+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: The NEW War     submit to reddit submit to twitter submit to tumblr

  1. #1

  2. #2

    I like Bush, and even i thought this was funny.

  3. #3

    Quote Originally Posted by bumbanned
    I like Bush, and even i thought this was funny.
    BUM Dirty ultrabum! DIRTY!

  4. #4
    Sea Torques
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    732
    BG Level
    5

    Quote Originally Posted by bumbanned
    I like Bush, and even i thought this was funny.
    2nd'd

  5. #5
    Salvage Bans
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    940
    BG Level
    5

    you say that now, but wait until the world changes.

  6. #6

    prior military here, so I was a Bush supporter, but if things pan out this way... we are in trouble.

  7. #7
    Sea Torques
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    732
    BG Level
    5

    I don't think Bush is in any rush to move against Iran, but they can not be allowed to have nuclear capabilities.

    I don't agree with a lot that Israel does, but they don't deserve to be nuked off the map, and there is more than enough reason to believe this will happen if Iran produces nukes.

    Not to mention what kind of arms proliferation Iran is capable of.

  8. #8

    I lol'd.

    I plan to move out of the states and to Europe or Autralia within the next 7-10 Years anyways. :D

    PARTY AT WAFIK'S!

  9. #9
    E. Body
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,057
    BG Level
    7
    FFXIV Character
    Deejay Zombie
    FFXIV Server
    Excalibur

    Bush said that he refuses to rule out the possibility of using nuclear(he said nucular of course) weapons as a countermeasure.

    If we nuke iran, you can rest assured that this world is probably done with, its just a matter of time before other countries launch.

    I seriously doubt the UN would approve of nuking Iran, but that hasn't stopped the US before. It will put the US at great risk.

  10. #10

    We won't nuke anyone. (fingers crossed) People need to remember that Bush isn't the only one that makes decisions. While his mental capacity is always in question, lets not forget about the hundreds of old farts on Capitol Hill and in the White House that have alot to lose.

  11. #11
    Relic Weapons
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    308
    BG Level
    4

    Quote Originally Posted by djzombie
    Bush said that he refuses to rule out the possibility of using nuclear(he said nucular of course) weapons as a countermeasure.

    If we nuke iran, you can rest assured that this world is probably done with, its just a matter of time before other countries launch.

    I seriously doubt the UN would approve of nuking Iran, but that hasn't stopped the US before. It will put the US at great risk.
    And exactly when has the US deployed nuclear weapons withou the consent of the UN?

    We dropped 2 on Japan during WWII. The first being dropped on August 6th, 1945, the 2nd being dropped August 9th, 1945. Japan surrendered and WWII officially ended on August 15th, 1945. The UN offcially came into existance on October 24th, 1945. Exactly how did the UN disallow the use of nuclear weapons against Japan 1.5 months before it existed? Unless they had a really hopped up Delorean......

    As far as the 2 we dropped on Japan, there were many factors involved in the decision, as well as choice of targets, and other things we must look at before it is labled as a US attrocity:

    - We knew the bombs destructive power, but were unaware of the fall-out afterwards.
    - Because of the above, military targets of low value, low defense, and with very low population were chosen. The US wanted to flex its muscle and end the war, not kill millions of people. For this reason, 2 small cities were chosen, and not Tokyo.
    - Japan has never successfully been invaded. Never.
    - The Japanese had an estimated 5 million men at arms at the time, with 2 million of that in Japan itself. That is a large army.
    - Having faced the Japanses on Iwo Jima and the like, we were aware of their resolve and tactics. And those were just islands. One could expect 10x the resolve on their home soil.
    - Given the above, an invasion attempt would be extremely bloody..for both sides. The Allies estimated it would take over 1 million allied deaths to successfully invade...which history had already shown was not possible.

    It was by no mean an easy decision for Truman. In fact, when given the go ahead to order it....he still sat on it for 3 days deciding on what to do. The sinking of the Indianapolis is what many people believe was what pushed him to give the green light. The death toll from both bombs combined was less than 200,000....consideralby less than if we invaded. I hardly think the US use of nuclear weapons in the past has any relavence to today's standards.

  12. #12
    Sea Torques
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    732
    BG Level
    5

    Quote Originally Posted by djzombie
    Bush said that he refuses to rule out the possibility of using nuclear(he said nucular of course) weapons as a countermeasure.

