posted 07-06-99 03:14 AM ET            

we could definantly improve things but when compared with the alternatives i for one don't dislike living in america

posted 07-06-99 09:53 AM ET            

While I would not go as far as to say the USA is the greatest country in the world, it ranks right up there. Our people might tend to be a little snobbish which is unfortunate because it limits their worldly knowledge. Our government needs help, but hey, what government doesn't? At least we have a system in place where the people can change things through the government. The problem is convincing people that voting is important and taking an active interest in your community is important.

posted 07-06-99 10:45 AM ET            

THEREFOR THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE

posted 07-06-99 01:51 PM ET            

Some are proud of the fact that America has the world's largest and most advanced military. I am not. America spends 250 billion every year on defense. Education gets a paltry 11 Billion. Why do we need such a large military? Does America have a bit of paranoia?

Another subject I have wondered since I was in elementary school is this, why the hell does America allow gun ownership? There is no reason the average citizen should be able to to travel to his local pawn shop and pick up a weapon that was meant to kill. Damn right wing consevatists never fail to vote down bils that will limit gun ownership or force safety divices such as trigger locks to be sold with guns, simply because they feel it is a violation of thier 2nd amendmant rights. This makes me sick. Every year, thousands of children die from gun related injuries, yet citizens value the right to own a gun more than life itself.

In my social studies classes I am always told freedom is what made America great. This is completly wrong. Lots of expansion space and abundant resources made America powerful, not great. If, Japan, for example, had discovered North America before the English and set up colonies and eventually had the land the is America today, you better belive they would be the primary superpower.

I don't like America for a few reasons. I really dislike that the citizens have too mucb freedom. Before you call me crazy, listen to what I have to say. America has easily one of the worst public schol systems. Why? Because of the taxpayers. Why should decisions as important as the education of our youth be in the hands of John Q. Public? He'd much rather not have to pay the extra bucks, especially if he doesnt have children. I live in Florida, and it is a haven for retired citizens. Florida has probly one of the wrost education systems in America. Education taxes here rarely ever pass, mainly beucase elderly retired citizens hold most of the voting sway here, adn since they don't have any children (either in the state or no children at all) they feel they shouldent have to pay for education, and schools suffer. I was reaised most of my life in St. Louis, Missiouri, which has average education funding, but compared to Florida, yeesh.

Some are proud of the fact that America has the world's largest and most advanced military. I am not. America spends 250 billion every year on defense. Education gets a paltry 11 Billion. Why do we need such a large military? Does America have a bit of paranoia?

_______________________________________
Dreadnought- acting president of the AUWM, Associated Union of Wookie Mechanics.
"This one goes there, that one goes there!"

posted 07-06-99 01:52 PM ET            

________________________________________
Dreadnought- acting president of the AUWM, Associated Union of Wookie Mechanics.
"This one goes there, that one goes there!"

posted 07-06-99 04:47 PM ET            

THIS HAS GOT TO STOP.

if we actually held students back, my 7th grade class would have about 1/3 OF ITS STUDENTS HELD BACK!

posted 07-06-99 05:39 PM ET            

Ok! Back to normal mode. No I don�t dislike America. Sure I don�t approve with many things like the death penalties in many states etc etc�but life would be quite dull and gloomy if we poor Swedes didn�t get to hear about all the crazy stuff that is going on in America. There is just an never ending flow of amusing stuff going on in � the land of the free, home of the brave� .

posted 07-06-99 06:05 PM ET         

First of all on the subject of education. We spend more money per student than any other nation on earth. If the results are bad it's not because we aren't spending money it's because of how we teach our kids and how we expect them to learn. One major problem is that the state run school system is not responsive to its clients. People are forced to send their kids to bad public schools because to state, and the teachers unions have a monopoly. Where parents can afford to they send their kids to private schools which have repeatedly demonstrated better results. Parents without the means are forced by the government to keep their kids in bad schools. If you want to improve education in this country let the parents control the money for schools and let the public schools truly compete to keep students. Competition will make them better, being a non responsive monopoly doesn't.

As far as the second amendment goes, there has been a flood of words both pro and con written on the subject in numerous other threads. The question is are you for some gun control, or do you want to eliminate all gun ownership in America? One may be possible, the other certainly not. But if you are going to start infringing on the second amendment to protect children how do you then justify not doing a little infringing on the first amendment? Or perhaps the fourth and fifth when eliminating drugs or other perceived ills of society? You can't perfect society with government programs, intrusions or restrictions, it is too blunt an instrument and society changes too quickly for it anyway. Rather than looking for government to make citizens perfect everyone should live their own life as they would expect others to lead theirs, it many small steps to a greater good.

