How did USA become such a messed up country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazyguy

I promise you Stoffi, the appearance of "The rise of Christian Fundalmentalism" is all Media hype! There is the element and even domestic terrorist groups that claim Christianity as the excuse for their violence, for instance "The Army of God" and "Westboro Baptist Church. I couldn't agree more that it is a problem, but it is a vast vast minority. It's a few hundred nutjobs getting way more attention then they deserve.I wouldn't even proclaim it to be "on the rise".

As for as extreme Islam, it is also a problem and i do see the correlation that you are drawing, I just don't think that it is really fair to compare a few hundred nutjobs, who are seen as nutjobs by the rest of us to Islamic fundamentalist. I would agree that they are qualitatively similar, but the difference is the social unacceptability of their actions. They aren't hailed as heros by the general populace!

I don't believe in the Evolution theory myself. It is a dis-proven theory. The selective survival process exists, but it actually limits genetic material and actually INHIBITS genetic change. Darwin's theory was written before the discovery of DNA. Frankly I don't know how the world all got created, and find it a bit pretentious of anyone who does! Even the Christian Bible says the "we see through a glass that is cloudy". If we see these things through a glass that is cloudy, how can we say exactly how and exactly when the world was created? Those to the far right hate that argument. Ive had it many times, I have never been beaten to death like one would be in an Islamic nation.

Creationism was once taught in schools. Going back to that isn't an alarming new trend, it is the way things were for hundreds of years. It was there when I was in Elementary School, I'm only 38. It was taken out of them for a very short period of time.

There has always also been 2 extremes. The Far Left is just as Nutty as the Far Right. Lets not take one side over the other.

To answer your original question "what went wrong" the truth is that the 2 sides have become extremely polarized to the point hat most Americans don't truly relate to either of them. Politics have gotten downright absurd, and most politicians don't even believe in what they are selling us! Both sides take an extreme viewpoint in their rhetoric, and make backroom deals about what is going to happen. Jesse Ventura, who is not a career politician, but made it into politics by popular demand compared it to professional wrestling.

---

It's not a media hype. ALL the candidates on the Republican side are religious fanatics by my standard. They prophesise that God has chosen this and that, that God meant the USA to invade Iraq, they say so much c**p that I can't believe my ears. I read a lot of what the candidates said. I heard it through Fox News too, which is a channel that sickens me. I read things through the eyes of the fanatics. The fanatics present other fanatics as they want them to be presented, so it's hard to say that "communists and nazis" are twisting that image.

There is no far left in the US. In fact, both Democrats and Republicans are far right in international standards. Meanwhile, I sit here on my laptop watching my 50 inch flat screen tv, whilst studying at university for FREE, whilst getting 16000 dollars a year from the government so that I have a chance to get education. I have to pay back 60%, or 100% if I don't pass the exams. I come from a poor background, my mom was a single parent and worked 2 jobs. I never had my own room, and I inherited most of my clothes until I got a job of my own.
Still, I was never poor as in the USA, I had what I needed, and I have the same possibility of going to University as any rich guy.

Oh, and I can become Prime Minister if I wish. I am not rich, nor have influencial people in my pocket, but I could rule this country if I worked hard enough and really wanted it.

I don;t want to get into a urination contest, I stated my opinion about the original statement. I'm sure, Stoffi, that your country is better then mine in every way. Mine is such a messed up place to live. There are great places to live I'm sure like Iran or Siberia that would be much better. I can see that what you don't like about America is religious freedom. If you don't think that people should be free to practice religion, it is a horrible place to be. There sure a lot of religions here.

