|
On February 11 2011 08:09 Sm3agol wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 07:49 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 07:45 koreasilver wrote:On February 11 2011 07:31 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 07:28 Sm3agol wrote:On February 11 2011 07:24 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 07:03 Sm3agol wrote:On February 11 2011 05:06 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 05:03 Sm3agol wrote:On February 11 2011 04:59 Treemonkeys wrote:
[quote]
The point is that it was NOT presented to the american people in a way of "we had to back up our ally so now japan is retaliating". They were acting like they were completely caught off guard when in reality they were expecting if not waiting for it to happen.
Maybe.............but that's hardly damning. In breaking news, the government doesn't always tell the truth. And anyone that reads anything knows that the US was very aware of the Japanese threat, but they knew that their people would never agree to a preemtive strike. So they just sat back and waited for Japan to make the first move. Not exactly rocket science or the subject of some huge debate. So, then you concede to my point? The Americans provoked the Japanese in a passive manner and baited them into attacking the US (Resulting in Pearl Harbor,) and then acted like it was some random act of aggression, and used it as leverage to bullhead their way into WWII. Provoked? Lets get this straight. China and Japan are engaged(and had been engaged for quite some time) in mass genocide, on both sides, the Japanese more or less offensively. China is our ally. China is losing. We tell Japan, "Knock the crap off, go home, you're killing our ally". Japan, "Fark you". US, "Fine then, we kill your oil supplies, so you can't continue the war". Japan, "All your base are belong to us". You, "THE US IS SUCH A LYING DECEITFUL COUNTRY, OMG WHY DO I EVEN LIVE HERE??" Me, "MOVE". Sure, we might....have......ummm......I dunno? Wtf do you suggest we had done differently? The people were so apathetic towards the war that unless we were directly attacked we probably would have never entered. Sure, public opinion was on the Allies side, but definitely in a passive way. The general consensus was that we didn't want to get involved directly in another world war. The results of the US not joining the war would have resulted in a much worse situation for Europe, and the war might not have ended for another 5 years. What do I suggest we do differently? Something that the US, to this date, has been unable to do "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS." The US had no reason to have China as an ally, especially considering that they were their own evil country committing their own genocides against their own civilians. Mind your own business......basically, sit back and do nothing right? Make no attempt to stop the genocide, and let the worlds dictators do whatever they so pleased. Sure that might have sounded good back then too, but in retrospect, what do you think? Do you have any idea how much differently the world would look if we just sat back and did nothing? P.S. It wouldn't look better. Who wouldn't it look better for? The US? The Japanese? The Chinese? You're attempting to embark on a different debate altogether. The logic of us getting involved in Japan's business in China is along the same lines of us getting involved in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq (twice). The only difference is that the war against Japan was on a larger scale, and they were slightly more capable of defending themselves than the other four countries were. Are you serious? Japan was mad with power over Asia and the Americans, by all means, liberated countless Koreans from the Japanese imperialism. Same goes for the Korean War. The Americans surely had their own interests in defending the peninsula but I sure as hell am glad the Americans committed themselves to fighting back the North Korean and Chinese militaries. MacArthur even sacrificed an opportunity to decisively beat the communist forces in order to honour his promise of regaining Seoul asap that he made to the Koreans. tldr; please shut up. I don't like present day US much either (I'm an American citizen), but what you're doing is just engaging in complete anti-American polemic even to the point that you would venerate her present and past enemies that she defeated even when some of these enemies were defeated for a very justified cause. That's a very good argument. Without any facts (I am still, to this point, the only person to post any evidence WHATSOEVER) you simply say "Here is my opinion, so shut up." Good job at not refuting any of my arguments. Also, the Vietnamese and North Koreans were never defeated, and your opinion of "liberated" is extremely biased to a democratic, capitalistic point of view. Has it ever occurred to you, even once, that perhaps people in the world do not have the same ideals as you, or the Americans? So, please, do yourself the favor and shut up. Especially if you have no links, evidence, or facts to back up ANYTHING you say. A big giant NO here. There's a reason there were attempted mass exodus' of people from North Korea/Vietnam into the South. Only from a hardcore communist viewpoint was what we were doing there considered bad. And that viewpoint is universally considered to be horrific from a humanitarian standpoint. Whether or not we should have been involved is a different debate, but whether or not we were the "good guys" or not in those wars is pretty obvious from all but a hardcore communist viewpoint. And no we never "defeated" either, we were there merely to protect the South from the North's attempted Communist takeover in both cases. Attempted VIOLENT takeover. We succeeded with Korea. With Vietnam, we ended up over our head, and quit.
