Volourn Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 We agree! P.S. Though some will surely point out that while the hurricane itself was nature's doing, the situation was made much worse than it needed to eb due to mad emade mistakes, inaction, and sloppiness. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 That is covered by George W. being re-elected as being tragic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddo36 Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 The casualties from Iraq are tragic as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 So were the casualties of WW2. Your point? DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddo36 Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 World War II was too long ago to be considered more tragic than Iraq to most of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 History is full of tragedies, Eddo. No single tragedy is more important than another, even if one is more recent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf16 Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Is too. If it's more relevant to me, I'm going to think it's more important. I had thought that some of nature's journeymen had made men and not made them well, for they imitated humanity so abominably. - Book of Counted Sorrows 'Cause I won't know the man that kills me and I don't know these men I kill but we all wind up on the same side 'cause ain't none of us doin' god's will. - Everlast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Acts of nature I don't count as tragedies. They just happen and you deal with it. Certainly there was death, destruction, and pain on a massive scale but I wouldn't call it tragic. Its just how the natural world works. If you live in an area that is below sea level, expect to get wet. Convenient. If it's more relevant to me, I'm going to think it's more important. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddo36 Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 Yeah, but the most recent ones generally tend to have more impact on people than ones that happen long before they were born. Not that it's a bad thing. I could care less about stories passed on by my great grandma about how the Chinese were massacred by the Japanese or other stuff she would probably tell me if I had ever met her while she was still alive if that b-word hadn't sold my grandpa to some other family. No. I really could care less what the Japanese did to the Chinese or what the Chinese did to each other etc. History is filled with all sorts of messed up crap like that. All I care about is what is happening now in the present. Not WWII or Vietnam but Iraq and whatever country that idiot for a president wants to pick a fight with next. You wanna know why? Because that stuff is actually affecting me. You think I would care in the way distant future if our great grandkids get wiped out by a tsunami caused by melting polar icecaps due to global warming? Well, hmm... actually yes I would care. Because I wouldn't wanna see humanity wiped out and that all our efforts on progress become all gone. But I don't expect them to care about us since all we did was pollute their environment at this period. But still the future is something that can be changed. The past can't. So: present > future > past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calax Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 the death of one is a tragedy... the death of a million is a statistic. -Josef Stalin Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 How is that convenient, Alanschu? Eddo, I guess I take a more wholistic approach on these matters. For me 9/11 is no more a tragedy than the Trail of Tears, the atrocities of war in Europe in the 40's, and so forth. They are pretty much effected me equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 How is that convenient, Alanschu? Because yet again you have just decided to apply whatever definition you like to a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 If a president can go to war knowingly the intelligence was faulty then I can make up my own definitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 coughcoughPearlHarbourcoughcough "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 I think the US and Japan are even on that one. They attacked Pearl harbor, we ended their military and empire with atomic weaponry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf16 Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Somehow, that doesn't seem too even... And just 'cause... I had thought that some of nature's journeymen had made men and not made them well, for they imitated humanity so abominably. - Book of Counted Sorrows 'Cause I won't know the man that kills me and I don't know these men I kill but we all wind up on the same side 'cause ain't none of us doin' god's will. - Everlast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Probably not, but they did attack the US first. Don't start nothing there won't be nothing, as the saying goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 There's the popular conspiracy theory that Roosevelt, sympathetic to the plight in Europe (and probably Asia to an extent as well), had information about the planned attack, and subsequently made sure that the flagships of the navy (i.e. the Carriers) were out of port. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Wouldn't surprise me any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 If true (I am skeptical), what do you think about FDR's decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf16 Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 In the long run...well, we know how it turned out. In the short...he basically let thousands of U.S. sailors die. That's a no-no. I had thought that some of nature's journeymen had made men and not made them well, for they imitated humanity so abominably. - Book of Counted Sorrows 'Cause I won't know the man that kills me and I don't know these men I kill but we all wind up on the same side 'cause ain't none of us doin' god's will. - Everlast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Interesting perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 As the old vulcan proverb goes, the needs of the many out weighs the needs of the few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julianw Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 There's the popular conspiracy theory that Roosevelt, sympathetic to the plight in Europe (and probably Asia to an extent as well), had information about the planned attack, and subsequently made sure that the flagships of the navy (i.e. the Carriers) were out of port. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I understand that US intelligence probably had information hinting at an attack on Pearl Harbor, which they probably ignored as false lead. The theory that Roosevelt delibrately hid that information to sacrifice a huge bulk of the Pacific fleet sounds like bs to me. Remember that US's Pacific fleet was davastated after the attack and ended up on the losing side of the war until many months later at the Battle of Midway. If FDR really played this trick on his own troops, then he almost lost us the war in Pacific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Not with the Atomic Bomb being developed. If the war continued to go badly when they were ready to deploy I am sure he would have targeted Tokyo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now