dmanspeed

Rank #7331 on Comments
dmanspeed Avatar Level 209 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to dmanspeed Block dmanspeed Invite dmanspeed to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 24
Date Signed Up:8/16/2009
Last Login:1/25/2015
Location:USA
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#7331
Highest Content Rank:#6487
Highest Comment Rank:#7221
Content Thumbs: 302 total,  383 ,  81
Comment Thumbs: 1183 total,  1511 ,  328
Content Level Progress: 20% (2/10)
Level 29 Content: Peasant → Level 30 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 30% (3/10)
Level 209 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 210 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:29417
Times Content Favorited:44 times
Total Comments Made:731
FJ Points:1502
Favorite Tags: IG (2) | warhammer (2)

latest user's comments

#223283 - play it in chronological order. reach, 1,2,3,4. if your really… 11/21/2012 on Video Games Board - console... 0
#223264 - does reach fall in anywhere in there?  [+] (2 new replies) 11/21/2012 on Video Games Board - console... 0
User avatar #223275 - detrek (11/21/2012) [-]
Yep, right before 4 :o
User avatar #223283 - dmanspeed (11/21/2012) [-]
play it in chronological order. reach, 1,2,3,4. if your really up to it you could throw in wars too.
#6 - Picture  [+] (4 new replies) 11/21/2012 on fuck you horse +9
#32 - anonymous (11/21/2012) [-]
What movie is this from?
#45 - anonymous (11/21/2012) [-]
I think it's Me, Myself and Irene.
User avatar #33 - dmanspeed (11/21/2012) [-]
no idea, just found it on gifs board
#112 - anonymous (11/21/2012) [-]
Me, myself, and Irene.
#13 - BUAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAAH!!!!!!! 11/15/2012 on Pun +4
#9 - what firetruck holds 8 people?  [+] (4 new replies) 11/15/2012 on Pun 0
#11 - kubrick (11/15/2012) [-]
This one holds 8 pole sliders stacked one on top of the other.


Wee woo wee woo.
#29 - BobbyMcFerrin (11/15/2012) [-]
#14 - connormccloud (11/15/2012) [-]
Weee Oooo Weee Oooo
#13 - dmanspeed (11/15/2012) [-]
BUAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAAH!!!!!!!

#212841 - Picture 11/13/2012 on Video Games Board - console... 0
#210805 - im not going to do that because 1. their's no reason to and 2.… 11/11/2012 on Video Games Board - console... 0
#210312 - nah the last time i tried to pirate a game i ended up having t… 11/11/2012 on Video Games Board - console... 0
#210309 - all im saying is that im interested in it because that is my l…  [+] (2 new replies) 11/11/2012 on Video Games Board - console... 0
User avatar #210310 - enviousjellyfish (11/11/2012) [-]
it's your own choice, could always pirate it :)
User avatar #210312 - dmanspeed (11/11/2012) [-]
nah the last time i tried to pirate a game i ended up having to spend 90$ on a new hard drive.
#210288 - Emergency 2013 just came out on steam and im trying to decide …  [+] (8 new replies) 11/11/2012 on Video Games Board - console... 0
#210352 - rifflestheechidna has deleted their comment.
#210805 - dmanspeed (11/11/2012) [-]
im not going to do that because 1. their's no reason to and 2. fuck you.

