Iran

[SpaceCoastVol]

What she said was true. We attacked a sovereign country with zero provocation all because we think we can decide who can have nukes and who can't. And the American public goes along with it because they've been brainwashed into thinking Muslims are psychotic fanatics who want to kill them all.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Look you can try to justify it all you want but no other singular act in human history killed as many people. The immense killing power of nuclear weapons is the exact reason Japan surrendered.

Killing innocent people is evil no matter how you try to spin it.

You are the one seeking validation here. It's really pathetic

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

So if Japan had the nuke rather than us and obliterated Los Angeles you would say it wasn't that bad cause it was quick and brought the war to quick end? Or would we call the Japanese dropping a nuke on innocent civilians in Los Angeles an evil act?

It wouldn't have brought a quick end to the war. We were GOING to win the Pacific War and had fought at great cost of lives on both sides to the point where an invasion and complete victory WERE coming. It was, because of the mindset of Japanese at the time, going to cost thousands and thousands of lives from both sides but the end was not in doubt when we used the nuclear option.

The nuclear option was ONE WAY to stop the war without costing so many more lives. Wars come down to:
Are all these lives (ours and our enemies) worth our objectives?
Are there ways to demoralize and "shock and awe" our enemy to get them to give up sooner with less lives lost for everyone, especially us?

The answers, with the nukes vs Japan, was yes and yes.

This isn't "capture the flag" in your backyard where running through the house and ambushing your opponent via coming out a back bedroom window is "not fair." You do what needs to be done to get it over with whether it's conventional or not, cruel or not, horrible or not to save as many lives, yes...... preferably your sides lives..... as possible.

 

[sonofUT62]

The Iranians love Joy. Next to her they actually seem tolerant of homosexuality.

 

[05_never_again]

hell, the atomic bombs don’t even compare the evils Japan itself committed during the war. Nanjing and the Manila massacre were two of the most evil events in human history. And Japan's conduct in the Sino-Japanese war at large made most wars look like tea parties. There's a reason why, when you ask a Chinese, Korean or Filipino person what they think of the bombings, they say “they deserved it”.

calling the bombs the “two greatest evils in human history” when Japan had just cut through Asia with murderous glee is laughable.

The left holds the United States to a higher/different standard than they hold the rest of the world to because it fits the narrative they want to paint about the country.

 

[dalton_vol]

Trumps an idiot, I won't argue that point. But this reeks of the very confirmation bias you call others out for. This is little better than gossip by a bunch of old hens at first watch

Lol, someone is butthurt. It's comedy you calling trump an idiot

 

[FortSanders]

Look you can try to justify it all you want but no other singular act in human history killed as many people. The immense killing power of nuclear weapons is the exact reason Japan surrendered.

Killing innocent people is evil no matter how you try to spin it.

That is not the case. The firebombing of Dresden in WW2 caused between 45,000 and 75,000 deaths. The allies decision to bomb Dresden was criticized after the war, because the city was supposedly "not a strategic target". Hogwash. The US Army until 1951 fought to win wars. The attitude was that it was immoral to fight wars that you do not win. The quicker the war ends, the better for the our troops and our country. American lives are paramount.

Since 1951, the US Armed Forces have mostly fought stalemates.

Our armed forces should always fight to win. Our people and our politicians should always support this.

 

[dalton_vol]

It wouldn't have brought a quick end to the war. We were GOING to win the Pacific War and had fought at great cost of lives on both sides to the point where an invasion and complete victory WERE coming. It was, because of the mindset of Japanese at the time, going to cost thousands and thousands of lives from both sides but the end was not in doubt when we used the nuclear option.

The nuclear option was ONE WAY to stop the war without costing so many more lives. Wars come down to:
Are all these lives (ours and our enemies) worth our objectives?
Are there ways to demoralize and "shock and awe" our enemy to get them to give up sooner with less lives lost for everyone, especially us?

The answers, with the nukes vs Japan, was yes and yes.