Lets examine this statement "Religious fanatism is believing evolution didn't take place." Firstly you misspelled fanaticism in your fervor. Insisting that a that this THEORY is fact, is fanaticism in itself! Perhaps a new religion is being formed, the Church of Darwin, where Darwin is the intellectual savior of mankind. It has never been "the fact of evolution" but always only the THEORY/

As far as evolution, it is a THEORY, and has never been anything more then a THEORY. Now there are those that fervently defend this THEORY with a deal of fanaticism.
Here are a few links about modern science and evolution. I had to Google them, to be honest, the majority of what I have learned about the subject was not online, and it is something that I find completely boring. To be honest, I'm more concerned about increasing my WPA then how life began, but for you Bish here are a few links I tried to avoid any that involved religious fanatics from the other side,

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Here is a blog about it, the blog includes scientific references. I realize that anyone can "blog" but this one does use scientific facts and quotes renowned geneticists:
http://www.bloggernews.net/120376

Here is one that supports evolution using DNA.
http://seanbcarroll.com/books/Endles...ost_Beautiful/

There is one easy hole to poke in Darwins theory, however which again is the fact that limiting DNA by "Natural selection" or "selective survival" or "survival of the fittest" actually decreases the amount of DNA in the Gene pool, which would Impede Mutation, even in the presence of mutagens. To be honest, all that I can find are basically peoples opinions on the matter!
But is that people believe or not in something a reason to despise us? That is fanaticism.

I hope that you can forgive that I am a little sensitive about USA being called a "messed up country" by those who do not dwell within it. There have been a great deal of attacks against America by people who are making similar statements. Most recently just yesterday. I'm a little ticked off. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, to be sure, but if they hate us that much, maybe they should just stay out of our borders. But no, they come to take advantage of our markets, our healthcare and welfare, all the while cursing our existence. I realize that not everyone that hates America is a terrorist attacker, but similarly, if you were Jewish and fresh out of a concentration camp, you may be a bit sensitive about your religion being slammed. If fact if one were to make an antisemitic rant on the same scale that these verbal attacks on America have been made, it would be wholly unacceptable. What makes it right to disparage Americans in such a way? What gives anyone the right to sneer at my ethnicity in such a fashion? Not just the fact that such offensive remarks would be made, but that they would be accepted so widely, and a slew of people would join in (including a forum moderator) and get a few kicks of their own in when I stick up for her?

Think about it on that level for just one second. Imagine that it were any other country that got bashed in that fashion. It would be considered offensive. It only isn't offensive to bash America in that fashion.
You are wrong on many levels. The statement is wrong. It is wrong to make the statement even if it weren't incorrect. It is wrong to defend the statement, and it is wrong to accept that kind of a racist rant.
That is all that I will say about it.

I think you're a little confused on the whole matter. The theory of Evolution and the theory of survival of the fittest are two completely independent theories. Darwin's theory of evolution simply connects the dots.

Survival of the fittest simply suggests that animals with advantageous mutations will succeed/dominate while animals with less-advantageous or even disruptive mutations will die off.
Evolution suggests that all the life we see today, has evolved from more primitive life in the past (Note that it doesn't claim to be a solution to what created life).

Claiming that Darwin's theory has been disproven because a collection of scientists dispute the theory is false. The scientific community rarely agrees 100% about any theory. There's always someone who claims something else and that's good for science, but simply counter-claiming a theory does not disprove it. For the theory to be disproven, hard, incontrovertible evidence showing that the theory CAN NOT be true would be required. Either that, or an even stronger theory which is backed up even stronger than current theories would need to be offered.


As far as DNA and mutation, while claiming that Natural Selection does limit the gene pool, I think you're overestimating such effects DRAMATICALLY. DNA mutation happens on a near constant basis. This can be from radiation from the sun, or even your DNA making a slight mistake while it's copying itself. The amount of genetic mutations that have taken place over the course of the evolution of life are on the nearly infinite scale. The amount of genetic limitations caused by natural selection would not be at all significant enough to cause any kind a real dent in making DNA evolution not possible.

Most importantly, these "limitation" are already visible. In fact, they're incredibly important in how we classify animals. How many animals have 4 limbs? Every insect in the world has 3 parts to their body and 6 legs. Every bird in the world has feathers. Do these "limitation" really limit how DRASTICALLY different these animals can be?


