VeeshanVault

Enjoy!


THE BUSH WAY

George Bush's way of dealing with awkward questions...

During a propaganda tour of the U.S., George Bush visits a school to
talk about his government's policies.

When he is finished he asks for questions,

Dave's hand pops up.

Mr. President, I have three questions:

1. How did you win the elections even though you got less votes?
2. Why do you want to attack Iraq without any evidence?
3. Wouldn't you agree that the bombing of Hiroshima was the largest
terrorist attack ever?

Just then, the bell rang for break and everyone left the classroom.

When the break was over, President Bush asked for questions and this
time Joey raised his hand.

Mr. President, I have five questions:

1. How did you win the elections even though you got less votes?
2. Why do you want to attack Iraq without any evidence?
3. Wouldn't you agree that the bombing of Hiroshima was the largest
terrorist attack ever?
4. Why did the bell ring 20 minutes before it usually does?
5. Where's Dave?

3. Wouldn't you agree that the bombing of Hiroshima was the largest terrorist attack ever?

I wouldn't.

/agree Aslanna

Drakoslay

What would you conbsider the largest terrorist attack ever?

Good joke.. I wouldnt either.

Hiroshima wasn't the largest terrorist attack ever...

Nagasaki was.

Animale

Not funny.

OMFG that wass sooooo funnies, prease post more, ROFR I can't contain myself...RORROFRHAHAHA!!!~```111~

Uh... we were at war with Japan at the time, a war THEY started by the way. While many people died in those explosions, many more American soldiers would have died trying to take the island.

Marb

Um, okay.
You so know little aside from old war flicks on Pearl Harbor about the Japanese and their involvement in WW2.
They had to attack us or the would have starved and froze.
You see, a lot of there crude was gotten directly from American soil. In fact, almost all of it was.
Well when US jumped in the war, we said "So sorry Japan, we need the oil now" and cut off their supply to fuel our war efforts. Now on one hand we put down Hitler, but also on the other we basically said fuck you and your people, you get to freeze.
So the Japanese joined with those that WOULD give them enough oil to make war on us for our oil.

That is not to say that it was justified on Japans part, it was OUR oil. However, their reason was they had to or they would have been reduced to a pre-industrial state, and in Japan that time was not peaches and cream.

Also, by defining Terrorism, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki event WAS terrorism.
We got our way by scaring the holy hell out of a lot of people through the use of implied threat, action and "terror". It worked too.

And we are still paying Japan for it.

Gurugurumaki wrote:And we are still paying Japan for it.

True.

Fucking please!

Imperial Japan had been eyballing mainland Asia for centuries.

Acies wrote:Um, okay.
You so know little aside from old war flicks on Pearl Harbor about the Japanese and their involvement in WW2.
They had to attack us or the would have starved and froze.
You see, a lot of there crude was gotten directly from American soil. In fact, almost all of it was.

whoa, Japan was most definitely 100% at fault for WW2 in the pacific.

Roosevelt cut Japan off from resources they needed because of the atrocities Japan's military was committing on the Chinese and Filipinos and other Asian countries (but mostly China). Japan's military leaders were convinced that they were forced to attack the united states in hopes of threatening them to get their resources back. Roosevelt begged teh Japanese for peaceful resolution to their aggresion against China. However, Hirohito considered the American's embargo against Japan to be a threat to their sovereignity.

Japan officially cut off diplomatic ties hours before they attacked Pearl Harbor... However, it was obvious (in hindsight) that the attack had been planned months before and that they were just paying lip service to diplomacy while they organized their attack.

Cutting off Japan's oil, wood and steel was probably one of the best decisions Roosevelt ever made from a humanitarian point of view.

I will never agree that dropping atomic bombs on civilian populations was even in the top 20 best solutions to end a war (Truman's fault anyway, Roosevelt was out of office by then), but Japan definitely started it with their occupation and treatment of the Chinese.