this how ever is a picture of me during a control burn

User avatar #210291 - herecomesjohnny (11/11/2012) [-]
i'm not sure shaquille ever got better at dunking by playing nba 2012
#210294 - funkyspot (11/11/2012) [-]
This image has expired
...need I say more?
#210289 - enviousjellyfish (11/11/2012) [-]
that's like saying I should buy farm simulator as I'm a farmer IRL o.o
User avatar #210309 - dmanspeed (11/11/2012) [-]
all im saying is that im interested in it because that is my line of work, im not looking for tips on how to save lives here people
User avatar #210310 - enviousjellyfish (11/11/2012) [-]
it's your own choice, could always pirate it :)
User avatar #210312 - dmanspeed (11/11/2012) [-]
nah the last time i tried to pirate a game i ended up having to spend 90$ on a new hard drive.
#14127 - huh... will lets change the question to an if.  [+] (19 new replies) 11/11/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #14130 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
Same answer. Shooting down a drone in foreign or international airspace does not constitute a significant security threat. Maybe increase economic sanctions if possible, but no war. War is bad.
User avatar #14147 - rageisfunny (11/11/2012) [-]
War is also sometimes necessary. Not all war is bad. In this case, yes it would be an over reaction.
User avatar #14180 - techketzer (11/11/2012) [-]
War is the killing of humans. It is an innately evil thing.

I don't understand how one can even question this.
User avatar #14220 - rageisfunny (11/11/2012) [-]
If a thing is innately evil you wouldn't ever do it.
User avatar #14263 - techketzer (11/12/2012) [-]
>Implying humans are incapable of atrocities or mistakes.
User avatar #14223 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
Not necessarily so. Things can be basically evil and still less evil than the alternative, in which case they can be justified. For instance, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a horrendous atrocity, but it prevented the need for a mainland invasion of Japan, which would have cost many more lives on both sides.
User avatar #14224 - rageisfunny (11/11/2012) [-]
I think we agree on this, just define it differently. War should be avoided when possible, but not always avoided. It isn't a tasteful thing to do and should be abhorred. Sorry for the confusion. Also, the Japanese reached out to the United States multiple times trying to surrender, but the U.S. refused each time.
User avatar #14225 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
Hmm. I was taught the opposite - that Japan refused Allied demands for unconditional surrender and ignored the ultimatums it was given even after being heavily firebombed.
User avatar #14234 - rageisfunny (11/12/2012) [-]
Of course you'd be taught that, U.S. won the war and wrote the history. However, they offered surrender multiple times with the one condition of keeping their emperor. We turned them down each time with a flat no.
User avatar #14243 - Ruspanic (11/12/2012) [-]
But Japan did keep its emperor after the war. Hirohito remained emperor until he died. He was never even tried for his war crimes.

Could you cite a source? I did a bit of research and it seems that Japan was willing to consider a ceasefire (not a surrender) under the conditions that the Allies would not occupy Japan, disarm its military, or make it give up its territorial acquisitions. Which is really not much of a surrender at all.
User avatar #14264 - techketzer (11/12/2012) [-]
"Japanese leaders had always envisioned a negotiated settlement to the war. Their prewar planning expected a rapid expansion and consolidation, an eventual conflict with the United States, and finally a settlement in which they would be able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered.[20] "

"By the end of January 1945, the Japanese were suggesting peace terms.[22] These proposals, sent through both British and American channels, were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 2, two days before the Yalta Conference. Reportedly, the dossier was dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand—the proposals all included the condition that the emperor's position would be assured, if possibly as a puppet ruler; at this point the Allied policy was to accept only an unconditional surrender.[23] "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_surrender#Divisions_within_the_Japanese_leadership

Research harder.
User avatar #14269 - Ruspanic (11/12/2012) [-]
"Japanese leaders had always envisioned a [...] settlement in which they would be able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered." - not too different from what I said. Japan's expansionism is what led to the war in the first place. A peace settlement in which they get to keep the territory they've conquered is hardly a surrender.

Also you omitted the last sentence of the second paragraph you quoted, which says that "these proposals were strongly opposed by powerful military members of the Japanese government", which somewhat undermines your point. There was even an attempted coup against the emperor by military officers to prevent acceptance of such a proposal (clearly they were more concerned about losing than about keeping their emperor).

The next paragraph:
"Allied-imposed disarmament, Allied punishment of Japanese war criminals, and especially occupation and removal of the emperor, were not acceptable to the Japanese leadership." So I was wrong about removing the Emperor - that was initially part of the Allies' intention - but the rest is basically what I said. The Japanese did not want a surrender, they wanted a peace settlement in which they would lose very little and could after a few years resume building their empire.

