Look carefully at this picture??

My government was not responsible (directly at least) for those deaths. My government and military is directly responsible for bombing the boys house.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So we should have burned more of the japanese so we wouldnt have to use the a-bomb?

Standing besides and watching is just as bad imo.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

TT:"A democracy would be a representative state, hence the Kurds "and" the Sunni muslims (all citizens) would also have a voice in their government. A government hostile to the U.S. could attain power. If it's freely elected by all of the people of Iraq theres not much that could be done to change that. I guess we would have "France" in the middle east? "

I refer you back to my earlier post: I simply do not think that after investing so heavily in the events culminating in the military action in Iraq, that the US would then just sit back an let events unfold as they will and just play it by ear and hope for the best, the US government just isn't that naive and shortsighted. Another "France" in the Middle East is exactly what the US doesn't want, and it will utilise all it's strategic/political power to ensure that there will never be a Middle Eastern "France".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yeah, just like America "Standing besides and watch" thousands of people getting massacred in DRC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2922595.stm

you have no arguement.

 

Who says we could have stoped it?

1,000 is still less then 2 million.

 

Is this thread still alive? Well at least that spooky visitor seems to have gone.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Whats this 'bout the DRC? Your Americans, your not suppose to know about the DRC. There's no oil there

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well Salty when did you develop respect for human life?
You all but justified the shooting of petty thieves on that Switzerland thread (at least I think thats what you were saying but you don't make it real clear)

Now your asking

Well you don't seem to take it too seriously.

BTW 4 million in the last five years is the current score in the DRC (UN Figures) that includes deaths from violence and the famine that comes with civil war. America could really turn it's image around if it spent some small change on the DRC.

Time for bed.
Dee Cee

 

If humans were more logical this boy would have been euthanised as soon as he got into a hospital.
This is a case of "compassion" causing pain

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Keeping him alive is unnecasarry torture IMHO, a far bigger crime against ethics than the dropping of the bomb was in the first place.

 

No, they hadn't.

Not millions. Even military estimates didn't go that high, but still it was expected an assault on the Japanese main islands would cause the war to go on another year perhaps and would have probably cost not only thousands of more military deaths on both sides, but tens of thousands of civilian deaths and probably the destruction of more than two cities. The Japanese should have accepted the Potsdam declaration immediately on Aug. 2, because it gave them what they had been wanting, a surrender other than unconditional. The conditions were a lot more lenient that what had been imposed on Germany.

 

DeeCee and Dsdsds

Are you saying the United States should send military forces to kill the people commiting genocide as soon as possible?

 

Wow, I can hardly believe that an American knows so little about his/her own warmongering country as you do. Perhaps the education authorities only tell the American school children what they want them to know and to grow up believing it. Either that, or your education is somewhat diminished. There was no, and never has been an excuse to drop such a terrible weapon as the atomic bomb, and to justify the action of using nuclear weapons is a barbaric an purely evil action.

In my previous post I gave you examples that America hasn't changed its attitude in the last sixty years. America has been "Gung Ho" since the days of its founding when it wiped out the Red Indian nations.

Ever since the United States Army massacred 300 Lakotas in 1890, American forces have intervened elsewhere around the globe 100 times.

Indeed the United States has sent troops abroad or militarily struck other countries "territory" 216 times since independence from Britain. From 1945 the United States has intervened in more than 20 countries throughout the world, and actually dropped bombs on 23 countries. A leopard doesn't change it's spots!!

America is quickly becoming a hated nation, not only by the East, but by the West too.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are a moron. America fight dirty? Do we torture people?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, I consider attacking at night is fighting dirty-almost in a cowardly way!

 

america's philosophy is rather stupid. i mean, as far as i understand it, they want to take WMD away from all third world countries. does this include india, pakistan etc. also? north korea deserved to be attacked more than iraq. n. korea has publically declared it has WMD, yet the US didn't attack it. why? because it was afraid of china. america wants future economic relationships with china, and it dosen't want to jeopardize that. sorry ass policy, attack those with no allies. and i was just watching this news programme on tv. it was about what's happening in iraq, in baghdad especially at night. it was seriously disturbing. america claims it has 'control.' control my ass, at night there's so much looting, there are gangs of kids roaming the streets with ak's shooting people and looting. i really want to know how does america plan on bringing about law and order?

 

So you wouldn't mind the thrid world countries which are really unstable to have nuclear weapons? Or would like a nuclear war with like china?

 

The world complainse when we are isolationalist. Yet when we intervene we are war mongerers. lose lose cituarion.

This is so childish. Yeah an army that tries to take advantage of the cituation how cheap. Because I mean you have to fight wars fair and some countries actually do that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I mean atleast we don't gas attack people.

 

so you think ensuring what's best for a nation is the US's job? a country can have nuclear weapons if it wants. it isn't the US's decision..... global policeman jackass.

 

Salty

Yes, it is cheap! With the technology available there's no need for night time attacks-it's not a childish comment. It's childish to attack at night-it's actually cowardly. Also this crap about accidents happening. No need of that either. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

 

Re: Salty

If they attack at day they will shoot back which will cause a fire fight. Which will cause colateral damage. Which will cause more civilian cassualties. Soliders would have to react faster so they would have icheir trigger fingers so more accidents would happen. Now about the accidents happen. Can you show me another nation doing an invasion like this with less cassualties? (hint don't look at cheecnya)

 

Salty

I know, but that's what war is about isn't it? Population control?

Can you show me another nation doing an invasion like this with less cassualties?

No, I cannot, but what I am stating is that the technology is there. The accidents I'm referring to is the Canadian soldiers that were mistakenly bombed in Afgahnastan. I'm referring to the accidents that happened during PGWII. There's no need of it. Really, there isn't. I have some ideas that may prevent such things from happening again, but I'm not sure how, or if, my ideas will work, but if they do work, I could be a filthy rich man! Whoo-oooo!!!!!! Have a good one, Salty.

 

So you think we invaded Iraq just to kill Iraqis to keep the population down?

When you have 1,000 of people on the ground and in the air it gets alot more confusing. Thats when accidents happen.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!