Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-22-2016, 08:32 PM
 
Location: Japan
15,292 posts, read 7,758,205 times
Reputation: 10006

Advertisements

Originally Posted by FatBob96
Liberals wouldn't have gotten us into the war in the first place.

After Pearl Harbor, they would have apologized to Japan for provoking the attack by being racially and culturally insensitive to their need to dominate the world along with Nazi Germany.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
and asked them what US city they wished to bomb next.

Where are these turn-the-other-cheek liberals? I see no pacifist types in power anywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2016, 08:34 PM
 
34,053 posts, read 17,064,521 times
Reputation: 17212
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post

Contrary to how many conservatives try to paint liberals, they are not all lovey-dovey when it comes down to it. Even Obama has engaged in war and he is liberal. He has been way more active in killing people than many liberals know about or like to admit.

Clinton passed on OBL due to collateral damage issues (years prior to 9/11-Thanks,(sar) Bill), as has Obama in assisting retaking ISIS cities.


Libs today are truly pacifists even at the risk of future US casualties.


Truman wasn't; didn't blink an eye about 250,000 humans as collateral damage b/w Tokyo raids, and 2 atom bombs. (FDR would no doubt have blinked!!)


No more Trumans exist in the Kumbaya DNC crowd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2016, 08:38 PM
 
Location: Japan
15,292 posts, read 7,758,205 times
Reputation: 10006
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
Clinton passed on OBL due to collateral damage issues (years prior to 9/11-Thanks,(sar) Bill), as has Obama in assisting retaking ISIS cities.


Libs today are truly pacifists even at the risk of future US casualties.


Truman wasn't; didn't blink an eye about 250,000 humans as collateral damage b/w Tokyo raids, and 2 atom bombs. (FDR would no doubt have blinked!!)


No more Trumans exist in the Kumbaya DNC crowd.
Not enough war for you in the past 8 years, eh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2016, 08:43 PM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
5,037 posts, read 6,923,971 times
Reputation: 5961
FDR was a close to a tyrant as we've had in this country (thankfully still pretty far) and a true progressive. On economic issues he'd be to the left of most everyone in politics today. The question seems so ignorant as to feel phony, like asking about what kind of gun Jesus would use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2016, 08:43 PM
 
34,053 posts, read 17,064,521 times
Reputation: 17212
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment View Post
Not enough war for you in the past 8 years, eh?

War is a necessary evil, and had Clinton taken out OBL when he easily could have, 9/11 and the war to follow most likely does not occur. Had the world taken on Hitler faster, millions who died in WWII live.


The concept of caring about enemy casualties is IMO an act of Treason. AS General Flynn stated well, "War is about winning". Truman acted properly, even if it meant more Japanese died. All that should have mattered was "Would fewer American soldiers die"?


The pc collateral damage nonsense was pushed on this nation by liberals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2016, 08:47 PM
 
8,061 posts, read 4,885,133 times
Reputation: 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment View Post
Not enough war for you in the past 8 years, eh?
If Obama chose to el direct to threats instead of lead from behind?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2016, 08:54 PM
 
34,053 posts, read 17,064,521 times
Reputation: 17212
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTRIDER AZ View Post
If Obama chose to el direct to threats instead of lead from behind?





Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2016, 09:01 PM
 
8,061 posts, read 4,885,133 times
Reputation: 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
War is a necessary evil, and had Clinton taken out OBL when he easily could have, 9/11 and the war to follow most likely does not occur. Had the world taken on Hitler faster, millions who died in WWII live.


The concept of caring about enemy casualties is IMO an act of Treason. AS General Flynn stated well, "War is about winning". Truman acted properly, even if it meant more Japanese died. All that should have mattered was "Would fewer American soldiers die"?


The pc collateral damage nonsense was pushed on this nation by liberals.
This is what a alternate history may have turned out.


Peace with Nazi Germany and the Jewish Issue would been swept under the carpet. Adolf Hitler would continue to Govern Germany and Fascist Italy would control the Med. and the vast oil reserves of the Middle east. Vicy France would still rule and control Tunisia and Morocco and take control of Gibraltar .


Europe would of been under Nazi Rule.


Imperial Japan would of rules the Pacific and be controlled vast areas under the Hirohito (1901-1989) and PM Hideki Tojo under the code of the samurai.


Just a Tibet!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2016, 09:04 PM
 
Location: New York Area
35,064 posts, read 17,006,525 times
Reputation: 30213
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment View Post
Those sites were controlled by Japan and Americans died fighting Japanese soldiers there. This had nothing to do with pussyfooting around, it would not have been good strategy in the early phase to try a major direct assault on Japan. Taking those islands first made it possible.
What wound up making the end of the war possible were the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the very least Iwo Jima was in irresponsible and needless bloodbath.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2016, 09:12 PM
 
8,061 posts, read 4,885,133 times
Reputation: 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
What wound up making the end of the war possible were the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the very least Iwo Jima was in irresponsible and needless bloodbath.
Nuc them until they Glow!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top