Lets drop the BOMB ! Or maybe not ?

[James2097]

America has two choices: diplomacy or the bomb.

As you can pretty much rule out the yanks being successful at diplomacy, its looks like the only valid option is to just nuke the entire middle east. Its the only choice, considering the US's record at international relations. Then just build a big terror-themed amusement attraction there (team america "goodies and baddies" style) and employ the locals to serve up the McDonalds.

Then there will be freedom and happy days forever. At least until the oil runs out.



Caveat for reading above post: before anyone riles against me with a pitchfork waving patriotic crusade, please engage your humour chips, with sarcasm detectors firmly in place.

 

[Zardoz]

America has two choices: diplomacy or the bomb.

As you can pretty much rule out the yanks being successful at diplomacy, its looks like the only valid option is to just nuke the entire middle east. Its the only choice, considering the US's record at international relations. Then just build a big terror-themed amusement attraction there (team america "goodies and baddies" style) and employ the locals to serve up the McDonalds.

Then there will be freedom and happy days forever. At least until the oil runs out.

Caveat for reading above post: before anyone riles against me with a pitchfork waving patriotic crusade, please engage your humour chips, with sarcasm detectors firmly in place.

Problem is, with the Bush administration in power, every single syllable of the above is completely true and accurate. This isn't sarcasm, its a real-world business plan.

Will things be different starting in January of 2009? Maybe, but don't bet a lot of money on it. If we're capable of re-electing this bunch, we're capable of electing a new group that's just as bad or worse.

(Hey wait a minute! Weren't we talking about WWII here?...)

 

[VT]

(Hey wait a minute! Weren't we talking about WWII here?...)

Exactly what I was thinking.

THIS IS A WWII THREAD!! Not a thread about the middle east.

 

[blargonator]

HEY VGT07 READ THE FIRST POST AGAIN! please, don't use all caps, it seems a bit excessive.
i said it in my post, the first post mentions nothing of WWII at all. people just put started talking about WWII.

 

[Solid Fro]

The first post and this whole thread is about WWII and the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That what ledhed was referring to.

 

[VT]

The first post and this whole thread is about WWII and the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That what ledhed was referring to.

Thanks for handling my light work, Viper. What an ass, flaming the person whos trying to keep the thread on topic.

Oh and so you know, blargonator:

1) its VTGT07

and

2) it helps if you read the whole thread, or atleast most of it, to keep you from doing what you just did. If you had done that it would have been quite obvious to you that this is about WWII and not about the Middle East.

Hell, you only really had to read to the fourth post to realize it was about WWII.

 

[s0nny80y]

What about surgical strikes????????

Why spend all your money on something that has massive 'collateral damage' when the US could have spent the millions of dollars on surgical striking abilities??????

Was it for the awe effect?


It would have looked better for the US if Japanese officials were killed by Super secret super human spies that had the kind of backing/funding the atomic bomb had.

I mean, aren't things like Super secret super human spies taboo, however?

That's what people thought before the destruction of an entire city. Anything was possible when the research program thought up of such a crazy idea. Wiping a city off the map.

It was an irrational decision from the start.
That kinda funding at the time could have been used to overthrow the gov't.
Truman was a bad president. And the majority of the deaths were civilians. 99%.
The deaths in the Pearl Harbor attack were military servicemen.

If you vote yes on this poll, then you'd basically be supporting any kind of attack on innocent civilian lives. I say any because big bombs like the atom bomb is indiscriminate so it's impossible to avoid civilian deaths. So if civilian death is inevitable, then voting yes on the poll would suggest you as a civilian killing moron.

You join the military, expect to kill or be killed.

As for civilians, hopefully they don't drive to the grocery store expecting a nuclear bomb to be dropped on their asses any day soon.

 

[ledhed]

What about surgical strikes????????

Why spend all your money on something that has massive 'collateral damage' when the US could have spent the millions of dollars on surgical striking abilities??????

Was it for the awe effect?


