The Gravest Threat to World Peace

[georgephillip]

What was the clinical term for PTSD in 1965, Hossie?
Whatever it was, you got off easy considering the misery you helped inflict upon millions of Asians.
BTW, just because you never personally witnessed any Americans taking a civilian's life, doesn't mean that millions of Americans haven't done exactly that. Oh yeah, what's that "combat" vet going to do to me for exercising my First Amendment rights, shoot my dog or rape my mother?

 

[Hossfly]

What was the clinical term for PTSD in 1965, Hossie?
Whatever it was, you got off easy considering the misery you helped inflict upon millions of Asians.
BTW, just because you never personally witnessed any Americans taking a civilian's life, doesn't mean that millions of Americans haven't done exactly that. Oh yeah, what's that "combat" vet going to do to me for exercising my First Amendment rights, shoot my dog or rape my mother?

The combat vet will shake your hand and give you a big kiss.

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip; et al,

I think you tend to over exaggerate.

What was the clinical term for PTSD in 1965, Hossie?
Whatever it was, you got off easy considering the misery you helped inflict upon millions of Asians.
BTW, just because you never personally witnessed any Americans taking a civilian's life, doesn't mean that millions of Americans haven't done exactly that. Oh yeah, what's that "combat" vet going to do to me for exercising my First Amendment rights, shoot my dog or rape my mother?

(COMMENT)

Whatever your opinion is, as to what the US did in Asia (all interventions) it is but a drop in the bucket compared to what they did to themselves in just the 20th Century. The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia was responsible for millions of deaths all by itself. The First Chinese Civil War took 5 million and the Second Chinese Civil War took another 2.5 million. The Korean War took another 3 million between the two Koreas and Chinese. The numbers are so big for the Japanese invasion of China, no one really knows; but, over 142,000 deaths were recorded in the occupation of Nanking alone.

Everyone wants a perfect world. Well, it won't come in our life time. Wars are terrible things. But it will be a terrible thing that will always be with us. In all recorded human history, historians estimate that about 5% was without war. In US history, we've only had 29 years without war.

That is the historical nature of humanity. We all may recognize how utterly unproductive that is, but in the end, wars will erupt. And it is unreasonable to assume otherwise. And with those wars, there will always be those unpleasant events that disturb people.

While there is nothing wrong with wanting peace, it is almost impossible to have a civilized war.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip; et al,

I think you tend to over exaggerate.

What was the clinical term for PTSD in 1965, Hossie?
Whatever it was, you got off easy considering the misery you helped inflict upon millions of Asians.
BTW, just because you never personally witnessed any Americans taking a civilian's life, doesn't mean that millions of Americans haven't done exactly that. Oh yeah, what's that "combat" vet going to do to me for exercising my First Amendment rights, shoot my dog or rape my mother?

(COMMENT)

Whatever your opinion is, as to what the US did in Asia (all interventions) it is but a drop in the bucket compared to what they did to themselves in just the 20th Century. The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia was responsible for millions of deaths all by itself. The First Chinese Civil War took 5 million and the Second Chinese Civil War took another 2.5 million. The Korean War took another 3 million between the two Koreas and Chinese. The numbers are so big for the Japanese invasion of China, no one really knows; but, over 142,000 deaths were recorded in the occupation of Nanking alone.

Everyone wants a perfect world. Well, it won't come in our life time. Wars are terrible things. But it will be a terrible thing that will always be with us. In all recorded human history, historians estimate that about 5% was without war. In US history, we've only had 29 years without war.

That is the historical nature of humanity. We all may recognize how utterly unproductive that is, but in the end, wars will erupt. And it is unreasonable to assume otherwise. And with those wars, there will always be those unpleasant events that disturb people.

While there is nothing wrong with wanting peace, it is almost impossible to have a civilized war.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...why not start with taxing war into extinction?
How about a 100% tax on all war-related profits after the first innocent civilian dies in any war.
(We could also draft the richest 1% and send them into harm's way first)

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip; et al,

Unacceptable risk.

