Thread: World War 2 America: A Terrorist State?

Actually you entered WW2 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. Only when you were "done" with them you came to europe. How can you compare Iraq and WW2. More than 30 000 000 people died in WW2.

uh, we invaded Europe WAY WAY WAY WAY before we even got to the Japanese mainland. We were far but "done" with them

*your argument*

and it was more like 50,000,000 deaths in WW2.

You didn't really address every aspect of his argument:
You stated, at the beginning of this topic:

WWII was never really America's problem. But we went in, kicked ass, and ended the war.[/b]

And Bonsay said;

Actually you entered WW2 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.[/b]

Which is entirely right: WWII WAS America's problem at that point. America wasn't interested in helping Europe out militarily until the US's interests got tangled up in it all. I don't think that's wrong--I completely agree with the US's decisions to enter the war after Pearl Harbor, but your attempt to glorify the US, to make the US look like the super-hero, there to save the day, is completely unbased.
We didn't enter the war to help defend Europe. We entered the war because suddenly we were being threatened as well--a valid reason, but not a heroic reason by any means.

No, Japan was our problem, not Europe. We could have focused everything on Japan had defeated them in months. But Germany declared war on US (not so smart). Even if Germany took over Europe, he still would not have had a base of operations to attack america. It would have never happened. Thats why i say we sould have just left you guys alone to be ruled by Nazi. I mean after all, America doesnt really get any credit from you guys these days for freeing you. IT REALLY WASNT OUR PROBLEM. We should have just let hitler come to us. Fighting Russia at the time would have made it hard on Germany, and easy for us.

No, it WAS our problem. Hitler was sinking US ships or ships with US passengers with U-Boats--hence the mutual declaration of war between Germany and the US. And BECAUSE of those U-Boats, Hitler DID have some leverage over the US--he was able to inhibit our trade with Europe and damage our navy. Perhaps he couldn't have led a full-scale invasion, but that's a "so-what" issue. He was still harming US interests, so the US went to war against him.

To review:
YES, I think the US was perfectly justified in going into Europe and Japan in WWII.
NO, I do NOT think that the US was in any way a shining beacon of humanity or anything of the sort--we had our interests at heart in WWII, just like Europe did. Entering WWII was in no way a selfless decision on the part of the US.

(Just a note--Feel free to keep posting Hominus, but I'm adding you to my ignored users, so don't expect replies from me. I'm willing to debate the issues, but, frankly, I'm sick of having to wade through your ad-hominems and blatant ignorance on a regular basis. If anybody else wants to pick up the issue, I'm still open to debate on the topic--just not with Hominus.)

ah, he can ignore me. O well, hell just miss out.

To set the record straight, hitler was sinking any ships he could find because a large number of them were carrying military supplies. Like I said, i dont think we should have been helping europe anyway, so there would have been no ships to sink. We should have just let your countries suffer. But we didnt, so america kicks ass,

Blatent ignorance and ad hominems? Please. Tell me when i said something contrary to common sense or something without factual base. You wont find any.

I assumed you would post something of that nature, so out of curiousity, I viewed your post. I must say, while I didn't expect much, you really shot yourself in the foot on that one--

RE the Hitler's U-Boats--I never argued about WHY Hitler was sinking ships, or WHY our ships were there in the first place--I just said that he was sinking US ships, and therefore the US had reason to become involved. Period.

Blatent ignorance and ad hominems? Please. Tell me when i said something contrary to common sense or something without factual base. You wont find any.[/b]

(I quoted that just in case you decide to wise up and edit that post, in which case people will want to know what I'm talking about)

RE your claim to never have stated anything without factual basis:

Now the liberals would say "they never found any nuclear bombs, waaaaaa, waaaaaaaaa". No, but we found uranium, a necessity for nukes. But no,no let me guess, he wasnt using them for nuclear bombs to kill people.[/b]

Wrong; the Uranium we found was unenriched or low-level enriched. Cannot be used in a bomb, needs massive amounts of processing and purification. Uses: Medical and Industrial.

