GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 4 of 5 < 123 4 5 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Do you think this is OK or not? (video of Watertown home raid) (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1107251)

dyna mo 04-23-2013 07:29 AM
i am watching the video for the 1st time, it's has a very anti-american tone.

is oliver stone the new michael moore?


here is the "documentary" it has some fantastic clips from hollywood movies to anchor stone's perspective.

Relentless 04-23-2013 07:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWB (Post 19592848)
None of that makes it acceptable. Dropping atomic bombs on civilians is not acceptable no matter how someone tries to spin it or write it in the history books. Man will always find a way to justify his horrific actions and senseless murder of others.
The moral choice is not to begin war. I'm all for not having a war and I'm especially against never-ending wars against concepts like the war on terror or the war on drugs. However, during a war of last resort (like WWII was) any weapon that ends the war with fewer casualties and less damage is a good thing. The atomic bombs saved many more lives than they ended and did horrific damage on tiny locations compared o the widespread horrific damage that was ongoing on a global scale before they were dropped. As a moral exercise, BEFORE entering a war one should ask if we are wiling to use nuclear weapons. If the situation is not dire enough to say yes, then don't enter the war.thats why I was against the Iraq invasion but feel differently about our mission to destroy terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Germany with another eighteen months of R&D would have been a much bigger threat to life than those two nukes.

As for intimidating Russia, that wasn't needed. They had just lost millions of people In a very bloody war and were not itching for a fight when the war ended. That friction started later and our use of the nukes is part of what caused it. The world dislikes a single nation having a huge militaristic advantage. It's another part of why cutting our military budget and spending more wisely would not hurt our national security. A narrower gap makes other nations feel more safe and less aggressive.

_Richard_ 04-23-2013 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAH (Post 19592743)
I have to congratulate the US forces for their speedy apprehension of those two terrorists, that having surveillance cameras everywhere is a great thing, however intrusive it seems to be. To be able to identify those two within 24 hours was brilliant. Lessons have to be learnt each time anything like this happens, lots of good and bad things can be worked on. What saddened me after the final terrorist was captured, was the world news coverage showing thousands [of mainly youngsters] out on the street, shouting USA, USA, like it was a Ryder Cup victory (remember them?!), turning a grave situation into it a carnival atmosphere, police cars roaming, honking their horns in appreciation. This also seemed to be explained by the fact it was 420 day, they were all stoned ? cops too.

The American reaction to such events tends to be different from anywhere else around the world, the National Guard on the streets, a no-fly zone, that every senator claimed their post contained Ricin, Louisiana closed down highways and harbours because someone accidentally left a briefcase near a post office. Obama desperate to appear on tv to petrify a nation as if aliens had landed and nuked New York. After Twin Towers idiot Bush told the word America was at war. The whole point of terrorism is to terrify, and America is brilliant at being that. And having most of the population armed didn't do much good, that should shut a lot of pro-gunners up.

Those who read that British ex-Prime Minister Thatcher died the other week, should note how she reacted when the IRA attempted to kill her in 1994, they blew up the hotel, five died, many injured, and she was very lucky to escape the blast. Next morning, 9.30am, she strode out and acted as if nothing had happened. Again, when the IRA bombed the City of London, enormous destruction, yet 36 hours later the whole area was opened for business as usual. These things need to be played down when they can, or the terrorists really are winning [in America].

Treat Tsarnaev as a criminal, not a terrorist, throw him in with the rapists, killers and not very nice people, don't make him special, by putting him in a quasii-prisoner of war detention camp, or killing him and making him and his brother martyrs.
:thumbsup:thumbsup

dyna mo 04-23-2013 09:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19592575)
You're wrong. I watched a special on Showtime just a few weeks ago showing archived footage of the Generals in their own words saying that the bomb was not needed.
Truman wanted to drop it to prove a point.

Do some research. Don't believe what we were taught in school about it.
ok, i watched the doc in its entirety, thanks for pointing me to it.

for me, i think stone is on to something, but hasn't quite got it sorted out.

as stone points out, truman was not in charge of dropping the bomb, groves was, groves is otr stating that truman didn't so much as say yes, he just didn't say no to already existing plans to drop the bomb(s). groves described truman as a boy on a toboggan.

next, he goes on that the japanese communicate to the russians that they are willing to surrender conditionally, if the emperor can be kept.

general kawabi says: we learned of hiroshima gradually, we learned of the manchurain invasion quickly.

