-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Bush is sabre rattling yet again........
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Stopped reading at that stupid statement 🙁
You really believe that? Do you even realize that average Japanese civilians were being trained to attack Americans with Bamboo spears, suicide bombings, and other types of suicide missions?
The Japanese people were far from innocent. I'm not saying its all their fault, they were indeed brainwashed by their "god/king emperor".
But that doesn't change the fact that they weren't innocent.
Would you please stop for one moment and realize that we didn't create that screwed up situation, Japan did. If they wouldn't have attacked us and brainwashed their own people into believing that it was better to kill yourself than to be captured and treated as a P.O.W. then maybe nuking them wouldn't have been such a necessity.
Civillians SHOULD always be avoided when it comes to war, the United States a very gruesome history when it comes to this. The people of Japan didn't know about events like the Rape of Naking, if you read the about Hiro/Naga you'll find out that Truman had some interesting thoughts about the event...
If want to look at another event where the US killed innocent civillians I would suggest the Dresden Bombing.
If want to look at another event where the US killed innocent civillians I would suggest the Dresden Bombing.
Compared to who?
During and after WW 2 we have: Stalin, Hitler, Hirohito, Pol Pot, Melosevic, Mao, Tze, Dong, Kim Il Sung, Menghitsu, Enver, DeGaulle, Milosevic, Mussolini, Hussein.........
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Sorry, but if you put it all into context America isn't even close and this is all considering that America (aside from Russia) has had the most aggressive foreign policy since WW 2.
In my personal opinion, refusing to act and allowing the deaths of civillians is just as bad in which people should be held accountable for not stopping genocides happening in their backyard such as what happened in Kosovo.
Would you not see it as sensible to agree?
Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but it sounds like you are saying that the US committed the Rape of Nanking?
The Japanese did that when they invaded China..........
The Royal Air Force killed far far more than Americans did in that raid, though I admit that the US did play its part.
To this day, we still don't really know why that happened. All we do know is that the British Air Force suggested it and Churchill signed off on it. There is an interesting book by a man who served in the RAF during WW 2 about the topic:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p247_Lutton.html
Strawman, I am not comparing the US to anyone or indiviual dictators.
On a side note Kosovo was more of a "Civil War" than anything else, it's just one side got there ass kicked badly. There are still many problems in Kosovo and it's not my problem.
The people of Japan didn't know that 370,000 where brutally murdered and the women were tourtured. Women and Childeren are not soliders, they should never be considered such. There were many alternatives such as dropping the bomb on targets that where "pure-military" in nature without a civillian presence. I don't know if this is a good idea, but maybe we could have dropped the bomb on Mt. Fuju and this would have shown the entire country how serious we were.
Actually, we do know what happened. There were several american prisoners of war in Dresden at the time.
Kurt Vonnegut A very famous author and was in Dresden at the time of the bombings.
Dresden Bombing Article - Long Read
LOL, he's the Commander-in-Chief, he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants...at least he has so far. Do you really think he would be giving up a strategic position by saying he had no plans for using force at this time??
Oh, I forgot. He's not that smart when thinking on his own, is he. Glad I didn't vote for him.
tommywishbone
Platinum Member
Bush is an idiot. Who cares what he does? No one can stop him, just sit back and watch the carnage.
bamacre
Lifer
I didn't vote for him either, and I don't like him, at all. But yes, he is technically giving up strategy when he publically says "force is not an option." Is it a big deal? Not really. Will this effect Iran's plans? Probably not. But you fail to see that NO PRESIDENT ever has the option of saying "force is not an option." It always has to be an option, maybe WAY down the list, but it always has to be on the list.
Choose you're battles here wisely. There are tons of things on which you can bash Bush, he's given you plenty of ammo.
By claiming that military force is an option, he is threatening the use of it shall the need arise. Cut it whatever way you want to, it's a veiled threat to use military force and therefore qualifies as sabre rattling. It's one thing to have such an option, and another to threaten to use it.
It is very hard to make that claim all things considered.
They didn't surrender when we dropped a bomb on one city. They didn't surrender when we dropped the bomb on the second city. The emporer finally surrendered several days after we bombed the second city.
Lest you forget this is people who would rather, and very often times did, kill themselves rather than be taken captive.
To argue that we could have somehow scared them into surrendering is laughable IMO.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
Don't forget France.
conehead433
Diamond Member
🙂
😀:laugh:
I guess I'm just being super critical. I never said that Bush should rule out force as an option. I am saying that it would have been much more diplomatic on his part to say that at this time we had no plans of using force.
Instead he says "all options are on the table" and "The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country".
We have soldiers dying in Iraq and Afganistan and Bush talks like this during an interview for Israeli TV. That's almost as bad as his "Bring it on" statement. You would think he would've learned a little about diplomacy by now.
Stop second guessing history, none of you know what could or would have happened had the bombs not been dropped. History is certain only in what did happen.
As someone else said, Iran is a threat to the US, they consider us an ememy without meassure and I believe given the chance would use nuclear weapons against the US or it's allies (even if it was done through a proxy like Al queda). It is paramount that we prevent them from gaining nuclear weapons until the guardian council no longer controls their country and millitary.
As someone else said, Iran is a threat to the US, they consider us an ememy without meassure and I believe given the chance would use nuclear weapons against the US or it's allies (even if it was done through a proxy like Al queda). It is paramount that we prevent them from gaining nuclear weapons until the guardian council no longer controls their country and millitary.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