Rocco...why not start with taxing war into extinction?
How about a 100% tax on all war-related profits after the first innocent civilian dies in any war.
(We could also draft the richest 1% and send them into harm's way first)

(COMMENT)

All you do in this case is make it impractical and unaffordable to maintain a defense program. And while that might suit your agenda for the US, it would merely transfer the industry off-shore, prevent the US from maintaining a standing force, and raise its vulnerability and susceptibility to external aggression, coercion and political intimidation.

In effect such a policy would make it impractical "provide for the common defence" under The Constitution.

No other nation in the world is going to unilaterally disarm.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ima]

georgephillip; et al,

Unacceptable risk.

Rocco...why not start with taxing war into extinction?
How about a 100% tax on all war-related profits after the first innocent civilian dies in any war.
(We could also draft the richest 1% and send them into harm's way first)

(COMMENT)

All you do in this case is make it impractical and unaffordable to maintain a defense program. And while that might suit your agenda for the US, it would merely transfer the industry off-shore, prevent the US from maintaining a standing force, and raise its vulnerability and susceptibility to external aggression, coercion and political intimidation.

In effect such a policy would make it impractical "provide for the common defence" under The Constitution.

No other nation in the world is going to unilaterally disarm.

Most Respectfully,
R

We need such a big army because... um... let me see... um... because of all the countries that are attacking us?

At last count, there were.. um... um... none?

 

[irosie91]

******************** ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ **********************
**************
*****
******
******
!
!
!
&###
######
meteorites threaten
world peace ---as represented by that black rock--
over-------well.........you know where

 

[RoccoR]

ima, et al,

You have it exactly backwards!

georgephillip; et al,

Unacceptable risk.

Rocco...why not start with taxing war into extinction?
How about a 100% tax on all war-related profits after the first innocent civilian dies in any war.
(We could also draft the richest 1% and send them into harm's way first)

(COMMENT)

All you do in this case is make it impractical and unaffordable to maintain a defense program. And while that might suit your agenda for the US, it would merely transfer the industry off-shore, prevent the US from maintaining a standing force, and raise its vulnerability and susceptibility to external aggression, coercion and political intimidation.

In effect such a policy would make it impractical "provide for the common defence" under The Constitution.

No other nation in the world is going to unilaterally disarm.

Most Respectfully,
R

We need such a big army because... um... let me see... um... because of all the countries that are attacking us?

At last count, there were.. um... um... none?

(COMMENT)

No one attacks us because ... we have such a lethal armed force.

Persuasive in Peace --- Invincible in War​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

ima, et al,

You have it exactly backwards!

georgephillip; et al,

Unacceptable risk.


(COMMENT)

All you do in this case is make it impractical and unaffordable to maintain a defense program. And while that might suit your agenda for the US, it would merely transfer the industry off-shore, prevent the US from maintaining a standing force, and raise its vulnerability and susceptibility to external aggression, coercion and political intimidation.

In effect such a policy would make it impractical "provide for the common defence" under The Constitution.

No other nation in the world is going to unilaterally disarm.

Most Respectfully,
R

We need such a big army because... um... let me see... um... because of all the countries that are attacking us?

At last count, there were.. um... um... none?

(COMMENT)

No one attacks us because ... we have such a lethal armed force.

Persuasive in Peace --- Invincible in War​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, ima is a young idiot who is constantly calling for Israel to be nuked. You can't reason with him, best to ignore him.

 

[sealadaigh]

georgephillip, et al,

These are all good questions. But it has nothing to do with terrorism.

georgephillip, et al,

A little off-topic, but ---> I'll answer.


(COMMENT)

The US entering Vietnam was not an "Invasion" or "Occupation." US involvement came after the 1954 Geneva Accords which divided Indochina and became Vietnam under President Diem. While my father was there in earlier times, during WWII, helping support Ho Chi Minh against the Japanese Occupation, the post - Gulf of Tonkin operation was at the request of the RVN Government.

US Forces in Vietnam was not a case of the US attempting to transcend national boundaries to intimidate or coerce, a people or a nation. It was the case of a Cold War confrontation between Communism and Democracy.


