Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic

Capt. Ido Nos wrote:

JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote:

DS_Kid wrote:

Sometimes war is useless though, but part of something we'll always do unless our thoughts of retaliation are changed in the future. From what I've heard, we had a mass invasion planned for Japan in WWII if the two atomic bombs were to fail, but why nuke them first instead of unleashing our top man power over there? Either way, people will die, but less Japanese citizens would of probably been killed if we didn't drop the atomic bombs first, yet the American army would've probably took a major beating in their population

From what I've heard, if the U.S. had invaded, it could have cost the lives of tens of thousands more American troops and up to a million Japanese. The use of the atomic bomb was pretty much necessary. They wanted to end the war as quickly as possible, and they did.

Though I think we should have detonated one in Tokyo Harbor as a warning first, rather than targeting civilians. That probably would have been enough to get them to surrender.

And I'll reiterate my point, just because I feel like it: I think that often, war is unnecessary (Spanish-American War) but other times it's inevitable (World War II).

Actually, I thought that they should've chosen Tokyo or something along those line as well, but then we did this unit in World History at school on the bomb. For a while that was supposed to have been the primary target, but then they realized that if they did bomb Tokyo, that would have incited such an angry backlash from the Japanese that the war would've gone on for longer. So they changed it, obviously, to a city of somewhat lesser importance, but would still have a great impact.

Also, the reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen is because they had been relatively ignored in the constant bombing of Japan. Tokyo, on the other hand had pretty much had the crap bombed out of it. If you want to show someone how powerful a weapon is, you would want to use it where it would create the greatest impact. In Hiroshima, it pretty much destroyed a large portion of the city. In Tokyo, it would have knocked down a couple of buildings (the ones that the other bombings missed).
As for war, I would like to see a world where war isn't needed. Unfortunately, like some have said, you have to go to war sometimes. There are those in this world that just won't listen to you any other way.

Yes, I agree with that point, but from what I gathered we did in fact warn them beforehand that if they failed to surrender, then we would unlease massive destruction on them. I know, that sounds cliche, but that's what we did, so that's what happend.

Also, we did not origonally intend to flat out nuke them twice. We did warn them a second time that we would bomb another city if they did not surrender. The Japanese did not eenv acknowledge that they had been bombed at all, and you know what happened next. The US did give them warning, but I will agree that there could have been, and probably was a better way to do so, but then again hindsight is 20/20.

And now back to your regularly scheduled toastpaint.

I hate war. For many reasons. And I hate Bush. For the same reasons, plus, he's an idiot.

EDIT:100 POSTS!!! Woob!
EDIT No.2: Whoa. That means 70 posts tonight.

Such insightful commentary.
Can you back up "I hate Bush" and "He's an idiot" with any real reasoning, or are you just going with the flow?

I hate war. For many reasons. And I hate Bush. For the same reasons, plus, he's an idiot.

EDIT:100 POSTS!!! Woob!
EDIT No.2: Whoa. That means 70 posts tonight.

Quote:

Such insightful commentary.
Can you back up "I hate Bush" and "He's an idiot" with any real reasoning, or are you just going with the flow?

People like this can rarely back up their hate speech.

I hate war. For many reasons. And I hate Bush. For the same reasons, plus, he's an idiot.

EDIT No.2: Whoa. That means 70 posts tonight.

Not A Fruit wrote:

EDIT No.2: Whoa. That means 70 posts tonight.

Yeah...don't do that. That's one of the reasons Clan was such a big target.

Acekirby wrote:

Not A Fruit wrote:

EDIT No.2: Whoa. That means 70 posts tonight.

Yeah...don't do that. That's one of the reasons Clan was such a big target.

Actually, the reason Clan was a target was that a majority of his posts were spammy and/or rude.

As to war, what is it good for?
Absolutely nothing.

All joking aside, and not to sound morbid, but I honestly believe that World War III will come in my lifetime. History repeats itself. If you look at the Spanish-American War, it is eerily similar to the events in Iraq today. Guess what happened a couple decades after that. WWI.

This doesn't bode well.

