ClumsyMonkey.net

Yeah I do have to agree that the US does blindly side with Israel when it comes to the middle east stuff. My best friend grew up in Israel, and to this day, she *hates* all arabs. When she was growing up, it was socially acceptable, and in some terms, made even more acceptable by the fact that the US has always sided with Israel. That is a very good reason for Arab Terrorists to target America though.

Corey I hear what you're saying. The issue here is, while you or I may consider the women competing the Olympics to be big, the arab nations don't. they see that as an invasion of their culture, and as long as that is the case there will continue to be strife.

assuming that you don't even take into consideration the chance that this whole terrorism thing could just be an aid in a global power grab by the states and their financial backers...

wow, i totally missed a shit load of threads here. let's see here where to start.

from the locked thread....

Atomic Bomb in Hiroshima? Huuuge Mistake. But it happened.

really? hindsight is really quite a luxury. you need to understand the thought process of the 1940's, and why the actions were taken. to say today that Hiroshima was a big mistake without considering what our leaders saw back at that time and what they were thinking is a little condescending. if it goes "boom" and it saves a lot of our kid's lives, then yes, let's use it. the objective of war is not for you to die for your country, but to make the other poor son of a bitch die for his. if they don't give up after the bomb went "boom" then lets do it again, and if they do not give up after that, we'll do it again with 5.

luckily for Japan, they gave up after the second one. you can't hate on the US for actions that we took 60+ years ago, that by the way saved a few of your kids also. you can't hate on the US because it's leaders didn't know that there would be a huge after effect after the bomb was used. Truman didn't exactly know how this bomb killed, he just thought it went "boom". It did after all, turn an extremely hostile island into one of the most peaceful countries in the world. because that's what it took!

moving on to the Israel situation....Israel atleast comes to the peace table and talks with the US, where as these groups only seek to cause change through violence. there's only so much talking you can do before you have to get on the offensive in order to defend yourself. Palistinians have yet to seek peace the same way Israel does. they have sent someone to the table, but he himself is a man of violence. You disapprove of the US talking to those with histories of violence, yet your angry that the US does not take another man with a history of violence seriously. they're going to fight, that's what they've been doing for centuries, and as long as hate is constantly being taught there on both sides of this conflict then they will always fight. let them be.

Unless my high school text books lied to me, Japan tried to resign just before the first bomb dropped. Then they tried to wave the proverbial white flag again, before the second bomb dropped.

I know you're going to say I'm lying, because you have before, but why would a nationally-issed Advanced Placement United States history book lie about something like that?

That is all.

Alan, it is true, Japan "surrendered" after the first bomb. However it was not "unconditionally". The US was looking for an unconditional surrender because that is the only thing that would mean the war was over. As I stated, it is debatable whether or not the second bomb was "necessary". I stand by the decision to drop the first however.

By the way Reno, good to see you man!

really? hindsight is really quite a luxury

That is exactly how I feel about the Iraq WMD issue.

Alright, I'll concede the first bomb may have been a necessary tool to end the war. Japan did not give their unconditional surrender before the first bomb, but the offer was there after the first one hit. Words were ignored, because Japan was willing to give up all of their freedom, which was what they were asked to give up in the beginning.

Bandalero wrote:moving on to the Israel situation....Israel atleast comes to the peace table and talks with the US, where as these groups only seek to cause change through violence. there's only so much talking you can do before you have to get on the offensive in order to defend yourself. Palistinians have yet to seek peace the same way Israel does. they have sent someone to the table, but he himself is a man of violence. You disapprove of the US talking to those with histories of violence, yet your angry that the US does not take another man with a history of violence seriously. they're going to fight, that's what they've been doing for centuries, and as long as hate is constantly being taught there on both sides of this conflict then they will always fight. let them be.

You say that there is only so much talking you can do before violence is needed. What about Ghandi? He achieved great things including peace and he never once raised a hand. Ghandi never once used violence during his protests, some of his followers did at times but then Ghandi would go on a hunger strike to stop the violence and it worked. Ghandi is a perfect example of how non-violence can be used in the place of violence.

Ghandi is one example sorry to say. There aren't many others.

Exactly. Ghandi did accomplish great things, but the way he went about things enraged people. The people that fled India to West Pakistan and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) felt his actions to try to keep India as one whole nation showed favoritism towards the Indians. Even though he desperately wanted India to remain whole, people received his actions the wrong way, and he was assassinated soon after the nations split.