(COMMENT)

In any extended environment (years) where combat is a daily occurrence, there are bound to be incidence of a heinous and very tragic nature (malum per se). These are not examples of a state intended to coerce or to the local population in the pursuit of political, religious, or ideological goals. This is a case of a large scale criminal action where the command lost control of the good order and discipline of the unit; and not the purpose of the major commander's campaign intent.

For terrorism to work, someone has to be left alive to be coerced and do the bidding of the terrorist; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. The event of My Lai, if anything, made the US Military closely examine the command and control of its forces.

The intent of the military operation in question was seek-out and engage enemy forces. It was not a campaign to use force and violence against the indigenous population in order to attain political goals, religious conversion, or a change in the ideological in nature of the hamlet through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear.


(COMMENT)

Probably not. The Vietnamese people saw much worse over a much longer period of time, committed by multiple forces. My Lai was a much bigger event for America than it was for the Vietnamese. It showed that America is not always the good guys.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...

"The Geneva Conference (April 26 – July 20, 1954[1]) was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina.The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference..."

What moral authority did the Soviet Union, US, France, and the UK have to authorize a government in Vietnam, particularly one presided over by a corrupt puppet like Ngo Dinh Diem?

Depending upon how you define "invasion" (A military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government.) it seems pretty clear half-a-million Americans didn't suddenly decide to vacation in Vietnam.

It seems equally clear they were there to alter the government preferred by the vast majority of Vietnamese unless you think Diem would have defeated Ho in a free election?(which Diem refused to participate in, as I recall).

Geneva Conference (1954) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

You are trying to apply little definitions to a set of political issue that just happen to focus on Vietnam.

This was a much bigger set of power plays between the various global powers. Interventionism was the order of the day. In the US, the "Whiz Kids" wisdom had the influence. And their legacy lives on even today.

Indochina was a French Colony, the US was the Principle Allied Power that liberated Indochina from the Japanese, --- hell - my Dad and I use to laugh at the fact that his unit dropped supplies in and a doctor for Ho Chi Minh, a US ally during WWII, and 2 decades later I go to help fight his forces). The Soviets and the UK were the other two Principle Allied Powers. Who were they and why were they there deciding the fate of Indochina --- well they ruled the day. And each was vying for influence and power.

Was it right? Well I don't know. What I came to learn was that Vietnam was going to turn Communist no matter what we did. The "Cold War" was what it was.

Remember, the US has an interventionist backbone to its foreign policy.

Persuasive in Peace --- Invincible in War

Most Respectfully,
R

i think i got you there. i am growing up in poitiers in '54 and about six y.o.asking my dad why my best french friend is crying and then, about fouteen years later, i am out in the middle of some jungle eatin' canned pears and watching illum, and finally understanding his answer.

the pears were delicious and the night was pretty.

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip; et al,

I think you tend to over exaggerate.

What was the clinical term for PTSD in 1965, Hossie?
Whatever it was, you got off easy considering the misery you helped inflict upon millions of Asians.
BTW, just because you never personally witnessed any Americans taking a civilian's life, doesn't mean that millions of Americans haven't done exactly that. Oh yeah, what's that "combat" vet going to do to me for exercising my First Amendment rights, shoot my dog or rape my mother?

(COMMENT)

Whatever your opinion is, as to what the US did in Asia (all interventions) it is but a drop in the bucket compared to what they did to themselves in just the 20th Century. The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia was responsible for millions of deaths all by itself. The First Chinese Civil War took 5 million and the Second Chinese Civil War took another 2.5 million. The Korean War took another 3 million between the two Koreas and Chinese. The numbers are so big for the Japanese invasion of China, no one really knows; but, over 142,000 deaths were recorded in the occupation of Nanking alone.

Everyone wants a perfect world. Well, it won't come in our life time. Wars are terrible things. But it will be a terrible thing that will always be with us. In all recorded human history, historians estimate that about 5% was without war. In US history, we've only had 29 years without war.

That is the historical nature of humanity. We all may recognize how utterly unproductive that is, but in the end, wars will erupt. And it is unreasonable to assume otherwise. And with those wars, there will always be those unpleasant events that disturb people.

