Winston Churchill
- Thread starter $kunk\\'eeD
- 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.
Gen76 said:
I partly agree with you on this. Of course it is hard to compare an "ancient" crime to todays morals and standards. But even though it is hard we must never forget what happened in ww2. We should always remember what happened there to make sure it won't happen again.
Personally I was shocked to hear that a lot of people in the usa didnt know about the holocaust, even more shocked to hear that some don't believe the holocaust actually took place and terrified about the idea that a lot of people don't know who adolf hitler was.
$kunk\\'eeD said:
dont know how discuss anything about that
that statement is just flat imo because it claims to be only truth:
"if u disagree with me u prove urself being dumb" - duh
i guess the word "liberal" is refering to some social meaning, right?
as for the americans not knowing about WW2...
hm... what does the average european know about the crimes of japanease soldiers on humanity in china/korea and others?
does he know what the name of the japanease leader of that time is?
though i agree with u... i was pretty surprised about that also
I think most people over 40 should know a lot about japan and their warcrimes.When the usa nuked japan schools kinda focussed upon that rather then the crimes japan commited.
Younger generations would not know a lot about it because most school teach about ww2 and ww1 and the communistic threat. From my experience i can say that they try to teach people how it could come that far.
Younger generations would not know a lot about it because most school teach about ww2 and ww1 and the communistic threat. From my experience i can say that they try to teach people how it could come that far.
of course it can! You say a nulcear attack as if it is compleatly different to any other attack. You drop 100 bombs & blow up a city, you drop 1 bomb and blow up a city, same effect different way!
the difference is that u dont just blow the city up... u burn the earth u blow toxix material in the atmosphere u contaminate the ground u kill thousands of ppl over years suffering from radiation and mutation, u kill unborn children at this place for years in the future u create a fallout of nuclear waste u create a cancer rate unbeleavable high in the hole country u even contaminate ur own country ... fs a single submarine with balistic missiles can blow up the hole fucking world
An other point, what can justify blowing a hole city with all its ppl and infrastructure up with conventional weapons?
An other point, what can justify blowing a hole city with all its ppl and infrastructure up with conventional weapons?
Rob1000100 said:
Well, this is rather far from the topic, but forgive me..
Using a nuclear weapon to destroy city is completely different from using conventional weaponry - even though the destruction might be the same (well there's a "bonus" destruction as righteous pointed out there), the concequences after the nuclear attack would most probably not be the same.
There is a possibility of uncontrolled sequence of retaliations, nations nuking each other and their allies joining in etc.. U know, the "End-Of-The-World-Scenario"
thy for the backup here Turha 
Well rob u ever have heart of Tschernobyl? the two ww2 bombs had been REALY small nukes... and tschernobyl didnt explode ...it just burned down. That was 1986 and still lot off ppl are dying of that "incident". Some modern nukes are hundret times stronger then ww2 ones...
Well rob u ever have heart of Tschernobyl? the two ww2 bombs had been REALY small nukes... and tschernobyl didnt explode ...it just burned down. That was 1986 and still lot off ppl are dying of that "incident". Some modern nukes are hundret times stronger then ww2 ones...
2 things: Thur and Gen pack it in please. Take your personal arguments away from the thread as your both going off topic with it. Thanks ![:]](/images/smilies/block-head.gif "Blockhead :]")
And to clarify, I (and I assume the rest of the UK) know Tschernobyl as Chernobyl as i've come up against this place before when talking to euros
Damn right they are still suffering the consiquences of radioactive fallout, but even after conventional wars such as The Iraqi War we still see the continued loss of life and suffering through the lack of essential things such as polluted water, severe lack of medical supplies and pubic safety. (Plus a shitload of paranoid soldiers from another country adding to the problem.) So we have to measure the consiquences of conventional war against nuclear war, and I don't think is a great deal of difference in the overall effect. Politicians will justify conventional weapons against nuclear ones to not get into the scenario. But the difference it makes to people on the ground is very little imo. They will suffer regardless of the weapons used.
So perhaps the natural direction of this thread is: Does Winston Churchills quote above have any value or weight in todays modern social and/or military world?
RighteousFury said:thy for the backup here Turha
Well rob u ever have heart of Tschernobyl? the two ww2 bombs had been REALY small nukes... and tschernobyl didnt explode ...it just burned down. That was 1986 and still lot off ppl are dying of that "incident". Some modern nukes are hundret times stronger then ww2 ones...
And to clarify, I (and I assume the rest of the UK) know Tschernobyl as Chernobyl as i've come up against this place before when talking to euros
Damn right they are still suffering the consiquences of radioactive fallout, but even after conventional wars such as The Iraqi War we still see the continued loss of life and suffering through the lack of essential things such as polluted water, severe lack of medical supplies and pubic safety. (Plus a shitload of paranoid soldiers from another country adding to the problem.) So we have to measure the consiquences of conventional war against nuclear war, and I don't think is a great deal of difference in the overall effect. Politicians will justify conventional weapons against nuclear ones to not get into the scenario. But the difference it makes to people on the ground is very little imo. They will suffer regardless of the weapons used.
So perhaps the natural direction of this thread is: Does Winston Churchills quote above have any value or weight in todays modern social and/or military world?
$kunk\\'eeD said:
do you own damn homework
j/k (almost)
Seems to me that quote was intended to be humourous, and it is still now, although the political parties have changed a lot since that time (and no, @40 I dont remember those times or WW2 lol) but the 'idea' of what being a liberal is about probably hasnt changed that much since that time - ie Idealistic with good intentions etc, but piss up in a brewery? I doubt it.
As for the wartime bombings of civilians: Im no historian, but whatever the reasoning behind the bombings of Munich and Dresden, dont forget at the time this country was on its knees. Hitler had taken Europe by storm, also parts of Africa, and was heading towards Moscow. This man would not be satisfied until he was in TOTAL CONTROL of the western hemisphere, and his Japanese allies were pretty much doing the same with the rest of the world.
The large scale bombing of cities could be seen as shock tactics maybe. Of course its a terrible thing - who would deny it? - but put yourself in the shoes of the UK and the US at the time, and think about what YOU would do to stop these people? And esp. if you knew that German and Japanese scientists were working on developing the first atomic weapons? An old saying: 'Desperate times call for desperate measures.' Thats the only reason that Japan surrendered - to bomb a city is bad enough, but to completely wipe a city out with ONE bomb? It was unbelievable so of course they had no choice than to surrender
To compare Churchill with Hitler? One was a fairly typical and boring politician (only made prime minister because of the war in the first place I might add!), the other was an evil dictator set on world domination. And dont you forget it
I better shuddup now
RULE BRITANNIA