Now let's end the history lesson. As long as there are different religions in existance, there will always be sadistic people out for a kill for their God. Ghandi was peaceful and never hurt a soul, yet he was assassinated for what he represented. No matter how you go about any situation, be it for the better of a nation or the people, someone will resent you. And if one person resents you, odds are, others feel the same way. And out of the group of people that have a hatred for you (be it unfounded or not), one will be capable of murder, and well, unless you're protected like President Bush is, you'll wind up dead.

Sorry for reality guys. Violence will always exist, no matter what the situation is.

Hindsight is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS 20-20.

Sufjan Stevens wrote:Exactly. Ghandi did accomplish great things, but the way he went about things enraged people. The people that fled India to West Pakistan and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) felt his actions to try to keep India as one whole nation showed favoritism towards the Indians. Even though he desperately wanted India to remain whole, people received his actions the wrong way, and he was assassinated soon after the nations split.

Now let's end the history lesson. As long as there are different religions in existance, there will always be sadistic people out for a kill for their God. Ghandi was peaceful and never hurt a soul, yet he was assassinated for what he represented. No matter how you go about any situation, be it for the better of a nation or the people, someone will resent you. And if one person resents you, odds are, others feel the same way. And out of the group of people that have a hatred for you (be it unfounded or not), one will be capable of murder, and well, unless you're protected like President Bush is, you'll wind up dead.

Sorry for reality guys. Violence will always exist, no matter what the situation is.

You do know that Ghandi was assasinated by a radical Hindu? Ghandi was Hindu himself, so the killing had nothing to do with religion. Yes the country did split apart because of fear for favortism but there were going to be talks about that, until the one guy who was the most influential was murdered. Ghandi wanted the country to be as it once was, before the British empire took control over it.

Ghandi is such a rare case though. Just because one man can achieve something without violence doesn't mean everyone can.

Honestly, if non-violence protest is so influential, how would it have prevented WWII, and the Nazis?

Good point, in fact adherence to non-violence - appeasement - just made the whole thing a lot worse.

I heard somewhere that there have only been around 200 years in all of known human history where there have been absolutely no wars taking place. Interesting eh?

Rusty wrote:

Sufjan Stevens wrote:Exactly. Ghandi did accomplish great things, but the way he went about things enraged people. The people that fled India to West Pakistan and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) felt his actions to try to keep India as one whole nation showed favoritism towards the Indians. Even though he desperately wanted India to remain whole, people received his actions the wrong way, and he was assassinated soon after the nations split.

Now let's end the history lesson. As long as there are different religions in existance, there will always be sadistic people out for a kill for their God. Ghandi was peaceful and never hurt a soul, yet he was assassinated for what he represented. No matter how you go about any situation, be it for the better of a nation or the people, someone will resent you. And if one person resents you, odds are, others feel the same way. And out of the group of people that have a hatred for you (be it unfounded or not), one will be capable of murder, and well, unless you're protected like President Bush is, you'll wind up dead.

Sorry for reality guys. Violence will always exist, no matter what the situation is.

You do know that Ghandi was assasinated by a radical Hindu? Ghandi was Hindu himself, so the killing had nothing to do with religion. Yes the country did split apart because of fear for favortism but there were going to be talks about that, until the one guy who was the most influential was murdered. Ghandi wanted the country to be as it once was, before the British empire took control over it.

Think about it. Hindus hated Muslims, and generally, sides were taken. Based on your religion, you chose to either hate the other person or turn your back on your religion.

Ghandi wanted an entire India, correct? Well, by having that desire, he pretty much sealed his own fate. Muslims tended to hate him, as he was a Hindu, and radical Hindus hated Ghandi because he showed sympathy towards the Muslims. And because of his his desire to keep India whole, which would jeep two opposing religions together in the same country, he was assassinated.

But religion played no part in his assassination.

Japan's emporor was a prisoner in his own palace. even if he was able to declare surrender, such a declaration is invalid since his captors, were very much willing to fight. among the chaos ensuing in Japan, such a declaration would be considered a trick. that is why it was ignored.