    If we nuke iran, you can rest assured that this world is probably done with, its just a matter of time before other countries launch.

    I seriously doubt the UN would approve of nuking Iran, but that hasn't stopped the US before. It will put the US at great risk.
    Greater risk than we're already at? Greater risk than if we didn't? These are things to consider if it goes that far.

    You have to remember what the President of Iran is saying about 'eliminating Israel and all it's people, purging the earth of them with one swift storm'. The nuclear option is not one brought to the table by the U.S. I would personally rather see a preemptive tactical nuclear strike on Iran than a counter strike after the entire country of israel has been laid to waste.

    Nuclear weapons exist for a reason, and that was well stated by cleveland - although no one wants to use them and I hope Iran doesn't fucking pull anything. Although there are LOTS of reservations about deploying them, as well as ramifications, you really have to think about all possible routes. Would you rather have a very small nuclear weapon detonated at a remote Iranian facility, or would you rather have one detonated in Iran with a death toll of around 10,000, or would you rather lose 4 million people instantaneously and another 2-6 million from fallout in an urban center in the U.S? If it comes to that, that is. Let's hope it doesn't.

  13. #13
    Melee Summoner
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    45
    BG Level
    1

    The United Nations wasn't around back then. The pre-cursor was the League of Nations, which was the result of World War II, and later became the United Nations. Not only that, but the atomic bomb was used not only as an offensive weapon, but because of the enormous amount of lives that it would save on our side. It simply switched the atrocity from both sides to one side and ended the war in one brief stroke. It wouldn't do that in this case. Different reasons come into play here by far. So i definitely agree that the two bombs don't have a lot of comparison to today.

  14. #14

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleveland
    Quote Originally Posted by djzombie
    Bush said that he refuses to rule out the possibility of using nuclear(he said nucular of course) weapons as a countermeasure.

    If we nuke iran, you can rest assured that this world is probably done with, its just a matter of time before other countries launch.

    I seriously doubt the UN would approve of nuking Iran, but that hasn't stopped the US before. It will put the US at great risk.
    And exactly when has the US deployed nuclear weapons withou the consent of the UN?

    We dropped 2 on Japan during WWII. The first being dropped on August 6th, 1945, the 2nd being dropped August 9th, 1945. Japan surrendered and WWII officially ended on August 15th, 1945. The UN offcially came into existance on October 24th, 1945. Exactly how did the UN disallow the use of nuclear weapons against Japan 1.5 months before it existed? Unless they had a really hopped up Delorean......

    As far as the 2 we dropped on Japan, there were many factors involved in the decision, as well as choice of targets, and other things we must look at before it is labled as a US attrocity:

    - We knew the bombs destructive power, but were unaware of the fall-out afterwards.
    - Because of the above, military targets of low value, low defense, and with very low population were chosen. The US wanted to flex its muscle and end the war, not kill millions of people. For this reason, 2 small cities were chosen, and not Tokyo.
    - Japan has never successfully been invaded. Never.
    - The Japanese had an estimated 5 million men at arms at the time, with 2 million of that in Japan itself. That is a large army.
    - Having faced the Japanses on Iwo Jima and the like, we were aware of their resolve and tactics. And those were just islands. One could expect 10x the resolve on their home soil.
    - Given the above, an invasion attempt would be extremely bloody..for both sides. The Allies estimated it would take over 1 million allied deaths to successfully invade...which history had already shown was not possible.

    It was by no mean an easy decision for Truman. In fact, when given the go ahead to order it....he still sat on it for 3 days deciding on what to do. The sinking of the Indianapolis is what many people believe was what pushed him to give the green light. The death toll from both bombs combined was less than 200,000....consideralby less than if we invaded. I hardly think the US use of nuclear weapons in the past has any relavence to today's standards.
    I would like to dispute your points on the invasion of Japan. The Joint War Plans Committe had estimated a grand total of 40,000 Americans dead and 140,000 wounded if we had to invate both southern Kyushu and Tokyo, Truman and Churchill both pumped up the casualty estimates to appear moral while using the bomb.

    At Hiroshima the death toll was around 180,000 from the direct blast and from the fallout. While Nagasaki was smaller, that is still more than 200,000.

    Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson said "The most desirable target would be a vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surround by workers' houses." Hiroshima was choosen because it had facilities used in the war, and because its population was large. Edo was not bombed because the U.S. had been firebombing it continuously since the capture of Iwa Jima. They wanted the atomic bomb to be used on a relativly untouched city to show its full destructive power.

