State of the union - And all the other speeches..

[Scorponok]

I know some of you people like to bash/praise the president alot, in these debate topics and the like. Leave your thoughts on the speech (when it's over :biggrin:) With all the retarded clapping ever thirty seconds, might take a while. I personally think it's a stupid waste of time, Bush should just tell them to shut up 'til the end

[Nantuko Joe]

I agree, the applause should be held until the end, it detracts from the seriousness of the issue.

Bush layed it all out for us, and it's EXACTLY what I've been expecting to happen. Frankly, I stand behind it, because I agree with Bush's ultimatum.

For those of you who didn't see the address, i can sum it up with this:

If Saddam Hussein refuses to disarm his weapons and get rid of them, we're going to war.

[SSJKarma]

nantuko: and how can the US know he desarmed the bombs ?
i mean if you didn't even found any trace of the bombs, then how can you know he have some and worst if he has, how can you he didn't desarmed them ?

be realistic one second... BUSH wants to go in WAR just to be sure the country don't have bombs !
there is no WAY to prove he has the bomb just like there is no way to prove he could have desarmed it !

you know why i know that for a fact...
because it is called TRUST, which the US doesn't give, so when something happens then it always considered a prelude to a war ! which result in a loss of a major population !

again, US are the worst country of them all in ARMY, you always want to go in war with other countrys for what ? their natural ressources and the fact they "SUPPOSELY" got NUCLEAR BOMBs (which you have in profusion) !

so i say, if your country is all GOOD for others, then why is it the only COUNTRY who SHOULD have THE RIGHTS to have some ?

my guess...
WORLD DOMINATION !
that's all the US try to have !
everything for themselves !

i agree, most of the countrys are like that, but why has the US the right when other countrys don't ? that's still very selffish for me !

[bloodpack]

If Saddam Hussein refuses to disarm his weapons and get rid of them, we're going to war.[/color]
disarm?!
thats stupid!
no country is stupid enough to disarm themselves!
you need to rephrase your sentence...
disarm the weapons of mass destructions but not entirely all their weapons!

btw, you speak as if Iraq is the only country who have nuclear weapons
what about your country
dont you have the same?!

**look whos talking :plain:

[SolidSnake76]

ok i getting tired of u.

[marvel911]

War, bombs,Iraq, and fighting....thats all I hear on the Tv and in the newspaper....I sure miss the good old days when everyone got along...oh wait, that never happened..

[princevegetam]

heh...

bush's pretty clever, at first he talks about how he's gonna help the ppl in africa from HIV to soften ppl's hearts and suddenly switches to terrorism talks, this way ppl will see him as a kind person and accept the U.S. going to war as a good cause. not bad.... but a little too obvious

[Nantuko Joe]

nantuko: and how can the US know he desarmed the bombs ?
i mean if you didn't even found any trace of the bombs, then how can you know he have some and worst if he has, how can you he didn't desarmed them ?

Karma: we have SEEN his bombs back in '91. We have SEEN his bombs in '93. We have SEEN his bombs in i believe '98. When we went to inspect them further, he kicked us out. We have SEEN his bombs a few weeks ago, when we found the warheads. He HAS them, we've SEEN them.

disarm?!
thats stupid!
no country is stupid enough to disarm themselves!
you need to rephrase your sentence...
disarm the weapons of mass destructions but not entirely all their weapons!
btw, you speak as if Iraq is the only country who have nuclear weapons
what about your country
dont you have the same?!

Bloodpack: The US is responsible with our nukes. We have NEVER used a nuclear weapon on another country. Iraq, on the other hand, has killed 1.5 MILLION!!! of his own ppl testing nukes, chemical weapons and biological weapons. Saddam poses a threat to the ENTIRE WORLD, and therefore should not have nukes. The US does NOT threaten the entire world, WE are responsible, so we get to keep ours. Same as the UK. Same as France. Same as Russia. Same as Italy. They've all got nukes, they've NEVER used them against another nation (or their own), so they're responsible enough to keep them.

