Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack · 2004-01-12 10:14 am

The invasion of Iraq had plenty of justification; the liberals just choose to ignore such evidence and post asinine topics to smear George Bush. This is what the liberals are reduced to ...smear tactics! It is so pathetic!
\

This from a guy who can't shut up about the Clintons?

One of many problems with your post is that not every liberal on the planet has posted in this thread agreeing with the characterization of Bush as a serial killer, so you can't say "the liberals." Some (like me) have even condemned it.

Nice try, though. Thanks for playing.

Zimphire · 2004-01-12 10:16 am

One of many problems with your post is that not every liberal on the planet has posted in this thread agreeing with the characterization of Bush as a serial killer, so you can't say "the liberals." Some (like me) have even condemned it.

Nice try, though. Thanks for playing.

I am not speaking for him, but I believe he means as a whole. NOT JUST this thread. In that case you indeed fall under such description.

IcarusFountain · 2004-01-12 12:33 pm

Funny how Dresden never comes up when people talk about mass civilian casualties.

Yep. Or the firebombing of Tokyo. The longest march (forgot official name, the one where we forced the indians to march damn near across the country)
Many many others

babastus · 2004-01-12 12:38 pm

I saw an interview with one guy who was on one of the bombers, he recalled being appalled at what had just happened below him.

And, yes, I do believe that nagasaki was a naval base (to whoever asked) Well, that is contained a naval base. But, there is a 3/4 completed gunship down by the river, no less than 200yards from my window.

ShnickyShnack · 2004-01-12 12:40 pm

Funny how Dresden never comes up when people talk about mass civilian casualties.
Yep. Or the firebombing of Tokyo. The longest march (forgot official name, the one where we forced the indians to march damn near across the country)
Many many others

I believe you're referring to the Trail of Tears. And yes, that was definitely one of our prouder moments (sarcasm).

As for the A-Bombing thing, I remember reading that also, in every history class from 4th grade on up. I can't recall if there were actual estimted death-tolls for the hypothetical land invasion, but Truman justified the bombs by indicating that the lad invasion would've annhilated our forces, and would've killed at least as many Japanese as we did with the bombs.

*shrug* I still find it ironic that they really had no idea how much damage those bombs would really do. Our scientists were just as shocked as the Japanese were.

And can you imagine being in one of those slow, low-flying bombers? *shudder*

Camp David · 2004-01-12 12:52 pm

ShnickyShnack said (in part):
"Our scientists were just as shocked as the Japanese were..."

Once again Schnicky posts absolute garbage. I need to pick apart this one however!

Prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Manhatten Engineering District (MED) developed and tested nuclear weapon designs in the New Mexican desert, leading to a full-size detonation called Trinity on July 16, 1945, the world's first nuclear detonation, at Los Alamos. Beyond the scaled damage predictions which were expected at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, weapon design scientists were not surprised after these Japanese detonations, but were anxious to explore both sites, which was done by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey following the dropping of Fat Man and Little Boy!

(From Groves... "Now It Can Be Told". Leslie Groves was Director of MED!

ShnickyShnack... recommend you stop reading the Greenpeace's Guide to Nuclear Weapon Effects and read historical account. Very little if anything which occured at Hiroshima or Nagasaki was unexpected, except by the Japanese, and certainly not by scientists at Los Alamos!

Camp David

Cyberpawz · 2004-01-12 12:56 pm

I think the bombings of civilians should stand as lessons of not the passing morality of that age, but the enduring immorality of war.

And what lesson of immorality does that teach?

Sacrifice a few for the good of the many?

If we didn't drop both bombs,we could of extended the war well into the next decade if we didn't drop them. And the casualties would of been beyond the less than 1/2 a million dead on both sides, instead of one. Potentally that part of the war could of been the bloodiest part of our history, instead of the ending point of the war.

