Jump to content

Welcome to The OFFICIAL Pure Pwnage forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

'08 Presidential Race (US)


  • Please log in to reply
1712 replies to this topic

Poll: Canidate Poll (207 member(s) have cast votes)

Democratic Canidate?

  1. Obama (130 votes [62.80%])

    Percentage of vote: 62.80%

  2. Clinton (8 votes [3.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.86%

  3. Edwards (1 votes [0.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.48%

  4. Dodd (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. Kucinich (9 votes [4.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.35%

  6. Gravel (3 votes [1.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.45%

  7. Richardson (1 votes [0.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.48%

  8. Biden (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  9. "I think I'd make a better Presedent" (47 votes [22.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.71%

  10. Other canidate (8 votes [3.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.86%

Republican Canidate?

  1. Giuliani (8 votes [3.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.86%

  2. Romney (6 votes [2.90%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.90%

  3. Huckabee (8 votes [3.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.86%

  4. Ron Paul (83 votes [40.10%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.10%

  5. McCain (39 votes [18.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.84%

  6. Hunter (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  7. Thomson (1 votes [0.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.48%

  8. Tancredo (1 votes [0.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.48%

  9. "I think I'd make a better Presedent" (53 votes [25.60%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.60%

  10. Other canidate (8 votes [3.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.86%

After the primaries: Would you vote for your chosen democratic or republican canidate?

  1. Democrat (94 votes [45.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 45.41%

  2. Republican (45 votes [21.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.74%

  3. Either (38 votes [18.36%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.36%

  4. Another party/ other (30 votes [14.49%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.49%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#721
serial_

serial_
  • Members
  • 677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raleigh, NC
  • Interests:Gaming, Computers, teh Interweb...<br /><br />...and...<br /><br />...The_Duchess.
@ all the flames to my statement...

I never specified a nation that wanted to nuke us, so GG on the debating skills there lol.

Talking is overrated, especially in cases where the conflicting party is a terrorist organization that doesn't want compromise, they want the erradication of the west. That's all I meant.
Blog of Epic Amazing Randomness: http://www.epic-blog.com


I defeat, in a humilating manner, those who are inexperienced at the games that I play.

#722
pickupstix60

pickupstix60
  • Members
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:Just about everything
  • Xbox / GFWL:lol 12 year olds
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
QUOTE (Shwanzig @ Jun 4 2008, 05:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
LOL @ thinking George Bush is a Conservative. Christ look at government spending, it's through the roof.


Well, I meant by party affiliation, and I was thinking more in terms of him as a person. Spending a lot of money doesn't necessarily have to do with your party affiliation; in the context of Bush spending, it just makes him an idiot.

#723
TubularLuggage

TubularLuggage
  • Members
  • 5,221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sackville, NS
  • Interests:Rock/Metal, Drumming, film making, my woman
QUOTE (serial_ @ Jun 4 2008, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
@ all the flames to my statement...

I never specified a nation that wanted to nuke us, so GG on the debating skills there lol.

Talking is overrated, especially in cases where the conflicting party is a terrorist organization that doesn't want compromise, they want the erradication of the west. That's all I meant.

You were replying to a post naming a few nations Obama is going to try diplomacy with, and implied that they wanted to nuke the United States. You were either talking about Iran, Syria, Cuba, or Libya. Syria won't nuke anyone because, again, they'd be wiped off the face of the earth for doing so. Cuba doesn't have nuclear weapons, and isn't really a hostile nation. Every major US ally is on some kind of diplomatic terms with Cuba.
The only country that is any kind of nuclear risk at all is North Korea, who would likely nuke South Korea if they nuked anyone. They won't though. They're just using that as leverage to get the world to listen to them.

Talk is not overrated. How about the Cuban Missile Crisis? Talk kind of worked in that situation. Using force then could've sparked WWIII.
Also, fun fact, Israel is going to be holding talks with these so called 'terrorist groups'.

