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

Page 8 of 10 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Go down

Do you Think Former President Bush was a bad president?

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Vote_lcap21%[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Vote_rcap 21% 
[ 7 ]
[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Vote_lcap15%[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Vote_rcap 15% 
[ 5 ]
[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Vote_lcap58%[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Vote_rcap 58% 
[ 19 ]
[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Vote_lcap6%[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Vote_rcap 6% 
[ 2 ]
 
Total Votes : 33

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by PiEdude on Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:28 pm

Not yet.

Japan would've became Veitnam 20 years earlier.

Only, Japan is very mountainous, so it'd be like Veitname and Afganistan combined.
Only with absolutley no civillian support(which might've been better or worse)
PiEdude
PiEdude
Crimson Jester

Male Number of posts : 4573
Age : 26
Location : In the middle of a hollowed crust.
Registration date : 2008-03-24

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Rotaretilbo on Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:29 pm

And, Zaki, I don't know how many times I'll have to say this, but JAPAN HAD AIRPLANES! A BLOCKADE WOULD NOT MAGIC AWAY ALL OF THEIR AIRPLANES! DURING a BLOCKADE, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AIRPLANES WITH WHICH TO THROW AT US! This is the last time I will say this.

_________________
[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Rot_cube_Signature-1
Rotaretilbo
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 29
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Kasrkin Seath on Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:30 pm

You are kidding right?
Do you not understand the scale of the war?
There was a battle where there were over 1.5 million soldiers involved. This is one battle over a realtively short period.

Now you are going to tell me that after that, having hundreds of thousands of troops at several loactions and drafting millions of citizens into the military that we didn't have that many soldiers?

You are out of your mind.
Kasrkin Seath
Kasrkin Seath
The Law

Male Number of posts : 3018
Location : Michigan
Registration date : 2008-07-12

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Zaki90 on Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:57 pm


Kasrkin Seath:
You are kidding right?
Do you not understand the scale of the war?
There was a battle where there were over 1.5 million soldiers involved. This is one battle over a realtively short period.

Now you are going to tell me that after that, having hundreds of thousands of troops at several loactions and drafting millions of citizens into the military that we didn't have that many soldiers?

You are out of your mind.


1.5 million on both sides fighting. Not killed.


Rotaretilbo:
And, Zaki, I don't know how many times I'll have to say this, but JAPAN HAD AIRPLANES! A BLOCKADE WOULD NOT MAGIC AWAY ALL OF THEIR AIRPLANES! DURING a BLOCKADE, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AIRPLANES WITH WHICH TO THROW AT US! This is the last time I will say this.

I understand what you mean. They would have planes. Slowly, the oil would decrease. Gasoline is needed for electricity,heating, and transportation.

What's are plane without oil?

I just did the math. The Allied troops had 47,284,675 living non-wounded soldiers at the end of World War 2. The Allied troops had 56,851,700 soldiers serving.

The Japaneese at the end of World War 2 had only 4,774,000 living soldiers at the end of World War 2. Japan had 6,300,000 soldiers serving.

Zaki90
Minion

Male Number of posts : 764
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-02-09

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Felix on Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:04 pm

Zaki90 wrote:

Kasrkin Seath:
You are kidding right?
Do you not understand the scale of the war?
There was a battle where there were over 1.5 million soldiers involved. This is one battle over a realtively short period.

Now you are going to tell me that after that, having hundreds of thousands of troops at several loactions and drafting millions of citizens into the military that we didn't have that many soldiers?

You are out of your mind.


1.5 million on both sides fighting. Not killed.

I think you're thinking of WW1...
Felix
Felix
Banana

Male Number of posts : 2083
Age : 27
Location : Unlocking Alchemy
Registration date : 2009-02-08

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by CivBase on Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:08 pm

Zaki90 wrote:I just did the math. The Allied troops had 47,284,675 living non-wounded soldiers at the end of World War 2. The Allied troops had 56,851,700 soldiers serving.

The Japaneese at the end of World War 2 had only 4,774,000 living soldiers at the end of World War 2. Japan had 6,300,000 soldiers serving.
You only need that many people to run a ship, but the US was also fighting Germany and Italy in Europe.

