Jump to content

What hope is there for mankind....


Jay
 Share

Recommended Posts

I agree there would be no war if nobody wanted to join the army but how do you get the whole world to do that. If Americans did that someone would just take advantage of us. Weakness of others also breeds power in others. Eventually people will get tired of having less than others and try to kill for it. Then the other side will have to defend itself. As for the military vegans its not so tough. They can get custom MREs(meals ready to eat). There are many vegetarian options and you can get them made for you with some exclusions)...there are also a few kosher MREs that are vegan. They only need to eat this stuff for short periods of time while in war. Maybe 3-4 days every 2 weeks. Most of the time they have access to a main base with military chefs. There's a guy in Iraq that myspaces me a few times a week and tells me about it and asks for training advice.

 

I'd go into the Navy if I felt we needed to protect our country or others from something. And yes I'd rather ride my bike, and make pottery but I wouldn't be doing that if it weren't for some wars. If Hitler won who knows where we'd be today. People didn't do what they wanted for the future of others...thats a great thing. If the scenario were right I'd do the same. I bet if a bomb fell somewhere near you and killed a lot of your friends and family you may change your tune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree there would be no war if nobody wanted to join the army but how do you get the whole world to do that. If Americans did that someone would just take advantage of us.

 

You're talking as if suddenly there wouldn't be anyone volunteer for army, but with the same mentality people have right now, it's impossible to happen, because if they keep the same mentality, they WILL volunteer. Also, you're talking about no army for the USA, but armies in the rest of the world. That wouldn't work. What I was talking about is more like what I wrote : "maybe in a thousand years, if things goes well, mankind will be totally peaceful, with zero murder and no wars, not even a single negative thought, because we will have evolved to higher spiritual levels of consciousness..."

 

I bet if a bomb fell somewhere near you and killed a lot of your friends and family you may change your tune.

 

Maybe, maybe not. Even if I'd kill all the of the the soldiers' opposite army, what good would it do to me ? it wouldn't Resuscitate my family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said things need to be like that, I'm just saying what a world with peace would look like. It would a world with no wars, of course. I know there always have been wars since mankind, so the only way it's possible is if humans change their way of thinking for a complete new one. As like mentionned in the 2012 propheties, when all planets of our solar system will align perfectly with the sun, and Earth will inverse polarities, and mankind will enter a new (spiritual and temporal) era. But I doubt anything like that will actually happen, even if I wish it was possible. I think maybe in a thousand years, if things goes well, mankind will be totally peaceful, with zero murder and no wars, not even a single negative thought, because we will have evolved to higher spiritual levels of consciousness.. It's either this, or an apocalyptic world where all humans desctructed themselves in nuclear wars, and few survivors living in ruins and catacombs.

I prefer the first scenario, and you?

It's amazing how few people here think positive and are optimistic... Of who I can think of, there is only Robert, VeggiePrincess and Mango Suma... Lean & Green ?

 

Yes, there has been a few (or at least one) candidate that I agree perfectly with all he was saying about every subjects. In Canada and in Quebec. They get less than 5% of winning votes of course, because most people prefer to vote for monsters.

When I said "perfect", I mean perfection for an individual, not the mass. But if the majority agree on electing a psychopath like Nixon, G.W.Bush, why the opposite wouldn't be possible? If the majority of people need to stay like what they are right now, then we're doomed. Because it will always be the mass that will control and decide what the world will be, no matter how far the brainwashing by governments and leaders go .

Well I believe it doesn’t have to be between some new-age spiritualist utopia mumbo-jumbo (2012 prophecies and all that, whatever they may be) - which is never going to happen - and some post-nuke wasteland. You can still be pro-war without thinking the inevitable outcome will be nuclear catastrophe. Perhaps only conventional war may in fact prevent nuclear armageddon in ensuring regimes that would use the bomb - for reasons other than deterrance - aren't able to get one in the first place?

 

Regard may as being negative, I prefer to see myself as a realist.