Korea is pretty clear, in Vietnam on the other hand it is far from clear that US was "the good guy". I might not agree with him about US in WW2, but after WW2 US was pretty aggressive and very often negative player/"bad guy" in international field.
|
On February 11 2011 09:12 TheGiftedApe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 04:43 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 04:42 Treemonkeys wrote:Very true, the US has been making use of revisionist history for some time now. You should look up war crimes committed by the Allies (or even the United States in general throughout history). Some of what the Americans have done in history easily rivals that of the holocaust, or purges of Ukraine. Yes the allies committed war crimes as well, but no where near the atrocities of the holocaust or the purges of Ukraine/Gulags/Nanking/Asian massacres. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#United_StatesYes the Allies raped, pillaged, murdered, and looted europe, but we did not Systematically exterminate 7million people in ww2, there is a large difference. You could argue that what the United States did to the native Americans was a horrible atrocity, but that story has been repeated thousands of times throughout history. Whenever a more primitive technologically people meet with a more technologically advanced people, whether it be stone tools, gunpowder, or cruise missiles, It almost always ends in the less advanced peoples being exterminated. It is a disgusting side of humanity. Is what the US did to the native Americans any different than what the egyptians did to their neighbors? or what the romans did to the gauls?
I'm amazed people still directly quote from wikipedia. The least you could do is quote from the more established sources in wikipedia if you really don't want to do research. And everytime giftedape and people like him chime in on the debate the discussion gets boring. This is a discussion, I understand that people hold on to certain beliefs and won't let go of it no matter what, as everyong tends to do it. but don't you ever think that your opinion should be accepted by everyone without question.
anyway, shall we move on from moon hoax and 911. what about roswell. or ancient history. or war accounts. there are a lot of loose ends yet on those things.
|
On February 11 2011 08:46 Tony Campolo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 08:41 danl9rm wrote:On February 11 2011 02:48 mcc wrote:On February 11 2011 02:39 danl9rm wrote:On February 10 2011 17:20 meegrean wrote:
I think most of the amazing stuff that Jesus did was probably fictional. Nowadays if anybody claims to be the son of God, they would be sent to a mental institution. He was killed because he claimed to be the son of God. Actually even Bible does not say that. If he was really killed by the Romans, they killed him because they saw him as political troublemaker. As far as you were not seen as threatening their political rule Romans did not really care that much about religion. They were definitely more tolerant than abrahamic religions. You said in your above post that you read the Bible (I assume so, otherwise you couldn't have "read up on it") and now you say the Bible "does not say [Jesus was killed because he claimed he was the son of God]." You were probably banking on the odds that I wouldn't reply: Matthew 26:63 ...The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered. Have you got some better source other than some hearsay accounts written by the Gospel authors?
To be fair, that was in reply to a comment saying that "even [The] Bible" does not say that, a comment to which it was entirely appropriate. While I agree with you about the hearsay bit, it's not exactly applicable to the post at hand for the above reason.
There's a difference between what the the author of Matthew made Jesus say and what Jesus actually said, yes, but that's not what the post was about. My intuition after reading a fair bit of NT scholarship is that Jesus himself would have been absolutely horrified at the notion of claiming to be the actual son of YHWH.
|
On February 11 2011 09:34 Q.E.D. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 09:12 TheGiftedApe wrote:On February 11 2011 04:43 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 04:42 Treemonkeys wrote:Very true, the US has been making use of revisionist history for some time now. You should look up war crimes committed by the Allies (or even the United States in general throughout history). Some of what the Americans have done in history easily rivals that of the holocaust, or purges of Ukraine. Yes the allies committed war crimes as well, but no where near the atrocities of the holocaust or the purges of Ukraine/Gulags/Nanking/Asian massacres. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#United_StatesYes the Allies raped, pillaged, murdered, and looted europe, but we did not Systematically exterminate 7million people in ww2, there is a large difference. You could argue that what the United States did to the native Americans was a horrible atrocity, but that story has been repeated thousands of times throughout history. Whenever a more primitive technologically people meet with a more technologically advanced people, whether it be stone tools, gunpowder, or cruise missiles, It almost always ends in the less advanced peoples being exterminated. It is a disgusting side of humanity. Is what the US did to the native Americans any different than what the egyptians did to their neighbors? or what the romans did to the gauls? I'm amazed people still directly quote from wikipedia. The least you could do is quote from the more established sources in wikipedia if you really don't want to do research. And everytime giftedape and people like him chime in on the debate the discussion gets boring. This is a discussion, I understand that people hold on to certain beliefs and won't let go of it no matter what, as everyong tends to do it. but don't you ever think that your opinion should be accepted by everyone without question. anyway, shall we move on from moon hoax and 911. what about roswell. or ancient history. or war accounts. there are a lot of loose ends yet on those things.
