The Blackest Day of the World History.
- Thread starter pussy+dickdenice
- Start date
Ravaged America ...
Our worst war on our soil would have been our Civil War. An that's far more comparable to the in-fighting of Europe as a second nation was founded.
While I agree somewhat, I think he was saying the destruction hasn't been so "extensive" in America like it has been in Europe. The British only burnt DC, which was still being founded, and didn't get much past Baltimore. The (second) invasion of Canada didn't go so well, but was relatively limited in attempt, and New Orleans was a massacre for the British.
Our worst war on our soil would have been our Civil War. An that's far more comparable to the in-fighting of Europe as a second nation was founded.
Re: What the Japanese almost accomplished with the attack on Pearl Harbor ...
You forgot to mention that russians have created some of the most reliable and most robust tanks ever made in WWII: t34, KV1 & KV2 as well as the Joseph Stalin tank, they also made some of the most incredible planes like the lavochkin la 3, lavockin la 7 which was the favorite plane of aces Pocrichkin and Kojedoub, you should also add to these planes the yakovlev yak 3 , yak 7 and yak 9 some of the most reknown Messerchmitt Bf109 e,f and g as well as focke wulf 190 killers. Lend leasing was important but the weaponry made by the USSR at that time played also a primordial role in the Russian victory against Nazis.
You forgot to mention that russians have created some of the most reliable and most robust tanks ever made in WWII: t34, KV1 & KV2 as well as the Joseph Stalin tank, they also made some of the most incredible planes like the lavochkin la 3, lavockin la 7 which was the favorite plane of aces Pocrichkin and Kojedoub, you should also add to these planes the yakovlev yak 3 , yak 7 and yak 9 some of the most reknown Messerchmitt Bf109 e,f and g as well as focke wulf 190 killers. Lend leasing was important but the weaponry made by the USSR at that time played also a primordial role in the Russian victory against Nazis.
Re: What the Japanese almost accomplished with the attack on Pearl Harbor ...
From time immemorial the VICTOR has always distorted the history to suit their propaganda machine, with half truths and out-and-out lies. Why should we be surprised to watch USA doing the same. Please also remember the native Red-Indian population of present day USA, who was plundered, is now only a minority group, while we are it.
dd
From time immemorial the VICTOR has always distorted the history to suit their propaganda machine, with half truths and out-and-out lies. Why should we be surprised to watch USA doing the same. Please also remember the native Red-Indian population of present day USA, who was plundered, is now only a minority group, while we are it.
dd
Dec 7,1941 Bombing Of Pearl Harbor
Nov 23,1963 The Killing Of Presents John F. Kennedy
Sept 11,2001 The Attack Of The World Trade Center
Nov 23,1963 The Killing Of Presents John F. Kennedy
Sept 11,2001 The Attack Of The World Trade Center
Why not add the day Einstein was coerced with mis-information about Germany's Nuclear readiness?
As Fox said there is a vast area beyond USA.
Thanks friend. But I don't try to out-shout mentally challenged persons.
dd
Fox that same quote can be used about you.
April 6th, 1994.
The first day of the Rwandan Genocide that cost the lives of between 600,000 and 1 million humans. And though the West clearly knew about it, they chose to do next to nothing to stop it.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is debatable as to whether it was necessary or not.
But no sane human would ever debate whether the Rwandan Genocide was necessary.
One thing about WW2 Japan is certain. Had the U.S. had to invade Japan, far more lives would have been lost on both sides then were lost in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Far, far more.
Also, Japanese prison camp commanders were apparently under orders to kill all their prisoners (hundreds of thousands of people) were the Japanese Home Islands to be invaded.
The only possible problem I have with the bombings, and it is a relatively small one. Is they could have dropped a demonstration bomb off the Japanese coast or on an uninhabited part of Japan (if there is such a place in the south) after warning the Japanese through diplomatic channels through a neutral country.
