POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
When I see Wild make an argument, I will respond accordingly.
As long as he continues to work on his Master's degree in the fine art of copy and paste, there really is nothing to argue about.
If the authors of those articles he posts want to come into the forum and state THEIR OWN OPINIONS I would be happy to engage in debate with them.
I find it impossible to debate with an internet link.....perhaps that is why Wild does it. A no win, no lose method that perpetuates his brand of yellow journalism.
That he is afraid to have an open debate based on reason, common sense, and his own thought processes......
He is just another goosestepping the issues Kut unt vaste cyber in my opinion.
hapaboy, this clearly belongs into your own, 100% pure and unadulterated American citizens' thread: such a load of BS is an insult to people whose brains have not yet been eaten up like that of one of your former presidents.
I can still remember those live transmissions on CNN: "This is Peter Arnett live from Bagdhad", with your bombers avoiding as best they can "killing innocent civilians". Those who died in those days, were certainly not innocent, but found guilty and executed. Well done! Shame on the USAF and their British and French collaborators.
And again, I take my hat down to the Germans who resisted and did not send their soldiers. Well done, and I hope this time too Mr Schroeder will not give in to the pressure from the US and UK!
And you: get back into your cage, you brainless insult to mother nature!
What a surprise that Wild has chimed in out of left field with another laughable response. I was in fact referring to the US's attempt in the last Gulf War to minimize civilian casualties, but if you want to go into WWII we can.
Not only did dropping the bombs save countless American lives, that would have been lost in an invasion of the Japanese homeland as max401 pointed out, but it saved the lives of countless Japanese as well that would have been killed in the same invasion. American casualties alone were estimated to have been close to 250,000 men killed and twice that number wounded in order to completely subjugate Japan. An unreasonable estimate? Well, fighting in Iwo Jima and Okinawa caused 75,000 US casualties alone. It is a FACT that Japanese troops were trained to fight to the death - surrender was considered dishonorable. Why do you think so few Japanese troops surrendered? The Japanese civilians were told to fight to the death as well in the event of an invasion, and were told the invading American troops would surely rape and massacre them like wild animals. The mass suicide among the civilian populace in Okinawa is evidence of that belief. It was a country fully prepared to fight to the end. To the military leadership, surrender was unthinkable.
Furthermore Wild, I lived in Japan for 5 years and have talked at length to my Japanese friends about this. As angry as they are that the atomic bombs were used on them, even they have admitted an invasion would have cost more lives on both sides.
And what happened when Japan surrendered? Occupying American troops did NOT rape and massacre the population, but treated them in arguably the most benevolent manner a conqueror has ever treated a conquered nation. You cannot say the same thing at all about Germany's brutal occupations of Russia and Europe. Thanks to US empathy and assistance, Japan rebuilt itself into one of the most prosperous nations in the world.
The bottom line Wild is that you can cut-and-paste all you want but you can NEVER escape the fact that your country (at least the country you live in because you still have not been willing to tell people your origins), in causing the single-most devastating war ever witnessed on the face of this planet, is responsible for the greatest number of deaths among innocent populations. Six million alone in the Nazi concentration camps, or are you going to refute that ever happened?
Not only did dropping the bombs save countless American lives, that would have been lost in an invasion of the Japanese homeland as max401 pointed out, but it saved the lives of countless Japanese as well that would have been killed in the same invasion. American casualties alone were estimated to have been close to 250,000 men killed and twice that number wounded in order to completely subjugate Japan. An unreasonable estimate? Well, fighting in Iwo Jima and Okinawa caused 75,000 US casualties alone. It is a FACT that Japanese troops were trained to fight to the death - surrender was considered dishonorable. Why do you think so few Japanese troops surrendered? The Japanese civilians were told to fight to the death as well in the event of an invasion, and were told the invading American troops would surely rape and massacre them like wild animals. The mass suicide among the civilian populace in Okinawa is evidence of that belief. It was a country fully prepared to fight to the end. To the military leadership, surrender was unthinkable.
Furthermore Wild, I lived in Japan for 5 years and have talked at length to my Japanese friends about this. As angry as they are that the atomic bombs were used on them, even they have admitted an invasion would have cost more lives on both sides.