 

Well I find it hard to believe that you agreed with absolutely everything this candidate stood for, no questions asked, but I’ll take your word for it. Don’t you see though the reason that they or whoever only gets 5% of the vote or less is because your perfect candidate is not every neutral’s idea of a perfect candidate? Classing politicians from mainstream parties as ‘monsters’ is over-doing it a tad too… Sorry, but politicians don’t work on the basis of being ‘perfect’ for individuals – which is a hopeless task in itself, even for just a few individuals - but in ensuring they get enough mass support to get elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Don’t you see though the reason that they or whoever only gets 5% of the vote or less is because your perfect candidate is not every neutral’s idea of a perfect candidate?

 

No, it's because only 5% of the population is bright enought to see this candidate as the perfect one. 95% of the population (maybe a bit less) vote for the worst candidate possible because 95% of population are people that eat at McDonalds, watch stupid movies, never read or don't know how to read, etc etc... Anyway, who cares about if a "perfect" candidate get elected, "perfection" doesn't really exist or is different for everybody as you said, I was meaning "someone less worse than the worse", and even if a good person get elected, he'd be killed after a few days by a psychopath on top of a building, like it happened with Kennedy and like it will always happen. The best always gets killed first in real, not like in Hollywood where it's always the bad guy that gets killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s more than a little arrogant to class all those who don’t vote the same way you do as ‘less bright’. 95% don’t vote for the worst candidate (in your opinion), the other 95% is split between all the other candidates (I presume that there was more than two candidates in this election you refer too?). Then there are all these who don’t vote as well – not just composed of the neutrals who cannot vote as there is no 'perfect' candidate for them - but the apathetic and apolitical too.

 

You sure do stereotype – 95% of the population don’t read, go McDonalds….

 

OK, by perfect you mean best or least worst.

 

Kennedy was assassinated after two years of office, and not a few days. Most – the majority – of good politicians do not get murdered. There’s just not that many of them that’s all….

 

Sorry that your thread is being hijacked Jay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's OK and I understand where I'm Your Man is coming from. The choice of words is just such that it's more open to criticism. It's not a matter of being bright enough to see who the right candidate is. It's a matter of just questioning the status quo. Looking for your information outside of mainstream media sources. Ultimately that may not be too different from just saying "bright". Obviously everyone thinks they're position is probably right and they aren't likely to think thats because they're dumber than average. Although... with the election of Bush there were some pretty weird justifications...

 

Kennedy was actually a slight bit better. He at least didn't support the CIA in invading Cuba and for that sort of thing he was assasinated. There's a guy named William Blum who's a far leftist. He had an essay about what he'd do as president and he said on the third day he'd get assasinated. And he's right. He would disband the CIA, etc and any such person would certainly face assasination attempts.

 

I do think the world would be better off with someone like Kucinich or Nader as president and (if we had Instant Runoff Voting) either might get 5% of the vote. I do think though if we had the last 100 years with someone like Kucinich some other countries would have grabbed all the power and been the ones forcing "structural adjustment programs" on us, thus making America a third world country.

 

Peace is no easy thing. It would require much better communication. (Like to a sci fi level where we could read each others minds....) Or people just not caring to defend themselves when they think it might be prudent to do so. Which is a pacifism that I don't support.

 

I really do think though, that vegans generally are not just like everyone else. See, I woke up today right back to my set point on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree that Vegans are ultimately human . . . I definately hear you Jay, about feeling hurt or almost betrayed if other Vegans are mean or indifferent. Having faced so much negativity for so many years, I would at least like to think that someone who has gone through the same ordeals would at least be civil. I guess everyone has their own agenda and ways of coping with the world. I have found that at least Vegans have some understanding of what I am doing. Anyway, I have developed a very thick skin and relied on a sense of humor. If they are unhappy or mean, that's their choice, not mine . . . best wishes to you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am a little late on this thread, but wanted to comment anyway. I have only been Vegan a couple months and a vegetarian since October, I too have found that some Vegans are extremely self righteous and insulting.

