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad."
We knew they wanted to negotiate a surrender. But we needed to test our new weapons on live targets. This sent a signal to the world that we stand ready to vaporize any agressors, and fulfilled the great scientific learning about realistic nuclear after effects at the same time.

They wanted a conditional surrender. They started the damned war. Why should we allow them even the smallest of conditions?

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 09:15 AM
The whole point I was making is that when we bombed civilians in WW2, we were officially at war. We are bombing civilians now without such a declaration.
An authorization for the use of military force is a war declaration.

stjames1_53
06-03-2018, 09:15 AM
I am not historic facts. I am a person.

I was merely pointing out that DGUtley was presenting an opinion, not a fact. I can't argue against an opinion.

then you admit to not knowing what your posting. His facts are spot on. It was not his opinion.
Scrap the citation..................oh pu-lease................that's about as ignorant as it gets

spunkloaf
06-03-2018, 09:17 AM
They wanted a conditional surrender. They started the damned war. Why should we allow them even the smallest of conditions?

Again, that is an opinion. It cannot be argued against.

I can only counter-argue by providing that the AB was used to flex our muscles, and that there was sincere regret by the scientists who invented it after they were used.

I should point out that I am amazed that those are the only two AB's in history that were used in a war situation. Humankind is so lucky.

spunkloaf
06-03-2018, 09:19 AM
then you admit to not knowing what your posting. His facts are spot on. It was not his opinion.
Scrap the citation..................oh pu-lease................that's about as ignorant as it gets

Would you mind if I asked you how old you are?

Peter1469
06-03-2018, 09:21 AM
The US and Germany had declared war on each other. We do not have standing declarations of war on the places we are bombing civilians now.
Aside from that, it never ceases to amaze me how right-wingers can be so anti-abortion and pro-life, then insist we annihilate anyone we perceivce as an enemy. It's like it's a totally unforgiveable sin to kill a baby before it's born, but after it draws it's first breath, it must be either enslaved or outright murdered.

We don't target the civilians. We target the enemy that uses them as shields.

Peter1469
06-03-2018, 09:23 AM
Welcome to the forum:) You have just entered the prison yard of forums. You never know when you will get word-shanked by some inbred morons with swastika tattoos. Prepare to have your words spun around and around until you cannot remember your original post. It is alot like dropping the soap, 4 or 5 unruly crazies will take turns assaulting you until you crawl away violated:) Best advise, wear your armor, don't drop the soap(stay sharp), and feel free to express your own opinions despite what anyone else says.

P.S.- You might as well get prepared now. You are a "leftist", a "marxist", and an "evil liar". It doesn't matter what your views are, if it's not extreme right, you automatically default to extreme left.
There are no nazi's here. Poisoning the well.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 09:28 AM
They wanted a conditional surrender. They started the damned war. Why should we allow them even the smallest of conditions?

How about just accepting their surrender to stop the war? I think the surrender might have had very limited conditions. Probably just to preserve the majority of their government. An argument could be made that they would use a conditional surrender as a springboard into launching another round of pacific domination, but we will never know.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 09:31 AM
We don't target the civilians. We target the enemy that uses them as shields.

Of course you do not target civilians but if the enemy uses them as shields we do not hesitate to kill them all. If it were your family and your children who had to die or worse be blown apart and live suffering and maimed for the rest of their lives you would not think the casualties were acceptable.

We have specialists who can kill. I don't agree with any form of killing in my way of thinking or living. But, if a person has to be killed it should be just the one person, innocents should not die with them. We can hunt that person and take him out we do have that capability. It is laziness that causes us to kill unnecessarily. We can use intelligence and a little patience.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 09:32 AM
There are no nazi's here. Poisoning the well.
Don't you understand humor?

Peter1469
06-03-2018, 09:35 AM
I am not historic facts. I am a person.

I was merely pointing out that DGUtley was presenting an opinion, not a fact. I can't argue against an opinion.
Sure you can, if you find a fact that counters the opinion.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 09:40 AM
There are no nazi's here. Poisoning the well.
I poisoned it well:)

Captdon
06-03-2018, 09:44 AM
Is this religious too??? Is this the "Christian way"? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/us/politics/pentagon-civilian-casualties.html

War is a bitch. What has this yo do with the subject? We shouldn't fight because Christians get killed? You need to grow up and talk like an adult.

Peter1469
06-03-2018, 09:46 AM
An authorization for the use of military force is a war declaration.
We treat them that way since the end of WWII. Prior to that, starting with congressional approval of force to protect shipping from French aggression in 1789 and against Tripoli in 1802, authorizations for the use of force were narrowly tailored, unlike declarations of war.

Link (http://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/).


Far more common, especially in the modern era, have been congressional authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF) abroad. Historically, AUMFs have been much narrower in scope and much more limited than formal declarations of war, such as when Congress gave the President clearance to protect American ships against French aggression in 1789 and against Tripoli’s navy in 1802. After World War II, however, AUMFs became much broader, often granting Presidents sweeping authority to engage America’s military around the world.16 Take, for example, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964. As communist forces in Vietnam took increasingly militaristic actions against U.S. forces, Congress authorized the President, in sweeping but vague language, “to promote the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia.”17

In fact, despite engaging in conflicts in places like Vietnam and Iraq over the last 70 years, Congress has not declared war since 1942. Rather, the individual congressional AUMFs have been interpreted “as fully empowering the President to prosecute the wars,” according to law professors, Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith.18 Although the concept of the AUMF has existed since the start of the Republic, the specific use of the term became commonplace in the 1990s during the Gulf War.19

Captdon
06-03-2018, 09:48 AM
100K up to 400K people die per year in the US by medical malpractice, that does make killing civilians right? There are no acceptable casualties. A life is a life and each is the same precious. Your child is not more precious than another persons child they are equally precious. I was just making a point about the whole godly talk...…. you must have missed the point. It is more like sarcasm.

It's only acceptable until your house gets bombed, then it wouldn't be acceptable to you anymore.

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/deaths-by-medical-mistakes-hit-records

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

No, you need to act like an adult. War and malpractice aren't the same thing. War is Hell and that's thew way it is and has to be. Malpractice doesn't have to be.

Don't complain about being called out. This is a forum not a mutual love meeting.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 09:50 AM
The US and Germany had declared war on each other. We do not have standing declarations of war on the places we are bombing civilians now.
Aside from that, it never ceases to amaze me how right-wingers can be so anti-abortion and pro-life, then insist we annihilate anyone we perceivce as an enemy. It's like it's a totally unforgiveable sin to kill a baby before it's born, but after it draws it's first breath, it must be either enslaved or outright murdered.

We are at war with some people but you are at war with babies. If you can't see the difference that's your problem.

Peter1469
06-03-2018, 09:51 AM
How about just accepting their surrender to stop the war? I think the surrender might have had very limited conditions. Probably just to preserve the majority of their government. An argument could be made that they would use a conditional surrender as a springboard into launching another round of pacific domination, but we will never know.
Near the end the only concession was to allow them to keep their emperor.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 09:53 AM
Welcome to the forum:) You have just entered the prison yard of forums. You never know when you will get word-shanked by some inbred morons with swastika tattoos. Prepare to have your words spun around and around until you cannot remember your original post. It is alot like dropping the soap, 4 or 5 unruly crazies will take turns assaulting you until you crawl away violated:) Best advise, wear your armor, don't drop the soap(stay sharp), and feel free to express your own opinions despite what anyone else says.

P.S.- You might as well get prepared now. You are a "leftist", a "marxist", and an "evil liar". It doesn't matter what your views are, if it's not extreme right, you automatically default to extreme left.

If you can't defend your beliefs you don't have any reason for them. Too many of you weaklings just try to please your family and friends. I believe what I say.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 09:57 AM
I am an avid history buff. We declared war on Germany after they attacked our shipping and sank a US civilian cruise ship. they started this mess. You're trying real hard to blame us.
Japan started their war by attacking Pearl Harbor via a sneak attack.
Who started that war again?

No. Hitler declared war on us after we declared war on Japan. Roosevelt wanted war with Germany and did all he could to fight them but Germany declared war on us. Congress was in no mood to fight two wars.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 09:59 AM
I am the hater? That is fair. I can see how you would think that because I pointed out that the pro-lifers are usually the loudest voices for murder. Spin it how you need to.

You Pro-abortion people are against killing murderers. Want to try to stick to the thread some?

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 09:59 AM
No, you need to act like an adult. War and malpractice aren't the same thing. War is Hell and that's thew way it is and has to be. Malpractice doesn't have to be.

Don't complain about being called out. This is a forum not a mutual love meeting.
Apparently you didn't understand the post, that is not my fault. It was how the conversation evolved. You just didn't get it that's all.

I see that you are not pleased that we were having a decent conversation this morning. Sorry that we were being adults. Us finding things we can agree on should not piss you off so much. It is not a love meeting. It is a grown up meeting. There is nothing wrong with us having common ground because we do. There is a lot that we agree on, and a lot that we don't. But it is good that we have a place to hash it out. That's the value of the forum.


I want to grow and expand my knowledge continuously and understand all sides. That is how we grow. I don't want to be stagnant. When I am wrong I will admit I am wrong. But if I have an opinion I would like to say it. I also would like you to have the right to say what you want. Even if it is mean a lot of the time. I will still be willing to conversate anytime.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 10:00 AM
Again, I made the point that we were at war when we bombed civilian poulations during WW2. We already declared victory in the middle east, and yet we are still bombing civilians in Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Yemen, etc.
As for Pearl Harbor, maybe you haven't heard that we knew the Japanese were going to hit Hawaii, maybe even California. We let them as an excuse to engage the US in WW2. Just like the Maine in the Spanish-American war, the Lusitania for WW1, the Gulf of Tonkin incident for the Vietnam war, and Weapons of Mass Destruction for Gulf war 2.
Who has started these wars? Who profits from them? Banks that loan them money to go to war. Don't worry, I don't blame you.