Think of it, we could of dwarfed the Civil War numbers of US casulties, if we went in a land strike...D-day theoretically looked like a walk in the park compared to what they would of had to do for the land invasion of Japan.

If the option of nuking Japan, or doing a land invasion today, the same responce would probably of been made again...

Sternum · 2004-01-12 1:03 pm

I think the bombings of civilians should stand as lessons of not the passing morality of that age, but the enduring immorality of war.
And what lesson of immorality does that teach?

Sacrifice a few for the good of the many?

If we didn't drop both bombs,we could of extended the war well into the next decade if we didn't drop them. And the casualties would of been beyond the less than 1/2 a million dead on both sides, instead of one. Potentally that part of the war could of been the bloodiest part of our history, instead of the ending point of the war.

Think of it, we could of dwarfed the Civil War numbers of US casulties, if we went in a land strike...D-day theoretically looked like a walk in the park compared to what they would of had to do for the land invasion of Japan.

If the option of nuking Japan, or doing a land invasion today, the same responce would probably of been made again...

That doesn't really justify bombing civilian targets, though. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even major industrial sites. We could have bombed a military base just as easily. It would have received the same amount of "shock and awe."

babastus · 2004-01-12 1:17 pm

ShnickyShnack said (in part):
"Our scientists were just as shocked as the Japanese were..."

Once again Schnicky posts absolute garbage. I need to pick apart this one however!

Prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Manhatten Engineering District (MED) developed and tested nuclear weapon designs in the New Mexican desert, leading to a full-size detonation called Trinity on July 16, 1945, the world's first nuclear detonation, at Los Alamos. Beyond the scaled damage predictions which were expected at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, weapon design scientists were not surprised after these Japanese detonations, but were anxious to explore both sites, which was done by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey following the dropping of Fat Man and Little Boy!

(From Groves... "Now It Can Be Told". Leslie Groves was Director of MED!

ShnickyShnack... recommend you stop reading the Greenpeace's Guide to Nuclear Weapon Effects and read historical account. Very little if anything which occured at Hiroshima or Nagasaki was unexpected, except by the Japanese, and certainly not by scientists at Los Alamos!

Camp David

Robert Oppenhimer (sp?) was said to have descended into deep depression after witnessing the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Blowing up a piece of desert and a city are 2 very different things. It is the destruction that was unknown, not the scientific properties of the explosion. You see a firework and you go "Ooooh, ahhhhh", different story if you see someone with half of their face blown off by one.

Furthermore, the US spent much of the year following detonation, stripping and photographing the victims of the bombs. Hardly the behaviour of people who know what happened. The scientific facts were proven before detonation, what it did to the people and the long term effects on the society were not known about. Then again, humanitarian issues such as this are hardly your strong point.

edit: a little grammar, not all, that would be silly.

Camp David · 2004-01-12 1:39 pm

babastus:

Enough with the horse crap... I simply posted a rebuttal to ShnickyShnack who said that scientists were surprised after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were not. Their feelings about the whole nuclear issue (re: your parenthetical comment about Robert Oppenheimer) are not related to discussion. Further, one could be a tremendous humanitarian and support dropping of nuclear weapons... these weapons ended the war and ended the casualties on both sides. An invasion of mainland Japan would have yielded tremendous causalties and prolonged war for years. Although both Little Boy and Fat Man achieved thousands of dead, the high-altitude B-29 conventional bombs were achieving these numbers prior to the nuclear detonations. Firebombing raids were in themselves much more horrific.

Camp David

XYZ · 2004-01-12 2:08 pm

Bush a serial killer? C'mon. Let's not let hatred of Bush overwhelm our reason.

Do you have a good rebuttal, or just rhetoric?

And asking if Bush is a serial killer is about as dumb as asking if all homosexuals are the same.

Nice rhetoric, but the statement is illogical.

ShnickyShnack · 2004-01-12 2:27 pm

ShnickyShnack said (in part):
"Our scientists were just as shocked as the Japanese were..."