Well when US jumped in the war, we said "So sorry Japan, we need the oil now" and cut off their supply to fuel our war efforts. Now on one hand we put down Hitler, but also on the other we basically said fuck you and your people, you get to freeze

Absolutely not true. The US wasn't engaged in any war when they were attacked at Pearl Harbor. PH was bombed Dec. 7 1941, the next day the US and UK declared war on Japan. It wasn't until Dec. 11 that Germany declared war on the US. Up until then the US was making retarded amounts of money selling raw materials and equipment to the UK.

kyoukan type-R wrote:

Acies wrote:Um, okay.
You so know little aside from old war flicks on Pearl Harbor about the Japanese and their involvement in WW2.
They had to attack us or the would have starved and froze.
You see, a lot of there crude was gotten directly from American soil. In fact, almost all of it was.

whoa, Japan was most definitely 100% at fault for WW2 in the pacific.

Roosevelt cut Japan off from resources they needed because of the atrocities Japan's military was committing on the Chinese and Filipinos and other Asian countries (but mostly China). Japan's military leaders were convinced that they were forced to attack the united states in hopes of threatening them to get their resources back. Roosevelt begged teh Japanese for peaceful resolution to their aggresion against China. However, Hirohito considered the American's embargo against Japan to be a threat to their sovereignity.

Japan officially cut off diplomatic ties hours before they attacked Pearl Harbor... However, it was obvious (in hindsight) that the attack had been planned months before and that they were just paying lip service to diplomacy while they organized their attack.

Cutting off Japan's oil, wood and steel was probably one of the best decisions Roosevelt ever made from a humanitarian point of view.

I will never agree that dropping atomic bombs on civilian populations was even in the top 20 best solutions to end a war (Truman's fault anyway, Roosevelt was out of office by then), but Japan definitely started it with their occupation and treatment of the Chinese.

Well when US jumped in the war, we said "So sorry Japan, we need the oil now" and cut off their supply to fuel our war efforts. Now on one hand we put down Hitler, but also on the other we basically said fuck you and your people, you get to freeze

Absolutely not true. The US wasn't engaged in any war when they were attacked at Pearl Harbor. PH was bombed Dec. 7 1941, the next day the US and UK declared war on Japan. It wasn't until Dec. 11 that Germany declared war on the US. Up until then the US was making retarded amounts of money selling raw materials and equipment to the UK.

Instead of getting into a debate over this, I am just gonna look up my source. Not saying I am right or you are, just give me a few to check out and post my research material.

google or yahoo?

lol, niether. Online Library source.

well you won't find any flaws in my facts or dates. Uu~ >_<

Acies wrote:Instead of getting into a debate over this, I am just gonna look up my source. Not saying I am right or you are, just give me a few to check out and post my research material.

She is absolutely correct. There's nothing to check.

As for the nukes: it was either that, or do a full-blown attack on Tokyo, killing millions upon millions of people on both sides. The nukes did what they were supposed to do--make Japan surrendor so they didn't have to attack Tokyo again.

A major loss of life is always a bad thing, but it was better than the alternative.

Checking on my lunch break anyway.
I think all that I have stated is correct. /shrug

Acies, you are wrong. Accept it and move on. Shit, you should be happy that Kyoukan didn't rip you a new asshole in her reply. She must want your s3XX0r

masteen wrote:Acies, you are wrong. Accept it and move on. Shit, you should be happy that Kyoukan didn't rip you a new asshole in her reply. She must want your s3XX0r

... Riiiiight.
Anyway, shit just wait til about 4:00pm PST, you will either have my rebuttal or my appoligy. Either way, what is it to you masteen?

I want to eavesdrop on your cyb0r session while being orally pleasured by a miget, why?

Wow, you saying I am getting oral today?
Bro, you can watch if I get oral...
But I get oral right?
No, seriously

Here are a few:

http://www.questia.com/Index.jspCRID=ja ... &OFFID=se2
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2129.html

Basically, these sites proves Kyou right.
Sorry, my bad, lesson learned.

So anyway, masteen, who is giving me this previously said oral?

Acies.. your avatar makes me feel like I should be playing the nutcracker suite.

kyoukan type-R wrote:well you won't find any flaws in my facts or dates. Uu~ >_<

I will unleash a flurry of geocities sites on you with the truth!

kyoukan had it right. The Japaneese butchered, and using that term is kind, mainland China.