This isn't "capture the flag" in your backyard where running through the house and ambushing your opponent via coming out a back bedroom window is "not fair." You do what needs to be done to get it over with whether it's conventional or not, cruel or not, horrible or not to save as many lives, yes...... preferably your sides lives..... as possible.

Liberals cannot think about history in the proper context, when you base all your decisions on emotions, you're going to get crazy answers like dropping the bomb on japan. Anyone with a half a brain knows that was the best route for America to take. Who knows how many American lives would be lost and how much longer that war would have lasted. Liberals must use their current worldview to judge history and that is extremely stupid

 

[McDad]

MAGA Republicans:Liberals

I was the intitiator the convo with OHvol. I wasn't thinking in terms of magas and libs. I was thinking in terms of unwavering R and others.

I don't think OHvol would mind if those who leaned one way but had an objective posting history "officiated" a dispute in our bet.

 

[85SugarVol]

Six months from Election Day poll

Pretty simple. As of today, who ya got?

www.volnation.com

Actually, 20:1 is about right by this metric.

The allegation was always that it was 20:1 50:1 of “right wingers / maga” to everyone else.

The “everyone else” doesn’t simply mean progressive/dem/liberal - it simply means not a hard core right winger.

You would be part of the “everyone else”, but you’re no liberal.
Mojo would be part of the “everyone else”, but he’s no liberal.
I would be part of the “everyone else”, and am certainly no liberal (modern at least).

 

[dalton_vol]

The left holds the United States to a higher/different standard than they hold the rest of the world to because it fits the narrative they want to paint about the country.

Liberals hate America, this is why they will be fine having third world illegal aliens come over and trash the city. To a liberal that's some justification

 

[lawgator1]

Do you believe they are the only country enriching to 60% for fun?

Nope. Do you believe they salvaged some of that 60 pct enriched from the bombing?

 

[85SugarVol]

Give me your emailand I will send you some pics..of her.

Yea right… that’s how I ended up with that pictorial of @McDad in @hog88 ’s barn the last time…

 

[Vol8188]

Nope. Do you believe they salvaged some of that 60 pct enriched from the bombing?

If they lack facilities, they can salvage all of it for all I care. 60% uranium is only important if you have facilities to further enrich it.

Are you admitting the obvious now? That they’re obviously attempting to make nuclear weapons?

 

[Orange.]

I believe whatever the DNC media tells me to believe. So I believe both that Iran was not building a bomb before the US interdiction and that they now could build a bomb in a few weeks or months after that same interdiction.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

That is not the case. The firebombing of Dresden in WW2 caused between 45,000 and 75,000 deaths. The allies decision to bomb Dresden was criticized after the war, because the city was supposedly "not a strategic target". Hogwash. The US Army until 1951 fought to win wars. The attitude was that it was immoral to fight wars that you do not win. The quicker the war ends, the better for the our troops and our country. American lives WERE paramount.

Since 1951, the US Armed Forces have mostly fought stalemates.

Our armed forces should always fight to win. Our people and our politicians should always support this.

Fixed it. Not sure until this president that that has been the case for the last 16 or so years.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Nope. Do you believe they salvaged some of that 60 pct enriched from the bombing?

What will they do with it?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

If they lack facilities, they can salvage all of it for all I care. 60% uranium is only important if you have facilities to further enrich it.

Are you admitting the obvious now? That they’re obviously attempting to make nuclear weapons?

But I'm pretty sure that our facilities that produce medical grade radioactive isotopes are all at least a half mile underground. It just makes sense - Said no one

 

[LouderVol]

What will they do with it?

dirty bombs. no fireball, no emp, just slow, painful deaths due to radiation poisoning.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Singular acts. All those other events were over longer periods of time. Committed by orders of magnitude more people. No other singular events in human history killed as many people based on decisions made by other humans. That's why I said they were the SINGULAR greatest acts of evil in human history.

Guess you never head of the Wannsee Conference then?

Wannsee Conference - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh, and the decision to firebomb Tokyo was definitely made SINGULARLY by humans and killed more people than either atomic bomb.