Also, they don't want to irradicate the west. They want the west to stop interfering in their region.
IPB Image

#724
TheBase

TheBase
  • Members
  • 1,342 posts
  • xfire:thewutangclan
  • Gender:Male
QUOTE (TubularLuggage @ Jun 5 2008, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You were replying to a post naming a few nations Obama is going to try diplomacy with, and implied that they wanted to nuke the United States. You were either talking about Iran, Syria, Cuba, or Libya. Syria won't nuke anyone because, again, they'd be wiped off the face of the earth for doing so. Cuba doesn't have nuclear weapons, and isn't really a hostile nation. Every major US ally is on some kind of diplomatic terms with Cuba.
The only country that is any kind of nuclear risk at all is North Korea, who would likely nuke South Korea if they nuked anyone. They won't though. They're just using that as leverage to get the world to listen to them.

Talk is not overrated. How about the Cuban Missile Crisis? Talk kind of worked in that situation. Using force then could've sparked WWIII.
Also, fun fact, Israel is going to be holding talks with these so called 'terrorist groups'.

Also, they don't want to irradicate the west. They want the west to stop interfering in their region.

Yo. Respect.

#725
serial_

serial_
  • Members
  • 677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raleigh, NC
  • Interests:Gaming, Computers, teh Interweb...<br /><br />...and...<br /><br />...The_Duchess.
QUOTE (TubularLuggage @ Jun 5 2008, 07:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You were replying to a post naming a few nations Obama is going to try diplomacy with, and implied that they wanted to nuke the United States. You were either talking about Iran, Syria, Cuba, or Libya. Syria won't nuke anyone because, again, they'd be wiped off the face of the earth for doing so. Cuba doesn't have nuclear weapons, and isn't really a hostile nation. Every major US ally is on some kind of diplomatic terms with Cuba.
The only country that is any kind of nuclear risk at all is North Korea, who would likely nuke South Korea if they nuked anyone. They won't though. They're just using that as leverage to get the world to listen to them.

Talk is not overrated. How about the Cuban Missile Crisis? Talk kind of worked in that situation. Using force then could've sparked WWIII.
Also, fun fact, Israel is going to be holding talks with these so called 'terrorist groups'.

Also, they don't want to irradicate the west. They want the west to stop interfering in their region.



You really seem to be stuck on that. I posted saying I was not talking about those nations, and made clear that I was referring more to the terrorist organizations that constitute a government in their nations that want nothing more than the erradication of the west.

His post mentioned "...and political parties like Hamas, Hizballah, ect. The "rogues" of the world."

What's the point of responding to a post if you don't even read it? My post was made to clarify my previous statement... and you harped on.

To state it again: diplomacy is useless in cases where the opposing party wants to nuke you, they don't have a middle ground, they don't want to compromise... they want your way of life expunged. GG talking to those guys. There's a reason we don't acknowledge some of these leaderships^^
Blog of Epic Amazing Randomness: http://www.epic-blog.com


I defeat, in a humilating manner, those who are inexperienced at the games that I play.

#726
DHC

DHC

    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0

  • Retired Staff
  • 12,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Someplace wonderful
  • Gamer Army ID:31
  • Company:Kilo
QUOTE (pickupstix60 @ Jun 4 2008, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
source?

I haven't been able to find all that much. A lot of the youtube videos are old, from like 2004, and I can't find anything on his main site.


of course it wouldnt be on his main page, his campaign managers arent that stupid. but since you seem to have found sources, why ask me? unless youre suggesting that he would intentionally flip-flop on the issue, favoring freedom for drugs, after he is voted in... in which case i certainly wouldnt trust the guy

QUOTE (TheBase @ Jun 4 2008, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's not progressive enough. There is a cap at 33%. You can be making millions (or billions) and it would still be at 33%. The poor and the middle class pay too much compared to how much the rich pay. But don't take it from me. Just look at what Warren Buffet has to say. Yes, Bush did cut taxes for all of us. Unfortunately, I don't have this chart with me (I saw it in my government class), but the chart shows how the people making more than $150,000 got a much higher cut in taxes while the people in income brackets below that got some really shitty tax breaks. It was so marginal compared to the tax cuts for the wealthy. And I do pay taxes. I work a part time job. I'm not angry about the fact that 14% of my income goes to the government. I'm angry about how that 14% is spent.


not progressive enough... dude, IT SHOULD BE FLAT! redistributing the wealth is fantastic, it's what taxes are for. however, why should talented people, hard workers, and risk takers not reap the fruit of their endeavors? the tax cut was larger for the rich, because the tax was proportionally too high for the rich in the first place!!! granted, I agree with most of Buffet's arguments, but the responsibilities of a billionaire hardly apply to those who's family income is $200,000. besides, NOTHING is stopping the rich from going into philanthropy, donating their absurd stores of cash for the public good. it is not the place of government to force them to do so - that is tyrannical, to say the least.