 

But like others have mentioned, we are all human and it is very difficult to be selfless. I honestly don't like humans in general, but I try to be fair and select my people on a case by case bases. Even here there is folks I just do not like, I feel negative energy from a small few.

 

I became Vegan for the animals not for the humans. My biggest challenge is to love all of human kind lol I doubt I will ever get to that point, mainly because I know that a large amount of humans have dark spirits. So the best I can do is treat people with dignity and respect and leave it at that.

Edited by BethL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About Murder, Maybe I should just go back and say I am a Vegetarian, Because if someone try to hurt my family, I will have to stop that person, and if it takes Killing that person, I wouldn't have to think about it twice. But at least Wrath is at the bottom of my 7 Sins list.

 

This reminds me of yesterday. I was taking a brisk walk and seen a Hawk (my favorite bird) and two little sparrows were chasing it away, pecking at it, to save their eggs. They risk their lives for their babies, I mean a Hawk could easily kill them.

 

Birds are very fasinating to watch. I love birds of prey, isn't that interesting lol The reason I love Birds of Prey is because of my Native American ansestory. Raven's are my second favorite then the Eagle. I am traveling to Illinois this week and part of the area has Eagle, so I hope to get to see a Eagle and takes some pictures.

Edited by BethL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest challenge is to love all of human kind lol I doubt I will ever get to that point, mainly because I know that a large amount of humans have dark spirits. So the best I can do is treat people with dignity and respect and leave it at that.

 

do you think it's possible for them to change (at least for most of them) or they're just born like that and there's nothing to do ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest challenge is to love all of human kind lol I doubt I will ever get to that point, mainly because I know that a large amount of humans have dark spirits. So the best I can do is treat people with dignity and respect and leave it at that.

 

do you think it's possible for them to change (at least for most of them) or they're just born like that and there's nothing to do ?

 

Gosh, I am certainly not an expert here when it comes to spirits/entities but will try to explain what I believe now days. I am new at this way of thinking.

 

Some say there are three kinds of human spirits, white, grey, and dark. The grey entities are kind of stuck in the middle and yes can change. But the dark entiies will always be dark and evil. I can't even imagine why a dark spirit would be a Vegan, but a many of us can have grey spirits, and I believe these spirits started out white but go sucked in to the negativity of a world of greed, gluttony and pride to name a few.

 

A Dark Entity is not always easy to spot either, but haven't we all come across people who just gave us the creeps and for no logical reason?

 

Something happened to me last fall. I started researching different religions and although I am fasinated with Buddhism it left out one major component for me and that was God, but I did start meditating. A couple months after meditaing a few times a week, I got laid off from my job which I didn't really like but I made fairly good money. Anyway many of us were laid off due to downsizing. People were very upset, crying, ranting but I just stood there a little numb and thought to myself, "okay so thats that, now how can I turn this into a positive". Normally I would have been hysterical wondering how I am going to pay the bills. By allowing myself to become more open minded and intuned to my spiritial side I suffered a lot less.

 

My sister-in-law is a Psychic and we started talking a lot more through emails. A lot of her beliefs were matching up what I found to be just what I was looking for. and she was able to help me clear up a few things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beth I havnt seen you before on here, so hello and wow you are pretty

 

I think this thread has split into 2 areas which those involved havn't noticed.

 

Area 1 BEING VEGAN - Being a vegan is basically a refusal to harm another animal.I reckon nearly everyone on here would never harm an animal.And yet some seem to be partial to harming other humans..

 

Spot the malfunction of logic..

 

Area 2 NOT HARMING AT ALL - 'Im your man' is trying to say that if we all refused to harm eachother & had no army the world would be at peace.I dont really see how anyone can disagree with this.

 

As for electing politicians, the whole idea of elected leaders has always caused problems.We need a form of collective population government which is as yet non existent on this planet.