I would argue that dropping the 2 nukes saved many lives or ended the war much sooner. I have read several papers that stated the Japaneese were already beaten and there was even talk of a ceasefire. In that scenario killing thousands of people saved negotiation time.

Not a fact and difficult to prove but no more so than the claims that dropping the nukes had the claimed effect.

I would argue that dropping the 2 nukes saved many lives or ended the war much sooner. I have read several papers that stated the Japaneese were already beaten and there was even talk of a ceasefire. In that scenario killing thousands of people saved negotiation time.

Not a fact and difficult to prove but no more so than the claims that dropping the nukes had the claimed effect.

Some say that the Japanese had tried to have talks to the Russians about a cease fire...sort of in the backroom stuff. I read what Zinn said about it and there didn't seem to be many hard facts to substantiate this (and if you know Zinn, you know that if there WERE facts, he would certainly have had them).

I do know however, know that a few days before we dropped the first nuke, we warned Japan what we were going to do- if they really were ready to surrender then they would have. Then after we dropped the first nuke, they STILL wouldn't surrender. If you have the image of people throwing up white flags, then us ignoring them and deciding to nuke them for the hell of it then you're completely wrong. BTW when we were firebombing Tokyo more people died than the deaths of both nukes combined. Add in tons of more bombs on civilian populations along with the soldiers on both sides dying (Japan had sworn to fight to the last man), and I think you come to the conclusion that we saved FAR more lives by using nukes to show them the futility of fighting.

Yeah Japan had sworn to fight to the last man. Unlike most other countries when they are at war that swear to fight until they lose what they think is too many and then stop fighting.

Yeah Japan had sworn to fight to the last man. Unlike most other countries when they are at war that swear to fight until they lose what they think is too many and then stop fighting.

It is different because of the religious zeal the Japanese had in regards to fighting...the emperor was truly a god to them. It was thought that they really WOULD fight to the last man. I know you didn't want to pass up a chance to make a smart ass comment in an attempt to make yourself look witty, but try taking things in context, k?

Ditto as to Hiroshima/Nagasaki not being acts of terrorism.

Emperor Hirihito should have been the first motherfucker tried as a war criminal and executed for being the pile of fucking dogshit that he was. The gang raping, bayoneting, decapitations of civilians and POWs wasn't an idea that just popped into some random officer/soldier's head and just happened to catch on. It came from the very top and was endorsed by those sick fucks.

http://museums.cnd.org/njmassacre/page1.html

Yes, they felt like it would be cool to gut pregnant women and rip their unborn children out (of course after the customary gang raping).

Brotha wrote:It is different because of the religious zeal the Japanese had in regards to fighting...

lol yeah it's always different. well we were justified in massacring civilians because it was like totally different and we KNOW FOR SURE they would have never surrendered. Trust me when I say it was a totally different and unique scenario because I am an expert on Japanese culture in the 1930s and 40s!

So am I supposed to feel bad for Japan and STOP training their guilds?

Or feel emboldened to train them more often...

I'm so conflicted:)

KilornCloudwalker wrote:So am I supposed to feel bad for Japan and STOP training their guilds?

Or feel emboldened to train them more often...

I'm so conflicted:)

Team JPN exp's like no other, join their groups whenever possible~

well we were justified in massacring civilians because it was like totally different and we KNOW FOR SURE they would have never surrendered

True, the US could have chosen a lightly inhabited area and spared many, but just to make things clear.....painting the Japanese as the victims in the whole matter is a crock of shit.

To this very day, Japan's leadership has managed to effectively keep their populace almost completely in the dark as far as how badly fucked up their WWII actions were. They even went so far as to erect a FUCKING MEMORIAL to 1000+ officers/soldiers who were executed for their parts in the mass murder of POWs and civilians. Those same motherfuckers also love to use Nagasaki/Hiroshima to play the victim card when dealing with the US.

To sum it up. Question #3 is irrelevant.

Kelgar wrote:True, the US could have chosen a lightly inhabited area and spared many, but just to make things clear.....painting the Japanese as the victims in the whole matter is a crock of shit.

I daresay you haven't read the entire thread.

I daresay you haven't read the entire thread.

Dare you?