_________________
[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Bzsigy2
CivBase
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by kslidz on Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:09 pm

zaki you, no offense, have no idea what you are talking about but just have wishful thinking and have been told all your life that america is the source of all the worlds problems, america did what i had to do to SAVE lives, yes mainly American lives but if the war had gone on the Japanese death tally would most likely have gone up to near how many people died during the two nukes, the japanese, you seem to have forgotten, had suicide bombers, if you dont think that there were more than the ones at pearl harbor you are stupid and if you dont think the extra ones wouldnt have easily taken out several Americans with each explosion you are stupid and if you think the Japanese that would go on a suicide run would surrender you are stupid.

as time goes on hope grows
no matter the situation
hope to honorably die for your country by killing yourself is all the Japanese needed

You might not know but in Japan Honor was above life in all regards


so the Japanese would no problem throw themselves at the enemy with no regard for themselves
but if they fear they cannot kill an enemy in their death (like with nukes) they would rather surrender

so in the minds of the Japanese


Life<Honor=killing enemy>surrender>dyeing with no death tally= nukes<fighting the enemy>life

so by that mathematical equation the only thing to make japan surrender was to kill them with no repercussions=nukes or any other bombing but
2 nukes/2 cities is similar to several firebombing


look we knew and know we had to bomb them but with what was the question

kslidz
Minion

Male Number of posts : 753
Age : 28
Location : your pants
Registration date : 2009-02-13

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by kslidz on Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:12 pm

Zaki90 wrote:

I understand what you mean. They would have planes. Slowly, the oil would decrease. Gasoline is needed for electricity,heating, and transportation.

What's are plane without oil?


as you said SLOWLy
which means many many lives

kslidz
Minion

Male Number of posts : 753
Age : 28
Location : your pants
Registration date : 2009-02-13

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Zaki90 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:00 pm

kslidz wrote:zaki you, no offense, have no idea what you are talking about but just have wishful thinking and have been told all your life that america is the source of all the worlds problems, america did what i had to do to SAVE lives, yes mainly American lives but if the war had gone on the Japanese death tally would most likely have gone up to near how many people died during the two nukes, the japanese, you seem to have forgotten, had suicide bombers, if you dont think that there were more than the ones at pearl harbor you are stupid and if you dont think the extra ones wouldnt have easily taken out several Americans with each explosion you are stupid and if you think the Japanese that would go on a suicide run would surrender you are stupid.

as time goes on hope grows
no matter the situation
hope to honorably die for your country by killing yourself is all the Japanese needed

You might not know but in Japan Honor was above life in all regards


so the Japanese would no problem throw themselves at the enemy with no regard for themselves
but if they fear they cannot kill an enemy in their death (like with nukes) they would rather surrender

so in the minds of the Japanese


Life<Honor=killing enemy>surrender>dyeing with no death tally= nukes<fighting the enemy>life

so by that mathematical equation the only thing to make japan surrender was to kill them with no repercussions=nukes or any other bombing but
2 nukes/2 cities is similar to several firebombing


look we knew and know we had to bomb them but with what was the question

All I think is that the nuke should not have been used.

OMG!!!

That huge wall of text is annoying!

Actually, being born in America, I don't think America is the source of all problems. It's that America tend to break many morals.

America save LIVES?!?!?!?!?!

ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED!

I believe America NUKED and KILLED over 210,000 people. Innocent or not!!!!!!

And don't act like it was only America in the war. Russia and Britain were in this too!

I would have gone an a massive embargo.

Are you sure?

A blockade and an embargo vs. 2 nukes? What would cause more deaths?

Zaki90
Minion

Male Number of posts : 764
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-02-09

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by CivBase on Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:13 pm

So, back to Bush, he rocks.

America does save lives, though, zaki. Guess who is responsible for saving the lives of the most Africans in history? George W. Bush.

_________________
[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Bzsigy2
CivBase
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by KrAzY on Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:45 pm

210,000 deaths versus a continued state of total war for several years in an embargo....



you act like the japanese empire was soley based on japan... the japanese still owned hundreds of island bases and shipyards all around the pacific... they still had a huge airforce and still had a huge navy....


millions more people would have died in any attempt to "embargo" japan... the estimated death toll for an invasion would be in the several millions...



zaki... you do not understand how fanatical the japanese people were... when facing an occupying force of US soldiers on islands that we captured entire settlements of civilians would take grenades... and run at US marines.... or they would line up on cliffs and preform mass suicide.


attacks from japanese civilians on some islands lasted for as long as 15 years after the war ended
KrAzY
KrAzY
Painter of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 3965
Age : 30
Registration date : 2008-06-29

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Rotaretilbo on Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:42 pm

To answer your question simply, Zaki, the embargo you suggest would have easily cost ten times the number killed by the nukes.