Your knowledge of history is sorely lacking.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 10:07 AM
Just an FYI RadioGod has an IQ of 144+ and has read over 10,000 books. He used to read Readers Digest condensed novels, and entire encyclopedias, as punishment as a child. Thanks to that he is a F'ing genius. So when you try to make it sound like he is some "ding bat" be careful it is the furthest from the truth.

Prepare yourself to be in it for the long haul!

I have an IQ of 140 and have read full books for 60 years. I must be at 6,000 so I know he isn't at 10,000 unless they were all condensed. If I did that I'd be at 60,000.

So what? I still know more than both of you together. IQ is only the ability to learn; it's not how much you have learned.

Despite my IQ i know there are people here who know more than i do.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 10:08 AM
No, you need to act like an adult. War and malpractice aren't the same thing. War is Hell and that's thew way it is and has to be. Malpractice doesn't have to be.

Don't complain about being called out. This is a forum not a mutual love meeting.
You are the one calling yourself out.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 10:09 AM
When they don't want somebody smarter than them controlling the conversation, they steamroll it by making stupid attacks like these.

You can't blame them. Look at who they watch on TV, and who they voted into the WH. It's their modus operandi.

He's not smarter.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 10:10 AM
We are at war with some people but you are at war with babies. If you can't see the difference that's your problem.

And you arrived at that conclusion how? The other guy said I was pro-life, you say I am pro-abortion. My posts probably indicate I am for the preservation of life in most circumstances. Label me a baby-killer if I promote killing babies. But here I am saying we should not bomb innocent civilians if we can avoid it, and pointing out the hypocrisy I see often where the people who are christian fundamentalist anti-abortionists also tend to be all-in for murdering innocent civilians in middle east conflicts.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 10:12 AM
Well we see you like to play the game twister, and twist peoples words around. You are say that RadioGod said things that he never said. Anyone who can read will see that you are twisting. RadioGod is a humanitarian and is on the side of Liberty and Justice for all! He understands completely and that is why he is here. You either don't understand his words or are not reading them correctly or are just twisting on purpose. But I see you do it to everyone who you think might be a leftist.

Your pain towards the so called left reminds me of the feminists. They have been harmed by a man at some point in their life and so they automatically hate all men, and when they see a man they release all the pain they have pent up in them from all men, on the one man in front of them Even if they just met him, they treat him like he is all the men in the world who have harmed her.

Your pain is pretty much the same. You think you see a leftist, like the guy who posted this thread it is his first ever thread in the forum and you talk to him like you have been arguing with him personally since the dawn of time. He really didn't even say anything to insight such a reaction. But it is good let us conversate together. I like you guys more every day. I am understanding you better every day.

again I am not a leftist! We are here to hash it out. There is nothing wrong with that. We should!

What you said about war being an evil necessity. I do not agree and you are not accounting for the fact that many times we start these wars by arming the rebels. We created the Taliban "freedom fighters" and Isis and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We start it where we need to it's all business. You cant have missed it. It is in your face! It's net even conspiracy, it is conspirifact!

I only told you he's in the long haul because you asked him to leave. Just because you wanted him gone, maybe he has decided to stick around a while.

What are you? His sidekick? No one wants him or you gone. Quit with the paronoia.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 10:12 AM
I have an IQ of 140 and have read full book for 60 years. I must be at 6,000 so i know he isn't at 10,ooo unless they were all condensed. If I did that i'd be at 60,000.

So what? I still know more than both of you together. IQ is only the ability to learn; it's not how much you have learned.

Despite my IQ i know there are people here who know more than i do.

I just made the point because you guys keep calling us idiots and that we know nothing, telling me to learn to talk. I am not the smartest person on earth but I have an IQ of around 138. I am no genius but I am no idiot. I do not mind that you guys keep telling me how stupid I am because I know that it is not true. You keep telling me so many things about myself all of them not true. That is how you work the threads. Just like how you warped RadioGods conversation to call him pro abortion, not once did he say he was pro abortion. Read it through Mr 140 IQ, Act like it!

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 10:14 AM
Near the end the only concession was to allow them to keep their emperor.

I think that would have been acceptable to end the war. They sure turned it around quick too. They went from nuked and defeated to economic powerhouse really fast.

Peter1469
06-03-2018, 10:16 AM
I think that would have been acceptable to end the war. They sure turned it around quick too. They went from nuked and defeated to economic powerhouse really fast.

And they are our strongest ally in the Pacific.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 10:16 AM
Just because that's your opinion doesn't make it correct.

4,000 kamakazie planes behind the beaches; 2 million men ready to die for the Emperor. The words of the Japanese Generals. The Emperor ordering the surrender after Nagasaki.

What do you call evidence?

Captdon
06-03-2018, 10:24 AM
Ok, lets scrap that citation. How about this one?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

"Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them.American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad."
We knew they wanted to negotiate a surrender. But we needed to test our new weapons on live targets. This sent a signal to the world that we stand ready to vaporize any agressors, and fulfilled the great scientific learning about realistic nuclear after effects at the same time.

Well, you're wrong right from the start. After Hiroshima the Japanese tried to get world opinion to stop another bomb. When we dropped one on Nagasaki they quit.

Testing it on live target is something a high IQ person wouldn't think much less say. Why? If the damn thing works we don't need a live target.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 10:27 AM
Your knowledge of history is sorely lacking.

You are correct. I am lacking. There has been so much mis-information about history and it is difficult to understand all the circumstances around an event. Oftentimes the best we can do is go back to documents and certain events from the time in question and try to piece it together. We all do this from our own perspective. I will readily admit that when I look at events, I can't help but see ulterior motives and conspiracies. But I am not that way without cause. I do not mind being educated. I like hearing a new point of view precisely because I know my own is tainted. You should try it.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 10:28 AM
And they are our strongest ally in the Pacific.
LOL, I forgot about that.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 10:29 AM
Would you mind if I asked you how old you are?

Why? Were you a part of the War Planning at the Pentagon in 1945? You mist be older than death if you were. Even Jim isn't that old.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 10:30 AM
I have an IQ of 140 and have read full book for 60 years. I must be at 6,000 so i know he isn't at 10,ooo unless they were all condensed. If I did that i'd be at 60,000.

So what? I still know more than both of you together. IQ is only the ability to learn; it's not how much you have learned.

Despite my IQ i know there are people here who know more than i do.
You do not know for sure if you know more than both of us together because you do not know what we know. Also you can't say you know how many books he read. You know everyone reads at a different speed. You don't know his life situation or what he read or how much. I have just told you and you cannot contest someone else's life experience, and why is there a need to? I accept that you read 6K books and that you have an awesome IQ. I will take your word on it. Why would I need to disagree with that. That would be like the media heckling Trump for non serious issues that distract from real issues.

You are right no matter how much we know there is always someone else who knows more.

No matter how much we know, we can always learn more, and we are not always right and we can all make mistakes and be wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. We just take the facts and make the best guess that we can. A lot of the times we don't know all of the facts there is a lot that is kept from us all, or information we don't have access to, and if we were able to know it, it would change our opinion or our view.

There really is no need for us to hate each other in such a serious way. We can fight and argue and learn from one another. We are all here to hash it out, so lets do it right!

Captdon
06-03-2018, 10:32 AM
Of course you do not target civilians but if the enemy uses them as shields we do not hesitate to kill them all. If it were your family and your children who had to die or worse be blown apart and live suffering and maimed for the rest of their lives you would not think the casualties were acceptable.

We have specialists who can kill. I don't agree with any form of killing in my way of thinking or living. But, if a person has to be killed it should be just the one person, innocents should not die with them. We can hunt that person and take him out we do have that capability. It is laziness that causes us to kill unnecessarily. We can use intelligence and a little patience.

Your knowledge of the military is a blank page. I never served but even I know better than you. A lot of this stuff is right from the "book." Read one sometime.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 10:32 AM
You Pro-abortion people are against killing murderers. Want to try to stick to the thread some?

I am against killing civilians who are not the murderers. If they were the murderers they would be terrorists or combatants, and not be counted among civilian deaths. As for the thread, it was a new member asking Trump supporters some questions. And he got some genuine replies. And he gets to also see the real forum. Not bad for day 1, eh?

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 10:34 AM
Well, you're wrong right from the start. After Hiroshima the Japanese tried to get world opinion to stop another bomb. When we dropped one on Nagasaki they quit.

Testing it on live target is something a high IQ person wouldn't think much less say. Why? If the damn thing works we don't need a live target.

Alot of the people working on the bomb were from operation paperclip, meaning they were ex-nazi scientists. Of course they had to test it.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 10:35 AM
We treat them that way since the end of WWII. Prior to that, starting with congressional approval of force to protect shipping from French aggression in 1789 and against Tripoli in 1802, authorizations for the use of force were narrowly tailored, unlike declarations of war.

Link (http://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/).

We sent Marines into Central America all through the 1920's and 30's with no declaration of war.

Peter1469
06-03-2018, 10:36 AM
Well, you're wrong right from the start. After Hiroshima the Japanese tried to get world opinion to stop another bomb. When we dropped one on Nagasaki they quit.

Testing it on live target is something a high IQ person wouldn't think much less say. Why? If the damn thing works we don't need a live target.
We were not testing the bombs; we were demonstrating to the world that we now were the top dog.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 10:38 AM
Your knowledge of the military is a blank page. I never served but even I know better than you. A lot of this stuff is right from the "book." Read one sometime.
No need to read a book since you are going to tell me everything I need to know :)

Captdon
06-03-2018, 10:39 AM
Apparently you didn't understand the post, that is not my fault. It was how the conversation evolved. You just didn't get it that's all.