By the way nuclear development has been banned. A nuke has not been created by America for a LONG time.
Then you say, "do you honestly believe nuclear develpment has stopped"
Yes, i do!!! We already have enough in the arsenal to destroy the land mass of earth like 20 times or something. We dont need any more. You just made a random assumption that we have something greater than nukes. What do yo base that on? My guess is nothing[/b]

Wrong; the USA spends $17 Billion annually on nuclear weapon research, development and maintainance. Currently, a major project is creating Hafnium nukes, which are small enough to be fit into something the size of an air-to-air missile, and possibly something the size of a model rocket in the future. I provided a link to the relevant information back in the Iraq thread, dig it out if you want.

Alright shark, why dont you show me a expert testimony that says that the bombs DIDNT save lives. Trust me, you wont find anything[/b]

Wrong; a startling number of the administration in charge at the time, INCLUDING the CINC-Pacific disagreed with the dropping of the bomb because they felt victory could be obtained at a lower cost of human lives. Now--I'm not saying that the bombs did or did not save lives. That's another discussion, and largely based on opinion. But you stated that it would be impossible to find expert testimony saying the bombs did not save lives, and that is patently FALSE, with no opinion involved.

and as to muslims: they were not LIED to. it is part of their belief system, and obviously you know nothing about the muslim religion when you say the ONLY reason they kill themselves is to have virgins in "heaven". It is much deeper than that and there are more rewards for muslims that die in the name of jihad than virgins. Obviously all you know about muslims is what you saw in "The Seige".[/b]

Wrong; there's been considerable controversy and media coverage of Imams in Iraq who are inciting Muslims (usually young men) to suicide, claiming it to be "Jihad", which will be rewarded. It is NOT part of their belief system, because according to the vast majority of the Muslim faith, this conflict is NOT Jihad, and will NOT be rewarded--its only a small minority of Muslim leadership that is corrupt and inciting these actions. Quite simply, they WERE lied to, and you're denying that, which is something that is VERY offensive to the vast majority of Moslems.

[In reply to my posting of a quote from US military leaders stating that Japan was ready to surrender before the atomic bombs]

not according to the Japanese war council, but i guess you know more than they did.[/b]

Wrong; TBM posted a nice summary of documented Japanese attempts at surrender, as well as a quote from the Emperor himself stating that he wanted the war to end.

Aside from pure misinformation, you also doctor your information, such as here:

the estimated AMERICAN casualties was 280,000, just in the southern island of Kyushu[/b]

When the source said:

losses on Kyushu ranged from as low as 31,000 for just the first thirty days, to a total of about 280,000.[/b]

You removed the 31,000 because that was bad for your position. That's called information doctoring.

So, that enough for you? You've been wrong on several occasions. This is only a few pages from a single thread. In the mix was plenty of afforementioned ad-hominems (such as your favorite--"hippie").

Hence, the reason I added you to my ignored list. If anybody else wants to pick up this debate, I, as mentioned before, am still open to debate. To Hominus--can't say I'll miss you.

eh, i've been wrong a couple times, but it really looks like you are obsessed with me. If you dont want to read my posts than ignore them and keep your word.

Anybody knows that Japan was not about to surrender, and more lives would have been lost due to bombings and battles if an invasion took place. No question.

Oh yea, im sure Sadam was using uranium for "humanitarian resources". Yea, he cared a lot about his people. What a great guy

O yea, read the fucking Koran. You will see your fair share of "jihad" in there. Its a misinterpretation, not a LIE.

Yes they were about to surrender. And Truman knew it, they intercepted a message from Moscow to Japan, from the japanese ambasador, discussing surrender with the Soviet Union.

THEY WOULD HAVE GIVEN UP AFTER THE FIRST BOMB THEN!!!!!!!!!& #33;

what the hell, dude, its common sense. If they were ON THE VERGE OF SURRENDER, they would have done so after Hiroshima.

its so simple and you just choose to ignore it. And where did you find this info? Wikipedia? JUST LAST NIGHT i made up some shit about ligers (mix of lion and tiger) being made from space monsters.

they werent on the verge of surrender, and your OPINION is really fact.

