"I'm ready to lose control, but they're not"
-
@ely862me said:
Had Nagasaki and Hiroshima done anything to be hated so greatly?
That's bad comparison.
It was a declared war against a nation, not a nebulous group that can hide amongst an otherwise innocent civilian population. It was also believed at the time that the cost of invading the Japanese homeland with troops would have caused more casualties than the use of the bomb. Unfortunately, the use of the bomb caused awful casualties, and all of them on the Japanese side.
I dislike armchair quarterbacking this decision because none of us were alive at the time to understand what was happening, and none of us were present or are privy to the analysis of the information that led to the decision to use the bomb. The bomb is a terrible weapon, but when it was believed that every man, woman and child on the Japanese homeland would be willing to sacrifice themselves to kill an Allied soldier - what was to be done? With the hatred of the atomic bomb and the knowledge of its terrible effects today, it might be easier to think an invasion might not be such a bad idea; but that's a decision made with the luxury of hindsight.
Atomic bombs during declared war between two nations does not equal suicide bombs or aircraft hijackings against an unsuspecting nation.
-
i am sorry i derivated the thread
funny how we people discuss about things taking irredentorial positions while maybe we are at the start of world war iii
-
When some US soldiers came to have some trainings in Romania ..i ve said UPS now the terrorists are going to put the target on us
(i was worry because the americans comes to our country )
Somehow the US manage to do damage by trying to make order.I don t know ..
When the terrorists blow up the towers ..one of my classmates said: They(US) believed to much they re center of the Earth . I give him right a bit(faar away to agree with terrorists).
Wherever a trouble comes ...hops US...something happens hops US.
I may be wrong..or not..i m not a politician maybe i should shut,but we ve free opinion ..
And i still don t forget that US in the 2nd War let us on the hand of USSR.
.Our future it would have been lot more different.Anyway this is just my opinion.
-
ely862me,
Americans are saddened by the role our government takes sometimes in World affairs and the recent arrogance in foreign policy.
It is very unfortunate what happened to Eastern Europe, but going back to 50 years ago, are you forgetting the American lives that were lost on European soil to stop the Nazi's? It was a bad mistake to let your country go. Perhaps the leaders then did not see how much the USSR would grab or think they could beat Russia (who ever has?), but the alternative could have been another massive war, with your country being the battleground.
You say "I may be wrong..or not..i m not a politician maybe i should shut,but we ve free opinion .." Yes, you have a free opinion and should speak freely. Where do you think that idea came from? The United States that once meant freedom to other nations, is the one I think we all hope will manifest itself in years to come.
And to be clear: We can argue, but you have a RIGHT to say what you feel. (Some governments don't know this yet. I just saw a Romanian film about Romania in the 80's and it looked like very tough living.)
-
The US and Britain let Eastern Europe go cause they were unprepared for another war, especially with someone who they told they're peoples that it was an ally, i mean there wouldn't have been any popular support for another bloody war.
But they didn't let go Eastern Europe without a diplomatic fight, they were just unprepared for the type of diplomacy Russia had to offer, a back stabbing, deceitfull diploamcy, the Allies's greates fault was that they were fair and thought Stallin would be too. -
Ely862me,
I figure that Pbacot and Marian have summed it up pretty well, and I'm not trying to attack you. I'm quite happy to have a good discussion with you, and your opinions are welcome - so don't feel like I'm trying to shut you up. As with any internet discussion, any time you type something, there is almost 100% guarantee someone will disagree with you, and do so angrily. Luckily this message board is pretty civilized, even when there are disagreements.
You are correct about the US jumping in, often where they are not wanted. I don't claim to have any understanding of why we do, and I often don't agree with what my government does. I do wish we'd keep our noses, and soldiers, out of everyone else's business.
-
Like I always said, The problems in Zimbabwe would never have gotten so dire if they had even a morsel of oil, as without oil America is not interested in helping.
-
Usually I try to not post comments in threads like this because i m not that old(22) to know many things like u(well the majority) know.
But i do like to give my opinion if that subject touches me from some direction.
Overall in this short life,each one is doing his share(even if we agree or not with everyone*s share).
