US needs to beef up its Air Force. Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Not my argument, but I don't think walrus is defending Vietnam, nor has anyone on this thread as far as I can tell. Personally I think it was a huge waste of time, resources, and human lives. It's the soldiers that went over there I mostly feel sorry for. Most of them were drafted, and were teenagers or just past teenage stage. The party line on the war was to keep Communism from spreading to South Vietnam. Flimsy excuse... the U.S. should've left well enough alone. One of those wars that stick out as not having a legitimate purpose. It also dragged and dragged and dragged. Finally the U.S. ended up withdrawing and you're right..... nothing was gained. A lot of deaths for nothing.

Your real point of contention is with the nukes dropped in Japan. I see both your points on that one, but if pushed I would probably side with Miles. The argument that a conventional war would've been drawn out and bloody is a good argument, but still fails to fully consider all possible scenarios. And why Japan and not Germany? 'Cause Germany is surrounded by other European countries? That would be a weak argument. Why didn't the U.S. just fly over and drop a big Fat Man on Germany to make the Nazis surrender quicker and avoid more life losses? I don't know...... the whole Atomic Bomb thing is just a bit much for me. Two entire cities incinerated. I think the U.S. was capable of a huge push against Japan that would've eventually defeated them. At the very least, why was Nagasaki bombed? I've read up on it and seen a lot of BS answers, but none of them seem to justify that second act of carnage. Don't get me wrong, I know the U.S. had to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. I just have to ask whether it was really necessary to obliterate two cities.

---

it is difficult for us to grasp. It was a world war in the 40’s and we are trying to judge it with today’s eyes. I’ve said it before here, no one hates war more than those who have actually been through it. There is no such thing as a good war, maybe in some cases good reasons for it but never is war good. You could call what happened in Germany even after the surrender genocide. The allies wanted to punish them and 100,000’s died of starvation as they continued to be punished. Bad shit all around

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Not my argument, but I don't think walrus is defending Vietnam, nor has anyone on this thread as far as I can tell. Personally I think it was a huge waste of time, resources, and human lives. It's the soldiers that went over there I mostly feel sorry for. Most of them were drafted, and were teenagers or just past teenage stage. The party line on the war was to keep Communism from spreading to South Vietnam. Flimsy excuse... the U.S. should've left well enough alone. One of those wars that stick out as not having a legitimate purpose. It also dragged and dragged and dragged. Finally the U.S. ended up withdrawing and you're right..... nothing was gained. A lot of deaths for nothing.

Your real point of contention is with the nukes dropped in Japan. I see both your points on that one, but if pushed I would probably side with Miles. The argument that a conventional war would've been drawn out and bloody is a good argument, but still fails to fully consider all possible scenarios. And why Japan and not Germany? 'Cause Germany is surrounded by other European countries? That would be a weak argument. Why didn't the U.S. just fly over and drop a big Fat Man on Germany to make the Nazis surrender quicker and avoid more life losses? I don't know...... the whole Atomic Bomb thing is just a bit much for me. Two entire cities incinerated. I think the U.S. was capable of a huge push against Japan that would've eventually defeated them. At the very least, why was Nagasaki bombed? I've read up on it and seen a lot of BS answers, but none of them seem to justify that second act of carnage. Don't get me wrong, I know the U.S. had to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. I just have to ask whether it was really necessary to obliterate two cities.

---

it is difficult for us to grasp. It was a world war in the 40’s and we are trying to judge it with today’s eyes. I’ve said it before here, no one hates war more than those who have actually been through it. There is no such thing as a good war, maybe in some cases good reasons for it but never is war good. You could call what happened in Germany even after the surrender genocide. The allies wanted to punish them and 100,000’s died of starvation as they continued to be punished. Bad shit all around

---

You got a good point there and none of us here can speak about that from personal experience (I think no one here is THAT old). But c'mon, just like we can say now that segregation was bad in the 50's and 60's, we can also say the dropping of nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities was bad also. Back in the 50's and 60's, different water fountains for whites and blacks was probably a normal, accepted thing. Nowadays it would be looked at with indignation and disbelief. Maybe in the framework of the 40's, dropping atomic bombs on Japan was a good thing due to the "reducing casualties in the end" argument. But looked at now, a counter argument can certainly be made. But still, that 2nd bomb.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Not my argument, but I don't think walrus is defending Vietnam, nor has anyone on this thread as far as I can tell. Personally I think it was a huge waste of time, resources, and human lives. It's the soldiers that went over there I mostly feel sorry for. Most of them were drafted, and were teenagers or just past teenage stage. The party line on the war was to keep Communism from spreading to South Vietnam. Flimsy excuse... the U.S. should've left well enough alone. One of those wars that stick out as not having a legitimate purpose. It also dragged and dragged and dragged. Finally the U.S. ended up withdrawing and you're right..... nothing was gained. A lot of deaths for nothing.