Once again Schnicky posts absolute garbage. I need to pick apart this one however!

Prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Manhatten Engineering District (MED) developed and tested nuclear weapon designs in the New Mexican desert, leading to a full-size detonation called Trinity on July 16, 1945, the world's first nuclear detonation, at Los Alamos. Beyond the scaled damage predictions which were expected at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, weapon design scientists were not surprised after these Japanese detonations, but were anxious to explore both sites, which was done by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey following the dropping of Fat Man and Little Boy!

(From Groves... "Now It Can Be Told". Leslie Groves was Director of MED!

ShnickyShnack... recommend you stop reading the Greenpeace's Guide to Nuclear Weapon Effects and read historical account. Very little if anything which occured at Hiroshima or Nagasaki was unexpected, except by the Japanese, and certainly not by scientists at Los Alamos!

Camp David

Um ... I didn't post that, genius. Scroll back up; it was IcarusFountain.

If you insist on posting your endless partisan drivel, you could at least direct it to the right people.

Yeesh. roll

And Cyber ... the lesson I was talking about is that war is a horrible thing. I thought it was pretty obvious.

Camp David · 2004-01-12 2:31 pm

ShnickyShnack:

My apologies! I am not above mistakes it seems! Sorry! Foot inserted.

IcarusFountain.... see what you made me do?

ShnickyShnack... what a shame... I thought I had you!

Camp David

ShnickyShnack · 2004-01-12 2:37 pm

ShnickyShnack:

My apologies! I am not above mistakes it seems! Sorry! Foot inserted.

IcarusFountain.... see what you made me do?

ShnickyShnack... what a shame... I thought I had you!

Camp David

big_smile

Dammit, I have to admit you're a good sport -- I thought I had you!

Ah well, I guess the fencing continues ...

IcarusFountain · 2004-01-12 3:46 pm

ShnickyShnack said (in part):
"Our scientists were just as shocked as the Japanese were..."

Once again Schnicky posts absolute garbage. I need to pick apart this one however!

Prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Manhatten Engineering District (MED) developed and tested nuclear weapon designs in the New Mexican desert, leading to a full-size detonation called Trinity on July 16, 1945, the world's first nuclear detonation, at Los Alamos. Beyond the scaled damage predictions which were expected at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, weapon design scientists were not surprised after these Japanese detonations, but were anxious to explore both sites, which was done by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey following the dropping of Fat Man and Little Boy!

(From Groves... "Now It Can Be Told". Leslie Groves was Director of MED!

ShnickyShnack... recommend you stop reading the Greenpeace's Guide to Nuclear Weapon Effects and read historical account. Very little if anything which occured at Hiroshima or Nagasaki was unexpected, except by the Japanese, and certainly not by scientists at Los Alamos!

Camp David

Actually, ShnickyShnack didn't write that. I did. It just didn't get quoted correctly in the system. And my sources are family members, one who was a scientist who worked loosely with the Manhattan Project and worked with the studies on the aftermath of Nagasaki, the other being my grandfather who was the sonar captain on the air craft carrier that launched the bombers.

I prefer to skip most of the texts, where politically correct "historians" who were nowhere near the actual event and only got their information from other's accounts are typically used as sources (or even write the books themselves). And I know, I'm getting my accounts from others who were in the know, but I see it as kind of eliminating an extra middleman or two.

Camp David · 2004-01-12 5:31 pm

IcarusFountain said:

"...on the air craft carrier that launched the bombers..."

IcarusFountain => Just a small point to discuss and clarify... the B-29s that bombed Japan, Enola Gay and Box Car, were launched fron Tinian Island in the South Pacific to attack Japan and drop the nuclear weapons: Little Boy and Fat Man. No B-29s could take off from carriers due to their size.