But at that time it was INCREDIBLY costly and time consuming to produce enough fissionable material to produce just one atomic bomb. Apparently hundreds of millions of dollars (or something) per bomb.
And with the incredibly cruel and torturous way the Japanese at that time treated both prisoners and captured/occupied civilians (they looked upon anyone who surrendered as slightly sub human) they clearly brought the atom bombings on themselves.
But having typed that. A demonstration explosion is the only thing I have against the policy that was carried out - as impractical and unlikely as this demonstration would have been. The Japanese might not have 'bought' it anyway.
But if after having done that and the Japanese still did not surrender then I would have ABSOLUTELY NO problem with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But again, my objection to them now is not great.
But Rwanda. Where the West could have at least tried to stop it but did next to nothing for months and let all those poor innocent people be hacked to death completely disgusts me.
It proved to me there and then that the West are (or at least were at that time. But that was but 13 years ago - how much could 'they' have changed?) cowards, selfish and racist.
That happened on a FAR smaller scale in Yugoslavia and NATO and the UN intervened. Not amazingly effectively. But they tried.
In Rwanda it was an extremely token gesture that they just gave up on.
I care not what anyone states or typed on this issue. Had these people been white westerners a much, much larger attempt to save them would have occurred. Not maybe. Definitely.
But because they were poor, black, ex-colonial Africans they basically didn't give a shit.
From that time forward I have been at least partly ashamed to be a White Anglo Saxon man.
What the West does with all it's vast wealth and power disgusts me. Even now they cannot even bother to give 0.7% of all their precious cash to help those that are dieing through no fault of their own.
Anyone that thinks that humans are a great or even a good species is naive in the extremes.
And I am not going to argue this point with anyone. I AM right on this. Period.
To debate it would be to debate whether 2 plus 2 equals 4; a complete waste of time.
To spend my time trying to remove methane gas from my inside's would be time better spend.
The first day of the Rwandan Genocide that cost the lives of between 600,000 and 1 million humans. And though the West clearly knew about it, they chose to do next to nothing to stop it.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is debatable as to whether it was necessary or not.
But no sane human would ever debate whether the Rwandan Genocide was necessary.
One thing about WW2 Japan is certain. Had the U.S. had to invade Japan, far more lives would have been lost on both sides then were lost in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Far, far more.
Also, Japanese prison camp commanders were apparently under orders to kill all their prisoners (hundreds of thousands of people) were the Japanese Home Islands to be invaded.
The only possible problem I have with the bombings, and it is a relatively small one. Is they could have dropped a demonstration bomb off the Japanese coast or on an uninhabited part of Japan (if there is such a place in the south) after warning the Japanese through diplomatic channels through a neutral country.
But at that time it was INCREDIBLY costly and time consuming to produce enough fissionable material to produce just one atomic bomb. Apparently hundreds of millions of dollars (or something) per bomb.
And with the incredibly cruel and torturous way the Japanese at that time treated both prisoners and captured/occupied civilians (they looked upon anyone who surrendered as slightly sub human) they clearly brought the atom bombings on themselves.
But having typed that. A demonstration explosion is the only thing I have against the policy that was carried out - as impractical and unlikely as this demonstration would have been. The Japanese might not have 'bought' it anyway.
But if after having done that and the Japanese still did not surrender then I would have ABSOLUTELY NO problem with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But again, my objection to them now is not great.
But Rwanda. Where the West could have at least tried to stop it but did next to nothing for months and let all those poor innocent people be hacked to death completely disgusts me.
It proved to me there and then that the West are (or at least were at that time. But that was but 13 years ago - how much could 'they' have changed?) cowards, selfish and racist.
That happened on a FAR smaller scale in Yugoslavia and NATO and the UN intervened. Not amazingly effectively. But they tried.
In Rwanda it was an extremely token gesture that they just gave up on.
I care not what anyone states or typed on this issue. Had these people been white westerners a much, much larger attempt to save them would have occurred. Not maybe. Definitely.