stalin had rushed to invade manchuria after learning of the successful test of the bomb

for me, what stone is really trying to revise, is that truman blinked. truman backed off his requiring japan to surrender uncondtionally, at potsdam, he allows them to maintain the emperor. in that sense, yes, the bomb didn't have anything to do with it.

but i don't think that changes the fact that the bombs did shorten the war. that's not to say that russia's entry would not have shortened the war. but based on the doc, the plan to drop the bombs was in motion via groves, truman had no real say, as did any of the other generals.

theking 04-23-2013 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19593133)
ok, i watched the doc in its entirety, thanks for pointing me to it.

for me, i think stone is on to something, but hasn't quite got it sorted out.

as stone points out, truman was not in charge of dropping the bomb, groves was, groves is otr stating that truman didn't so much as say yes, he just didn't say no to already existing plans to drop the bomb(s). groves described truman as a boy on a toboggan.

next, he goes on that the japanese communicate to the russians that they are willing to surrender conditionally, if the emperor can be kept.

general kawabi says: we learned of hiroshima gradually, we learned of the manchurain invasion quickly.

stalin had rushed to invade manchuria after learning of the successful test of the bomb

for me, what stone is really trying to revise, is that truman blinked. truman backed off his requiring japan to surrender uncondtionally, at potsdam, he allows them to maintain the emperor. in that sense, yes, the bomb didn't have anything to do with it.

but i don't think that changes the fact that the bombs did shorten the war. that's not to say that russia's entry would not have shortened the war. but based on the doc, the plan to drop the bombs was in motion via groves, truman had no real say, as did any of the other generals.
I concur...the use of the A bomb shortened the war and saved lives for all involved.

_Richard_ 04-23-2013 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19593133)
ok, i watched the doc in its entirety, thanks for pointing me to it.

for me, i think stone is on to something, but hasn't quite got it sorted out.

as stone points out, truman was not in charge of dropping the bomb, groves was, groves is otr stating that truman didn't so much as say yes, he just didn't say no to already existing plans to drop the bomb(s). groves described truman as a boy on a toboggan.

next, he goes on that the japanese communicate to the russians that they are willing to surrender conditionally, if the emperor can be kept.

general kawabi says: we learned of hiroshima gradually, we learned of the manchurain invasion quickly.

stalin had rushed to invade manchuria after learning of the successful test of the bomb

for me, what stone is really trying to revise, is that truman blinked. truman backed off his requiring japan to surrender uncondtionally, at potsdam, he allows them to maintain the emperor. in that sense, yes, the bomb didn't have anything to do with it.

but i don't think that changes the fact that the bombs did shorten the war. that's not to say that russia's entry would not have shortened the war. but based on the doc, the plan to drop the bombs was in motion via groves, truman had no real say, as did any of the other generals.
WW2 and the 'Unconditional Surrender'

Some time during ww2, the allies started floating around this 'unconditional surrender' nonsense about how the war would end.

so instead of another european war blowing itself out.. you had this added caveat that your surrender would be 'unconditional', whatever that meant.

This meant you had no soldiers giving up, armies and governments fighting 'end game scenarios', cause for all they knew, everyone would end up dead

So you had a war being dragged out for YEARS, because of two words

same with Japan.

Anyone who says 'this saved millions of lives', not only has no clue what they're talking about, is probably suspect MIC supporter

dyna mo 04-23-2013 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19593851)
WW2 and the 'Unconditional Surrender'

Some time during ww2, the allies started floating around this 'unconditional surrender' nonsense about how the war would end.

so instead of another european war blowing itself out.. you had this added caveat that your surrender would be 'unconditional', whatever that meant.

This meant you had no soldiers giving up, armies and governments fighting 'end game scenarios', cause for all they knew, everyone would end up dead

So you had a war being dragged out for YEARS, because of two words

same with Japan.

Anyone who says 'this saved millions of lives', not only has no clue what they're talking about, is probably suspect MIC supporter
i know you are just c&p'ing this comment but it truly lacks any real understanding of the aggression of germany and japan at that time.

that aggression prompted the unconditional surrender, certainly not the allies and some random bullshit, as the above gibberish suggests.

proof is the misunderstanding the unconditional surrender saved lives.

i've never read anything that claimed the requirement for unconditional surrender saved lives, that's pretty silly.

georgeyw 04-23-2013 02:57 PM
I do not understand why people comply so easily.

I am not talking about back chatting or taking any aggressive stance towards the police.

I am saying, I would NOT run around with my hands on my head or let them pat me down without questioning them. Yes they would likely get their back up, however if I am 100% innocent of any wrong doing and these clowns break into my house. I am not going to be cooperative at all.