Your real point of contention is with the nukes dropped in Japan. I see both your points on that one, but if pushed I would probably side with Miles. The argument that a conventional war would've been drawn out and bloody is a good argument, but still fails to fully consider all possible scenarios. And why Japan and not Germany? 'Cause Germany is surrounded by other European countries? That would be a weak argument. Why didn't the U.S. just fly over and drop a big Fat Man on Germany to make the Nazis surrender quicker and avoid more life losses? I don't know...... the whole Atomic Bomb thing is just a bit much for me. Two entire cities incinerated. I think the U.S. was capable of a huge push against Japan that would've eventually defeated them. At the very least, why was Nagasaki bombed? I've read up on it and seen a lot of BS answers, but none of them seem to justify that second act of carnage. Don't get me wrong, I know the U.S. had to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. I just have to ask whether it was really necessary to obliterate two cities.

---

it is difficult for us to grasp. It was a world war in the 40’s and we are trying to judge it with today’s eyes. I’ve said it before here, no one hates war more than those who have actually been through it. There is no such thing as a good war, maybe in some cases good reasons for it but never is war good. You could call what happened in Germany even after the surrender genocide. The allies wanted to punish them and 100,000’s died of starvation as they continued to be punished. Bad shit all around

---

You got a good point there and none of us here can speak about that from personal experience (I think no one here is THAT old). But c'mon, just like we can say now that segregation was bad in the 50's and 60's, we can also say the dropping of nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities was bad also. Back in the 50's and 60's, different water fountains for whites and blacks was probably a normal, accepted thing. Nowadays it would be looked at with indignation and disbelief. Maybe in the framework of the 40's, dropping atomic bombs on Japan was a good thing due to the "reducing casualties in the end" argument. But looked at now, a counter argument can certainly be made. But still, that 2nd bomb.........

---

I’m not sticking for the second bomb nor the first. It’s just people say it like we did it out of the blue. I’m not directing that at u tits just a general observation.

Good to see we are not arguing, Tito. I think we are mostly on the same page on this. The Nagasaki bombing was a needless and cruel thing to do. I visited Nagasaki and the museum there is chilling. To see actual debris and the most horrific stories. A young Japanese child walked up to me and said 'Hello'. He was just a kid and kids like him were melted in that explosion. It really hits you to see school kids running around and people going about their work and to imagine that huge detonation taking place. I sat in the small park almost directly below where it exploded. Nagasaki is a lovely place. I don't see what any of those people living there did wrong. It was barbaric. I just think we can and should be a little bit better than that.

this b******* about it was 1940 and we weren't there to experience it and it was a World War yada yada yada that's absolute garbage it has nothing to do with common sense. Common Sense has nothing to do with you being personally there and experiencing it yada yada yada. We use common sense when we sent a probe to Mars we were never on Mars but we use common sense to program the pro and to make good decisions about how to program it but yet we were never personally on Mars. There are certain things we can just use intellect in common sense to judge. There was no reason to drop atomic bombs on Japan not the first and not the second. And don't give me this garbage about unless you actually fought in a war or were in a war as a victim that you really don't know what you're talkin about when it comes to war. That is absolute garbage and has nothing to do with anything. unless your household is being invaded personally in your neighborhood where you live and you have to pick up a gun or an axe to defend yourself in your family you have no business going across to the other side of the world and incinerating people or doing nation-building or doing The White Man's Burden.


