Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Hitler

    Pol Pot

    Saddam Husein

    Dont come and tell me it was wrong of the americans to invade germany in 1945, or that Vietnam shoudl not have put an end to Pol Pots genecide... Saddam Husein was not a sorvereign leader of teh Iraqi population. He was a cruel dictator and the americnas , british , spanish and several other were correct in removing him. That they may have had other motives do not change the fact that it was correct to remove him from power.
    Vietnam ... not even americans agreed with that war.
    What kind of son of the ***** are you?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    Stiff Normandy up your ass.
    War is for idiots like you.
    So in other words you are saying that the US and Russia should have stood by and watched while Hitler and teh Nazi party extinguished the Jews in Europe? Nice to know who is supporting who...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    Vietnam ... not even americans agreed with that war.
    What kind of son of the ***** are you?
    OH CMON! Im not talking about the Vietnam war, but Vietnams invation of Cambodga which put an end to Pol Pot's genecide in the region. I dont think you will find a single country today which claims that it was wrong of the Vietnamese government to do so...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    So in other words you are saying that the US and Russia should have stood by and watched while Hitler and teh Nazi party extinguished the Jews in Europe? Nice to know who is supporting who...
    Hitler shouldn't ever invaded Poland, that's what I'm saying.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    Hitler shouldn't ever invaded Poland, that's what I'm saying.
    And Saddam should not have murdered 10 thousand Iraqi's annually. BUT HE DID IT ANYWAYS!!! War is not a good thing, but sometimes the alternative, to sit idle by and watch tens of thousands of people being ruthlessly surpressed and murdered, is even worse. Your pacifism is extreme. Contrary to what some wannabe hippies here seem to beleive, dictators and tyrants like Adolf Hitler and Saddam Husein woant just stop their dirty business cus you ask them politely. People like Pol Pot, Napoleon, and Usama Bin Laden follow the same pattern:

    They cant be argued with. They cant be reasoned with, and they will not stop until you are dead. You may either atack these tyrants and remove them from power, or you may watch them destroy humanity from their powerfull positions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    And Saddam should not have murdered 10 thousand Iraqi's annually. BUT HE DID IT ANYWAYS!!! War is not a good thing, but sometimes the alternative, to sit idle by and watch tens of thousands of people being ruthlessly surpressed and murdered, is even worse. Your pacifism is extreme. Contrary to what some wannabe hippies here seem to beleive, dictators and tyrants like Adolf Hitler and Saddam Husein woant just stop their dirty business cus you ask them politely. People like Pol Pot, Napoleon, and Usama Bin Laden follow the same pattern:

    They cant be argued with. They cant be reasoned with, and they will not stop until you are dead. You may either atack these tyrants and remove them from power, or you may watch them destroy humanity from their powerfull positions.

    Then you could kill the REAL Saddam and not destroy all the ****ing country, right?
    The same for USA bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    I'm off to see a movie, bye.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    Insert Normandy up your ass.
    War is for idiots like you.
    What kind of son of the ***** are you?
    i thoroughly hope you learn some manners, as you are giving a very poor impression of your country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i thoroughly hope you learn some manners, as you are giving a very poor impression of your country.
    I don't represent my country, I only represent myself.
    What are you going to say 'animals,animals'?
    That's plain stupid, you should see Breaveheart, that's an animal behavior.

    And if you represent your country be sure that I will not travel to England ever.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    And if you represent your country be sure that I will not travel to England ever.
    No one can represent their country, not monarchs, they do not represent the views of all of the people within that country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    No one can represent their country, not monarchs, they do not represent the views of all of the people within that country.
    I know, I was just insulting her the way she did to me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    I know, I was just insulting her the way she did to me.
    er, no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    I don't represent my country, I only represent myself.
    What are you going to say 'animals,animals'?
    That's plain stupid, you should see Breaveheart, that's an animal behavior.

    And if you represent your country be sure that I will not travel to England ever.
    awww, petal...why so angry?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    I don't represent my country, I only represent myself.
    What are you going to say 'animals,animals'?
    That's plain stupid, you should see Breaveheart, that's an animal behavior.

    And if you represent your country be sure that I will not travel to England ever.
    Who ever said Vienna was English? Certainly not her!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    Who ever said Vienna was English? Certainly not her!!
    nice to see you enjoy his childish tantrums...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    Who ever said Vienna was English? Certainly not her!!
    She said that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    nice to see you enjoy his childish tantrums...
    Childish?
    And that come from a little girl that lives inside here?
    Too bad.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    Then you could kill the REAL Saddam and not destroy all the ****ing country, right?
    The same for USA bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    I'm off to see a movie, bye.
    Unless you noticed, the US did remove Saddam Husein from power with a number of causulties far lower than anyone thought possible. In comparision it could be said that Saddam on an average killed about 10 thousand people a year , whereas the number of civilians killed in the war is estimated to be between 2000 to 3000.

    When it comes to the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I agree with you. The US could have done things differently back then , and should have as well. However, you must keep in mind that the Japanese government refused to accept a peace agreement even after Hiroshima was bombed. Only when Nagasaki was targeted three days afterwards did they accept defeat. Now, this does not justify killing several hundred thousand people with nuclear weapons and teh decision has been widely cirtisized ever after. In todays America, it would be political suecide to use a nuclear weapons unless teh US would be targeted with such weapons first.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Unless you noticed, the US did remove Saddam Husein from power with a number of causulties far lower than anyone thought possible. In comparision it could be said that Saddam on an average killed about 10 thousand people a year , whereas the number of civilians killed in the war is estimated to be between 2000 to 3000.

    When it comes to the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I agree with you. The US could have done things differently back then , and should have as well. However, you must keep in mind that the Japanese government refused to accept a peace agreement even after Hiroshima was bombed. Only when Nagasaki was targeted three days afterwards did they accept defeat. Now, this does not justify killing several hundred thousand people with nuclear weapons and teh decision has been widely cirtisized ever after. In todays America, it would be political suecide to use a nuclear weapons unless teh US would be targeted with such weapons first.
    Well, according to the Avalon Project conducting by Yale Law School

    TABLE A
    Estimates of Casualties

    Hiroshima Nagasaki
    Pre-raid population 255,000 195,000
    Dead 66,000 39,000
    Injured 69,000 25,000
    Total Casualties 135,000 64,000

    I wonder how many more people would have been killed or injured had the war in the Pacific been fought conventionally for the next 2, or 3 years (maybe more)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, according to the Avalon Project conducting by Yale Law School

    TABLE A
    Estimates of Casualties

    Hiroshima Nagasaki
    Pre-raid population 255,000 195,000
    Dead 66,000 39,000
    Injured 69,000 25,000
    Total Casualties 135,000 64,000

    I wonder how many more people would have been killed or injured had the war in the Pacific been fought conventionally for the next 2, or 3 years (maybe more)
    But that was not the only option. One could have set of the nuclear weapons outised of any heavily populated areas. That would surely have demonstrated the capabilities of these weapons, and it may have caused teh Japanese government to surrender. Considdering that almost 200 000 people were killed in the bombings, one could at least have tried...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    But that was not the only option. One could have set of the nuclear weapons outised of any heavily populated areas. That would surely have demonstrated the capabilities of these weapons, and it may have caused teh Japanese government to surrender. Considdering that almost 200 000 people were killed in the bombings, one could at least have tried...
    Well, you said yourself that the Japanese government refused to surrender even after Hiroshima.

    If that is so, then surely demonstrating on an unpopulated Pacific island would not have persuaded them would it?
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.