Think about it, you are in your house and these idiots start hammering on the door then drag you out. For what?

These officers have on average an extremely shit job that attracts lesser intelligent and educated people. That video is simply an example of giving a tin of fuel to a kid and a match. THen saying it is ok to set it on fire.

Mutt 04-23-2013 03:03 PM
The US should have brought Stalin to his knees when it had the upper hand with nuclear weapons. It would have spared hundreds of millions their freedom, no Iron Curtain, no Korean War, no Vietnam War.

Churchill wanted it, Patton wanted it - they were both branded kooks. History proved them right.

_Richard_ 04-23-2013 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19593861)
i know you are just c&p'ing this comment but it truly lacks any real understanding of the aggression of germany and japan at that time.

that aggression prompted the unconditional surrender, certainly not the allies and some random bullshit, as the above gibberish suggests.

proof is the misunderstanding the unconditional surrender saved lives.

i've never read anything that claimed the requirement for unconditional surrender saved lives, that's pretty silly.
do you know that the bush family had very close ties to the nazi party?

and sorry, i was talking about the nukes that were dropped on Japan

it was a crime against humanity.

dyna mo 04-23-2013 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19593886)
do you know that the bush family had very close ties to the nazi party?

and sorry, i was talking about the nukes that were dropped on Japan

it was a crime against humanity.
no, they didn't have very close ties to the nazi party. they invested in the recovery of germany in the 130s-ish like many wealthy americans and businesses did.

the slaughter of civilians caused by any war is a crime against humanity.

america didn't invent that, america does not hold a monopoly on that. you'll need to include all the other participants in war for your comment to be fair and accurate.

Robbie 04-23-2013 03:14 PM
dyna_mo we are hijacking this thread...but I'd like to say something to you.

You're not the only educated person on here. And not the best educated either I would suspect. I'm sure there are much more educated folks on here than you or I.

Having said that...I graduated college in 1983.
And one thing that always stuck in my head was our Western Civ professor telling us at the end of the semester that pretty much everything he had taught us was complete bullshit and that "history is written by the victors of wars"

I'd keep that in mind before you get your thoughts set in stone on the subject of the United States dropping atomic bombs on highly populated cities. (not even military targets)

If ANY country ever did that we would immediately brand them a "terrorist nation" and all hell would break lose.
But WE are the only country that has ever done something so horrible.

It's just one of the many reasons that people around the world hate and fear the United States. Our goddamn govt. is a disgrace. :(

_Richard_ 04-23-2013 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19593906)
no, they didn't have very close ties to the nazi party. they invested in the recovery of germany in the 130s-ish like many wealthy americans and businesses did.

the slaughter of civilians caused by any war is a crime against humanity.

america didn't invent that, america does not hold a monopoly on that. you'll need to include all the other participants in war for your comment to be fair and accurate.
do i need to be fair and accurate when it comes to a subject of the needless deaths of countless women and children?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004...secondworldwar

can you read this and we can get back to the discussion? i don't want to type for awhile about shit that's already fact

dyna mo 04-23-2013 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19593909)
dyna_mo we are hijacking this thread...but I'd like to say something to you.

You're not the only educated person on here. And not the best educated either I would suspect. I'm sure there are much more educated folks on here than you or I.

Having said that...I graduated college in 1983.
And one thing that always stuck in my head was our Western Civ professor telling us at the end of the semester that pretty much everything he had taught us was complete bullshit and that "history is written by the victors of wars"

I'd keep that in mind before you get your thoughts set in stone on the subject of the United States dropping atomic bombs on highly populated cities. (not even military targets)

If ANY country ever did that we would immediately brand them a "terrorist nation" and all hell would break lose.
But WE are the only country that has ever done something so horrible.

It's just one of the many reasons that people around the world hate and fear the United States. Our goddamn govt. is a disgrace. :(
lol. every generation tries to rewrite history and that's part of what i like about it. i'm not clinging to anything. you mentioned "do some research" in reply to me and in reference to a showtime show, that's assuming less than you know, i let you know i've done research on this via college. not showing off in the slightest, my history degree and a nickel = 1 nickel.

nevertheless, it's unfortunate you can't chat about it. hell, i watched your documentary and came back here with pertinent points to chat about. too bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19593912)
do i need to be fair and accurate when it comes to a subject of the needless deaths of countless women and children?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004...secondworldwar

can you read this and we can get back to the discussion? i don't want to type for awhile about shit that's already fact

ah, i'm done here.