Sufjan Stevens wrote:

Rusty wrote:

Sufjan Stevens wrote:Exactly. Ghandi did accomplish great things, but the way he went about things enraged people. The people that fled India to West Pakistan and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) felt his actions to try to keep India as one whole nation showed favoritism towards the Indians. Even though he desperately wanted India to remain whole, people received his actions the wrong way, and he was assassinated soon after the nations split.

Now let's end the history lesson. As long as there are different religions in existance, there will always be sadistic people out for a kill for their God. Ghandi was peaceful and never hurt a soul, yet he was assassinated for what he represented. No matter how you go about any situation, be it for the better of a nation or the people, someone will resent you. And if one person resents you, odds are, others feel the same way. And out of the group of people that have a hatred for you (be it unfounded or not), one will be capable of murder, and well, unless you're protected like President Bush is, you'll wind up dead.

Sorry for reality guys. Violence will always exist, no matter what the situation is.

You do know that Ghandi was assasinated by a radical Hindu? Ghandi was Hindu himself, so the killing had nothing to do with religion. Yes the country did split apart because of fear for favortism but there were going to be talks about that, until the one guy who was the most influential was murdered. Ghandi wanted the country to be as it once was, before the British empire took control over it.

Think about it. Hindus hated Muslims, and generally, sides were taken. Based on your religion, you chose to either hate the other person or turn your back on your religion.

Ghandi wanted an entire India, correct? Well, by having that desire, he pretty much sealed his own fate. Muslims tended to hate him, as he was a Hindu, and radical Hindus hated Ghandi because he showed sympathy towards the Muslims. And because of his his desire to keep India whole, which would jeep two opposing religions together in the same country, he was assassinated.

But religion played no part in his assassination.

Hindu and Muslim are both peaceful religions. Also Hinduism anyway is accepting of other cultures and traditions. I believe Muslim is too, but I'm not sure, we havn't covered that section in class yet. Also India use to support both religions very well until India was taken over by the English empire. Then the whole country became poor, because England was taking all the resources and then selling them back at inflated prices. Once England left the fighting between the Muslim's and Hindu's began because each group wanted to recover, but they saw each other as threats and such. They didn't always hate one another thats what Ghandi was striving for "I'm Hindu, and Muslim, and Christian, and Jewish, and every other religion out there. We are all brothers and I want a united India, the way it used to be" That is not a direct quote from Ghandi but very close to what he said. His whole goal was to reunite India like it had been before they were taken over. Not unite them as is commonly thought but reunite them. Someone here asked how Ghandi's method could have been used against Hitler, he answered that, but I forget what he said. I would recommend seeing the movie "Ghandi" if you want to learn more.

Someone here asked how Ghandi's method could have been used against Hitler, he answered that, but I forget what he said

Did it have something to do with "it can't"?

I seriously don't believe non-violence can solve problems on a larger scale. Sure maybe at a rally it works, but what good is a non-violent defense when a country is slaughtering you despite your attitude?

I would rather fight for a chance to live than sit back and have guns pointed at my head.

J-Neli wrote:

Someone here asked how Ghandi's method could have been used against Hitler, he answered that, but I forget what he said

Did it have something to do with "it can't"?

I seriously don't believe non-violence can solve problems on a larger scale. Sure maybe at a rally it works, but what good is a non-violent defense when a country is slaughtering you despite your attitude?

I would rather fight for a chance to live than sit back and have guns pointed at my head.

No, Ghandi did believe it could be done without using violence much like India was liberated without using violence. "what good is a non-violent defense when a country is slaughtering you despite your attitude?" Well in case you didn't know thats exactly what one English general did too many Indian people. They were standing peacefully he brought a a large section of the army in including a tank, but the tank wouldn't fit through the archway into the section they were standing in, so the general ordered the foot soldiers in. Men, women, and children were all slaughtered. All of them, 1650 people were in attendence, there were 1650 casualties...non of them lived. They all knew what kind of sacrifice they were making by staying there. Do you know what the English government thought? They were appalled. They were disgusted by what they had done to those people who hadn't raised so much as a fist towards them would be slaughterd for that. They were all over the news all over the world. Other countires looked at England differently. Actually that massacre proved to be a major role in deciding to pull out of India, It wasn't the image they wanted. Had Ghandi and his followers fought back then the killings would have been "justified" but they didn't not even after such a tradgedy did they fight back, and it was won with much less deaths than there would have been had they used violcence to get their way.