First of all I didn't get it from wikipedia, second you should really calm down, and yes my opinion is really a fact. The second bomb was dropped after 2 days. I would be too socked/suprised to do anything in 2 days.

no, bonsay, it was 3 days after hiroshima. You need to learn your history

No I'm quite sure it was 6. and 9. August. 2 days.
*Hey you Edited your post! You had 2 weeks not 3 days . Cheeter. Now see I mean 3 days really isn't enough time. Did Japan know that the 2nd bomb was coming?

hey, my bad man, it was a week later that Japan officially surrenderd. Just mixed up the dates.

and i said 1 week, not two weeks. cheeter

Whatever.. , War sucks. Just people should learn from past mistakes.

agreed

Yes war does suck. No matter what side wins, the civilians ALLWAYS loze.

And man why did you spam so much topics that are pro-america? Anyhow, you fail:

America just joined the war becouse japan attacked them. America didn't want to have anything to do with the war, then they got attacked, then they decided to play 'mr right in the world'. I mean yeah, sure thanks you helped the right couse, you weren't the only ones. The britsh are way more cool then you.

Allso the canadian fought. Alot more fought. Just becouse spielberg made a cool movie doens't mean you are the hero of WW2. The russians were in berlin before you were, we would have been liberated anyway. I just guess england would have had some difficulty against the sovjet forces, but you would have invaded europe anyway, like vietman, becouse you hate the USSR. And the USSR just claimed to be communist btw, they weren't

neuro you need to learn some more WWII history and American history. First of all, america was meant to be an isolationist country. Our founders saw how Europe kept screwing things up, so we wanted nothing to do with you. You have this mentality that ww2 america is the same america as today. Not even close.

Anyway, we wanted nothing to do with European affairs, for our own sake. Next, you act like we did NOTHING before we started sending troops. We supplied England with MILLIONS of dollars worth of supplies and weapons, and lost hundreds of ships doing so. Its not like we just "laid back" until we got attacked.

HAAAA!!! America was THE KEY FACTOR in winning the war. NO CONTEST AT ALL. Anybody will tell you that. Russia had NO PRAYER of doing it by themselves. I dont even feel the need to prove my point. And you would not have been liberated for a LONG time. In fact, i'm going to post a poll about this.

Learn some history

Originally Posted by Hominus

HAAAA!!! America was THE KEY FACTOR in winning the war. NO CONTEST AT ALL. Anybody will tell you that. Russia had NO PRAYER of doing it by themselves.
[/b]

So the Germans abandoned their invasion of Russia because it was working out well for them? And Russia was able to invade Berlin because the Germans allowed them to?

Russia's part in winning WWII was just as big as Americas.

THATS EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING BADASSBOB.

neuro over here is saying that america was not necessary AT ALL. That is ignorant and just plain incorrect. The war could not have been won without Russia OR the US. both were necessary in the strategic plan.

I think you misunderstood me badassbob. I know america could not have done it alone, and i know that russia had an extremely long and hard fight to get into germany.

Originally Posted by Hominus

THATS EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING BADASSBOB.

neuro over here is saying that america was not necessary AT ALL. That is ignorant and just plain incorrect. The war could not have been won without Russia OR the US. both were necessary in the strategic plan.
[/b]

Yes but you were also saying that only America did the work in many posts .

we did do the best. We went through europe in just over a year. Thats pretty damn good. AND were were fighting Japan, too. Nobody in the war did as good as we did.

But im not saying Russia wasnt a MAJOR part of it

Maybe america was needed for the normandy invasion. I do not think hitlers empire would have lasted very longer. He would Never have been able to take russia. And if he did, I don't think he could hold it, and if he could, america would allso be fucked.

What I am REALLY wondering, is why the FUCK you care so much about what america did during the second world war. I mean, ok, what if I say that allso during the 2nd WW america was the most powerfull nation, military. SO?!

If you have to go fishing for that kind of compliments, does that say something about eighter the immensely sick patriotism, does it say something about you wanting to be right all the time or does it say something about you not being able to win any of the actual debate we where having about 21-centry america?

Thank you.

i'm on defense, i have to prove i'm right. Its the way these arguments go. NORMALLY someone says something bad about America and i respond. Thats all.