Again, you're free to believe what you'd like, but you need to get your facts straight :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazyguy

I don;t want to get into a urination contest, I stated my opinion about the original statement. I'm sure, Stoffi, that your country is better then mine in every way. Mine is such a messed up place to live. There are great places to live I'm sure like Iran or Siberia that would be much better. I can see that what you don't like about America is religious freedom. If you don't think that people should be free to practice religion, it is a horrible place to be. There sure a lot of religions here.

Lets examine this statement "Religious fanatism is believing evolution didn't take place." Firstly you misspelled fanaticism in your fervor. Insisting that a that this THEORY is fact, is fanaticism in itself! Perhaps a new religion is being formed, the Church of Darwin, where Darwin is the intellectual savior of mankind. It has never been "the fact of evolution" but always only the THEORY/

As far as evolution, it is a THEORY, and has never been anything more then a THEORY. Now there are those that fervently defend this THEORY with a deal of fanaticism.
Here are a few links about modern science and evolution. I had to Google them, to be honest, the majority of what I have learned about the subject was not online, and it is something that I find completely boring. To be honest, I'm more concerned about increasing my WPA then how life began, but for you Bish here are a few links I tried to avoid any that involved religious fanatics from the other side,

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Here is a blog about it, the blog includes scientific references. I realize that anyone can "blog" but this one does use scientific facts and quotes renowned geneticists:
http://www.bloggernews.net/120376

Here is one that supports evolution using DNA.
http://seanbcarroll.com/books/Endles...ost_Beautiful/

There is one easy hole to poke in Darwins theory, however which again is the fact that limiting DNA by "Natural selection" or "selective survival" or "survival of the fittest" actually decreases the amount of DNA in the Gene pool, which would Impede Mutation, even in the presence of mutagens. To be honest, all that I can find are basically peoples opinions on the matter!
But is that people believe or not in something a reason to despise us? That is fanaticism.

---

Not a single one of those links state that darwins theory is disproven.

Ambulocetus (and Pakicetus) is a prime example of natural selection, if you don't remember him he was the missing link creationists claimed didn't exist.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/...60982213001942
^^ actual scientific data showing natural selection in action.

This is why US is such a ****ed up country, due to so many idiots.

http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/

Sappy alert! Fundamentally is a lack of mutual respect. Beyond religious tie in, The 10 Commandments cover the basics of cultural progression. For non-believers we are default God. As evidence of cultures that respect women as equal we see lower crime, higher education, and quality of expression. Great rock concerts, peerless museums, reliable infrastructure. Capitalism is the limb of a strong tree, or the trunk of a weak ailing tree. Love is weapons grade mutual respect.

****.. noticed 1 funny thing about the tweets from the link above.. almost all the tweets had "too bad it was unsuccessful" or something sort of that at the end of their sentence.. like it was hacked.. i mean, there are million other ways or words to connect the poisoned letter incident to their personal hatred towards obama.. instead almost all of them used the same sentence.. weird right..

They invade terroristy scary countries for oil. If they just invade norway they have no problems.

True.
Or Canada

Urban Sprawl is the short answer, domestically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

This is why US is such a ****ed up country, due to so many idiots.

http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/

---

I just clicked on this link, and the front page is talking about how stupid Brits are. Well done Korp.

stoffi I am still waiting for your surveys that you cited earlier without links. AKA the below povrty line rate being between 16-48% and a rise in christian fundamentalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

I just clicked on this link, and the front page is talking about how stupid Brits are. Well done Korp.

---

You are stupid beyond doubt. If you checked when I posted that post above you would realize that post about brits hadnt even been posted. Then if you proceed to read the other posts on that site you would realize the stupidity of americans. But I guess you wouldnt be able to make this "smartass" post if you did :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

You are stupid beyond doubt. If you checked when I posted that post above you would realize that post about brits hadnt even been posted. Then if you proceed to read the other posts on that site you would realize the stupidity of americans. But I guess you wouldnt be able to make this "smartass" post if you did :)

---

I was just making a humorous observation, I'm well aware that it was different when you posted the link...... But if you want to start throwing around insults for no reason I can just ban you and be done with it.

Anyway, there are morons in every country, that's my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goodz

stoffi I am still waiting for your surveys that you cited earlier without links. AKA the below povrty line rate being between 16-48% and a rise in christian fundamentalism.