what is your malfunction? Did you even read what I wrote? or did you just see wikipedia and rage. I added to the debate and brought up a serious topic, you slandered and attacked me personally. I also didn't "quote" anything from wiki, I provided a link for you to research some of the allied atrocities in ww2. If you think there is nothing of value on wikipedia you are insanely ignorant. Have you actually read ANYTHING I've posted in this thread, I've brought up numerous debatable topics.
topics i've brought up:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=191844#7
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=191844¤tpage=8#157
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=191844¤tpage=9#167
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=191844¤tpage=10#195
|
On February 11 2011 09:12 TheGiftedApe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 04:43 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 04:42 Treemonkeys wrote:Very true, the US has been making use of revisionist history for some time now. You should look up war crimes committed by the Allies (or even the United States in general throughout history). Some of what the Americans have done in history easily rivals that of the holocaust, or purges of Ukraine. Yes the allies committed war crimes as well, but no where near the atrocities of the holocaust or the purges of Ukraine/Gulags/Nanking/Asian massacres. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#United_StatesYes the Allies raped, pillaged, murdered, and looted europe, but we did not Systematically exterminate 7million people in ww2, there is a large difference. You could argue that what the United States did to the native Americans was a horrible atrocity, but that story has been repeated thousands of times throughout history. Whenever a more primitive technologically people meet with a more technologically advanced people, whether it be stone tools, gunpowder, or cruise missiles, It almost always ends in the less advanced peoples being exterminated. It is a disgusting side of humanity. Is what the US did to the native Americans any different than what the egyptians did to their neighbors? or what the romans did to the gauls?
The Russians were technically allies, as were the Chinese, and the purges of Ukraine, and the gulag were both allied war crimes x.x
|
On February 11 2011 08:18 Sm3agol wrote:
All this being said, what is up with these sad sacks of crap know as American citizens, with the tags of RoosterSamurai and Treemonkeys? You should be trying to exonerate your country of wrong-doing, and doing your best to see the good side of what you country did. No, the US is far from perfect, and we fark things up all the time, but for crying aloud, you make me ashamed to be American. You two are actively doing your very best to make your country seem as horrible and pathetic as possible. When confronted with two opposing viewpoints, you invariably take the one that makes your country look the worst.
Take your country location off, that way at least people with think you're just some random US haters not US farking citizens.
I'm ashamed of some of the things our country has done as well, and definitely wish we had handled many things better. But I also believe much of what was done was done in an attempt, perhaps misguided, of doing good. Discuss how we should have handled things better, sure. Discuss current issues and ways you think we are failing and need to change, sure. But actively doing your very best to trash every aspect of our history? Fark you both.
Dude i don't know why, but it seems that in every thread i read there is your pro American post. Topic doesn't really matter.
I came to this thread so maybe i get to know something, but instead i get about 60% of random bullshit starting with pro-america vs anti-america going through conspiracy theories to rasism and christianty. Also to every seemingly good information in this thread...i've actually learned all that at school.
|
Might be a big quote, hence spoiler tags.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 11 2011 09:12 TheGiftedApe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 04:43 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 04:42 Treemonkeys wrote:Very true, the US has been making use of revisionist history for some time now. You should look up war crimes committed by the Allies (or even the United States in general throughout history). Some of what the Americans have done in history easily rivals that of the holocaust, or purges of Ukraine. Yes the allies committed war crimes as well, but no where near the atrocities of the holocaust or the purges of Ukraine/Gulags/Nanking/Asian massacres. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#United_StatesYes the Allies raped, pillaged, murdered, and looted europe, but we did not Systematically exterminate 7million people in ww2, there is a large difference. You could argue that what the United States did to the native Americans was a horrible atrocity, but that story has been repeated thousands of times throughout history. Whenever a more primitive technologically people meet with a more technologically advanced people, whether it be stone tools, gunpowder, or cruise missiles, It almost always ends in the less advanced peoples being exterminated. It is a disgusting side of humanity. Is what the US did to the native Americans any different than what the egyptians did to their neighbors? or what the romans did to the gauls?
