Is this true?

Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
TroncoChe said:
Pearl Harbor was a military base
Click to expand...
But we weren't a war with Japan when they attacked. So not a legitimate target. I find it hard to believe you defend the attack on Pearl Harbor that started the war, yet condemn the USA for ending the war in a way that minimized the number of casualties.
 
T

TroncoChe

Active Member
nontheist said:
A military base that had no intentions of fighting with japan until they fucking attacked it. Is that your point?
Click to expand...
Give me a break. War was coming at some point.



Red1966 said:
But we weren't a war with Japan when they attacked. So not a legitimate target. I find it hard to believe you defend the attack on Pearl Harbor that started the war, yet condemn the USA for ending the war in a way that minimized the number of casualties.
Click to expand...
Not defending, making a distinction between bombing innocent civilians and military.
 
T

TroncoChe

Active Member
Oh and I forgot, all while telling other country's they can't have atomic bombs so they can bomb innocent people. Weather civilian or otherwise.
 
sniffer

sniffer

Well-Known Member
Why are you people taking sides with the middle east ??
they dont like us and we dont like them ,
 
T

TroncoChe

Active Member
sniffer said:
Why are you people taking sides with the middle east ??
they dont like us and we dont like them ,
Click to expand...

You mean a few rich and political shit birds from the middle east don't like a few rich and political shit birds from the US? I'm not rooting for anyone, I don't give a shit and don't want to be robbed to pay for these two groups of shit birds problems.
 
sniffer

sniffer

Well-Known Member
The neocon agenda, PNAC published in 1997, called for regime change in 6 countries by force. Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Lebanon & Jordan.

Yeah ,, thats what im taking about !!

we should get started
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
TroncoChe said:
Give me a break. War was coming at some point.
Click to expand...
The only reason war was coming, was because they started it.



Not defending, making a distinction between bombing innocent civilians and military.
Click to expand...
There would be a distinction, were they reasonably expecting combat. We weren't at war, and they were in a stateside port. Shooting an unarmed soldier during his time stateside is no different than shooting a civilian. I'm sure the Japanese were sure to make that distinction during the rape of Nanking though, oh wait...
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East estimated that 20,000 women were raped, including infants and the elderly.[SUP][40][/SUP] A large portion of these rapes were systematized in a process where soldiers would search door-to-door for young girls, with many women taken captive and gang raped.[SUP][41][/SUP] The women were often killed immediately after being raped, often through explicit mutilation[SUP][42][/SUP] or by stabbing a bayonet, long stick of bamboo, or other objects into the vagina. Young children were not exempt from these atrocities, and were cut open to allow Japanese soldiers to rape them.[SUP][43][/SUP]
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
We wiped out two cities so we could leave the others standing and to save a lot of American lives. Sorry if it offends you, but you can't dry "foul" when they threw the first cheap shot. Had we started the war with Japan, things might be viewed differently; but I wouldn't want my soldiers dying so you could save the people making the bayonets they were using to torture captured US Marines.
 
T

TroncoChe

Active Member
kpmarine said:
There would be a distinction, were they reasonably expecting combat. We weren't at war, and they were in a stateside port. Shooting an unarmed soldier during his time stateside is no different than shooting a civilian. [SUP][43][/SUP]
Click to expand...

When you are in the military, you are always expecting combat, dipshit. It's why you train during peace time. If a soldier is ordered to shoot another soldier from another country, that is an act of war. If soldiers are ordered to kill civilians, that's called a war crime. I guess you wasn't an honorable enough soldier to know the difference.
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
TroncoChe said:
When you are in the military, you are always expecting combat, dipshit. It's why you train during peace time. If a soldier is ordered to shoot another soldier from another country, that is an act of war. If soldiers are ordered to kill civilians, that's called a war crime. I guess you wasn't an honorable enough soldier to know the difference.
Click to expand...
They are both acts of war scooter; one is a war crime in addition, though. I got out with an Honorable Discharge, so I'd say I was a pretty honorable Marine, despite your assertions. We aren't soldiers, that's the Army. You train during peace time to be ready for a war. You don't carry a weapon and a full load of ammo everywhere. In the event my old base got attacked, it would be hours before we could get everyone armed and ready to go (This is during a time of war, not before the war started like back then, even.). So the effective difference between bombing a town and bombing a bunch of unarmed military members is nada, they are both unarmed and both genuinely aren't expecting an attack as a whole. Shooting an unarmed man in the back, unprovoked, isn't less wrong because he's wearing a uniform; rationalize it how you want.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
VILEPLUME said:


Also I feel like I hate Iran for unknown reasons.
Click to expand...
no that silly picture is not true.

iran funded, trained and provided a base of operations for a wide variety of moslem, marxist and anarchist groups who acted as iran's attack dog against numerous nations. iran has never had much of a real military since the end of the horsed archer as the mightiest force on the battlefield. they prosecute their aggression through deniable resources, and offer their assistance to any who will strike at their foes from the shadows.

hilariously youll see tibet in the list, which the US had NOTHING to do with, that was the PRC not the USA. with the laughable exception of Tibet, and the Re-Establishment of the Pahlavi dynasty in iran, the rest of the claims are dubious at best.

but that picture comes from the worker's world party, the last vestige of true believer marxists in the world, so believe it if you want. nobody cares.
 
ClaytonBigsby

ClaytonBigsby

Well-Known Member
I believe you are reading that wrong. I believe the countries listed are the ones the countries at the top have "bombed, sabotaged, or attempted gov't overthrows".
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
kpmarine said:
We wiped out two cities so we could leave the others standing and to save a lot of American lives. Sorry if it offends you, but you can't dry "foul" when they threw the first cheap shot. Had we started the war with Japan, things might be viewed differently; but I wouldn't want my soldiers dying so you could save the people making the bayonets they were using to torture captured US Marines.
Click to expand...
Wonder who the Japanese Americans incarcerated in prison camps in California were rooting for ?
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
echelon1k1 said:
it's no secret Syria has been buying/selling Iraqi oil for quite some time, even when the embargo was in place. Output is currently at a point that's starting to worry the House of Saud. Your repeated claim of "almost no oil is coming from Iraq" is baseless and willfully ignorant. Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq View attachment 2530336
Click to expand...
How is "not available" evidence of your claims? So we invaded Syria when? And how does Syria's purchase of Iraqi oil equate to us stealing Iraqi oil?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top