North American Union? Is this all for real?

[owequitit]

I think some of you guys are a little naive when it comes to this stuff. You dont ever put anything past the U.S. gorvernments. One WWII gorvernment actually used Nukes on city populations(people), unjustisfiably even to this day. Different U.S. gorvernments/administrations that have ruthelessly overthrown third world gorvernments(even democracies) and purposely cemented civil wars. Their every move has to be scrutinized, questioned, JUSTIFIED.

Take Liberia for example. One minute the U.S. is behind/praising Samuel Doe. They screw him over, he exposes them to the media. The next minute they pull Rebel leader Charles Taylor out of a U.S. Federal prison, send him back to Liberia with CIA backing and training to overthrow Doe. He accomplishes that. Even cuts Doe's ears off on national televevision, but thats not the point. The point is 2 decades of brutal civil war, child soldiers eating human hearts, limbs severed. Supposedly Taylor managed to escape a federal maxium security prison. As a matter of fact, I think it was Levenworth.

The north american union when you think about american history makes sense. I dont agree with it at all, but it is what it is. The fact is, one of the reasons the U.S. is the richest country in history is because its original infastructure was built for free. This a fact of american life. America is like Galactus. Its appetite for cheap(or free) labor is unsatible. Without it, it will not be able to compete or survive.

Under extreme conditions, its makes sense for one man to make the decision to go to war. the legislative gorvernment is a joke, giantic beaucracy. They would have to take a couple of recesses b4 they ever came to a decision. A man makes the decision with over sight from a small legilative body.

The executive branch was created the way it was because you are absolutely right. If war choices were left to Congress, it would be over before it ever began.

[foamypirate]

human life.

If you can figure out away to pull through an entire war with 0 human casualties, be my guest.

What the hell are we supposed to do? Load donkeys with explosives and send them at terrorist donkeys?

[C91BLX7]

human life.

Them or us. That was the only choice.

[owequitit]

and kill 200k human beings.

V.S. 1.2 million...

You say you choose life, but really you don't. You choose the warm and snuggly feel good solution that makes you THINK you chose life.

[sackingz123]

If you can figure out away to pull through an entire war with 0 human casualties, be my guest.

What the hell are we supposed to do? Load donkeys with explosives and send them at terrorist donkeys?

what are u talking about?

[sackingz123]

V.S. 1.2 million...

You say you choose life, but really you don't. You choose the warm and snuggly feel good solution that makes you THINK you chose life.

please explain this 1.2 million. is that what the expected casualties for combat?

[foamypirate]

what are u talking about?

You said human life is what you would choose, which means we could have no human casualties. I was implying the absurdity of that notion by substituting donkeys for humans.

[owequitit]

so you think that the MASS MURDER of innocent civilians was Justified?

Interesting. then you must also think that the Armenian Genocide, the holocaust and Iran/Iraq incidents are okay too?
also Hiroshima is NOT a small city. Not to mention the fact that Roosevelt provoked the attacks against Pearl Harbor by claiming neutrality in the war then cutting off all trade with japan....then ignoring Australian intelligence reports that stated there was a Japanese task force headed for the US.....
But what does that matter right? It was only like hella long ago, and nothing similar has happened recently where our "leader" has ignored repeated warnings that something was going to happen then did less then nothing about it....Nope. nothing like that has happened in a long time.

Yeah, kind of like Clinton did eh?

As far as it being genocide, that is a mighty big stretch honestly. Genocide is actively killing people because they don't agree with your belief structure, or are otherwise different from you in some way.

We were at war. Just because we cut off trade with Japan didn't give them the right to invade. Their premise for invading was to try and scare us into staying OUT of the war. It was a tremendous backfire, wouldn't you say.

Also, we chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki when we could have chosen Tokyo. Keep that in mind. If our goal was really to inflict absolute maximum damage, we would have vaporized the capitol. But we didn't. All in all, about 100-200K died when it could have been 500K+ just from the bombs. The ONLY reason we dropped a 2nd one was because they didn't get the message after the first. They assumed that there was no way we could build 2. They were wrong. They surrendered within minutes after they found out the second one fell. Why? Because it was loud and clear that we were done fucking around. War is by nature a brutal and undesirable thing. The sole purpose is to kill them faster than they can kill you. Any other positions on war are stupid. It exists for one thing, and one thing only.