[princevegetam]

hmm... interesting since i seem to recall that the U.S. used an atomic bomb on japan?

and italy doesn't have nukes.

only the following countries do:

Britain
China
France
India
Pakistan
Russia
United States
Israel (possibly, unconfirmed)

[Scorponok]

hmm... interesting since i seem to recall that the U.S. used an atomic bomb on japan?
I seem to recall that too :biggrin: Nagasaki and Horoshimo...(Yes the spelling is horrible) :biggrin:

[Ludacris]

always with war.......can't they just get along ####? war brings nuthin but death.......#### WAR......yeah sure some people will just say go with the war, kill those iraq people and all that but don't U realize that the people aren't the one who should be suffering? it's the army and only them who should be suffering........I mean because of war, lost a huge part of my family........War should only be of last resort, not just because Bush thinks they're hiding sumthin........anyway.......#### that whole war $hit, getting on my nerves...........

[Nantuko Joe]

hmm... interesting since i seem to recall that the U.S. used an atomic bomb on japan?

and italy doesn't have nukes.

only the following countries do:

Britain
China
France
India
Pakistan
Russia
United States
Israel (possibly, unconfirmed)
Well, seeing as how an atom bomb is NOT a nuclear weapon, I can still say that we've never nuked another country.

and give me a break. Every major european country has nukes. Canada has nukes. hell, even Australia has nukes.

[princevegetam]

and where did you get that from?

not every major european country has nukes, neither does Canada or australia. None of them has ever even researched this stuff.

My Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762462.html

atom bomb is a nuclear weapon. it converts matter into energy just like a nuclear weapon. it kills millions of people. the name may be different but the effects are devastating nonetheless.

[Nantuko Joe]

An atom bomb is NOT a nuclear weapon. The bombs we have today have over 15 times the force of the bomb we dropped on Hiroshima. The atom bomb splits a hydrogen atom (I think), while a nuclear weapon uses uranium: which is MUCH stronger and MUCH more unstable than hydrogen. Nuclear weapons have much longer half-lives than atom bombs for the radiation to decay. Nuclear and atom bombs may have devastating results, but they're classified by the amount of damage that they cause. Besides, the effects of a scud missle are also "devastating nonetheless" (a scud could level my entire development). It's not classified as nuclear because aside from not splitting atoms, it has nowhere near the force of an atom bomb. Atom bombs have nowhere near the force of our weakest nuclear weapon.

[SSJKarma]

the almighty H-BOMB your talking about nantuko !

H-BOMB and NUCLEAR BOMB are the same nantuko, except the H-BOMB does have a lot less RADIO-ACTIVITY !
but it has some nontheless !

but why is it still RADIO-ACTIVE ?
because the atoms your are calling on is HYDROGEN, which is what constitute 90% of anything on earth !
it is all having the same process of detonating too !
example:
NUCLEAR BOMB : the COLD-FUSION make the ATOMS going crazy until it reaches CRITICAL MASS which then the atoms explode and evaporate but when an ATOMS explodes it does what we call RADIO-ACTIVITY. now add a lot of explosive and a lot of PLUTONIUM (very unstable which gives the HIGH RADIO ACTIVITY) to that and you got what we call an NUKE

HYDROGEN BOMB : the same process as above, but doesn't have PLUTONIUM, still it has the same COLD-FUSION process which also produce RADIO-ACTIVITY, but since they only use HYDROGEN with no PLUTONIUM or any other HIGHLY UNSTABLE ELEMENT the level of RADIO-ACTIVITY is kept to a MINIMUM but that also make the H-BOMB a lot less powerfull then a NUKE !

see they both are the same ! except that one has a lot less RADIO-ACTIVITY then the other ! And sorry, but it is really a NUKE that has been sent to HIROSHIMA, why ? because only the US had NUKES at that time which is why no one replyed by sending some !

now...
how can we have nuke in our country ? (canada)
look in history we never fought any war ! except those where YOU (USA) needed our troops !
YOU (USA) have been protecting us almost from day one !
why do you think your protecting us ?
even tho i hate to admit that, we are your weakpoint !
any country knows that if they attack us and succeed in controlling our country then USA will be a lot easier to get after that ! which is why we have been allies from almost day one of the creation of the 13 colony !

anyway...
USA, RUSSIA, JAPAN, GERMANY and the likes that were involved in WWII are all the countryes that have actual MASS DESTRUCTION WEAPONS !

and USA have been testing their weapons as well my dear, or how could they have known the real effects ?
surely not by destroying the underground !