While there is nothing wrong with wanting peace, it is almost impossible to have a civilized war.

Most Respectfully,
R

What level of civilization do you expect from the greatest purveyor of violence on this planet? The same level Curtis LeMay rained on Japan during WWII?

"The first pathfinder airplanes arrived over Tokyo just after midnight on March 10. Following British bombing practice, they marked the target area with a flaming 'X.' In a three-hour period, the main bombing force dropped 1,665 tons of incendiary bombs, killing 100,000 civilians, destroying 250,000 buildings, and incinerating 16 square miles (41 km2) of the city.

"Aircrews at the tail end of the bomber stream reported that the stench of burned human flesh permeated the aircraft over the target..."

"Precise figures are not available, but the firebombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945, may have killed more than 500,000 Japanese civilians and left five million homeless."

Of those 3 million Koreans who died during the US invasion of South Korea, a sizeable percentage perished from the same stone age civility that LeMay bestowed upon Jap civilians. Other US generals laughed about turning cities and villages into rubble, then returning to turn rubble into pebbles, and finally, turning pebbles into dust, along with millions of Korean civilians.

Makes me wonder how much money Wall Street earned from that "war".

Pol Pot was a rebel with no cause and no base until Henry Kissinger ordered the US carpet bombing of Cambodia's countryside, killing hundreds of thousands and making millions of homeless refugees anxious for revenge.

Surely, you've noticed, neither the Japanese, nor the Chinese, nor the Vietnamese, nor the Koreans were killing and raping the "gentler gender" on your side of the Pacific? Peace will come when it's more profitable than war, and when a generation of young men arrive who won't kill innocent human beings for money and "glory."

 

[Hossfly]

georgephillip; et al,

I think you tend to over exaggerate.

What was the clinical term for PTSD in 1965, Hossie?
Whatever it was, you got off easy considering the misery you helped inflict upon millions of Asians.
BTW, just because you never personally witnessed any Americans taking a civilian's life, doesn't mean that millions of Americans haven't done exactly that. Oh yeah, what's that "combat" vet going to do to me for exercising my First Amendment rights, shoot my dog or rape my mother?

(COMMENT)

Whatever your opinion is, as to what the US did in Asia (all interventions) it is but a drop in the bucket compared to what they did to themselves in just the 20th Century. The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia was responsible for millions of deaths all by itself. The First Chinese Civil War took 5 million and the Second Chinese Civil War took another 2.5 million. The Korean War took another 3 million between the two Koreas and Chinese. The numbers are so big for the Japanese invasion of China, no one really knows; but, over 142,000 deaths were recorded in the occupation of Nanking alone.

Everyone wants a perfect world. Well, it won't come in our life time. Wars are terrible things. But it will be a terrible thing that will always be with us. In all recorded human history, historians estimate that about 5% was without war. In US history, we've only had 29 years without war.

That is the historical nature of humanity. We all may recognize how utterly unproductive that is, but in the end, wars will erupt. And it is unreasonable to assume otherwise. And with those wars, there will always be those unpleasant events that disturb people.

While there is nothing wrong with wanting peace, it is almost impossible to have a civilized war.

Most Respectfully,
R

What level of civilization do you expect from the greatest purveyor of violence on this planet? The same level Curtis LeMay rained on Japan during WWII?

"The first pathfinder airplanes arrived over Tokyo just after midnight on March 10. Following British bombing practice, they marked the target area with a flaming 'X.' In a three-hour period, the main bombing force dropped 1,665 tons of incendiary bombs, killing 100,000 civilians, destroying 250,000 buildings, and incinerating 16 square miles (41 km2) of the city.

"Aircrews at the tail end of the bomber stream reported that the stench of burned human flesh permeated the aircraft over the target..."

"Precise figures are not available, but the firebombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945, may have killed more than 500,000 Japanese civilians and left five million homeless."

Of those 3 million Koreans who died during the US invasion of South Korea, a sizeable percentage perished from the same stone age civility that LeMay bestowed upon Jap civilians. Other US generals laughed about turning cities and villages into rubble, then returning to turn rubble into pebbles, and finally, turning pebbles into dust, along with millions of Korean civilians.