The other option was to send 1 million + Marines in there, and take the island by force. Not only would we have lost several hundred thousand people, they would have lost more than they did as well. It isn't like civilians wouldn't have been among the victims in that battle either. Especially with strategic bombing. Bombs in those days just fell and blew up. "Collateral damage" was just part of the deal. Over the course of years and years, which it would have taken to invade the island and take it by force, they would have lost more than 200K. They know it, and we know it. Some of us just aren't willing to admit it.

If it was genocide, we would not have stopped with their surrender, and we most certainly would not have rebuilt them afterward.

[ACC0RD22]

so you think that the MASS MURDER of innocent civilians was Justified?

Interesting. then you must also think that the Armenian Genocide, the holocaust and Iran/Iraq incidents are okay too?
also Hiroshima is NOT a small city. Not to mention the fact that Roosevelt provoked the attacks against Pearl Harbor by claiming neutrality in the war then cutting off all trade with japan....then ignoring Australian intelligence reports that stated there was a Japanese task force headed for the US.....
But what does that matter right? It was only like hella long ago, and nothing similar has happened recently where our "leader" has ignored repeated warnings that something was going to happen then did less then nothing about it....Nope. nothing like that has happened in a long time.

Im not arguing this with you. We cut trade with Japan because they were allied with Germany, a country that was actively at war with many of our allies. We had warned them to stop invading China, who was an ally of ours at the time, or we would cut off trade. When they did not comply, we acted on our promise. Funny how you would leave that out.

The fact of the matter is, NOONE knew about that task force. (and honestly, in the MANY history courses Ive taken, Ive never heard of any austrailian intel being given to the US) Id like sources for that information. Scholarly ones preferably, you know like you would use in a research paper.

Also, Civilians cease to be "innocent" when their government goes to war. I find it funny that youre attacking the governments decision to nuke two cities and completely leaving our nightly bombings of German cities out of the picture. (where we probably "murdered" just as many German citizens) If you really want to argue with me, tell me how this could have been done with a minimum loss of life, when they were just flying planes into our ships in an attempt to sink them. Clearly they did not value the lives of their soldiers very highly, why should we value the lives of their civilians any higher?

People who think like you are the reason a real war will never be fought again. We cannot regard any life as "sacred". With modern technology, collateral damage can be reduced, sure, but the enemy we are currently fighting is willing to put civilians in buildings they dont want us to hit, so we wont hit them. Because of this, We dont hit those buildings, and probably lose chances to cripple their forces, which in turn results in the loss of life of OUR troops.

EDIT: another note about that Japanese task force, a radar station on the island did pick up their signals that morning, but since we werent at war, that information was disregarded. I dont know about you, but attacking the task force of a country we arent at war with would probably make us the bad guys, huh.

[TurboZach]

please explain this 1.2 million. is that what the expected casualties for combat?

I believe so. There was no chance we could've taken the island with standard ground forces without a TON of casualties. It's not an arbitrary number either. There was no chance in hell they would've surrendered as long as they could fight.

Also, IIRC we did drop information on the atomic bombs about a day before we actually did. The info was meant to deter them as a final warning around the university but it was captured and ignored. Unfortunate really.

[owequitit]

please explain this 1.2 million. is that what the expected casualties for combat?

We were prepared to commit 1 million+ Marines to invade the island. They expected up to 80% of them to die, just because of the amount of resistance Japan would have given us.

So figure 800,000 Marines dead. Then add onto that all of the innocent civilians that would have died in the conflict, and you have AT LEAST another couple hundred thousand. MINIMUM. Then you add in the Japanese soldiers that would have been killed, and you are probably realistically well over 1.2 million dead. Not to mention the years of suffering. On their side AND ours. These were reasonable estimates based on our losses in battles like Midway and Iwo Jima. They KNEW the homeland would be worse, because the Japanese fight for their honor and their homeland like few others.

When you put that into perspective, 200K really doesn't seem that bad. That is why Truman made the decision he did.

He did choose life.

[owequitit]

Can you describe " what happened with Tsunami vs Katrina." I don't see what you mean yet; afterwards I'll reply.

Yes, here is what I mean. And this is a PERFECT illustration of how no matter what we do, we are the badguy.

Right after 9/11, and all of the international media BS saying how we deserved it, the tsunami hit. Everyone turned to the US and EXPECTED aid.