As far as the military budget is concerned it is the one thing that the government should be doing. The common defense is one duty an individual cannot carry out on their own. As far as the size of the budget, we are now expected to be the world's policeman. End conflicts, provide humanitarian support in troubled areas, on a large scale. Our defense budget, as a percentage of the overall budget, is the smallest it has been in decades. We are asking our military to do more with less, which puts the lives of our service men and women at risk. It is unconsciencable for a country to that. Is American foreign policy over reaching? Yes, to some extent. We have certainly involved ourselves in areas and causes we might have better left alone but most of the causes were worth fight for. Is Vietnam really better off under a communist government?(That can be debated elsewhere) Should we have unilaterally intervened in Kosovo?(Lord has that been debated!). In the end US foreign policy has always been a fertile ground for disagreement but I don't think the world would necessarily been better off with a totally isolationist US.

Finally freedom. Yes it's ugly. Yes people do a lot of crazy things. Yes people do things that I wouldn't want see be done to a rat, but what is the alternative? The government deciding what activities are permitted and which are banned? What words can be said, and what must be proscribed? What you can or cannot do with your lives? Freedom is ugly, but oppression is worse and oppression for the "greater good" is the most insidious of all. Do you really want someone else to run your life for you? Make the "hard decisions" for you? What would be left for you to decide? Before you say, "Well i'd be free to do this" remember someone may think you shouldn't be permitted to do that and then where does that leave you? Freedom means having to put up with alot of sh*t so that we are free to do the things nearest and dearest to our hearts. And America is the worlds best place to do this. Nowhere else is freedom cherished as it is here. We got problems, some of them pretty bad, but I'd take the USA with all it's faults over any other country.
(Well, maybe Tahiti but that's the only exception.)

posted 07-06-99 07:46 PM ET         

Born in the USA, I was Born in the USA!

posted 07-06-99 08:25 PM ET            

By the way, who do you think is going to win the women's World Cup?

CHINA!

PS. Where in my posts have I written that I don�t think America is a great country? I�m just curios? Not that I think it is though. I�d rather call it...um......decent

I just like too tease the extreme patriotism in the USofA.

You could definitely need some Socialism in the US

posted 07-06-99 10:46 PM ET         

The reason we stink at football(soccer)is that we simply don't play it as our sole and major sport. It will always compete with Baseball, Basketball and Football(our version) and we'll probably never develop the passion for it the rest of the world has and which leads it's best athletes to it. The reason our women do well at it is because for many growing up it was really the only sport they were allowed to play. I don't know how much young girls around the world play Football but are they encouraged as much as young boys?
If we were serious about a World Series for baseball, you would probably see the same results as when Olympic Basketball let in our Pros. Beating collegians or minor leaguers is one thing, beating the best professionals is another. It's much the same way in reverse for us in other sports, like cricket and rugby, for example.

USA 4 China 1 So let it be written,
So let it be done!

posted 07-06-99 11:36 PM ET            

On a sperate note, I think it's pretty sad that it takes the Littleton shooting to finnaly wisen up republicans to institute the bill that would force gun buyers to purchase a trigger lock with thier guns. This bill was shot down every time it was brought up by right-wing nuts who thought that it would "infringe on thier 2nd amendment rights". Sad......

P.S- Does anyone here know if Canada allows private gun ownership?

posted 07-06-99 11:46 PM ET         

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

posted 07-07-99 12:40 AM ET            

My opinions (at least at the top of my head) have been, more or less, expressed already.

Basically, the USA is trapped in a room running around in a circle. It's all the same. Whatever stride we try to make to get better inveribly gets lost in the shuffle, and we end up at the same place we started.

How quick we forget. Want proof? Latrell Sprewell. He, by all rights, should be in jail for attempted manslaughter (or worse). Now here he is getting paid millions for play basketball, and people everywhere are talking about how he should have gotten this second chance. No, he shouldn't have got it. We wouldn't have gotten it. If we choked our boss, we'd be in jail for many yrs, and afterwards, we'd be lucky to get a job at a fast food joint. This could only happen in America.

We will forget. All this fuss surrounding Littleton will be temporary. All new law ideas will sputter out and fade away. We will, as a mass, forget about Littleton and go back to how it was before the incident. A couple yrs later another Littleton will respark our interests. The process of eventual nothing will repeat again.

posted 07-08-99 05:56 AM ET            

What the heck? What source are you getting these statistics from? Or are you just regurgitating what you heard some liberal activist say?

Re: Canada and guns. Our laws are far more strict than the US, and stretch far into the ludicrous. For example, there are laws that mandate how you have to store your guns in a well hidden/protected place. If someone steals a gun from you, that means that you didn't protect it well enough. So you get put on trial, the thief testifies against you, and you often get a harsher sentence than he does.

A new law (Bill C-68) just came into effect, which mandates the registration of virtually all firearms. (Oh gee, I can't figure out what their eventual intent is.) It also contains some other interesting (but somehow unsurprising) elements. For example, if a policeman has "reasonable cause" to think you have a gun on your property, he can search it without a warrant. Also, during a search or similar operation against you, you can be charged for failing to answer questions about the illegal guns you supposedly have (i.e. you no longer have the "right to remain silent").

