+- Qbasicnews.com (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum)
+-- Forum: General (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: General/Misc (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum/forum-18.html)
+--- Thread: death penalty (/thread-3242.html)
death penalty - oracle - 02-27-2004
I've seen bowling for columbine, and I've listened to the audio book "Stupid White Men", so I'm familiar with the circumstances around GB's victory. All I can say is that if you win 40/5X states he won't win at the Supreme Court
death penalty - Rhiannon - 02-27-2004
what would be great is if we could have a real vote, and just eliminate the electoral college. We dont need those momos.
death penalty - adosorken - 02-27-2004
When GWB shows clear signs of losing to the Democrats this fall, Osama bin Laden will miraculously be caught and brought to "justice". When Saddam was out of the front page news, he "miraculously" surrendered. And wow, suddenly GWB's ratings went up...slightly. He is saving bin Laden for last...his ace in the hold, if you will. When it is clear he's going to lose, he'll try one last coup de grace with the US public. Unfortunately, they're so gullible they'll probably fall for it, and we'll have 4 more years of Gee Whiz Bushwhacker. The country will be screwed. We will see even more war and bloodshed as GWB's stupid world domination plan continues to escalate.
death penalty - RST - 02-27-2004
Just a quick point about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing: the reason two bombs were dropped was because the Japanese still refused to surrender after the first one.
Quote:what would be great is if we could have a real vote, and just eliminate the electoral college. We dont need those momos.
I found this amusing in light of what Adosorken just said about 95% of the US being stupid; if I remember correctly, the reason the electoral college was established in the first place was because the founding fathers realized this would be inevitable.
The populance is ingnorant, the politicians are corrupt.
God bless America.
He knows we need it.
death penalty - na_th_an - 02-27-2004
Not only that... I've seen a "What do you prefer, bush or Bush?" page that is not suited for linking here... But it was quite funny
(Double read the title to get what was that page talking about).
death penalty - adosorken - 02-27-2004
Quote:Just a quick point about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing: the reason two bombs were dropped was because the Japanese still refused to surrender after the first one.Your history is a tad skewed here. The Japanese were already prepared to surrender in May. The bombs were dropped in August, about three months later. Why? As a sign to Russia...Russia was about to officially enter the war. The US had to show them what they'd be facing if they did.
death penalty - RST - 02-27-2004
Hmmm... where are you getting your info from? From what I've heard, they were pretty fanatical back then, even to the point of mothers killing their children before committing suicide rather than face Allied occupation. Admittedly, that would be one of the more extreme reactions, but I think it illustrates my point.
death penalty - Plasma - 02-27-2004
Quote:Plasma Wrote:That wasn't on basis of suspicion though. Kuwait is a competitor of Iraq's in the oil business, and home to some of the most horrific criminals in the world. The government is ten times worse than Saddam's. What goes on there makes the Nazi's concentration camps look like a day at Disneyland.TheBigBasicQ Wrote:Infact in the recent history(after WWII) I dont think any country has invaded another country except the US and the former USSR on the basis of suspicion.Quote:Care to refresh my history?
August 2, 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait
I never said it was...
death penalty - Rhiannon - 02-27-2004
Quote:Just a quick point about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing: the reason two bombs were dropped was because the Japanese still refused to surrender after the first one.That's what they teach schools in the US. I also learned the same thing, but thought to myself, wow....that was a big bomb, and to not surrender after that?......doesnt make sense. Besides, the Japanse were willing to surrender back in May, and even Eisenhower himself said that the dropping of the bomb wasnt necessary. Truman ignored everyone since he wanted to test the bomb out. Years later, the British wrote that it wasnt necessary to bomb Japan, because they were already willing to surrender, and were looking for acceptable terms, back in May of 1945. Already in September 1944, Japan was feeling the pressure of the Naval blockade that was preventing them from recieving supplies for war. Almost all of their industrial posts had been bombed, the Germans had surrendered in May of 1945, leaving the Allies free to focus on Japan, and they were agreeing to a surrender on one condition, which was to keep their emperor, since they believed him to be a god, and this was an important part of their culture (not like the US really gives a horse's ass about other people's culture). Anyways, the US basically told the Japanese "FU, we're taking your emperor cuz he's commited war crimes and misled the Japanese and yadda yadda". Again, to the Japanese, the figure of the emperor was very important, and something that the US govt didnt understand because they thought it was wrong, even though there were experts that advised Truman to let them keep their throne. Truman was a bonehead and listened to other people instead of the experts. This was in July. Note the Japanese were willing, just wanted one condition met.....but nooooo. The US wanted unconditional surrender to not appear soft to the public. The Japanese even tried to negotiate thru the USSR, who at the time was neutral, with seven messages throughout the month of July. They were looking to end the war. But not the US. Cant end the war till we test our Abombs. So, the US got Fat Man and Little Boy and bombed Japan in Aug 1945. Even Churchhill thought the idea of unconditional surrender was unnecessary. Funny thing is, after the war was over, Japan kept the emperor anyways.
Had the US (and the Allies) used honey instead of vinegar to coax the Japanese into an acceptable surrender for both sides, the war would have ended a lot sooner, and the lives of soldiers and civilians alike would have been spared. Not like the US cares anyways.
Quote:As if the electoral colleges were any better than the people just voting. How do you know they are voting according to what the people want, and not because they were paid off or promised a good position in the govt following the elections? Only the Goddess knows what goes on inside the heads of those idiots. And beside, if there had been no electoral college (and no Jeb Bush fucking up the votes in florida) then Al Gore would have been elected. Not exactly a top-notch candidate, but at least we wouldnt be scrambling all over the world like a bunch of idiotic cowboys.Rhiannon Wrote:what would be great is if we could have a real vote, and just eliminate the electoral college. We dont need those momos.
I found this amusing in light of what Adosorken just said about 95% of the US being stupid; if I remember correctly, the reason the electoral college was established in the first place was because the founding fathers realized this would be inevitable.
The populance is ingnorant, the politicians are corrupt.
God bless America.
He knows we need it.
death penalty - adosorken - 02-27-2004
Quote:(emphasis added by myself)adosorken Wrote:Plasma Wrote:That wasn't on basis of suspicion though. Kuwait is a competitor of Iraq's in the oil business, and home to some of the most horrific criminals in the world. The government is ten times worse than Saddam's. What goes on there makes the Nazi's concentration camps look like a day at Disneyland.TheBigBasicQ Wrote:Infact in the recent history(after WWII) I dont think any country has invaded another country except the US and the former USSR on the basis of suspicion.Quote:Care to refresh my history?
August 2, 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait
I never said it was...
However, he did, and you were commenting on his comment, so...you get the idea
