Feelings Toward Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Sinestra

And another thread like clock work turns (anti-American with the usual suspects leading the charge uphill with only 2 rounds left) and becomes a giant flame war.

I have so much to say (even though MMM said most of it for me) its just not even worth it now.

The usual suspects? In case you're referring to me I haven't once said anything "anti-American".

[Sinestra]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

The usual suspects? In case you're referring to me I haven't once said anything "anti-American".

usual suspects is not pointing at anyone in particular. Its more in reference to the type of person who usual tries to blame the US for everything. Next ill hear "there's no air space and its Americas fault"

This crap just gets old man its been like this forever on this forum and it takes shutting a thread down to get any type normalcy back

[Suki]

Originally Posted by MMM

You say the US is involved in conflicts that don't involve the US. However, all countries are supposed to support their allies in times of conflict. You really see who your friends are when the going gets rough. Should the US not come to the aid of its allies in times of conflict. Should we break treaties and agreements between governments because it's "not our problem"?

And of course, the best way to help is to go and kill everyone from the opposite side. Why try and come to an agreement through the bureaucratic way when you can just devastate an entire nation. And on top of it all, US soldiers are being shot by people using weapons they got from the US.

Again, take the time to watch this and you'll understand where I'm coming from: Taxi to the Dark Side (2007) - IMDb

Originally Posted by MMM

By how many votes? (Hint: It is negative number.)

George Bush ran the government for 8 years. He got reelected after his first four years. That means he got to be president TWICE, hence he did get reelected.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Suki

And of course, the best way to help is to go and kill everyone from the opposite side. Why try and come to an agreement through the bureaucratic way when you can just devastate an entire nation. And on top of it all, US soldiers are being shot by people using weapons they got from the US.

Again, take the time to watch this and you'll understand where I'm coming from: Taxi to the Dark Side (2007) - IMDb

Why are you so oversimplifying this? I can't even respond to such baffling opinion. It's not an overexaggeration, it is just... so mistaken.

Originally Posted by Suki

George Bush ran the government for 8 years. He got reelected after his first four years. That means he got to be president TWICE, hence he did get reelected.

I realize you don't live in America, but surely you have heard how Bush won with less votes than Gore in 2000.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

[manganimefan227]

THIS THREAD WAS NOT MADE TO BE ANTI AMERICAN
I only wanted to see if Jaan still held any grudge, I have no personal resentment to America or Japa since nothhing concerning WW2 effects me personally. I thank you for bringing up the bad Japan did as well. Good thingg that something like this wont happen again because we now know how definetly useless it is. I think that alone is settling enough so not too mny folks have any grudge about it, that or they don't care like you all said

[Suki]

Originally Posted by MMM

Why are you so oversimplifying this? I can't even respond to such baffling opinion. It's not an overexaggeration, it is just... so mistaken.

Because it is that simple. No infinite amount of mass destruction weapons is reason enough to do what the US did to the Iraqi people. I know they think they had their reasons. Saddam was a bad guy and so on and so forth. But honestly, what your troops did there made it far, far worse. Killing a murderer makes you a murderer too. Everyone agreed that Saddam had to be put out of power but, really, that was no way to bring democracy to Iraq. They could have gone the diplomatic way instead of putting up a war. That simple.

I actually can't believe you're saying it's okay to brutally invade a country as long as you're doing it out of support for your allies. It has no possible justification.

[termogard]

Originally Posted by Suki

But honestly, what your troops did there made it far, far worse. Killing a murderer makes you a murderer too. Everyone agreed that Saddam had to be put out of power but, really, that was no way to bring democracy to Iraq.

At least, Saddam kept Iraq in relatively stable conditions. Neither terrorist actions with explosions in crowded places, nor clashes between various religious groups on streets.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Suki

Because it is that simple. No infinite amount of mass destruction weapons is reason enough to do what the US did to the Iraqi people. I know they think they had their reasons. Saddam was a bad guy and so on and so forth. But honestly, what your troops did there made it far, far worse. Killing a murderer makes you a murderer too. Everyone agreed that Saddam had to be put out of power but, really, that was no way to bring democracy to Iraq. They could have gone the diplomatic way instead of putting up a war. That simple.

I actually can't believe you're saying it's okay to brutally invade a country as long as you're doing it out of support for your allies. It has no possible justification.

I am not going to defend America's actions in Iraq, but that isn't what this thread is about. It is about WWII.

And no, it isn't that simple. You make it sound like America is of one mind, and they just walk into any situation like Rambo and blow everything up and ask questions later. That is simplistic and simply wrong.

If our ally is being attacked then it is not only our duty but a requirement to help them. If that help is in the form of military defense and is what is needed, then that is what happens. You pepper your language with words like "brutally" and it just clouds the point.

Allies help allies. That is all the justification that is needed.

[termogard]

Originally Posted by MMM

And no, it isn't that simple. You make it sound like America is of one mind, and they just walk into any situation like Rambo and blow everything up and ask questions later. That is simplistic and simply wrong.

If our ally is being attacked then it is not only our duty but a requirement to help them. If that help is in the form of military defense and is what is needed, then that is what happens........
Allies help allies. That is all the justification that is needed.

Using your own words - "and no, it's not that simple."
For instance, the USA supplied Georgia by various weaponry and even called georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili as an "ally" but later refused to support Georgia by any sort of military actions during 2008 South Ossetia War

quote :

Mikheil Saakashvili (Georgian: მიხეილ სააკაშვილი, IPA: [mixɛil sɑɑkʼɑʃvili]; born 21 December 1967) is a Georgian politician, the third and current President of Georgia and leader of the United National Movement Party..........He is widely regarded as a pro-NATO and pro-USA leader who has spearheaded a series of political and economic reforms......President Saakashvili sees membership of the NATO as a premise of stability for Georgia and offered an intensified dialogue with the de facto Abkhaz and Ossetian authorities. Until the 2008 South Ossetia war, a diplomatic solution was thought to be possible. Saakashvili's administration doubled the number of its troops in Iraq, making Georgia one of the biggest supporters of Coalition Forces, and keeping its troops in Kosovo and Afghanistan to "contribute to what it describes as global security".[13]

Wiki

[MMM]

You are right to quote me. It is never as simple as we want it to be. The Georgia situation was a very touchy one, and careful choices had to be made. No matter what America did, there were going to be disappointed people.