VPILF

This is a forum for all off topic posts.
User avatar
Vendrin
Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
Posts: 9594
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:48 am
Location: Nevada

Post by Vendrin »

NickD wrote:You mean the bastard who only nuked Japan because he had just spent 2 billion dollars developing nuclear weapons and wanted to play with his new toy?
FYI That'd be Harry Truman who dropped it. Teddy Roosevelt wasn't even alive at the time.

And Dan, while the first nuclear weapon might have been justified, the second before we had an official response to the first, is somewhat harder to do so.
-Vendrin
<fluff> vendrin is like a drug
User avatar
NickD
Beholder
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:38 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by NickD »

Lusipher wrote:You, sir, are a complete tool.

We ended things right then and there dealing with an aggressive Japan. Many lives were saved by doing what they did. How you can say something like that is just beyond me.
They had offered to surrender weeks beforehand. They only wanted assurances that the emperor would be allowed to rule afterwards. And even then they were at most a couple of weeks away from surrendering unconditionally. And then they surrendered unconditionally and the emperor was allowed to rule afterwards.

Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost needlessly.

Now, Japan has gained a lot from American coming in afterwards and building them back up again. But then America would be the superpower it has became if Japan didn't do that Pearl Harbour thing.



And calling me a complete tool is inappropriate, Lusipher. You just keep sliding backwards.
Current PCs:
NWN1: Soppi Widenbottle, High Priestess of Yondalla.
NWN2: Gruuhilda, Tree Hugging Half-Orc
User avatar
NickD
Beholder
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:38 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by NickD »

Vendrin wrote:FYI That'd be Harry Truman who dropped it. Teddy Roosevelt wasn't even alive at the time.
Meh, you all look the same to me. :P
Current PCs:
NWN1: Soppi Widenbottle, High Priestess of Yondalla.
NWN2: Gruuhilda, Tree Hugging Half-Orc
danielmn
Fionn In Disguise
Posts: 4678
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:08 pm

Post by danielmn »

Nick...

Keep history out of political discussion...for the republicans sakes. :P

(Take no offense all, merely a good humored joke ;) )
Swift wrote: Permadeath is only permadeath when the PCs wallet is empty.
Zyrus Meynolt: [Party] For the record, if this somehow blows up in our faces and I die, I want a raise

<Castano>: danielnm - can you blame them?
<danielmn>: Yes,
<danielmn>: Easily.

"And in this twilight....our choices seal our fate"
User avatar
NickD
Beholder
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:38 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by NickD »

danielmn wrote:Nick...

Keep history out of political discussion...for the republicans sakes. :P
I am deeply offended by your comments and demand that you are banned!
Current PCs:
NWN1: Soppi Widenbottle, High Priestess of Yondalla.
NWN2: Gruuhilda, Tree Hugging Half-Orc
User avatar
White Warlock
Otyugh
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Knu-Mythia
Contact:

Post by White Warlock »

lol, you guys are hilarious. You're confusing Franklin D. Roosevelt with Teddy Roosevelt.

In any event Veal, your claim is exceedingly weak. Before he was appointed to the VP position, he served as Governor of New York for two years (the largest "population" State in the Union at the time). Before that, he served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, A colonel in the U.S. Army (Rough Riders), chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, a campaign manager for Presidential candidate (later President) Benjamin Harrison, President of the board of New York City Police Commissioners, New York City police commissioner, a published historian, a political candidate for major of New York, rancher and business manager. So, really... no comparison.
User avatar
Swift
Mook
Posts: 4043
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 12:59 pm
Location: Im somewhere where i dont know where i am
Contact:

Post by Swift »

White Warlock wrote:lol, you guys are hilarious. You're confusing Franklin D. Roosevelt with Teddy Roosevelt.

In any event Veal, your claim is exceedingly weak. Before he was appointed to the VP position, he served as Governor of New York for two years (the largest "population" State in the Union at the time). Before that, he served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, A colonel in the U.S. Army (Rough Riders), chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, a campaign manager for Presidential candidate (later President) Benjamin Harrison, President of the board of New York City Police Commissioners, New York City police commissioner, a published historian, a political candidate for major of New York, rancher and business manager. So, really... no comparison.
This is politics Whitey, never let the truth get in the way of a good jab at the guys you dont like :P
User avatar
Mulu
Mental Welfare Queen
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:25 am

Post by Mulu »

Vaelahr wrote:The answer was Teddy Roosevelt. :arrow: That's right, Teddy Roosevelt. A rather forgettable figure in American political history you might say.
I'll see your poor attempt at a Teddy Roosevelt analogy, and raise you an Abraham Lincoln who served a few terms in state legislature and one term in Congress. 8)

He also spoke out against unnecessary wars by the US, "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just."