Edited By SSJKarma on Jan. 29 2003 at 04:11

[bloodpack]

H-bomb
Z-bomb
A-bomb
sex-bomb

whats the difference
they all kill ppl...
whether for good intentions or bad... :plain:

[Nantuko Joe]

The H bomb and A bomb are COMPLETELY different than today's nuclear weapons, because today's nuclear weapons cause 10-20 times the devastation of ANY Atomic or hydrogen bomb. That's a FACT.

Now let's get this convo OFF of nukes, and back on-topic.

[bloodpack]

errr...what was the topic again ??? :biggrin: (joke)

[princevegetam]

stop using the fact that an atom bomb is weaker than a nuke as an excuse for the bombings on japan. the fact is that it was WRONG,many INNOCENT ppl died and it is an example of irresponsible use of the nuclear weapon. it is a weapon of mass destruction because it can blow up a city, such as hiroshima and nagasaki. a scud missle is not a weapon of mass destruction because it can't destroy a city.

SSJKARMA: there's no such thing as cold fusion, it's fictional. there's only fusion and that is what is used in nuclear weapons. and only USA and RUSSIA have weapons of mass destruction. Japan never had weapons, but they tested biological/chemical weapons before(on chinese). i doubt they have it anymore. same with the germans. other countries such as China, Britain, France, India developed nuclear weapons during the cold war era when the US and RUSSIA were the only ones with nuclear weapons.

[SiLent_BoB]

prince if we hadn't bombed japan we would still lose more u.s. casulaties in 1945.The fact is, the u.s. told japan to surrender or we would bomb them.Yes i agree the outcome was horrid but it was Us or Them.

on the subject against iraq. I know iraq isn't the main enemy(terrorists) but they have been a thorn in our side for too long. If it had been my way i would have attacked afghanistan the first time we were attacked. Terrorists are like bullys they will keep beating you up until you stand up for yourself. besides we know saddam is unstable and HAS weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION. I'd say bum rush iraq take out saddam and control it as a colony.(we could use that oil)

don't get me wrong though i dislike war as much as anybody but this was bound to happen anways.

p.s. karma just because canada is right above us doenst mean it will make it easier to attack america. Its pretty cold and harsh up there(you already know that) and there are some impassble mountains. I don't think a army who is used to blazing hot desert climate would do too well in near sub artic tempatures.

[princevegetam]

THERE IS NO "SOLID" PROOF of iraq possessing any weapon of mass destruction. empty chemical warheads are not good enough. they're empty. unless you can give me actual proof of a nuclear/bio/chemi weapon, iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. they are innocent until proven guilty(on the issue of weapons of mass destruction).

us or them? is that how ignorant you americans are?! so it's okay for americans to live and sacrifice innocent japanese as a result? not to mention the innocent japanese americans who were locked up just for their japanese heritage. what the japanese did was wrong(obviously), but the U.S. is no better than them by killing all those innocent ppl. it could have been prevented. it didn't have to be a city full of ppl, it could've been some military base.

[Nantuko Joe]

princevegetam: There is so proof that they have weapons, or did Desert STORM and Desert STRIKE not exist in your mind? And if they don't have weapons of mass destruction, then how did they mysteriously use chemical and biological weapons to kill 1.5 MILLION of their own people. And the warheads were EMPTY, but they were EMPTIED, as in, they had previously contained chemicals. They have the weapons, we've seen them on numerous occasions, and EVERY TIME we go to investigate, Saddam kicks us out of the country. Then when he lets us back in, they're mysteriously gone. Hmm...

Yes, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings GOULD have been prevented: if they surrendered. They didn't. We bombed them once. They STILL didn't surrender. We told them that if they didn't surrender, we'd hit them again. Guess what? They refused again. They brought the second bomb upon themselves. And as far as the japanese camps? We were at war with them. We could not take the chance that there could be sleeper agents in the US, or suicide bombers. Plus, we never harmed or killed them when they were in the camps, we just put them there to keep tabs on them.

And notice how once the Japanese surrendered, we released them.

[SSJKarma]

silent_bob: do you realize how stupid that was of you ?