Oh, and we had a high school shooting up here right after the Littleton one, and another that was only stopped because the perpetrator-to-be was bragging about what it was going to do ahead of time, so don't think these laws are actually doing any good.

posted 07-08-99 10:18 AM ET            

Note my comments above. When we came over there was no such thing as 'proper' spelling. Before the 19^th century there was no universally accepted system of English spelling(though there are English dictionaries dating back to late 16^th century, until a few examples in the 18^th they worked on the principle of including only words that most men would not know[1]) combined with universal education. Therefore there is no way we could have 'forgotten' how to spell properly, is there? Our schools used Webster's spellings, the British world used another. If the British Empire would have had the foresight to decide on a universal spelling system prior to our revolution and teach it to all, I'm sure there wouldn't be a problem today. Since they did not we can not be blamed for devising our own system.

[1] Introduction to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2^nd Edition, 1991. It is worthwhile to note that the first OED wasn't published until 1857.

White_Cat:
"...if a policeman has 'reasonable cause' to think you have a gun on your property, he can search it without a warrant."
And I suppose you can be convicted of improper storage if he finds one?

posted 07-08-99 05:01 PM ET            

My Oxford Paperback Dictionary (OUP, 1983) gives it as 'civilization'. (I'm a Chambers Dictionary man myself, but I'm at work at the moment, and the Oxford is to hand: I'll look in Chambers tomorrow.

posted 07-09-99 06:20 PM ET            

The US system of education isn't perfect, but we do make an attempt to educate everyone, not just the talented people. People sometimes slip through the cracks like water through a sieve, but our intentions are good, and things have the potential to change here faster than they do in other countries.

I think many people have a negative view of US citizens because we export the most obnoxious ones, we're in such a hurry to be rid of them we forget about what they do to our image elsewhere
I've done a little bit of traveling (maybe I was exported too!), and I'd have to say most of the tourists I've met are loud, boorish, haughty and just about anything else negative you can think of.

I'm not foolish enough to think that in the US, human rights are not violated, people aren't starving, people don't steal from and kill one another, and corruption doesn't exist in business, government, etc..., but things are better here than elsewhere. I don't have to bribe the DMV to get my drivers license, and I don't have to worry about being dragged out of bed and shot in the middle of the night for saying Bill Clinton's wife should be allowed to slap him silly.

But I do believe our country as a whole does as good a job as any other at fighting against domestic problems like these.

Now, if we could act to help people in other countries, with their consent, at times when there's no tangible benefit to the US, we'd really have something unique.

My country's government is a selfish, big lumbering, beauracracy; but its MY selfish, big, lumbering beauracracy (sp?) and if things get too unbearable, I know that we have a good chance of changing things through a vote rather than a coup.

posted 07-09-99 09:51 PM ET            

Chambers agrees with you, but it does give the 'ize' as an alternative. I really must throw that Oxford dictionary away!

Fowler's has quite a discourse upon the use of 'ise' or 'ize' at the end of a word, but of course that is at work while I am at home. Anyway, as I remember it, the main principle is if the word is derived from a Latin ('ize') or French root ('ise'), then the appropriate ending should be used. Thus, anyone who consistently uses the 'ise' ending is a Francophile and deserves to be shot .

From my time in the U.S. in the early eighties (lived in Clark and worked in Murray Hill, N.J.) I came away with the abiding impression that individual U.S. citizens are great people to know, but get two or more together and they start competing and become obnoxious. My twopenn'rth.

posted 07-12-99 01:43 AM ET            

IM SURE AS HELL GLAD I LIVE IN CANADA:-)

posted 07-13-99 09:09 AM ET            

At least here in england we can get our budget bill passed.

And wuld the padantic people who always critizise spelling - GET A LIFE

posted 07-13-99 10:01 AM ET            

I know i can't spell i'm a programmer as long as i spell incorectly consistently who cares???? ,language is suppose to evolve

n.b. no spelling errors.

posted 07-13-99 01:10 PM ET            

Mangobreeder:
From a Congression Budget Office report(1998 actual spending):

            Defense Spending: $ 270 billion
                    Medicaid: $ 101 billion
                 Food Stamps: $  20 billion
              Family Support: $  18 billion
Supplemental Security Income: $  27 billion
             Child Nutrition: $  19 billion
    Earned Income Tax Credit: $  23 billion
             Social Security: $ 376 billion
                    Medicare: $ 211 billion
   Unemployment compensation: $  20 billion
       Misc. Social Services: $   5 billion
       Total Social Spending: $ 820 billion

posted 07-14-99 06:19 AM ET            

Inferior British Textbooks
and LYing Scheming Webpages

i have learnt a valuable lesson never ever believe a website with lots of figures

I bow to your superior knowledge

MangoBreeder

posted 07-15-99 05:57 PM ET            

And I also hate Americans 'cos they are bunch of hypocritic liars. They are always smiling those fake smiles, and the are never telling what they really mean, just that what is in their best interests.
Look at Bill Clinton, he's the worst liar who ever lived!

