Daily Liberal FAIL Thread

[zraver]

Dude...you need a sense of humor...

You sound like my wife.

Sorry, it just seemed like an insensitive comment to me. It was a denial of their American citizenship with an implied they were really 5th column operatives for the Empire of Japan that landed them in the camps. We didn't assume German-Americans were 5th column operatives for the Nazi's.

[gunnut]

You sound like my wife.

Sorry, it just seemed like an insensitive comment to me. It was a denial of their American citizenship with an implied they were really 5th column operatives for the Empire of Japan that landed them in the camps. We didn't assume German-Americans were 5th column operatives for the Nazi's.

I know that. I disagree with many of FDR's policies and regard him as a horrible president. Hence I bring up FDR whenever someone (usually a lib) says Bush was a horrible Nazi fascist racist klan member.

I make fun of just about any one or group of people. You should see me cuss out bad Asian drivers...:P The only reason I haven't dumped on Teddy K is because he hasn't been dead for 24 hours.

[Bigfella]

You sound like my wife.

Sorry, it just seemed like an insensitive comment to me. It was a denial of their American citizenship with an implied they were really 5th column operatives for the Empire of Japan that landed them in the camps. We didn't assume German-Americans were 5th column operatives for the Nazi's.

Would have been a bit awkward to have to sack & intern so many Generals.

[zraver]

Would have been a bit awkward to have to sack & intern so many Generals.

Beign white didn't hurt either.

[Blue]

Man, I thought after being here for some time I have come close to seeing a good amount of everything. Was I ever wrong, there are some truelly ****ed up people here brain wise on the WAB. Sheesh, where do they come from.

*Has zero to do with Blues's thread I promise.)

If you think its me, tell me, I can take it. You wouldn't be the first.

[Blue]

The only reason I haven't dumped on Teddy K is because he hasn't been dead for 24 hours.

Times up. Let er'rip!!!

[bfng3569]

bfng,



considering we've been fighting in afghanistan for almost longer than we've fought the civil war and WWII combined, i don't think "will" is a question.

so then what was your point about prefering to be the lamb?

that's definitely not all the stops. if the US truly intended to, we could have slaughtered both nations to the last man. US industrial capacity was just coming into its own by late 1944-1945. had we truly pulled out all the stops, we wouldn't bothered to even think about "operation downfall"- why invade japan and take horrendous losses when we could have easily surround the island and release chemical/biological/nuclear weapons until every last man, woman, and child was dead?

You dont consider destryoing, comepletely, city after city until they surrendered pulling out all the stops to win the war? interesting to say the least. and that was the point of the nuclear drops. to avoid the invasion. and it worked.

as for matching the nazis and the japanese in barbarity, well, bad as the internment camps were, they weren't death camps or biological experimentation centers.

no, thankfully they werent.

[astralis]

bfng,

so then what was your point about prefering to be the lamb?

this is all relative. we're not as bloody-minded as the taliban are-- ie we will not booby-trap babies and pregnant women to kill a few taliban.

You dont consider destryoing, comepletely, city after city until they surrendered pulling out all the stops to win the war? interesting to say the least.

we certainly didn't. we purposefully left kyoto and other culturally important cities free from firebombing or nuking-- do you think the taliban would bother?

you're trying to argue the impossible. i will be the first to acknowledge that when it comes to killing and destruction, the US is far more skilled than the taliban ever were and will be. but the point remains that in every war, we have willingly put shackles on ourselves because there are just some things that shouldn't be done.

that's what i mean by the US not pulling out all the stops.

[bfng3569]

[QUOTE=zraver;667605]

bfng3569,



we are using it.

yes, but the question seems to be how much are we using?

[bfng3569]

bfng,



this is all relative. we're not as bloody-minded as the taliban are-- ie we will not booby-trap babies and pregnant women to kill a few taliban.



we certainly didn't. we purposefully left kyoto and other culturally important cities free from firebombing or nuking-- do you think the taliban would bother?

you're trying to argue the impossible. i will be the first to acknowledge that when it comes to killing and destruction, the US is far more skilled than the taliban ever were and will be. but the point remains that in every war, we have willingly put shackles on ourselves because there are just some things that shouldn't be done.

that's what i mean by the US not pulling out all the stops.

and if the japanese hadnt surrendered, how many more cities would have been destroyed until they did.

and maybe i am missing something here, but isnt that part of the debate?

the amount of control we use or dont, wether we extend rights to terrorists or not? wether we use certain 'torture' techniques or not?

and then 200 or so years of history was brought into the deabte......

[Dreadnought]

If you think its me, tell me, I can take it. You wouldn't be the first.

Nah Snipe its not you.

[astralis]

bfng,

and if the japanese hadnt surrendered, how many more cities would have been destroyed until they did.

and maybe i am missing something here, but isnt that part of the debate?

the amount of control we use or dont, wether we extend rights to terrorists or not? wether we use certain 'torture' techniques or not?

just the fact that we chose operation olympic over mass blockade/starvation/gas/bombing should tell you something.

this was a war where we faced a strategic threat- that we would have a very hostile nation in control of a good portion of eurasia's resources and population.

even then, we held back from the worst we could do (what we did was plenty bad enough).

and you're telling me that in order to beat some incompetent terrorists we need to match our effort in brutality there?

[gunnut]

Times up. Let er'rip!!!

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it...

[bfng3569]

bfng,



just the fact that we chose operation olympic over mass blockade/starvation/gas/bombing should tell you something.

we chose mass murder of the civilian popualtion to end the war, and i hve no problem with it in that case.

this was a war where we faced a strategic threat- that we would have a very hostile nation in control of a good portion of eurasia's resources and population.

even then, we held back from the worst we could do (what we did was plenty bad enough).

and you're telling me that in order to beat some incompetent terrorists we need to match our effort in brutality there?

not what i said at all.

but by your admission, we have been there how long? and still havent 'won'.

is that because these are incompetant terrorists or because we are choosing to much self control and not enough 'brutality'?

[astralis]

bfng,

not what i said at all.

so what, then, do you exactly mean by "but not the will to enforce it"?

is that because these are incompetant terrorists or because we are choosing to much self control and not enough 'brutality'?

or is it because of eight years of half-assery and stupid policies such as drug eradication that got half the populace in arms against us?