Robbie 04-23-2013 03:54 PM
dyna_mo my point is that history is written by the winners. Not by "every generation".

If the Axis Powers had won WW2 our history books would read a lot different. Different "heroes' and different "villains"

Watching that Oliver Stone documentary was eye opening for me. It's actually a series.

And despite the bias that he may have...one thing is for certain: His ability to do real research (money) with true historians trumps my knowledge and college degree as it does yours.

We learned in college what we were taught. Garbage in...garbage out (not everything, just saying that IF our history books aren't telling the real story then we didn't get taught the correct things).

TheFootMan5 04-23-2013 03:57 PM
30,000 pigs and they didn't even find him

If they didn't have martial law, then he would have been found hours earlier

_Richard_ 04-23-2013 04:02 PM
[QUOTE=dyna mo;19593932




ah, i'm done here.[/QUOTE]

then you haven't been paying attention to anything that has happened in history. and now i know you have no interest changing that

DWB 04-23-2013 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19593979)
We learned in college what we were taught. Garbage in...garbage out (not everything, just saying that IF our history books aren't telling the real story then we didn't get taught the correct things).
:2 cents:

dyna mo 04-23-2013 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19593988)
then you haven't been paying attention to anything that has happened in history. and now i know you have no interest changing that
not correct, being a history buff to whatever degree i am, i do pay attention to what happens in history, in fact, my attempt at dialogue here was an effort towards discussing that- i'm not interested in being right, i'm interested in trying to find out a realistic view, that takes discussion and dialogue, that's why i took the time out to do what robbie suggested- more research, so i watched the exact show he referenced and came back here with thoughts on it trying to prompt discussion. that didn't go over, that's cool.

that's correct, i have no interest in changing history.

dyna mo 04-23-2013 04:15 PM
There were two components to last week's shelter-in-place request in Watertown, Massachusetts. The first was a request that people not to leave home. The second was a door-to-door search by heavily armed law enforcement officials. Those are two very different things, with different implications. But neither was illegal.

No one in Watertown had to stay at home. The shelter-in-place was optional, largely an effort to ensure public safety in the classic sense of such requests. Time explains the difference:

“The lockdown is really voluntary, to be honest with you,” says Scott Silliman, emeritus director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School. “The governor said he wants to use sheltering in place. Sheltering in place is a practice normally used if you’re dealing with a pandemic, where you’re telling people, ‘You may have been exposed and we want you to stay exactly where you are so we can isolate everything and we’ll come to you.’”

The “shelter in place” request is legally different from a state of emergency, which Patrick declared earlier this year as winter storm Nemo descended on the Bay State.




The ACLU agreed.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/natio...s-legal/64461/


/end thread

dyna mo 04-23-2013 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWB (Post 19593997)
:2 cents:
i've never read 1 single "history book" on ww2.

dyna mo 04-23-2013 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19593979)
dyna_mo my point is that history is written by the winners. Not by "every generation".

If the Axis Powers had won WW2 our history books would read a lot different. Different "heroes' and different "villains"

Watching that Oliver Stone documentary was eye opening for me. It's actually a series.

And despite the bias that he may have...one thing is for certain: His ability to do real research (money) with true historians trumps my knowledge and college degree as it does yours.

We learned in college what we were taught. Garbage in...garbage out (not everything, just saying that IF our history books aren't telling the real story then we didn't get taught the correct things).
the go to authority on the japanese surrender is a japanese citizen.

_Richard_ 04-23-2013 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19594004)
not correct, being a history buff to whatever degree i am, i do pay attention to what happens in history, in fact, my attempt at dialogue here was an effort towards discussing that- i'm not interested in being right, i'm interested in trying to find out a realistic view, that takes discussion and dialogue, that's why i took the time out to do what robbie suggested- more research, so i watched the exact show he referenced and came back here with thoughts on it trying to prompt discussion. that didn't go over, that's cool.

that's correct, i have no interest in changing history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19593932)

ah, i'm done here.
sorry this meant you read the article?

TheFootMan5 04-23-2013 04:24 PM
Anyone who defends this is 100% brainwashed :2 cents:

dyna mo 04-23-2013 04:28 PM
yes i read the article. :-) i am very much interested in ww2 and enjoy learning about it and the events surrounding it, thanks for linking it!

_Richard_ 04-23-2013 04:31 PM
woo was worried

you have read this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

Robbie 04-23-2013 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19594014)
the go to authority on the japanese surrender is a japanese citizen.
Wouldn't most of them be dead by now of old age?