I see that you are not pleased that we were having a decent conversation this morning. Sorry that we were being adults. Us finding things we can agree on should not piss you off so much. It is not a love meeting. It is a grown up meeting. There is nothing wrong with us having common ground because we do. There is a lot that we agree on, and a lot that we don't. But it is good that we have a place to hash it out. That's the value of the forum.


I want to grow and expand my knowledge continuously and understand all sides. That is how we grow. I don't want to be stagnant. When I am wrong I will admit I am wrong. But if I have an opinion I would like to say it. I also would like you to have the right to say what you want. Even if it is mean a lot of the time. I will still be willing to conversate anytime.


I'm not pissed off. You are posting childish things and I am calling you on them. If you can't back up what you say don't say it.

Tell me what the common ground is on Hiroshima? Answer that and not ignore my question as you usually do.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 10:40 AM
Your knowledge of the military is a blank page. I never served but even I know better than you. A lot of this stuff is right from the "book." Read one sometime.
sooooo not wanting to kill innocent civilians makes me an idiot who needs to read books? That makes no sense.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 10:41 AM
You are the one calling yourself out.

Jesus. I'm calling you out for being child-like. I'm asking you to post with some semblance of knowledge.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 10:44 AM
I'm not pissed off. You are posting childish things and i an calling you on them. If you can't back up what you say don't say it.

Tell me what the common ground is on Hiroshima? Answer that and not ignore my question as you usually do.
What are you talking about? You are awesomely mental!

Captdon
06-03-2018, 10:46 AM
Alot of the people working on the bomb were from operation paperclip, meaning they were ex-nazi scientists. Of course they had to test it.

No one from the Nazi's worked on those first bombs. Some were refugees from the Nazi's.We tested it in the desert and not on people.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 10:47 AM
No need to read a book since you are going to tell me everything I need to know :)

I couldn't live that long.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 10:48 AM
Jesus. I'm calling you out for being child-like. I'm asking you to post with some semblance of knowledge.

A person who does not believe in taking a life because they can truly understand what that means, makes them unintelligent and child like in your eyes. It is quite the opposite.

Death is not something to take lightly. Think about your own life how you cherish it and will protect it at all costs. All living beings feel the same as you. If you can see that it does not make you an idiot but intelligent.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 10:50 AM
sooooo not wanting to kill innocent civilians makes me an idiot who needs to read books? That makes no sense.

No, and I didn't say that. I say you don't know what happens in a war. I don't know what happens when the plans go wrong but I don't pretend I do.

Again. if you can't back up what you post then don't be shocked when you're called on it. Today , I'm in the mood to call out nonsense.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 10:55 AM
No one from the Nazi's worked on those first bombs. Some were refugees from the Nazi's.We tested it in the desert and not on people.

Ok, lets say you are correct. No nazi affiliates were working on the bomb. They were refugees. I still stand by my statement that we dropped the bombs for 2 reasons.
1.) It let the world know we have the biggest bomb, and we had the will to use it. Provoke us at your own discretion.
2.) They needed real battlefield analysis of what the bombs would do, their effects on everything from civilian psychology to radiation after effects in an urban setting.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 10:57 AM
No, and I didn't say that. I say you don't know what happens in a war. I don't know what happens when the plans go wrong but I don't pretend I do.

Again. if you can't back up what you post then don't be shocked when you're called on it. Today , I'm in the mood to call out nonsense.
I always try to back up what I post but I never see you backing up your posts just telling everyone else to back up theirs. I know more that you think I know. You don't know what I do or don't know. I do know what happens in war. I know very well. It is multifaceted, from the horrors on the ground all the way up to the corporate greed that causes triggers to be pulled. It has a depth to it. It is not cut and dry. All situations are different and will call for a different action. There is a lot to it all.

But you cant keep telling other people what they know, because you don't know what they know.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 11:08 AM
Again, that is an opinion. It cannot be argued against.

I can only counter-argue by providing that the AB was used to flex our muscles, and that there was sincere regret by the scientists who invented it after they were used.

I should point out that I am amazed that those are the only two AB's in history that were used in a war situation. Humankind is so lucky.
The people who did not have to invade Japan had no regrets.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 11:10 AM
I'm not pissed off. You are posting childish things and I am calling you on them. If you can't back up what you say don't say it.

Tell me what the common ground is on Hiroshima? Answer that and not ignore my question as you usually do.

I'm trying to figure out what you meant by "common ground" in relation to Hiroshima?

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 11:12 AM
Again, I made the point that we were at war when we bombed civilian poulations during WW2. We already declared victory in the middle east, and yet we are still bombing civilians in Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Yemen, etc.
As for Pearl Harbor, maybe you haven't heard that we knew the Japanese were going to hit Hawaii, maybe even California. We let them as an excuse to engage the US in WW2. Just like the Maine in the Spanish-American war, the Lusitania for WW1, the Gulf of Tonkin incident for the Vietnam war, and Weapons of Mass Destruction for Gulf war 2.
Who has started these wars? Who profits from them? Banks that loan them money to go to war. Don't worry, I don't blame you.
Really? We knew? LOL.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 11:16 AM
Just an FYI RadioGod has an IQ of 144+ and has read over 10,000 books. He used to read Readers Digest condensed novels, and entire encyclopedias, as punishment as a child. Thanks to that he is a F'ing genius. So when you try to make it sound like he is some "ding bat" be careful it is the furthest from the truth.

Prepare yourself to be in it for the long haul!
I see no evidence of either a high IQ nor in-depth reading. I see a profound lack of wisdom.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 11:23 AM
Really? We knew? LOL.
The president and his staff knew. I didn't mean you knew. Is that better?

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 11:27 AM
I see no evidence of either a high IQ nor in-depth reading. I see a profound lack of wisdom.
Of course you do. Everyone you will ever know is wrong and a marxist. It don't take a rocket scientist to notice that perhaps the problem lies with yourself.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 11:30 AM
Ok, lets scrap that citation. How about this one?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

"Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them.American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad."
We knew they wanted to negotiate a surrender. But we needed to test our new weapons on live targets. This sent a signal to the world that we stand ready to vaporize any agressors, and fulfilled the great scientific learning about realistic nuclear after effects at the same time.
Who cares? Japan could have stopped the war at any moment. They chose not to. The turning point, in my opinion, was the Soviet Union's utter destruction of the Kwangtung Army in Manchuria.

Japan attempted a separate, more favorable peace with Russia. Based on top-secret Purple Magic decryptions of intercepted communications we knew that Sato advised the Japanese Imperial Command and the emperor that the war could be ended with one communication. His advice was ignored.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 11:31 AM
Of course you do. Everyone you will ever know is wrong and a marxist. It don't take a rocket scientist to notice that perhaps the problem lies with yourself.
I know many people who are right in many areas. You are not one of them.

Just AnotherPerson
06-03-2018, 11:34 AM
I know many people who are right in many areas. You are not one of them.

You should perhaps change your name to FORUM GOD then, you seem to be the all knowing.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 11:35 AM
Who cares? Japan could have stopped the war at any moment. They chose not to. The turning point, in my opinion, was the Soviet Union's utter destruction of the Kwangtung Army in Manchuria.

Japan attempted a separate, more favorable pace with Russia. Based on top-secret Purple Magic decryptions of intercepted communications we knew that Sato advised the Japanese Imperial Command and the emperor that the war could be ended with one communication. His advice was ignored.
Ok, wait. You are confusing me, you're starting to make sense again. I just got a "who cares" rather than a "you err".

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 11:36 AM
The president and his staff knew. I didn't mean you knew. Is that better?
Of course, you are relying on historical revisionism.

We have the opportunity today to know far more about WWII than the top level participants did. But to know more one must read a great deal. What have you done? The evidence I see indicates you spent ten minutes searching for articles to support your preconceptions. Congratulations. You are not uninformed. You are misinformed. I applaud you.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 11:37 AM
I see a profound lack of wisdom.

Of course you do. Everyone you will ever know is wrong and a marxist. It don't take a rocket scientist to notice that perhaps the problem lies with yourself.
My comment refers to you, not to everyone. After you have lunch and a nap try again.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 11:39 AM
You should perhaps change your name to FORUM GOD then, you seem to be the all knowing.
One major difference between us is that I do not comment on the things I know nothing about. If I appear to be all knowing it is because I see no reason to stumble about blindly.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 11:41 AM
Ok, wait. You are confusing me, you're starting to make sense again. I just got a "who cares" rather than a "you err".
Who cares that the Japanese Imperial Command wanted to negotiate a peace? In this case, you do not err on the fact. For the want of wisdom, you cannot see that it does not matter.

Shady Slim
06-03-2018, 11:42 AM
Aside from that, it never ceases to amaze me how right-wingers can be so anti-abortion and pro-life, then insist we annihilate anyone we perceivce as an enemy. It's like it's a totally unforgiveable sin to kill a baby before it's born, but after it draws it's first breath, it must be either enslaved or outright murdered.
it is unforgivable to kill a baby.

You are something else.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 11:42 AM
I know many people who are right in many areas. You are not one of them.

I can't be right, that would imply you wasted your life away being wrong:) But really, I am starting to see we do have some things in common. Not alot. I do see your views on the constitution were not wrong. That realization has opened my eyes a bit more, and now I see it it the constitution that is in error. I realize to you that makes me the enemy and un-American, but that is OK. I can admit I am partially un-American, because I do not agree at all with the election process in the constitution. I am definitely in favor of more democracy and less representative aspects of government.

