Anti-NA attitude ? (split from some discussion about BioAssault)
- Thread starter SX
- Start date
-
Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
Joko said:Comparing civilian casualties in WW2 and Iraq is a bit irrelevant imo because the way in which wars are fought has totally changed over the last 50 years. You cant compare a war fought with hi-tech jet aircraft and ships capable of launching missles from hundreds of miles away to one fought mainly with inventory troops and the most basic combat planes ever seen. Why cant the holocaust be attributed to military action either?
Why not compare them when that was the issue we were talking about wasn't it? Comparing modern warfare to earlier warfare.
The reason why the holocaust can't be attributed to military action is because it was beyond the scope of military actions planned against an armed force, it was a deliberate act to kill civilians. But even if we did count them, even still, modern warfare would prove to result in more cilivian casualties just by looking at the numbers. Including the holocaust, WW2 had a ratio of about 5:4, when the war in Iraq has a ratio of over 2:1. How can this not be relevant to the question whether modern warfare results in more civilian casualties? It's about numbers, nothing more.
kooma said:
yip...
but what not many peeps know, that USA planed to drop the first bomb over Berlin
only the capitulation of germany "saved" germany (denmark, poland and a few others "near" berlin) from a nuclear fallout and it´s results over the years
exactlySnuggs said:
And do you know who wanted the USA to "discover" the atomic bomb at first? It was Albert Einstein, who thought that the Nazis were near to complete their atomic bomb project. He also wrote letters to the american president, where he said that america must work on a atomic bomb concept.
Fortunally the nazis weren't on the right way, so a gemran atomic bomb wasn't possible.
Last edited:
yes we ve got a lot of shit going on (mostly in europe that is) but in my view the usa causes major problems all over the worldProPain said:
if u wish i can back this up but i think many of them r already said
@ bart
yer, i know
germans did the first "chain-reaction", but not more
hitler made many many faults
i think if hitler waited a few years with starting his war....no 1 had a chance 2 stop him
he had the first rockets, jets and many other things at the end of war
i´m glad that hitler/germany lost the war
all in europe would live craper than in george orwells 1984
yer, i know
germans did the first "chain-reaction", but not more
hitler made many many faults
i think if hitler waited a few years with starting his war....no 1 had a chance 2 stop him
he had the first rockets, jets and many other things at the end of war
i´m glad that hitler/germany lost the war
all in europe would live craper than in george orwells 1984
don't u benifit from this too then? so y are u complaining.
bush did say we were going to attack countries harboring terrorist in his address to the country a few days after 9/11. and no one is saying the attack was justified.
the general opinion? if we listend to ur general opinion alot of things would be different in our country for good or bad. but the general opinion in our country was to attack. before u come talk shit read up on the subject. the world will always have different opinions. but your country comes before the world at this point in time.
haha many people in the usa education system just don't care that is y they don't learn anything. they say y do i need to learn about history? even though it is one of the most important subjects imo.
Nanko as long as everyone has different viewpoints there will never be peace.
where do u get ur info buddy. no where near the amount of civilians have been killed compared to military. the bombs are much more accurate. the way civillians get hurt is when the groups in iraq set up bombs and such. and that isn't a military death just like the holocaust.
agreed
This is what i said earlier that modern warfare is different now.
no it didn't and if it did it wasn't because of military action. we didn't go around killing civilians. and niether did the iraqi's
actually eisenhower was not going to use the bomb on belrlin fo the very reason u said. itwould have nuclear fallout for many countries we were allied with. it was considered at first but the decision was no.
plz share i dun member the ones u said
hilters biggest mistake was leaving the 250,000 + british and french at dunkirk so they could escape. tbh it would have been much harder to take france had the frech resistance people not been there.
What has that got to do with anything? So basically what you're saying is that everyone should do whatever they want if they feel it's going to benefit from it?
What? All this time one of the issues being discussed has been about the justification of war in Iraq.
What the hell are you talking about? The fact that the US solely thought it was a good idea, no one else did. I never said anything about the general opinion in the States but the rest of the world. So before you come talking shit, I suggest you fucking READ what I'm writing. So yet again, you're justifying the attack by the fact that the US thought it was a good idea. With that logic, whatever the Nazis or Russians did to jews was just a O.K. Can you see the problem here?
I suggest YOU go reading and getting the facts straight. Yes, just go use Google and see how many civilian casualties there have been compared to military. And don't come back until you've done so. Even with mere mathematics, more civilians die with modern warfare: when the blast radius of a bomb gets bigger, more people will die, including civilians.
If you don't start bloody making sense, I can see no point in continuing this conversation any longer. 'Nuff fucking said.
Like kooma already siad, this discussion is useless (like 99% of all discussions here ![:\](/images/smilies/submitted/smark/ohwell.gif "Oh Well :\")
).
I still think that Bush is just a little dumbass and i bet many peeps here think the same.
Let's hope that the american people ain't so dumb and kick his ass in the next election.![:]](/images/smilies/block-head.gif "Blockhead :]")
God blessAmerica this community 
).I still think that Bush is just a little dumbass and i bet many peeps here think the same.
Let's hope that the american people ain't so dumb and kick his ass in the next election.