 

Tarz wrote:

 

You can still be pro-war without thinking the inevitable outcome will be nuclear catastrophe. Perhaps only conventional war may in fact prevent nuclear armageddon in ensuring regimes that would use the bomb - for reasons other than deterrance - aren't able to get one in the first place?

 

Regard may as being negative, I prefer to see myself as a realist.

 

As for nuclear bombs not being used except as a detterant - you really believe that? Is Hiroshima & Nagasaki not taught in amercan history lessons? There were probably people talking about 'detterance' while the american government were fuelling up the planes to drop the atom bomb on some residential areas of japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War is hell. It's terrible. But in a way war is a part of us. It's been present since nearly the birth of mankind. And I think it can be said that as a race in general were probably to stupid and primitive to ever be able to learn to get along( Although as individuals we do try. )

 

But I do believe that the war we engage in now is nothing like the war's of old. Fighting with Guns and Tanks is one thing. But now we have stooped lower then dirt. We fight with massive explosive devices that kill millions( Including innocent civilians ) and containers with ravenous diseases that melt internal organs and cause ing and inhumane abnormalities.

 

When is this backstabbing, cowardliness going to end? When will men learn to fight like men and not like wimps?

 

I'm not saying War is a good thing( I am totally against violence ) but at least fight like a civilized human being.

 

If they could replace every single WMD with a sword at least that would make a drastic difference in the way we live our everyday lives. No needing to fear that your city may light up in a flash and explode.

 

Back during the war's in ancient Japan culture at least they had integrity and honor. It's totally different now.

 

Of course. I think the best way to resolve our conflict is through Multi-Player video games. If they could replace actual wars with Gears of Wars that would be the best. No one would get hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. I think the best way to resolve our conflict is through Multi-Player video games. If they could replace actual wars with Gears of Wars that would be the best. No one would get hurt.

 

The trouble there is that by definition war arises when two nations' leaders disagree about something (traditionally, that being someone's right to own their own land) ... and that by definition, a pacifistic approach involves mutual co-operation.

 

There would only be SO many situations where one nation's lader was sat there obediently logged onto Gears of War while the other nation's leader got their army together and stormed past the defenceless country boundaries towards an easy massacre..... before humans gave up on that idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Area 1 BEING VEGAN - Being a vegan is basically a refusal to harm another animal.I reckon nearly everyone on here would never harm an animal.And yet some seem to be partial to harming other humans..

 

Hi Dan and thanks thats sweet of you. To respond to your post here, Yes we shouldn't harm anyone or anything. But I do think that people have to be realistic. When it comes to protection rather it be our land, or family, or ourselves, fighting and killing is normal. It is normal in the wild and it is normal in the civilized. But of course humans unlike other animals are greedy, and this has always lead to terrible outcomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that people really exist in this world that are harming others and actually don't care. AND we don't usually really know who they are. We just know they're out there. And so we have to defend ourselves. A big part of defending ourselves is deciding that this or that person is no good. Like BethL has decided such people exist and has decided they just aren't going to change.

 

Maybe sometimes she'll be wrong and through a misunderstanding dismiss/badly treat someone who is openminded and open to talking and trying to be good.

 

I'm not saying BethL is doing something wrong. She's doing what we all do to different extents. As mortals we have no choice

 

I'd like to think I try really really really hard to assume the best of people. But when they just flat out won't talk to me, won't work with me, (because they're thinking the worst of me) then there is finally nothing I can do.

 

I would like to think vegans especially wouldn't be so quick to assume the worst of one another. But amazingly, ye gawds do they ever. I've seen people who've devoted their lives to veganism just dismissed as not even worth recognizing as being alive at all by... other fucking vegans!

 

Still to this day, there is not a single vegan on the planet that I'm not open to talking to, to trying to work with, to understand. I don't think anyone is beyond hope. I don't think there are any "dark entities". I think everyone can change. I don't believe in the existence of evil (harming othes and just not caring). There is only ignorance and stupidity and when you give up using reason with such people, only force is left. And you've already lost then.

