Should the US shed blood for Ukraine

Should the USA along with NATO defend Ukraine with troops.

  • Yes

    Votes: 40 40.4%

  • No

    Votes: 59 59.6%
  • Total voters
    99
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Wattzzup said:
Solutions. You claim to have them. Fire away. Everyone is listening
Click to expand...
The solution to get people to stop using offensive force, can't be to build a system which uses offensive force as its primary means and think that's the solution.

That is literally impossible.


I await your superior argument.

1645663500465.png
 
C

cherrybobeddie

Well-Known Member
USA, USA, USA,
Gotta go in there and kick some ass. Ain't had us a good shootin war for awhile. Boys are gettin all worked up. Want to find out if all these expensive weapons work. Mutherfockers don't back down just hit em with a couple "clean" nukes. Might have to destroy Ukraine to save it, but maybe not.
Jack Herer is good weed, man.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
djumbir said:
Japan was done. It was matter of months before they capitulated, bombing was completely immoral, a true war crime. And don't start mentioning Nanjing and how they deserved it. Japan is a sick sick nation, but no one deserves to be obliterated by a fucking atomic bomb.
Click to expand...
you weren't there...it wasn't your decision to make.

https://www.ushistory.org/us/51g.asp

Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. A Normandy-type amphibious landing would have cost an estimated million casualties. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President. Over 3,500 Japanese kamikaze raids had already wrought great destruction and loss of American lives.


The President rejected a demonstration of the atomic bomb to the Japanese leadership. He knew there was no guarantee the Japanese would surrender if the test succeeded, and he felt that a failed demonstration would be worse than none at all. Even the scientific community failed to foresee the awful effects of radiation sickness. Truman saw little difference between atomic bombing Hiroshima and fire bombing Dresden or Tokyo.

i don't see any difference between dropping one atomic bomb and dropping one thousand incendiary bombs...burned to death is burned to death, what matter how you got dead, you're not any deader one way or the other...
the genetic damage is not a desirable result, i have no malice to the descendants of enemies, unless they make themselves enemies as well, but at that time they didn't know how bad that aspect would be. they haven't dropped one in anger since...

sanctimony can be just as deadly a weapon
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
you weren't there...it wasn't your decision to make.

https://www.ushistory.org/us/51g.asp

Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. A Normandy-type amphibious landing would have cost an estimated million casualties. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President. Over 3,500 Japanese kamikaze raids had already wrought great destruction and loss of American lives.


The President rejected a demonstration of the atomic bomb to the Japanese leadership. He knew there was no guarantee the Japanese would surrender if the test succeeded, and he felt that a failed demonstration would be worse than none at all. Even the scientific community failed to foresee the awful effects of radiation sickness. Truman saw little difference between atomic bombing Hiroshima and fire bombing Dresden or Tokyo.

i don't see any difference between dropping one atomic bomb and dropping one thousand incendiary bombs...burned to death is burned to death, what matter how you got dead, you're not any deader one way or the other...
the genetic damage is not a desirable result, i have no malice to the descendants of enemies, unless they make themselves enemies as well, but at that time they didn't know how bad that aspect would be. they haven't dropped one in anger since...

sanctimony can be just as deadly a weapon
Click to expand...
So you're okay with seeing people who don't look like you in a collective and not as individuals? But, YOUR'E not a racist. Go hug your FDR doll.


1645663875951.png
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
cherrybobeddie said:
USA, USA, USA,
Gotta go in there and kick some ass. Ain't had us a good shootin war for awhile. Boys are gettin all worked up. Want to find out if all these expensive weapons work. Mutherfockers don't back down just hit em with a couple "clean" nukes. Might have to destroy Ukraine to save it, but maybe not.
Jack Herer is good weed, man.
Click to expand...
what's it like to be young and stupid? i've forgotten...now i'm old and stupid, but i still appear to be smarter than you.
ahh, i remember a few things, the younger you are, the more black and white the world is, and the surer you are that you're right, and your way is the only way, and you can't understand why all these old fuckers can't see that....all the while forgetting that time is perceived linearly, and that the old fuckers have already been down that path, and have seen it goes nowhere
no matter your biological age...you haven't matured
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
djumbir said:
Japan was done. It was matter of months before they capitulated, bombing was completely immoral, a true war crime. And don't start mentioning Nanjing and how they deserved it. Japan is a sick sick nation, but no one deserves to be obliterated by a fucking atomic bomb.
Click to expand...
Nanjing has nothing to do with it, nice straw man though.
As for the rest of it, please pick up a college-level history text. No more YouTube alt-fact.
 
D

djumbir

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
you weren't there...it wasn't your decision to make.

https://www.ushistory.org/us/51g.asp

Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. A Normandy-type amphibious landing would have cost an estimated million casualties. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President. Over 3,500 Japanese kamikaze raids had already wrought great destruction and loss of American lives.


The President rejected a demonstration of the atomic bomb to the Japanese leadership. He knew there was no guarantee the Japanese would surrender if the test succeeded, and he felt that a failed demonstration would be worse than none at all. Even the scientific community failed to foresee the awful effects of radiation sickness. Truman saw little difference between atomic bombing Hiroshima and fire bombing Dresden or Tokyo.

i don't see any difference between dropping one atomic bomb and dropping one thousand incendiary bombs...burned to death is burned to death, what matter how you got dead, you're not any deader one way or the other...
the genetic damage is not a desirable result, i have no malice to the descendants of enemies, unless they make themselves enemies as well, but at that time they didn't know how bad that aspect would be. they haven't dropped one in anger since...

sanctimony can be just as deadly a weapon
Click to expand...
So they dropped it to help Japs, it was practically aid :) joke aside, I was shocked to find out when I talked to locals how grateful they are for the bombing as, quote: "it made them humble". Sick people, but I can't help but still admire it in a way
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
djumbir said:
So they dropped it to help Japs, it was practically aid :) joke aside, I was shocked to find out when I talked to locals how grateful they are for the bombing as, quote: "it made them humble". Sick people, but I can't help but still admire it in a way
Click to expand...
i've only had the chance to talk to a few Japanese people who were actually alive at the time, and they weren't eager to discuss it, as you might imagine.
i have given it thought over the years, and while i think it was a horrible event, i do think it saved lives. the Japanese were given terms of surrender, and made vague statements about possible negotiations. dropping the bombs killed about 300 thousand people, most of them instantaneously, the rest over a year or two...a feet on the ground invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives...Japan had close to two million men stationed in and near Japan, the deaths would have been at least 3 to 4 million, perhaps more...can you be morally superior knowing that an invasion would have cost at least one thousand times as many deaths?
 
Sativied

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
So does Indiana Jones
View attachment 5091134
Click to expand...
Means he can take the vip entrance into his valhalla of choice and pick any number of virgins and other dead celebrities to hang out with.

djumbir said:
So they dropped it to help Japs, it was practically aid :) joke aside, I was shocked to find out when I talked to locals how grateful they are for the bombing as, quote: "it made them humble".
Click to expand...
Worked out well for them on the long run too then. Don’t see Japan picking fights do you. Someone had to be the first. Now the world knows that yes maybe nukes is a bit overkill so don’t use unless others use them on you. Or better, say you would so others won’t. Let’s just celebrate the fact the only times nukes have been used in combat is on nazis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top