It would have looked better for the US if Japanese officials were killed by Super secret super human spies that had the kind of backing/funding the atomic bomb had.

I mean, aren't things like Super secret super human spies taboo, however?

That's what people thought before the destruction of an entire city. Anything was possible when the research program thought up of such a crazy idea. Wiping a city off the map.

It was an irrational decision from the start.
That kinda funding at the time could have been used to overthrow the gov't.
Truman was a bad president. And the majority of the deaths were civilians. 99%.
The deaths in the Pearl Harbor attack were military servicemen.

If you vote yes on this poll, then you'd basically be supporting any kind of attack on innocent civilian lives. I say any because big bombs like the atom bomb is indiscriminate so it's impossible to avoid civilian deaths. So if civilian death is inevitable, then voting yes on the poll would suggest you as a civilian killing moron.

You join the military, expect to kill or be killed.

As for civilians, hopefully they don't drive to the grocery store expecting a nuclear bomb to be dropped on their asses any day soon.

The B-29 with the norton bombsite was considered state of the art for the time . Surgical strikes as we know them didnt happen ...because it was not possiblile with the technology in existence...for at least 40 years after WW2 and depend on computer tech and lasers..Have you read anything at all on WW2 ?????? Thats got to be one of the strangest suggestions I have have read in a long time .
Attacks on civilians ????? You should be against ALL the bombing in WW2 the whole war was fought against " Nations " there were NO CIVILIANS ...unless you count propaganda...or unless you were lucky enough to be someplace they couldnt reach you .
You really need to learn a bit. WW2 is not a "two page and take a test subject "
Your post seems to imply you know little about it .

 

[Tacet_Blue]

He may not know a lot about WWII (psst it stands for World War 2 s0nny80y )
but he does seem to know about super duper secret super tastic human spiesy wiseys

I mean, aren't things like Super secret super human spies taboo, however?

 

[Zardoz]

What about surgical strikes????????

Why spend all your money on something that has massive 'collateral damage' when the US could have spent the millions of dollars on surgical striking abilities??????

Was it for the awe effect?


It would have looked better for the US if Japanese officials were killed by Super secret super human spies that had the kind of backing/funding the atomic bomb had.

I mean, aren't things like Super secret super human spies taboo, however?

That's what people thought before the destruction of an entire city. Anything was possible when the research program thought up of such a crazy idea. Wiping a city off the map.

It was an irrational decision from the start.
That kinda funding at the time could have been used to overthrow the gov't.
Truman was a bad president. And the majority of the deaths were civilians. 99%.
The deaths in the Pearl Harbor attack were military servicemen.

If you vote yes on this poll, then you'd basically be supporting any kind of attack on innocent civilian lives. I say any because big bombs like the atom bomb is indiscriminate so it's impossible to avoid civilian deaths. So if civilian death is inevitable, then voting yes on the poll would suggest you as a civilian killing moron.

You join the military, expect to kill or be killed.

As for civilians, hopefully they don't drive to the grocery store expecting a nuclear bomb to be dropped on their asses any day soon.

This is so staggeringly idiotic it really isn't worthy of a response from any of us, but I've just got to say that you are one of the most phenomenally ignorant individuals I've ever encountered. My God, you really think WWII was like some sort of video game or something, don't you? The whole thing was basically sort of another version of Splinter Cell, huh?

Are you aware that somewhere between 45,000,000 and 55,000,000 people died in WWII? And you're talking about fricking "surgical strikes"?

 

[James2097]

As far as I thought the first post was simply about the morality of using nuclear weapons, using a situation descriptive of WW2 as an example. Hence I thought it was fine to talk about the middle east, considering Rush Limbaugh had (to my disgust) inferred that he'd be fine with nuking the middle east the day I posted. It was topical and relevant.

Besides, can't the yanks just neutron bomb the middle east these days? Kill everyone and keep all the infrastructure intact, easier to clean up and use the land for said theme park.

Nukes actually seem a little old hat!

