Pro/Forums - View Single Post - World politics, alternative fuels, and an odd GPU comment (was Ati's 9800 is out)

Blackeagle · 03-11-2003, 11:42 AM

AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh,

Here we go again.

1) I don't think anyone here thinks the rest of the world feels America is evil. I do think however that some have forgotten history or prefer a revisionist version now.

2) I don't doubt for a moment some feel the US can be aggresive. We are when the need to be is there. But there is also the very valid view that many of these claiming this want to push their ideas on the US. That dog don't hunt.

3) The claim that Japan tried to surrender 3 days before the 1st nuke was dropped is BS, plain and simple. The tenative feelers put out by the Japanese goverment in no way constituted a surrender offer. They were only a proposal to try to end the conflict on terms the Japanese thought they could get the US to agree to, rather than face the massive losses of American troops in a landing and conquest of the home islands. They in fact showed Japan's resolve to fight to the bitter end if not allowed they're terms for a end to hostilitys. The most overriding reason for their use was to save American lives. And in preventing the kinds of American losses that were what the Japanese were counting on to force terms the japanese wanted. Just as Japan miss judged when they attacked Peral Harbor they miss judged how the war could be ended. With out the nuke strikes being carried out they would never have believed we had the capability. Note how the weapons were not dropped on the same day. As there was a real risk the weapons would fail to detonate properly there could also be no demonstration(s) of them, there were to few of them.

History is written not only by the victors as is often claimed. Most of all this is true today. It is also written by those who wish to condem those victors. Disinformation, revisionism are real and are often used. They are believed by those who wish to see things in that light.

I have read many accounts of the 2nd world war both those written by historians and men who lived what they wrote of. Not only from the US perspective but from German, Japanese, British and Austrailian accounts as well. The use of nukes while decried today, made very good sense at the time. And was in fact the correct decision. You do NOT conduct a war with sparing the enemy as the main, or even secondary goal. Just how would those in power in the US at that time have ever convinced the millions of griving parents, widows and orphans that the use of the "bomb" was forgone so as to spare the Japanese? That the deaths of those tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of American troops lost during the invasion of the home islands was for the "greater good"?

The last 4 are interconnected.

If by the bombing of Iraq you are refering to the war 12 years ago, would you have allowed So-dahm-insane to hold Kuwati?

Would not todays mess have been forgone if the UN would have not demanded the US stop short of invading Iraq then and removing Saddam at that time. His goverment would have been shattered and removed with less than 3 days of further fighting. The "mother of all battles" was already a total desaster for Iraq. The added desaster was leaving Saddam in power.

If instead you mean the very real potential of war now. Why wait for Saddam to rebuild further his forces? Or to use them. Just what did the recent disclosures about the missles hidden away now being deystroyed mean to you? Do you really think for one instant he'd be bringing them out for the inspectors if there weren't over 300 thousand Americans near by getting ready to take him down? Are you that blind? If he really wanted peace he could have surredered those weapons 12 years ago.

What about his statment that the few weeks offered in the latest British proposal wouldn't be enough time? Time for what? He's claimed all along he had no such weapons. Now 2 weeks won't be near enough time to turn them over??? What part of this leads you to think this man wants peace, not war?????

Bush wouldn't be able to gain even 5% of the population of this countrys support if oil were the goal. Good grief man Bush couldn't get support for drilling in Alaska's artic areas where oil is the only issue. He wan't even close to winning passage of his plan to drill that artic area. He has the support from the majority because oil isn't the real issue. Oil is only a handy excure for those wishing to leave Saddam in power. Or in the case of France and Russia, perhaps it is what is buying them off.

".........chateau migraine 1999." ROFL

For some reason good wines lay me out the next day. Love the flavor but not the follow up the next day. Must be me, as it don't take very much wine to do it, 8 oz. is often enough.

Not sure about the DDR II but I'm interested in seeing the card with 256 meg of memory. I'm going to wait until seeing that, and perhaps the NV35 to boot.

I may as well, I don't have the money for the rest of the stuff to go with it yet anyway, and most likly won't until fall.