I'd say the authority on it would be the generals who were in the war room and said that the Japanese had already asked to surrender. They said that Truman had no interest in that.

All the Japanese wanted was for the U.S. to guarantee the Emperor would not be harmed. Truman said "no" that wasn't "unconditional" so he killed tens of thousands of men, women, and children with 2 atomic bomb drops on 2 cities.

And then afterwards they completely left the Emperor in place (which was all the Japanese asked for)

I think the research that Stone's people did was pretty good. And I again say...I don't trust the govt. one bit. They will do ANYTHING they can get away with. Including instantly frying tens of thousands of innocent women and children with 2 atomic bombs and of course the millions who have died of cancer from the radiation in the aftermath.

No excuse for that. But just like you...I was taught from grade school on that we did an "honorable" thing and saved millions of lives.
I no longer think that. The evidence is overwhelming to the contrary to me.

dyna mo 04-23-2013 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19593909)
I'd keep that in mind before you get your thoughts set in stone on the subject of the United States dropping atomic bombs on highly populated cities. (not even military targets)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19594042)
Wouldn't most of them be dead by now of old age?


No excuse for that. But just like you...I was taught from grade school on that we did an "honorable" thing and saved millions of lives.
I no longer think that. The evidence is overwhelming to the contrary to me.
the scholarly authority.


ftr, i've never once advocated nuclear weapons or war or ww2 or anything other than to point out in a post already that all civilian slaughter during war is a war crime- period. i simply tried to find the accurate view on that precise moment in history.

baddog 04-23-2013 04:51 PM
Oh man . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19592389)
Going off the subject here...but NO! Dropping atomic bombs on two cities in Japan and killing innocent men, women, and children by the tens of thousands is NEVER "reasonable".

It was an atrocity that history will look on very badly.
Bullshit; when you build a military complex among the citizens (pretty much what you are suggesting with your contention that all military installations should be on the coast and borders with other countries) means that civilians are subject to being harmed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19592390)
If they did that to me and my family I'd get the most famous lawyer in the country and sue every one of those agencies involved for millions of dollars. Especially with that video footage right there as evidence.
:1orglaugh Sure you would.

Quote:
Originally Posted by epitome (Post 19592392)
Yeah, man, this shit is completely new!

http://baltimorecitypolicehistory.co...HER_Raid_2.jpg
No facts please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19592412)
Sorry Jesse, but that looks nothing like the paramilitary shit I just saw (complete with machine guns) laying siege to a citizen's home and bringing them out like criminals, patting them down, and then going through their private residence.
Maybe because there was no such thing as paramilitary in the 50's?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19592419)
The cops in that video were doing their job.

They were looking for a criminal for had killed three and hurt dozens with a bomb, shot and killed a police officer, kidnapped someone at gun point and stolen an SUV. The entire nation was holding it's breath. The police officers went door to door with weapons drawn.
And if the cops had not found the suspects and more people were killed or injured, these same people would be complaining that not enough was done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DWB (Post 19592848)
None of that makes it acceptable. Dropping atomic bombs on civilians is not acceptable no matter how someone tries to spin it or write it in the history books.

Man will always find a way to justify his horrific actions and senseless murder of others.
So, you recommend all countries be sure to embed their troops and military installations deeply in residential communities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19592981)
there is a lot of controversy right now surrounding this view on the surrender.

did you know who came up with this view? oliver stone.
Well, then I am convinced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19592988)
i am watching the video for the 1st time, it's has a very anti-american tone.

is oliver stone the new michael moore?
Rhetorical question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by georgeyw (Post 19593876)
I do not understand why people comply so easily.

I am not talking about back chatting or taking any aggressive stance towards the police.
I think every Aussie I am friends with has a story about how they fought the law and the law won.

dyna mo 04-23-2013 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19594034)
woo was worried

you have read this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
i had not heard of this, sounds fishy.

baddog 04-23-2013 04:52 PM
I just want 150

_Richard_ 04-23-2013 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19594087)
i had not heard of this, sounds fishy.
Quote:
In 1934, Butler testified to the Special Committee on Un-American Activities Congressional committee (the "McCormack-Dickstein Committee") on these claims.[1] In the opinion of the committee, these allegations were credible.[2] No one was prosecuted.
well you can read about the hearing

also someone was prosecuted.