---

I didn't see you ask for them. I will provide them later today or tomorrow. No time to write a lot now.

Poverty figures are easy to come by, though.

Urban sprawl is a complete failure and speaks to the commercialized mindset cultivated in America. The elements are everything from segregation laws and practices to money hungry developers to cultural icon worship.
So we start building houses, large fuel sucking houses further and further from city convenience. You'd think the longer drive to work would prompt a trend toward fuel efficient vehicles, but instead SUVs became the rage. Since people live in sparse density the tax base is strained and infrastructure becomes unwieldy. Education suffers. We celebrate prison culture while the former core of suburbia is abandoned in the interest of convenient shopping for those who fled to the newer developments. Internal economy is discouraged, quantity for quality. Jobs die as two working parents become necessary to support a family. Glorification of prison culture which includes playa mentality leaving women to raise children alone. Children are subject to peer pressure with less parenting and lack of school extracurricular positive influence. Children grow up morally inept with no correlation to civil responsibility. They lack work ethic, curtesy, and exude qualities of the super self centered.
The beginning of the end was when to grant equality we turned to busses instead of providing quality education. Imagine the cost differential if the bus, fuel, repair, driver, replacement had been aimed at smarter healthier kids. The end was soon after the Cold War. We all thought the military budget could be redistributed to bolster our culture. You'll note the end was the same time the X-Mart, sprawl, MTV changes format, military worship, SUV market kicks off. Some say there is a conspiracy at work and I can't disagree with the efficiency of execution.
I'm a generation Xer and have witnessed the decline in my hometown in real time. I remember the Jesus Jones song Right Here(right now); it's sad to see where we've gone since waking up from history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StratOcastle

Urban sprawl is a complete failure and speaks to the commercialized mindset cultivated in America. The elements are everything from segregation laws and practices to money hungry developers to cultural icon worship.
So we start building houses, large fuel sucking houses further and further from city convenience. You'd think the longer drive to work would prompt a trend toward fuel efficient vehicles, but instead SUVs became the rage. Since people live in sparse density the tax base is strained and infrastructure becomes unwieldy. Education suffers. We celebrate prison culture while the former core of suburbia is abandoned in the interest of convenient shopping for those who fled to the newer developments. Internal economy is discouraged, quantity for quality. Jobs die as two working parents become necessary to support a family. Glorification of prison culture which includes playa mentality leaving women to raise children alone. Children are subject to peer pressure with less parenting and lack of school extracurricular positive influence. Children grow up morally inept with no correlation to civil responsibility. They lack work ethic, curtesy, and exude qualities of the super self centered.
The beginning of the end was when to grant equality we turned to busses instead of providing quality education. Imagine the cost differential if the bus, fuel, repair, driver, replacement had been aimed at smarter healthier kids. The end was soon after the Cold War. We all thought the military budget could be redistributed to bolster our culture. You'll note the end was the same time the X-Mart, sprawl, MTV changes format, military worship, SUV market kicks off. Some say there is a conspiracy at work and I can't disagree with the efficiency of execution.
I'm a generation Xer and have witnessed the decline in my hometown in real time. I remember the Jesus Jones song Right Here(right now); it's sad to see where we've gone since waking up from history.

---

I am unsure about the USA but in the last 20 years they say air quality has been steadily improving in major canadian cities (likely all but the study I read was just on large cities, Vancouver was listed as a city that grew a lot and has way more vehicles but air quality has improved quite a bit)

http://www.metrovancouver.org/servic...Air-MV2012.pdf

They have a few useful charts but one of them did say they thought some stuff would start to go up come 2020 :( It is good to see plug in car chargers all over downtown in my city!

The answer to this question is the Federal Reserve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goodz

They invade terroristy scary countries for oil. If they just invade norway they have no problems.

---

in reference, americans are the one who traied alqeada <-- however the **** its spelled, that and they attacked us using a scare tactic 12 years ago, **** yeah we will war them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kemia

in reference, americans are the one who traied alqeada <-- however the **** its spelled, that and they attacked us using a scare tactic 12 years ago, **** yeah we will war them.