In order to even begin to possibly block Japan from building weapons, we'd have to cut off the mainland from China. That is to say, we'd have to park our Navy in the Sea of Japan, the East China Sea, and the Pacific Ocean. So, first problem? We didn't have enough ships to completely surround Japanese mainland. But, to further complicate your plan, Japan already has weapons. Lots of weapons. Second problem? A blockade would not get rid of existing weapons. It would take years for Japan to expend its entire military arsenal, and each expended item would be an American life and likely a Japanese life. But that's not all. Japan had control of practically all of Malaysia and Indonesia, almost all of the Oceanic islands, Korea, China, and quite a bit of southeast Asia. So, third problem? Blockading mainland Japan would prevent mainland Japan from building new weapons, but the rest of the Japanese empire, which was far larger than mainland Japan, would not share this problem, and would still be able to produce weapons. That is to say, on top of the hundreds of thousands of Americans killed and the hundreds of thousands of Japanese killed just by the existing military on mainland Japan, we'd also have a much larger force coming from China that wasn't under any sort of siege. With these three problems, it is already extremely evident that we've gone over the two hundred thousand mark. But let's continue, for the sake of arguing. Well, the next problem we run into is nationalism. Japan wasn't about to surrender. The emperor was god incarnate, and what he said was pretty final. The civilians didn't care about money. They cared about honor. The Japanese entirely took to the mantra that a hero dies but once, but a coward dies a thousand deaths. Problem number four? No length of time blockading Japan (assuming that we could somehow manage to magic enough ships into existence to actually surround Japan) would cause a surrender. When ships ran out, they'd rely on submarines. When submarines ran out, they'd stick to planes. When planes ran out, they'd line their artillery pieces and tanks on the coast, arm the populous with rifles, and wait. Japan could produce their own food, so it wasn't like they were going to starve out.

So, in conclusion, we're looking at a rough estimate of maybe four or five million deaths, total, and no end of the war in sight.

_________________
[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Rot_cube_Signature-1
Rotaretilbo
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 29
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Rasq'uire'laskar on Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:50 pm

Zaki90 wrote:

Actually, because of WW2. The economy in the US rose. Finding enough Uranium 235 for 2 nuclear bombs is expensive. America had money.
Yeah, sure, there were more people buying and selling. But the US Government was DARN NEAR BROKE!
15 Billion dollars in debt, and that's a lot of money back then. And those filthy oil sheiks refused to trade in anything but solid gold bullion.

Zaki90 wrote:
And don't forget the Commonwealth and Russia!
The Commonwealth was busy repairing herself. Remember the Blitz on Berlin?
And had the Soviets invaded, a lot more than 500,000 people would have died. There was a lot of bad blood between Japan and Russia.

Zaki90 wrote:How can they fly without an airplane?
This is how. No gas required.

Zaki90 wrote:but I wouldn't. Also, an economic blockade. Making it treason to give Japan resources.
Yeah, that worked really well with Japan the first time around, and it's worked really well with Iran.

Zaki90 wrote:

All I think is that the nuke should not have been used.

OMG!!!
So you'd prefer millions of soldiers nad innocent people to die over 210,000?

Zaki90 wrote: Actually, being born in America, I don't think America is the source of all problems. It's that America tend to break many morals.
You mean like Japan and Pearl Harbor? Japan and the raping and pillaging of Manchuria? Japan and the biological warfare campaign? Japan and the subjugation and brutal repression of Korea? Like the Taliban and their sex slave camps? Or the Palistinians and the 1972 Olympics?

Zaki90 wrote:America save LIVES?!?!?!?!?!

ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED!

I believe America NUKED and KILLED over 210,000 people. Innocent or not!!!!!!
I do believe that Japan killed more than that number with germ weapons.

Zaki90 wrote:And don't act like it was only America in the war. Russia and Britain were in this too!
I would have gone an a massive embargo.
A blockade and an embargo vs. 2 nukes? What would cause more deaths?
If you'd listen to what we've been telling you, you'd know that it would be the embargo.