DA FUCK ATTA HE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

this b******* about it was 1940 and we weren't there to experience it and it was a World War yada yada yada that's absolute garbage it has nothing to do with common sense. Common Sense has nothing to do with you being personally there and experiencing it yada yada yada. We use common sense when we sent a probe to Mars we were never on Mars but we use common sense to program the pro and to make good decisions about how to program it but yet we were never personally on Mars. There are certain things we can just use intellect in common sense to judge. There was no reason to drop atomic bombs on Japan not the first and not the second. And don't give me this garbage about unless you actually fought in a war or were in a war as a victim that you really don't know what you're talkin about when it comes to war. That is absolute garbage and has nothing to do with anything. unless your household is being invaded personally in your neighborhood where you live and you have to pick up a gun or an axe to defend yourself in your family you have no business going across to the other side of the world and incinerating people or doing nation-building or doing The White Man's Burden.


DA FUCK ATTA HE

---

Dropping the bombs ended the war and saved lives, American and Japanese. The Japanese weren't going to surrender they were training women and children to fend off an invasion of Honshu Island/Mainland Japan.....and yeah I'd venture a guess that if America HAD invaded Japan and killed women and children that you'd still be bitching about it because you're trolling or maybe you're being serious I don't know I don't much care either because it's been constant lately.

Dropping the bombs did not end the war. Those people on their 3rd and 4th generation with birth defects now.

Same with agent orange. They're on their 3rd generation now with birth defects

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

DA FUCK ATTA HE

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5Xu9UcOdj0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Dropping the bombs did not end the war. Those people on their 3rd and 4th generation with birth defects now.

---

Yeah well next time don't attack Pearl Harbor and problem solved.

How's Nanking by the way? Japan feel bad about that do they?

For $250, CAPC will arrange the DNA test and collect the samples from prospective members. The test itself is done by Viaguard.

If the test confirms a person has at least one per cent Indigenous ancestry, it's another $80 for membership in the group and a CAPC card.

Côté says it was his job to collect the DNA samples for CAPC. But he started to have doubts.

"I heard some things that were not straight with these tests," he said.

So Côté says he bought three DNA test kits directly from Viaguard in July last year. He took three different samples, which he says he sent back to the company's lab.

Two of the samples contained swabs of his inner cheek. He says he labelled one with his name and the other with his father's name. For the third sample, Côté says, he swabbed inside Snoopy's mouth and then wrote his adopted son's name on the label.

Viaguard's DNA testing determined Snoopy has 20 per cent Indigenous ancestry — 12 per cent Abenaki and eight per cent Mohawk. (Louis Côté)
Viaguard's DNA testing determined Snoopy has 20 per cent Indigenous ancestry — 12 per cent Abenaki and eight per cent Mohawk. (Louis Côté)

On Aug. 26, 2017, he received three separate emails from Viaguard, each containing a link to a PDF. The test results, which he provided to CBC News, were identical — both Côté and Snoopy had 20 per cent Native American ancestry: 12 per cent Abenaki and eight per cent Mohawk.

"I don't feel very good for the people who paid for these tests," Côté said. "They may have paid for nothing."

II. Shopping trip

Inside a store in Montreal, a cashier is handed what appears to be an Indian status card, an official government document that can entitle the holder to tax exemptions at the checkout. The cashier deducts the tax, but the man who handed her the card walks away before the transaction is complete — he knows that following through would be breaking the law.

"Merchants don't know the laws, so they will take anything presented to them," said Daniel Brabant, referring to the CAPC card just shown at the cash. Ha ha ha this lady sent her and her dogs DNA and they are both part Mohawk ha ha ha ha

Did you mean for this to be on the other thread, bro? Just wondering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Same with agent orange. They're on their 3rd generation now with birth defects

---

And half a million guys and gals brought it home to the U.S with them. What is your point exactly. More so what is your solution other than the soap box you rant from? We're not going back in time and reversing the fact of battles fought and lives lost. The same man who speaks of innocents killed proposes machine gun posts along the boarder by same Nation troops to fire on "invaders". Tighten your screws bud.

Stopping invaders is a just policy, mercilessly dropping chemicals on people who have been divided by force on the other side of the world is nuts. Try and illegally move to Vietnam and see how that plays out. The West is soft and as documented Europe is in big trouble for not controlling its borders. Paris for instance is full of illegals, gangs and urine. Even need a gate around the Eiffal tower now. All in the good name of diversity. The world looks on and grins because the war is a silent one. Thus far. Being nice will get you destroyed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Stopping invaders is a just policy, mercilessly dropping chemicals on people who have been divided by force on the other side of the world is nuts. Try and illegally move to Vietnam and see how that plays out. The West is soft and as documented Europe is in big trouble for not controlling its borders. Paris for instance is full of illegals, gangs and urine. Even need a gate around the Eiffal tower now. All in the good name of diversity. The world looks on and grins because the war is a silent one. Thus far. Being nice will get you destroyed.