Shady Slim
06-03-2018, 11:44 AM
Welcome to the forum:) You have just entered the prison yard of forums. You never know when you will get word-shanked by some inbred morons with swastika tattoos. Prepare to have your words spun around and around until you cannot remember your original post. It is alot like dropping the soap, 4 or 5 unruly crazies will take turns assaulting you until you crawl away violated:) Best advise, wear your armor, don't drop the soap(stay sharp), and feel free to express your own opinions despite what anyone else says.

P.S.- You might as well get prepared now. You are a "leftist", a "marxist", and an "evil liar". It doesn't matter what your views are, if it's not extreme right, you automatically default to extreme left.

That's correct. If you do not love President Trump, then you must hate President Trump and love 0bama and Hilliary.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 11:46 AM
Of course, you are relying on historical revisionism.

We have the opportunity today to know far more about WWII than the top level participants did. But to know more one must read a great deal. What have you done? The evidence I see indicates you spent ten minutes searching for articles to support your preconceptions. Congratulations. You are not uninformed. You are misinformed. I applaud you.

And that's why you were so quick to step in with your own links, oh, wait, you didn't. You just pulled baseless assumption out of your own a$$.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 11:48 AM
Who cares that the Japanese Imperial Command wanted to negotiate a peace? In this case, you do not err on the fact. For the want of wisdom, you cannot see that it does not matter.

Except when you want to argue about it, then it matters.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 11:50 AM
it is unforgivable to kill a baby.

You are something else.

LOL, that was wild. I think you should just plead guilty right now to not reading the thread before you posted.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 11:59 AM
Alot of the people working on the bomb were from operation paperclip, meaning they were ex-nazi scientists. Of course they had to test it.
Really?

I knew the author of one Operation Paperclip monograph. He loaned it to me to read. I cannot recall any of the roughly 90 top German scientists being put to work on the Manhattan Project. Perhaps some of the nearly 2000 scientist/engineer/technicians were. According to my friend the initial effort started in late May or early June 1945. How would it be possible to identify, capture, move, interrogate and position German scientists in time to create the two atomic devices used against Japan in August?

stjames1_53
06-03-2018, 01:01 PM
Would you mind if I asked you how old you are?

more insults............that's your reply..............and you expect to win n 202 with that attitude

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 01:11 PM
I know many people who are right in many areas. You are not one of them.

I can't be right, that would imply you wasted your life away being wrong:)
I have no objection to your being right. The way to bet, however, is that you will be wrong.


But really, I am starting to see we do have some things in common. Not alot. I do see your views on the constitution were not wrong. That realization has opened my eyes a bit more,
One must be able to read and comprehend at the tenth-grade level. Unsurprisingly, I can. Let's see if you offer evidence you can as well.


and now I see it it the constitution that is in error.
The Constitution was written for a moral, honorable people. Immoral, dishonest people have perverted great swaths of it. We can amend the Constitution to give it armor and a sword. We should do so. We can use the Constitution's Article V process to propose amendments that will prevent many problems.


I realize to you that makes me the enemy and un-American, but that is OK. I can admit I am partially un-American,
Those who are un-American have their reasons. I see you as an enemy of the Constitution, unwilling to amend those parts that give you problems. Perhaps you are lazy.


because I do not agree at all with the election process in the constitution. I am definitely in favor of more democracy and less representative aspects of government.
You lack wisdom.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 01:13 PM
Of course, you are relying on historical revisionism.

We have the opportunity today to know far more about WWII than the top level participants did. But to know more one must read a great deal. What have you done? The evidence I see indicates you spent ten minutes searching for articles to support your preconceptions. Congratulations. You are not uninformed. You are misinformed. I applaud you.

And that's why you were so quick to step in with your own links, oh, wait, you didn't. You just pulled baseless assumption out of your own a$$.
Why would I provide links? I am not claiming that Roosevelt and his staff knew the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor and California.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 01:13 PM
Except when you want to argue about it, then it matters.
It does not matter historically.

The Xl
06-03-2018, 01:22 PM
They're all liars, every last one of them. If you didn't have a problem before Trump, then you shouldn't have one now.

Cletus
06-03-2018, 01:46 PM
The US and Germany had declared war on each other. We do not have standing declarations of war on the places we are bombing civilians now.

Semantics and irrelevant. We are engaged in hostilities with elements in those nations. Civilian casualties are an unfortunate, but inevitable product of those hostilities.
Maybe you could call the bad guys and tell them to move away from population centers and set up "No Civilian" zones so we can kill them without endangering anyone else.

Mister D
06-03-2018, 01:46 PM
100K up to 400K people die per year in the US by medical malpractice, that does make killing civilians right? There are no acceptable casualties. A life is a life and each is the same precious. Your child is not more precious than another persons child they are equally precious. I was just making a point about the whole godly talk...…. you must have missed the point. It is more like sarcasm.

It's only acceptable until your house gets bombed, then it wouldn't be acceptable to you anymore.

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/deaths-by-medical-mistakes-hit-records

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php


Get a hold of yourself. I have no idea why you brought up malpractice and no one said anything was right...or wrong for that matter. I stated a fact to demonstrate that the contemporary US military goes out of its way to minimize civilian casualties.

Mister D
06-03-2018, 01:53 PM
Alot of the people working on the bomb were from operation paperclip, meaning they were ex-nazi scientists. Of course they had to test it.
So the US starts a program for ex-Nazis in the Summer of 1945 and brings them to the US so they can help create a couple of atomic bombs that already exist? Sounds plausible.

Cletus
06-03-2018, 01:54 PM
The whole point I was making is that when we bombed civilians in WW2, we were officially at war. We are bombing civilians now without such a declaration.

Again, semantics. For years, I specialized in what the military referred to in those days as "low intensity conflict". The reality is that to the people on the ground, when the bombs are falling and the lead is flying, it doesn't matter whether it is a tribal feud or WWIII.

You are playing a word game and you are not playing it very well.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 03:22 PM
I'm trying to figure out what you meant by "common ground" in relation to Hiroshima?

Should we have done it or not. If you say not there is no common ground.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 03:28 PM
Who cares that the Japanese Imperial Command wanted to negotiate a peace? In this case, you do not err on the fact. For the want of wisdom, you cannot see that it does not matter.

They knew it was unconditional surrender. It was the only terms we gave. We allowed them to keep their Emperor but that was after the surrender.

I think unconditional surrender was a mistake that prolonged the war. Both Churchill and Stalin were shocked when Roosevelt said that.

I, too, want to say that those who weren't going to invade Japan have no right to say anything. The scientists who regretted it knew what they were inventing. Not all of them regretted it.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 03:33 PM
So the US starts a program for ex-Nazis in the Summer of 1945 and brings them to the US so they can help create a couple of atomic bombs that already exist? Sounds plausible.

He's confusing this with the German help with ICBM's. That was years later.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 03:33 PM
They knew it was unconditional surrender. It was the only terms we gave. We allowed them to keep their Emperor but that was after the surrender.

I think unconditional surrender was a mistake that prolonged the war. Both Churchill and Stalin were shocked when Roosevelt said that.

I, too, want to say that those who weren't going to invade Japan have no right to say anything. The scientists who regretted it knew what they were inventing. Not all of them regretted it.
Many people believe unconditional surrender is the best of all possible options when dealing with totalitarians.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 03:37 PM
Many people believe unconditional surrender is the best of all possible options when dealing with totalitarians.

I base my reasoning on the fact that the Germans may have killed Hitler and ended the war sooner. I don't know that they would have but I think we could have tried it.

The Japanese wouldn't have negotiated in good faith anyway. There were suicidal. We gave them a great dose of instant death and the Emperor used his God status to bring the surrender about.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 03:39 PM
Again, semantics. For years, I specialized in what the military referred to in those days as "low intensity conflict". The reality is that to the people on the ground, when the bombs are falling and the lead is flying, it doesn't matter whether it is a tribal feud or WWIII.

You are playing a word game and you are not playing it very well.

This is the thing I meant. I know some of the bigger plans but it's said that the best plans last ten seconds when the shooting starts.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 04:32 PM
I know many people who are right in many areas. You are not one of them.

I have no objection to your being right. The way to bet, however, is that you will be wrong.


One must be able to read and comprehend at the tenth-grade level. Unsurprisingly, I can. Let's see if you offer evidence you can as well.


The Constitution was written for a moral, honorable people. Immoral, dishonest people have perverted great swaths of it. We can amend the Constitution to give it armor and a sword. We should do so. We can use the Constitution's Article V process to propose amendments that will prevent many problems.


Those who are un-American have their reasons. I see you as an enemy of the Constitution, unwilling to amend those parts that give you problems. Perhaps you are lazy.


You lack wisdom.
You do know you are bat-sh*t crazy, right?

Peter1469
06-03-2018, 04:32 PM
Semantics and irrelevant. We are engaged in hostilities with elements in those nations. Civilian casualties are an unfortunate, but inevitable product of those hostilities.
Maybe you could call the bad guys and tell them to move away from population centers and set up "No Civilian" zones so we can kill them without endangering anyone else.
Also in WWII we did not have smart bombs, if we wanted to take out a weapons factory we would carpet bomb the city with the hopes we would hit it.

Peter1469
06-03-2018, 04:33 PM
So the US starts a program for ex-Nazis in the Summer of 1945 and brings them to the US so they can help create a couple of atomic bombs that already exist? Sounds plausible.

They worked on our rocket program and later the space missions to include Apollo.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 04:34 PM
Of course, you are relying on historical revisionism.

We have the opportunity today to know far more about WWII than the top level participants did. But to know more one must read a great deal. What have you done? The evidence I see indicates you spent ten minutes searching for articles to support your preconceptions. Congratulations. You are not uninformed. You are misinformed. I applaud you.

