[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Im not much of a people person anyway.





......................you know that the internet community won't be hit as hard since the more hardcore ones stay inside, away from the infection lol

Just realized that.

ReconToaster wrote:

Maginot wrote:...Has no one heard of the Japanese projects to infect fleas with the bubonic plague and drop them over Major US cities?

Oh god, I can't even begin to imagine! WE WOULD NEED SOOO MUCH ANTIBIOTIC!

Actually, back in the 40's it would have been much harder to defend against an infection of that magnitude.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Im not much of a people person anyway.





......................you know that the internet community won't be hit as hard since the more hardcore ones stay inside, away from the infection lol

Just realized that.

I know right? I've been beginning to alter my whole zombie apocalypse plans. While I love my whole "steal a house boat and go out on Lake Kumberland" idea, I can't seem to shake the brilliance of staying at home and posting in the "OMGAZORO TEH ZOMBEES R HEREZ" thread at TCF.

@ Recon

Maginot Line wrote:...Has no one heard of the Japanese projects to infect fleas with the bubonic plague and drop them over Major US cities?

How about the fact that they DID do that against Chinese cities?

Maginot Line wrote:Or the infamous Unit 731 of the Japanese Army?

The actions the Japanese were prepared to perform against the US, and did perform against our soldiers are so much worse than dropping two atomic bombs onto cities.

Agreed.

I never heard of the Death Ray, but judging from Pieman's description, it wouldn't have worked in a real combat setting.

PiEman wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:

Maginot wrote:...Has no one heard of the Japanese projects to infect fleas with the bubonic plague and drop them over Major US cities?

Oh god, I can't even begin to imagine! WE WOULD NEED SOOO MUCH ANTIBIOTIC!

Actually, back in the 40's it would have been much harder to defend against an infection of that magnitude.

Well, simple sanitation would have taken care of much of the problem.
But if they DID do that, Tokyo would have been the first city in history to be cluster-nuked, from the perimeter in.

ReconToaster wrote:

Lord Pheonix wrote:Im not much of a people person anyway.





......................you know that the internet community won't be hit as hard since the more hardcore ones stay inside, away from the infection lol

Just realized that.

I know right? I've been beginning to alter my whole zombie apocalypse plans. While I love my whole "steal a house boat and go out on Lake Kumberland" idea, I can't seem to shake the brilliance of staying at home and posting in the "OMGAZORO TEH ZOMBEES R HEREZ" thread at TCF.

Question: How are we going to maintain an internet connection during the Zombie Apocalypse?

We'll lose each other!

BTW, we have a such said microwave weapon capable of doing that, and it is small enough to be mounted to a HMMWV

Yeah, the Japs never got to the point of actual field testing.

The funny thing is, when they were first deciding what research to pursue a few years earlier, they thought a microwave ray would be more feasable than an A-Bomb.

Oh the irony!

they rejected the use of radar because they thought that radio waves could make a practical weapon XD


they only started using radar after microwave magnetrons were invented and radar was taken off the "death ray" list

That's a non-lethal pain beam.

Oh, and nobody really knew what a atom bomb would be. A lot of people thought it would be a bomb that explodes for days on end.

So... a Death Beam, or a bomb that digs a huge hole in the ground?

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:That's a non-lethal pain beam.

It can be lethal, although it is not used with lethal force

Lord Pheonix wrote:Zaki obviously doesn't know anything about the bombing of Japan other than the information found in a sixth grade history book.


All he thinks is that we went over and bombed them with two atom bombs for no real reason other than we could and that the Japanese were innocent even though they were committing GENOCIDE.



Japanese citizens may have been killed, but that happens in a war. How best to stop the country then to hit them where it hurts the most?

Do you think they would have shown us any mercy if THEY had invaded US?

I never knew Wikipedia and my World Encyclopedia at home was sixth grade material.

You are so stupid. The first war for innocent civilians en masse to die is World War 1. So actually, Japanese citizens would have been killed. Which is really weird considering the fact that they would be some of the first innocents to die in a World War 2.

How best to stop a country where it hurts. Innocence is a weak spot. But a sacred spot. There were some many other spots.Money. Or technology. Make them feel guilty.