---

You're not going to get shot trying to cross the boarder of Vietnam. Unless you shoot first. Unarmed civilians on the U.S boarder are not "invaders" to fire on but typical to spiral the point to fit another talking point and spot on the Globe. Yes Agent Orange was nuts and generations of kids have suffered lingering results, here and there. Troops survived 1,2 tours to return the BF Montana or the Bronx and suffered excruciating deaths over decades . Yeh that happened too.

Illegal immigrants are people who are displaying zero respect for your country. Admittedly if Brock has suggested shooting them then that is harsh, but they do need to be stopped and discouraged. The border out here has done a great job at blocking inter border irregularities. If you know you are going to step on a mine, then you don't do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Illegal immigrants are people who are displaying zero respect for your country. Admittedly if Brock has suggested shooting them then that is harsh, but they do need to be stopped and discouraged. The border out here has done a great job at blocking inter border irregularities. If you know you are going to step on a mine, then you don't do it.

---

Spicoli your reasoning doesn't make any sense at all

Spicoli just further proves my very point. He thinks that the fact that the American soldiers took some agent orange back with them and also suffered somehow detract from the point I was making when in fact it at absolutely amplifies my point. So just because they took it back with them do you think that negates the fact that it was the white Anglo-Saxon American Empire that started the whole agent orange thing? I guess they got a little bit of their own medicine there huh? That's my point they're so busy destroying other countries that they get a little bit of taking the wrong medicine for friendly fire what about the Gulf War syndrome same nonsense

Spicoli further errs very Gravely when he tries to compare illegal Invaders crossing the border to the United States saturation bombing a country Halfway Around the World, and the violence that is used in each situation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Spicoli just further proves my very point. He thinks that the fact that the American soldiers took some agent orange back with them and also suffered somehow detract from the point I was making when in fact it at absolutely amplifies my point. So just because they took it back with them do you think that negates the fact that it was the white Anglo-Saxon American Empire that started the whole agent orange thing? I guess they got a little bit of their own medicine there huh? That's my point they're so busy destroying other countries that they get a little bit of taking the wrong medicine for friendly fire what about the Gulf War syndrome same nonsense

---

Afraid you don't really have many points Brock. You throw half baked verbal spaghetti against the walls and hope it sticks. So I think that me stating soldiers took it home and "suffered somehow"..yeh cancer and shit no biggie..is there because I need help to detract from your point???. Points that remain a blur other than you're new found gig as King Troll with a whitey hang up and that this Country has been at war on average of 20-25 yrs since it's Independence. Seriously what point are you making that everyone else hasn't already acknowledged? Every one suffers in war..check. Kids dies in war..check. Vietnam was a shat war that fractured nations, ours included..check. Politicians lie and wrap themselves in the flag to this very day..check. And passing defects onto kids is fine and dandy based on being Stateside rather than the same kids in Vietnam you site. Yeh they sure did get some of their own medicine huh. Ranting about an anglo saxon America means nothing..what are you doing about it. How'd you vote. Keep chumming the waters with this mess Brock and the deeper you'll get. Just so you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Spicoli further errs very Gravely when he tries to compare illegal Invaders crossing the border to the United States saturation bombing a country Halfway Around the World, and the violence that is used in each situation

---

* shooting* illegal invaders. Soldier killing civilians. You said it. Not me. Own it thicko.

Gee, spicoli, personal name calling now....

If you illegally cross the border here you would get shot. You do not have the right to enter any country without permission. That is why we have immigration and border controls. Frankly in Europe and America they appear to have given up in that regard. If people need help we help them in other ways rather than allowing illegal entry en masse. The truth is if these are all refugees they should be staying in the first port of call which is NOT the USA or France or Sweden.

Exactly Miles. They HAVE given up. On just about anything requiring a few IQ points to boot.