And # 3: why did you destroy communism?
Communism maybe wasn't good for you, but for some european countries the communism was much better that capitalism now.
We had much more in communism!
We want our communism, you can have Adam Smith for yourself.

posted 07-15-99 07:34 PM ET            

There we go right there... another stereotype. The lower class isn't the only one who enjoys professional wrestling. I happen to like it myself, and many of my friends like it to. None of us are lower class by far. Professional wrestling is a form of entertainment, not a sport, and people from all sorts of ethnic, social, and political backrounds enjoy it.

Ok, for all those Europeans who hate the US: I am American. I am proud to be an American. I love my country, and would die defending it if necessary, just as millions of Americans in history have. But, not only did they die for their country, they died for YOU. We have given up so much for the good of Europe, and all that we get in return is complaints. Maybe we haven't done a perfect job of helping you guys out, but we are only human, just like you.

Yes, America should be spending more on education, social problems, health care, etc, but I also believe we should spend a little more on defense.

posted 07-15-99 07:47 PM ET            

THE UNITED STATES WON THE WORLD CUP...

And as for spelling...
Apparently you hate us because we misspell a word or two. Apparently you are looking for an excuse to hate us. No one is perfect. Maybe you Europeans have forgot your grammar. This is directly from one of your posts in this thread:

Did the colonists forget to pack the travel scrabble, or is it some trick of the Atlantic that made them forget how to spell properly.

Let's see... "travel scrabble" is a proper noun, so it should appear "Travel Scrabble". and "... or is it some trick of the Atlantic that made them forget how to spell properly." This is obviously a question, and a quesion requires a QUESTION MARK.

You aren't perfect either, Darksider, nor is anyone else that exists or has existed. You can hate us just because we don't like to break our appendages or damage vital organs when we play sports. But to me, that is a limited and bias view.

posted 07-16-99 01:23 AM ET            

Now, I'll admit that we probably have more than our fair share of money-grubbers(just wander the halls of any business school), but it is by no means endemic.

posted 07-16-99 03:31 AM ET            

Misho, fuck you. I always start with insults

I don't really care about #1 and #2 (not that I like US; I don't, because it's becoming more and more socialist). It's number three that bothers me.

First, the US did not destroy communism. It was destroyed by itself and the freedom loving people.

"for some european countries the communism was much better that capitalism now"

Which ones? Russia and the rest of CIS never had capitalism. They had and have chaos. Capitalism is not chaos - it's a functioning system, that protects the rights of freely interacting individuals.

"We had much more in communism!"

posted 07-16-99 08:00 AM ET            

why don't you go **** YOURSELF?! OK?
What do you know about communism? Tell me?
What do you know about it? I'll tell you what do you know. You only know what Ted Turner and CNN told you. And that's a piece of propaganda crap, buddy!
You see, there are many kind of communism:
bolsevism, stalinism, chinese communism,titoism (ex-yugoslav communism).
I have lived in the last one for 15 years (in Croatia) and I had very good life.
What do I have know? I have mobsters in the goverment, I have clerics as intelectual elite, I have the worst kind of human trash who decide about my life and about my future.
You see, the democracy is not for everyone.
You can share democracy with the cattle, 'cos isn't right that cattle with its votes decide about you.

And yes, USA DID RUIN COMMUNISM convinceing people that they'll live much better in capitalism. What ex USSR have now in capitalism? I'll tell you: the worst nightmares that one can imagine
I am not saying that communism is perfect, actually I prefer social democratism, but communism had its positive sides that no one can deny.
So back off, ok. You don't even know what are you talking about.

posted 07-16-99 08:21 AM ET            

fuck you twice. If you were not so obsessed with your hatred of something you don't understand, you'd look up my profile. It says I'm from Lithuania. In case you don't know what that is, it's the country that kicked you wussie Croatian asses at the European Basketball Championship.

Plus I lived in the USSR (Lithuania was part of it, in case you are a failure in history; a rather high possibility, judging from your post) and believe me, I know what I'm talking about. And that was not a very good life. In fact, it was a life of slavery and misery. I'm not saying everything's perfect now, but at least you have SOME basic freedom. But for an irrational person as you apparently freedom is of no value. Why don't you go and live in North Korea?

posted 07-16-99 01:06 PM ET            

Saras:
"pseudo-sciences at universities (except for natural sciences - they were needed to make better weapons to kill the free world's people)."
As I understand it, biology(specifically genetics) was pretty much a pseudo-science) for a good period of time(Lysenko ring a bell, anyone?). Similar political review of physics was attempted but discarded due to the importance of the atomic bomb. Shows the problems with placing political restrictions on scientific truth, no?

posted 07-16-99 03:11 PM ET         

On the seperate subject of Vietnam, I do believe there actually were some British forces aiding us.(My history background didn't really cover as much recent history so I may be wrong). We could have won, but we were never willing to pay the full price for it which may have been a confrontation with the Chinese(Even though they had little love for the vietnamese themselves, remember 1979?)Vietnam was Korea II waiting to happen.