CANADA = sub artic temperature. no way !
canada has 4 seasons which only winters has -40celsius as a limit, but even tho the temperature is getting to that point some times, they are very rare ! during summer season... the temperature is SURE to tget to at least 35 celsius ! now i think they can bear that temperature. were not living in artics you know.

now... why do you think we never were in any WAR ?
we don't have many armies in here and we surely would fall short against any other counrty !
that's why you, US are always being victims of the terrorism, because your country claimed to be the STRONGEST and you're always TRYING TO KEEP OTHER COUNTRY from terrorism, if you could just know when to not interfere you wouldn't get TERRORISM as you got during 9/11 !

that is my whole point !
don't believe me, then why aren't we having BIG terrorism ACTS in here ?
while you get a lot of them !
because your country in history has always tryed to stop everything from happening even if it was in other countrys thats why your being HATED so much by terrorists. now you pay the price for doing the police in country that isn't yours !

as for JAPANESE people being bombed...
nantuko...
history showed us that PEARL HARBOR was a big hit, by so little troops !
japan never had any chance in the beggining, but because they were going KAMIKAZE you bombed a city with a NUKE ! you could have avoided that with a lot more then you had... all country had finished WWII when you bombed the japanese in 45 when the WWII finished in 44, you know that, i know that, its a fact, so why didn't you ask the helps of another country and planned a major attack that could have prevented them from having that much cassulaties !

and don't tell me the CRAP of the war ending in 45, no, HITLER SURRENDERED in JULY 1944 !
you bombed the JAPANES to stop them from doing anything, and MASS DESTRUCTION was worst things your country have done in history cause it showed how RUTHLESS you are and how careless you are about OTHERS live !

[Nantuko Joe]

World War II in GERMANY ended in '94. That doesn't mean that the war in the Pacific was over.

Besides, the US deserved retribution for the unprovoked attacks upon Pearl Harbor. And we estimated that a full-scale land invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives on both sides. Besides, they had FAIR WARNING of what the actions would be if they did not surrender, yet they were too stubborn. Even after the FIRST bomb, they were STILL given a chance to surrender, and if they did not, they'd be hit. So what did they do? They thought we were bluffing. Their BIG mistake.

[princevegetam]

what a load of bullpoop. yes, it was stupid of the japanese government to not surrender, but what did you expect?! they'd conquered most of asia at that time and they were confident that america was going to be no problem. how could they have known that the U.S. had an atomic bomb?! in those days, 90% of the world didn't even know what a nuclear weapon could do, of course they're going to call the bluff. it'd be like iraq threatening to destroy the entire U.S. with some sort of new technology, would the U.S. surrender? #### no. and it was the japanese government who decided to not surrender, not all of the japanese ppl agreed with that. there were innocent japanese ppl who wished to surrender that died as a result of the irresponsible actions by the U.S.

you may have not harmed the jailed japanese, but what you did was an act of discrimination and racism. they were prejudiced against in the jails and you flipin know it. even the U.S. has admitted what they did was wrong so there is no argument here, what the U.S. did to it's own citizens with japanese heritage was WRONG.

and that crap about the iraqis being killed by their own leader's bio/chemi weapons is a unconfirmed. unless you can show me some solid proof from a media source that is not of american nature, it is unsubstantial evidence. and assuming that the empty chemical warheads had chemical weapons is not good enough. it is an assumption which could be wrong. stop coming up with a poopload of theories, give me some real proof.

[Venture]

??? bah...i hate to post in topics of politics..after that huge one at the old bg.....but i dont support war, all i wish ...that Saddam Hussain (not sure if spelled it right) should be overthrown... :angry:

[Selvin]

Just wondering, the threats are coming out of Iraq along the lines of:

"If you attack/invade Iraq, we will destroy/break the neck of America."

Now, if Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, how would they do this?? They would need a huge army to do so, and even though, it would be near impossible to destroy a country as big as America with an army now-a-days.

I do believe Iraq and the weapon inspectors should be given more time (like 3 weeks), but I do disagree with some of the posts against America.

If America was doing this for world domination or something along those lines, I think it would be smarter to go after some first world countries instead of a third world country.

[SiLent_BoB]

ssj karma i don't live in canada but i know it does get cold. plus iraq could never take canada because the u.s. has several missle detection bases and nuclear weapon sites(from the cold war) . as for the fact of canada not haveing an army well thats canada's problem not mine.

