Questions for Liberals on this board.

Discussion in 'World Events' started by gregoftheweb, Dec 18, 2003.

  1. gregoftheweb Registered Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    CounslerCoffee said:
    Do you think Middle Eastern families have sympathy for anyone in America? Especially the ones killed in the War on Terror? Or the children who are still being shot and crushed under collapsing buildings now that the War on Terror has been won?

    Do you really think the dead Iraqi civilians had anything to do with 9/11?

    Do you really think it's okay for 10,000 of them to die for doing nothing, but the whole world is supposed to weep and gnash its teeth when 3000 Americans die for doing nothing?

    Do you really think that killing them is fixing anything?

    I'm glad that you can write off an entire geographic region as being full of people who deserve to die... maybe that's how they think of the USA.

    I heard enough of Bush saying "This was an attack on the American way of life." If I'm not mistaken, what I'm hearing here is that it's okay to make attacks on the Iraqi way of life because - what? Their leader abused them? Their lives sucked anyway so it's okay when you kill them? How exactly do you view other human beings?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. gregoftheweb Registered Member

    The point being that it took them months to discover a JET FIGHTER in the desert (it's working condition is inconsequential). A Jet Fighter is the size of a BUS. This implies (clearly in my mind) that there could be ANYTHING hidden in Iraq.

    Boy I haven't seen that picture yet, nice relevance from a 20 year old picture, nice originality. How does that have true bearing on the current situation. Everyone knows the US allied themselves with Iraq against Iran. Iran was basically the No. 2 enemy of the US at the time (behind the USSR).

    Chomsky? Give me a break.
    We funded them for completely different purposes.

    Appeasment has never worked.
    Nobody forgets the deaths.

    Look this was WWII. 30 MILLION people died. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, invaded China the Phillipines and the whole of South East Asia. To imply the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was for any other purpose than to END THE WAR is absolutely ridiculous.
    Nice expletive, why am I an asshole?

    No they weren't. They were preparing for a defense of the homeland, preparing and training their civillians to die in waves.

    from your own google search
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    The Mig doesn't mean a damn thing. Of course there could be anything hidden there. They could have hidden a sperm whale's skeleton in Iraq's deserts and we wouldn't know about it. But, you know, it's also possible that they didn't.

    You answer your own question...

    What, and you think that alliance was only for show? That we didn't support Saddam Hussein with money, bullets, and nerve gas? Nerve gas he would use against the Iranians, nerve gas strangely enough they would use back against the Iraqis (where did THAT come from?) and later on, nerve gas he would use to take care of the kurds.

    From The Chomsky Reader--

    "On the rare occasions in which I have an opportunity to discuss these issues, whether in print or in person with people in the media or the academic professions, I often find not so much disagreement as an inability to hear."

    What have you read/seen/heard of Chomsky? I mean, directly from Chomsky, and not from one of his critics?

    But we still funded them. At least you acknowledge that. Al Qaeda used money from the American taxpayer to destroy the World Trade Center and a part of the Pentagon. It doesn't matter what we gave them the money for, we knew they were nuts, how could we not have?

    Explain to me how "not killing" equals "appeasement."

    Except for you, apparently.


    Don't tell me the Japanese weren't coaxed by the U.S to invade the U.S in the months prior to our involvement in World War Two.

    The enormous amount of evidence seems to speak otherwise. As I said and proved, the Japanese were read to surrender.

    From your website--

    If this is true, why didn't the Japanese continue to fight on after the Atomic bombs were dropped? They still surrendered and still lost their honor, they only lost a few hundred thousand people, hell, most of THEM died in the days and weeks after the bombs were dropped. It's poppycock. I've heard about these preparations before, from that vein of truth known as the Discovery Channel. It's completely untrue. Hirohito was not the only person in his government that wanted to surrender, he was the emperor and he was in charge. Why ask the U.S for a surrender while at the same time prepare your civilian population for a hopeless resistance? He knew he had lost the war, no honor could be gained in sacrificing the people of his nation, brainwashed as they were.
  8. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member


    Hey, greg, I'm waiting. It'd be more honorable for you to just say that you forfeit instead of avoiding further involvement in the debate.
  9. Stokes Pennwalt Nuke them from orbit. Registered Senior Member

    This thread is full of lols.

    I find it equally disgusting and hilarious that some still argue to this day that the ~3 million human lives taken in a military invasion of Japan would be more palatable than the 250,000 (including subsequent years) deaths caused by the terminating nuclear strikes.