Why would I provide links? I am not claiming that Roosevelt and his staff knew the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor and California.

I was wondering how I was wrong in saying that. You called my link no good. Provide me one that is.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 04:39 PM
Semantics and irrelevant. We are engaged in hostilities with elements in those nations. Civilian casualties are an unfortunate, but inevitable product of those hostilities.
Maybe you could call the bad guys and tell them to move away from population centers and set up "No Civilian" zones so we can kill them without endangering anyone else.
I think I addressed this. I would not want to be the one who decides how to go about taking someone out, and trying not to harm a local population at the same time. It is precisely your attitude that demonstrates what is wrong with America and why people want to kill us in the first place. We have developed a reputation for not caring at all what some foreigners think, and we don't value any life, much less the lives of innocent civillians.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 04:41 PM
So the US starts a program for ex-Nazis in the Summer of 1945 and brings them to the US so they can help create a couple of atomic bombs that already exist? Sounds plausible.
Right. I mentioned paperclip, I shouldn't have. It didn't officially start until after germany was defeated.

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 04:43 PM
Again, semantics. For years, I specialized in what the military referred to in those days as "low intensity conflict". The reality is that to the people on the ground, when the bombs are falling and the lead is flying, it doesn't matter whether it is a tribal feud or WWIII.

You are playing a word game and you are not playing it very well.

Low intensity conflict? Is that like when you work in the mess hall and get into arguments over the menu?

RadioGod
06-03-2018, 04:44 PM
Should we have done it or not. If you say not there is no common ground.
I don't see any common ground then on Hiroshima. We will have to find common ground on another issue.

Peter1469
06-03-2018, 05:00 PM
Low intensity conflict? Is that like when you work in the mess hall and get into arguments over the menu?
Low intensity conflict (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_intensity_conflict)


A low-intensity conflict (LIC) is a military conflict, usually localised, between two or more state or non-state groups which is below the intensity of conventional war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_war). It involves the state's use of military (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military) forces applied selectively and with restraint to enforce compliance with its policies or objectives. The term can be used to describe conflicts where at least one or both of the opposing parties operate along such lines.

jet57
06-03-2018, 05:05 PM
The whole point I was making is that when we bombed civilians in WW2, we were officially at war. We are bombing civilians now without such a declaration.

We bombed a whole bunch of civilians during the Vietnam era too; what's your point? That we should have declarations of war before we go to war? Republicans won't like that, they never do.

stjames1_53
06-03-2018, 05:08 PM
We bombed a whole bunch of civilians during the Vietnam era too; what's your point? That we should have declarations of war before we go to war? Republicans won't like that, they never do.

can you say UN peace keeping missions? I say get us out of the fvcking UN and move their building to Somalia

Mister D
06-03-2018, 05:13 PM
They worked on our rocket program and later the space missions to include Apollo.
That I know. Ex-Nazis had absolutely nothing to do with the Manhattan Project.

Cletus
06-03-2018, 05:20 PM
I think I addressed this. I would not want to be the one who decides how to go about taking someone out, and trying not to harm a local population at the same time. It is precisely your attitude that demonstrates what is wrong with America and why people want to kill us in the first place. We have developed a reputation for not caring at all what some foreigners think, and we don't value any life, much less the lives of innocent civillians.

You are flapping your gums without having a clue as to what you are talking about.

The US goes to great lengths to try to prevent civilian deaths. That is why we don't engage in what Pete was talking about anymore... saturation bombings of cities and other populated areas. Unfortunately, our unwillingness to kill noncombatants is well known to our enemies, which is exactly why the embed themselves in places where there are civilians. The munitions we use today minimize the number of civilians killed because we can strike with incredible precision. again unfortunately though, even dropping precision munitions on a target can't totally eliminate the risk.

In some places, we can use precision riflemen and take out a single target, but in the majority of cases where where civilian casualties occur, that tactic just won't work.

Cletus
06-03-2018, 05:22 PM
Low intensity conflict? Is that like when you work in the mess hall and get into arguments over the menu?
No.

If you don't know what it is, bow out of the discussion and go find out. That is generally better than making a fool of yourself as you did with the above post.

Peter1469
06-03-2018, 05:26 PM
We bombed a whole bunch of civilians during the Vietnam era too; what's your point? That we should have declarations of war before we go to war? Republicans won't like that, they never do.
Like the Republican who got us into Vietnam? :shocked:

Or Bill Clinton who did not even consult congress before bombing Serbia.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 05:47 PM
I think I addressed this. I would not want to be the one who decides how to go about taking someone out, and trying not to harm a local population at the same time. It is precisely your attitude that demonstrates what is wrong with America and why people want to kill us in the first place. We have developed a reputation for not caring at all what some foreigners think, and we don't value any life, much less the lives of innocent civillians.

What utter nonsense. Civilian deaths are a product of all wars by all sides. People want to kill us because they do have to go through us first. Like it or not we are the only ones standing in the way of world domination by dictators.

We don't always do right but the world wouldn't be worth living anymore if it weren't for us. By us, I don't mean you of course.

Captdon
06-03-2018, 05:52 PM
We bombed a whole bunch of civilians during the Vietnam era too; what's your point? That we should have declarations of war before we go to war? Republicans won't like that, they never do.

Vietnam was brought to you by Democrat Lyndon Johnson.

jet57
06-03-2018, 06:30 PM
Like the Republican who got us into Vietnam? :shocked:

Or Bill Clinton who did not even consult congress before bombing Serbia.
Yeah, like that. But don't forget the Dems that put us in the Vietnam quicksand.

jet57
06-03-2018, 06:32 PM
Vietnam was brought to you by Democrat Lyndon Johnson.

Vietnam was brought to US by Dwight Eisenhower who, like every president following him did not want to appear soft on communism even though it was well known that we couldn't win.

donttread
06-03-2018, 06:37 PM
We bombed a whole bunch of civilians during the Vietnam era too; what's your point? That we should have declarations of war before we go to war? Republicans won't like that, they never do.


Perhaps the point is we should not have gone to that war or most of them since then

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 06:48 PM
Again, semantics. For years, I specialized in what the military referred to in those days as "low intensity conflict". The reality is that to the people on the ground, when the bombs are falling and the lead is flying, it doesn't matter whether it is a tribal feud or WWIII.

You are playing a word game and you are not playing it very well.
Small wars. I spent roughly five years studying them while on active duty.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 06:51 PM
I base my reasoning on the fact that the Germans may have killed Hitler and ended the war sooner. I don't know that they would have but I think we could have tried it.
They tried and failed. Rommel was implicated.

The Japanese wouldn't have negotiated in good faith anyway. There were suicidal. We gave them a great dose of instant death and the Emperor used his God status to bring the surrender about.
The top-secret purple magic decrypts showed the Japanese perfidy. They were trying to make a side deal with Russia to divide up China.

Of course, we knew that.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 06:52 PM
This is the thing I meant. I know some of the bigger plans but it's said that the best plans last ten seconds when the shooting starts.
Do you understand the purpose of planning?

It is said no plan survives contact with the enemy. So why bother?

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 06:53 PM
You do know you are bat-sh*t crazy, right?
You err. I am not crazy. Batshit or some other variant.

You lack wisdom.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 06:54 PM
Also in WWII we did not have smart bombs, if we wanted to take out a weapons factory we would carpet bomb the city with the hopes we would hit it.
The circular error probable was measured in miles. I read the European Strategic Bombing Survey. We mostly missed.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 06:55 PM
They worked on our rocket program and later the space missions to include Apollo.
It is not as well known but they also gave us enormous insights into chemical weapons and chemical warfare.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 06:57 PM
I was wondering how I was wrong in saying that. You called my link no good. Provide me one that is.
You made the claim that Roosevelt and his staff knew the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor and California. You found a kook who believes as you do. Big deal. Try to discover the facts of the matter. If you can.

Or continue on in error.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 06:58 PM
I think I addressed this. I would not want to be the one who decides how to go about taking someone out, and trying not to harm a local population at the same time. It is precisely your attitude that demonstrates what is wrong with America and why people want to kill us in the first place. We have developed a reputation for not caring at all what some foreigners think, and we don't value any life, much less the lives of innocent civillians.
You do know you are batshit crazy, don't you?

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 07:01 PM
Low intensity conflict? Is that like when you work in the mess hall and get into arguments over the menu?
It might be best to leave the more sophisticated topics alone until after you have competency in bread and butter warfare.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 07:03 PM
I don't see any common ground then on Hiroshima. We will have to find common ground on another issue.
We used an atomic weapon to destroy military targets in Hiroshima. It was appropriate and apparently militarily effective. The target was destroyed.

MisterVeritis
06-03-2018, 07:05 PM
Vietnam was brought to US by Dwight Eisenhower who, like every president following him did not want to appear soft on communism even though it was well known that we couldn't win.
No. We could have won. Easily. We foolishly chose not to.

Peter1469
06-03-2018, 07:41 PM
Yeah, like that. But don't forget the Dems that put us in the Vietnam quicksand.

I know.

jet57
06-03-2018, 08:20 PM
Perhaps the point is we should not have gone to that war or most of them since then

Truer words were never spoken.

Just AnotherPerson
06-04-2018, 12:50 AM
If you get the chance, read the book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008GZ4IGS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 Great read.

I want to tell you thank you for the chance to debate these subjects this morning. I did say that if I could not find anything that I will surrender :)

I am not going to say that I am right, but I am not sure if I am ready to say I am wrong either.