Author:	Jitka [ Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:03 pm ]
Post subject:
StrongRad wrote: Capt. Ido Nos wrote: JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote: DS_Kid wrote: Sometimes war is useless though, but part of something we'll always do unless our thoughts of retaliation are changed in the future. From what I've heard, we had a mass invasion planned for Japan in WWII if the two atomic bombs were to fail, but why nuke them first instead of unleashing our top man power over there? Either way, people will die, but less Japanese citizens would of probably been killed if we didn't drop the atomic bombs first, yet the American army would've probably took a major beating in their population From what I've heard, if the U.S. had invaded, it could have cost the lives of tens of thousands more American troops and up to a million Japanese. The use of the atomic bomb was pretty much necessary. They wanted to end the war as quickly as possible, and they did. Though I think we should have detonated one in Tokyo Harbor as a warning first, rather than targeting civilians. That probably would have been enough to get them to surrender. And I'll reiterate my point, just because I feel like it: I think that often, war is unnecessary (Spanish-American War) but other times it's inevitable (World War II). Actually, I thought that they should've chosen Tokyo or something along those line as well, but then we did this unit in World History at school on the bomb. For a while that was supposed to have been the primary target, but then they realized that if they did bomb Tokyo, that would have incited such an angry backlash from the Japanese that the war would've gone on for longer. So they changed it, obviously, to a city of somewhat lesser importance, but would still have a great impact. Also, the reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen is because they had been relatively ignored in the constant bombing of Japan. Tokyo, on the other hand had pretty much had the crap bombed out of it. If you want to show someone how powerful a weapon is, you would want to use it where it would create the greatest impact. In Hiroshima, it pretty much destroyed a large portion of the city. In Tokyo, it would have knocked down a couple of buildings (the ones that the other bombings missed). As for war, I would like to see a world where war isn't needed. Unfortunately, like some have said, you have to go to war sometimes. There are those in this world that just won't listen to you any other way. Sorry to quote hugely, but I think you guys miss the point. I'm not saying they should have targeted Tokyo itself, I'm saying they should have blown one up where it would only cause minimal damage, in the bay, to demonstrate our destructive capacity with a minimum of casualties. We could have said "This is what we can do. If you don't want it to happen in a crowded city next, you'll surrender." This way the war could have ended without the deaths of those 200,000 Japanese civilians or tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers. Toastpaint.

Author:	Capt. Ido Nos [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:22 am ]
Post subject:
Yes, I agree with that point, but from what I gathered we did in fact warn them beforehand that if they failed to surrender, then we would unlease massive destruction on them. I know, that sounds cliche, but that's what we did, so that's what happend. Also, we did not origonally intend to flat out nuke them twice. We did warn them a second time that we would bomb another city if they did not surrender. The Japanese did not eenv acknowledge that they had been bombed at all, and you know what happened next. The US did give them warning, but I will agree that there could have been, and probably was a better way to do so, but then again hindsight is 20/20. And now back to your regularly scheduled toastpaint.

Author:	Alexander [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:12 am ]
Post subject:
Capt. Ido Nos wrote: Yes, I agree with that point, but from what I gathered we did in fact warn them beforehand that if they failed to surrender, then we would unlease massive destruction on them. I know, that sounds cliche, but that's what we did, so that's what happend. Also, we did not origonally intend to flat out nuke them twice. We did warn them a second time that we would bomb another city if they did not surrender. The Japanese did not eenv acknowledge that they had been bombed at all, and you know what happened next. The US did give them warning, but I will agree that there could have been, and probably was a better way to do so, but then again hindsight is 20/20. And now back to your regularly scheduled toastpaint. Acually, when America was deciding on what to do with this newly developed bomb (this was a few weeks before Hiroshima) there was a vote in congress whether to launch the bomb on the ocean near Japan, or to launch it on a city. You see, because over 2 billion dollers had been used to develope "The Gadget", the United States had to do something with it. When the voting in congress was finished, the popular vote was to strike directly at Japan. Another interesting thing to note was that fact that the people of Japan where facing (and already in some areas) starvation. This is because the United States had cut off all forms of shipping in final days of WWII. Japan was doomed and suffering before the bomb made it. Not to mention we had bombed a few cities already. I would have been alright if America had droped the bomb in the ocean to show it's power. That in itself would have weakend Japan's pride. But the bombing on Hiroshima was not a militarily wise. Hiroshima was not a major producer of military products. It's interesting to think, that the orginal intent of "The Gadget" was to launch it on Nazi Germany in the case that America might not be able to defend itself. This was the intention with the scientists who where working with the bomb at the time. Including Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard. They had no intention of harming civilians. As Szilard stated, "If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cites as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who where guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them." Interesting, isn't it? I also feel that the use of the Atomic Bomb on any nation to be wrong. Especially with children to be concerned with.

Author:	Not A Fruit [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:30 am ]
Post subject:
I hate war. For many reasons. And I hate Bush. For the same reasons, plus, he's an idiot. EDIT:100 POSTS!!! Woob! EDIT No.2: Whoa. That means 70 posts tonight.