On the communist question, Why are we still arguing about a failed totalitarian system?
The communism practiced in Europe today is just socialism, which has its own faults as a system of government and economic policy. Whether people are better off under a government lead by socialists is something for them to determine. But if appearances or statistics are any judge then the more capitalist a system is, the better off the people living under it tend to be. For some people, that's enough, for others, no.

Overall I think the United States has made a much more valuable contribution to the world then any of its supposed faults may have hurt it. I just wish any argument of the relative merits wouldn't slip into simply name calling and publicly traded explitives.

posted 07-16-99 04:34 PM ET            

On to the Vietnam subject...
Ok, so the US lost one war. We lost because too many people were taking so-called "mind-expanding" drugs and had dillusions of bad intentions on the part of the government. If it wasn't for all the protests and rallies, the US could have exercised its full military muscle.

Hey, we beat England two times, Spain once, and Germany twice... now that's American resolve and patriotism.

posted 07-16-99 04:46 PM ET            

quote:

---

Analysts have discovered the source of America's recent military activity. It appears that, after being late for the first two World Wars, they are determined to be really punctual this time round.

---

ZRand: I thought you lost Vietnam because of poor planning?

posted 07-16-99 04:58 PM ET            

I don't know any HTML, and bloody scripts do not allow me to write it in English, so I'll write it in Croatian:

JEBEN TI MATER NA RADIJATORU!

This was very juicy Croatian sentence which has something to do with me and your mom and F-word.
Ok, now I am starting for real:

Above all, you suck my friend. Very deeply.
I didn't read your profile 'cos I am not in love with you and I don't care about you at all. Who are you to me anyway?
Nothing and nobody. If you want to know more about myself go to my site www.oe-pages.com/ARTS/Movies/misho and you'll get all informations that you want. You can sign my guestbook if you want but don't write any faggy messagges. I am not faget and I hate ones.
You said something about Basketball Champioship and Lithuania...
You are from Lithuania? Lithuania sucks more than Croatia. Perhaps twice more.
So that' too bad for you. At least we have beautiful coast. What do you have?Bears?
So Lithuanian baskettball team won Croatian?
Ok. How about Toni Kuko�, Dino Ra�a, Stojko Vrankovi� etc. Do you know who these people are? They are Croatian basketball players who play in NBA. Kuko� is with Bulls.
I live in Split where is Kuko� from, and believe or not I sew him before 20 days ago.
Who from Lithuania plays in NBA?No one.
Who was THIRD ON THE WORLD IN THE LAST SOCCER CHAMPIONSHIP?
Usa? Germany? Lithuania? No asshole.
Croatia.
I don't like sports and I never watch it but don't bull**** to me with sports, ok?

So you was part of USSR and you lived badly?
Did you ask yourself that that might have something to do with Lithuanian nazi troops during WW2 who supported Germans?
Buddy, you are lucky that you still have your country at all.
If I was Stalin I would burn it to the ground. So don't bull**** about democracy either. Nazists don't deserve democracy.

And finally, you can kiss my ass with your conservatism and your anti-communistic poetic. Communism is dead, I agree.
Communism wasn't perfect, far away from being perfect, I also admit that.
Bud as idea, communism is briliant,much more human than capitalism.
At least real communists (such as Marx, Lenin, Guevara, Lorca..., not Stalin) tried to change something to better, and what capitalists tried to change?
Only the size of its wallets.

posted 07-16-99 05:22 PM ET            

To ZRand 007:
"The reason most Americans are snobbish is because we are decadent."

posted 07-16-99 05:33 PM ET            

Why don't you go feed your chicken redneck?!
Did I ask you for your stupid opinion?
I don't think so. I am not interested in exchanging opinions with person who declares America as the only world liberator of Nazi threat.
How many American cities were destroyed in WW2? How many civilians were killed?
You went into war only 'cos of your greed (greed and greed again).
You were affraid that Great Britain won't be able to pay off all that debts and loans so you wanted to secure your money.

An finally, WHO DROPED TWO NUCLEAR BOMBS ON INNOCENT CIVILIANS? AMERICA, ASSHOLE.
You are more ashamed than even Hitler.