14% my ass! sure, that might be your share of the federal income tax. but even if you are lucky enough to live in a state with no income tax (which if you are, im totally jealous), you still have payroll taxes taken out. working in NYC, i lost even more to a city tax. my total removed taxes were around 30%.

i feel really bad for you, that youre not upset that millionaires in DC (congress) send armed unauthorized police (the IRS) to take your money away from you. some of it is necessary, most of it is not (think: wars abroad). maybe some day you'll feel some kind of remorse about an abridgment of your freedom as I do.


QUOTE (Muad'dib @ Jun 4 2008, 08:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The tax cut has to go. We are in too deep of a deficit to continue this stupid policy of reducing revenue. Reducing spending would work great along with increased taxes, and I have a suggestion for where we start first : stop wasting money on impractical and unpopular wars.


trust me, we are not in THAT much of a deficit icon_wink.gif (the only deficit worth worrying about is the trade deficit) any amount you want to increase in taxes, should be more than sufficiently met by stopping our useless expensive war, cutting several broken federal systems (i.e. department of education), and disallowing earmarking (which, once eliminated, will also serve the dual-purpose of giving special interests much less power over lawmaking). Our working deficit right now is about $300billion. Total taxes (of which only 50% are from Income Tax) amount to $2 trillion! Leaving taxes as they are, we could quite easily stand to cut 15% of spending. This would allow us to maintain the national debt. Although the debt IS huge (i think it actually passed $9 trillion), maintaining it at that level would not be detrimental. Considering our GDP, it's nothing to worry about at all - about 1/3 of GDP, actually. This less than Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, Canada (which actually has about twice as much debt/GDP than us), Germany, France, and Japan (which have 6x the debt/gdp as we do!!!). Funny, all of these countries have higher taxes than we do icon_wink.gif

#727
TheBase

TheBase
  • Members
  • 1,342 posts
  • xfire:thewutangclan
  • Gender:Male
Wow Doug. How can you be so... conservative? We're not in a big deficit? 600-700 billion dollars is not big? And the 9 trillion dollars in debt doesn't concern you?

#728
anatomy187

anatomy187
  • GA Corporal
  • 2,574 posts
  • xfire:anatomy20
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montana / Philly
  • Steam ID:anatomy187
  • Xbox / GFWL:anatomy187
  • PSN:anatomy187
  • Gamer Army ID:2743
  • Company:Delta
Serial...just curious, what is your opinion of US support for Israel?

Also, the deficit IS bad. That doesn't mean we couldn't fix it by doing things that are smart (the opposite of what we are doing now), the worst thing about the deficit is how it accumulated so god damn fast and went free falling from a bit of a surplus. Never before this presidency would I have thought that we'd be able to fuck spending up so much in such a short time.

#729
DHC

DHC

    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0

  • Retired Staff
  • 12,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Someplace wonderful
  • Gamer Army ID:31
  • Company:Kilo
QUOTE (TheBase @ Jun 5 2008, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Wow Doug. How can you be so... conservative? We're not in a big deficit? 600-700 billion dollars is not big? And the 9 trillion dollars in debt doesn't concern you?


$700 billion represents the trade deficit, and that is a huge problem. maybe if we stopped giving tax benefits to corporations that send jobs abroad...


as for the debt, of course I dont like it. but its really nothing to be scared of, at 1/3 of our GDP. im also saying that higher taxes wont help, because even if we all happily paid the government twice as much as we do now, they would spend it on useless programs to get themselves reelected, and the debt would remain

there is a lot of scare about China cashing in on our debt, of which they own about 10%. however, we own some of theirs, we own some of europe's, europe owns some of china's, europe owns some of ours, china owns some of surope's.... none of it is going anywhere any time soon. and frankly, it would hurt them a lot more than it would hurt us, in the long run.