Makes me wonder how much money Wall Street earned from that "war".

Pol Pot was a rebel with no cause and no base until Henry Kissinger ordered the US carpet bombing of Cambodia's countryside, killing hundreds of thousands and making millions of homeless refugees anxious for revenge.

Surely, you've noticed, neither the Japanese, nor the Chinese, nor the Vietnamese, nor the Koreans were killing and raping the "gentler gender" on your side of the Pacific? Peace will come when it's more profitable than war, and when a generation of young men arrive who won't kill innocent human beings for money and "glory."

Right on! I personally got rich on the $200 a month I was making at the time and my "glory" was being able to take a bath at least every 2 weeks and have a hot meal, Benedict.

 

[ima]

ima, et al,

You have it exactly backwards!

We need such a big army because... um... let me see... um... because of all the countries that are attacking us?

At last count, there were.. um... um... none?

(COMMENT)

No one attacks us because ... we have such a lethal armed force.

Persuasive in Peace --- Invincible in War​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, ima is a young idiot who is constantly calling for Israel to be nuked. You can't reason with him, best to ignore him.

Toast is still delusional I see, I've said about a thousand times that Israel should make peace BEFORE they get nuked. Because there's a real possibility of that happening sometime in the future.
I never asked anyone to pretty please nuke Israel.

As for you roc, Canada has virtually NO army and no one attacks them.
The US army hasn't fought one righteous war since WWII. And has lost them all anyways with their "lethal armed force". We got our ass kicked in Nam, Korea, by Iran (twice), in Lebanon, Somalia, FUCKING SOMALIA!!!! Iraq and Afghanistan. Did I miss any? So why do we need a big army again? So we can simultaneously lose as many wars as possible?

 

[Hossfly]

ima, et al,

You have it exactly backwards!


(COMMENT)

No one attacks us because ... we have such a lethal armed force.

Persuasive in Peace --- Invincible in War​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, ima is a young idiot who is constantly calling for Israel to be nuked. You can't reason with him, best to ignore him.

Toast is still delusional I see, I've said about a thousand times that Israel should make peace BEFORE they get nuked. Because there's a real possibility of that happening sometime in the future.
I never asked anyone to pretty please nuke Israel.

As for you roc, Canada has virtually NO army and no one attacks them.
The US army hasn't fought one righteous war since WWII. And has lost them all anyways with their "lethal armed force". We got our ass kicked in Nam, Korea, by Iran (twice), in Lebanon, Somalia, FUCKING SOMALIA!!!! Iraq and Afghanistan. Did I miss any? So why do we need a big army again? So we can simultaneously lose as many wars as possible?

You got an absolute -0- (zero) on your exam, Blivet. I never lost any damn war and the US hasn't either. For example, North Vietnam was on the verge of surrender when the bleeding heart liberals forced a withdrawal from SE Asia. I won't even bother to cite other examples but they all follow the same line. As for WWII, we won that war but our bleeding heart liberals kept us from marching to Moscow to finish the job. Patton kept German Divisions armed so they could fight with us to mop up Russia. You can read all about it in Gen. S.L.A Marshall's official historical books. Now, raus!

 

[ima]

Rocco, ima is a young idiot who is constantly calling for Israel to be nuked. You can't reason with him, best to ignore him.

Toast is still delusional I see, I've said about a thousand times that Israel should make peace BEFORE they get nuked. Because there's a real possibility of that happening sometime in the future.
I never asked anyone to pretty please nuke Israel.

As for you roc, Canada has virtually NO army and no one attacks them.
The US army hasn't fought one righteous war since WWII. And has lost them all anyways with their "lethal armed force". We got our ass kicked in Nam, Korea, by Iran (twice), in Lebanon, Somalia, FUCKING SOMALIA!!!! Iraq and Afghanistan. Did I miss any? So why do we need a big army again? So we can simultaneously lose as many wars as possible?