And about war-crimes... what happened with von Braun, the nazi inventor of V-2 rockets?
Nothing! Guy killed a few thousands civilians and ruined a half of England and you didn't prosecute him. Why?
'Cos he was useful for your space race with Russians. You even payed him a fortune.
To the war criminal!

posted 07-16-99 05:52 PM ET            

And yet... for some reason no one ever complains about the fire-bombing (Dresden, wasn't it?). A lot more people -- yes, civilians -- were killed that way than by the nukes.
In view of the reasoning ability shown in the rest of the post (ie. none) I'm not even going to bother with the old "more would've been killed any other way" arguments.

Please, learn a fact or two before you get on your high hobby-horse.

posted 07-16-99 06:20 PM ET            

Misho:
re: von Braun
He was researcher in a country at war. There is nothing wrong(or illegal) about him trying to develop the best weapons he can for his side(no matter how repulsive its leadership). Were the owners of Krupps or Bofors war criminals for building guns? No. How then is it different to build a ballitic missile?
His only liability to war crimes would be the use of slave labor in the production of his rockets and it is not clear that he is responsible for it.
As to our use of von Braun's knowledge after WWII, why shouldn't we have?

The bombing(and yes, killing of on a massive scale) civilian populations was standard procedure in the total war of WWII. Tokyo, and has been mentioned, Dresden both suffered losses of the same order of magnitude as Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the incindary bombings. I see the atomic bombings as no different, except from a psychological perspective(i.e. "All this destruction from one bomb." opposed to "All this destruction from a thousand bomber raid.").

"How many civilians were killed?"
Not many. A few up in the Pacific Northwest from the Japanese baloon bombing. A couple down in California for shelling from a Japanese sub. Probably some on sunken ships.

posted 07-17-99 01:45 AM ET         

WHO THE HELL WANTS TO GO ELSEWHERE THAN AMERICA?

posted 07-17-99 07:47 AM ET            

I just wanted to ask you (you smart and inteligent people) this:
If use of nuclear bomb is justified by circumstances of war, then would it be moral from the Nazi side to blow away entire USA, England and USSR if they discovered A-bomb first? And they have so much chance to disvover it before allies.
You see, your arguments are so low and imoral.You think you are smart but you are not.
You talk like politicians - they'll justify all bull**** that they do.
There are always right reasons for everything - even for use of nuclear bomb!
I don't think so.
Bombing Dresden has purpose to destroy industrial capabilities, and targets where factories and infrastructure.
Droping A-bomb has only one purpose - of DESTROYING EVERYTHING THAT LIVES.
So there is no excuse.

And about von Braun... He knew where his rockets were aimed and what they did.
He was high nazi officer and that's and that's enough for being covicted.
Like Karl Doenitz...His U-boats sunk so many UNARMED SHIPS with civilians, but he wasn't prosecuted. Why? Only 'cos he agree surender of Germany to Americans.
That stinks too.

So long my smart friends...

posted 07-17-99 10:31 AM ET            

"Bombing Dresden has purpose to destroy industrial capabilities, and targets where factories and infrastructure.
Droping A-bomb has only one purpose - of DESTROYING EVERYTHING THAT LIVES."

False. The blast and heat damage radii for the first two a-bombs were much greater than the lethal radius for radiation(it's a bit of an oddity that the bigger the bomb, the smaller the proportion of radiation injuries). Hiroshima was chosen because it was a relatively untouched harbor and barracks city. In Nagasaki the bomb was dropped over the Mitsubishi(IIRC) torpedo works. They were targeted at industry just as much as any of the other raids.

"And about von Braun... He knew where his rockets were aimed and what they did."

I fail to see how this makes him immoral. He was a scientist providing weapons to his country in a time of war.

"He was high nazi officer and that's and that's enough for being covicted."

He wasn't very politically active. He likly joined the Nazis in much the same way many joined the Communist party in Communist run countries -- it was the way to advancement. In any event, he wasn't anywhere near the level of an Eichmann, Speer, etc. in the party -- he was the technical director of a weapons program(one of many).

posted 07-17-99 06:56 PM ET            

What a crap.
Of course, after droping nuclear weapon it was "touched". Pretty hard touched.

So you also justify entire holocaust of 9 milions innocent jews?
Well Jewish mothers could bear sons who might go in fight against Germans, so killing Jews was also legal war action, right?

Nuclear bomb, my pal. You shoud read some different sources. Germans didn't make nuclear bomb first only beacuse of air attack on the secret facility in northern Sweden 1944. When supplies of riched uranium were destroyed, there wasn't any time to make enough for creating the bomb.
After that Hitler ordered to concentrate all scientific and industrial capabilities on making Messerchmidt jets and new versions of Tiger tanks. They have made a few jets, but new Tigers were existing only in Hitler's sick imagination.Lack of industrial sources.Etc.

I am tired of all this WW2 bull****.
I won't argue anymore. Sorry if I have insulted anyone,I apologize.
Goodbye to all of you and remember: you can always find nice decent links and pics (including the photo of myself) at Misho's World of Sanity:

http://www.oe-pages.com/ARTS/Movies/misho

posted 07-17-99 08:15 PM ET         

The German nuclear program was nowhere near advanced as we feared during the war. It may have been different if the war lasted longer but information discovered after the war pretty much showed they were not close.