---

scare tactic? I do enjoy how americans complain over tactics used against them - crying about surprise attacks on naval bases in hawaii and whining about attacks on civilians on 11/9.

I'm sure USA never did anything comparable . . .

Bad things happen in war and tough decisions are made, but I would never compare it to the way terrorism specifically targets civilians for absolutely no other reason than to murder them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

Bad things happen in war and tough decisions are made, but I would never compare it to the way terrorism specifically targets civilians for absolutely no other reason than to murder them.

---

so the firebombing of dresden and the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki were ok because their aims wasn't to kill civilians but to achieve a war goal?

do you really think that al qaida don't have aims and they just want to kill civilians for the fun of it?

you know that the war with japan was already won right?

>but our motives were pure because we're the good guys

Meanwhile in pakistan: USA launches drone missiles against the populous of a nation they are not at war with, performing signature strikes where they have no idea who the targets are, using double taps to hit first responders and hitting the funerals of targets so you can be sure to get their wives and kids too. That **** is too low for the mafia.

>bwaaa waaaa dey r using scurr tactik

I didn't say it was "ok", but it certainly saved American lives and ended a war, to claim otherwise is naivety. For some reason America is always **** on for responding to aggression, it defies logic. Our biggest crime in the world court is invading Iraq under false pretenses, but we're still treated as if we invaded some peaceful village of innocent bunny rabbits, not a country run by an oppressive war criminal. I can't say I agree with America's actions on every level (very few actually), but stop pretending like we bomb innocents on purpose and for no reason whatsoever. You want to compare the actions of terrorists to drone strikes, which is just stupid. Was there some military personnel I wasn't aware of that they were targeting on 9/11? No, just civilians. Apples to oranges.

Personally, I wish we'd get the hell out of every single other country except our own, and leave them to their own self destruction. But of course if we did that, the same people would cry about how the great and powerful America is ignoring world issues. It's a lose lose situation, so I just assume the people giving orders have a better idea of why they are doing what they're doing than a bunch of idiots on a message board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

I didn't say it was "ok", but it certainly saved American lives and ended a war, to claim otherwise is naivety.

---

The war was already over, to claim otherwise is tactical and historical ignorance.

You traded a few soldiers lives for the lives of quarter of a million civilians.

Quote:

---

For some reason America is always **** on for responding to aggression, it defies logic.

---

top jokes, the US had blockaded japan in the pacific cutting off their supply lines, as well as funding the chinese. They badly wanted to get into the war and needed something to convince the isolationist public to support it. I mean the fleet had originally been stationed in San Diego and there was already a military build up in the phillipines.

Good job on more recent 'responses to aggression' by the way, you invaded the wrong country twice and broke the back of your own economy.

Quote:

---

Our biggest crime in the world court is invading Iraq under false pretenses, but we're still treated as if we invaded some peaceful village of innocent bunny rabbits, not a country run by an oppressive war criminal.

---

Aaah those nasty war crimes... which the US funded, sponsored, supported and supplied the biological weapons for. Okay, you guys sure are the moral authority here.

Quote:

---

but stop pretending like we bomb innocents on purpose and for no reason whatsoever.

---

But. . . you do. At least to the same level of reasoning as Al Quaida do, ie. ideological reasoning. Although with the drone program there is also a lot of money being made manufacturing the damn things.

Quote:

---

You want to compare the actions of terrorists to drone strikes, which is just stupid. Was there some military personnel I wasn't aware of that they were targeting on 9/11? No, just civilians. Apples to oranges.

---

'Potential enemy combatants' in the drone program are defined as any man of military age... in a country that you are not at war with and is nominally your ally.

Which military personnel are you targeting when you 'double tap' to kill ambulance drivers and paramedics?

>it's stupid because I say so
>no I don't have any arguments

Oh yes, those dreadful drone strikes in Pakistan, requested by Pakistan, where the drones take off from bases in Pakistan, and then hit targets provided via shared intelligence from Pakistan. But no, let's pretend we're simply "bombing an ally", lol.