 

And that's the problem. If I just dismissed people as some kind of hopeless evil (like I've been dismissed) then I would have so much more piece of mind.

 

It comes down to being happy or being moral. I choose to be moral and miserable. While others choose to "surround themselves with "positive" energy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that people really exist in this world that are harming others and actually don't care. AND we don't usually really know who they are. We just know they're out there.

 

Yes, the prevalence of psychopathy - and in particular sociopathy - is reckoned to be on the increase.

Often, the most brazen sociopaths are the epitome of charming in the beginning of a friendship or relationship, and even with extensive 'testing' of character before getting to know people, a lot of people end up exploited and used by sociopaths and conditional sociopaths anyway.

 

 

I would like to think vegans especially wouldn't be so quick to assume the worst of one another. But amazingly, ye gawds do they ever. I've seen people who've devoted their lives to veganism just dismissed as not even worth recognizing as being alive at all by... other fucking vegans!

 

Yes, until recently i naively imagined that there was a correlation between veganism and an enhanced approach to ethics and compassion, respect for others' welfare etc.

After much contemplation, I think it was part of my futile struggle to try and discern who would be a likely sociopath, and who not....

I had figured that surely vegans were a safe enough bet, but now I know better than to just assume so by definition.

 

 

Everyone can change. I don't believe in the existence of evil (harming othes and just not caring). There is only ignorance and stupidity and when you give up using reason with such people, only force is left. And you've already lost then.

 

Many people clearly do harm others, and make great displays out of not caring - sometimes over the course of years.

I think "evil" is an abstract term with atheistic connotations, but I'd certainly recognise that people are not all love and hugs down inside..... and more to the point, lots of them have no intention of being like that and work hard to fight against it.

 

If you factor in self-satisfaction, it makes a more rounded description i reckon.... lots of people know exactly what they are doing (far from ignorant) and are perfectly capable of understanding every facet of it (possessing adequate intelligence) and because they have both of these things, that is what makes a mindful effort at exploitation or abuse so devastatingly effective for so many of those kinds of people.

 

If they were all ignorant and stupid instead, then we would surely have little to fear from them.... oh, if only.

 

 

And that's the problem. If I just dismissed people as some kind of hopeless evil (like I've been dismissed) then I would have so much more piece of mind.

 

But you know that just aint so, right ?

The reason that socio/psychopaths get along so swimmingly seems to be because they have defective functioning of the cerebral cortex.... the area of the brain connected to empathy and remorse.

 

With a lack of conscience, people who wish to behave selfishly have a green card to do so from their brain.... but it's pretty obvious to me that you don;t have that.

 

I'd say that from what i can tell, you probably excercise your cerebral cortex regularly - examining situations and your own impact and effect upon and within them , rather than trying to deflect and defer emotional and mental responsibility onto others for yourself, your decisions and your own choices.

 

However many people mindfully and actively do the opposite.... and would be hostile towards those who would advocate that they do things any differently.

 

I'd say that the brain is like any other part of the body..... keep it in good shape and it will work well.... leave it to atrophy from laziness and there will be cobwebs there when you want to actually use the thing.

That goes for the front, just as much as the back or the sides.... or so I think, anyhow.

 

 

 

It comes down to being happy or being moral. I choose to be moral and miserable. While others choose to "surround themselves with "positive" energy".

 

Those who surround themselves with "positive" energy seem to be not entirely adverse to using that description as a pretty euphymism to describe their own mindful decision to be unsupportive towards those in a state of distress (because upset people are negative and must be avoided) , to behave as if they are always right (since positivity is the right way to go) , to maltreat others then trivialise and dismiss their response as "negative" , and to generally be prejudiced against anyone who has had a bag deal fortune out of life....