Here is what I do know is that as long as the facts of a matter are not made clear and information is withheld from public access then none of us can really claim to know the exact truth. We can only go by what we are given and what we have seen and experienced. I don't really know who is right. But what I do know is that I want to know the real truth. I want to know more. I do not want my opinion to be right. Instead I want to know what is true. Being right is just something to bolster the ego, while on the other had knowing the truth is real wisdom. I would rather have the real wisdom and admit that I was wrong. I will not hold to one point of view and change as I learn more.

Here are some links that I found, some may be a really interesting watch or read.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Japan-really-try-to-surrender-before-the-atomic-bomb-was-dropped-on-Hiroshima

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1985/08/04/did-america-have-to-drop-the-bombnot-to-end-the-war-but-truman-wanted-to-intimidate-russia/46105dff-8594-4f6c-b6d7-ef1b6cb6530d/

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stone-kuznick-hiroshima-obama-20160524-snap-story.html


http://time.com/4346336/atomic-bombs-1945-history/



https://youtu.be/3wxWNAM8Cso



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-WnLNLe3sk&feature=youtu.be



https://youtu.be/oCqjjVgXOg4



https://youtu.be/YDBCCPpUEEs



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXwSbkdVQro


Here are some other random viedoes that are not to prove my point but just as an evolved search for information



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWLl1z5n-Js



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMYumVM1rZM



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMzYJPEWH6Y


Some more information



Here is a Wikipedia link with a comment by Fleet Admiral William D Leahy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Leahy

"Once it had been tested, President Truman faced the decision as to whether to use it. He did not like the idea, but he was persuaded that it would shorten the war against Japan and save American lives. It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and that wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Leahy#cite_note-6)

Just AnotherPerson
06-04-2018, 12:53 AM
Get a hold of yourself. I have no idea why you brought up malpractice and no one said anything was right...or wrong for that matter. I stated a fact to demonstrate that the contemporary US military goes out of its way to minimize civilian casualties.

My apologies

I guess I thought you meant it like the link that I had provided of the 500 civilian deaths did not matter because it was nothing compared to how many we killed in world war two. I may have misunderstood the meaning in your words. That is understandable.

I felt that if you used an example of unrelated deaths such as world war two to show how deaths of 500 civilians today is nothing, then I thought I would also give an example as well of deaths that are unrelated to the 500 civilian deaths, and because there is no correlation it cannot make the 500 civilian deaths acceptable. I wanted to show that you gave a number that was high to compare to the 500 civilian deaths to prove a point, and I would give an example of another type of death that happens here in America that is more than all war combined.

So I am not sure if that makes my thoughts and intentions more clear. If I was wrong I did not mean to be and I apologize. That is why we can have dialogue. No one ever really knows what another person is meaning unless they explain it to one another.

Just AnotherPerson
06-04-2018, 01:13 AM
An audio

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03978m6 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03978m6)


A playlist


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L434sdb74eY&list=PLD7F1A06CE1780AD5



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEO7pddV9fk&list=PLD7F1A06CE1780AD5&index= 2



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wxWNAM8Cso&list=PLD7F1A06CE1780AD5&index= 3



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLlQ5GFWYpw&list=PLD7F1A06CE1780AD5&index= 4



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7fT6Mur6Gg&list=PLD7F1A06CE1780AD5&index= 5



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKD-0mJ94B4&list=PLD7F1A06CE1780AD5&index=6

RadioGod
06-04-2018, 03:42 AM
What utter nonsense. Civilian deaths are a product of all wars by all sides. People want to kill us because they do have to go through us first. Like it or not we are the only ones standing in the way of world domination by dictators.

We don't always do right but the world wouldn't be worth living anymore if it weren't for us. By us, I don't mean you of course.

C'mon now. You can't actually believe we are the only thing standing in the way of the world's dictators. Most of the dictators in the world are only in power because we support them on behalf of companies that are pillaging their resources. We have turned into the world's dictator.

RadioGod
06-04-2018, 03:52 AM
We used an atomic weapon to destroy military targets in Hiroshima. It was appropriate and apparently militarily effective. The target was destroyed.
Along with any shred of human decency we had.

RadioGod
06-04-2018, 04:40 AM
I want to tell you thank you for the chance to debate these subjects this morning. I did say that if I could not find anything that I will surrender :)

I am not going to say that I am right, but I am not sure if I am ready to say I am wrong either.

Here is what I do know is that as long as the facts of a matter are not made clear and information is withheld from public access then none of us can really claim to know the exact truth. We can only go by what we are given and what we have seen and experienced. I don't really know who is right. But what I do know is that I want to know the real truth. I want to know more. I do not want my opinion to be right. Instead I want to know what is true. Being right is just something to bolster the ego, while on the other had knowing the truth is real wisdom. I would rather have the real wisdom and admit that I was wrong. I will not hold to one point of view and change as I learn more.

Here are some links that I found, some may be a really interesting watch or read.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Japan-really-try-to-surrender-before-the-atomic-bomb-was-dropped-on-Hiroshima

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1985/08/04/did-america-have-to-drop-the-bombnot-to-end-the-war-but-truman-wanted-to-intimidate-russia/46105dff-8594-4f6c-b6d7-ef1b6cb6530d/

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stone-kuznick-hiroshima-obama-20160524-snap-story.html


http://time.com/4346336/atomic-bombs-1945-history/



https://youtu.be/3wxWNAM8Cso



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-WnLNLe3sk&feature=youtu.be



https://youtu.be/oCqjjVgXOg4



https://youtu.be/YDBCCPpUEEs



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXwSbkdVQro


Here are some other random viedoes that are not to prove my point but just as an evolved search for information



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWLl1z5n-Js



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMYumVM1rZM



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMzYJPEWH6Y


Some more information



Here is a Wikipedia link with a comment by Fleet Admiral William D Leahy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Leahy

"Once it had been tested, President Truman faced the decision as to whether to use it. He did not like the idea, but he was persuaded that it would shorten the war against Japan and save American lives. It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and that wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Leahy#cite_note-6)











Good links! I was looking through them and saw there was a telegram from Emperor Hirohito mentioned in the Truman diaries. In the diary it doesn't make clear if it was to Stalin or Truman, but I am assuming Stalin. Hiroito begged for peace.

7/18/45 Diary Entry:"P.M. [Prime Minister Winston Churchill] & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan [atomic bomb] (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time." [The closest Truman came to doing that was on 7/24/45 when "I casually mentioned to Stalin that we had a new weapon of unusual destructive force." (Harry Truman, "Memoirs, 1945", pg. 416). No mention was made by Truman that the weapon was an atomic bomb.]
I found the diary entry on this page:
http://www.doug-long.com/hst.htm

Even from all the diary entries alone, it looks like Truman wanted to drop the bombs, and then went on a justification campaign afterwards. He even overrode the military on the issue of using the bomb.

Just AnotherPerson
06-04-2018, 06:09 AM
I found that the information that I sifted through was of such importance that I made a new thread with the information. I am aware that this thread has been buried with several pages of one line arguments and that such important information about our history that I wish to share with others will be lost in this thread as I do not know how many people will want to sift through 20 pages of mud slinging.

DGUtley
06-04-2018, 07:03 AM
Back to the thread:
jbander,


1. Are you supportive of Trump when it's called for? Are you cheering him on with this NK thing? Hoping that he succeeds?
2. Do you think if the media was 1/2 as critical of The Obama as they are of Trump that he'd have stood a snowball's chance in hell of being elected or being re-elected?
3. What are "all of the institutions of this country" that you believe that Trump hates?
4. Do you want the media to be fairly critical of Trump; or, do you think it's ok that the Media makes stuff up against him?
5. What law is it alleged that Trump violated?

stjames1_53
06-04-2018, 07:07 AM
Back to the thread:
@jbander (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2684),


1. Are you supportive of Trump when it's called for? Are you cheering him on with this NK thing? Hoping that he succeeds?
2. Do you think if the media was 1/2 as critical of The Obama as they are of Trump that he'd have stood a snowball's chance in hell of being elected or being re-elected?
3. What are "all of the institutions of this country" that you believe that Trump hates?
4. Do you want the media to be fairly critical of Trump; or, do you think it's ok that the Media makes stuff up against him?
5. What law is it alleged that Trump violated?

I'll be real surprised if he answers truthfully.......... or even at all

stjames1_53
06-04-2018, 07:17 AM
Along with any shred of human decency we had.
It was implied that the war with Japan would have lasted another 4 years at a terrible cost to both sides. The bomb ended that.
Japan and Germany had no compunction about killing civilians enmasse. They both believed they were invincible.
How many more lives lost would have been acceptable?
Recall that Japan started the war by killing civilians as well as our military. They absolutely intended that we should be unable to resist future attacks. Hell, they even bombed a hospital at Pearl harbor so that we could not treat our wounded.
The once mighty emperor wanted a conditional surrender. Are we to reward him for that?

Captdon
06-04-2018, 08:14 AM
Vietnam was brought to US by Dwight Eisenhower who, like every president following him did not want to appear soft on communism even though it was well known that we couldn't win.

Nope. Ike has 589 advisors. Kennedy had a division protecting the main naval and air base. It was LBJ who sent the whole army in. I was 18 when he did. Don't argue with history.


It was not well known that we couldn't win. We couldn't win when LBJ said no bombing the bridges out of China; no mining the harbors in the North; no crossing the DMZ and no closing the Trail. We could have won if LBJ hadn't told the military how to fight a war.

Don't argue with history.

Captdon
06-04-2018, 08:21 AM
They tried and failed. Rommel was implicated.

The top-secret purple magic decrypts showed the Japanese perfidy. They were trying to make a side deal with Russia to divide up China.

Of course, we knew that.

The main leadership didn't try. They may not have. But id they could have surrendered without being hanged they may have killed Hitler.