And I don't know wtf you're talking about the war in Japan "already being over". It was over as in yes we were going to invade them and win, but it certainly was going to cost thousands of lives to accomplish. Japan was given the chance to surrender and refused. In what way was that war "over"?

Quote:

---

Oh yes, those dreadful drone strikes in Pakistan, requested by Pakistan, where the drones take off from bases in Pakistan, and then hit targets provided via shared intelligence from Pakistan. But no, let's pretend we're simply "bombing an ally", lol.

---

you mean the ones Pakistan was told were going to happen regardless where they have no control over the targets and the could either consent to it or have it happen without their consent which would cause immediate overthrow? that's a case of 'you can quit or we fire you', and we know the US has no compunctions about running operations in pakistan without pakistani consent.

Your knowledge of these subjects is not sufficient, but I like how you're no longer trying to defend the targeting practices.

Quote:

---

And I don't know wtf you're talking about the war in Japan "already being over"

---

Japan approached the Soviets wanting to surrender in June of 45, provided they could keep their Emperor, which Truman knew about. He was either willing to drop the bombs to get rid of the Emperor or he wanted to drop them to flex his muscles in front of the soviets (who his top generals including Patton wanted to invade directly after Germany's surrender)

Given that the kept their Emperor under their eventual terms, I'd say it's pretty obvious that Truman was merely looking for a pretense to drop the bombs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Snowstorm

you mean the ones Pakistan was told were going to happen regardless where they have no control over the targets and the could either consent to it or have it happen without their consent which would cause immediate overthrow? that's a case of 'you can quit or we fire you', and we know the US has no compunctions about running operations in pakistan without pakistani consent.

Your knowledge of these subjects is not sufficient, but I like how you're no longer trying to defend the targeting practices.

---

Pakistan's army chief requested MORE drone coverage in 2008, that came out with the wikileaks thing. They deny this because they know their citizens despise the program and don't want to look bad authorizing the bombings, but in reality it's likely fully supported by Pakistan.

Quote:

---

Japan approached the Soviets wanting to surrender in June of 45, provided they could keep their Emperor, which Truman knew about. He was either willing to drop the bombs to get rid of the Emperor or he wanted to drop them to flex his muscles in front of the soviets (who his top generals including Patton wanted to invade directly after Germany's surrender)

Given that the kept their Emperor under their eventual terms, I'd say it's pretty obvious that Truman was merely looking for a pretense to drop the bombs.

---

lolwut? The Soviets didn't even declare war on Japan until after the bombs dropped, so who was Japan trying to surrender to in June? The Potsdam Declaration was presented to Japan in late July which stated failure to surrender would result in their "prompt and utter destruction". This warning was ignored by Japan and they fought on. The choice was a costly invasion of Japan, or dropping the bombs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

Pakistan's army chief requested MORE drone coverage in 2008, that came out with the wikileaks thing. They deny this because they know their citizens despise the program and don't want to look bad authorizing the bombings, but in reality it's likely fully supported by Pakistan.

---

implying that army chief = full support
implying the pakistanis are dictating targets
implying the drone policies don't come from american executive branch
implying the army aren't hoping for an uprising so they can have another coup and take power again

"I am in blood
Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er."

Quote:

---

lolwut? The Soviets didn't even declare war on Japan until after the bombs dropped, so who was Japan trying to surrender to in June? The Potsdam Declaration was presented to Japan in late July which stated failure to surrender would result in their "prompt and utter destruction". This warning was ignored by Japan and they fought on. The choice was a costly invasion of Japan, or dropping the bombs.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surren...n#cite_note-44

"While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, the Empire of Japan's leaders, (the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War, also known as the "Big Six"), were privately making entreaties to the neutral Soviet Union to mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese."

"It goes without saying that in my earlier message calling for unconditional surrender or closely equivalent terms, I made an exception of the question of preserving [the imperial family]." - Japanese Ambassador to Moscow
- Magic Diplomatic Summary No. 1212.

noob pls go.