You might be thinking of an earlier raid on Japan by Doolittle, who used B-47s (I think) which was smaller bomber which was stripped of just about everything in order to launch from carrier...Doolittle's raid on Japan was minor with conventional bombs but it did a great deal for morale early in war.

Camp David

Cyberpawz · 2004-01-12 5:34 pm

I think the bombings of civilians should stand as lessons of not the passing morality of that age, but the enduring immorality of war.
And what lesson of immorality does that teach?

Sacrifice a few for the good of the many?

If we didn't drop both bombs,we could of extended the war well into the next decade if we didn't drop them. And the casualties would of been beyond the less than 1/2 a million dead on both sides, instead of one. Potentally that part of the war could of been the bloodiest part of our history, instead of the ending point of the war.

Think of it, we could of dwarfed the Civil War numbers of US casulties, if we went in a land strike...D-day theoretically looked like a walk in the park compared to what they would of had to do for the land invasion of Japan.

If the option of nuking Japan, or doing a land invasion today, the same responce would probably of been made again...
That doesn't really justify bombing civilian targets, though. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even major industrial sites. We could have bombed a military base just as easily. It would have received the same amount of "shock and awe."

If you want the biggest impact where do you aim... where the most population is. And it was not as if we didn't warn them to get out before hand. We dropped pamphlets. They choose to ignore them.

mackerm · 2004-01-12 7:59 pm

This cartoon should answer your question.

Steyr AUG · 2004-01-12 8:30 pm

This cartoon should answer your question.

That was quite retarded

mackerm · 2004-01-12 8:43 pm

This cartoon should answer your question.
That was quite retarded

Good point-- the cartoon is sadly out of date. Bush's side should have far more marks. Again, thanks for the insightful comment, Steyr AUG.

Steyr AUG · 2004-01-12 8:47 pm

This cartoon should answer your question.
That was quite retarded
Good point-- the cartoon is sadly out of date. Bush's side should have far more marks. Again, thanks for the insightful comment, Steyr AUG.

Do you actually have the same thinking as the author of that crap? If so thats very sad.

ShnickyShnack · 2004-01-12 8:55 pm

I think the bombings of civilians should stand as lessons of not the passing morality of that age, but the enduring immorality of war.
And what lesson of immorality does that teach?

Sacrifice a few for the good of the many?

If we didn't drop both bombs,we could of extended the war well into the next decade if we didn't drop them. And the casualties would of been beyond the less than 1/2 a million dead on both sides, instead of one. Potentally that part of the war could of been the bloodiest part of our history, instead of the ending point of the war.

Think of it, we could of dwarfed the Civil War numbers of US casulties, if we went in a land strike...D-day theoretically looked like a walk in the park compared to what they would of had to do for the land invasion of Japan.

If the option of nuking Japan, or doing a land invasion today, the same responce would probably of been made again...
That doesn't really justify bombing civilian targets, though. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even major industrial sites. We could have bombed a military base just as easily. It would have received the same amount of "shock and awe."
If you want the biggest impact where do you aim... where the most population is. And it was not as if we didn't warn them to get out before hand. We dropped pamphlets. They choose to ignore them.

Sounds like Osama talking about 9/11.

Cyberpawz · 2004-01-12 9:03 pm

I think the bombings of civilians should stand as lessons of not the passing morality of that age, but the enduring immorality of war.
And what lesson of immorality does that teach?

Sacrifice a few for the good of the many?

If we didn't drop both bombs,we could of extended the war well into the next decade if we didn't drop them. And the casualties would of been beyond the less than 1/2 a million dead on both sides, instead of one. Potentally that part of the war could of been the bloodiest part of our history, instead of the ending point of the war.

Think of it, we could of dwarfed the Civil War numbers of US casulties, if we went in a land strike...D-day theoretically looked like a walk in the park compared to what they would of had to do for the land invasion of Japan.