The "murderers and demons from hell" in that sentence are Americans.... Imagine what he would say about the second atomic bomb or the destruction of Iraq.
Neverwinter Connections Dungeon Master since 2002! :D
Click for the best roleplaying!

On NWVault by me:
X-INV, X-COM, War of the Worlds, Lantan University.
User avatar
fluffmonster
Haste Bear
Posts: 2103
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Post by fluffmonster »

NickD wrote:
They had offered to surrender weeks beforehand. They only wanted assurances that the emperor would be allowed to rule afterwards. And even then they were at most a couple of weeks away from surrendering unconditionally. And then they surrendered unconditionally and the emperor was allowed to rule afterwards.
They were not, however, willing to meet the demand of unconditional surrender and so they got another bomb.

Unconditional surrender is really the only "sensible" objective in dealing with an aggressor.
Built: TSM (nwn2) Shining Scroll and Map House (proof anyone can build!)
User avatar
HATEFACE
Dr. Horrible
Posts: 1068
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:17 am
Location: A seething caldron of passive aggressive rage.

Post by HATEFACE »

White Warlock wrote:lol, you guys are hilarious. You're confusing Franklin D. Roosevelt with Teddy Roosevelt.
Franklin was the one who carried the big stick and talked all quiet and Teddy was the one who created a new deal! Get it straight crooked.


*whistles while walking along.*
He (Honest abe.) also spoke out against unnecessary wars by the US, "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just."

The "murderers and demons from hell" in that sentence are Americans.... Imagine what he would say about the second atomic bomb or the destruction of Iraq.
Good for you, you can read but like all good cherry picking democrats you use it for an alternative purpose. This speech was in reference to the mexican war and then presidents polks inane justification thereof. Democrats love to use this in reference to bush and how Iraq was a unecessary war.

Bush stated a war on terror before Iraq.
There was no threat of invasion by Iraq.
There may, or may have not been WMDs in Iraq during the time leading up to the invasion.
There are links between Saddam and terrorism.
A war on terror would also mean a war against those who sell weapons and support groups that use terror to influence, use kidnappings & sales of drugs to gain money to fund terror. This includes Saddam. This was made obvious by George W. Bush's speeches. There should also be a long list of attrocities commited by the now dead-ass dictator Saddam hussien some where on the net.
Troops find weapon cache's in Iraq all the time - These belong to terrorists who were not in Iraq prior to invasion but those that cross border in order to kill american troops, spread propganda (see mujahadeen videos), and disrupt the recovery of the Iraqi government.
Not all the facts found by troops are under full disclosure to us, do nothing, couch-sitting, political pundits. America isn't at war, the marines are at war. Hoorah.

Despite the "majority" of americans who think that the Iraq war was a mistake it is entirely justified, indeed, at the time supported by congress.

Make note of the fact that unlike bush, lincoln waged a totally unconstitutional war. - I'm just glad it turned out the way it did, we're better off for it, regardless of the politics of the day. Indeed america turned out for the better because of it. Anti-war, anti-nation building is ENTIRELY still a republican platform. This idea of interventionalism to describe Bush's policies are an invention of democrats to create positive public polls due to war weariness. Where, I ask, were these anti-war democrats during 1980s - 2000? Plenty of conflicts to yell about, but none as important or as long lasting? Republicans will always do the right thing, even when we have to drag you along, kicking and screaming.

One more opinionated thought; Is it just me or do democrats seem to be reaching out to claim Lincoln as their own. Good luck with carpetbagging the past, my friends.
Last edited by HATEFACE on Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” - Open Message to the Executive Branch.
User avatar
HATEFACE
Dr. Horrible
Posts: 1068
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:17 am
Location: A seething caldron of passive aggressive rage.

Post by HATEFACE »

fluffmonster wrote:
NickD wrote:
They had offered to surrender weeks beforehand. They only wanted assurances that the emperor would be allowed to rule afterwards. And even then they were at most a couple of weeks away from surrendering unconditionally. And then they surrendered unconditionally and the emperor was allowed to rule afterwards.
They were not, however, willing to meet the demand of unconditional surrender and so they got another bomb.