And if you doubt they'd fight, consider the fact that the Japanese in the Philippines and Manchuria kept fighting... in one case, for TWENTY NINE YEARS! And he (Hiroo Onoda) only stopped when they found his commanding officer and had the guy order Onoda to surrender.
Rasq'uire'laskar
Rasq'uire'laskar
Crimson Scribe

Male Number of posts : 2927
Age : 29
Location : Follow the cold shivers running down your spine.
Registration date : 2008-06-29

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Zaki90 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:33 pm

My personal opinion was an embargo. I would rather have soldiers fight than innocents die.

But I really don't care. What happened happened... But lets hope to God it never happens again.

Back to George Bush PLZ?!?!?!

Zaki90
Minion

Male Number of posts : 764
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-02-09

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Rotaretilbo on Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:46 pm

You haven't addressed our points, Zaki. You would rather millions of American soldiers, Japanese soldiers, and Japanese civilians die and there be no surrender, than two hundred thousand Japanese civilians die and they surrender?

_________________
[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Rot_cube_Signature-1
Rotaretilbo
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 29
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Zaki90 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:05 pm

Rotaretilbo wrote:You haven't addressed our points, Zaki. You would rather millions of American soldiers, Japanese soldiers, and Japanese civilians die and there be no surrender, than two hundred thousand Japanese civilians die and they surrender?

Oh ya srry,

after this can we return back to G.W.B. ?

1. I would rather have soldiers die than innocence die. No matter how hard it would take.

2. So... if I were to tell you that Russians were as fanatical as the Japs back then. Would you nuke them?

3. 210,000 people don't die when you are defending. And by the way. There were a lot of troops.

4. Trust me, if I were to put an embargo on China? What would happen to there economy? The people treat the emperor (king,whatever) like god. I'm sure the people would become angry.There jobs would be lost. And they can blame it on the government for unwilling to surrender and restore the economy to its previous state.

Zaki90
Minion

Male Number of posts : 764
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-02-09

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Rotaretilbo on Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:22 pm

Zaki90 wrote:1. I would rather have soldiers die than innocence die. No matter how hard it would take.

This is hardly a response to problem one. So, let me repeat. We did not have enough ships to surround Japan. We could not surround Japan. And if we couldn't surround Japan, we couldn't blockade them from resources.

Oh, and to your point. Well, you seem to forget that during times of peace, soldiers are civilians too. However, the problem with this argument is that, of the four or five million projected deaths in your plan, which doesn't end the war, at least a million are Japanese civilians. So, civilian casualties alone quintuple with your plan.

Zaki90 wrote:2. So... if I were to tell you that Russians were as fanatical as the Japs back then. Would you nuke them?

Again, this is in no way a response to problem two. So, again, I will repeat. Assuming we could somehow blockade Japan, that would not get rid of their existing military supplies. It would take years for a blockade to exhaust Japanese supplies.

And, to respond to your question, if Russia was about to invade Europe, potentially resulting in hundreds of millions of deaths and Russia had no nukes of their own, if we could nuke Moscow and Russia wouldn't attack, then yes, I'd exchange fifteen million lives for five hundred million lives. The reason we didn't nuke Russia during the Cold War was because they would nuke us back. Mutually assured destruction is not optimal, even over heavy casualties in a conventional war.

Zaki90 wrote:3. 210,000 people don't die when you are defending. And by the way. There were a lot of troops.

Again, you missed the point. Problem three was that the main force of Japanese troops were not on mainland Japan, and those Japanese troops would be completely unaffected by the blockade.

And, as for your point. The Battle of Somme was one of the bloodier battles of World War I. As you know, the British charged German machine guns. The British lost 620000 people. The Germans, who were defending, lost 450000 people from the safety of their machine gun bunkers and trenches. And that was over the course of only a few months. While this wouldn't be as direct a confrontation, it would last years, and our ships would be under constant attack from Japanese forces from both mainland Japan and China.

Zaki90 wrote:4. Trust me, if I were to put an embargo on China? What would happen to there economy? The people treat the emperor (king,whatever) like god. I'm sure the people would become angry.There jobs would be lost. And they can blame it on the government for unwilling to surrender and restore the economy to its previous state.

Communist China is hardly the same as Imperial Japan. The average Chinese guy doesn't look up to his dictator as being god incarnate. He might think he's a cool guy, but he doesn't worship him fanatically. The average Chinese guy wouldn't prefer the most painful death conceivable to protect his god emperor than to live and rebel against the emperor. Furthermore, Communist China depends on us for a market. Imperial Japan didn't. They took over China and southeast Asia for that.