Author:	StrongRad [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:01 pm ]
Post subject:
Not A Fruit wrote: I hate war. For many reasons. And I hate Bush. For the same reasons, plus, he's an idiot. EDIT:100 POSTS!!! Woob! EDIT No.2: Whoa. That means 70 posts tonight. Such insightful commentary. Can you back up "I hate Bush" and "He's an idiot" with any real reasoning, or are you just going with the flow?

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

On the subject of War. http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7331	Page 2 of 2

Author:	lahimatoa [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Such insightful commentary. Can you back up "I hate Bush" and "He's an idiot" with any real reasoning, or are you just going with the flow? People like this can rarely back up their hate speech.

Author:	Didymus [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:54 pm ]
Post subject:
Not A Fruit wrote: I hate war. For many reasons. And I hate Bush. For the same reasons, plus, he's an idiot. EDIT:100 POSTS!!! Woob! EDIT No.2: Whoa. That means 70 posts tonight. Idiot is as idiot does, Not A Fruit. While I most certainly disagree with some of Pres. Bush's policies and decisions, it strikes me as particularly idiotic to resort to such hate speech. Less mere bashing and more insightful commentary, please.

Author:	Cleverdan [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:25 pm ]
Post subject:
lahimatoa wrote: Quote: Such insightful commentary. Can you back up "I hate Bush" and "He's an idiot" with any real reasoning, or are you just going with the flow? People like this can rarely back up their hate speech. And people like that talk about people like Not a Fruit isn't even here! Sorry, but, really its like standing beside someone you hardly know and talking about that person in a mean way at a normal tone. Just chill a little. Though I do agree, I think Didymus put it better, as more of a sentence.

Author:	Acekirby [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:32 pm ]
Post subject:
Not A Fruit wrote: I hate war. For many reasons. And I hate Bush. For the same reasons, plus, he's an idiot. Care to back that up with any kind of reasoning? Now, I don't like Bush either, but I can back it up. Not pulling out of Iraq, the attempts to sell the ports, and all sorts of things I don't agree with. But do I hate him? No. Don't resort to hate speech. Not A Fruit wrote: EDIT No.2: Whoa. That means 70 posts tonight. Yeah...don't do that. That's one of the reasons Clan was such a big target.

Author:	ed 'lim' smilde [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:08 pm ]
Post subject:
Acekirby wrote: Not A Fruit wrote: EDIT No.2: Whoa. That means 70 posts tonight. Yeah...don't do that. That's one of the reasons Clan was such a big target. Actually, the reason Clan was a target was that a majority of his posts were spammy and/or rude.

Author:	Acekirby [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:10 pm ]
Post subject:
ed 'lim' smilde wrote: Acekirby wrote: Not A Fruit wrote: EDIT No.2: Whoa. That means 70 posts tonight. Yeah...don't do that. That's one of the reasons Clan was such a big target. Actually, the reason Clan was a target was that a majority of his posts were spammy and/or rude. Well, I said one of the reasons. I know Clan did a whole mess of other stuff as well. But this isn't a Clan topic, so toastpaint.

Author:	Simon Zeno [ Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:53 am ]
Post subject:
As to war, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. All joking aside, and not to sound morbid, but I honestly believe that World War III will come in my lifetime. History repeats itself. If you look at the Spanish-American War, it is eerily similar to the events in Iraq today. Guess what happened a couple decades after that. WWI. This doesn't bode well.

Author:	sb_enail.com [ Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:39 am ]
Post subject:
Santa Zeno wrote: As to war, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. All joking aside, and not to sound morbid, but I honestly believe that World War III will come in my lifetime. History repeats itself. If you look at the Spanish-American War, it is eerily similar to the events in Iraq today. Guess what happened a couple decades after that. WWI. This doesn't bode well. There's a big flaw in your reasoning, though. The Spanish-American war had little, if anything to do with WWI. I'm not even sure that Spain was even involved in the war. The closest Spain came was when Germany told Mexico it would help Mexicans reclaim US territory, which is what forced the US to enter the war.

Author:	putitinyourshoe [ Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:04 pm ]
Post subject:
a good point sb_enail but i am pretty sure that as far butt wwI/spanish-american war connection goes, during that time spain was pretty damn powerful. spanish civil war happened for instance and we attacked mexico to get some land and all that stuff. it was span-american because i believe the spanish supported mexico, and i'm glad you brought up the mexico point about WWII. i can in real late here so a lot of people made points i wanted to, but here are a select few that i like. a lot of people refer to war's inevitability, but that isn't quite the case always, especially if you're a chocolate-makin socialist country that happens to be a haven for artists and governed by chancellors or something, with banks that control a good deal of the world's money. survey says: Switzerland. all silliness aside, i like the Robert e lee quote and i agree that war is a nasty, harsh activity that should be prevented essentially whenever possible.

Page 2 of 2	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/