QUOTE (anatomy187 @ Jun 5 2008, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Also, the deficit IS bad. That doesn't mean we couldn't fix it by doing things that are smart (the opposite of what we are doing now), the worst thing about the deficit is how it accumulated so god damn fast and went free falling from a bit of a surplus. Never before this presidency would I have thought that we'd be able to fuck spending up so much in such a short time.


we NEVER had a surplus. Clinton did manage to bring debt growth to a halt, thanks to his tax increases (on top of a booming .com business environment, of course he likes to take credit for that too, somehow).

is a deficit bad? absolutely! all it does is add to the debt, the growth of which we really ought to stop! thats why we have to get rid of it by cutting government spending (some people suggest raising taxes, which sounds like an aweful plan to me). the war, for instance...

#730
TubularLuggage

TubularLuggage
  • Members
  • 5,221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sackville, NS
  • Interests:Rock/Metal, Drumming, film making, my woman
QUOTE (serial_ @ Jun 5 2008, 03:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You really seem to be stuck on that. I posted saying I was not talking about those nations, and made clear that I was referring more to the terrorist organizations that constitute a government in their nations that want nothing more than the erradication of the west.

His post mentioned "...and political parties like Hamas, Hizballah, ect. The "rogues" of the world."

What's the point of responding to a post if you don't even read it? My post was made to clarify my previous statement... and you harped on.

To state it again: diplomacy is useless in cases where the opposing party wants to nuke you, they don't have a middle ground, they don't want to compromise... they want your way of life expunged. GG talking to those guys. There's a reason we don't acknowledge some of these leaderships^^

No, you didn't make it clear that you were specifically talking about Hamas and Hezbolah, but I addressed that anyway. They aren't just nutjobs out to cause shit for the hell of it. They want specific things, and have been driven to the brink by the west messing in their affairs.
When Israel was formed, the land it now occupies had already been promised to the Palestinians. Having it then given to another group in my opinion justifies being kind of pissed about it. Now, that being said, they have taken it to too much of an extreme, but Israel isn't in the clear.
Diplomacy could very well work. Even if it doesn't though, what's the worst that can happen? A little talking isn't going to make the situation worse.
Remember, from their perspective, the Americans in their region are terrorists who supported a hostile takeover of their would be homeland. It's not a black and white issue. Ignoring a hostile force can only make things worse.
IPB Image

#731
serial_

serial_
  • Members
  • 677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raleigh, NC
  • Interests:Gaming, Computers, teh Interweb...<br /><br />...and...<br /><br />...The_Duchess.
QUOTE (TubularLuggage @ Jun 5 2008, 05:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No, you didn't make it clear that you were specifically talking about Hamas and Hezbolah, but I addressed that anyway. They aren't just nutjobs out to cause shit for the hell of it. They want specific things, and have been driven to the brink by the west messing in their affairs.
When Israel was formed, the land it now occupies had already been promised to the Palestinians. Having it then given to another group in my opinion justifies being kind of pissed about it. Now, that being said, they have taken it to too much of an extreme, but Israel isn't in the clear.
Diplomacy could very well work. Even if it doesn't though, what's the worst that can happen? A little talking isn't going to make the situation worse.
Remember, from their perspective, the Americans in their region are terrorists who supported a hostile takeover of their would be homeland. It's not a black and white issue. Ignoring a hostile force can only make things worse.


Pre-emtively striking them with WMDs would shut them up. Plain and simple. I still maintain my view that talking is overrated. So yeah talking disarmed a dictator who was being puppeteered. However the largest scale conflict in history was ended with the largest display of military force in history.

I'll ignore the Nazis, they're over done. The Japanese were willing to die to the last man standing. Diplomacy had no effect on their plans, and it wasn't until we dropped an atomic bomb on them that their surrender came.

America has lost the nerve to fight a war.
Blog of Epic Amazing Randomness: http://www.epic-blog.com


I defeat, in a humilating manner, those who are inexperienced at the games that I play.