    And Truman had far less doubts about dropping the atomic bomb than FDR did. The decision to drop the bomb was already made by Potsdam which was held in July 1945, with the bombs falling in August.

    And then there is the possibilty that the bombs were only dropped to intimidate the Russians, since if the allies had held up a blocade the Japanese would've surrendered anyway. (Kind of the problem of being an island nation devoid of natural resources and any allies.)

  15. #15
    Salvage Bans
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    940
    BG Level
    5

    Quote Originally Posted by Raivyn
    I don't think Bush is in any rush to move against Iran, but they can not be allowed to have nuclear capabilities.

    I don't agree with a lot that Israel does, but they don't deserve to be nuked off the map, and there is more than enough reason to believe this will happen if Iran produces nukes.

    Not to mention what kind of arms proliferation Iran is capable of.
    Bush only has until 2008 to finish his campaign (prolly to take over the middle east), so I would imagine if he didn't accomplish what he had hoped for before 2008, he'll go to desperate measures(go go kamikaze).

    And if not, the next president will probably be in the same boat as bush.

    Clueless leader to heard the sheep.

  16. #16
    Sea Torques
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    732
    BG Level
    5

    Quote Originally Posted by Kross
    Bush only has until 2008 to finish his campaign (prolly to take over the middle east), so I would imagine if he didn't accomplish what he had hoped for before 2008, he'll go to desperate measures(go go kamikaze).

    And if not, the next president will probably be in the same boat as bush.

    Clueless leader to heard the sheep.
    Did you reason through this before you typed it?

  17. #17

    Quote Originally Posted by Kross
    Quote Originally Posted by Raivyn
    I don't think Bush is in any rush to move against Iran, but they can not be allowed to have nuclear capabilities.

    I don't agree with a lot that Israel does, but they don't deserve to be nuked off the map, and there is more than enough reason to believe this will happen if Iran produces nukes.

    Not to mention what kind of arms proliferation Iran is capable of.
    Bush only has until 2008 to finish his campaign (prolly to take over the middle east), so I would imagine if he didn't accomplish what he had hoped for before 2008, he'll go to desperate measures(go go kamikaze).

    And if not, the next president will probably be in the same boat as bush.

    Clueless leader to heard the sheep.

    You think once Bush leaves office we will just say LOL JK JK to the world and pretend nothing happened? These are serious issues that few people felt like dealing with. Things that needed to happen IMO. But then again, I guess some people find it hard to care what some arab person is going through because they don't look like 'people'. The world is bigger then your room and CNN.

    Independent thoughts are good.

  18. #18
    Sea Torques
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    544
    BG Level
    5

    Quote Originally Posted by Raivyn
    Quote Originally Posted by Kross
    Bush only has until 2008 to finish his campaign (prolly to take over the middle east), so I would imagine if he didn't accomplish what he had hoped for before 2008, he'll go to desperate measures(go go kamikaze).

    And if not, the next president will probably be in the same boat as bush.

    Clueless leader to heard the sheep.
    Did you reason through this before you typed it?
    Coming from the author of the gogo 4/20 thread, what do you think?

  19. #19
    Sea Torques
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    732
    BG Level
    5

    Quote Originally Posted by ozz
    Quote Originally Posted by Raivyn
    Quote Originally Posted by Kross
    Bush only has until 2008 to finish his campaign (prolly to take over the middle east), so I would imagine if he didn't accomplish what he had hoped for before 2008, he'll go to desperate measures(go go kamikaze).

    And if not, the next president will probably be in the same boat as bush.

    Clueless leader to heard the sheep.
    Did you reason through this before you typed it?
    Coming from the author of the gogo 4/20 thread, what do you think?
    lmao, indeed.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • Decrease Size
    Increase Size
  • Remove Text Formatting
  • Insert Link Insert Image Insert Video
  • Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
  • Insert NSFW Tag
  • Insert Spoiler Tag

Similar Threads

  1. The new movie
    By Ziggy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2005-03-20, 05:02
  2. The New Almaa
    By Almaa in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2005-03-05, 05:40
  3. WHENS the new video!?!?!?!?
    By Obilisk in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2005-02-27, 13:28
  4. new Kamen Rider & the new kamen rider girl
    By Aemi in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2005-02-02, 20:04