Captdon
06-04-2018, 08:23 AM
Do you understand the purpose of planning?

It is said no plan survives contact with the enemy. So why bother?

What's the difference in this and what I said?

Captdon
06-04-2018, 08:31 AM
Good links! I was looking through them and saw there was a telegram from Emperor Hirohito mentioned in the Truman diaries. In the diary it doesn't make clear if it was to Stalin or Truman, but I am assuming Stalin. Hiroito begged for peace.

7/18/45 Diary Entry:"P.M. [Prime Minister Winston Churchill] & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan [atomic bomb] (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time." [The closest Truman came to doing that was on 7/24/45 when "I casually mentioned to Stalin that we had a new weapon of unusual destructive force." (Harry Truman, "Memoirs, 1945", pg. 416). No mention was made by Truman that the weapon was an atomic bomb.]
I found the diary entry on this page:
http://www.doug-long.com/hst.htm

Even from all the diary entries alone, it looks like Truman wanted to drop the bombs, and then went on a justification campaign afterwards. He even overrode the military on the issue of using the bomb.

A load of bs. What do you think Manhattan referred to? Truman made it clear we had a weapon that was massive. Why else would he have said anything? Cry for the poor Japanese if you want. I prefer a Japanese death over an American one.

That's the difference between us. You're a sap an d I', not. Cry me a river.

MisterVeritis
06-04-2018, 01:16 PM
Along with any shred of human decency we had.
A buffoon, living comfortably, seventy plus years after the event speaks. Why should anyone listen?

MisterVeritis
06-04-2018, 01:19 PM
Good links! I was looking through them and saw there was a telegram from Emperor Hirohito mentioned in the Truman diaries. In the diary it doesn't make clear if it was to Stalin or Truman, but I am assuming Stalin. Hiroito begged for peace.

7/18/45 Diary Entry:"P.M. [Prime Minister Winston Churchill] & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan [atomic bomb] (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time." [The closest Truman came to doing that was on 7/24/45 when "I casually mentioned to Stalin that we had a new weapon of unusual destructive force." (Harry Truman, "Memoirs, 1945", pg. 416). No mention was made by Truman that the weapon was an atomic bomb.]
I found the diary entry on this page:
http://www.doug-long.com/hst.htm

Even from all the diary entries alone, it looks like Truman wanted to drop the bombs, and then went on a justification campaign afterwards. He even overrode the military on the issue of using the bomb.
At the time it was clear the Japanese were attempting to separate the Russians from the rest of the allies. We know this from the communications intelligence decrypts (top secret Purple Magic) collected and decrypted at the time.

MisterVeritis
06-04-2018, 01:21 PM
The main leadership didn't try. They may not have. But id they could have surrendered without being hanged they may have killed Hitler.
I suppose alternative histories are popular.

MisterVeritis
06-04-2018, 01:22 PM
Do you understand the purpose of planning?

It is said no plan survives contact with the enemy. So why bother?

What's the difference in this and what I said?
Perhaps I was too subtle. Do you know why we plan?

RadioGod
06-04-2018, 03:24 PM
A buffoon, living comfortably, seventy plus years after the event speaks. Why should anyone listen?

And yet you still couldn't help yourself, you had to feed into my buffooness.

MisterVeritis
06-04-2018, 04:40 PM
A buffoon, living comfortably, seventy plus years after the event speaks. Why should anyone listen?

And yet you still couldn't help yourself, you had to feed into my buffooness.
Some buffoons are self-sustaining. Have you ever considered studying a subject until you have mastered that subject?

RadioGod
06-04-2018, 04:52 PM
A buffoon, living comfortably, seventy plus years after the event speaks. Why should anyone listen?

Some buffoons are self-sustaining. Have you ever considered studying a subject until you have mastered that subject?
I am studying you, does that count?

MisterVeritis
06-04-2018, 05:01 PM
I am studying you, does that count?
It might count. I cannot imagine you have access to all the source material. Perhaps you should begin with something simple like the decision to use atomic weapons against two targets in Japan near the end of the world war.

RadioGod
06-04-2018, 05:11 PM
It might count. I cannot imagine you have access to all the source material. Perhaps you should begin with something simple like the decision to use atomic weapons against two targets in Japan near the end of the world war.
Haha. I am going back to that. I will see you in forum court. Unless I am wrong, in which case I will weep tears of blood and turn to the time-honored forum tradition of just saying, "that's bs", and attempt to shift the burden of proof onto you:)

MisterVeritis
06-04-2018, 05:19 PM
Haha. I am going back to that. I will see you in forum court. Unless I am wrong, in which case I will weep tears of blood and turn to the time-honored forum tradition of just saying, "that's bs", and attempt to shift the burden of proof onto you:)
There is a substantial body of information available. The most damning evidence comes from decrypted Japanese messages. I would discount anything written more than one year after the end of the war. Go with the information the decisionmakers had. You cannot go (too) wrong if you follow my method.

Shady Slim
06-04-2018, 05:21 PM
LOL, that was wild. I think you should just plead guilty right now to not reading the thread before you posted.

What fer?


(not a typo, I meant to say 'fer')

RadioGod
06-04-2018, 05:27 PM
There is a substantial body of information available. The most damning evidence comes from decrypted Japanese messages. I would discount anything written more than one year after the end of the war. Go with the information the decisionmakers had. You cannot go (too) wrong if you follow my method.
That is good advice, duly noted.

RadioGod
06-04-2018, 05:29 PM
What fer?
Sorry Slim, I replied before I realized you were being funny about calling me a baby-killer. I think.

(not a typo, I meant to say 'fer')

RadioGod
06-04-2018, 05:31 PM
Sorry again, I messed up the quote box.

Sorry Slim, I replied before I realized you were being funny about calling me a baby-killer. I think.

jet57
06-04-2018, 10:19 PM
Nope. Ike has 589 advisors. Kennedy had a division protecting the main naval and air base. It was LBJ who sent the whole army in. I was 18 when he did. Don't argue with history.


It was not well known that we couldn't win. We couldn't win when LBJ said no bombing the bridges out of China; no mining the harbors in the North; no crossing the DMZ and no closing the Trail. We could have won if LBJ hadn't told the military how to fight a war.

Don't argue with history.
Uh, LBJ sent in the first big wave of troops yes, but he inherited the war from JFK who inherited it from Eisenhower: read history.

KathyS
06-05-2018, 12:37 AM
@jbander (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2684), you're new here. Welcome aboard.

I voted for Trump b/c of the dangers that a HRC-appointed SCOTUS would've posed to this country constitutionally and structurally. I read and studied her positions. For me, it was all about the Court and the judiciary. None of this will impact me financially and I'm too old for any of it to impact me structurally. I don't get all exercised about what Trump says or does, much of which is despicable. They were both despicable candidates and I had to choose the lesser of two evils: which one would best preserve our Constitutional system for future generations by appointing SCOTUS justices committed what our founders intended structurally. That was an easy decision for me. Very easy. To help you better understand this rationale, read this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/07/the-supreme-court-oral-argument-that-cost-democrats-the-presidency/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.355421a4a2e5



I honestly thought that this election was probably our last chance (yes last chance) to save her. To save her structurally. To save her constitutionally. To save her from a far left wing nut job administration and far left Court from which their would've been no turning back. European socialism. I understand many on here disagree. We've been over this ad nauseum. Think though how the left is trying to quash free speech in this country and imagine if they had the WH and the Courts behind them. That's just one issue. So, "wanted for this country" … some of us where trying to save our country.


I think he likes to tweak the media, put a stick in their eye, so to speak. Like Obama, he takes a hair of truth and spouts off. The media calls him on it b/c they loathe him. They loved Obama



My children are old enough to make their own decisions. My two daughters are both professionals -- pharmacists. One despises him. One likes some of what he does but hates his twitter and his big mouth. There's many things that I wouldn't want my grandchildren to emulate about Trump. Many.



I am not an evangelical.



He has shown many acts of kindness and charity in his life. You won't read about them in the media you read.



I'm not sure what you mean here? "all of the institutions of this country". I think that he thinks that many of these institutions (if I understand you correctly) have been corrupted by career politicians. I don't think he hates any "of the institutions" of this country.



To name a few, in no particular order:

1. He has taken the jack boot of governmental regulation off of the neck of businesses.
2. Cut taxes for Americans.
3. Preserved a conservative Court to enable us to continue to bicker within the boundaries of what our founders set up.
4. Have you seen the unemployment rate?
5. Have you seen consumer confidence?
6. Have you seen the African American unemployment rate?




I haven't seen any evidence of it, except the FB stuff. You realize the Russians' intent was to sow discontent and confusion. Guess what? It worked.



All what meetings? No more or no less than HRC's people. You realize that foreign influence in Washington is a problem, right? I haven't seen or read that any of this is illegal (or that it happened).




The media despises and attacks Trump daily. What are you talking about. I make my own independent judgment regardless of what the media says.



Is the Pope Catholic? Do you think if the media was 1/2 as critical of The Obama as they are of Trump that he'd have stood a snowball's chance in hell of being elected or being re-elected? C'mon man.



He is definitely treated unfairly b/c they lie about him. I want the media to be extremely critical of him and all of the government, to force the government to prove its legitimacy each and every day. They can do so without making it up.



It isn't blind support. I'm critical when it's called for. Are you supportive when it's called for? Are you cheering him on with this NK thing? Hoping that he succeeds?



It is obvious you're a progressive.
I agree with you. And well said, thanks.

I LOL darn near every day as the media flips out over everything Trump. IMO, Trump pokes at them just to watch their outrage, lol.

spunkloaf
06-05-2018, 01:45 AM
I agree with you. And well said, thanks.