This is where I have somewhat of a problem.
The german people were punished insanely hard for their compliance with Hitler and their proposed guilt in WW2. Not to speak of the Nürnberg trials (Nuremberg? I don't know how Americans spell it) where only Axis officers and leaders were put to trial, not Russian/English/American/French.
The problem I have with this is that the crimes may have been worse on the German side, I am not debating that, the Allies were never held accountable for anything they did.
Otherwise great thread, you are my favourite poster so far.
|
On February 11 2011 09:47 Believer wrote:Might be a big quote, hence spoiler tags. + Show Spoiler +On February 11 2011 09:12 TheGiftedApe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 04:43 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 04:42 Treemonkeys wrote:Very true, the US has been making use of revisionist history for some time now. You should look up war crimes committed by the Allies (or even the United States in general throughout history). Some of what the Americans have done in history easily rivals that of the holocaust, or purges of Ukraine. Yes the allies committed war crimes as well, but no where near the atrocities of the holocaust or the purges of Ukraine/Gulags/Nanking/Asian massacres. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#United_StatesYes the Allies raped, pillaged, murdered, and looted europe, but we did not Systematically exterminate 7million people in ww2, there is a large difference. You could argue that what the United States did to the native Americans was a horrible atrocity, but that story has been repeated thousands of times throughout history. Whenever a more primitive technologically people meet with a more technologically advanced people, whether it be stone tools, gunpowder, or cruise missiles, It almost always ends in the less advanced peoples being exterminated. It is a disgusting side of humanity. Is what the US did to the native Americans any different than what the egyptians did to their neighbors? or what the romans did to the gauls? The reason is because they won. Though you are wrong, they were tried, but literally all counts against any Allied leaders were dropped. This is where I have somewhat of a problem. The german people were punished insanely hard for their compliance with Hitler and their proposed guilt in WW2. Not to speak of the Nürnberg trials (Nuremberg? I don't know how Americans spell it) where only Axis officers and leaders were put to trial, not Russian/English/American/French. The problem I have with this is that the crimes may have been worse on the German side, I am not debating that, the Allies were never held accountable for anything they did. Otherwise great thread, you are my favourite poster so far.
|
On February 11 2011 09:47 Believer wrote:Might be a big quote, hence spoiler tags. + Show Spoiler +On February 11 2011 09:12 TheGiftedApe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 04:43 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 04:42 Treemonkeys wrote:Very true, the US has been making use of revisionist history for some time now. You should look up war crimes committed by the Allies (or even the United States in general throughout history). Some of what the Americans have done in history easily rivals that of the holocaust, or purges of Ukraine. Yes the allies committed war crimes as well, but no where near the atrocities of the holocaust or the purges of Ukraine/Gulags/Nanking/Asian massacres. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#United_StatesYes the Allies raped, pillaged, murdered, and looted europe, but we did not Systematically exterminate 7million people in ww2, there is a large difference. You could argue that what the United States did to the native Americans was a horrible atrocity, but that story has been repeated thousands of times throughout history. Whenever a more primitive technologically people meet with a more technologically advanced people, whether it be stone tools, gunpowder, or cruise missiles, It almost always ends in the less advanced peoples being exterminated. It is a disgusting side of humanity. Is what the US did to the native Americans any different than what the egyptians did to their neighbors? or what the romans did to the gauls? This is where I have somewhat of a problem. The german people were punished insanely hard for their compliance with Hitler and their proposed guilt in WW2. Not to speak of the Nürnberg trials (Nuremberg? I don't know how Americans spell it) where only Axis officers and leaders were put to trial, not Russian/English/American/French. The problem I have with this is that the crimes may have been worse on the German side, I am not debating that, the Allies were never held accountable for anything they did. Otherwise great thread, you are my favourite poster so far.