 

[hndog609]

Look you can try to justify it all you want but no other singular act in human history killed as many people. The immense killing power of nuclear weapons is the exact reason Japan surrendered.

Killing innocent people is evil no matter how you try to spin it.

This is worthy of some of your megatupling down on FF fails. You're stuck in some crazy in-your-head conflation of what "single action" contextually means. One of these photos is Tokyo after Operation Meetinghouse while the other is Hiroshima post bomb. Which looks more "evil" to you?





The two bombings are both variously listed with estimates of over 100K dead. One of those is not one jot more "evil" than the other unless you're an idiot. One of those is a lot more terrifying in implication than the other unless you're an idiot. Operation Meetinghouse was one "act" hence one name. It had more moving parts than Little Boy but trying to make any great point of parsing what actually happened and spin it into some emotional hierarchy of "evil" is (and I'm being charitable) silly. It's tantamount to trying to argue going into a home and gunning down the family before setting the whole house ablaze is less evil than just blowing the whole place up and claim the latter is worse because it happened all at once.

If you want to argue strategic bombing of population centers is intrinsically evil so be it. Actually you'd be nowhere near alone in having that opinion. However you're simply flailing in trying to draw distinctions between like outcomes in the manner you've argued. What you've factually recognized but contextually crashed and burned with is how insane the jump is in making that kind of destruction achievable. One takes, for instance, a serious military to pull off. The other just takes sufficient funds, some specific resources and a single viable delivery option. That doesn't make the latter more "evil" but it does make it orders of magnitude more terrifying.

 

[lawgator1]

judging by his candid remarks and expletive, I think he agrees with you they don't know what they are doing.

He's possibly on his sop of bombast. Perhaps he thought showing a strong hand would facilitate diplomatic discussions. For all his faults, he appears to be sincere about not wanting war.

It is highly likely he got way out in front of this and said too much too soon. If that's the case welcome to the club of presidential premature exclamation.

"Cure cancer"
"Shovel ready"
"keep your doctor"
'mission accomplished"
"the end of medicare as we know it"
"no new taxes"
"no arms for hostages in my administration"

I don't recall any of them doubling down on those overclaims nearly to the extent Trump does. Trump makes some absolute statement and instead of ever admitting he was mistaken-- thereby reducing his bragging- he changes the claim and dodges his arrogantly made and wrong prior claim.

Its absolutely a personality defect in him, its born of his narcissism, and let's just pray that his ego making claims his ass can't cash doesn't end up having really bad consequences for the country.

 

[McDad]

I don't recall any of them doubling down on those overclaims nearly to the extent Trump does.

Of course you don't. They either didn't do it or didn't do it publicly. He is unique in that way

Trump makes some absolute statement and instead of ever admitting he was mistaken-- thereby reducing his bragging- he changes the claim and dodges his arrogantly made and wrong prior claim.

He does. He always he has. He will not change. You've got to decide is it worth your disdain. You aren't always a ray of sunshine on this forum, but most of us still interact with you without constant complaining of your suckiest moments.

Its absolutely a personality defect in him, its born of his narcissism, and let's just pray that his ego making claims his ass can't cash doesn't end up having really bad consequences for the country.

It is. People I have watched or read who have been close to presidents all say there is narcissism in the person. I expect those interested in the position are by default narcissist. The likelihood of really bad consequences are small. Personally, I think the risks were higher in his first term.

 

[05_never_again]

Liberals hate America, this is why they will be fine having third world illegal aliens come over and trash the city. To a liberal that's some justification

I wouldn't say "liberals" in general do. I don't think a moderate Democrat or someone like Bill Maher hates the country.

I think some far-left progressives do, although to a degree even their rhetoric is performative and done to advance a political narrative as opposed to some kind of actual genuine belief. I think many of them know they are being unreasonable or unfair but say certain things anyway because it attracts attention. In particular people like celebrities or easily have the means to leave the country, but don't.

 

[Vol8188]

dirty bombs. no fireball, no emp, just slow, painful deaths due to radiation poisoning.

Can’t claim this is my field, but per chat gpt it wouldn’t be very effective