Who are They? It's really not helpful anymore than the Anglo Saxon rubbish. Less than 30% of English are Anglo Saxon ffs. You cannot on the one hand get on your moral high horse about wars nobody had suggested were a good idea and then make any kind of moral case justifying the use of landmines. The MIC is there to prop up the failing globalist capitalist machine. Doesn't mean we don't need capitalism, just not in it's current most corrupt incarnation. Doesn't mean we don't need armed forces either or borders but land mines and machine guns? Since when was the Berlin Wall a good idea we all miss? Mental stuff

West Germany did not have 4 million illegal East Germans sneaking in every year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

West Germany did not have 4 million illegal East Germans sneaking in every year

---

Only because Miles would have land mined them and you would have machine gunned them down. They would have poured over the border if it did not mean forfeiting their life.

In other words the machine gun served as a deterrent and they did not pour over the Border

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

In other words the machine gun served as a deterrent and they did not pour over the Border

---

Woah woah woah.....



West Germans wouldn't shoot East Germans defecting......East Germans would shoot the East Germans defecting.

The machine gun was invented by a doctor during the civil war. He was tending so many injuries he thought putting a weapon like that on the battlefield would decrease the need for soldiers and bring about less injury

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.his...ar/gatling-gun

He also hoped it would be so scary people would say fuck this war shit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

The machine gun was invented by a doctor during the civil war. He was tending so many injuries he thought putting a weapon like that on the battlefield would decrease the need for soldiers and bring about less injury

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.his...ar/gatling-gun

He also hoped it would be so scary people would say fuck this war shit

---

That is a deadly beauty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

That is a deadly beauty.

---

The gattling gun on the A-10 has it's own diesel engine.....it is a sweet sweet weapon.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiHpYZen-oY


Happy ****BRRRRRRRRTTT**** day ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

The machine gun was invented by a doctor during the civil war. He was tending so many injuries he thought putting a weapon like that on the battlefield would decrease the need for soldiers and bring about less injury

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.his...ar/gatling-gun

He also hoped it would be so scary people would say fuck this war shit

---

That is a deadly beauty.

---

It really is. The originals go for well over 100,000 usd

~sick~

Nobody has to step on a mine, Beanz. At the end of the day the Roman Empire collapsed because it could not control its borders. The same is happening in Europe today. You likewise see privilege being given to migrant criminals in the UK. If they were not allowed in then you wouldn't have the problems you now have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Nobody has to step on a mine, Beanz. At the end of the day the Roman Empire collapsed because it could not control its borders. The same is happening in Europe today. You likewise see privilege being given to migrant criminals in the UK. If they were not allowed in then you wouldn't have the problems you now have.

---

I guess it’s the nature of things. Rome lasted a shitload of time. Egypt, Persia and many empires. England did quite well and she is still going. Everything has its season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

It's in this global arena that the U.S. needs to be savvy in its dealings with both China and Russia. These countries by themselves are not up to par with the U.S. if push comes to shove, but a partnership between the two would be a formidable force. While China and Russia have their share of differences, undue pressure from Washington could push them together. It's something to keep in mind.

---

Any serious thoughts on this? We went off on some WWII tangents and the like, but I've read some articles where the possibility of current U.S. politics pushing these two together is something to at least consider.
Could Trump be making bedfellows of Putin and Jinping? If so, how bad would that be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

It's in this global arena that the U.S. needs to be savvy in its dealings with both China and Russia. These countries by themselves are not up to par with the U.S. if push comes to shove, but a partnership between the two would be a formidable force. While China and Russia have their share of differences, undue pressure from Washington could push them together. It's something to keep in mind.

---

Any serious thoughts on this? We went off on some WWII tangents and the like, but I've read some articles where the possibility of current U.S. politics pushing these two together is something to at least consider.
Could Trump be making bedfellows of Putin and Jinping? If so, how bad would that be?

---

It’s been happening before trump. Although they are trying to counter the US China has a deep mistrust of Russia its a marriage of convenience

Landmines? What is THAT poppycock? A country Without Borders is not a country

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Illegal immigrants are people who are displaying zero respect for your country. Admittedly if Brock has suggested shooting them then that is harsh, but they do need to be stopped and discouraged. The border out here has done a great job at blocking inter border irregularities. If you know you are going to step on a mine, then you don't do it.

---

You have no credibility if you think landmines are acceptable as a form of border control. You are maintaining nothing more than an illusion of a civilized country if you think that is necessary.