    It's especially amusing when juxtaposed with the lack of outrage over the incindiary bombing of Tokyo, which inflicted casualties equal to Hiroshima. Only Tokyo wasn't even a legitimate military target.

    And they have the audacity to call themselves humanitarians.
  10. 15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Stokes, you must realize something

    The so-called lovers of humanity always seem to have completely missed that section of the library/bookstore where they sell the history books. To suggest that the Japanese were ready to surrender is assinine and shows a complete lack of research. Tell me this: If they were so ready to surrender why were they committing suicide rather than be captured by American Marines?

    Just because some delusional jerk says it on a website don't make it fact.
  11. Stokes Pennwalt Nuke them from orbit. Registered Senior Member

    Yeah. But it's an easy process, so it's obvious why so many people buy into that school of thinking:
    1. Take a historical event out of context by ascribing modern knowledge to it.
    2. Cast aspersions on the decisions of leadership at the time, willfully ignoring that they did not know what we have learned since, as well as the aspects of the period that made their decision justified.
    3. When confronted by established historical recounts, decry them as propaganda and lies, while providing no proof that your own assertions are indeed true.
    4. Avoid such trivial nonsense as "history", "logic", and "rationality"
    5. Continue raging against the machine.
  12. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    This is so off thread, but goddammit Stokes & 15: Just because brainwashed Japanese soldiers were sacrificing themselves on easily bypassed (or nuked- more "ethicly" than cities) islands, does not have anything to do with the fact that Japan was entirely on her knees at that point, empire gone, non-functional as a developed nation, and no longer a serious threat to anyone anymore. I am speaking of 1944-45. Surrender was assured with nothing more vindictive than a blockade. An ultimatum to Hirohito, clarifying the reality that he would certainly and soon surrender either to Macarthur or Stalin would have been quite sufficient: The Emporer was not a stupid man.

    If you're going to accuse others of revisionism, you had better do some more study.
  13. Watcher Just another old creaker Registered Senior Member

    "liberal" thinking, per spidergoat


    In many ways, the traditional political definitions have not only become blurred in recent days, but simply are not applicable to the events that are unfolding in the Middle East.

    I think many people maintain a tidy political viewpoint because it provides a comfy framework from which they are better able to deal with the unpredictability of human behavior, and the terrifying consequences.

    I consider myself a liberal on some issues, a moderate on others; even conservative in some cases. The point being that I view any political "platform" as being far too confining. Of course this tends to infuriate idealogues who insist that everyone toe their party's line. The reasons for such blind adherence are usually psychological rather than rational, IMO.

    Anyway, spidergoat echoed my thoughts with his reference to Bush moronism. As with many American presidents, simply becuase the man has moronic tendencies (Bush) or he is a philanderer and a liar at times (Clinton), this does not mean that he cannot make good decisions, and it does not mean that every action he takes is flawed.

    We also need to realize that it is not only the President who makes decisions regarding foreign policy (or even his Cabinet). It is is the combined efforts of hundreds (thousands) of statesmen and military leaders. So when I read commentary about the "Bush" agenda in the Middle East, it really says something about an oversimplified view of the world.

    How DO we deal with the nasty reality - a terrorist ready and eager to die as he deploys a WMD in a modern city, for example? Especially when we consider that the terrorist may have no homeland, and may have no concrete political aim. Especially when we consider that the motivations of the terrorist are often supernatural (irrational)...

    Many people, especially the typical American suburban mushbrain, deal with it by forcing all events to fit within their traditional political frameworks. That way it is much easier to identify the monsters and the heroes.

    Maybe to keep the lights on and the engines of commerce running smoothly, we NEED these simplified world views. I'm not sure... what do you think?
  14. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    it is only a WMD if it can be sold to Al Quieda members?

    Sorry, I didn't know we are using this kind of this flexible definition of WMD.
  15. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member


    Must meet 2 of the following 3 Criteria:

    1) not "made in America"

    2) potentially damages economical interest of certain large
    American companies

    3) used for a bad cause by the evil villain with the black hat


    1) "made in America"

    2) liberates the people by killing the local closed sheeptrading economy by means of creating instant landing zones to fly in coca-cola and hamburgers and bring free market and prosperity (for all?)

    3) used for a just cause by the God appointed good guy with the white hat.

    SHOCK & AWE:

    Watching the guy with the white hat on television trying to sell his use of WMD as a surgical strike...
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2003
  16. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Did you read my post at all? Would you like me to post even more evidence? I had three separate sources saying the same thing, and over ten pages of google results. It's really no skin off my back to post more here. As opposed to your argument, which so far has only one bit of proof from a "history for dummies" website.