All I think that America should have tried for a treaty. Not a surrender. A treaty. And that the only other way to making Japan surrender was to use a weapon of mass destruction that would kill both innocent and guilty people.
All I'm saying is that America didn't try for more peaceful agreements.

It's like this:
A man takes a candy from a baby. Now the mother of the baby sees this and immediately accuses the man of stealing the candy. She demands the candy back. The only thing the woman can think of is forcing the man to give back the candy. And if the man rejects. Kick him in balls and take the candy back.

She could have made the man feel guilty and he would have given it back.
She could have threatened to call the police.

And yes I do think they would have some mercy.

And I want a credible source for the infected flies stuff...

except we did try for a peaceful solution throughout the entire war... we WERN'T even in the war until they attacked us for no reason with intent on invading us... we tried to have peace with them for years... but they answered every proclamation of peace with kamikaze bombers.

you are retarded if you think WWII was the first war in which innocent civilians were killed during battle

it was a choice between Atomic Bombs or firebombings. the speculated civilian death number would have been in the several millions if we had firebombed them.

the japanese were not democratic... they were an empire being lead by a guy who hated us... we would not have been able to get a treaty out of them EVER... the public hated us so much that if they had seriously t started consider a treaty they would have revolted and put a new leader in charge who hated us also...

the dr phil style of diplomacy may work in 2009 america... but it does not work for a lot of other cultures...

go research the bombings with something other than the internet and excyclopedia... go rent a military history book... because you have some seriously fouled up facts about the war

Zaki, you didn't read ANYTHING we posted, did you?

Zaki90 wrote:
You are so stupid. The first war for innocent civilians to die is World War 2.

Bull, Zaki. Civvies have been dying since the Crusades. Where the Hell do you think the term "Raping and Pillaging" came from?

Zaki90 wrote:So actually, Japanese citizens would have been killed. Which is really weird considering the fact that they would be some of the first innocents to die in a war.

So wrong, Zaki. They invaded Manchuria in the thirties. Remember the "Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere"? It was a LIE. The Imperialist Japanese hated the Koreans and the Chinese even more than the Nazis hated the Jews... which is pretty hard to do.

China had the second-highest death toll in WWII, right behind Russia. That's because the Japs invaded during the thirties and started slaughtering civvies left and right. They cut open the bellies of pregnant women, tossed babies into the air and impaled them on bayonettes (Yeah, they were big on bayonettes too)

Koreans were deported for forced labor... if not worse.

Zaki90 wrote:How best to stop a country where it hurts. Innocence is a weak spot. But a sacred spot. There were some many other spots.Money. Or technology. Make them feel guilty.

We tried that Zaki. Look up the Stimson Doctrine. We REFUSED to recognize any new Japanese territorial acquisitions in Asia, including Manchuria (which they renamed to Manchukio)
That failed. Miserably.
We then cut off their oil supplies. That would make them listen, no?
It didn't work that way. When we did that, they bombed a certain place called "Pearl Harbor". You may have heard of it.

Zaki90 wrote:All I think that America should have tried for a treaty. Not a surrender. A treaty. And that the only other way to making Japan surrender was to use a weapon of mass destruction that would kill both innocent and guilty people.
All I'm saying is that America didn't try for more peaceful agreements.

Dude, we could have tried for treaties until we were blue in the face. Have you not heard of Iwo Jima? Guadalcanal? The Japs weren't interested in surrender. Theirs was a mentality of racial supremacy, subservient to a culture of "Death before Dishonor" and "For the Emperor!"

Zaki90 wrote:And yes I do think they would have mercy.

Then you haven't been listening to us, and you haven't been paying attention in History Class.

Zaki90 wrote:And I want a credible source for the infected flies stuff...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=439776&in_page_id=1770
Unit 731. Look it up. Google it.
They were doing crap that made Joseph Mendel look like a kid in a sandbox.

I read "You are so stupid. The first war for innocent civillians to die in is World War 2", and laughed. You're the stupid one! Go look up any war, they had many innocents dying in them!

I said "the first war for innocent civilians to die en masse is World War 1"
Also, the invasion of Manchuria can be considered part of World War 2.
It was still very unusual for millions of innocent people to die in a war.

