Originally posted by Faceman
Whos side is Russia in anyways? Heard they have been helping Iran, with there nukes...
Russia is not really on anyone's side per se. Putin is most interested in resurrecting his country's economy. They have no more debt, period. So he is looking to stimulate the Russian economy however he can, even if it means selling supplies to Iranians. 😬
Originally posted by BobbyD
Russia is not really on anyone's side per se. Putin is most interested in resurrecting his country's economy. They have no more debt, period. So he is looking to stimulate the Russian economy however he can, even if it means selling supplies to Iranians. 😬
America used nuclear weapons 70 years ago against a state it was at war with. That state used our POWs for slave labor, to peform death marches, killed indiscriminately, tortured our men, raped civilian women, maimed enemies and just generally killed a lot of people. Now, does that justify dropping an A bomb on one of their cities? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the issue. We already have them. The question is, just because we have them, does that mean we equip everyone with the means to end the world?
That's what you should be asking.
Originally posted by Kinneary
America used nuclear weapons 70 years ago against a state it was at war with. That state used our POWs for slave labor, to peform death marches, killed indiscriminately, tortured our men, raped civilian women, maimed enemies and just generally killed a lot of people.
Poor POWs. Do you know how many civilians lost there lives when the US used their bombs to specifically target cities that would result in the most casualties? Right...
Originally posted by Kinneary
Now, does that justify dropping an A bomb on one of their cities? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the issue. We already have them. The question is, just because we have them, does that mean we equip [b]everyone with the means to end the world?[/B]
Well, let's see...The US has proven that it is willing to kill innocent civilians on a large-scale, so if they can, why can't the rest of the world?
That's the question you should be asking.
Poor POWs. Do you know how many civilians lost there lives when the US used their bombs to specifically target cities that would result in the most casualties? Right...
"Now, does that justify dropping an A bomb on one of their cities? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the issue."
Well, let's see...The US has proven that it is willing to kill innocent civilians on a large-scale, so if they can, why can't the rest of the world?That's the question you should be asking.
I'm not following your logic. You're taking someone that happened 70 years ago and comparing it to today. 70 years ago we also segregated blacks on the bus. Does that mean America has no right to intervene when we find human traffiking circles? Your argument makes no sense.
Originally posted by Kinneary
Here, I'll quote what I said again. Maybe you were so busy foaming at the mouth that you forgot to read it.[b]"Now, does that justify dropping an A bomb on one of their cities? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the issue."
[/B]
That's nice, but you see, your opinion is implicated by you referring to what happened to the POWs; you were trying to equate your argument despite the "maybe, maybe not" redundancy.
Originally posted by Kinneary
So if Japan showed it was willing to torture our POWs, does that mean it's okay for everyone to torture POWs?I'm not following your logic. You're taking someone that happened 70 years ago and comparing it to today. 70 years ago we also segregated blacks on the bus. Does that mean America has no right to intervene when we find human traffiking circles? Your argument makes no sense.
Oh dear, have you forgotten who originally referred to WWII?
*GNASH, GNASH, GARGLE, GARGLE*
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd FlooNot as many civilians as China lost ✅ Also, most of the people who were around when the bomb was dropped are dead, or of extremely old age.
Poor POWs. Do you know how many civilians lost there lives when the US used their bombs to specifically target cities that would result in the most casualties? Right...
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
That's nice, but you see, your opinion is implicated by you referring to what happened to the POWs; you were trying to equate your argument despite the "maybe, maybe not" redundancy.
Oh dear, have you forgotten who originally referred to WWII?
*GNASH, GNASH, GARGLE, GARGLE*
Originally posted by Alliance*Shrug* If I could end a war without throwing waves of my troops to the Japanese while simultaneously showing off my new big bomb, I would've done it too.
The US never needed to nuke Japan. It was a pointless ploy when many politicians thought a diplomatic deal could have been reached. Japan was clearly going to lose The war.And people who insult The ages of others and don't list their own age are complete asswipes.
Originally posted by Kinneary
No, however when someone supporting one side of an argument tries to move away from a topic being debated, it's pretty much taken as an admission that they can't defend that position. Which is why I said what I said. You should know message board politics.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about? I responded to your post in the context of the debate by highlighting the redundancy of your comparison. Anyway, regardless of this, a debate is organic in nature.
Originally posted by Kinneary
Which has what to do with what?
Are you sitting comfortably? OK, I shall begin...Once upon a time, Kinneary referenced what happened in Japan during WWII. He used something which happened 70 years ago, and compared it today. He knew that black people were segregated on the buses 70 years ago, too. Then, he accused the handsome Ya Krunk'd Floo of making no sense when he (YKF) did the same. The End.
Originally posted by Kinneary
?
*SLURP, SLURP, GNOSH, GNOSH*