Nuremberg is right, that is the sad part of war, as someone already stated, to the victors go the spoils, or history is written by the victors. Countless allied soldiers/officers were not held accountable for their atrocious actions. Search for "Starvation at Remagen" (since i dare not cite a wikipedia article rofl)a horrible atrocity where U.S. Policy was to imprison and starve german P.O.W's. As with all things in war the numbers are very fuzzy, some say hundreds, some say 18,000, some say 50-60,000 prisoners were starved to death.
|
On February 11 2011 08:41 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 02:48 mcc wrote:On February 11 2011 02:39 danl9rm wrote:On February 10 2011 17:20 meegrean wrote:
I think most of the amazing stuff that Jesus did was probably fictional. Nowadays if anybody claims to be the son of God, they would be sent to a mental institution. He was killed because he claimed to be the son of God. Actually even Bible does not say that. If he was really killed by the Romans, they killed him because they saw him as political troublemaker. As far as you were not seen as threatening their political rule Romans did not really care that much about religion. They were definitely more tolerant than abrahamic religions. You said in your above post that you read the Bible (I assume so, otherwise you couldn't have "read up on it") and now you say the Bible "does not say [Jesus was killed because he claimed he was the son of God]." You were probably banking on the odds that I wouldn't reply: Matthew 26:63 ...The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered.
Yes I read the Bible and I expected the exact response that you posted. You could say what you said but that is stretching common meanings of the words. He was sentenced in the highest instance by the Romans and they couldn't have cared less about his claims to be Son of God. He was sentenced to preserve political stability. So the justification for his sentence were not his claims directly, but the threat he personally posed to stable Roman rule by angering the jewish priests. See the whole scene with the Pilatus.
|
I only read the first few pages of the thread but I have to post this article.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/holohoax.htm I read the first few lines and I now have the urge to start breaking things.
First off The Nazi's were collecting people for death very early in the 30th's I think it was around 1933 (that's when hitler got into power.) chances are he had thugs going around before that as well.
Secondly. Gas chambers were not the only thing used there's this thing called guns that maybe people heard of.
I also had the unfortunate experience of meeting people like that in real life, it's sad but they do believe in it.
|
On February 11 2011 08:46 Tony Campolo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 08:41 danl9rm wrote:On February 11 2011 02:48 mcc wrote:On February 11 2011 02:39 danl9rm wrote:On February 10 2011 17:20 meegrean wrote:
I think most of the amazing stuff that Jesus did was probably fictional. Nowadays if anybody claims to be the son of God, they would be sent to a mental institution. He was killed because he claimed to be the son of God. Actually even Bible does not say that. If he was really killed by the Romans, they killed him because they saw him as political troublemaker. As far as you were not seen as threatening their political rule Romans did not really care that much about religion. They were definitely more tolerant than abrahamic religions. You said in your above post that you read the Bible (I assume so, otherwise you couldn't have "read up on it") and now you say the Bible "does not say [Jesus was killed because he claimed he was the son of God]." You were probably banking on the odds that I wouldn't reply: Matthew 26:63 ...The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered. Have you got some better source other than some hearsay accounts written by the Gospel authors?
His quotes are relevant since we are talking about the Bible.
|
On February 11 2011 09:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 09:47 Believer wrote:Might be a big quote, hence spoiler tags. + Show Spoiler +On February 11 2011 09:12 TheGiftedApe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 04:43 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 04:42 Treemonkeys wrote:Very true, the US has been making use of revisionist history for some time now. You should look up war crimes committed by the Allies (or even the United States in general throughout history). Some of what the Americans have done in history easily rivals that of the holocaust, or purges of Ukraine. Yes the allies committed war crimes as well, but no where near the atrocities of the holocaust or the purges of Ukraine/Gulags/Nanking/Asian massacres. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#United_StatesYes the Allies raped, pillaged, murdered, and looted europe, but we did not Systematically exterminate 7million people in ww2, there is a large difference. You could argue that what the United States did to the native Americans was a horrible atrocity, but that story has been repeated thousands of times throughout history. Whenever a more primitive technologically people meet with a more technologically advanced people, whether it be stone tools, gunpowder, or cruise missiles, It almost always ends in the less advanced peoples being exterminated. It is a disgusting side of humanity. Is what the US did to the native Americans any different than what the egyptians did to their neighbors? or what the romans did to the gauls? This is where I have somewhat of a problem. The german people were punished insanely hard for their compliance with Hitler and their proposed guilt in WW2. Not to speak of the Nürnberg trials (Nuremberg? I don't know how Americans spell it) where only Axis officers and leaders were put to trial, not Russian/English/American/French. The problem I have with this is that the crimes may have been worse on the German side, I am not debating that, the Allies were never held accountable for anything they did. Otherwise great thread, you are my favourite poster so far.