Unconditional surrender is really the only "sensible" objective in dealing with an aggressor.
The amount of force used to bring about an unconditional surrender was unsensible but - Better safe than sorry?
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” - Open Message to the Executive Branch.
User avatar
White Warlock
Otyugh
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Knu-Mythia
Contact:

Post by White Warlock »

HATEFACE wrote: Franklin was the one who carried the big stick and talked all quiet and Teddy was the one who created a new deal! Get it straight crooked.
Bah! Don't confuse them any further.

As to the rest of your post, can't figure heads nor tails of it. Were you trying to make a point, or just rambling?
User avatar
HATEFACE
Dr. Horrible
Posts: 1068
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:17 am
Location: A seething caldron of passive aggressive rage.

Post by HATEFACE »

White Warlock wrote:
HATEFACE wrote: Franklin was the one who carried the big stick and talked all quiet and Teddy was the one who created a new deal! Get it straight crooked.
Bah! Don't confuse them any further.

As to the rest of your post, can't figure heads nor tails of it. Were you trying to make a point, or just rambling?
Allow me to set the record straight on FDR and mah main, Rep peep, teddy "the bear" roosevelt. REP-RE-SENT! Franklin was the one who fought against those dirty mexicans and Teddy was the one who fought against those dirty japanese.
FDR also put lincoln on a penny, our least used currency would be faceless if it wasn't for him.

Well, if anyone knows all about rambling, it would be you.
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” - Open Message to the Executive Branch.
User avatar
White Warlock
Otyugh
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:44 am
Location: Knu-Mythia
Contact:

Post by White Warlock »

Umm, no... it's the other way around. :roll:


Theodore Roosevelt - 26th President - 1901 to 1909 (Lincoln penny, Spanish/American War)

Franklin D. Roosevelt - 32nd President - 1933 to 1945 (Depression, WWII)
User avatar
oldgrayrogue
Retired
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:09 am
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by oldgrayrogue »

Bush should have been impeached for initiating the Iraq war -- a war which was instigated by America on a confirmed falsehood that Iraq had WMD's and posed an "immediate threat" to the United States. The so called "War on Terror" in Iraq is nothing more than using the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as an excuse to topple a dictator that we, Americans, had an awful lot to do with bringing to power during the lengthy Iran/Iraq war. There is no confirmed link between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11. The failure to bring Articles of Impeachment against Bush for this is the largest failure of the Congress in the history of our country to date IMO. I suppose if he got a blow job from an intern in the oval office it would have been different.

The post-invasion revisionist justification for toppling Saddam because he is guilty of atrocities and (allegedly) supported terror groups is one of the most outrageous hypocritical statements made by the republican party regarding this entire affair. And as far as terroists in Iraq now -- they came there after we invaded -- so where is the logic? There are any number of world leaders in the middle east and elswhere guilty of many more atrocities than Saddam who have confirmed links to terror organizations presently. Why haven't we invaded them if that is all the justification we need? Don't get me wrong Saddam Hussein was clearly a very bad man and a megalomaniac, and I surely didn't shed a tear when he was gone. But we don't invade other countries like we did here because it is wrong. Indeed it is unAmerican. Americans don't start wars, we repel those who start them and finish them.

Yes we were attacked on 9/11 by a bunch of insane radical Islamic terrorists. I live in NY. Born and raised. I knew people who died in those towers and had friends and family of friends die in them, or who died trying to save them. I was down at ground zero a week after it happened, when they opened it back up. I got news for all of you so gung ho about Iraq. The two guys who mastermined that are still out there plotting against us and recruiting more insane extremists to attack us while Bush has been busy with Iraq. Mission accomplished. Read the official reports, Al Qaeda is just as strong now as it as ever been. Some "war" on terror. Oh and by the way, it was the republicans and George Bush who were in power when the attacks happened. Read the 9/11 Commission's report. There was intelligence available that could have prevented 9/11, but our fearless leaders were asleep at the switch. Given how quickly the focus switched to Iraq after those attacks, maybe they were busy planning to invade it. And then they gave the guys in charge of the intelligence failures medals. The Hypocricy is astounding. Ask yourself, if the Bush administration had in fact acted on the intelligence available and prevented 9/11 would we be at war in Iraq today? The answer is obviously no. It is sad and disgraceful that the loss of those innocents and heroes who died on this the anniversery of 9/11 is still being used as an excuse to justify this unjust war. Frankly it makes me sick.
Post Reply