|
| Thread: "Iran is a Threat Because It Doesn't Follow Orders" |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
posted July 27, 2010 10:10 PM |
|
|
If only Japan had opened its eyes sooner, perhaps those citizens wouldn't have had to die.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 10:20 PM |
|
|
|
There is not a single excuse in the world for launching a second bomb two days later. An atrocious genocide.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 10:35 PM |
|
|
OD:
Quote:
If only Japan had opened its eyes sooner
You racist. 
BB:
Quote:
Why?
Because it is not motivated by its national interests. It would not help it one bit if it were to destroy Israel, but it's still Israel's enemy, and with the power that the religious fundamentalists wield, it would be quite willing to do so if it had the ability.
JJ:
The problem with solar, wind, etc is that they're very inefficient compared to nuclear power.
Moonlith:
Quote:
You are implying religious fundamentalism is exclusive to Islam.
No, I'm not. Don't put words in my mouth.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 10:42 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 22:42, 27 Jul 2010.
|
@OD
Basically, according to your logic, if Saddam really had nuclear weapons, he would have had every right in the world to nuke San Francisco and Seattle.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 11:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Japan attacked the US. The US developed nukes during the course of that war. The US dropped one nuke and Japan would not surrender. Two days latter the US dropped another nuke and Japan surrendered. The aggressor nation was defeated and American and Japanese lives were saved.
This logic is terrorist like and dangerously simplistic. Basically it says that for saving solders lives, hundred of thousand of innocents must be butchered and atomized.
Your claim that Americans should have just let more Americans die at the hands of Japanese aggressors is worse than simplistic.
Sorry, but the job of the American government is to preserve American lives. The war was of Japan's choosing, not America's. Japan is the one that attacked America to start the war. America ended the war with the bombs and saved both American and Japanese lives.
Millions of lives would have been lost in an American invasion of Japan, which is what would have occured had not Japan surrendered, as it did after the second atomic bomb was dropped.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 11:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry, but the job of the American government is to preserve American lives.
How does that fit into Vietnam and first Gulf war?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 12:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, if one enjoyed making false and baseless claims, one could indeed make such a claim.
The US has used nukes against one nation, Japan. Japan attacked the US. The US developed nukes during the course of that war. The US dropped one nuke and Japan would not surrender. Two days latter the US dropped another nuke and Japan surrendered. The aggressor nation was defeated and American and Japanese lives were saved.
Fact is, as far as I'm aware, most historians to day agree the Japanese were distinctively though subtlety provoked into making that attack on pearl harbor because certain "big boys" in America were looking for an excuse to enter the war. They had interests in it themselves. But I'm pretty sure that sounds totally illogical to you.
Quote:
He does not appear to be the one making false statements. Your apparent lack of knowledge of history and current events has evidently led you to bizzare conclusions.
Thus spoke the <beep>
Quote:
Quote:
You are implying religious fundamentalism is exclusive to Islam. Whereas I'm pretty sure George Bush claimed the war in Iraq was inspired by God. THAT I find dangerous and irrational, considering it's the USA and not Iran that has the strongest militairy in the world. Bar perhaps China.
From what I recall Bush was misquoted. Sorry, Bush was not "going to war for Jesus."
Riiiiight, of course As we all know Church and State is nowhere as seperated as it is in America.
@ OD: That's without a doubt the most grotesque and disgusting statement I've seen coming from your hand, ever. The fact you don't even see that is what makes you an abomination.
____________
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 01:47 AM |
|
|
Oh no, Moonlith thinks I'm an abomination.  I am amazed to this day you even read my comments, with me being one of the barbaric Americans you take just about every opportunity to snipe at, and even more surprised that you seem to think I care what your opinion of me is.
Japan attacked the US. We hit them back. Any leader with any concern for his or her citizens would have immediately halted any aggressive actions after the first bomb hit. Instead, they stood by their course of action and it resulted in even more deaths.
Simply, if Japan would have never attacked the US, its citizens would not have been vaporized. Japan greatly suffered the consequences of starting a fight it could not finish.
But it doesn't matter. You're so absoultely Hell-bent on maintaining your "Americans are evil" attitude, Moonlith, that further discussion with you is pointless.
Oh, as to the part about America pushing Japan into attacking the US, that has to be one of the most insane conspiracy theories I've come across. Then again, I suppose anything is possible for the evil Americans.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 02:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Fact is, as far as I'm aware, most historians to day agree the Japanese were distinctively though subtlety provoked into making that attack on pearl harbor because certain "big boys" in America were looking for an excuse to enter the war. They had interests in it themselves. But I'm pretty sure that sounds totally illogical to you.
Fact is that you have not presented any evidence that most historians say FDR provoked Japan into attacking the US. And I dispute your claim. Frankly I find "Pearl Harbor truthism" to be about as loony as "9-11 truthism."
