You lot

---

First off, nice posts Seven/Cenfath. Second...what in the world kind of excuse is that? I've seen the whole "Haha, I was just using this post to piss people off and vent out my personal real life anguish" way too many times on other boards. And maybe if you actually told us you were kidding, we would have laughed it off. But unfortunately, we're unable to tell sarcasm from stupidity; though the latter still applies to you. Is it really that fun to try to "win" at an internet debate? Internet debates are like the special olympics, pal. Even if you do "win", you're still a retard.

In reply to: Internet debates are like the special olympics, pal. Even if you do "win", you're still a retard. lol. I think I'll use that one sometime.

I'm not convinced that Max's posts were totally useless or indefensible, even if he makes some ridiculous allegations.

One important issue Max raises, however incoherently, is that Anti-Americanism is on the rise. This observation is neither meaningless nor baseless. Furthermore, even if anti-American sentiments were totally factually inaccurate (many clearly are), we Americans should still be concerned about the sharp rise in such beliefs. Even the staunchest Americentrist must realize that losing allies weakens American interests. Judging from the European backlash against the war in Iraq, I doubt that the US can count on Spain, France (if we could ever count on France), Germany, and probably even England for assistance in future military ventures- even clearly justifiable ones. Yes, we can undoubtedly win wars by ourselves, but do we want to shoulder such burdens alone? At what price?

I know that the typical American explanation for Anti-Americanism is that "everyone will always hate the top dog, so we needn't be bothered with the world's jealousy." This belief probably has some merit, but does it adequately explain the facts? Anti-American sentiments are much higher now then they were 5-10 years ago, but we were also the top dog then. This is kernel of truth and meaning in Max's posts- we've become increasingly alienated from our friends, and traditional explanations are inadequate.

"How was Hiroshima an atrocity? We did what had to be done--yes, it was awful that a lot of citizens were killed, but look at the circumstances. The Japanese WOULD not surrender. The US and other countries were suffering heavy losses...in the end it worked out for the best. Had we not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Allies would have lost more soldiers than we did."Sorry if any of this comes out wrong, or stupid in context to any further posts but I really dont have time to read em all right now, and i simply MUST get this in before i forget completely about my point. grins ill come back and edit it laterhiroshima and Nagasaki were 2 of the worst acts of slaughter the world has ever known. I cannot call up the exact figures as i no longer have the books detailing this, but rest assured they were large. Again once i get em back fae my mate, ill enter them here. To start with, the cities both had little political or militairy strength to them. So why were they the ones chosen by America to be struck off first? The answer was because they had some of the larger populations, but again no political or militairy strength. America did not want to hit only militairy targets, as that was not working at dismaying the Japanese. Instead America chose a target that would inflict the correct amount of horror on the Japanese government, whilst also keeping said government intact. If they had bombed the cities with the largest populations, large parts of Japanese political sector would have been in ruins. That would make an unconditional surrender harder to come by. So Hiroshima was chosen. Chosen to be the target of an as yet not fully tested weapon. For all of America's 'controlled' explosions, the A bomb was still a huge unknown factor. And the aftershock of that can still be seen today, in the amount of damage radiation has inflicted on both nagasaki and Hiroshima. Again I cant include figures, as no book but the cancer rate of those cities was phenomenal, along with a wide variety of other health problems, directly related to the after effects of these blasts.Whilst Japan was reeling from this, and whilst there current governing bodies were urging the more radical political opponents into agreeing to a surrender, America decided that arranging a total and complete surrender should be able to be done within the space of a few weeks, so set in motion the 2nd bombing of Nagasaki. Again a city with litte political power, or militairy strength, but one with a large population. America seemed to have found a formula that could finally dismay the Japanese war effort sufficiently. And there were another 6 cities that America was prepared to bomb as well, should Japan not have given in soon enough. Indeed, preparations were being made for the 3rd strike when Japan announced its unconditional surrender. To make this clear, the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely out of line. And yet some people would still regard them as doing what needed to be done. but what if Japan didnt cave in as quickly in there surrender? America was going to continue bombing, that is definite. at what point would 'doing what needed to be done' be regarded as attempted genocide? it was the fact that Japan was willing to keep fighting, no matter their losses that led to these attacks and whilst they certainly ceased Japan's willingness to continue the war, they were still a step far too far.Gotta add to this another time as im running out of time. Sorry for turning this board into a essay on the end of world war 2 but this is a subject that I definitely feel comfortable waffling for hours on

All the words have made my eyes crossed. I can't read!!! I think this thread needs to be dead.

yeah, even i cant be bothered to finish my stuff. if ever there is a thread on how pointless Hiroshima or Nagasaki were then expect an essay from me. till then, im not gonna continue posting O/T

================================================================================================Ok, time for the truth. No, this post wasn't meant to be a laugh ay anyones expense, it was just me venting.I tend to bottle up my anger and it brews up inside me and i just have to let it out. This board just happens to be the no.1 place to do it and i kinda see it as the place to do it. Im not really gonna apologise, im just gonna say it how it is really, the post originally was just gonna be the 2DTV sketch stuff, but it kinda grew as i started ranting and what you see above is the aftermath or unintentions.In the past i've let my anger out at people i know, and its gotten nasty, i nearly went mental at me manager once! That wouldan't have been good would it? Everyone has to let it out sooner or later and my time was then, i feel much better now and the nasty shit i said to people wasn't personal.I've spoken to Cenfath, please tell me thats right? Who e-mailed me which kinda inspired me to write this and she may not be aware but i have replied to her explaining to her what was going on in my head, it did help. Cenfath, if you daren't read it, it's all good And i want this post locked, not deleted, id like it to be a reminder if anything...actually, whatever, i don't care what happens to it, its in the past.I aren't anti-american, im pretty open minded about everything usually, nothing phases me, nothing bothers me, but for someone who rarely goes off on one when i do its a messy business, i got a lot of stress at the moment i'm struggling on what to do with myself.I always said my post was not personal, now you can see why, i don't excuse myself as i was a little nasty at times but i do feel better after letting it all out...until next time Kidding :P

Debates in general are fun :grin: How dare you call it the special olympics.

The Special Olympics are fun, how dare you call it a debate?

NO you fools! My country is better!