About the flies:

His work at Pingfan was applauded. Emperor Hirohito may not have known about Unit 731, but his family did. Hirohito's younger brother toured the Unit, and noted in his memoirs that he saw films showing mass poison gas experiments on Chinese prisoners.

The Emperor never actually knew about the bombings or Unit 731. So basically it was more of the brother than the Emperor.

They would have stopped at one point and their people would rebel. When they saw themselves.

The people in China resisted, the Japanese underestimated America's military, there were many reasons why Japan began losing. Japan was weaker then many expected. In a desperate attempt to keep their ground they used biological warfare.
I strongly oppose any sort of biological or nuclear warfare.

There is a difference between surrender and treaty!!!

Hirohito and his cabinet would not settle for a surrender. His adviser urged a negotiated treaty. The government was scared of Russia more than the nukes. In a way, the nukes were unnecessary.

Wikipedia:
On June 22, the Emperor met his ministers, saying "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts be made to implement them." The attempt to negotiate a peace via the Soviet Union came to nothing. There was always the threat that extremists would carry out a coup or foment other violence. On July 26, 1945, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration demanding unconditional surrender. The Japanese government council, the Big Six, considered that option and recommended to the emperor that it be accepted only if one to three conditions were agreed, including a guarantee of the emperor's continued position in Japanese society. The emperor decided not to surrender.

The emperor wanted a treaty will the Allies demanded an unconditional surrender.

Zaki90 wrote:I said "the first war for innocent civilians to die en masse is World War 1"
Also, the invasion of Manchuria can be considered part of World War 2.
It was still very unusual for millions of innocent people to die in a war.

no you didn't


you edited you post to try and make yourself not sound like an idiot... it says that you just edited your post before you posted this


I could have LP check the webpage logs to see exactly what you changed

And even then, civilians have been dying en masse in wars long before World War I. As I recall, many wars ended with one side being completely annihilated. Remember Troy?

And why should Japan have gotten anything less of total surrender? They pretty much broke every rule in the book concerning war. They wantonly slaughtered millions of Chinese civilians for sport, for God's sake. Why should we have to compromise with them? Hell, who is to say that they would have observed a treaty? They certainly didn't care for any other rules.

Iraq is lucky we try to follow the rules... too bad, cuz I really wanted to see some flmathrowers on our tanks. That would kick ass.

Rotaretilbo wrote:And even then, civilians have been dying en masse in wars long before World War I. As I recall, many wars ended with one side being completely annihilated. Remember Troy?

And why should Japan have gotten anything less of total surrender? They pretty much broke every rule in the book concerning war. They wantonly slaughtered millions of Chinese civilians for sport, for God's sake. Why should we have to compromise with them? Hell, who is to say that they would have observed a treaty? They certainly didn't care for any other rules.

Japan did some nasty stuff. But I think that a nuke was outta the question. Strip them from there economy. Propaganda.Unleash diseases that killed plants. Make them shrivel up from the inside. Eventually they would have suffered too much and give up.

It's like cracking open a hard nut. If you hit it with a hammer you might ruin the inside, but it is done quickly. If water it and slowly crack off the shell, the inside will be unharmed, but while take a couple of minutes,

*sigh*

Don't enter a fight if you don't want to get hurt.

Especially one that plays by total war rules.

So you're saying that, rather than nuking them, we should have starved them out until they agreed to unconditional surrender? All the while, battles around Japan are resulting in higher and higher US casualties? The end result would be higher Japanese casualties, higher US casualties, and...no foreseeable gain. How would anyone benefit from us starving them out rather than nuking a couple cities?

Rotaretilbo wrote:So you're saying that, rather than nuking them, we should have starved them out until they agreed to unconditional surrender? All the while, battles around Japan are resulting in higher and higher US casualties? The end result would be higher Japanese casualties, higher US casualties, and...no foreseeable gain. How would anyone benefit from us starving them out rather than nuking a couple cities?

I meant more along the lines of:
Block them from everything. Isolate them until they cannot take anymore. In a way, you are forcing them into a surrender, but you are basically defending your self. And you always lose less men in attacking then defending.

so your strategy is basically allowing them to organize a counter-attack?