03-11-2003, 11:42 AM	#96
Blackeagle Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: U.S.A = Michigan Posts: 1,243	AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh, Here we go again. 1) I don't think anyone here thinks the rest of the world feels America is evil. I do think however that some have forgotten history or prefer a revisionist version now. 2) I don't doubt for a moment some feel the US can be aggresive. We are when the need to be is there. But there is also the very valid view that many of these claiming this want to push their ideas on the US. That dog don't hunt. 3) The claim that Japan tried to surrender 3 days before the 1st nuke was dropped is BS, plain and simple. The tenative feelers put out by the Japanese goverment in no way constituted a surrender offer. They were only a proposal to try to end the conflict on terms the Japanese thought they could get the US to agree to, rather than face the massive losses of American troops in a landing and conquest of the home islands. They in fact showed Japan's resolve to fight to the bitter end if not allowed they're terms for a end to hostilitys. The most overriding reason for their use was to save American lives. And in preventing the kinds of American losses that were what the Japanese were counting on to force terms the japanese wanted. Just as Japan miss judged when they attacked Peral Harbor they miss judged how the war could be ended. With out the nuke strikes being carried out they would never have believed we had the capability. Note how the weapons were not dropped on the same day. As there was a real risk the weapons would fail to detonate properly there could also be no demonstration(s) of them, there were to few of them. History is written not only by the victors as is often claimed. Most of all this is true today. It is also written by those who wish to condem those victors. Disinformation, revisionism are real and are often used. They are believed by those who wish to see things in that light. I have read many accounts of the 2nd world war both those written by historians and men who lived what they wrote of. Not only from the US perspective but from German, Japanese, British and Austrailian accounts as well. The use of nukes while decried today, made very good sense at the time. And was in fact the correct decision. You do NOT conduct a war with sparing the enemy as the main, or even secondary goal. Just how would those in power in the US at that time have ever convinced the millions of griving parents, widows and orphans that the use of the "bomb" was forgone so as to spare the Japanese? That the deaths of those tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of American troops lost during the invasion of the home islands was for the "greater good"? The last 4 are interconnected. If by the bombing of Iraq you are refering to the war 12 years ago, would you have allowed So-dahm-insane to hold Kuwati? Would not todays mess have been forgone if the UN would have not demanded the US stop short of invading Iraq then and removing Saddam at that time. His goverment would have been shattered and removed with less than 3 days of further fighting. The "mother of all battles" was already a total desaster for Iraq. The added desaster was leaving Saddam in power. If instead you mean the very real potential of war now. Why wait for Saddam to rebuild further his forces? Or to use them. Just what did the recent disclosures about the missles hidden away now being deystroyed mean to you? Do you really think for one instant he'd be bringing them out for the inspectors if there weren't over 300 thousand Americans near by getting ready to take him down? Are you that blind? If he really wanted peace he could have surredered those weapons 12 years ago. What about his statment that the few weeks offered in the latest British proposal wouldn't be enough time? Time for what? He's claimed all along he had no such weapons. Now 2 weeks won't be near enough time to turn them over??? What part of this leads you to think this man wants peace, not war????? Bush wouldn't be able to gain even 5% of the population of this countrys support if oil were the goal. Good grief man Bush couldn't get support for drilling in Alaska's artic areas where oil is the only issue. He wan't even close to winning passage of his plan to drill that artic area. He has the support from the majority because oil isn't the real issue. Oil is only a handy excure for those wishing to leave Saddam in power. Or in the case of France and Russia, perhaps it is what is buying them off. ".........chateau migraine 1999." ROFL For some reason good wines lay me out the next day. Love the flavor but not the follow up the next day. Must be me, as it don't take very much wine to do it, 8 oz. is often enough. Not sure about the DDR II but I'm interested in seeing the card with 256 meg of memory. I'm going to wait until seeing that, and perhaps the NV35 to boot. I may as well, I don't have the money for the rest of the stuff to go with it yet anyway, and most likly won't until fall. Last edited by Blackeagle; 03-11-2003 at 11:53 AM.