 

[VT]

Besides, can't the yanks just neutron bomb the middle east these day? Kill everyone and keep all the infrastructure intact, easier to clean up and use the land for said theme park.

Nukes actually seem a little old hat!

Then we'd have China and Russia bombing our ass and ofcouse we'd have to bomb them back and then .. Heeeeey .. where'd everybody go?

Thats right, the moment someone launched a nuke we would enter a Nuclear Holocaust because everyone else would fire back at whoever launched it and doing so would leave the world in worse shape than Chernobyl.

 

[Zardoz]

...Besides, can't the yanks just neutron bomb the middle east these day? Kill everyone and keep all the infrastructure intact, easier to clean up and use the land for said theme park.

Nukes actually seem a little old hat!

Hello? This is called "irony", "sarcasm", and "wit".

He's making a little joke here. Hello?

 

[blargonator]

sorry about the name thing VTGT07, anyways......i know people have been discussing WWII, i read the topics before i post about them. ledhead (sorry if i messed that up) does not say anything about it in the first post. i don't care about the posts that come after, i mean hell, if i started talking about how good pizza is that does not make it about how good pizza is (wow, very stupid example). he did not say anything about it to begin with, it was just a hypothetical question.

people just sort of started getting pulled towards WWII because obviously there were two devastating cases of nuclear weapon use.

 

[s0nny80y]

Surgical strikes as in send in a strike force. With the funding used to make the nukes (research and devolopment), anything was possible to kill people.

SUrgical strikes as in poison officials food, bribe officials, etc etc.

Surgical strikes as in NO collateral damage!

 

[Solid Fro]

Sunny Boy has been playing too much Splinter Cell lately.

 

[James2097]

Surgical strikes as in send in a strike force. With the funding used to make the nukes (research and devolopment), anything was possible to kill people.

SUrgical strikes as in poison officials food, bribe officials, etc etc.

Surgical strikes as in NO collateral damage!

No! Having to be careful makes wars hard to win. Especially for certain ministers of defense with ADHD. "Here's your new batch of ritalin sir! Just in time for the UN meeting - phew!"

Nuke Iran. See if we can't blow a hole through to the Earth's core to access a nice new natural power source and shut up those damn whiny tree huggin' liberals that say nuclear bombs aren't beneficial to society. Who cares if they've been to university, they're unpatriotic and don't trust God or their president.

Really, it'll be fine, the nuclear fallout will just get blown over to france/africa, which Rush Limbaugh can joke about on air. Bush will be too busy hunting at the ranch to notice at that point.

Besides, we all know nuclear waste seeping into the water table over hundreds of years is a much healthier proposition than a bit of CO2 in the atmosphere saving us money on heating. I know, those bloody liberal obstructionists, they never want great advancements like this...

Think about the possibilities! If the world is run on nuclear power, there will be loads of bonus Kyoto points available for everyone to buy much bigger trucks with handling even more like a boat. You're gonna need it with the poles melting anyway.

"We can send the nuclear waste to Australia anyway, president. Its just like throwing a cigar out the window of your car in a democrat state!"
"Well damn me but thats a top policy, have a cigar partner!"
"They'd better not be made in Cuba, those bastards!"
"Where's Austria? Can I shoot some of them there hoppy animals?"

Sometimes I wish I was thick, life would be much simpler and easier to understand what is the 'right' thing to do. Smoke 'em out, obviously.

 

[FoolKiller]

Surgical strikes as in send in a strike force. With the funding used to make the nukes (research and devolopment), anything was possible to kill people.

SUrgical strikes as in poison officials food, bribe officials, etc etc.

Surgical strikes as in NO collateral damage!

So, like dress a guy in black and have him tip toe into the presidential palace, or whatever they have, hide in the shadows, hang from the ceilings, and then sprinkle a little cyanide on their food?

Are you aware that in WWII we just developed helicopters and planes still used propellers? What kind of technology do you think they had?