The fact is in WWII our allies were devastated by the loses in europe and we couldn't afford a mass invasion. Russia turned their back on us and declared themselves communist. Britain was trashed and needed to rebuild their country. France was just complety in chaos.those are facts, we could'nt take anymore casulaties. Japan still wanted to destroy us, we had no choice but to drop the bomb.It was there own irrisponsble leader/dictator's fault who did'nt allow japan to surrender! YOU CALL US RUTHLESS! WHAT ABOUT THE JAPENESE INVASION OF CHINA HOW MANY INNOCENT LIVES DID THEY TAKE! THINK ABOUT PEARL HARBOR! WE WERE GIVEN NO GOD DAMN WARNING! IM SO ANGRY AT THESE IGNORNAT JAPANESE INTHUSASTS WHO THINK THE USA SHOULDVE MADE A SOME DAMN PEACE TREATY OR SOMETHING.... Look if you don't like the way our country is then how about going to iraq or something and see how you like being in oppresion. FREEDOM is a cherished right and we have to protect it!

p.s. before you open your mouth about world war 2 think about this were you there! if you were(highly doubtfull) how did you feel about the attacks and war. well i know for a fact my late grandfather served his country and my step grandfather fought in the pacific(my stepfather's father) so don't tell me im full of "bullpoop"

[princevegetam]

...

okay, SSJKarma doesn't know how to use words well. ruthless is a bit harsh, ignorant, nationalist and misinformed is more like it.

anyways, why are you comparing yourselves to Japan? they killed what? 10 million chinese? how many japanese did you kill with atomic bomb? 3 or 4 million? a difference of 6 million ppl. does that make you proud? and how many did the japanese kill at pearl harbour? they were mostly soldiers weren't they? it's called a surprise attack, you don't seriously expect them to warn you considering their ruthlessness.

[SSJKarma]

SILENT_BOB: we all know our history, but we also know that the truth of a war never comes out to the public ! now think, if they had found something in those bombs, would have said it to the public and let the public be in total chaos cause of the PANIC it would cause ?

NOOOO !
the government has always keep the whole things from the public, even what they did themselves !
so no, your necessary more informed then me about the whole things !
unless you have PROOF, very REAL PROOFs that he has what it takes to clear the US from the map, i will still consider this war a total mistake !

now, WHY would they have treatened us if they didn't had the weapons, because now that you know they can have the weapons, now US is on alert and it is always easier if your country does mistake on PRESSURE !

so yeah, they could simply BLUFF while planning a sneak attack like JAPANESE did on PEARL HARBOR !
the japanese didn't have the army either and they didn't have any MASS DESTRUCTION WEAPON when they attacked the WORLD MOST STRONGEST FORCE (Pearl harbor) but still, they suceeded in bringing down the US biggest army ! so why would they need a very big army ? its always like that ! take out the leader (president) and the country will surrender !

in all wars it has been like that !
WWII = war ended when hitler felled, his armies didn't continued to attack, they stopped the same day
JAPANESE = after hiroshima, they stopped their attacks, soldiers that were not in HIROSHIMA didn't continued to attack either !

public is always accepting the new leader whoever he is !
that's a fact !

now, they can be bluffing, they can be SERIOUS, but since we don't know US has no chance but to take a guess, and the guess they take is not the best choice ! that's a fact too !

i'm with VEGETAM here ! when you'll have REAL PROOF not just guesses, you can count me on a war, but unless you can actually give PROOFS then i am enterely against the idea of a war !

[princevegetam]

um... actually SSJKarma, the japanese did have an army, at the time, they had conquered most of asia. their army was weakened

[Nantuko Joe]

what a load of bullpoop. yes, it was stupid of the japanese government to not surrender, but what did you expect?! they'd conquered most of asia at that time and they were confident that america was going to be no problem. how could they have known that the U.S. had an atomic bomb?! in those days, 90% of the world didn't even know what a nuclear weapon could do, of course they're going to call the bluff. it'd be like iraq threatening to destroy the entire U.S. with some sort of new technology, would the U.S. surrender? #### no. and it was the japanese government who decided to not surrender, not all of the japanese ppl agreed with that. there were innocent japanese ppl who wished to surrender that died as a result of the irresponsible actions by the U.S.

you may have not harmed the jailed japanese, but what you did was an act of discrimination and racism. they were prejudiced against in the jails and you flipin know it. even the U.S. has admitted what they did was wrong so there is no argument here, what the U.S. did to it's own citizens with japanese heritage was WRONG.

and that crap about the iraqis being killed by their own leader's bio/chemi weapons is a unconfirmed. unless you can show me some solid proof from a media source that is not of american nature, it is unsubstantial evidence. and assuming that the empty chemical warheads had chemical weapons is not good enough. it is an assumption which could be wrong. stop coming up with a poopload of theories, give me some real proof.
However, after being bombed ONCE and being threatened that we had two more laying in our reserves, they SHOULD HAVE SURRENDERED! They had seen the devastation that one of them did at Hiroshima. We told them they'd hit them again. They ignored us. They brought it upon THEMSELVES.

The camps we forced the japanese into during WWII pacific were totally necessary. Once again, WE WERE AT WAR WITH THEM!!! We could not afford the liability that one or a group of them could be suicide bombers or sleeper agents. It was a necessity.

Oh, so just because it's an american source means that it's really unconfirmed? What a load of bull########. If YOU want the information so badly, then YOU go look it up. What country do you live in? Go to your frigging library and look up articles on it. I don't have the time to dig around because some 14-year-old on a XMvsSF thinks he's smart.

[Scorponok]

So much for talking about Bush and the State of the Union speech :biggrin:

[Squall87]

Can someone please summerize it for me? I am not going to read 5 pages, of speech that could have bad grammer. *no digs at Bush, just places of where I get my info.* Nor do I have the time to sit down and think of it in the pro-american mind.

[princevegetam]

nantuko, you'll never understand the prejudice those japanese americans felt because you were never there! go talk to some japanese who were imprisoned in america in that time. tell me this, why weren't any russians or germans imprisoned when america had conflicts with them?! were the chinese/koreans imprisoned as well? and why aren't the muslims in america imprisoned today, due to the terrorism stuff?

and stop always putting the blame on others. the first bomb was obviously unnecessary since they don't even know what nuclear weapons were. afterwards, you only gave them 10 days to surrender and that certainly wasn't good enough. for one, they didn't even know what happened! there was widespread chaos and confusion! there were mixed reports as to what happened! and again, it was the leaders of the japanese who decided not to surrender, not some of the innocent ppl. the leader does not speak for all of the ppl. those innocent ppl could have lived if the U.S. let them.

[Nantuko Joe]

Oh, and YOU do, right? Since YOU were there. You don't know how they were treated either. And we never "imprisoned", as you say, Germans or Russians because:

1) Russia was on our side during WWII
2) Neither Russia nor Germany attacked US soil. Japan did. The japanese were crazy: they purposely filled the tanks of their airplanes half-full, so even if they DIDN'T commit suicide, they'd never make it back.

And those innocent ppl could have lived if their own government had surrendered. Sure, there were mixed reports, but in the 10 days, how hard could it have been to fly a plane over Hiroshima and survey the damage? Sure, the FIRST bomb may have been overkill, but they pretty much told us to bomb them the second time.

For the WWII debate over the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have this to say:

Killing less then 5,000 people in Pearl Harbor is hardly a justification for vaporizing 130,000 innocent civilians (note, 130,000 or thereabouts died instantly, the millions princevegetam reffered to died within the following days/weeks/months). Sure, they were givin a fair warning... but did the people of Japan get together and vote on the matter? No... I doubt they were even told. Remember, Japan was a militaristic dictatorship at the time. Tojo wasn't about to give up without a fight, and the civilian population had better stay the #### out of his way (again, pointed out by princevegetam). Do you really think Tojo cared if his own people were massacred? Nah.. he was just staying in power, much like Saddam is trying to do now. In fact the peace agreement allowed for Tojo to stay the brutal dictator of Japan after the war was over.

But getting back to subject... killing civilians is never justified through any means. Not Hitler's slaughter of Jews and Russians, not Saddam's slaughter of his own people, not the US bombing of Japan in WWII, not the Japanese slaughter of Chinese civilians, and well... all of it is killing off inocent civilians in the end, who none of which deserve to die.

That's all I'm gonna say on that issue...

As for my opinions on the state of the unioun adress? Well, I personally thought it was all a load of propaganda. For the first 30 min. or so, Bush just kept saying bs like "we need to help orphans and give them mentors", "help the HIV people of Africa", and "our economy is doing better, but not as good as I'm gonna make it next year", and other of the like bs propaganda for votes. I got too frustrated with all the propaganda-filled clapping... so I turned it before he got to Iraq. The one thing that was important that I heard was those hydrogen powered cars... "hydrogen makes a reaction with oxygen, which can be trasverted into energy" or something along those lines. I bet you can all guess which reaction he's talking about... :biggrin:

[princevegetam]

tojo had his honour to defend. he was born a samurai and raised on the belief that he must die in battle. others weren't like that. those woman and children didn't agree to that. and yet they were still killed. that is wrong and blaming it on their leader wasn't good enough. the fact is, the U.S. dropped it not tojo, the U.S. could've chose another path to peace but they didn't. the U.S. is just as guilty as tojo.

russia was communists and since americans hate communists so much then why don't they imprison those sleeper agents? why not imprison russians? didn't they threaten nuclear war with those nuclear missles in cuba?

[Nantuko Joe]

russia was communists and since americans hate communists so much then why don't they imprison those sleeper agents? why not imprison russians? didn't they threaten nuclear war with those nuclear missles in cuba?
...um...we don't know if ppl are sleeper agents or not, genius. To say "we should have imprisoned the russian sleeper agents" is like saying "we should have arrested the spies that we didn't even know existed."

The Russians never directly attacked us, never gave us a reason to imprison any Russian Americans (if there even were any in the US). Japan did. They were held in what you call "camps" for a couple of years until the war with Japan was over. Then they were released. there was no foul mistrateatment. No Japanese were killed. No Japanese were beat up. We just temporarily put them into a place where we could keep tabs on them, and keep our eyes open.

The Russians never directly attacked us, never gave us a reason to imprison any Russian Americans (if there even were any in the US). Japan did. They were held in what you call "camps" for a couple of years until the war with Japan was over. Then they were released. there was no foul mistrateatment. No Japanese were killed. No Japanese were beat up. We just temporarily put them into a place where we could keep tabs on them, and keep our eyes open.


Are you out of you goddamn mind?

That's the exact parallel to incarcerating all American Arabs right now.


Over 120,000 people, including children and the elderly, were required to leave their homes in California and parts of Washington, Oregon and Arizona. Most people did not have time to store or sell their household goods at a fair price. Some people moved to other states, but the majority went to internment camps. They were only allowed to take few belongings with them, and many families lost virtually everything they owned except what they could carry. Internees spent many years in camp, behind barbed wire fences and with armed guards patrolling the camps. Entire families lived in cramped, one room quarters that were poorly constructed.

In 1980, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians was established by Congress. This commission reviewed the impact of Executive Order 9066 on Japanese-Americans and determined that they were the victims of discrimination by the Federal government.

On August 10, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. The Act was passed by Congress to provide a Presidential apology and symbolic payment of $20,000.00 to the internees, evacuees, and persons of Japanese ancestry who lost liberty or property because of discriminatory action by the Federal government during World War II.


The internment of the west coast Japanese Americans during WWII was one of the greatest injustices America ever did to ANY of its citizens. It was ####### racism at its peak. Coercing one group of people to move against there will, solely because of thier ancestory, regaurdless of their right of citizenship or birthrights, with no charges, no reason to believe any of them posed the US harm, not to mention violating the Bill of Rights and making a complete mockary of the Declaration of Independence.

I suppose if the US had interned every last person of British ancestory during the Revolutionary War would have been justified because Britain posed a threat to the colonies. Or by your logic, imprisoning all Southern-born people... reguarless of their allegience would have been justice during the Civil War. Or how about the internment of all Americans who are even born in America, but who's parents have roots in Iraq right now? That's Hitler's biast logic for ya...

And, if you even care to get a real feel for what the Japanese internment camse were like, this site (http://www.sfmuseum.org/war/evactxt.html) should be useful.

[princevegetam]

including woman and children? they were imprisoned too you know

how would you feel if you and your "future" family were locked up one day cause America had some war with Italy?

some japanese americans were even deported back to their home country. there WERE japanese americans who were shot and killed by the sentry. they had to work on acres of farmland. they were also racially discriminated against. kicked around by the sentry guards and laughed at.

[Nantuko Joe]

including woman and children? they were imprisoned too you know

how would you feel if you and your "future" family were locked up one day cause America had some war with Italy?

some japanese americans were even deported back to their home country. there WERE japanese americans who were shot and killed by the sentry. they had to work on acres of farmland. they were also racially discriminated against. kicked around by the sentry guards and laughed at.
No, because i'm only 1/2 Italian, and have never been out-of-country, and was born here in the US...along with my entire family and bloodline until my great grandparents, who were the ones who immigrated here. There is NO possibility of any Italian American who was here for a generation or two or three to be a "sleeper agent" as i say. Over 50% (prolly over 75%) of the Japanese in the California area during that time were immigrants, many of which had immigrated within a few years of the Pearl Harbor attacks. They were also a minority, there weren't as many Japanese Americans back then as there are Italian Americans today (if they wanted to imprison Italians because of a war with Italy, they'd have the entire tri-state area [and then some] in camps, which is impossible.) Also, we're much more civilized nowadays than we were 50+ years ago, so such a thing would never happen in the US again. And the Japanese who were shot were 90% likely to be trying to escape. The way the US saw it was "we're treating them considerably fairly: we're just taking a precaution. They're still in homes, they were not forced to work for us, they were not forcefully mistreated, they did not have to obey any sort of curfew. If they're trying to escape, they're obviously trying to escape back to Japan with information or such." As far as the ones who were beaten; they most likely caused a ruckus or something. As far as being discriminated against: their people, who were TOTALLY unprovoked, had just attacked a US military installation with NO good reason, without warning. They had killed many US men with no reason at all, and so naturally they were discriminated against. I'm just saying that they had a reason to do so, I'm not saying that they were right and just in doing so.

[princevegetam]

No, because i'm only 1/2 Italian, and have never been out-of-country, and was born here in the US...along with my entire family and bloodline until my great grandparents, who were the ones who immigrated here.
well, that explains everything. a person will always remain a blinded patriot unless he/she goes to another country and sees international issues from a different perspective.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would even attempt to defend, or as you put it, give the US "a reason to do so".

Note to you, the Japanese in California didn't attack Pearl Harbor, probably about 100% (give or take a .00001%) had knowledge of the attack before hand. The simple fact that you even draw a distinction between the Japanese-Americans and any other type of American: "their people, who were TOTALLY unprovoked, had just attacked a US military installation with NO good reason, without warning," totally appauls me. Most of the Japanese who were interned were 2nd generation, and thought of themselves as AMERICANS, and NOT Japanese. Many of which would be "50%".

No.. they weren't brutally treated and didn't have the same holocaust as was seen in Europe. But no matter how you disguise it, prisons are just that. Meant to confine people not deemed by society worthy enough to co-exist with their fellow man... and of which the US had NONE (ie: 0%) reason to suspect any of these people of commiting treason other then pure and simple racism.

Wow... their country is at war with us. I suppose that means the US should have rounded up everyone of German or Itallian decent too since the US was at war with them too? No.. the US just imposed restrictions on them instead 'cause they wern't so much of a "minority" as the Japanese were.

And that's probably the most offensive thing I can find that you said. Oppression of another race because they're a minority??! That's why racism exists damit! One race = the minority, so it gets pushed around by the other race because it gives them a sense of pride. This is a direct parallel to Hitler's thinking in putting war prisoners and people of different (non-anglo-saxon) nationalities in the holocaust concentration camps.

From this and your past posts, I have only one question to ask you... WHAT DO THEY TEACH YOU IN SCHOOL?? To be a partiotic/racist who'd rather oppress native americans because they "pose a threat" to your way of life?

Anyways... read Illusions...

"Everything in the post may be wrong."

jeeze usa is causing problem for every country...

i know what will happened..hope it doesn't :laugh: lol

[princevegetam]

well! i think 2000warrior made my point quite clearly. i just didn't have enough time to discuss or knowledge of those camps. i do know that it is racist to do something like that. much like how almost every arab/muslim man must be checked much more thoroughly than other ethnic groups at border crossings nowadays.

like my gym teacher who was pulled over by police AFTER he crossed the border. he had to step out of the car and put his hands to the car and allow the police to search him. i thought this was totally unnecessary. he wasn't even muslim, he was indian.

and how when my family tried to cross the border to visit some friends in the states, the guy at the border crossing yelled at my father cause my dad didn't speak english very well and the guy talked a little too fast for him to comprehend(i got kind of pissed, cause of this bullpoop, no way am i gonna let some american push me around). we had to open our trunk and backseat for the guy to search. and yet there was a white guy before us who got to through without having anything checked. we weren't even close to being middle eastern, we were chinese.