We were tight on resources, but our government STILL pledged 1.2 Billion dollars, or somewhere in that neighborhood. The international community claimed that we were too greedy and that it wasn't enough. They needed more money, and they started to report about how selfish the US was. So then US business got involved and sent ANOTHER 3+ billion. They stopped complaining. We sent food, water, medicine, doctors, contractors, building supplies etc. We did what was EXPECTED of us. No thank you's in the international media, NOTHING.

Fast foward to Hurricane Katrina. No immediat rescue, no immediate aid, just international media reports about how "they deserved it" some were from countries that were a given, like Iran, but some were from countries that we have HELPED in the past. Eventually, some help started to come in, but it was nowhere NEAR the level of we give EVERY TIME something like that happens to someone else.

If something bad happens and we don't immediately fix it, we are greedy. If something bad happens to us, we deserve it, and we can "fix it ourselves" because we are rich. It is a glaring double standard, and it makes me NOT regret some of the political meddling we have done in the past. Like I said, we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't, so we may as well just do what is in our own best interest.

Look at your position, and Canada is supposed to be our closest ally (not that YOU represent all Canadians). How about NAFTA? That basically opened our borders to foreign made goods coming from Canada and Mexico. It didn't differentially steal good paying manufacturing jobs from Canada and Mexico, but rather they were transfered FROM here to there, because the labor conditions, rates, and unions were more favorable. Another example of us being greedy bastards.

[zack_odom]

Also, Civilians cease to be "innocent" when their government goes to war. I find it funny that youre attacking the governments decision to nuke two cities and completely leaving our nightly bombings of German cities out of the picture. (where we probably "murdered" just as many German citizens) If you really want to argue with me, tell me how this could have been done with a minimum loss of life, when they were just flying planes into our ships in an attempt to sink them. Clearly they did not value the lives of their soldiers very highly, why should we value the lives of their civilians any higher?

Okay wow. some of you guys have alot of attitude....
I was merely reciting things I have heard or learned....Maybe they arent true.
well fine. but with a remark like "people like you" I am not sure what to say to to you man. But we are going way OFF TOPIC. The point that I was trying to make, YOU MISSED it. Re-Read the post I made. see if you can comprehend MY sarcasm, then come back to me lol. And yes owe, I did get your sarcasm.
I just thought I would respond as if you were being literal, becuase text is a very difficult way to convey sarcasm....Hmmm civilians cease to be innocent when their country starts a war....Hmmm...Well then I suppose that We would be fair game by that logic....I "left out" the German bombings because we werent even talking about that...So dont try to bring in other subjects when that wasnt the context of our convo....

[owequitit]

A refreshingly unpopular Canadian opinion:

America: The Good Neighbor.

Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.

Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars! into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.

I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles.

You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon -! not once, but several times - and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

Stand proud, America!

This actually made me not ashamed to be an American. I am NEVER ashamed to be one, but usually, you try to avoid it if it comes up too. Even in our OWN country. How sad is that? We have allowed the international community to demasticate us into thinking we aren't good enough, or that we should be ashamed, even though that same international community has NO problems riding our coat tails when it suits them.

We help more people in more places, in more times of need, than ANY other country on the face of the planet, without so much as a thank you, a kind gesture, or even a return favor.

What we do get in return is a good lambasting by the likes of the liberal media, that fat greasy dipshit Michael Moore, and all the other feel good douche bag yuppies that like to talk the talk, but not walk the walk. Not to mention countries like France, who accuse us of self serving, while they are doing it worse than we are.

The fact remains that since Sept 11th, terrorist activity on the whole is WAY down. Whether you want to admit it, or the media wants to admit it. I just pray that there will never be a day when we get to test the OTHER side of the theory, because I know how that one ends. It was on its way there 10 years ago.

[owequitit]

Okay wow. some of you guys have alot of attitude....
I was merely reciting things I have heard or learned....Maybe they arent true.
well fine. but with a remark like "people like you" I am not sure what to say to to you man. But we are going way OFF TOPIC. The point that I was trying to make, YOU MISSED it. Re-Read the post I made. see if you can comprehend MY sarcasm, then come back to me lol. And yes owe, I did get your sarcasm.
I just thought I would respond as if you were being literal, becuase text is a very difficult way to convey sarcasm....Hmmm civilians cease to be innocent when their country starts a war....Hmmm...Well then I suppose that We would be fair game by that logic....I "left out" the German bombings because we werent even talking about that...So dont try to bring in other subjects when that wasnt the context of our convo....

"Truth is Realized not learned"