Having said that, it would probably have been best from the start to at least consider letting Hirohito stay (while proceeding with the disarmament, occupation, war criminal trials and confiscation of territory), even though these terms may not have been accepted by the military leadership most responsible for Japan's militaristic and expansionist policies. But the fact remains that had Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender, it wouldn't have been nuked, and had it not been nuked, it wouldn't have unconditionally surrendered. The defeat brought about the end of the Japanese Empire, which in many ways rivaled the Third Reich in its nationalism, expansionism and disregard for human life and rights.
User avatar #14288 - rageisfunny (11/12/2012) [-]
Everyone was required to surrender unconditionally to the Allies. Most did not. A lot of surrenders, like Italy, had conditions they were allowed to have and there surrender was accepted by the Allies. Again, even after the nukes the Japanese government still would not surrender unconditionally and wanted there emperor to remain in power, puppet or not. The Allies, after nuking them, accepted this, but would not before.
User avatar #14273 - techketzer (11/12/2012) [-]
"A peace setlement in which they get to keep the territory they've conquered is hardly a surrender. "
Of course it is, only at better terms.

"Also you omitted the last sentence of the second paragraph you quoted, which says that "these proposals were strongly opposed by powerful military members of the Japanese government", which somewhat undermines your point."
And you caught me. Good work.
Irrelevant in the end though; these peace offers were made and valid.
The Japanese government was willing to surrender.

"and had it not been nuked, it wouldn't have unconditionally surrendered."
And that is where you're wrong.
Losing two harbors did not convince the Japanese to surrender; the Soviets declaring war against them, crushing their strongest mainland forces within days and setting for Tokyo with 1,5 million men did.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_(1945)

The nukes were a atrocious warcrime of no strategical value in order to show some muscles to the Soviets before the war was over and would seamlessly go over into Cold War. It is not any less despicable than what the Japanese did in Nanking.
User avatar #14255 - rageisfunny (11/12/2012) [-]
Was part of a history lesson, out of a book. That is what was kind of ridiculous, U.S. wouldn't accept their offers or ceasefire and sit down with them with them to talk, but after nuking two cities they accepted the emperor term. Going of what my history book said.
User avatar #14162 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
War is sometimes necessary, but it is a necessary evil.
User avatar #14164 - rageisfunny (11/11/2012) [-]
I'm not sure I follow. War in and of itself is not evil. There can be evil parties in a war, but there are also generally good parties.
User avatar #14165 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
By "an evil" (used as a noun) I mean a bad thing, something that should be avoided if possible. Whether war itself is evil depends on your definition of "evil" and your opinion of war. I think that because war causes loss of life, usually for reasons other than immediate self-defense or defense of others, it should be thought of as an evil and undertaken only when necessary and after serious consideration.
User avatar #14173 - rageisfunny (11/11/2012) [-]
Yea, I think we have the same idea. It should only be undertaken with great deliberation, and exhaustion of other options, and once undertaken is a not to be enjoyed or pursued beyond the necessities.
#14124 - i thought they took it down?  [+] (21 new replies) 11/11/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #14126 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
Nope.
"The Pentagon publicly confirmed the attack, in which the drone wasn't hit, after it emerged in a CNN report."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578107191429662874.html
User avatar #14127 - dmanspeed (11/11/2012) [-]
huh... will lets change the question to an if.
User avatar #14130 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
Same answer. Shooting down a drone in foreign or international airspace does not constitute a significant security threat. Maybe increase economic sanctions if possible, but no war. War is bad.
User avatar #14147 - rageisfunny (11/11/2012) [-]
War is also sometimes necessary. Not all war is bad. In this case, yes it would be an over reaction.
User avatar #14180 - techketzer (11/11/2012) [-]
War is the killing of humans. It is an innately evil thing.