#732
DHC

DHC

    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0

  • Retired Staff
  • 12,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Someplace wonderful
  • Gamer Army ID:31
  • Company:Kilo
QUOTE (TubularLuggage @ Jun 5 2008, 07:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No, you didn't make it clear that you were specifically talking about Hamas and Hezbolah, but I addressed that anyway. They aren't just nutjobs out to cause shit for the hell of it. They want specific things, and have been driven to the brink by the west messing in their affairs.


you know one of the "specific things" Hamas wants? they want a worldwide eradication of anyone who will not convert to Islam. i guess by being mostly comprised of Christians, the West really has messed up their plans - youre absolutely right. in fact, you have convinced me that our religions (my atheism included) are the driving force behind Hamas sending their youth to blow up innocent women and children

#733
serial_

serial_
  • Members
  • 677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raleigh, NC
  • Interests:Gaming, Computers, teh Interweb...<br /><br />...and...<br /><br />...The_Duchess.
QUOTE (DougHChrist @ Jun 5 2008, 09:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
you know one of the "specific things" Hamas wants? they want a worldwide eradication of anyone who will not convert to Islam. i guess by being mostly comprised of Christians, the West really has messed up their plans - youre absolutely right. in fact, you have convinced me that our religions (my atheism included) are the driving force behind Hamas sending their youth to blow up innocent women and children



Never on this forum have I been as giddy as when I read this statement.


I bow to you, DougHChrist. For you are truly amazing.
Blog of Epic Amazing Randomness: http://www.epic-blog.com


I defeat, in a humilating manner, those who are inexperienced at the games that I play.

#734
TheBase

TheBase
  • Members
  • 1,342 posts
  • xfire:thewutangclan
  • Gender:Male
QUOTE (DougHChrist @ Jun 5 2008, 11:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
you know one of the "specific things" Hamas wants? they want a worldwide eradication of anyone who will not convert to Islam.


That's just straight up wrong. You're thinking of Al-Qaeda. And I don't think they really plan on "eradicating" all non-muslims. Hamas wants a Palestinian state. Like all Palestinians. They're just militant about it.

#735
w4r10r

w4r10r
  • Members
  • 1,806 posts
  • xfire:d4rkply4
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:Gaming, obviously, but i also play a lot of guitar.
  • Steam ID:w4r10r
  • Xbox / GFWL:w4r10r
  • Wii:5863278811979727
Both candidates suck. Give me 4 more years of bush.

jk?

; /
QUOTE (Christron @ Mar 7 2008, 07:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
are you fucking kidding me? i would totally use that as my comedy act at school, bitches love feces, ever seen 2girls1cup?

QUOTE (Verrückter @ May 29 2008, 01:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A bad genre is still a genre.


#736
TubularLuggage

TubularLuggage
  • Members
  • 5,221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sackville, NS
  • Interests:Rock/Metal, Drumming, film making, my woman
QUOTE (serial_ @ Jun 5 2008, 08:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Pre-emtively striking them with WMDs would shut them up. Plain and simple. I still maintain my view that talking is overrated. So yeah talking disarmed a dictator who was being puppeteered. However the largest scale conflict in history was ended with the largest display of military force in history.

I'll ignore the Nazis, they're over done. The Japanese were willing to die to the last man standing. Diplomacy had no effect on their plans, and it wasn't until we dropped an atomic bomb on them that their surrender came.

America has lost the nerve to fight a war.

So if they launch a nuke it's terrorism, but if the Americans launch a nuke, it's 'a pre-emptive strike for national security'? What the hell makes American lives more valuable than the lives of the people in that region?
The Germans and the Japanese in WWII had clear hostile intentions. The Iranians, Hamas, and Hezbolah don't. Yes, the later two are a bit extreme, but they're not trying to take over the world. They're just trying to reclaim their homeland that was taken from them.
It's also widely thought that dropping those nukes on Japan was a terrible idea, and that they would've been beaten by a more conventional assault anyway.

QUOTE (DougHChrist @ Jun 6 2008, 12:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
you know one of the "specific things" Hamas wants? they want a worldwide eradication of anyone who will not convert to Islam. i guess by being mostly comprised of Christians, the West really has messed up their plans - youre absolutely right. in fact, you have convinced me that our religions (my atheism included) are the driving force behind Hamas sending their youth to blow up innocent women and children

I'll let TheBase answer this one.
QUOTE (TheBase @ Jun 6 2008, 11:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That's just straight up wrong. You're thinking of Al-Qaeda. And I don't think they really plan on "eradicating" all non-muslims. Hamas wants a Palestinian state. Like all Palestinians. They're just militant about it.