Since when does the person surrendering set the terms? They wanted to keep their authority in place, we demanded it be removed. They refused to surrender under the terms presented and faced the consequences.

They wanted to keep their emperor, the Americans said knew that, they set unacceptable terms, they showed off their new weaponry to the soviets, suddenly they're OK with the Japs keeping their Emperor.

Your homework is to figure out what the US's main goal was.

Thank you class, your history lesson for today is complete.

The same terms that they agreed to after the bombing, must not have been so unacceptable. The Potsdam Declaration did not specifically single out the Emperor, but stated "the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"", and I don't see how removing the people responsible for a war is an unacceptable term. Their stupidity and pride led to the bombings. Once the bombs dropped, it was the Emperor who demanded to the war council that the terms be accepted.

The terms were offered in such a way as to make them clearly unacceptable to japan, and they knew that was the case as they had intercepted their talks with the soviet union stating the only thing they wouldn't move on was losing their Emperor.

Are you seriously trying to play abs style word games here? your arguments have been demolished down to saying, 'durr well they didn't refer to him by name with his social security number', 'remove for power for all time' (all time - clearly referring to an inherited position).

Your arguments are becoming more feeble with each post as I expose your ignorance.

I'm not playing word games at all, this was a specific issue at the Potsdam conference, it's their word game. The Brits wanted to keep the Emperor and the Yanks wanted him out and the position ended. The terms as worded was the compromise agreed on by the parties involved. It spoke on eliminating those responsible for the war while also reestablishing a peaceful government. The only mention of an "unconditional" surrender only referred to the immediate and unconditional surrender of ARMED FORCES. They didn't even bother to reply to the declaration, they simply went to the media and said we will fight to the bloody end. Stop pretending they were desperately trying to surrender, they made virtually no effort until the bombs went down. They were trying to prevent the Soviets from joining the war because they knew they couldn't win, but that's not even close to the same thing as a war being "over".

And I point out again, these "unacceptable" terms were immediately accepted after the bombs were dropped, so how can accepted terms be called unacceptable? That's just a stupid comment. They didn't believe the US had the bomb, and even when we dropped the first one, they didn't believe we had more ready to drop.

You look ridiculous trying to claim Japan was ready to surrender, when everything they did and said showed otherwise. When presented with terms for surrender, their only reply was:

Quote:

---

We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war.

---

lol pretending you are proving me wrong doesn't make it so.

they weren't immediately accepted, they were accepted after talks specifying that they could keep their Emperor under allied rule.

Quote:

---

You look ridiculous trying to claim Japan was ready to surrender, when everything they did and said showed otherwise.

---

and you look ridiculous every time you say they weren't ready to surrender since I've already proved with documentation that they were willing to surrender in June of 45 if they could keep their Emperor, which the Americans knew. Keep making yourself look dumb, it's hilarious.

lolz, except that they signed the exact declaration that they refused to even respond to prior to the bombs. Funny how their entire attitude changed once they realized the warning we gave them was not an empty threat.

Accepted unacceptable terms, a brand new concept brought to you by JohnSnowstorm!

Oh lol, look at this nice little tidbit in the Allied response to the Japanese demands that the Emperor remain in power:

Quote:

---

From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms. ...The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.

---

"In accordance with the Potsdam Declaration" haha, you know that funny little thing they were suddenly ok with actually considering accepting?

Followed by Japan stating:

Quote:

---

The Japanese cabinet considered the Allied response, and Suzuki argued that they must reject it and insist on an explicit guarantee for the imperial system. Anami returned to his position that there be no occupation of Japan. Afterward, Tōgō told Suzuki that there was no hope of getting better terms, and Kido conveyed the emperor's will that Japan surrender. In a meeting with the emperor, Yonai spoke of his concerns about growing civil unrest:

I think the term is inappropriate, but the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war are, in a sense, divine gifts. This way we don't have to say that we have quit the war because of domestic circumstances.