Have a nice day,night,morning people!
-
@tig said:
Unfortunately "irredentorial" is probably not a word in most languages - except perhaps in some non-standard Spanish - BUT it should mean something like "unredeeming" if it were... do you mean this - something like 'not able to be saved, recovered or changed by any sacrifice' ?
thanks TIG,
exactly -
@solo said:
Like I always said, The problems in Zimbabwe would never have gotten so dire if they had even a morsel of oil, as without oil America is not interested in helping.
Way, waytoo true.
-
@solo said:
Like I always said, The problems in Zimbabwe would never have gotten so dire if they had even a morsel of oil, as without oil America is not interested in helping.
Who is America interested in helping?
-
Themselves? </gross generalisation>
-
@remus said:
Themselves? </gross generalisation>
Well, we are obviously not talking about our fellows here or even an average American but "high politics".
And I believe that many politicians in many other countries would love to act similarly if they could. -
"high politics".
i dont get it.
Gaieus, are you going or are you coming ?
your avatar is so intriguing now
-
DARA's (Development Assistance Research Associates ) findings reflect what it called the United States’ use of humanitarian assistance to achieve military or political goals in eight crisis zones the group studied, including Afghanistan, Colombia and the Palestinian territories. The assessment challenges the United States’ view of itself “as the paragon of global compassion,” Larry Minear, a retired professor at Tufts University.
Again, The US's goals and humanitarian aid and assistance is self serving.
We here in the States hear all about how generous we are and how we are the ONLY country that makes sacrifices and gives aid, but that's a lie as (DARA) Humanitarian Response Index 2008 measures how effectively the world's 23 largest donors deliver aid. The United States ranked 15th in overall effectiveness and 13th in the level of generosity measured by the size of its economy.
-
Anybody read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man?"
I think that, even if it isn't the whole truth, it's probably too close to reality to be untrue.
-
@escapeartist said:
Anybody read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man?"
I think that, even if it isn't the whole truth, it's probably too close to reality to be untrue.
Only a few pages, a friend had the book.
Creepy stuff from what i read and heard about it. -
this guy, John Perkins, has a web_page
http://www.dreamchange.org/
i have watched his videos in you tube
it is most impressive his talk to the ancients warriors of usa
i started to get shocked.
here in Spain, some of us always thought about what was doing the usa empire . If it not would be behind the curtains a terrible acting for conquering power without caring for the people.
But it is terrible to hear what this man has said.
you just can not react.
at least myself
Nowadays i dont pay much attention whether it is true or not.
I am convinced we are in trouble. -
@gaieus said:
@solo said:
Like I always said, The problems in Zimbabwe would never have gotten so dire if they had even a morsel of oil, as without oil America is not interested in helping.
Who is America interested in helping?
Gaius, I think "helping" is meant facetiously in this case. While I agree with the general tenor, I think people tend to go overboard in their jaded outlook. Yes, the support of "U.S. interests" (Mult-national Corporations' interest) must be at the heart of foreign policy. It doesn't mean rice is not delivered or that the people (Americans) working for US aid are not acting in good faith and taxpayers don't wish to see their money go to food rather than bombs.
How do you want the U.S. to help Zimbabwe, Solo? Shall we invade and kill hundreds of thousands Zimbabwe citizens? The UN (some believe to be an arm of the US) hasn't managed to do much. The pressure from other nations to get Tsvangirai in the government is probably all that could be done. But the U.S. has to solve everything, immediately, from problems going back hundreds of years.
Conservatives and the onlooking world forget that there are evil despots all over the world. It is not possible for Americans to remove them all so the next despots (or despots friendly to the U.S.) can take power. I wish our country would just take a giant step back, but that's not going to happen. Our taxes, military, and politicians are at the service of the multi-national corporations.
(Sorry for all the "double-negative" phrases. Probably confusing for non-English speakers)
-
Unfortunately "irredentorial" is probably not a word in most languages - except perhaps in some non-standard Spanish - BUT it should mean something like "unredeeming" or better "irredeemable" if it were... do you mean this - something like 'not able to be saved, recovered or changed by any effort or sacrifice' ?
Advertisement