The Pearl Harbor Controversy
Quote:
This, Vidal concludes, gave Imperial Japan no option but war. Furthermore, FDR knew exactly what he was doing.
James’ response was thorough and devastating. In his formulation, “Japan was provoked into war by the Japanese Army.” FDR did not demand that Japan withdraw from China; he demanded that Japan withdraw from French Indo-China (today’s Vietnam) which they had invaded the year before in order to block all imports into China. In return, FDR offered to stop interfering in Asian affairs altogether. Furthermore, the Axis powers were obliged to enter into war on each other’s behalf if they were attacked first. If Japan attacked the US unprovoked, Germany and Italy would have no obligation to attack. In fact, Japan did not support Germany against the USSR after Hitler invaded that country during “Operation Barbarossa” in June 1941
James had a reason to be passionate on this point: a native Australian, he lost his father in the war, and was well aware throughout his childhood that Imperial Japan had its sights set on his home as well. He had another reason as well: Clive James regarded Vidal as one of his greatest influences, and was horrified to see his mentor fall so low. As it happened, Vidal had lower to go yet. A year after the exchange between Vidal and James, the United States was attacked again: on September 11, 2001, in Pennsylvania, Washington D.C., and New York City. Once again, Vidal was there to claim that the U.S. government saw it coming all along.
Quote:
Riiiiight, of course As we all know Church and State is nowhere as seperated as it is in America.
Since you have not retracted you claim I took the effort of doing the research to prove you wrong. The person Bush allegedly made the comments to denied that Bush said what was attributed to him, and of course Bush denied that he made the statements as well. Unfortunately anti-Bush liars have continually repeated the lie that you apparently heard.
Clicky
Quote:
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has denied an account by another Palestinian official of a meeting with US President George Bush in which Bush is cited as saying he believed that God told him to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A statement in Abbas's name released by his office said an excerpt from an interview with Palestinian Information Minister Nabil Shaath due to be broadcast by the BBC in which Shaath described a meeting with Bush in June 2003 gave a "completely false" account.
Quote:
"This report is not true," the Abbas statement said today. "I have never heard President Bush talking about religion as a reason behind the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush has never mentioned that in front of me on any occasion and specifically not during my visit in 2003."
I encourage you to do actual research instead of saying, "to the best of my knowledge Bush/America did..."
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 02:20 AM |
|
|
omg this thread is epically chaotic. I love it.
@Moonlith:
Quote:
Fact is, as far as I'm aware, most historians to day agree the Japanese were distinctively though subtlety provoked into making that attack on pearl harbor because certain "big boys" in America were looking for an excuse to enter the war. They had interests in it themselves. But I'm pretty sure that sounds totally illogical to you.
Dumb.
Japan was possibly the single most destructive and heartless nation in the early 20th century. They initiated WW2 in China and wiped out well over 15 million people. They conquered the colonies in the Pacific and their relations with the States weren't exactly thrilling. The US set up sanctions on their oil to try to stifle their rampage, and if you're not okay with that, then you're a very depraved and demented individual.
But yes, in a manner of speaking, the US "provoked" Japan by decreasing their oil supply. It did it for reasons of self-interest, but self-interest is logical and that's why any government does anything. It's their job to be self-interested.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 02:31 AM |
|
|
@Mvass:
Quote:
Because it is not motivated by its national interests. It would not help it one bit if it were to destroy Israel, but it's still Israel's enemy, and with the power that the religious fundamentalists wield, it would be quite willing to do so if it had the ability.
It's motivated by national interests in the sense that it's roughly acting according to the mindset of the people. Its hardcore stance towards Israel is indeed pretty silly, but when you look at the way various regions respond to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you'll find that in general people and governments' common sense has a tendency to vanish. It's what often happens when you have a strong and passionate amount of lobbying towards a given situation. I wouldn't consider Iran's anti-Israeli stance to be any less illogical than the US's insistence on giving Israel free stuff and sucking their ballsack every night. It's the result of Zionist (or anti-Zionist) lobbying.
There is a difference between hostility and psychopathy, and in the case of nuclear warfare, you need nothing short of psychopathy to engage in a nuclear exchange. Iran is a haughty, prideful country with a haughty and prideful regime. They think they're the champions of the oppressed world. Haughty regimes don't commit psychopathic acts.