I don't understand how one can even question this.
User avatar #14220 - rageisfunny (11/11/2012) [-]
If a thing is innately evil you wouldn't ever do it.
User avatar #14263 - techketzer (11/12/2012) [-]
>Implying humans are incapable of atrocities or mistakes.
User avatar #14223 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
Not necessarily so. Things can be basically evil and still less evil than the alternative, in which case they can be justified. For instance, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a horrendous atrocity, but it prevented the need for a mainland invasion of Japan, which would have cost many more lives on both sides.
User avatar #14224 - rageisfunny (11/11/2012) [-]
I think we agree on this, just define it differently. War should be avoided when possible, but not always avoided. It isn't a tasteful thing to do and should be abhorred. Sorry for the confusion. Also, the Japanese reached out to the United States multiple times trying to surrender, but the U.S. refused each time.
User avatar #14225 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
Hmm. I was taught the opposite - that Japan refused Allied demands for unconditional surrender and ignored the ultimatums it was given even after being heavily firebombed.
User avatar #14234 - rageisfunny (11/12/2012) [-]
Of course you'd be taught that, U.S. won the war and wrote the history. However, they offered surrender multiple times with the one condition of keeping their emperor. We turned them down each time with a flat no.
User avatar #14243 - Ruspanic (11/12/2012) [-]
But Japan did keep its emperor after the war. Hirohito remained emperor until he died. He was never even tried for his war crimes.

Could you cite a source? I did a bit of research and it seems that Japan was willing to consider a ceasefire (not a surrender) under the conditions that the Allies would not occupy Japan, disarm its military, or make it give up its territorial acquisitions. Which is really not much of a surrender at all.
User avatar #14264 - techketzer (11/12/2012) [-]
"Japanese leaders had always envisioned a negotiated settlement to the war. Their prewar planning expected a rapid expansion and consolidation, an eventual conflict with the United States, and finally a settlement in which they would be able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered.[20] "

"By the end of January 1945, the Japanese were suggesting peace terms.[22] These proposals, sent through both British and American channels, were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 2, two days before the Yalta Conference. Reportedly, the dossier was dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand—the proposals all included the condition that the emperor's position would be assured, if possibly as a puppet ruler; at this point the Allied policy was to accept only an unconditional surrender.[23] "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_surrender#Divisions_within_the_Japanese_leadership

Research harder.
User avatar #14269 - Ruspanic (11/12/2012) [-]
"Japanese leaders had always envisioned a [...] settlement in which they would be able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered." - not too different from what I said. Japan's expansionism is what led to the war in the first place. A peace settlement in which they get to keep the territory they've conquered is hardly a surrender.

Also you omitted the last sentence of the second paragraph you quoted, which says that "these proposals were strongly opposed by powerful military members of the Japanese government", which somewhat undermines your point. There was even an attempted coup against the emperor by military officers to prevent acceptance of such a proposal (clearly they were more concerned about losing than about keeping their emperor).

The next paragraph:
"Allied-imposed disarmament, Allied punishment of Japanese war criminals, and especially occupation and removal of the emperor, were not acceptable to the Japanese leadership." So I was wrong about removing the Emperor - that was initially part of the Allies' intention - but the rest is basically what I said. The Japanese did not want a surrender, they wanted a peace settlement in which they would lose very little and could after a few years resume building their empire.

Having said that, it would probably have been best from the start to at least consider letting Hirohito stay (while proceeding with the disarmament, occupation, war criminal trials and confiscation of territory), even though these terms may not have been accepted by the military leadership most responsible for Japan's militaristic and expansionist policies. But the fact remains that had Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender, it wouldn't have been nuked, and had it not been nuked, it wouldn't have unconditionally surrendered. The defeat brought about the end of the Japanese Empire, which in many ways rivaled the Third Reich in its nationalism, expansionism and disregard for human life and rights.
User avatar #14288 - rageisfunny (11/12/2012) [-]
Everyone was required to surrender unconditionally to the Allies. Most did not. A lot of surrenders, like Italy, had conditions they were allowed to have and there surrender was accepted by the Allies. Again, even after the nukes the Japanese government still would not surrender unconditionally and wanted there emperor to remain in power, puppet or not. The Allies, after nuking them, accepted this, but would not before.
User avatar #14273 - techketzer (11/12/2012) [-]
"A peace setlement in which they get to keep the territory they've conquered is hardly a surrender. "
Of course it is, only at better terms.