You got an absolute -0- (zero) on your exam, Blivet. I never lost any damn war and the US hasn't either. For example, North Vietnam was on the verge of surrender when the bleeding heart liberals forced a withdrawal from SE Asia. I won't even bother to cite other examples but they all follow the same line. As for WWII, we won that war but our bleeding heart liberals kept us from marching to Moscow to finish the job. Patton kept German Divisions armed so they could fight with us to mop up Russia. You can read all about it in Gen. S.L.A Marshall's official historical books. Now, raus!

We LOST in Nam because we had fat chunks of shit like you fighting for us.

 

[Hossfly]

Toast is still delusional I see, I've said about a thousand times that Israel should make peace BEFORE they get nuked. Because there's a real possibility of that happening sometime in the future.
I never asked anyone to pretty please nuke Israel.

As for you roc, Canada has virtually NO army and no one attacks them.
The US army hasn't fought one righteous war since WWII. And has lost them all anyways with their "lethal armed force". We got our ass kicked in Nam, Korea, by Iran (twice), in Lebanon, Somalia, FUCKING SOMALIA!!!! Iraq and Afghanistan. Did I miss any? So why do we need a big army again? So we can simultaneously lose as many wars as possible?

You got an absolute -0- (zero) on your exam, Blivet. I never lost any damn war and the US hasn't either. For example, North Vietnam was on the verge of surrender when the bleeding heart liberals forced a withdrawal from SE Asia. I won't even bother to cite other examples but they all follow the same line. As for WWII, we won that war but our bleeding heart liberals kept us from marching to Moscow to finish the job. Patton kept German Divisions armed so they could fight with us to mop up Russia. You can read all about it in Gen. S.L.A Marshall's official historical books. Now, raus!

We LOST in Nam because we had fat chunks of shit like you fighting for us.

Dry up, you little snot.

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip; et al,

Unacceptable risk.

Rocco...why not start with taxing war into extinction?
How about a 100% tax on all war-related profits after the first innocent civilian dies in any war.
(We could also draft the richest 1% and send them into harm's way first)

(COMMENT)

All you do in this case is make it impractical and unaffordable to maintain a defense program. And while that might suit your agenda for the US, it would merely transfer the industry off-shore, prevent the US from maintaining a standing force, and raise its vulnerability and susceptibility to external aggression, coercion and political intimidation.

In effect such a policy would make it impractical "provide for the common defence" under The Constitution.

No other nation in the world is going to unilaterally disarm.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...aren't you conflating "defense" and "war?"
Defending the US homeland hasn't required a war since 1945, at least.
It makes more sense to defend this country from Wall Street and Pentagon corruption, IMHO.
Taxing war into extinction wouldn't prohibit all defense spending, but it would trim the profit margins found in imperial projects like the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Who knows, maybe more of America's richest 1% would have a Pat Tillman experience?

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip; et al,

I think you tend to over exaggerate.


(COMMENT)

Whatever your opinion is, as to what the US did in Asia (all interventions) it is but a drop in the bucket compared to what they did to themselves in just the 20th Century. The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia was responsible for millions of deaths all by itself. The First Chinese Civil War took 5 million and the Second Chinese Civil War took another 2.5 million. The Korean War took another 3 million between the two Koreas and Chinese. The numbers are so big for the Japanese invasion of China, no one really knows; but, over 142,000 deaths were recorded in the occupation of Nanking alone.

Everyone wants a perfect world. Well, it won't come in our life time. Wars are terrible things. But it will be a terrible thing that will always be with us. In all recorded human history, historians estimate that about 5% was without war. In US history, we've only had 29 years without war.

That is the historical nature of humanity. We all may recognize how utterly unproductive that is, but in the end, wars will erupt. And it is unreasonable to assume otherwise. And with those wars, there will always be those unpleasant events that disturb people.

While there is nothing wrong with wanting peace, it is almost impossible to have a civilized war.

Most Respectfully,
R

What level of civilization do you expect from the greatest purveyor of violence on this planet? The same level Curtis LeMay rained on Japan during WWII?

"The first pathfinder airplanes arrived over Tokyo just after midnight on March 10. Following British bombing practice, they marked the target area with a flaming 'X.' In a three-hour period, the main bombing force dropped 1,665 tons of incendiary bombs, killing 100,000 civilians, destroying 250,000 buildings, and incinerating 16 square miles (41 km2) of the city.