 

In short, I think a lot of people are superficial and have a twisted approach to positivity..... after all, embracing positive energy is only meaningful if someone has their interpretation of "positive" worked out meaningfully to begin with.

 

 

After all, when you think about it, a lot of fleshivores could say "I enjoy eating meat so it's positive... I avoid vegans because they make me feel bad about eating meat, giving out their bad vibe negative energy" , and they just make a mindful effort not to think about the animals because "that's negative, man, and I focus only on the positive things in life"

There , they appear to regard a positive approach to life to be the sort where they do things that make them feel good , and help them to avoid any uncomfortable confrontations or introspection which a more honest person might instead choose to face up to.

 

Many vegans appear to be perfectly capable of having - and deliberately cultivating - that sort of self-absorbed mindset, and they sometimes don't seem overly shy about applying it to humans rather than animals.

 

 

At least now I realise it.

 

The two last quotes i posted to the Quote a Day thread sum up my stance on positivity, pretty much.

 

I think that making a mindful and engaged effort to improve things, including our own efforts and ourselves, can only be a good thing and a great way to cultivate positivity.... and ultimately, to increased productivity and happiness....

It can involve change , or temporary discomfort, but things like that are typically outweighed many times by the benefits of such positive endeavour.

 

Astrocat

 

 

To manage our emotions is not to drug them or suppress them, but to understand them so that we can intelligently direct our emotional energies and intentions

 

Doc Childre

 

 

... but that's radically different from the stance of those who "only focus on the positive" , or whatever.... who opt to ongoingly suppress a huge chunk of emotional state, and maltreat or neglect entire situations or individuals for failing to be "positive" , thus choosing to limit or entirely nullify their potential to discuss reality in an intelligent and meaningful manner.

 

I believe that i have good foundation for my definition of positivity, and that it is anchored in a mature and productive philosophy of life.

 

I doubt that those who would disagree with me, would feel half as secure as I do if they tried to discuss this with me..... which I dersay that they wouldn't because that would be negative !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for nuclear bombs not being used except as a detterant - you really believe that? Is Hiroshima & Nagasaki not taught in amercan history lessons? There were probably people talking about 'detterance' while the american government were fuelling up the planes to drop the atom bomb on some residential areas of japan.

Yep - they kept the Cold War cold and - still - prevent many countries over-stepping the mark. Nuclear 'Deterrance' was a Cold War military doctrine. I wasn't referring to WWII. Seems you mention it though...

 

I'm actually English - maybe they didn't teach WWII in whatever school you went to?

 

Look at the casualty figures and fanatical resistance for battles on such rock outposts as Okinawa and Iwo Jimo. Then imagine the casualty figures if the Allies (US mainly) had to invade the Japanese mainland itself.

 

The use of the atomic bombs shortened WWII and saved innumerable lives - both Allied and Japanese troops and Japanese civilians - far more than were than lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japanese POW's too - many prisoners had already dug the 'swimming pools' that were to be their mass graves once the war was over.

 

The Japanese started the war in the Pacific, killed millions upon millions, refuse to acknowledge their war crimes, give sincere and genuine apologies, give adequate financial compensation, venerate their war criminals, do not educate their school children about Japan's true behaviour in the 1930's and 1940's.

 

I'd recommend the 'Knights of Bushido - A Short History of Japanese War Crimes' by Lord Russell of Liverpool, and also 'The Rape of Nanking - The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II' by Iris Chang.

 

See what Japanese 'intergrity and honour' finally developed and evolved into Dr Pink....

 

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sad, but they must be put in perspective. The US didn't use atomic weapons for the fun of it. Maybe ask yourself why the bombs had to be used in the first place, and do not forget or overlook the victims of Japanese aggression when remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah sure I do kind of agree the japs 'deserved it' if you want to suggest that.

 

I was not commenting on the subject in such a detailed way as you have provided.

 

My point is more general.For all the 'good' nuclear bombs do, it only takes one to go off to cause a complete reversal of all the 'good' they have done so far.