I LOL darn near every day as the media flips out over everything Trump. IMO, Trump pokes at them just to watch their outrage, lol.

That's not a president. It's an agitator, and a divider that you are describing.

AZ Jim
06-05-2018, 04:49 AM
He lies less than other presidents especially obama, hes more upfront than any president in my lifetime and ive been voting since 1967

He has every right to attack some institutions like the media who lie about him daily, create negative stories and refuse to give him credit for anything. 90% negative coverage by the biased liberal press. Please list all of the Obama lies you speak of?

stjames1_53
06-05-2018, 06:10 AM
Please list all of the Obama lies you speak of?

If you like your doctor...........
If you like your insurance...........
This will reduce the cost of premiums............
We did not traffic guns to the drug cartels...........
It's the right thing to do.......

stjames1_53
06-05-2018, 06:13 AM
Sorry again, I messed up the quote box.

Sorry Slim, I replied before I realized you were being funny about calling me a baby-killer. I think.




He NEVER called you a baby killer............so you are not to be trusted in the future because of your invention.

stjames1_53
06-05-2018, 06:14 AM
That's not a president. It's an agitator, and a divider that you are describing.

you sure got the nail straight about Obama

Captdon
06-05-2018, 10:03 AM
Of course, you are relying on historical revisionism.

We have the opportunity today to know far more about WWII than the top level participants did. But to know more one must read a great deal. What have you done? The evidence I see indicates you spent ten minutes searching for articles to support your preconceptions. Congratulations. You are not uninformed. You are misinformed. I applaud you.

Why would I provide links? I am not claiming that Roosevelt and his staff knew the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor and California.

The internet didn't exist when I learned most things. I know WWII from the men who fought it. My uncle was in the first wave at the three ETO landings. He was transferred to the Pacific. He told me it was unlikely he'd be in the first wave there but... He was damned glad we dropped the bombs.

How do I link to that?

Captdon
06-05-2018, 10:07 AM
Do you understand the purpose of planning?

It is said no plan survives contact with the enemy. So why bother?

Perhaps I was too subtle. Do you know why we plan?

Yea, too subtle. The plan for the break out at Normandy didn't work out. That's what I meant.

Captdon
06-05-2018, 10:10 AM
Uh, LBJ sent in the first big wave of troops yes, but he inherited the war from JFK who inherited it from Eisenhower: read history.

Christ, read my post. Where is the Vietnam War we fought in what Ike and Kennedy did? Kennedy was going to withdraw after taking care of Goldwater. It's all on that asshole LBJ.

I was alive when it was happening. Read the Pentagon Papers.

Captdon
06-05-2018, 10:16 AM
I suppose alternative histories are popular.

Nay, just a possibility. You may be smart but you don't know what the Generals would have done. Don't start a fuss about something stupid.

Captdon
06-05-2018, 10:18 AM
That's not a president. It's an agitator, and a divider that you are describing.

That's because you believe everything the MSM says. That's a comment on your intelligence.

MisterVeritis
06-05-2018, 12:02 PM
The internet didn't exist when I learned most things. I know WWII from the men who fought it. My uncle was in the first wave at the three ETO landings. He was transferred to the Pacific. He told me it was unlikely he'd be in the first wave there but... He was damned glad we dropped the bombs.

How do I link to that?
Anecdotal evidence, if written at the time is evidence for a perspective. To understand the decision to use the first two atomic weapons against Japanese targets one must read the relevant memoranda written at the time the decision was made.

MisterVeritis
06-05-2018, 12:02 PM
Yea, too subtle. The plan for the break out at Normandy didn't work out. That's what I meant.
It is okay to admit you have no idea why we plan.

MisterVeritis
06-05-2018, 12:04 PM
Nay, just a possibility. You may be smart but you don't know what the Generals would have done. Don't start a fuss about something stupid.
I know what did happen. Field Marshall Rommel was implicated in the plot to kill Hitler. I know what the Generals might attempt because they attempted it and failed.

nathanbforrest45
06-05-2018, 12:27 PM
You should perhaps change your name to FORUM GOD then, you seem to be the all knowing.


He is all knowing and what he doesn't know, I do

MisterVeritis
06-05-2018, 01:01 PM
He is all knowing and what he doesn't know, I do
Those things I either do not know or do not care about, I do not comment on. :grin:

RadioGod
06-05-2018, 01:40 PM
He NEVER called you a baby killer............so you are not to be trusted in the future because of your invention.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Shady Slim http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2356155#post2356155)
it is unforgivable to kill a baby.

You are something else.

Here. Oh, and I apologized to him for jumping to conclusions. I didn't take into account he might have been being funny.

jet57
06-05-2018, 09:11 PM
Christ, read my post. Where is the Vietnam War we fought in what Ike and Kennedy did? Kennedy was going to withdraw after taking care of Goldwater. It's all on that $#@! LBJ.

I was alive when it was happening. Read the Pentagon Papers.

I was alive too dude. I came of age just before the last helicopter took off from the American embassy. Read up on the Vietnam war and then get back to me.

stjames1_53
06-06-2018, 05:14 AM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Shady Slim http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2356155#post2356155)
it is unforgivable to kill a baby.

You are something else.

Here. Oh, and I apologized to him for jumping to conclusions. I didn't take into account he might have been being funny.

It is unforgiveable to kill a child/baby. He did NOT say you did it. You just took a general statement, applied it to yourself, then called him out for it.
I don't think you've killed babies, and I don't think he said you did. Unless you are pro-abortion................and have carried out an abortion.
You just took it personal. That usually indicates some guilt....... but not necessarily actual guilt

stjames1_53
06-06-2018, 05:17 AM
I was alive too dude. I came of age just before the last helicopter took off from the American embassy. Read up on the Vietnam war and then get back to me.

I served from '71-'75 in Nam. I was there...........so you have no actual real knowledge of what happened over there. You weren't there. Nothing says knowledge like the experience of being there.
Were you one of those people who spit on American soldiers as they returned?

stjames1_53
06-06-2018, 05:19 AM
dupe post

jet57
06-06-2018, 08:20 AM
I served from '71-'75 in Nam. I was there...........so you have no actual real knowledge of what happened over there. You weren't there. Nothing says knowledge like the experience of being there.
Were you one of those people who spit on American soldiers as they returned?

So I thought I'd take a chance, but I gambled and lost: I have you on "ignore" for a reason.

4 year tour; yeah sure, whatever you say.

Captdon
06-06-2018, 08:26 AM
It is okay to admit you have no idea why we plan.

Then tell me. Ike said the plan to break out of the Normandy beachhead didn't work. I assumed he knew what he was talking about. Apparently not.

You are making a claim but not backing it up. Try a factual answer and not play your games. If i have the wrong definition explain it and what Ike meant.

Captdon
06-06-2018, 08:29 AM
I was alive too dude. I came of age just before the last helicopter took off from the American embassy. Read up on the Vietnam war and then get back to me.


read the Pentagon Papers. It's right there on government paper. Why do you think the government tried to keep them hidden.

You coming of age in 1973 is irrelevant. You missed all the bad parts/

stjames1_53
06-06-2018, 08:34 AM
So I thought I'd take a chance, but I gambled and lost: I have you on "ignore" for a reason.

4 year tour; yeah sure, whatever you say.

because you lost........you should never bet on another man's game.......loser

Captdon
06-06-2018, 09:14 AM
It is okay to admit you have no idea why we plan.

I found out a plan is the organization of troops a, etc need to carry out operations. Is that correct. it so, why play your fucking games. If not, what is it?

Captdon
06-06-2018, 09:14 AM
It is okay to admit you have no idea why we plan.

I didn't say anything about why we plan.

Captdon
06-06-2018, 09:18 AM
I know what did happen. Field Marshall Rommel was implicated in the plot to kill Hitler. I know what the Generals might attempt because they attempted it and failed.

That plot was loony tunes. Only a few people were involved and the planning was a joke. If they could have surrendered with conditions other Generals may have joined in. You don't know and I don't know. The important part is that you don't know what may have happened if we hadn't taken the position we did.

MisterVeritis
06-06-2018, 10:45 AM
Then tell me. Ike said the plan to break out of the Normandy beachhead didn't work. I assumed he knew what he was talking about. Apparently not.

You are making a claim but not backing it up. Try a factual answer and not play your games. If i have the wrong definition explain it and what Ike meant.
We plan so we do not forget things. We plan so we do not screw things up. It has long been a truism that no plan survives contact with the enemy in battle. But that is not what plans are for. Plans help us to be ready to execute. An operations plan becomes an operations order when the time comes to execute. Operations orders are frequently adjusted with fragmentary orders to keep everyone synchronized.

If planning was not important we would not have large planning staffs at every level of the military from Battalion on up.

What claim do you think I made? I asked you if you knew why we plan. I accept that you don't know.

MisterVeritis
06-06-2018, 10:55 AM
I found out a plan is the organization of troops a, etc need to carry out operations. Is that correct. it so, why play your fucking games. If not, what is it?
Of course, military planners include troops and their organization. Your comment does not address the question. The question was, do you know why we plan?

We agree that a plan is unlikely to survive contact with an enemy. And yet we spend enormous amounts of time, energy, money and talent to create plans.

MisterVeritis
06-06-2018, 10:56 AM
I didn't say anything about why we plan.
Right. You did not answer my question. It is okay. I answered it for you.

MisterVeritis
06-06-2018, 10:57 AM
That plot was loony tunes. Only a few people were involved and the planning was a joke. If they could have surrendered with conditions other Generals may have joined in. You don't know and I don't know. The important part is that you don't know what may have happened if we hadn't taken the position we did.
It was a decent plan.

I accept that you enjoy alternative histories. Many people do.