---

And the Emperor himself:

Quote:

---

At a conference with the cabinet and other councilors, Anami, Toyoda, and Umezu again made their case for continuing to fight, after which the emperor said:

I have listened carefully to each of the arguments presented in opposition to the view that Japan should accept the Allied reply as it stands and without further clarification or modification, but my own thoughts have not undergone any change. ... In order that the people may know my decision, I request you to prepare at once an imperial rescript so that I may broadcast to the nation. Finally, I call upon each and every one of you to exert himself to the utmost so that we may meet the trying days which lie ahead.

---

So where exactly are you getting this garbage that the surrender was somehow going to happen prior to the bombs? The bombs made it happen, any argument to the contrary is simply delusional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

Bad things happen in war and tough decisions are made, but I would never compare it to the way terrorism specifically targets civilians for absolutely no other reason than to murder them.

---

Technically, the US did something equally awful.

They played kingmaker in many regions, toppling democratically elected parties in favor in puppet dictatorships either so that they could control the economy and get goods for peanuts or so that they could force other countries to be in their image.

And more globally (more western actors involved), there was the redrawing of borders post WWII, completely ignoring ethnic incompatibilities and of course there was Israel (not present day Israel, Israel at it's inception which wouldn't have been possible without western support and which displaced tons of Palestinians).

I know all that **** and I'm not even an history buff. I'm sure there are plenty more I'm not mentioning.

Those people have strong historical incentives to hate us. We sowed a lot of garbage and now we're collecting.

Was 9/11 right? No. Did 9/11 come out of the blue without provocation? Hell no.

But you also know I'm right that if the US stayed out of all of that crap, people would cry about how we're ignoring problems we have the power to help solve. It's lose-lose getting involved with anyone for anything. It's why I hate politics altogether. If we're going to be hated for getting involved and hated for not getting involved, personally I'd choose not getting involved and letting them sort out their own ****. There is so much we can do to make our own country better, we should just focus on that since we aren't wanted elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magn

Technically, the US did something equally awful.

They played kingmaker in many regions, toppling democratically elected parties in favor in puppet dictatorships either so that they could control the economy and get goods for peanuts or so that they could force other countries to be in their image.

And more globally (more western actors involved), there was the redrawing of borders post WWII, completely ignoring ethnic incompatibilities and of course there was Israel (not present day Israel, Israel at it's inception which wouldn't have been possible without western support and which displaced tons of Palestinians).

I know all that **** and I'm not even an history buff. I'm sure there are plenty more I'm not mentioning.

Those people have strong historical incentives to hate us. We sowed a lot of garbage and now we're collecting.

Was 9/11 right? No. Did 9/11 come out of the blue without provocation? Hell no.

---

we put japanese/americans in internment camps during the duration of WW2, post-world war 2, europe was so torn from it, it required american aid to re-grow. Anyone who questioned the presidents authority during WW2 was suspected of being a spy, the cold war A war based on espionage and sabotage (psychological warfare and intelligence) the CIA came to be in this era/time (when exactly am not sure), Americans were stripped of basic rights during WW2, and everything was foused on the war efforts, compare that to now, we are not nearly as restrained as we were back then. America assesrted it self as a super-power after WW2, expansion of empire (trying to copy britian and europe) invasion of phillipines, cuba, hmm. Hawaii -- The removal of american indians onto reservations for further expansion into the west, abolishment of slavery, founding of the KKK (holding the younger american generation reponsbile as a whole, or even todays society in america) for what has occured in the past, would be like us blaming the europeans for trying to invade us and still calling them panzies (we still do that im sure).

"damned if ya do and damned if ya don't" -- Bart Simpson

why is it the only things people focus on are the shortcomings of any nations past/history/present? Then try to dehumanize us and pretend they are better than us? You want to play mind games? It is, what it is. Just like all the protestors and critics blaming obama for everything, any new person who comes into office is automatically blamed for everything and deemed "bad/evil" just because they are a politician? If that's how you feel, then stop whining about it and do something to change it.

Quote:

---

Was 9/11 right? No. Did 9/11 come out of the blue without provocation? Hell no.

---

But 9/11 was americans who died and thats not okey! Few hundred thousands japanese people are okey thou, just to get a point through...