"Also you omitted the last sentence of the second paragraph you quoted, which says that "these proposals were strongly opposed by powerful military members of the Japanese government", which somewhat undermines your point."
And you caught me. Good work.
Irrelevant in the end though; these peace offers were made and valid.
The Japanese government was willing to surrender.

"and had it not been nuked, it wouldn't have unconditionally surrendered."
And that is where you're wrong.
Losing two harbors did not convince the Japanese to surrender; the Soviets declaring war against them, crushing their strongest mainland forces within days and setting for Tokyo with 1,5 million men did.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_(1945)

The nukes were a atrocious warcrime of no strategical value in order to show some muscles to the Soviets before the war was over and would seamlessly go over into Cold War. It is not any less despicable than what the Japanese did in Nanking.
User avatar #14255 - rageisfunny (11/12/2012) [-]
Was part of a history lesson, out of a book. That is what was kind of ridiculous, U.S. wouldn't accept their offers or ceasefire and sit down with them with them to talk, but after nuking two cities they accepted the emperor term. Going of what my history book said.
User avatar #14162 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
War is sometimes necessary, but it is a necessary evil.
User avatar #14164 - rageisfunny (11/11/2012) [-]
I'm not sure I follow. War in and of itself is not evil. There can be evil parties in a war, but there are also generally good parties.
User avatar #14165 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
By "an evil" (used as a noun) I mean a bad thing, something that should be avoided if possible. Whether war itself is evil depends on your definition of "evil" and your opinion of war. I think that because war causes loss of life, usually for reasons other than immediate self-defense or defense of others, it should be thought of as an evil and undertaken only when necessary and after serious consideration.
User avatar #14173 - rageisfunny (11/11/2012) [-]
Yea, I think we have the same idea. It should only be undertaken with great deliberation, and exhaustion of other options, and once undertaken is a not to be enjoyed or pursued beyond the necessities.
#14120 - scenario: with the recent drone being shot down i'm asking wha…  [+] (23 new replies) 11/11/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #14123 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
The drone was shot at but not shot down (they missed). We don't know whether they intended to hit the drone or not, but in any case the chances of them hitting it were fairly low.

Personally I don't think it's worth going to war and risking lives over an unmanned drone that wasn't even damaged. It's not even clear that the pilots were acting on government orders.
User avatar #14124 - dmanspeed (11/11/2012) [-]
i thought they took it down?
User avatar #14126 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
Nope.
"The Pentagon publicly confirmed the attack, in which the drone wasn't hit, after it emerged in a CNN report."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578107191429662874.html
User avatar #14127 - dmanspeed (11/11/2012) [-]
huh... will lets change the question to an if.
User avatar #14130 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
Same answer. Shooting down a drone in foreign or international airspace does not constitute a significant security threat. Maybe increase economic sanctions if possible, but no war. War is bad.
User avatar #14147 - rageisfunny (11/11/2012) [-]
War is also sometimes necessary. Not all war is bad. In this case, yes it would be an over reaction.
User avatar #14180 - techketzer (11/11/2012) [-]
War is the killing of humans. It is an innately evil thing.