    If the tables were turned somehow and the Japanese were winning they'd be doing the same thing to San Fransisco.

    Are you referring to me? I'm the one who wants to bring back real Gladiators!

    Okay, so I guess my first post, and the evidence thereof, is completely invalid then?

    I can remember that at least one of my sources was written days after the bombings took place. Please check my post.

    The amount of hypocrisy in this quote is easily larger and more visible than your penis when you say this. There is no evidence from you. You have provided only hubris.

    Yes, yes! I love it!

    The meat of the populace has only had a real say in world affairs for a few hundred years at best, and more often than not it seems as if there is a certain stubborness that this meat tends to follow. I saw a special on TV, "Children in War" or something, which compared and contrasted kids my age and younger killing each other around the world, from Israel to Rwanda to the Philipines to the Balkans. The common pattern among them was the complete dehumanization of their enemies, primarily from filial inspirations--they killed my father, how could they do such a thing? They Jewish kids in Israel seemed completely oblivious to the idea that their Palestinian cousins were even remotely human, and the same vice-versa. From what I've seen through the eye of the television, and unfortunately not my own eyes, it truly is a cycle of killing that I think neither side really wants to continue. But both sides are so stubborn and so stalwart for victory that they're desperate to keep on fighting for something that cannot be won.




    Gotta love it. Just capitulate damnit!
  17. Undecided Banned Banned

    To the best of my knowledge the Japanese had a peace treaty in Moscow much before the atomic bomb blasts. But it was ignored, because the US wanted nothing less but a un-conditional surrender. If the US just went to Moscow to at least discuss the terms, countless American, and Japanese lives would have been saved. Also I never bought the premise of actually invading Japan, if the US really wanted to get rid of the Japanese, and not waste up to 300,000 American lives, they could have done what the British did in WWI, blockade vital Japanese ports. Remember Japan had nothing of her own, she depended on her colonies. Then the allies should have bombed the remaining industrial complex's and military bases. They would be severly damaged, and literally beyond repair. Then diplomatic overtures could have been started with the emperor. If that was done in 1945 it would have ended the war with less bloodsheed, obviously the Japanese weren't so "fatalistic" as they protrayed themselves to be at the end.
  18. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    You missed my entire point. If you had read the quote above the text that I had written, then you would have seen this.
  19. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    The Counsler said:
    I did not miss your point at all. If the US really went to "the Middle East" (which I assume means Iraq, unless you blame everyone in that part of the world) for revenge over 9/11 then your president has been seriously misrepresenting your reasons for being there.

    First, you are supporting the pretty tenuous line of logic that lets the US invade Iraq on the basis that they might become hostile.

    Second, you "excused" the killing of these people on the basis that you don't give a shit about them, and that they should die so that you can feel better. The US is still all whiny about 9/11, as if this kind of thing only ever happens to them. I am impressed that you can imply so easily that Americans are the only people who deserve to be happy, but don't expect me to believe that you're better than anyone else.
  20. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    Nope, you still missed it. Try again... No, that's just cruel. Here, let me explain:

    The Americans that were victimized by Sept. 11th, will not hold any sympathy for Iraq or anyone in the Middle East (Some will though). The Iraqi's victimized by the war will not hold any sympathy for Americans (But some of them will). So really, my point is, that they're both similar.

    Somebody is going to come out of this war hating somebody and vice versa. The only thing that heals old wounds is time.
  21. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    Apologies! I misunderstood - but it still doesn't explain why Americans blame "the Middle East" for 9/11.
  22. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    No, it doesn't make much sense, does it? But some still will; that's my point. A Middle Eastern man killed someones dad or if a black guy killed some white guys dad, the result would be the same. That person might hate Black/Middle Eastern people. Am I being clear enough on this?
  23. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    With the increasing clarity of hindsight, most people are going to come to a common understanding of what has happened in this conflict, and 9-11 will not justify what is happening now at US initiative, and the turmoil likely to follow soon.

    Looking back on the period from the Gulf of Tonkin to the Fall of Saigon, both sides of the conflict, who confronted each other Vietnam, and who battled politically in the US, can now agree on the highlights of what transpired. Apologists are few now for those who deceptively manipulated American fears at the time, and mislead the American people into precipitating a catastrophe that had a foremost pricetag of more than 3 million lives, but also severe damage to US prestige and credibility.

    Those of you who would like to point to a rosier comparison, go ahead. Regardless, down the road, the truth is found.

Share This Page