_________________
[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Rot_cube_Signature-1
Rotaretilbo
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 29
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by kslidz on Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:02 pm

and i just want to add
if you reply again respond to the points dont just state some misinformed idea that you believe is fact
(the idea that a long war wouldnt kill civilians)

kslidz
Minion

Male Number of posts : 753
Age : 28
Location : your pants
Registration date : 2009-02-13

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Zaki90 on Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:21 pm

Rotaretilbo wrote:
Zaki90 wrote:1. I would rather have soldiers die than innocence die. No matter how hard it would take.

This is hardly a response to problem one. So, let me repeat. We did not have enough ships to surround Japan. We could not surround Japan. And if we couldn't surround Japan, we couldn't blockade them from resources.

Oh, and to your point. Well, you seem to forget that during times of peace, soldiers are civilians too. However, the problem with this argument is that, of the four or five million projected deaths in your plan, which doesn't end the war, at least a million are Japanese civilians. So, civilian casualties alone quintuple with your plan.
I said innocent. Some civilians are innocent, some are not. I never said surround Japan. I said an embargo. Japan, back then, much like today, had a dependence on taking in raw materials and exporting manufactured goods. So almost every country in the world agreed. Japan would be left with many many manufacturing jobs cut. The civilians would be angry. And who are they going to look at and blame for this....

The government for not accepting the surrender. Yes... I know that Japan still had equipment, but what are they going to do.

Basically,
my idea would have been a massive stand and embargo against Japan. It would take lives, but at least not innocent civilians ones.
Rotaretilbo wrote:
Zaki90 wrote:2. So... if I were to tell you that Russians were as fanatical as the Japs back then. Would you nuke them?

Again, this is in no way a response to problem two. So, again, I will repeat. Assuming we could somehow blockade Japan, that would not get rid of their existing military supplies. It would take years for a blockade to exhaust Japanese supplies.

And, to respond to your question, if Russia was about to invade Europe, potentially resulting in hundreds of millions of deaths and Russia had no nukes of their own, if we could nuke Moscow and Russia wouldn't attack, then yes, I'd exchange fifteen million lives for five hundred million lives. The reason we didn't nuke Russia during the Cold War was because they would nuke us back. Mutually assured destruction is not optimal, even over heavy casualties in a conventional war.
I would never do that. Especially Russia, yah they don't have nukes. But when you nuke a major city, and many many people die, hatred explodes. And before you know it you have a country pissed off for eternity at the recklessness of America. I'm sure people are still pissed at what happened at the end of WW2.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
Zaki90 wrote:3. 210,000 people don't die when you are defending. And by the way. There were a lot of troops.

Again, you missed the point. Problem three was that the main force of Japanese troops were not on mainland Japan, and those Japanese troops would be completely unaffected by the blockade.

And, as for your point. The Battle of Somme was one of the bloodier battles of World War I. As you know, the British charged German machine guns. The British lost 620000 people. The Germans, who were defending, lost 450000 people from the safety of their machine gun bunkers and trenches. And that was over the course of only a few months. While this wouldn't be as direct a confrontation, it would last years, and our ships would be under constant attack from Japanese forces from both mainland Japan and China.

Actually, they would be affected. It cuts off supplies.
Also... I was talking about 4 months of defending. I was talking about a regular battle. So basically a day or 2. Not 90 days. And sending out 620,000 people against German MG emplacements. It was like Normady.

Only one thing, the people in this battle were very different. They were not cut from supplies. America and Japan would be more like Jason and a bunch of campers lost on Crystal Lake.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
Zaki90 wrote:4. Trust me, if I were to put an embargo on China? What would happen to there economy? The people treat the emperor (king,whatever) like god. I'm sure the people would become angry.There jobs would be lost. And they can blame it on the government for unwilling to surrender and restore the economy to its previous state.

Communist China is hardly the same as Imperial Japan. The average Chinese guy doesn't look up to his dictator as being god incarnate. He might think he's a cool guy, but he doesn't worship him fanatically. The average Chinese guy wouldn't prefer the most painful death conceivable to protect his god emperor than to live and rebel against the emperor. Furthermore, Communist China depends on us for a market. Imperial Japan didn't. They took over China and southeast Asia for that.
[quote]
Communist China is a bad example. Sorry.