If the option of nuking Japan, or doing a land invasion today, the same responce would probably of been made again...
That doesn't really justify bombing civilian targets, though. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even major industrial sites. We could have bombed a military base just as easily. It would have received the same amount of "shock and awe."
If you want the biggest impact where do you aim... where the most population is. And it was not as if we didn't warn them to get out before hand. We dropped pamphlets. They choose to ignore them.
Sounds like Osama talking about 9/11.

The sad part is it's true in war.

War is not what it use to be, at least for the US, and the "civilized countries" it has become an art. It has become that we can throw a missile into a door, and blow the door out, but keep the windows intact....

WWII, we use to carpet bomb targets, in hoping the target was destroyed. If we got civilians it was part of war, regrettably, but it was part of war, and a nasty part of it.

Now if we kill a SINGLE civilian, we are called barbarians... yet the other side if given the chance would wipe us out the minute they got a chance... every woman, man and child, military or not. Proof of that is 9/11

Now tell me why should we respect their lives, if they don't respect ours.

ShnickyShnack · 2004-01-12 9:09 pm

I think the bombings of civilians should stand as lessons of not the passing morality of that age, but the enduring immorality of war.
And what lesson of immorality does that teach?

Sacrifice a few for the good of the many?

If we didn't drop both bombs,we could of extended the war well into the next decade if we didn't drop them. And the casualties would of been beyond the less than 1/2 a million dead on both sides, instead of one. Potentally that part of the war could of been the bloodiest part of our history, instead of the ending point of the war.

Think of it, we could of dwarfed the Civil War numbers of US casulties, if we went in a land strike...D-day theoretically looked like a walk in the park compared to what they would of had to do for the land invasion of Japan.

If the option of nuking Japan, or doing a land invasion today, the same responce would probably of been made again...
That doesn't really justify bombing civilian targets, though. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even major industrial sites. We could have bombed a military base just as easily. It would have received the same amount of "shock and awe."
If you want the biggest impact where do you aim... where the most population is. And it was not as if we didn't warn them to get out before hand. We dropped pamphlets. They choose to ignore them.
Sounds like Osama talking about 9/11.
The sad part is it's true in war.

War is not what it use to be, at least for the US, and the "civilized countries" it has become an art. It has become that we can throw a missile into a door, and blow the door out, but keep the windows intact....

WWII, we use to carpet bomb targets, in hoping the target was destroyed. If we got civilians it was part of war, regrettably, but it was part of war, and a nasty part of it.

Now if we kill a SINGLE civilian, we are called barbarians... yet the other side if given the chance would wipe us out the minute they got a chance... every woman, man and child, military or not. Proof of that is 9/11

Now tell me why should we respect their lives, if they don't respect ours.

Are you arguing the side of the US or Osama bin Laden?

kb5zhh · 2004-01-12 9:10 pm

Now tell me why should we respect their lives, if they don't respect ours.

We are the good guys? or is this just a pissing match/winner takes all sort of deal?

Forums | MacLife

#26 2004-01-12 10:14 am

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#27 2004-01-12 10:16 am

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#28 2004-01-12 12:33 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#29 2004-01-12 12:38 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#30 2004-01-12 12:40 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#31 2004-01-12 12:52 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#32 2004-01-12 12:56 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#33 2004-01-12 1:03 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#34 2004-01-12 1:17 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#35 2004-01-12 1:39 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#36 2004-01-12 2:08 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#37 2004-01-12 2:27 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#38 2004-01-12 2:31 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#39 2004-01-12 2:37 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#40 2004-01-12 3:46 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#41 2004-01-12 5:31 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#42 2004-01-12 5:34 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#43 2004-01-12 7:59 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#44 2004-01-12 8:30 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#45 2004-01-12 8:43 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#46 2004-01-12 8:47 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#47 2004-01-12 8:55 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#48 2004-01-12 9:03 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#49 2004-01-12 9:09 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

#50 2004-01-12 9:10 pm

Re: Is Bush a serial killer?

Board footer