God bless
Bart said:.... and kick his ass in the next election.
haha...their election system is more f00ked than everything else....u saw it at the last election
was the biggest joke ever
Bart said:God blessAmericathis community
(.....if i would belive in any religion stuff 
)
tbh very dangerous attitude
just because "we" also benefit from something we shouldnt argue?
it is wrong to kill ppl to benefit from its resources - i thought this was common sense
backing up my statement
- iraq war (ok i can see both sides but i strongly reject it for various reasons)
at first bush admin tried to convince other countries with WMD and the evidence of saddam being involved in 9/11
the argument the iraq would harbor terrorists was bollox and most ppl knew it - WMD seemed very unlikely as clinton himself said that iraq was no longer a threat 2 years earlier -> this is one reason that made many countries suspicious
- usa's attitude towards protection of the environment is partly ridiculous
- wars like vietnam and korea (stopping communism - yeah right)
- usa spreads anti-americanism all over the world (big companies controlling countries => south and middle america, attitude "we are the best" (sry whyever but many ppl think this way) etc.)
sure, anti-americanism is not only the fault of usa citizen or gov't but the bush admin, for instance, re doing a very good job to spread it about
certainly jealousy comes into this hatred but probably not in europe but we also dont go about and burn down american embassies...
- "america first policy" which is pretty ignorant and selfish - ok i assume every country runs this policy but most of them by far not as aggressive as the usa
- the usa wants to be the role model of the whole world because they do everything right... basically never admit mistakes
- black and white painting by us media and gov't ("if u re not with us, u re against us")
sry for all these "prejudices" but those have been growing extremely in last 4-5 years when i got into history a bit and seeing bush admin handling things...
Last edited:
think we went a bit off topic ? this aint a ww2 threat.
Ive got an anti-NA attitude too, reason for me is my being german. were abused as an example to prevent people from thinking the USA is bad. they use theyre disgraceful attempt of taking control over the world to cover their own attempt.
american media ( i claim it was theirs) has acheived a general belief that germany (the nazis) was and is bad and the Americans are and were good and countering the evil coming from germany in the past and from "terrorists" now.
I hate the Americans for their absolute influence over media world wide. they can always present themselves to be the good guys. If anyone raises his voice, hes rejected with the reason of having been in a war or belongign to a country that the USA "rescued" in the past.
the USA did and still do (very) bad and despicable things all around the world (saying that without research because im confident theres enough evidence). but someone said it earlier in this thread: good and bad isnt there before a war. the winner says they are the good guys the others are bad, the winner controls media, the winner maintains the clean image towards the public
a quick mind game: imagine the germans won the war. europe would be called something like US of Germany
and of course europe was only rescued from <whatever> threat. germans would be the good guys and any country that would turn hostile would automatically become a "terrorist" country because it harms world peace.
-> the USA are just as bad as any other country that tries to get reign over the world; however they do it slower and the hide their "dark sides" a bit better.
Ive got an anti-NA attitude too, reason for me is my being german. were abused as an example to prevent people from thinking the USA is bad. they use theyre disgraceful attempt of taking control over the world to cover their own attempt.
american media ( i claim it was theirs) has acheived a general belief that germany (the nazis) was and is bad and the Americans are and were good and countering the evil coming from germany in the past and from "terrorists" now.
I hate the Americans for their absolute influence over media world wide. they can always present themselves to be the good guys. If anyone raises his voice, hes rejected with the reason of having been in a war or belongign to a country that the USA "rescued" in the past.
the USA did and still do (very) bad and despicable things all around the world (saying that without research because im confident theres enough evidence). but someone said it earlier in this thread: good and bad isnt there before a war. the winner says they are the good guys the others are bad, the winner controls media, the winner maintains the clean image towards the public
a quick mind game: imagine the germans won the war. europe would be called something like US of Germany
and of course europe was only rescued from <whatever> threat. germans would be the good guys and any country that would turn hostile would automatically become a "terrorist" country because it harms world peace.-> the USA are just as bad as any other country that tries to get reign over the world; however they do it slower and the hide their "dark sides" a bit better.
Last edited:
hmm, i can see were you are coming from sobo but the Americans havent invaded ever single one of their neighbours and used physical force to bully them into believing in their ideals.
I agree they do control the media and therefore the minds of the ignorant. You can draw comparisons and i can appreciate your line of thinking but in the end the americans and the nazis went about acheiving their goals in very different ways.
I agree they do control the media and therefore the minds of the ignorant. You can draw comparisons and i can appreciate your line of thinking but in the end the americans and the nazis went about acheiving their goals in very different ways.
Joko said:
yer probably right but dont have the responsible officials two eyes closed when prison guard punish blacks, when their soldiers humilita POWs, when police beat up any people without any reason (mostly blacks though). Ive also heared they immediately kill illegal immigrants from mexico. there are a couple of things that go on in the USA that have "white supremacy" stuck on them.
then theres isreal. the usa tend to see any islam country as terrosrist because their religion differs, looking back on the history great wars have always been fought between christianity and the Jews. imo the only reason for the USA to "like" and support israel is to a) have a base in the middle east to make military action easier and b) prove different from germany (again read above: "they use theyre disgraceful attempt of taking control over the world to cover their own attempt.")
although religion will cuase disharmony for they still exist ther are more modest ways to cope with the differences
You are right the USA dont act as obviously brutal to achieve their goals, partially because they hide it better but also because they simply aint as cruel. But still there are sever parallels that cannot be neglected and still the media manages to wipe away all those signs by emphasizing the few differences betwene the "good" USA today and "evil" germany in the 30ies.
IceDragon said:
Americans don't understand our point of view and we don't understand their wway of thinking.
Don't waste you time
oh and btw
IMO this isn´t off topic
atma turned a "u release a stolen, full of bugs map" conversation into a "why u all have a attitude against USA conversation"
he asked...so he gets a answer
Can't remember who said it but basically he said he would be "perfectly willing" to kill the murderer of his family. But also said it wasn't necessarily right because he'd be killing another person.
So it would be wrong to kill me if I continued my murder rampage? No one's answered that yet. How could you bear on your conscience of killing me, if ALL killing is wrong?
So it would be wrong to kill me if I continued my murder rampage? No one's answered that yet. How could you bear on your conscience of killing me, if ALL killing is wrong?