Maybe more like the Slaves in 1800 America.The Black people were forced to treat the Whites like gods. Eventually, they saw them as bad people. And poof! We got are ourselves a rebellion.

Its like this.

I got you a job as a butler in my mansion. I started paying you and giving you food and shelter. Soon you imagine me a god. Then one day, I take away your money,food, and make you live outside.

You start to think. Why would such a good and amazing god make force me to work when I get nothing in exchange. He is rich and powerful right. Well then, if he has so much why must he take away what I have. It must mean he needs something. But being as great as he is, why would he need something. That would make him not as powerful as I thought. He must be like me. If he is like me, I demand equal rights.

And it goes from there.

And I asked that we return back to the original topic or we might as well make another thread.

Zaki90
Minion

Male Number of posts : 764
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-02-09

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Felix on Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:49 pm

Zaki, I personally don't agree with anything you say...

but, I will only adress one point, as it urks me the most.

you say, "So long as inocents live, soldiers can die". I hate people like this. What is the difference between and inocent civilian and a soldier? Both are human beings, and both shouldn't be killed either way. A life is a life, and a death is a death, no matter who they are, or what they do.

So, saying a soldier should die instead of a civilian is a bullshit arguement.

Is it wrong to kill someone who did nothing wrong? yes

Is it wrong to kill someone for doing their job? yes

that's my two cents on it anyway
Felix
Felix
Banana

Male Number of posts : 2083
Age : 27
Location : Unlocking Alchemy
Registration date : 2009-02-08

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Rotaretilbo on Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:57 pm

Zaki90 wrote:I said innocent. Some civilians are innocent, some are not. I never said surround Japan. I said an embargo. Japan, back then, much like today, had a dependence on taking in raw materials and exporting manufactured goods. So almost every country in the world agreed. Japan would be left with many many manufacturing jobs cut. The civilians would be angry.

Except that, in order to prevent Japan from getting raw materials, we would have to surround them. They invaded Japan so that they could be self sufficient. We'd have to prevent Japanese ships from their bases in Korea, Manchuria, China, the Philippines, and practically everywhere else in the south Pacific from providing supplies. To do this, we would have to cut off all routes into Japan. All routes indicates surrounding.

Zaki90 wrote:And who are they going to look at and blame for this....

The government for not accepting the surrender.

Wrong. Japanese fanatically followed the government. Who would they blame for an embargo? Us. We were the ones blocking their resources, and so an embargo would only breed resentment. And you forget that, while an embargo, assuming we could apply one, would cause industrial jobs to be cut, there would be another job open to all civilians: the military. Between the growing resentment and giving many civilians no other choice, Japan's army would swell because of an embargo.

Zaki90 wrote:Yes... I know that Japan still had equipment, but what are they going to do.

Erm...I don't know...attack us with it? That's kind of what you do with military equipment. You didn't expect us to blockade mainland Japan and for them to just sit on their hands and do nothing, did you?

Zaki90 wrote:Basically,
my idea would have been a massive stand and embargo against Japan. It would take lives, but at least not innocent civilians ones.

In order to get our ships close enough to Japan to blockade their resources, we'd have to shell the beaches like mad to clear it of artillery emplacements. Plenty of civilians would be killed. And plenty more would join the army and be killed anyway. Your plan results in millions of civilian deaths and millions more for both sides' armies. And your plan doesn't even end the war. There is no benefit to your plan, at all.

Zaki90 wrote:I would never do that. Especially Russia, yah they don't have nukes. But when you nuke a major city, and many many people die, hatred explodes. And before you know it you have a country pissed off for eternity at the recklessness of America. I'm sure people are still pissed at what happened at the end of WW2.

What, and when we fight a war and hundreds of millions die, people are like, "oh, whatever"? If we had blockaded Japan and then invaded (because, as I've already clearly explained, a blockade would not end the war), millions would have died. Do you think Japan would care more that two hundred thousand died to end the war than millions?

Zaki90 wrote:Actually, they would be affected. It cuts off supplies.

No...it doesn't. Not unless we can surround the entirety of Japan, and even then, China has plenty of supplies and, oh, that's right, was just one giant Japanese base throughout the war. The reason Japan invaded China was for supplies. So no, a blockade would have no affect on Japanese bases not on mainland Japan. And it wouldn't even affect mainland Japan unless we could somehow surround the island.