As far as Hiroshima as a target. It certainly was chosen because it suffered relatively little bomb damage prior to Aug. 6th but that doesn't mean it wasn't a strategic target. I believe the first target city suggested was Kyoto, but that was turned down by one of Roosevelt's advisors, Stimson I think, because of the Historic nature of the city. Concerning civilian deaths fromthe A-bombs, they didn't approach the total from a single incinerary(Webster's wasn't much help here) raid on Tokyo which produced some 120,000 causulties. Rather more than either A-bomb attack. The main reason for the A-bomb attacks was to save American servicemen's lives, we were anticipating 100's of thousand of causalties if we invaded the Japanese homeland. We finished the war that they started rather infamously at Pearl Harbor.

The Death camp analogy doesn't quite work. The Nazis were seeking to exterminate a race of people simply because of who the were, not what potential military threat their children may have posed.(By the way, the accepted figure is 6 million jews. Also there were additional deaths almost equalling that total made up of Russian prisoners, Gypsies, and other "Undesireables"). Spoe will probably be able to come up with the appropriate rules from the Geneva Convention articles to show why the Death camps were, and still are, considered an atrocity.

It's rather amazing how we started with "Why I hate America" and have ended up refighting the Second World War.

posted 07-17-99 09:36 PM ET            

walrus:
"Spoe will probably be able to come up with the appropriate rules from the Geneva Convention articles to show why the Death camps were, and still are, considered an atrocity."
According to persons not taking an active part in the hostilities" are protected from:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. -- Article 3

Under this Nazi-style concentration camps would be prohibited. However this only applies to treatment on individuals; eneral populations are subject to different protections. The parties to hostilities are allowed to, at need, designate hospital and saftey zones/localities to protect from the effects of war "wounded, sick and aged persons, children under fifteen, expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven -- Article 14"; basically anyone other than able-bodied persons of age for military service. Per Article 19 these zones are voided when "they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy" and after warnings have gone unheeded. Harmful acts include production of arms so any industrial area is fair game for bombing.

posted 07-17-99 09:41 PM ET            

That should be:
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950

posted 07-18-99 06:21 PM ET         

Your faithful and obedient servant

posted 07-18-99 08:44 PM ET            

He-he-he, I must say you all make me really laugh with your anti-Misho coalition.
No matter what I say I am always wrong.
Ok, using A-bomb was a beautiful act.
Would you now (just to opposite my statement)
say that I am wrong and finally admit that NUCLEAR BOMB CAN BE USED ONLY BY TOTALLY IMMORAL AND SOCIPATHIC IDIOTS LIKE YOUR
PRESIDENT??!
Of course that nuclear bomb is invented for making war operations more easier.
Nobody deny that. And that's a whole point of it!!!
Let say that America wants to conquer Albania
because of some reason. You don't want to send your ground troops, some American soldiers might be killed. Will you drop A-bomb for saving American lifes? On Albania which by the way has 15 tanks?! Of course!
It's a war,you can do anything.
And finally it's all about American lifes, isn't it? You value one American life like 100 foreign.
I get sick by reading your sick explanations.
And by the way what are you doing here anyway? I hoped I'll find here someone who "DISLIKE AMERICA AS I DO", remember?
Can you create your own room? I suggest title like this: "Nerdy American A-bomb fetishists, we know everything,we are smartest".

About knowledge.You know nothing.Trust me.
Knowledge and books are not what you think.
Maybe you didn't have right professors to teach you about knowledge (by the why did you attend college at all?)
You see, Socrates was a brilliant philosopher. But he never wrote any book!
Plato did, Aristotel did, but not Socrates.
Why? Smart old man said "Book can't talk when you ask it something."
You are just like that. The living books that can't say anything when comes to discussion. You can only repeat what you have memorized and you think that's a knowledge.
Your knowledge is falsed. You might be useful as a hard disc on computer, memorizing all datas that are needed for operations. So why don't you connect your brains with your PC processors, you'll get some extra GB's of memory.
You'll speed your computers!! Wow!!!

And about history. There is an ancient Latin sentence: Historia est magistra vitae.
I am not saying that you don't know Latin (you know everything), but let me translate it for you: The history is mother of life.
You think you know about history, but history teached your dumb minds nothing.
Yesterday USA droped 2 nuclear bombs on Japan, tommorow maybe China or North Korea will send scud-missiles with nuclear war heads on your western coast and blow away the half of USA.
And they'll say "that was a need to preserve our best interests and lifes of our people."
And after that the entire world will go to hell (including myself) because of stupidons (my neologism) like you!!
Well pardon me if I want to live!
This is not Star Wars movie or Alpha Centaury, stupidons! There is no planet (at least not yet) on which we can escape!

