+1
People buying stuff with 'el Che's' face on them is one of the silliest contradictions ever.
Che Guevara
- Thread starter Shay Given
- Start date
- Replies 159
- Views 9K
+1
People buying stuff with 'el Che's' face on them is one of the silliest contradictions ever.
ChippyLowe
Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2010
- Messages
- 449
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
I'm pretty sure that I'm the same age there or thereabouts as most of the people in this thread and yet everything I just read makes me feel so ridiculously stupid, ignorant, unintelligent and literally blows my mind.
I actually feel like I don't know anything, which I don't because tbh, I'd heard of Che but didn't even know what he fought for or against and as far as I was concerned he was a picture boy for 14 year olds to have t shirts and school bags with his face on.
I actually feel like I don't know anything, which I don't because tbh, I'd heard of Che but didn't even know what he fought for or against and as far as I was concerned he was a picture boy for 14 year olds to have t shirts and school bags with his face on.
Shay Given
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Well most of the regular political posters come across as right wing imo
The bombs killed around quarter of a million people. I doubt japan would have been able to continue to the extent that many soldiers could die. Even if they did, it would be more reasonable to kill a hundred thousand soldiers than to kill a hundred thousand civilians.
My veiws on Che are basically the same as Jack Fulhams.
Well most of the regular political posters come across as right wing imo
The bombs killed around quarter of a million people. I doubt japan would have been able to continue to the extent that many soldiers could die. Even if they did, it would be more reasonable to kill a hundred thousand soldiers than to kill a hundred thousand civilians.
My veiws on Che are basically the same as Jack Fulhams.
lol, they are just less left wing than you thats all. except joel and chaz. they are right wing
nazis
Well most of the regular political posters come across as right wing imo
The bombs killed around quarter of a million people. I doubt japan would have been able to continue to the extent that many soldiers could die. Even if they did, it would be more reasonable to kill a hundred thousand soldiers than to kill a hundred thousand civilians.
My veiws on Che are basically the same as Jack Fulhams.
Wasnt just the soldiers who would have fought, but every able civilian would have. too Japanese and American officials agree that casualty figures for invading mainland Japan would have totalled over 1m. Now the bombs were truly horrible, dont think anyone can disagree on that, but it would have been the lesser cost. though you can see the subjectivity in that based on where you were in japan.
It comes as no suprise that when the american general (whose naem escapes me) wanted to consider the use of a nuclear weapon in the Korean war, Truman shot that idea down
Posted my view on Guevara above
There's no difference between killing hundred thousand soldiers and hundred thousand civilians.
Personally I think Che Guevara was a fascist who hated individualism and executed pretty much anyone who got in his way. To summarize: Swell guy.
How so?
How so?
How old are you, exactly?
Shay Given
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
So you would view a terrorist bombing a military base killing 1k people as bad as bombing a shopping center killing 1k people?
Soldiers sign up knowing they are likely to get killed, they also kill others so they can survive. Civilians are just going about their day to day lives not looking for trouble.
Well, he was the polar opposite to fascist.
What's the difference between a solider and civilian? Because a soldier is the one fighting, and thus deserves to die? Yet he has been sent there under politician orders, in a legal manner and not individual instinct. Especially when you consider that a lot of the army had drafted civilians, and soldiers are fighting to prevent civilians dying. Horrendous morale implications for weighting one life to be worth more than another, when the only difference is that one has been ordered to fight against his morales, yet he still does it out of love and pride of his country.
Well, he was the polar opposite to fascist.
What's the difference between a solider and civilian? Because a soldier is the one fighting, and thus deserves to die? Yet he has been sent there under politician orders, in a legal manner and not individual instinct. Especially when you consider that a lot of the army had drafted civilians, and soldiers are fighting to prevent civilians dying. Horrendous morale implications for weighting one life to be worth more than another, when the only difference is that one has been ordered to fight against his morales, yet he still does it out of love and pride of his country.
Wait, how was he the polar opposite of a fascist? He fit pretty much every characteristic of a fascist.
It's of my opinion that soldiers have made the decision to get involved, to kill or be killed. They are aware of the dangers and they are dangers to their enemies themselves. An American soldier probably shouldn't be afraid of his own country getting invaded by the japanese, but that's beside my main point. Civilians have chosen to stay uninvolved, the opposite with the soldiers, thus I feel that when it comes to a bombing civilians are less deservant of dying.
Shay Given
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I believe the majority of soldiers even at that time voluntarily signed up to fight and give their lives for other, in doing this they have made themselves more legitiment targets by getting involved. The civilians have chosen not to get involved in the fighting,
I don't think you understand the Japanese psyche. Death with honour. They would continue to fight until every last man was dead. Not to mention that you're only taking into account Japanese casualties: the Allied deaths resulting from a full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland would be catastrophic. The last of the island-hopping campaigns such as in Guam, Saipan and Tinian showed what the Japanese, with time to prepare and in familiar territory, could do. It was said that it needed three or four times as many troops as the Japanese had in an area to beat them due to their guerrilla tactics and deadly traps.
A total of 1m casualties was the (conservative) estimation, Japanese officials think it would have been a bit higher
It took a 70k to 30k numbers advantage for the Americans to push the Japanese off the midget island of Saipan, and even then the Allies suffered about 14k casualties. Just think how many men and dead people it would take to push them into the sea in Japan.
Oh, and I didn't mention the suicides. Yeah, the civilians committed suicide. In fact, about 20k of them. And that was just on Saipan.
Shay Given
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
They obviously where not prepared to fight to the death when they gave up after the bombings..........
Obviously. The Japanese fight to the death with honour, but they're not stupid. If the Americans had invaded the Japanese could have fought them, fought back, for every inch of the island. Against atomic bombs, they could just stand and watch as huge swathes of people were obliterated. There's no honour in stupidity.
that was the point of the bombing, you can find and kill and take the enemy soldier with you. You cant do that against a nuke
Shay Given
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
But it would be stupid not to surrender if the US where to send a load of troops. Once the US got the upper hand and started to push the Japanese back they would have to surrender or die with no honor due to stupidity. I strongly believe the US could have defeated Japan without the atomic bombs and with less fatalities. At the end of the day we will never know.