As for the no collateral damage thing, do you honestly believe that by killing their president, prime minister, or whatever that they would then just surrender? Whoever is second in command would take over, fire up the citizenry, and encourage an even stronger war effort. I would take causing collateral damage over taking it any day.

Unless of course you mean lots off super secret covert sneaky spy guys and poisoning all their officials at once. I mean, that would work without a hitch.

 

[s0nny80y]

With the funding used to make the nukes (research and devolopment), anything was possible to kill people.

Kill down the chain of command.

Join the military, expect to kill or be killed.

It's just as bad as the Nazi's exterminating innocent people.

 

[Zardoz]

I say again:

...Are you aware that somewhere between 45,000,000 and 55,000,000 people died in WWII? And you're talking about fricking "surgical strikes"?

My God, kid, you really have no idea what was going on back then, do you? And yet you post crap like you're putting up.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess...

 

[ledhed]

Put up a dumb ass post ...then back it up by pounding on the dumb assed idea ...THEN defend it.... " well fella's I'm on a mission from God " I want to first in line for a brain !
Gotta hand it ya though. If ignorance is bliss you are one blissed out cowpoke !

 

[s0nny80y]

Nicaragua and Cuba. Two governments overthrown by the US using covert aid. Albeit bad decisions, it saved American lives from directly interfering and the US achieved their objectives.

If bombing innocent people is your forte, we should've dropped the bombs on the Nazis before thousands of American (and allied) service men were lost. But then the innocent Jews would've been killed. Or maybe not. In fact, more Jews would've been saved if the Americans dropped the bombs on Berlin right away. But whats the rush? Anyways, the US entered only after millions of Jews were killed.

So to say the US enters wars to help opressed, innocent people all over the world is an exxageration. In fact, we bomb innocent people of hostile governments.

To say the least, if the US had the chance to show off their nuclear prowess to the Nazis, the US should of laid hell on the German capital. Millions of lives would've been saved; Jews, Allies, and most importantly... Americans.

Hypocritical, yeah. But realistically, America's apathy towards the Pearl Harbor bombings overshadowed millions of lives in Europe.

 

[Grand Prix]

Nicaragua and Cuba. Two governments overthrown by the US using covert aid. Albeit bad decisions, it saved American lives from directly interfering and the US achieved their objectives.

If bombing innocent people is your forte, we should've dropped the bombs on the Nazis before thousands of American (and allied) service men were lost. But then the innocent Jews would've been killed. Or maybe not. In fact, more Jews would've been saved if the Americans dropped the bombs on Berlin right away. But whats the rush? Anyways, the US never meant to enter the war to save the Jews (even after millions were killed before the sinking); it was only after the Lisithuania was sunk.

So to say the US enters wars to help opressed, innocent people all over the world is an exxageration. In fact, we bomb those innocent people.

To say the least, if the US had the chance to show off their nuclear power to the Nazis, the US should of laid hell on the German capital.;Millions of lives would've been saved; Jews, Allies, and most importantly... Americans.

Hypocritical, yeah. But realistically, America's apathy towards the Pearl Harbor bombings overshadowed millions of lives in Europe.

Now you're confusing WW1 with WW2.... And do you have any idea at all of when the USA built the first Atomic weapon?

 

[s0nny80y]

Now you're confusing WW1 with WW2.... And do you have any idea at all of when the USA built the first Atomic weapon?

no buddy, thats all WW2

 

[Grand Prix]

The Luisitania was sunk in WW2? When?

 

[s0nny80y]

The Luisitania was sunk in WW2? When?

got me there.

Well, it took millions of Jews dead for a response

 

[ledhed]

You are an idiot . Didnt anyone tell you dropping out of school in fourth grade was a bad idea ?

 

[s0nny80y]

ok, entering the war after we got hit first.

Talk about first-strike. And forget about the humanitarian reasons for going to war, it's an all out bloodfest when the US handles a nuke.

 

[ledhed]

The men with the nets are looking for you now . Please go read a book or get a tape from the library if you cant read . But do something . You are making my dog look like a genius .