But because they were poor, black, ex-colonial Africans they basically didn't give a shit.
From that time forward I have been at least partly ashamed to be a White Anglo Saxon man.
What the West does with all it's vast wealth and power disgusts me. Even now they cannot even bother to give 0.7% of all their precious cash to help those that are dieing through no fault of their own.
Anyone that thinks that humans are a great or even a good species is naive in the extremes.
And I am not going to argue this point with anyone. I AM right on this. Period.
To debate it would be to debate whether 2 plus 2 equals 4; a complete waste of time.
To spend my time trying to remove methane gas from my inside's would be time better spend.
The Japanese didn't "bring it on themselves" for the reasons you state ...
After the mess and death due to unilateral action by the Clinton administration in Somalia, the administration was shy to involve itself in any African in-fighting.
The result was not exactly one of those more memorable moments that my country could have helped minimize, but didn't.
Although we can say similar about many actions in the '90s through today, or even before, no single "pause in judgement" by the US was the most destructive, in such little time, in the last 2 decade.
We weren't responsible for the action -- yes, in a sense -- but we are responsible for the inaction -- most definitely, and more saddening.
It's never about what others do, but what you could have done to prevent what you could to the best of your ability.
Because even after tens of thousands of Japanese were vaporized instantly, the Japanese military still would not back down.
It was only when the US showed that it had not only the ability to drop multiple bombs, but the will to kill innocent civilians, that the Japanese emperor finally had a voice again with the military.
The consensus of the Japanese -- at a meeting going on at the very moment the Nagasaki bombing occurred -- was that the US had neither the capability nor the will to do it again.
Kinda sad. Especially given how many Japanese civilians were so brainwashed that they often killed themselves rather than be fed by US soldiers.
Some of the videos taken on various islands in the ritual suicides off cliffs are beyond disturbing -- not just the military ones, but the civilians.
It wasn't even the "beware how you treat others," it was really more of the "brainwashing" that went on.
That "Americans don't take prisoners" or "Americans torture, rape and mame prisoners just because."
It was that which was their undoing, and why not just one, but *TWO* bombs had to be dropped.
It was the saddest, worst form of "shock treatment" -- on a national level -- in the history of the world.
Clinton took a real beating when he ordered US special forces out of pure PR reasons.
Bush was smart, and stayed with the UN plan, including US Marines, but Clinton wanted to one-up him.
As a result, Clinton was shy to use the US forces again -- especially since Rowanda was about an entire country, not just a city.
He unilaterally, both against UN and, in many cases, without even NATO permission, deployed cruise missiles and called for air-strikes.
One of the most embarrassing was later in his terms against Iraq, where 0 targets were actually struck, and we had a lot of "collateral damage."
Sigh, I neither like W. or agreed with the invasion, but our boys are in the thicket of it, just like the Iraqi people.
So no one can say we're "just standing back and only bombing from a safe distance" like they did throughout the Clinton administration.
The phrase "who would Jesus bomb" was a direct result of the Clinton administration, and people who have "revised" the history of his administration make me sick.
Almost as much as the people who say W. should just drop a nuke on Iraq.
If the US -- say -- has soldiers killed in due to action in -- say -- Portugal and then Genocide broke out in Spain, the President might have hesitated based on how Portugal went.
It wasn't a race thing, it was a "I don't want to get involved in another civil strife in the region."
No, it's worse than that, when you make it simply about race, you cause us to make the same, real mistake again.
I've seen that too many times now, especially in reverse too.
The US government cannot give what it doesn't have!
Now the greater American public -- yes, we're quite generous!
I think you've been reading "statistics" that slant using poor numbers.
Ever since the Tsunami a few years back, I've totally stopped even reading those slanted "statistics."
And if people don't have the realities in front of them about the past, they won't see the repeat when it comes in the future.