The reason is because they won. Though you are wrong, they were tried, but literally all counts against any Allied leaders were dropped.
Please make sure your posts are distinguishable before you post them. :')
I didn't say they were never trialed, I said they were never held accountable, you have not yet contradicted me.
|
On February 11 2011 09:58 Believer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 09:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 09:47 Believer wrote:Might be a big quote, hence spoiler tags. + Show Spoiler +On February 11 2011 09:12 TheGiftedApe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 04:43 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 04:42 Treemonkeys wrote:Very true, the US has been making use of revisionist history for some time now. You should look up war crimes committed by the Allies (or even the United States in general throughout history). Some of what the Americans have done in history easily rivals that of the holocaust, or purges of Ukraine. Yes the allies committed war crimes as well, but no where near the atrocities of the holocaust or the purges of Ukraine/Gulags/Nanking/Asian massacres. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#United_StatesYes the Allies raped, pillaged, murdered, and looted europe, but we did not Systematically exterminate 7million people in ww2, there is a large difference. You could argue that what the United States did to the native Americans was a horrible atrocity, but that story has been repeated thousands of times throughout history. Whenever a more primitive technologically people meet with a more technologically advanced people, whether it be stone tools, gunpowder, or cruise missiles, It almost always ends in the less advanced peoples being exterminated. It is a disgusting side of humanity. Is what the US did to the native Americans any different than what the egyptians did to their neighbors? or what the romans did to the gauls? This is where I have somewhat of a problem. The german people were punished insanely hard for their compliance with Hitler and their proposed guilt in WW2. Not to speak of the Nürnberg trials (Nuremberg? I don't know how Americans spell it) where only Axis officers and leaders were put to trial, not Russian/English/American/French. The problem I have with this is that the crimes may have been worse on the German side, I am not debating that, the Allies were never held accountable for anything they did. Otherwise great thread, you are my favourite poster so far. The reason is because they won. Though you are wrong, they were tried, but literally all counts against any Allied leaders were dropped.Please make sure your posts are distinguishable before you post them. :') I didn't say they were never trialed, I said they were never held accountable, you have not yet contradicted me.
I'm not trying to contradict you, I'm agreeing with you.
|
Technically all history is composed of debatable accounts.
|
Dresden bombing in WW2 and the atomic bombs in Japan.
These were arguably "atrocities" by any definition as it involved the mass killing of primarily civilians.
History has a tendency to lose focus of this. History is written by the winners? Yes.
|
Additionally, regarding American conduct during World War II, the Americans were responsible for the Dresden firebombing, which was arguably of little strategic importance and killed more people in one day than anything else in the European Theatre, while on the Sino-Japanese front the Americans gave amnesty to the perpetrators of the Unit 731 experiments (which were as ghastly and gross as the Nazi death camps) in exchange for their valuable medical research into human biology and biochemical weaponry. Only the Russians (albeit silently) persecuted anyone involved in Unit 731.
Whether this is disputed is one thing; at least it demonstrates war's ambiguity.
|
On February 11 2011 10:10 UberThing wrote:
Dresden bombing in WW2 and the atomic bombs in Japan.
These were arguably "atrocities" by any definition as it involved the mass killing of primarily civilians.
History has a tendency to lose focus of this. History is written by the winners? Yes.
Yes but from the US standpoint invasion of japan had causalities just for the landing at 60%+ then pushing though japan and occupying territory until japan concedes would likely be bloodier and the American public was getting sick with the war. Civilians don't mean shit with everyone was drafted it's not a volunteer army nor are all the goods used in war made by the government it's called total war. And considering that after the 2nd bombing the emperor of japan was nearly over thrown by the military dictatorship when he made the announcement of surrender, i'd say the right choice was made. Anyways America felt so bad about the bombings we gave ton of resources to rebuild japan(mostly under the premise of if we rebuild them they wont follow Germany into fascism like what happened after WWI, it also give us reason to stash military resources over there.) Anyways the bombing of Dresden in WWII is a cake walk compared to what the US did to Tokyo.
|
The bombing of Dresden made more damage than Hiroshima.
|
Funny i thought lives where invaluable. More people died in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the bombing raids in Tokyo, individually each had more casualties. Among witch Tokyo was nearly burned to the ground during the months of raids. ofc more people died in russia then then if you added up every other death around the world during that period. Good old Stalin poisoning the water and what not to stop the german advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