I don't understand how one can even question this.
User avatar #14220 - rageisfunny (11/11/2012) [-]
If a thing is innately evil you wouldn't ever do it.
User avatar #14263 - techketzer (11/12/2012) [-]
>Implying humans are incapable of atrocities or mistakes.
User avatar #14223 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
Not necessarily so. Things can be basically evil and still less evil than the alternative, in which case they can be justified. For instance, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a horrendous atrocity, but it prevented the need for a mainland invasion of Japan, which would have cost many more lives on both sides.
User avatar #14224 - rageisfunny (11/11/2012) [-]
I think we agree on this, just define it differently. War should be avoided when possible, but not always avoided. It isn't a tasteful thing to do and should be abhorred. Sorry for the confusion. Also, the Japanese reached out to the United States multiple times trying to surrender, but the U.S. refused each time.
User avatar #14225 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
Hmm. I was taught the opposite - that Japan refused Allied demands for unconditional surrender and ignored the ultimatums it was given even after being heavily firebombed.
User avatar #14234 - rageisfunny (11/12/2012) [-]
Of course you'd be taught that, U.S. won the war and wrote the history. However, they offered surrender multiple times with the one condition of keeping their emperor. We turned them down each time with a flat no.
User avatar #14243 - Ruspanic (11/12/2012) [-]
But Japan did keep its emperor after the war. Hirohito remained emperor until he died. He was never even tried for his war crimes.

Could you cite a source? I did a bit of research and it seems that Japan was willing to consider a ceasefire (not a surrender) under the conditions that the Allies would not occupy Japan, disarm its military, or make it give up its territorial acquisitions. Which is really not much of a surrender at all.
User avatar #14264 - techketzer (11/12/2012) [-]
"Japanese leaders had always envisioned a negotiated settlement to the war. Their prewar planning expected a rapid expansion and consolidation, an eventual conflict with the United States, and finally a settlement in which they would be able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered.[20] "

"By the end of January 1945, the Japanese were suggesting peace terms.[22] These proposals, sent through both British and American channels, were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 2, two days before the Yalta Conference. Reportedly, the dossier was dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand—the proposals all included the condition that the emperor's position would be assured, if possibly as a puppet ruler; at this point the Allied policy was to accept only an unconditional surrender.[23] "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_surrender#Divisions_within_the_Japanese_leadership

Research harder.
User avatar #14269 - Ruspanic (11/12/2012) [-]
"Japanese leaders had always envisioned a [...] settlement in which they would be able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered." - not too different from what I said. Japan's expansionism is what led to the war in the first place. A peace settlement in which they get to keep the territory they've conquered is hardly a surrender.

Also you omitted the last sentence of the second paragraph you quoted, which says that "these proposals were strongly opposed by powerful military members of the Japanese government", which somewhat undermines your point. There was even an attempted coup against the emperor by military officers to prevent acceptance of such a proposal (clearly they were more concerned about losing than about keeping their emperor).

The next paragraph:
"Allied-imposed disarmament, Allied punishment of Japanese war criminals, and especially occupation and removal of the emperor, were not acceptable to the Japanese leadership." So I was wrong about removing the Emperor - that was initially part of the Allies' intention - but the rest is basically what I said. The Japanese did not want a surrender, they wanted a peace settlement in which they would lose very little and could after a few years resume building their empire.

Having said that, it would probably have been best from the start to at least consider letting Hirohito stay (while proceeding with the disarmament, occupation, war criminal trials and confiscation of territory), even though these terms may not have been accepted by the military leadership most responsible for Japan's militaristic and expansionist policies. But the fact remains that had Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender, it wouldn't have been nuked, and had it not been nuked, it wouldn't have unconditionally surrendered. The defeat brought about the end of the Japanese Empire, which in many ways rivaled the Third Reich in its nationalism, expansionism and disregard for human life and rights.
User avatar #14288 - rageisfunny (11/12/2012) [-]
Everyone was required to surrender unconditionally to the Allies. Most did not. A lot of surrenders, like Italy, had conditions they were allowed to have and there surrender was accepted by the Allies. Again, even after the nukes the Japanese government still would not surrender unconditionally and wanted there emperor to remain in power, puppet or not. The Allies, after nuking them, accepted this, but would not before.
User avatar #14273 - techketzer (11/12/2012) [-]
"A peace setlement in which they get to keep the territory they've conquered is hardly a surrender. "
Of course it is, only at better terms.