The US didn't get involved in Rowanda because of what happened in Somalia.
Sadly enough, it wasn't because of UN action that Americans died in Somalia, but because of its unilateral actions.
Something we -- yet again -- screwed up on in Iraq in 2003 as well.
But it's only because people have such short memories -- although it's more because of the youth (20-something year-olds) on this board -- that they believe only W. is capable of unilateral actions and Clinton could never have.
The Clinton administration virtually never got UN permission, and went against NATO far too often, often dragging them too.
Agreed. The US and UK blocked UN action for far too long.
After the mess and death due to unilateral action by the Clinton administration in Somalia, the administration was shy to involve itself in any African in-fighting.
The result was not exactly one of those more memorable moments that my country could have helped minimize, but didn't.
Although we can say similar about many actions in the '90s through today, or even before, no single "pause in judgement" by the US was the most destructive, in such little time, in the last 2 decade.
We weren't responsible for the action -- yes, in a sense -- but we are responsible for the inaction -- most definitely, and more saddening.
It's never about what others do, but what you could have done to prevent what you could to the best of your ability.
Unfortunately, that would have had the same effect that the Hiroshima bombing did.
Because even after tens of thousands of Japanese were vaporized instantly, the Japanese military still would not back down.
It was only when the US showed that it had not only the ability to drop multiple bombs, but the will to kill innocent civilians, that the Japanese emperor finally had a voice again with the military.
The consensus of the Japanese -- at a meeting going on at the very moment the Nagasaki bombing occurred -- was that the US had neither the capability nor the will to do it again.
Kinda sad. Especially given how many Japanese civilians were so brainwashed that they often killed themselves rather than be fed by US soldiers.
Some of the videos taken on various islands in the ritual suicides off cliffs are beyond disturbing -- not just the military ones, but the civilians.
Actually, no. No one ever "brings it upon themselves."
It wasn't even the "beware how you treat others," it was really more of the "brainwashing" that went on.
That "Americans don't take prisoners" or "Americans torture, rape and mame prisoners just because."
It was that which was their undoing, and why not just one, but *TWO* bombs had to be dropped.
It was the saddest, worst form of "shock treatment" -- on a national level -- in the history of the world.
Not merely I argue that was "proven" when then didn't after Hiroshima, but virtually all Japanese historians agree, virtually all, on that point.
Not racist, just selfish.
Clinton took a real beating when he ordered US special forces out of pure PR reasons.
Bush was smart, and stayed with the UN plan, including US Marines, but Clinton wanted to one-up him.
As a result, Clinton was shy to use the US forces again -- especially since Rowanda was about an entire country, not just a city.
Clinton's entire administration rarely put troops on the ground.
He unilaterally, both against UN and, in many cases, without even NATO permission, deployed cruise missiles and called for air-strikes.
One of the most embarrassing was later in his terms against Iraq, where 0 targets were actually struck, and we had a lot of "collateral damage."
Sigh, I neither like W. or agreed with the invasion, but our boys are in the thicket of it, just like the Iraqi people.
So no one can say we're "just standing back and only bombing from a safe distance" like they did throughout the Clinton administration.
The phrase "who would Jesus bomb" was a direct result of the Clinton administration, and people who have "revised" the history of his administration make me sick.
Almost as much as the people who say W. should just drop a nuke on Iraq.
I disagree.
If the US -- say -- has soldiers killed in due to action in -- say -- Portugal and then Genocide broke out in Spain, the President might have hesitated based on how Portugal went.
It wasn't a race thing, it was a "I don't want to get involved in another civil strife in the region."
I don't think this is about race.
No, it's worse than that, when you make it simply about race, you cause us to make the same, real mistake again.
I've seen that too many times now, especially in reverse too.
Umm, maybe because you're confusing GDP with federal revenue?
The US government cannot give what it doesn't have!
Now the greater American public -- yes, we're quite generous!
I think you've been reading "statistics" that slant using poor numbers.