Also, whether one likes it or not, more and more countries are going to be developing nuclear capabilities. The trickle down of technology is a virtual inevitability. Starting off by sanctioning and potentially bombing the first developing ME country means the successor nations will be far more secretive and hostile about it. We desperately need goodwill between these countries as they try to break into a more advanced industry rather than (likely futilely) trying to isolate nuclear technology to the US and a handful of its obedient pals.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 02:43 AM |
|
|
@Elodin:
It's hard to refute the utilitarian logic of why the atomic bombs should have been dropped. In fact, Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't at all unique cases. The weapon was new, but the tactic was old news and had already been done by every major nation ad nauseum in the war. Germany, China, and Russia in particular were all carpet bombed to hell and millions upon millions of civilians were killed by mass bombing of industry. The military brass all new they would be killing civilians, but they did what they did anyway for the sake of winning. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately make up a small slice of the gross number of people killed, but the big problem is that the bombs were dropped prematurely. Japan was crippled and its allies were all already defeated, yet without hardly any delay or attempts of negotiation, two cities were taken down. It was a matter of Truman picking the most convenient route and also of displaying their atomic power to the Soviets. I'm not okay with that.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 03:05 AM |
|
|
Am I the only one who thinks the bombing of those two japanese cities was just the USA flexing its muscles towards the USSR?
Oh, and the USA wouldn't have been involved with WWII at all, had Japan not attacked (and had Hitler not declared war on them rtwo days later, because, man, that dude just couldn't fight a war on enough fronts). They were just happy to keep up the Monroe-doctrine (which was only violated once during WWI) and selling weapons to both sides.
EDIT: nevermind my first sentence, I think blizz agrees with me on zat.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 03:42 AM |
|
|
BB:
Quote:
It's motivated by national interests in the sense that it's roughly acting according to the mindset of the people.
That's not really what acting in a nation's national interests means. Iran is not gaining anything by acting the way it does. (Other than publicity, of course.) On the other hand, though I oppose the US's sponsorship of Israel, it does make sense from the point of view of national interest: it is useful to have military bases and a reliable ally in an area close to such valuable resources and it serves as a stable window into the area - more stable than Iraq or Afghanistan.
I do not think that Iran can be expected to act rationally. It is far too prideful for that.
Also, there were attempts to make peace with Japan before the bombs were dropped, but they declined. It is unfortunate that civilians died, but they were citizens of the aggressor nation. I think it was justified.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 03:55 AM |
|
|
@Mvass:
Maybe not completely rationally, but you must also realize that Ahmad still has to worry about the domestic public more than outsiders. Most of the face-palming quotes that Ahmad gives are while he's pandering and pumping up his supporters.
***
Japan made out better than the rest of the Axis, but I still think the window for late war diplomacy was rather rushed. Japan was already willing to make steep concessions, it was just a matter of getting a total surrender out of them. Tojo abandoned hope of victory months ago and was just trying to arm the country well enough that a total invasion would be costly enough that the States would prefer a compromise. Of course, Openheimer's new toy made compromise unnecessary.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 07:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
The problem with solar, wind, etc is that they're very inefficient compared to nuclear power.
The only problem with them is that research with it wasn't funded. There are other reasons as well, for example psychological ones: guilty as they were, humanity had of course to prove that nuclear power can be harnessed peacefully. And so on, and so ever ever on.
In the end nuclear power, under the conditions it is used, is unreasonable. It's as unreasonable as war, even though war is pretty efficient in getting things accomplished as well.
I'm not discussing that - and Germany won't either. The current government wants to step back from Germany's decision to limit the power output of the available nuclear plants and shut them down, once they reached the limit, but there is no majority in Germany for that. There is no safe place in Germany for the waste - we've been duped about that (and probably everyone else in the world has been as well).
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 08:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Japan attacked the US. We hit them back. Any leader with any concern for his or her citizens would have immediately halted any aggressive actions after the first bomb hit. Instead, they stood by their course of action and it resulted in even more deaths.
Simply, if Japan would have never attacked the US, its citizens would not have been vaporized. Japan greatly suffered the consequences of starting a fight it could not finish.
Oh, as to the part about America pushing Japan into attacking the US, that has to be one of the most insane conspiracy theories I've come across. Then again, I suppose anything is possible for the evil Americans.
U.S.A. was already assisting the allies in every way except direct military intervention. It was going to join the war sooner or later. All it needed was a way to get the normal people to agree. Pearl Harbour was that reason for the normal people. Just like RMS Lusitania in the first world war. To say Japan was provoked to attack pearl harbour is a little too much but pressure? Yes, they were pressured to go to war with the U.S.A. With the oil embargo they didn't have another choice.
Whether U.S.A. knew about the Pearl Harbour strike in advance can only be speculated but the fact that all carriers were out on the sea at that time is one damn big of a coincidence.
What comes to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki looking at it from a modern day view the refuse to surrender after the first seems foolish but if you didn't know about atomic weapons it isn't that strange at all. Before those bombings there was no knowledge of atomic weapons in Japan, they thought that was somekind of new gigantic firebomb and didn't believe that the U.S.A. would be able to make another, at least not so soon. Of course, they were completely wrong about that.