Zaki90 wrote:Also... I was talking about 4 months of defending. I was talking about a regular battle. So basically a day or 2. Not 90 days. And sending out 620,000 people against German MG emplacements. It was like Normady.

You think that a blockade would cause Japan to surrender in a few days? In reality, a blockade would last as long as it took us to invade, because a blockade wouldn't cause Japan to surrender.

Zaki90 wrote:Only one thing, the people in this battle were very different. They were not cut from supplies. America and Japan would be more like Jason and a bunch of campers lost on Crystal Lake.

Except, as I've already outlined, Japan wouldn't be magically cut from all supplies. It would be like Jason against a group of redneck hunters on Crystal Lake who have invited every redneck within fifty miles of the lake to come kill Jason. Eventually, the rednecks would run out of ammo, if Jason could somehow keep them from leaving Crystal Lake, but the other rednecks coming from everywhere else would have no limitations on ammo. Jason would be SOL.

Zaki90 wrote:Communist China is a bad example. Sorry.


Maybe more like the Slaves in 1800 America.The Black people were forced to treat the Whites like gods. Eventually, they saw them as bad people. And poof! We got are ourselves a rebellion.

Um...no...the blacks weren't forced to treat us like gods, just as superior. And the Japanese people weren't forced to treat the emperor as a god, they honestly and truly believed he was.

Zaki90 wrote:Its like this.

I got you a job as a butler in my mansion. I started paying you and giving you food and shelter. Soon you imagine me a god. Then one day, I take away your money,food, and make you live outside.

You start to think. Why would such a good and amazing god make force me to work when I get nothing in exchange. He is rich and powerful right. Well then, if he has so much why must he take away what I have. It must mean he needs something. But being as great as he is, why would he need something. That would make him not as powerful as I thought. He must be like me. If he is like me, I demand equal rights.

And it goes from there.

Except that Japanese civilians wouldn't see it like that, because you left out an important part of the analogy. The master doesn't take away the butlers food and clothes for no reason. He doesn't even do it willingly. Rather, enemies of the master surround the house, and the master can no longer provide food or clothes. However, he has a new option for you. If you go out with the other servants and destroy his enemies, everything will return to normal. The master didn't take away the food, the enemies did. You act like the Japanese are as ignorant and quick to turn on each other as we Americans are. The Japanese were fanatical. Imagine, for a moment, if you walked into a church, doesn't matter the religion, and told them that life sucks and thus their god is wrong. Do you honestly think that any of them would just believe you and leave the religion? No, most would become angry with you. See how this works? By blockading Japan, we breed resentment, not for the emperor, but for us. And with loss of jobs, the civilians turn to the one occupation that is never lacking in employment: the army. The blockade doesn't just bolster Japan's determination, but bolsters its army as well.

_________________
[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Rot_cube_Signature-1
Rotaretilbo
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 29
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by KrAzY on Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:11 pm

also... japan was a self sufficient nation at the time... they did not import many raw materials, they grew their own food, fished, farmed


any materials being imported were ones being used for military supplies, like aluminum and stuff... but then again 70% of japanese military weaponry was not made in mainland japan...




the only reason that the nukes caused them to surrender was that we bluffed and told them that we had enough to drop one on every city in their nation.... they would have kept fighting if they had known that we only owned 3 nukes at that time.
KrAzY
KrAzY
Painter of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 3965
Age : 30
Registration date : 2008-06-29

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Rasq'uire'laskar on Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:14 pm

I heard about the third one... Whatever happened to it?
Rasq'uire'laskar
Rasq'uire'laskar
Crimson Scribe

Male Number of posts : 2927
Age : 29
Location : Follow the cold shivers running down your spine.
Registration date : 2008-06-29

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Toaster on Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:23 am

Does anybody else wish their head would just explode already when they see this thread still lingering at the top of the list every day?
Toaster
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 26
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Ascendant Justice on Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:26 am

ReconToaster wrote:Does anybody else wish their head would just explode already when they see this thread still lingering at the top of the list every day?

lol I clicked on this thread expecting to see a bunch of hate for GW Bush but instead I find myself reading about Japan.
Ascendant Justice
Ascendant Justice
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2136
Age : 26
Registration date : 2008-09-13

Back to top Go down

[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President? - Page 8 Empty Re: [poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 8 of 10 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum