Destruction of the Republican Party

[slapass]

It can't be good that they are openly discussing how to get around the voters to get a candidate that the Washington/Insiders Republicans want. How can they say this stuff and not think that this will hurt their party for a long time???

I am not a fan of Trump but if he gets the votes then they are sort of honor bound to support him I would think. Seems like the way to go versus what they are doing.

[noshit]

Not At All Funny how the peoples choice is horrifying to them.
Some people even think they work for us and are on our side

Trump getting support from the establishment is the absolute worst thing that could happen to him.

That said, We should all be punished for not knowing that Clinton is the ?right person? to carry out the psychotic plans of the global elite

[Google Expert]

Both candidates are idiots, but Clinton is completely batshit crazy.

So Trump looks like a better choice.

[celandina]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

Both candidates are idiots, but Clinton is completely batshit crazy.

So Trump looks like a better choice.

He may be the new Mussolini but at least he wants to preserve the Judeo/Christian society by cutting a deal with Putin... The rest of the idiots did not learn from Khadafi,Hussein, Mubarak,Mushariff and the rest of the "nice" SECULAR dictators and will go after Assad, the only one SECULAR dictator left to kick some extreeme Muslim ass for us all..

[Rochard]

The Republican party is pissed that they lose the White House (twice) to a little known black Senator with a less than impressive track record, and have spent the past eight years making Obama out to be evil. They have whipped the Republican party into a frenzy. The Republicans want to go to war over anything the Democrats want to do for no reason.

Our government is completely divided and is less interested in doing their jobs and more interested in stopping the Federal government from moving forward. A perfect example of this is the open seat on the Supreme Court; The Republican party has made it clear they will delay any decision on any nominee for the next year. The Republican party would rather shut down our government than loose an argument.

We see the end result right here in this thread: "Clinton is batshit crazy". The Republican front runner wants to bring back water boarding, and is threatening to carpet bomb families and children, and yet they are saying "Clinton is batshit crazy". Huh?

Whatever. We deserve the government we get.

[TheSquealer]

funny how you guys never get tired of being wrong with your constant doom and gloom predictions about "the other team".

[Robbie]

I remember when Pres. Reagan ordered air strikes on Libya in 1986 in retaliation for numerous terrorist attacks that originated in Libya.

Among the targets? Quadaffi's personal homes in a gambit to assassinate him.

That was April 14, 1986 for all the people who don't remember.

Here was the result:
"Qaddafi’s 15-month-old adopted daughter was killed in the attack on his residence, and two of his young sons were injured."

It was shocking at the time. I couldn't believe that our govt. would kill an innocent 15 month old toddler.

Then I thought more about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW2 and realized that our military targeted two major cities in those atomic bomb drops. Not military bases...but cities. Full of men, women, children, and the elderly.

Killed hundreds of thousands of people instantly and millions more from cancer and radiation disease over the next decades. And yes, that included the families of the Japanese military.
The justification? It would help end the war quicker and save American lives.

Isn't that kind of what Trump was saying about the terrorists families? That if we threaten to kill their families (just like Pres. Reagan in 1986 and Pres. Truman did in WW2) that they will think twice about killing Americans?

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do.
I am saying that the media and the other candidates are being hypocritical and ignoring history.

I think Trump was bluffing with that the whole time as part of his approach to things. But I don't agree with actually DOING it. Just like I don't agree with what Truman did with dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities.

If any other country were to do that...the U.S. would be screaming "War Crimes" at the U.N.
Our federal govt. is the epitome of hypocrisy in my eyes.

[Magnetron]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I remember when Pres. Reagan ordered air strikes on Libya in 1986 in retaliation for numerous terrorist attacks that originated in Libya.

Among the targets? Quadaffi's personal homes in a gambit to assassinate him.

That was April 14, 1986 for all the people who don't remember.

Here was the result:
"Qaddafi’s 15-month-old adopted daughter was killed in the attack on his residence, and two of his young sons were injured."

It was shocking at the time. I couldn't believe that our govt. would kill an innocent 15 month old toddler.

Then I thought more about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW2 and realized that our military targeted two major cities in those atomic bomb drops. Not military bases...but cities. Full of men, women, children, and the elderly.

Killed hundreds of thousands of people instantly and millions more from cancer and radiation disease over the next decades. And yes, that included the families of the Japanese military.
The justification? It would help end the war quicker and save American lives.

Isn't that kind of what Trump was saying about the terrorists families? That if we threaten to kill their families (just like Pres. Reagan in 1986 and Pres. Truman did in WW2) that they will think twice about killing Americans?

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do.
I am saying that the media and the other candidates are being hypocritical and ignoring history.

I think Trump was bluffing with that the whole time as part of his approach to things. But I don't agree with actually DOING it. Just like I don't agree with what Truman did with dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities.

If any other country were to do that...the U.S. would be screaming "War Crimes" at the U.N.
Our federal govt. is the epitome of hypocrisy in my eyes.

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was as evil as man gets.

Had Japan actually threatened U.S. soil with an invasion, one tidal wave from one atomic bomb dropped in the Pacific would have taken care of them with ZERO civilian casualties.

We didn't even need to be in Japan.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by Rochard

The Republican party is pissed that they lose the White House (twice) to a little known black Senator with a less than impressive track record, and have spent the past eight years making Obama out to be evil. They have whipped the Republican party into a frenzy. The Republicans want to go to war over anything the Democrats want to do for no reason.

Our government is completely divided and is less interested in doing their jobs and more interested in stopping the Federal government from moving forward. A perfect example of this is the open seat on the Supreme Court; The Republican party has made it clear they will delay any decision on any nominee for the next year. The Republican party would rather shut down our government than loose an argument.

We see the end result right here in this thread: "Clinton is batshit crazy". The Republican front runner wants to bring back water boarding, and is threatening to carpet bomb families and children, and yet they are saying "Clinton is batshit crazy". Huh?

Whatever. We deserve the government we get.

Instead of making themselves a more easily electable party in the past 8 years, they've gone in the opposite direction and gone 100% all in on being obstructive assholes with worse behavior than ever. They don't deserve to be back in the White House.

They said they wanted to bring in more diversity under their tent, but in order to do that you can't just say it -- you have to actually want to be it. And they don't. Because it's the party of jerk-offs.

Most people I know who are jerk-offs also hold mostly conservative views, so I'd call that my own empirical evidence.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Magnetron

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was as evil as man gets.

Had Japan actually threatened U.S. soil with an invasion, one tidal wave from one atomic bomb dropped in the Pacific would have taken care of them with ZERO civilian casualties.

Japan invaded Alaska jackass. BTW, did you think they were wiping out the Pacific Fleet for an afternoon of fun? Now, you're adding to your stupidity by saying they could have been deterred after decades of launching genocidal campaigns against their neighbors, murdering men, women and children in the most horrific ways, with a harmless water fight?

Wow.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I remember when Pres. Reagan ordered air strikes on Libya in 1986 in retaliation for numerous terrorist attacks that originated in Libya.

Among the targets? Quadaffi's personal homes in a gambit to assassinate him.

That was April 14, 1986 for all the people who don't remember.

Here was the result:
"Qaddafi?s 15-month-old adopted daughter was killed in the attack on his residence, and two of his young sons were injured."

It was shocking at the time. I couldn't believe that our govt. would kill an innocent 15 month old toddler.

Then I thought more about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW2 and realized that our military targeted two major cities in those atomic bomb drops. Not military bases...but cities. Full of men, women, children, and the elderly.

Killed hundreds of thousands of people instantly and millions more from cancer and radiation disease over the next decades. And yes, that included the families of the Japanese military.
The justification? It would help end the war quicker and save American lives.

Isn't that kind of what Drumpf was saying about the terrorists families? That if we threaten to kill their families (just like Pres. Reagan in 1986 and Pres. Truman did in WW2) that they will think twice about killing Americans?

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do.
I am saying that the media and the other candidates are being hypocritical and ignoring history.

I think Drumpf was bluffing with that the whole time as part of his approach to things. But I don't agree with actually DOING it. Just like I don't agree with what Truman did with dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities.

If any other country were to do that...the U.S. would be screaming "War Crimes" at the U.N.
Our federal govt. is the epitome of hypocrisy in my eyes.

World War II during the 1940s was a vastly different time. The logic was "this city has multiple plants that builds tanks and ball bearings and tank shells, and thus the entire town is a viable military target". The local population was considered a legitimate military target because they were working in the plants and factories that supported the war effort.

Most people fail to understand what really happened during WWII and the bloodshed involved. It was brutal. Look at it this way - some estimates place deaths at over sixty million people during WWII... Which is like everyone in France dead.

[Magnetron]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Japan invaded Alaska jackass. BTW, did you think they were wiping out the Pacific Fleet for an afternoon of fun? Now, you're adding to your stupidity by saying they could have been deterred after decades of launching genocidal campaigns against their neighbors, murdering men, women and children in the most horrific ways, with a harmless water fight?

Wow.

The U.S. declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor.

If we didn't see that coming, how would we have been prepared for it with an A Bomb?

Jesus Fucking Christ you are a moron.

And the occupation of the Aluetian Islands by a small Japanese force wasn't a threat to the remainder of the U.S.

Thanks for playing, Dummy.

Go wait in line for some more free bananas from MindGeek, Monkey.

[Magnetron]

Originally Posted by Rochard

World War II during the 1940s was a vastly different time. The logic was "this city has multiple plants that builds tanks and ball bearings and tank shells, and thus the entire town is a viable military target". The local population was considered a legitimate military target because they were working in the plants and factories that supported the war effort.

Most people fail to understand what really happened during WWII and the bloodshed involved. It was brutal. Look at it this way - some estimates place deaths at over sixty million people during WWII... Which is like everyone in France dead.

Still doesn't justify nuking old people and toddlers.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I remember when Pres. Reagan ordered air strikes on Libya in 1986 in retaliation for numerous terrorist attacks that originated in Libya.

Among the targets? Quadaffi's personal homes in a gambit to assassinate him.

That was April 14, 1986 for all the people who don't remember.

Here was the result:
"Qaddafi?s 15-month-old adopted daughter was killed in the attack on his residence, and two of his young sons were injured."

It was shocking at the time. I couldn't believe that our govt. would kill an innocent 15 month old toddler.

Then I thought more about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW2 and realized that our military targeted two major cities in those atomic bomb drops. Not military bases...but cities. Full of men, women, children, and the elderly.

Killed hundreds of thousands of people instantly and millions more from cancer and radiation disease over the next decades. And yes, that included the families of the Japanese military.
The justification? It would help end the war quicker and save American lives.

Isn't that kind of what Trump was saying about the terrorists families? That if we threaten to kill their families (just like Pres. Reagan in 1986 and Pres. Truman did in WW2) that they will think twice about killing Americans?

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do.
I am saying that the media and the other candidates are being hypocritical and ignoring history.

I think Trump was bluffing with that the whole time as part of his approach to things. But I don't agree with actually DOING it. Just like I don't agree with what Truman did with dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities.

If any other country were to do that...the U.S. would be screaming "War Crimes" at the U.N.
Our federal govt. is the epitome of hypocrisy in my eyes.

That was 75 years ago, decades before precision bombing. It's not accurate to look back almost a century and apply modern day views and technology to an event

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Magnetron

Had Japan actually threatened U.S. soil with an invasion...

You are aware that Japan did in fact invade U.S. soil, right? They attacked the Aleutian Islands and attempted to set up bases there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign

Originally Posted by Magnetron

We didn't even need to be in Japan.

I believe you are underestimating what Japan did in the Pacific in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

Japan had pretty much taken over the entire South Pacific. They had attacked China, Russia, Philippines, Malaya, Burma, the Dutch East Indies, Singapore, and Rabaul... Then they attacked the United States and Australia.

The Japanese were both fanatical and brutal. They would refused to surrender no matter what, would fight to the last man, and the handful that survived would commit suicide instead of surrendering. In some of the island fighting, they would kill an American solider, chop off his penis, and shove it into his mouth.

The Japanese was fought all across the Pacific ocean and refused to surrender. The only way to get them to surrender was to bomb them into submission or invade. If we invaded, millions more people would have died.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Magnetron

And the occupation of the Aluetian Islands by a small Japanese force wasn't a threat to the remainder of the U.S.

Of course it wasn't. They just attacked Alaska for fun. Not because they needed staging areas, sub bases, docks, landing strips etc to launch attacks from. You must be right. They just randomly decided to send aircraft carriers and a dozen destroyers, subs etc to heavily defended regions... probably just out of boredom. After all, why else do you make massive military asset commitments in the middle of a war? For strategic purposes as part of a military campaign? Thats just silly.

BTW... keep up your research as you try to argue, i grew up in Alaska and have been to Attu and Kiska and Adak a few times and am well versed in the history and grew up playing in the ruins.

[Magnetron]

Originally Posted by Rochard

You are aware that Japan did in fact invade U.S. soil, right? They attacked the Aleutian Islands and attempted to set up bases there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign



I believe you are underestimating what Japan did in the Pacific in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

Japan had pretty much taken over the entire South Pacific. They had attacked China, Russia, Philippines, Malaya, Burma, the Dutch East Indies, Singapore, and Rabaul... Then they attacked the United States and Australia.

The Japanese were both fanatical and brutal. They would refused to surrender no matter what, would fight to the last man, and the handful that survived would commit suicide instead of surrendering. In some of the island fighting, they would kill an American solider, chop off his penis, and shove it into his mouth.

The Japanese was fought all across the Pacific ocean and refused to surrender. The only way to get them to surrender was to bomb them into submission or invade. If we invaded, millions more people would have died.

The U.S. wasn't concerned and didn't get involved until they attacked the U.S.

But that doesn't mean we had to take the fight to them, to their waters, to their soil, to their airspace.

[Magnetron]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Of course it wasn't. They just attacked Alaska for fun. Not because they needed staging areas, sub bases, docks, landing strips etc to launch attacks from. You must be right. They just randomly decided to send aircraft carriers and a dozen destroyers, subs etc to heavily defended regions... probably just out of boredom. After all, why else do you make massive military asset commitments in the middle of a war? For strategic purposes as part of a campaign? Thats just silly.

Shuddup and eat yo free bananas, Monkey.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Magnetron

Still doesn't justify nuking old people and toddlers.

Perhaps.

But you can argue that if the United States didn't drop those two bombs, millions more would have died. Imagine how many people would have died if the war dragged on another two years with a million Americans invading Japan.

You also have to look at this from a historical perspective. The Geneva Convention didn't exist then; An invading military force would brutally decimate and enslave an entire civilian population. It was either destroy them or they would brutally enslave us.

[Magnetron]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Perhaps.

But you can argue that if the United States didn't drop those two bombs, millions more would have died. Imagine how many people would have died if the war dragged on another two years with a million Americans invading Japan.

You also have to look at this from a historical perspective. The Geneva Convention didn't exist then; An invading military force would brutally decimate and enslave an entire civilian population. It was either destroy them or they would brutally enslave us.

That is what I argued, didn't I?

Nuclear washout of their forces in the Pacific.

Unless you are trying to say they would have docked everything in the Aluetian Islands, relocated it to Alaska and then rolled in through Canada.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Magnetron

But that doesn't mean we had to take the fight to them, to their waters, to their soil, to their airspace.

You must be kidding, right?

When the military of another country attacks military base and kills thousands of people, it's an act of war. The United States was not about to sit back say "oh, you got us, no big deal" and forget about it. The United States declared war a short time later, and it was an all out war.

You also have to have to understand the anger involved here. The entire United States was never united like it was after Pearl Harbor; If you were a young man between the ages of 17-35 and not fighting the war you were looked down at. Everyone was united - Young kids in school collected tin and scrap metal for the war effort. We were going to fight the Japanese until the very end.

[Helix]

Pssssst. Neither political party cares about the people. This isn't a sporting event so forget the team shit and choose wisely.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Magnetron

Unless you are trying to say they would have docked everything in the Aluetian Islands, relocated it to Alaska and then rolled in through Canada.

If they established military bases in the Aluetian Islands, it would have been a game changer. Not only would they be able to attack the west coast of the United States at will, they could have also attacked Russia.

Imagine if the United States had to divert a large percentage of it's resources in the Pacific to protect the west coast AND fight to reclaim these islands.

[Magnetron]

Originally Posted by Rochard

You must be kidding, right?

When the military of another country attacks military base and kills thousands of people, it's an act of war. The United States was not about to sit back say "oh, you got us, no big deal" and forget about it. The United States declared war a short time later, and it was an all out war.

You also have to have to understand the anger involved here. The entire United States was never united like it was after Pearl Harbor; If you were a young man between the ages of 17-35 and not fighting the war you were looked down at. Everyone was united - Young kids in school collected tin and scrap metal for the war effort. We were going to fight the Japanese until the very end.

We angrily invaded Iraq in retaliation for the WTC Bombing.

And then it turned out they had nothing to do with it.

So the pattern here is A) get attacked/invaded B) retaliate with an attack/invasion.

Instead of shoring up holes in security to prevent A) from happening again and again.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Magnetron

We angrily invaded Iraq in retaliation for the WTC Bombing.

And then it turned out they had nothing to do with it.

We invaded Afghanistan in response to the WTC as they were the ones sheltering Al Queda and their training bases,

uhmmmm "angrily".

Haha.

No one ever believed Iraq had anything to do with the WTC or that the WTC was a pretense for invading Iraq.

History, as logic, reason and facts,... just isn't your thing.

[Magnetron]

Originally Posted by Rochard

If they established military bases in the Aluetian Islands, it would have been a game changer. Not only would they be able to attack the west coast of the United States at will, they could have also attacked Russia.

Imagine if the United States had to divert a large percentage of it's resources in the Pacific to protect the west coast AND fight to reclaim these islands.

At least we could have evacuated the Aluetians of our old people and toddlers and nuked them.

How do you like them apples?

[Magnetron]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

We invaded Afghanistan in response to the WTC as they were the ones sheltering Al Queda and their training bases,

uhmmmm "angrily".

Haha.

No one ever believed Iraq had anything to do with the WTC or that the WTC was a pretense for invading Iraq.

History, as logic, reason and facts,... just isn't your thing.

The American people were misinformed that we were going after Saddam for harboring terrorists with access to WMDs in Iraq.

Stop mumbling when your mouth is full of chewed up bananas, Monkey.

Let the grownups like Rochard and Robbie handle the discussion.

[Magnetron]

Originally Posted by slapass

It can't be good that they are openly discussing how to get around the voters to get a candidate that the Washington/Insiders Republicans want. How can they say this stuff and not think that this will hurt their party for a long time???

I am not a fan of Trump but if he gets the votes then they are sort of honor bound to support him I would think. Seems like the way to go versus what they are doing.

Trump is a clown who just wants to get his name into the history books.

They should dump Trump or back Rubio or Cruz running as an independent.

Although I would prefer John Kasich.

Whatever the case, Clinton or Sanders is going to win anyway.

So it really doesn't matter.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Magnetron

We angrily invaded Iraq in retaliation for the WTC Bombing.

And then it turned out they had nothing to do with it.

So the pattern here is A) get attacked/invaded B) retaliate with an attack/invasion.

Instead of shoring up holes in security to prevent A) from happening again and again.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We attacked Iraq because they invaded Kuwait.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Magnetron

At least we could have evacuated the Aluetians of our old people and toddlers and nuked them.

How do you like them apples?

So... You think the United States should have nuked the United States? I am pretty sure that's insane, not to mention Russia and Canada might be utterly furious with that.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We attacked Iraq because they invaded Kuwait.

WTF????

Yeah we invaded them in 1991 in the first Gulf War because they invaded Kuwait.

Fuck Rochard...are you really this misinformed? We invaded them again in 2002 because they might have had "WMD'S" (which turned out to be bullshit).

[dyna mo]

back to the OP, it is interesting to me that the liberals aren't happy at the current direction the GOP is going. while the GOP certainly won't go away/destruct, it is certainly fractured and experiencing a major identity crisis. they only make it worse on themselves by refusing to correct those things while still obstructing government with a politicized agenda.

just think of everything the GOP stands to lose

the Supreme Court

the POTUS

the Senate

the House?

several Governors

several local mayors, etc.

while having Trump lampoon them into hysteria


why aren't liberals splooging themselves? instead they're still ganging up on Trump.

[Robbie]

Anyway...in regard to what I was saying about Trump's comments on "going after the families of terrorists":

It appears that many of you AGREE with Trump that it's just fine for the U.S. to kill innocent women and children as long as it saves AMERICAN lives in time of WAR.

Listening to Trump speak...he says quite clearly that we are at WAR with the Islamic Extremists.
So if you we are at war with them...why would it be different than when we targeted Quadaffi's kids or hundreds of thousands of people in WW2?

And yes I agree that we have better ability to target things with modern weaponry. But make no mistake about it...Hiroshima and Nagasaki were TARGETED because they had so many civilians in them. That was the point.

So why is it okay for Truman to make a point by slaughtering all those people & Reagan to kill Quadaffi's family...but not okay if Trump says to take out a few terrorist's family's?
That is a question. I don't think either thing is okay.
And my point is that the media and the other candidates onstage (who were all praising Reagan) were being outright hypocrites about the whole thing.

[dyna mo]

Robbie, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted because they were the only cities left after a couple years of bombing the entire country. There were maybe 3-4 cities left at all. we killed more civilians in the bombings leading up to the atomic bombings than the atomic bombs did.

the entire country was paper mache, it was all wood and paper buildings, and let's recall war manufacturing was not in industrial centers or even buildings at that time in Japan, manufacturing was all done in urban areas in small mom and pop shops by yup, mom, pop and kids.

[Magnetron]

Originally Posted by Rochard

So... You think the United States should have nuked the United States? I am pretty sure that's insane, not to mention Russia and Canada might be utterly furious with that.

Wikipedia is your friend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The nuclear weapons tests of the United States were performed between 1945 and 1992 as part of the nuclear arms race. The United States conducted around 1,054 nuclear tests by official count, including 216 atmospheric, underwater, and space tests.[1] Most of the tests took place at the Nevada Test Site (NNSS/NTS) and the Pacific Proving Grounds in the Marshall Islands and off Kiribati Island in the Pacific, plus three in the Atlantic Ocean. Ten other tests took place at various locations in the United States, including Alaska, Nevada other than the NNSS/NTS, Colorado, Mississippi, and New Mexico.

It's OK if you call it a "test".

[Robbie]

dynamo...do you think it was "okay" to drop the atomic bombs on those cities? After all...we are told by history books that is shortened the war and saved thousands of American soldiers from being killed.

And if a country were to be at war with another country today, and dropped a nuclear weapon on a populated city to save the lives of their own soldiers...do you think it would be okay?

And if it was a World War that the U.S. had been involved in for 5 years and it happened today...would it be okay?
As long as it saved American soldiers lives would it be okay to kill families like Truman did?

Or would you say it's no longer okay because it's a different era or whatever?

I think it was a war crime then. And it would be a war crime now. The only reason it isn't a war crime in the history books is because the winners write history. And there was nobody on the planet who could make the U.S. a "war criminal".

Still isn't.

But might doesn't make right (or maybe it does?)

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Robbie

dynamo...do you think it was "okay" to drop the atomic bombs on those cities? After all...we are told by history books that is shortened the war and saved thousands of American soldiers from being killed.

And if a country were to be at war with another country today, and dropped a nuclear weapon on a populated city to save the lives of their own soldiers...do you think it would be okay?

And if it was a World War that the U.S. had been involved in for 5 years and it happened today...would it be okay?
As long as it saved American soldiers lives would it be okay to kill families like Truman did?

Or would you say it's no longer okay because it's a different era or whatever?

I think it was a war crime then. And it would be a war crime now. The only reason it isn't a war crime in the history books is because the winners write history. And there was nobody on the planet who could make the U.S. a "war criminal".

Still isn't.

But might doesn't make right (or maybe it does?)

all i can say with total certainty is that I am against war. It's hard for me to try and put myself in the time of war and make a judgement call on those bombs. hindsight is certainly 20-20. I do know that the bombings of those Japanese cities prior to the atomic bombs killed a lot of people in very bad ways, that went on for years.

We've always thought War began with the advent of societies, we've recently learned war predates society, i.e., war is an intrinsic human trait.

Discovery Of Ancient Massacre Suggests War Predated Settlements : The Two-Way : NPR

[chaze]

Yeah, so much for integrity. These guys will do anything to put the person they want as the front runner. I always have been a republican just because I hate the IRS and all these BS government funded services. You would have to be an idiot to still have respect for them after this crap. Hopefully the whole party will be rebuilt, Dems out number Republicans so much now it's needed anyways.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I remember when Pres. Reagan ordered air strikes on Libya in 1986 in retaliation for numerous terrorist attacks that originated in Libya.

Among the targets? Quadaffi's personal homes in a gambit to assassinate him.

That was April 14, 1986 for all the people who don't remember.

Here was the result:
"Qaddafi?s 15-month-old adopted daughter was killed in the attack on his residence, and two of his young sons were injured."

It was shocking at the time. I couldn't believe that our govt. would kill an innocent 15 month old toddler.

Then I thought more about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW2 and realized that our military targeted two major cities in those atomic bomb drops. Not military bases...but cities. Full of men, women, children, and the elderly.

Killed hundreds of thousands of people instantly and millions more from cancer and radiation disease over the next decades. And yes, that included the families of the Japanese military.
The justification? It would help end the war quicker and save American lives.

Isn't that kind of what Trump was saying about the terrorists families? That if we threaten to kill their families (just like Pres. Reagan in 1986 and Pres. Truman did in WW2) that they will think twice about killing Americans?

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do.
I am saying that the media and the other candidates are being hypocritical and ignoring history.

I think Trump was bluffing with that the whole time as part of his approach to things. But I don't agree with actually DOING it. Just like I don't agree with what Truman did with dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities.

If any other country were to do that...the U.S. would be screaming "War Crimes" at the U.N.
Our federal govt. is the epitome of hypocrisy in my eyes.

Islam worships martyrs. Creating more propaganda for terrorists, isn't a solution.

[Paul Markham]

As for Trump and the Republicans.

We saw how the Republicans did all they could to block Obama, they will do the same for Clinton or Trump. So until the voters wake up and vote in more elections. The problem will continue.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Robbie

dynamo...do you think it was "okay" to drop the atomic bombs on those cities? After all...we are told by history books that is shortened the war and saved thousands of American soldiers from being killed.

And if a country were to be at war with another country today, and dropped a nuclear weapon on a populated city to save the lives of their own soldiers...do you think it would be okay?

And if it was a World War that the U.S. had been involved in for 5 years and it happened today...would it be okay?
As long as it saved American soldiers lives would it be okay to kill families like Truman did?

Or would you say it's no longer okay because it's a different era or whatever?

I think it was a war crime then. And it would be a war crime now. The only reason it isn't a war crime in the history books is because the winners write history. And there was nobody on the planet who could make the U.S. a "war criminal".

Still isn't.

But might doesn't make right (or maybe it does?)

Would like to point out the differences.

[Paul Markham]

Judging by the last three elections and the candidates put forward. The Republicans want to lose the race for President.

No one can defend putting forward and old man and a batshit crazy-stupid women, then a religious nut and now these three.

The party has to have better people in its ranks.

[Magnetron]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Judging by the last three elections and the candidates put forward. The Republicans want to lose the race for President.

No one can defend putting forward and old man and a batshit crazy-stupid women, then a religious nut and now these three.

The party has to have better people in its ranks.

Agreed, agreed and disagree.

John Kasich is a worthwhile candidate, but Republican voters favor the three stooges.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

funny how you guys never get tired of being wrong with your constant doom and gloom predictions about "the other team".

Wrong? Umm Bush started 2 wars and left both in a neverending state and crashed our econemy. Not to mention started the ball running on turning g this country into a police state. Obama of course kept that ball rolling as well.. (one thing all politicians have in common is you give them power they want more)

Not to mention the Republican congress has done absolutely nothing since they were elected..as predicted.

What did we get wrong?

Perhaps underestimated how far to the extreme the right has gone?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Magnetron

Agreed, agreed and disagree.

John Kasich is a worthwhile candidate, but Republican voters favor the three stooges.

He's about the only sensible sounding guy on their stage but isn't he a relgious nutter?

Aside from him I wish Rand Paul would of done better. He's a little loopy but he does seem to give a shit about the country and our rights.

[TheSquealer]

Crockett,

Unlike you and the crocketeers, I see a lot of wrong in both parties.. It's a gift people like Robbie and I possess which helps us see the world a bit more clearly... and see issues from both sides

My world view does not insist that anyone who doesn't see things exactly like I do, must be stupid and brainwashed. I leave that narrow mindedness, prejudiced, bigoted views and shortsightedness to you and your merry band of Mensa members

[xXXtesy10]

usa so fucked lol

[Magnetron]

Here are the reasons why the favored Republican candidate is a Carnival Freak.

1) Trump isn't a career politician and everyone is fed up with career politicians.

2) There's a lot of people in the U.S. that don't research the candidates for themselves and don't know anything about politics.

3) Many of them have brains fogged up by Prozac and other mind altering substances.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Crockett,

Unlike you and the crocketeers, I see a lot of wrong in both parties.. It's a gift people like Robbie and I possess which helps us see the world a bit more clearly... and see issues from both sides

My world view does not insist that anyone who doesn't see things exactly like I do, must be stupid and brainwashed. I leave that narrow mindedness, prejudiced, bigoted views and shortsightedness to you and your merry band of Mensa members

Its amazing you don't even read my reply before you start talking BS. You and Robbie are about as head in the sand as anyone else.

Oh and my reply above I clearly criticized both Bush and Obama. Yet with you don't even blink an eye before you go head first into your rant about me only seeing bad of one side...

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Magnetron

Here are the reasons why the favored Republican candidate is a Carnival Freak.

1) Trump isn't a career politician and everyone is fed up with career politicians.

2) There's a lot of people in the U.S. that don't research the candidates for themselves and don't know anything about politics.

3) Many of them have brains fogged up by Prozac and other mind altering substances.

I agree with your first point. But your second and third ones are a lot of conjecture.

I actually think that MORE people are informed these days. And that's why the Republican Establishment can't get away with the same old tricks they have always used to hand pick their nominee.

People aren't buying what the establishment is selling.
To try and say that it's all because people are "stupid" is an error.

I'm not stupid, and I think Trump is far and away the best thing going in the Republican Party right now.
I'm not gonna vote Republican (or Democrat)...but I do believe he could get our economy going strong again. And I do believe that he will get the best people available to handle the various cabinet posts.

As for all the social issue stuff...he is way too far right for my tastes. But then again so is Hillary. And I'm not going to vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" b.s. that the majority of people are going to do.