And for the end...my dear friend...I study Philosophy, Sociology and Comparative Literature at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb (Croatian capital).
And my knowledge is real. It has some sense.

posted 07-18-99 08:56 PM ET            

SCIO NIHIL SCIRE. or I KNOW THAT I KNOW NOTHING.

When Socrates said that I believe he meant on you.

AND THIS WAS MY LAST POST. NO MATTER WHAT YOU'LL WRITE YOU WON'T HAVE SUCH PLEASURE TO SEE MY POSTS AGAIN.

GOODBYE FOREVER, ASSHOLES...

posted 07-18-99 09:25 PM ET         

I'm also glad that idiots like you don't have access to nuclear devices. I doubt your leadership would show the same forebearance that we've exhibited for 50 years.

By the way, yes I would save American lives first in war, second try to protect innocents. Besides I don't remember from my books who started WWII? Now who was it that bombed Pearl Harbor? Hmmm. Listen buddy boy, we didn't start the damned war, but we sure as hell finished it. And the only way that would have been bad for you was if you wanted to grow up speaking German and being a good little nazi.

Your claim of false knowledge? take a good long look in the mirror. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and in your case it's downright fatal.

You say you study phiolosophy, better off you should be studying civility. No wonder you think people are out to get you, you can't have to many friends with your attitude.

I'm glad you admit to your lack of knowledge, you finally said something right. Maybe someday you'll actually understand what he meant.

posted 07-18-99 10:18 PM ET            

If only we could belive you this time, if only we could belive you.....

posted 07-19-99 08:53 AM ET            

M E Ashwell

posted 07-19-99 02:16 PM ET            

Second, I didn't comment one way or the other on your web page.

Third, concerning what is moral in history. There are two ways to consider this. First, we can compare historical events strictly to our own ethical code. This can be a good way to judge a time period, but IMHO falls short in dealing with specific cases(individuals, specific actions, etc.); these should be judged compared to the mores of the time. To me it is false to judge the actions of men in history by the standards of today. For example, the Roman Republic was certainly much more brutal than what is acceptable today, but by the standards of the time it was quite enlightened.
Along these lines, I think today we might have accepted a conditional surrender from Japan similar to what they were offering at the time(i.e. basically unconditional except that the Emperor was to remain on the throne) to avoid using the bombs or an invasion of the home islands. But in historical context, it made sense. It was a time when mass bombing of cities was used by both sides, when Axis treatement of civilians was brutal, to say the least(Rape of Nanking, the ghettos and concentration camps, etc.). It was a time when entire cities were virtually destroyed by bombing raids(Dresden, Tokyo). It was a time when, only a few short years before, Adm. Halsey said "The Japanese language will only be spoken in Hell"(in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor). In short, it was a time when the use of the atomic bombs fit with the prevailing ethics and accepted conduct of war.

I subscribe to the view that the moral position of a country's military should be to enforce the will of the country while first protecting the civilians of the country, then limiting their own casualties, then limiting enemy civilian casualties, and finally minimizing casualties to enemy soldiers.
To me, this is the logical way to wage war, though some may argue than limiting civilian casualties on both sides should come before military casualties on either side. I feel the latter is incorrect, however. I think the jobs of the military is to preserve the country and that means both civilian and military portions.

And lastly, I don't think American use of nuclear weapons again is likely, unless we are attacked by other 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'(chemical and biological agents, along with nuclear weapons; personally, of the three, I think I'd rather be hit by nukes). I offer our records in the Gulf War and Korea to support this. How much easier would it have been to send a few Minutemen at Iraq and then pick up the pieces? How much easier would it have been to start with a high altitude nuke to wipe out much if Iraq's communications and power grids by EMP? How many American lives would have been saved if we nuked the PLA soldiers pouring into Korea? We didn't then, and we won't, as long as we abide by our 'no first use' policy.

----

re: atomic vs. nuclear

posted 08-03-99 07:24 AM ET            

Dreadnought: In Switzerland, we can vote on anything if enough (it doesn't take many) signatures are collected, and yet we have a good public school system and relatively free judiciary; id est, democracy does not breed mediocrity. (Funny that - it's exactly what I dislike most about the U.S.A.)

Misho: Gawd. Maybe you dislike seemingly all Americans because - as opposed to you (Viz: "I think that the corner-stone of our world is injustice.") - many PREFER to view the world in terms of opportunity.
They even have the temerity to assert their individual pursuit of happiness! That must me galling to a communist.

No matter how many faults Americans have, as long as they most value freedom, humanism will have a safe haven.

posted 08-03-99 02:00 PM ET            

China apparently has developed its own neutron bomb.

Neutron bombs kill all lifeforms but buildings remain intact.

posted 08-03-99 04:11 PM ET            

The US, PRC, Russia, and France are all known to have developed neutron bombs; all US neutron bombs have been retired as of 1992.