Ever since the Tsunami a few years back, I've totally stopped even reading those slanted "statistics."
You are free to believe what you want.
And if people don't have the realities in front of them about the past, they won't see the repeat when it comes in the future.
The US didn't get involved in Rowanda because of what happened in Somalia.
Sadly enough, it wasn't because of UN action that Americans died in Somalia, but because of its unilateral actions.
Something we -- yet again -- screwed up on in Iraq in 2003 as well.
But it's only because people have such short memories -- although it's more because of the youth (20-something year-olds) on this board -- that they believe only W. is capable of unilateral actions and Clinton could never have.
The Clinton administration virtually never got UN permission, and went against NATO far too often, often dragging them too.
I agree for the most part with your WW2 points. However, despite the fact that I disagree with some of your Rwanda points. And strongly disagree with you 0.7 charitable points. I am more concerned with the fact that though I was speaking of an event (Rwanda) that had absolutely nothing to do with George W. Bush and Iraq; you saw fit to yet again bring them into this discussion anyway.
As per usual, I find your American political opinions tend to lean to wards looking at things through conservative coloured glasses in general and American rose coloured glasses in particular.
It is unfortunate that you seem to be guided by this perspective. Whereas I have equal distaste for virtually all mainstream politicians, be they liberal or conservative. (And I consider myself a citizen of Earth first. And a Canadian second.)
Hence I can state my complete disgust for the handling of said Rwandan genocide by the spineless Clinton Administration.
As for your opinion as to the reason for the West's lack of action in Rwanda?
I will simply add that if you are right, then it makes their inaction all the more despicable.
As per usual, I find your American political opinions tend to lean to wards looking at things through conservative coloured glasses in general and American rose coloured glasses in particular.
It is unfortunate that you seem to be guided by this perspective. Whereas I have equal distaste for virtually all mainstream politicians, be they liberal or conservative. (And I consider myself a citizen of Earth first. And a Canadian second.)
Hence I can state my complete disgust for the handling of said Rwandan genocide by the spineless Clinton Administration.
As for your opinion as to the reason for the West's lack of action in Rwanda?
I will simply add that if you are right, then it makes their inaction all the more despicable.
*whine* *mope* *pout*
Boy! My kids complain less than some of your middle aged rubber necking farts do...
I quote an earlier post from the "Is this humanity" therad:
Sheesh Mc! Take of your "Oh woe is me and the world is going down the toilet" 'colored' glasses for a while.
cheers,
When people such as yourself stop patting humanity on the back and saying 'good job' to help you sleep better at night while children needlessly die in Africa alone by the hundreds everyday from hunger, AIDS and malaria.
Tell it to them pal.
And where exactly was I complaining about my life ('oh woe is me')?
:1orglaugh
You don't know what I do for a living.
Let's just leave it at that Mac.
I just answered your absurd claim that "humans are worthless as a species and that anyone who holds such a PoV is naieve." with a dissenting PoV - pointing out that "worthless humans" (as you claim) also do hundreds and thousands of good deeds every hour, every day.
You wish to live and deal in hyperbole - that's fine with me. Please at least have the decency to acknowledge as such.
cheers,
That is twice (at least) in two posts you have misquoted me.
I find those who misrepresent other's words are not worth dealing with.
Especially in more 'serious' threads.
Good day.
You're exact words:
from hereMcRocket said:
I admit I took 'liberties' by substituting "worthless" for "great or even a good species".
Are you claiming that your implication and intended meaning were different? If so, you're better serving time by explaining them - rather than being pedantic about a supposed misquote (by the way: The FIRST time, I quoted your post EXACTLY as written).
cheers,
PS:
:rofl:
You also claimed I typed/believed "Oh woe is me..."
Next time, please don't take liberties with my words in serious threads.
And if you don't like my negative tone, I suggest not reading my posts in the future.
Good day.
Similar threads
