beyelzu

from the link about mandela
playing the race card no proof, vicious allegations of racism without proof== anti american and anti british rhetoric or spewing as i asserted





personal attack on bush with no proof also a false statement about plunging the world into a holocaust. there is no proof that attacking iraq is going to plunge the world into anything.

this is his words when he plays the race card, which is bullshit. at the very least no proof.

Here he brings up hiroshima and Nagasaki, which was almost 60 years ago and the only time the bombs were dropped. The idea that countries dont change is kind of interesting coming from someone who is from a nation that has radically changed. also anti american rhetoric.


this is my favorite where he makes sweeping generalizations about how americans dont care about human beings, which is more antiamerican rhetoric.

this one confuses me because it seems to disagree with the one above.

there I have backed up my assertion that its just anti american rhetoric that mandela was spewing. everybody happy now.

beyelzu

I operate on a pretty strict smiley face guidelines.

smiley face = joke, non smiley face probably doesnt. look at every ones responses to me and I used a smiley face.

Silent Acorns

This is an issue of intense debate among historions. This may be how the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was sold at the time, but as documants have become declassified over the years this has been brought into serious question.

There is a lot of evidence that indicates the bombs were dropped to end the war before the Soviets could attack Japan (and claim large chunks of it - North and South Japan anyone?) and to send a message to the Soviets that the US had the bomb and was prepared to use it.

beyelzu

actually from the posts, blacks were 4 times as likely to be disqualified as voters than whites, it did not say that blacks were 4 times as likely to be falsly disqualified as voters than whites, which is my point. how many thousands of whites were falsely disqualified, what if they had been allowed to vote?


I never said that being antiamerican is a character flaw, I meant to imply that the statements were empty rhetoric based on a dislike or hatred for america as opposed to facts.

.


I said I pointed it out, I didnt say that I proved it. I dont see the difference between point something out and making an assertion.

beyelzu

Course on the other hand, alot less american lives were certainly loss by dropping the bomb. so it was certainly efficient in that regard.

Koiyotnik

Beyelzu, I quite clearly understood you were making a joke. Look at my post, I even said "I'm aware that you were merely being facetious in your above post...".

The fact that you were joking does not negate my right to clarify a few points I had to say on the anti-American issue.

Think of yourself as my springboard, if you will.

Silent Acorns

Not necessarily, since the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering anyway. Also, even if the Hiroshima bomb was "necessary" it is far from clear that one had to be dropped on Nagasaki too. I'm not saying this to "prove the US is evil" but to point out that the situation was much more complicated than it has been portrayed.

Silent Acorns

It should also be pointed out that we Canadians-who-don't-agree-with-Bush are sick and tired of the knee-jerk "anti-american" label that gets thrown at us by sycophantic ditto-heads.

August Spies

"playing the race card no proof, vicious allegations of racism without proof== anti american and anti british rhetoric or spewing as i asserted "

No B. You claimed Mandela was anti-american and spouting rhetorhic. The quote you refer to is NOT something Mandela said, it is a description of him the ARTICLE uses.

"there is no proof that attacking iraq is going to plunge the world into anything. "

Stop being silly. There is no PROOF about the outcome at all, obviously. Yet I haven't seen you claiming pro-war people who say "THe war will liberate the Iraqi's" are guilty of using no proof. These are predicitions, predicitions are not based on proof.

"this is his words when he plays the race card, which is bullshit. at the very least no proof. "

Well the main claim, that they are ignoring the UN, IS true. The bush administration has said it can do whatever it wants regardless of the UN.

"The idea that countries dont change is kind of interesting coming from someone who is from a nation that has radically changed. "

Last time I checked America had not undergone a govermental change like South Africa did. Regardless, his point still stands, which is that we can't trust one lone goverment to operate as a world policeman. There is no evidence the U.S. (or anyone) will do this responsibly.

how americans dont care about human beings, which is more antiamerican rhetoric.

I grant you that was a silly comment.

August Spies

thanks for the info.
But you don't run the world, not all people operate by your guidelines.

The difference is "pointing out" implies truth. You would not "point out" an un-truth. For example if I said "Look out a blue cow is about to eat you" and you said "you liar there is no cow there" I couldn't say "oh I was just pointing out that it was there, I didn't mean it really was there."

American Military personal lives perhaps (though this is debatable... and often debated). OF course the issue of military lives vs. civilian lives is to big to be discussed here.