 

The device was designed only to kill vast amounts of people in one hit ( I have yet to hear of any other applications for the nuclear bomb - maybe deflecting asteroids? Oh, wait... this isnt the movies)

 

Didnt the inventor say:

 

" I have become the destoyer of worlds "

 

He sounds like a nice chap.

 

To suggest that they are a positive thing which helps keep the world a safer place honestly just seems a bit ridiculous, and you cannot view such a device in any other way other than the second most negative & destructive thing on this planet after of course its inventor the human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for nuclear bombs not being used except as a detterant - you really believe that? Is Hiroshima & Nagasaki not taught in amercan history lessons? There were probably people talking about 'detterance' while the american government were fuelling up the planes to drop the atom bomb on some residential areas of japan.

Yep - they kept the Cold War cold and - still - prevent many countries over-stepping the mark. Nuclear 'Deterrance' was a Cold War military doctrine. I wasn't referring to WWII. Seems you mention it though...

 

I'm actually English - maybe they didn't teach WWII in whatever school you went to?

 

Look at the casualty figures and fanatical resistance for battles on such rock outposts as Okinawa and Iwo Jimo. Then imagine the casualty figures if the Allies (US mainly) had to invade the Japanese mainland itself.

 

The use of the atomic bombs shortened WWII and saved innumerable lives - both Allied and Japanese troops and Japanese civilians - far more than were than lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japanese POW's too - many prisoners had already dug the 'swimming pools' that were to be their mass graves once the war was over.

 

The Japanese started the war in the Pacific, killed millions upon millions, refuse to acknowledge their war crimes, give sincere and genuine apologies, give adequate financial compensation, venerate their war criminals, do not educate their school children about Japan's true behaviour in the 1930's and 1940's.

 

I'd recommend the 'Knights of Bushido - A Short History of Japanese War Crimes' by Lord Russell of Liverpool, and also 'The Rape of Nanking - The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II' by Iris Chang.

 

See what Japanese 'intergrity and honour' finally developed and evolved into Dr Pink....

 

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sad, but they must be put in perspective. The US didn't use atomic weapons for the fun of it. Maybe ask yourself why the bombs had to be used in the first place, and do not forget or overlook the victims of Japanese aggression when remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Thank you for this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DaN - Not sure if I’d say they ‘deserved’ it but as Bomber Harris stated with respect to Nazi Germany: ‘They have sown the wind, now they are going to reap the whirlwind'.

 

You wanna be careful using the word japs on vegan forums – I did so on another board and got accused of racism…

 

Precisely because of their destructive potential they have not been used since 1945, not to say that one day they might be again, especially ‘nuke lites’.

 

We cannot turn the clock back with nuclear weapons, anymore than we can uninvent the wheel.

 

‘To suggest that they are a positive thing which helps keep the world a safer place honestly just seems a bit ridiculous’ – fair chance you’d be writing this in Russian without them, depending whether or not one subscribes to the theory that the Soviets would have invaded Western Europe (if not faced with nuclear retaliation). Nuclear weapons have both positive and negative aspects. They’ve prevented WWIII thus far and ensured that the Cold War was not only cold between the main protaganists but also a proxy war.

 

Zack – yeah, there has been too much focus on Hiroshima – if only so much publicity was given to the numerous Japanese atrocities and as much remembrance to their victims, (and that is not to downplay Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but to put them in the wider context of the Sino-Japanese war and later Pacific War). So much so that to many people the Japanese were the victims of WWII, which is a ing and perverse re-writing of history, when in fact they were anything but… I don’t like the way Hiroshima is used to attack the US without people knowing the history of the conflict. For the reasons I explained the US had valid reasons for using these weapons, although some argue they were used with half an eye on the coming struggle with the USSR so were putting a marker down too… Also turn it around – does anyone seriously doubt that the Japanese would not of used a nuclear bomb against the Americans if given the opportunity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...