And what happened when Japan surrendered? Occupying American troops did NOT rape and massacre the population, but treated them in arguably the most benevolent manner a conqueror has ever treated a conquered nation. You cannot say the same thing at all about Germany's brutal occupations of Russia and Europe. Thanks to US empathy and assistance, Japan rebuilt itself into one of the most prosperous nations in the world.
The bottom line Wild is that you can cut-and-paste all you want but you can NEVER escape the fact that your country (at least the country you live in because you still have not been willing to tell people your origins), in causing the single-most devastating war ever witnessed on the face of this planet, is responsible for the greatest number of deaths among innocent populations. Six million alone in the Nazi concentration camps, or are you going to refute that ever happened?
YO fairplay and wild and candle. WE will spare your lives because they DONT mean anything. We ARE the superpower.... THE GERMANS are weak and are worthless EXCEPT for some of their beers which have nothing to do with you........So after you watch OUR SUPERBOWL,,,,, then do us all a favor and EAT a clump of SHIT....FILTHY cockroaches!!!!!
Gee Fairplay, if you check the history of the Gulf War, you'll note that coalition airplanes were bombing Iraqi military and intelligence installations. With great effect too!
Oh yes, the Germans were so noble, Fairplay! They did not send troops, BECAUSE GERMANY AND JAPAN ARE PROHIBITED FROM SENDING IN THEIR TROOPS FOR "OFFENSIVE" WARFARE! They can only use their troops for defensive purposes (this is because they lost WWII - they did lose that war, you know). AND, Fairplay, because they could not send troops, they sent billions of dollars instead to defray war costs. Essentially, they sent money instead of men. GASP! You mean your Great Teacher Wild didn't tell you that in your last indoctrination class? How convenient of him! Or you didn't research that on your own, Fairplay? You mean you follow Wild blindly? Your hat is indeed "down" - it's covering your eyes. It's time the student questioned the master, it seems.....So don't delude yourselves that Germany kept itself out of the Gulf War. They sent cash instead of flesh.
Here we go with the personal attacks again. Please grow up Fairplay.
Interesting comment, straight from the files of the KKK
But you deserve a reply:
* I reserve the right to disagree with your comment regarding my life: I think as it is the only one that I have, it means a lot!
* Has anybody here doubted that the US (I presume that is the country you refer to) is a superpower? On the contrary, that seems to be the core problem here. If the US were the "friendly giant", fine, but that does not seem to be the case
* I disagree with your statement that the Germans are weak and worthless (I do not drink beer because of religious reasons, and you should also kick that habit, alcohol erodes your brain): if you really are a superpower, then it takes quite some guts to stand up to you. Perhaps you should listen to the english service of their "duetche welle", where they make some very interesting observations. As I have stated earlier on: much more interesting than the "Voice of America", to which I used to be addicted. See for yourself: http://www.dw-world.de/
* PLEASE: what is a "superbowl"? One of your threats? You have me shaking in my thongs!
* being called a filthy cockroach by you is like a compliment from a beautiful lady. But I have to disappoint you: No! I will not, even if you wet your pants over it, I will not eat a clump of shit. I leave that for you as a dessert. And I presume also Mr Wild and Mr Candle will not accept your kind invitation.
I amazed that when people run out of arguments they seem to think that they have to resort to bully tactics. Is this something typical American?
Thank goodness this is only the internet and not a schoolyard. I am physically not as strong as probably "ghostrider", but , although I did not even go through a full English education, I think I would not only beat him in any spelling competition, but also with my table manners.
Take your feet off the table, you hillbilly!
Fairplay, you should write to your President about what an unfriendly giant the US is. Never mind the fact that from 2000-2002 the US gave your country over 500 MILLION dollars in aid for basic education, health care, humanitarian assistance for your ethnic violence problems, to help foster an independent judiciary, etc., etc. Not only are we a superpower, we are super-generous. Of course you don't appreciate it though...
I do not agree with ghostrider's choice of words at all, but you have called me and others here a wide variety of names. As far as running out of arguments, you and Wild ran out a long time ago. All you have left is endless cut-and-paste...