Butler was

Robbie 04-23-2013 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19594086)
Bullshit; when you build a military complex among the citizens (pretty much what you are suggesting with your contention that all military installations should be on the coast and borders with other countries) means that civilians are subject to being harmed.
You do realize that there is an Air Force base right here in Vegas.
I lived in Miami for many years...also the home of a big military base.
I lived in Myrtle Beach and Columbia S.C. also home to big military bases.

I played in my band in Fayetteville, NC many times...HUGE military base.

In other words...ALL of our military bases are "among the citizens". Hell, they drive the economy in every city they are in (govt money flowing).

So to try and insinuate that the Japs were being sneaky by doing that is the same as saying WE are sneaky because we do the exact same thing.

But I'll guarantee you that if anybody ever bombs Vegas to get Nellis AFB it will be seen by the U.S. as an attack on our civilians.

Look...I've lived my life and seen what I've seen and formed my opinions. They are obviously different than yours. You seem to be in with the pro-govt. crowd on this issue. I can't change your mind. I can only be baffled at it. lol

baddog 04-23-2013 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19594122)
You do realize that there is an Air Force base right here in Vegas.
I lived in Miami for many years...also the home of a big military base.
I lived in Myrtle Beach and Columbia S.C. also home to big military bases.

I played in my band in Fayetteville, NC many times...HUGE military base.

In other words...ALL of our military bases are "among the citizens". Hell, they drive the economy in every city they are in (govt money flowing).

So to try and insinuate that the Japs were being sneaky by doing that is the same as saying WE are sneaky because we do the exact same thing.

But I'll guarantee you that if anybody ever bombs Vegas to get Nellis AFB it will be seen by the U.S. as an attack on our civilians.

Look...I've lived my life and seen what I've seen and formed my opinions. They are obviously different than yours. You seem to be in with the pro-govt. crowd on this issue. I can't change your mind. I can only be baffled at it. lol
You give me the impression that you study [or at least, skim] history. Cities/towns/villages have sprung up around military strength for centuries. Are you suggesting the US set up their installations solely to put citizens at risk?

theking 04-23-2013 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19593912)
do i need to be fair and accurate when it comes to a subject of the needless deaths of countless women and children?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004...secondworldwar

can you read this and we can get back to the discussion? i don't want to type for awhile about shit that's already fact
Some things in the artricle are not really true...and FYI Prescott Bush was not the only person to have business dealings in Germany during the Nazi period of time. Many men from many countries had business dealings with Germany during that period of time...some directly...some indirectly...unfortunately.

_Richard_ 04-23-2013 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theking (Post 19594134)
Some things in the artricle are not really true...and FYI Prescott Bush was not the only person to have business dealings in Germany during the Nazi period of time. Many men from many countries had business dealings with Germany during that period of time...some directly...some indirectly...unfortunately.
he was just the main guy doing it, yea i know

my understanding is the other 'people with business dealings' were already rather in pocket with the bush folks

and the 'business plot' of 1933

notice you called me on that bullshit few days ago btw.. i could have argued it, but wanted to see if anyone was paying attention

dyna mo 04-23-2013 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19594097)
well you can read about the hearing

also someone was prosecuted.

Butler was
oh yeah, no, fishy = big business fishy. i didn't catch a tie-in to bush, did i miss that?

Robbie 04-23-2013 05:26 PM
I'd just like to say...that I don't agree with what the authorities did in Boston. I think it was way overboard and I hope that the cops in that video are prosecuted.

Just thought I'd bring us back from WW2 for a second back to the subject at hand. lol

_Richard_ 04-23-2013 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19594137)
oh yeah, no, fishy = big business fishy. i didn't catch a tie-in to bush, did i miss that?
well.. this is the thing with 'current events' or 'past events'

a few people hold all the cards

it becomes difficult smearing people who hold all the cards

to get the Bush reference, you need to take a long crap and read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_J...athroom_Reader

i can't remember which one of these has the reference

but it talks about butler and which business men he was speaking with

and Bush is up there with another

dyna mo 04-23-2013 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19594147)
I'd just like to say...that I don't agree with what the authorities did in Boston. I think it was way overboard and I hope that the cops in that video are prosecuted.

Just thought I'd bring us back from WW2 for a second back to the subject at hand. lol
cool!

i read and posted that the aclu said that no rights were violated with the shelter in place and door to door searches. do you think the aclu is right?

the aclu said it is also reviewing the video this thread is about, if they find that that crew acted within the boundaries of acceptable behavior for that sort of thing, would you agree with the aclu's conclusions?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:41 PM.
Page 4 of 5 < 123 4 5 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123