Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Mahora Academy. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Collateral Damage
Topic Started: Apr 27 2008, 10:32 PM (465 Views)
book of life
Member Avatar
'3'
[ *  *  *  * ]
Sir Meh,Apr 30 2008
08:44 PM
Well, I was wrong on the heated part. This is as boring as fuck. Please at least type something interesting.

"Boring as fuck," eh?

You should be satisfied the issue got somewhere stable and finished.

What happens with a large number of people with strong beliefs meets another group of people with just as strong, but different beliefs?

War.

When people disagree, they don't get along.

Not everyone is like you and UnNegi.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sir Meh
Member Avatar
Middle Schooler
[ *  * ]
book of life,May 1 2008
07:06 AM
When people disagree, they don't get along.

Not everyone is like you and UnNegi.

I am greatly saddened by what I inferred here.

Anyway, what I found "as boring as fuck" were UnNegi's comments on how "the US is stupid" or "the US are total paranoid jerks", etc. If felt like talking to one of those talking action figures/dolls, that only have a predetermined set of phrases. Except his were all set to "bash America".

Not very thought provoking.

But I ask you this, which is worse? Two powers fighting each other directly, or using third parties to fight proxy wars?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
book of life
Member Avatar
'3'
[ *  *  *  * ]
Sir Meh,May 1 2008
03:02 AM
But I ask you this, which is worse? Two powers fighting each other directly, or using third parties to fight proxy wars?

Using third parties.

You going to fight; do it yourself.

You not going to fight, don't go to war.

Dirty people shouldn't have to do other people's dirty wars.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sir Meh
Member Avatar
Middle Schooler
[ *  * ]
Ah but during the Cold War, the US and the Russians used proxy wars to avoid direct confrontations with each, as neither wanted to use their nukes and end the world.

Does that mean that fighting directly is still the most ideal situation?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
book of life
Member Avatar
'3'
[ *  *  *  * ]
If that's the case, then the US and Russians should have left the 'big guns at home.'

Yes, direct fighting, even though there's that thing called an ocean in between.

People pay major costs when they go to war; that's just another one of them.

The nukes: they could have used at anytime, if the nukes worked, would have made no difference if third parties were there or not.

What? Are the third parties supposed to run into each other and fight? What would that prove? The winner going to, say Russia, for example, and destroy the nukes?

Makes no sense. US secretly hires some people and Russia hires some people and people hired parties fight. Proves nothing. If it does, please enlighten me.

Only thing about proxy wars: Dirty people with clean hands using dirty people with dirty people with dirty hands to fight.

Note: this seems off topic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xiao
Member Avatar
Middle Schooler
[ *  * ]
Though really, most war is entirely collateral damage, most soldiers are fighting because they were told they were supposed to, not because they have personal grudges against the other side (There are several exceptions, but I would guess that this is the general idea)

I think we should cut out all middle men, just put the leaders in a locked stadium and let them fight it out themselves, the winner of the fight wins the war... but this could never really happen. It'd be about as useful as the 'outlaw on warfare' the world had prior to world war II.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
UnNegi-relatedname
Member Avatar
Not enough ponies
Approved Members
lololol Treaty of Versailles was epic fail

The fact that wars have been going on for thousands of years won't let us avoid this. You can't just say, 'Oh, let's stop wars' and have everyone agree.

Everyone in the world is unique, and therefore, there always will be a certain pair that will disagree with eachother.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jollepoker
Member Avatar
Yue <3
[ *  *  *  * ]
Actually you can... Get some hundred bombs which each can destroy the world with just a press on a button. Then become a bad enough dude and threaten the world with "If not all the world leaders make up, I will blow up the world. As you all know, I am a pretty cool guy, so I always do as I say. You have 3 days to hug each other. "

And I'm serious when I say this, this could actually stop all the wars. That dude having the bombs can't be to much of a bad dude though D:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
UnNegi-relatedname
Member Avatar
Not enough ponies
Approved Members
But you're speaking impossible terms here. No one would let a single person hold that many weapons without some world power sending in a massive invasion force which leads to your capture and execution (US -> Iraq)

Otherwise I totally agree, that would completely work.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
book of life
Member Avatar
'3'
[ *  *  *  * ]
UnNegi-relatedname,May 1 2008
06:07 PM
But you're speaking impossible terms here. No one would let a single person hold that many weapons without some world power sending in a massive invasion force which leads to your capture and execution (US -> Iraq)

Otherwise I totally agree, that would completely work.

This is because people in power are paranoid fucks who can't trust the person holding the bombs because they are worried the single person will be like them: a person who will go against their word and bomb the shit out of everyone because they can and prove how 'great' they are.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Regalar
Member Avatar
Grade Schooler
[ * ]
Sir Meh,Apr 30 2008
02:49 PM
UnNegi-relatedname,Apr 28 2008
11:14 AM
I don't really think there was going to be any other choice (atom bomb).

Japan won't back down. US won't back down.

So in the end, it leads to

The US could of send an invasion force. Dragging out the war even longer and killing MORE people.

or

The bomb.

This was necessary. Yes people died. But not as many people died.

What?

Japan was already surrendering at that point, if year 9 History lessons serve me correctly.

Besides, even if the use of a nuclear weapon was necessary to "make the Japanese back down", the second bomb was most definitely NOT needed.

The major reasons for using nuclear weapons were to show the US's power, ya know?

As for collateral damage... as Zaroff said, sometimes shit happens. You can do all you can to prevent that, but no one is 100% safe. Sometimes, these things are unavoidable.

I am somehow unable to believe that a nation that held ground against vastly superior numbers/equipment to the last man, refused to surrender ground or be made prisoner (if possible) would just...give up. Both bombs were dropped because
a. yeah, we had the Soviets to impress, I admit.
b. Give Japan a "little nudge" in the direction of surrendering.
c. To give them their peace medals back...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dauthi
Member Avatar
GUITAR HEROOOOO.
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
b. Give Japan a "little nudge" in the direction of surrendering.


Yes, that was a tiny little nudge they gave there to help Japan surrender.

Quote:
 
c. To give them their peace medals back...


What does this mean? o_O
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Yue's Corner · Next Topic »
Add Reply