Oh one last thing, Japan attacked the U.S.A. but YOU didn't hit them back. YOU don't have any relations to what happened back then. Keep that in mind and we don't have to suffer yet another stupid war.
I think that's enough of someone who's only watching this from the sides.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 08:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Your claim that Americans should have just let more Americans die at the hands of Japanese aggressors is worse than simplistic.
Sorry, but the job of the American government is to preserve American lives. The war was of Japan's choosing, not America's. Japan is the one that attacked America to start the war. America ended the war with the bombs and saved both American and Japanese lives.
Millions of lives would have been lost in an American invasion of Japan, which is what would have occured had not Japan surrendered, as it did after the second atomic bomb was dropped.
This is simply a lie.
First thing it says is, that it is okay to kill so many civilians in a war, until a government is pressed to surrender.
Killing civilians in order to bring a country to surrender is no war, but terror. Justifying it is justifying terror.
Second thing is, that a (first) demonstration could have been made in an unpopulated area. Two days more wouldn't have mattered - or would they?
In fact they would have, since the Russians were entering the war, and Truman was already on anti-Russian course, after the "peace" in Europe proved to be a quite uneasy one.
Roosevelt would NEVER have dropped a nuclear bomb on a city without a serious warning.
While the actual course taken is a shame - it may have saved a lot of lives indeed, but not Japanese and American, but those of half the world: without that awful demonstration, sooner or later someone WOULD have decided to drop the freaking thing, and "later" would have meant, it might not have been done with two.
In my eyes this is the ONLY redeeming thing here. Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have saved the world a nuclear holocaust later on - not that the Trumaan government could claim that as a merit.
|
|
vahleeb
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 10:45 AM |
|
|
Apparently I cannot stress this enough... You people should stop trying to judge historical events through today's moral framework. To say that FDR would have never... and that Truman did that because of... those are unsubstantiable affirmations. Fact of the matter is, that the Nazis had killed millions of people based only on their religious denomination and Stalin had proven just as bad before the war, and would soon prove just as bad again. In fact, in retrospect, it was proven that Stalin was responsible for more killings that the Nazis were. Also, after the peace in Europe, the Non-communist allied powers had lost influence over more than half of Europe in favor of the USSR. America could not afford another potential enemy in Japan. Simply put, if Japan was allowed any kind of situation that was allowed to Germany after WWI, they might have recovered as well and perhaps rejoined the fight several decades later.
@angelito and anybody else trying to debate how immoral the US policy was during the Cold War: The US faced a simple choice, either play the game, or sit back and watch the Soviets take over the world and when push came to shove they would be severely outnumbered. Added to that, they were the only player capable to play against the USSR, back then. NATO was only there for support, they were never in the front line. If we can even have this debate today over the internet, it's partly because of the way the US acted, meeting the USSR head on in every place that the Soviets tried to expand to. Koreea, Vietnam, Afghanistan... These were all wars where the US fought the USSR, because the strategy to win the Cold War was correct. A totalitarian, oppressive regime will eventually crumble from within under the pressure of its own people. To win against it, you simply have to outlast it and prevent it from creating new converts.
Back to Iran, I believe Elodin's quotations post, though a bit over zealous, should hit the mark. There are two problems here. The first is the open aggressive statements. He's the ruler of the country in an absolutist, totalitarian regime. He says Death to Israel. Not the regime, the nation. He clarifies this in many other statements that his intention is to see the nation of Israel removed from the area. On a more personal note anyone who says the Holocaust was a lie has to be either stupid or crazy and has lost any ounce of credibility he may have. The second is assuming that if a totalitarian leader is not representative to a nation then we should act towards the state based on the attitude and actions of the nation and not those of the leader. Right now Ahmad's regime is Iran, and if he says Death to Israel, then Iran says Death to Israel and in that case, Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.
@Moonlith: Please stop referring to anyone with the word sheep. It seems to have become a new favorite word for leftists and it has been thrown around much too carelessly to be allowable in any kind of discussion. I just feel that some of the Democrat supporters have become a flock themselves shouting "SHEEP!" at everyone else and that just eclipses the truth and correctness of the policies they stand for.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 11:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Apparently I cannot stress this enough... You people should stop trying to judge historical events through today's moral framework.
Keeping to one's own advice has a habit to make one's posts more believable.
I fail to see a significant difference between killing civilians for religious reasons or for reasons that they happen to live where they live and have been selected to press home a point because you don't want to allow a certain situation to develop, EITHER then OR today.
Sure, you might say, 300.000 is a small toll compared with the Axis.
But as was discussed in another thread: it's always about the question of ALTERNATIVES. Were there alternatives?
This is the only relevant question here - the rest is speculation, as is admittedly the question of what Roosevelt would have done.
|
| |
|
|