IPB Image

#737
cadetduke

cadetduke
  • GA Private
  • 5,898 posts
  • xfire:cadetduke
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Louis, Mo
  • Steam ID:cadetduke
  • Xbox / GFWL:cadetduke
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
  • Rofl-Rupees:2
  • Gamer Army ID:2069
  • Company:Foxtrot
QUOTE (TubularLuggage @ Jun 6 2008, 10:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's also widely thought that dropping those nukes on Japan was a terrible idea, and that they would've been beaten by a more conventional assault anyway.

It is? Every documentary I've seen that has debated that issue has said that dropping the nukes saved more lives in the long run.

Midwest Gaming - Work in progress.

#738
Fin

Fin
  • Members
  • 1,347 posts
QUOTE
That's just straight up wrong. You're thinking of Al-Qaeda. And I don't think they really plan on "eradicating" all non-muslims. Hamas wants a Palestinian state. Like all Palestinians. They're just militant about it.

Palestinians had a hope of palestinian state / 2 state solution with Israel. then they elected Hamas and it all went to shit hole. Hamas doesnt want Palestinian state, they just want to kill some Israelis.
QUOTE
It's also widely thought that dropping those nukes on Japan was a terrible idea, and that they would've been beaten by a more conventional assault anyway.

Death toll would have risen too high.

Dropping the nukes was fast way to end the war, and to make sure that American casualties would stay low.

#739
ST1DinOH

ST1DinOH

    Master Debater 08

  • Members
  • 7,272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:toledo ohio
  • Interests:fireworks, weed,
QUOTE (TubularLuggage @ Jun 6 2008, 11:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So if they launch a nuke it's terrorism, but if the Americans launch a nuke, it's 'a pre-emptive strike for national security'? What the hell makes American lives more valuable than the lives of the people in that region?
The Germans and the Japanese in WWII had clear hostile intentions. The Iranians, Hamas, and Hezbolah don't. Yes, the later two are a bit extreme, but they're not trying to take over the world. They're just trying to reclaim their homeland that was taken from them.
It's also widely thought that dropping those nukes on Japan was a terrible idea, and that they would've been beaten by a more conventional assault anyway.


thats just a giant bowl of corn filled shit right there bro...

dropping nukes on japan to end WW2 was the most humaine thing we could have done in that situation. melting skin off people and killing hundreds of thousands in a sky burst of radiation isn't something i'd call humaine in any other situation, but the fact is these people were prepared to fight to the last man/woman/child.

the death toll would have been astronomical. the US would have lost hundreds of thousands of troops, and japan would have been completely destroyed. all of them, everything.

we dropped the first one and told them we had hundreds more.

we chose an isolated industrial center for maximum impact on thier military machine, we didn't specificly target a maximum population density.

this showed japan we weren't fucking around, and we had the ability to keep doing this untill there was nothing left of thier country, culture, or people.

then, to drive the point home, we did it again.

again we chose an isolated industrial center, not a major population target.

the goal was to demonstrate the power we had, it worked, they gave up.

because of this the ground invasion never happened, the constant air raids of carpet bombing major cities and possibly raining nukes all over thier homeland...never happened.

hundreds of thousands of US soldiers didn't have to die on japan soil.

and there is still a japan today.

so who the fuck in thier right mind would say dropping thoes nukes on japan was a terrible idea?

unless you hate the people of japan and wish they no longer existed you'd certianly have to retract that statement.


#740
DHC

DHC

    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0

  • Retired Staff
  • 12,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Someplace wonderful
  • Gamer Army ID:31
  • Company:Kilo
QUOTE (TheBase @ Jun 6 2008, 10:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That's just straight up wrong. You're thinking of Al-Qaeda. And I don't think they really plan on "eradicating" all non-muslims. Hamas wants a Palestinian state. Like all Palestinians. They're just militant about it.


I take it youve never read the Hamas Covenant, which is a shame. Before you defend cold blooded murderers, you really ought to check out their mission statement.

True, they want their own muslim nation in the area, but they do have broader objectives as well




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users