"Aircrews at the tail end of the bomber stream reported that the stench of burned human flesh permeated the aircraft over the target..."

"Precise figures are not available, but the firebombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945, may have killed more than 500,000 Japanese civilians and left five million homeless."

Of those 3 million Koreans who died during the US invasion of South Korea, a sizeable percentage perished from the same stone age civility that LeMay bestowed upon Jap civilians. Other US generals laughed about turning cities and villages into rubble, then returning to turn rubble into pebbles, and finally, turning pebbles into dust, along with millions of Korean civilians.

Makes me wonder how much money Wall Street earned from that "war".

Pol Pot was a rebel with no cause and no base until Henry Kissinger ordered the US carpet bombing of Cambodia's countryside, killing hundreds of thousands and making millions of homeless refugees anxious for revenge.

Surely, you've noticed, neither the Japanese, nor the Chinese, nor the Vietnamese, nor the Koreans were killing and raping the "gentler gender" on your side of the Pacific? Peace will come when it's more profitable than war, and when a generation of young men arrive who won't kill innocent human beings for money and "glory."

Right on! I personally got rich on the $200 a month I was making at the time and my "glory" was being able to take a bath at least every 2 weeks and have a hot meal, Benedict.

You got $200 and two baths a month so that Henry Kissinger and his liege lord Rockefeller could earn million$ from your "heroics." Congratulations, Rambo.

 

[sealadaigh]

ima, et al,

You have it exactly backwards!


(COMMENT)

No one attacks us because ... we have such a lethal armed force.

Persuasive in Peace --- Invincible in War​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, ima is a young idiot who is constantly calling for Israel to be nuked. You can't reason with him, best to ignore him.

Toast is still delusional I see, I've said about a thousand times that Israel should make peace BEFORE they get nuked. Because there's a real possibility of that happening sometime in the future.
I never asked anyone to pretty please nuke Israel.

As for you roc, Canada has virtually NO army and no one attacks them.
The US army hasn't fought one righteous war since WWII. And has lost them all anyways with their "lethal armed force". We got our ass kicked in Nam, Korea, by Iran (twice), in Lebanon, Somalia, FUCKING SOMALIA!!!! Iraq and Afghanistan. Did I miss any? So why do we need a big army again? So we can simultaneously lose as many wars as possible?

are you really that colossally stupid?

 

[georgephillip]

Rocco, ima is a young idiot who is constantly calling for Israel to be nuked. You can't reason with him, best to ignore him.

Toast is still delusional I see, I've said about a thousand times that Israel should make peace BEFORE they get nuked. Because there's a real possibility of that happening sometime in the future.
I never asked anyone to pretty please nuke Israel.

As for you roc, Canada has virtually NO army and no one attacks them.
The US army hasn't fought one righteous war since WWII. And has lost them all anyways with their "lethal armed force". We got our ass kicked in Nam, Korea, by Iran (twice), in Lebanon, Somalia, FUCKING SOMALIA!!!! Iraq and Afghanistan. Did I miss any? So why do we need a big army again? So we can simultaneously lose as many wars as possible?

You got an absolute -0- (zero) on your exam, Blivet. I never lost any damn war and the US hasn't either. For example, North Vietnam was on the verge of surrender when the bleeding heart liberals forced a withdrawal from SE Asia. I won't even bother to cite other examples but they all follow the same line. As for WWII, we won that war but our bleeding heart liberals kept us from marching to Moscow to finish the job. Patton kept German Divisions armed so they could fight with us to mop up Russia. You can read all about it in Gen. S.L.A Marshall's official historical books. Now, raus!

Why don't you tell us where you got the idea that "North Vietnam was on the verge of surrender"?
Then explain how many more women and children would've had to die in Vietnam before Kissinger and Rockefeller would've accepted Ho's surrender? How many women and children in your country or family would you have helped murder to effect said surrender? What makes your women and children worth more than those in Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan? BTW, the Russians killed a hell of a lot more Nazis than Patton did; if Hitler doesn't invade Russia, Patton come home in a box.