"Also you omitted the last sentence of the second paragraph you quoted, which says that "these proposals were strongly opposed by powerful military members of the Japanese government", which somewhat undermines your point."
And you caught me. Good work.
Irrelevant in the end though; these peace offers were made and valid.
The Japanese government was willing to surrender.

"and had it not been nuked, it wouldn't have unconditionally surrendered."
And that is where you're wrong.
Losing two harbors did not convince the Japanese to surrender; the Soviets declaring war against them, crushing their strongest mainland forces within days and setting for Tokyo with 1,5 million men did.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_(1945)

The nukes were a atrocious warcrime of no strategical value in order to show some muscles to the Soviets before the war was over and would seamlessly go over into Cold War. It is not any less despicable than what the Japanese did in Nanking.
User avatar #14255 - rageisfunny (11/12/2012) [-]
Was part of a history lesson, out of a book. That is what was kind of ridiculous, U.S. wouldn't accept their offers or ceasefire and sit down with them with them to talk, but after nuking two cities they accepted the emperor term. Going of what my history book said.
User avatar #14162 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
War is sometimes necessary, but it is a necessary evil.
User avatar #14164 - rageisfunny (11/11/2012) [-]
I'm not sure I follow. War in and of itself is not evil. There can be evil parties in a war, but there are also generally good parties.
User avatar #14165 - Ruspanic (11/11/2012) [-]
By "an evil" (used as a noun) I mean a bad thing, something that should be avoided if possible. Whether war itself is evil depends on your definition of "evil" and your opinion of war. I think that because war causes loss of life, usually for reasons other than immediate self-defense or defense of others, it should be thought of as an evil and undertaken only when necessary and after serious consideration.
User avatar #14173 - rageisfunny (11/11/2012) [-]
Yea, I think we have the same idea. It should only be undertaken with great deliberation, and exhaustion of other options, and once undertaken is a not to be enjoyed or pursued beyond the necessities.
#209526 - thats awesome! 11/10/2012 on Video Games Board - console... 0
#23 - Picture 11/10/2012 on Halo 4 is amazing 0
#209250 - dude... your on the internet... no one has the right to an opi…  [+] (1 new reply) 11/10/2012 on Video Games Board - console... 0
User avatar #209542 - TheAnonLord (11/11/2012) [-]
Yea, I guess... See ya next time folks
#208635 - im one of those guys who is absolutely OBSESSED with forge in … 11/10/2012 on Video Games Board - console... 0
#62 - Picture 11/10/2012 on Experience... 0
#207050 - it depends on your prefrence, halo has a much higer replay abi… 11/09/2012 on Video Games Board - console... 0
#207046 - set them to teams 11/09/2012 on Video Games Board - console... 0
#201989 - honestly im a little scared. im worried that its just gonna tu… 11/05/2012 on Video Games Board - console... +1
#201726 - the best place that i saw it work was in mecinaries 2. when ev… 11/05/2012 on Video Games Board - console... 0
#199877 - there was a massive leak the day after they started shipping a… 11/03/2012 on Video Games Board - console... 0
#194864 - friends, i need your help. i want to find shooter with the mos…  [+] (1 new reply) 10/30/2012 on Video Games Board - console... +1
User avatar #194871 - tylosaurus (10/30/2012) [-]
Hmm, I can't recall the name of some of them, but there used to be this aweomse shooting game called eXteel. Too bad it was shut down because they couldn't afford to have it published or somethign like that.

Try S4 league, perhaps? Or maybe that's mostly dependant on whether you use real money or not... Hmm..
#2 - because **** it why not  [+] (1 new reply) 10/29/2012 on "secret" Mass effect... +1
#3 - thebigcountry (10/29/2012) [-]
Fair enough

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - godoftheanons (12/23/2012) [-]
Thanks stranger, have a gif showing how I deal with anons in return.
Thanks stranger, have a gif showing how I deal with anons in return.
 Friends (0)