Upload
Login or register

carneymaster

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 28
Date Signed Up:1/16/2011
Last Login:7/31/2016
Location:Somewhere in florida
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#2746
Highest Content Rank:#1764
Highest Comment Rank:#1942
Content Thumbs: 2239 total,  2423 ,  184
Comment Thumbs: 7657 total,  8638 ,  981
Content Level Progress: 34% (34/100)
Level 122 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 86% (86/100)
Level 263 Comments: Pure Win → Level 264 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:1
Content Views:88090
Times Content Favorited:178 times
Total Comments Made:2716
FJ Points:8645

latest user's comments

#34 - so far since ww2 no war or military engagement we have entered…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/08/2016 on American march "Dragoon... 0
#37 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
I agree with you 100% but the dude you are talking with might have mental dissabilities, like holy shit
User avatar
#39 - carneymaster (06/09/2016) [-]
I might. Or its pain killers. And not knowing which is scary.
#32 - Do what in every war?  [+] (4 new replies) 06/08/2016 on American march "Dragoon... 0
User avatar
#33 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
"If our point was to avoid invading them and inuring millions more in losses then its more of a tactical choice?"
User avatar
#34 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
so far since ww2 no war or military engagement we have entered into has encountered millions in losses yet. infact aside from the two world wars we have not encountered 6 digit losses at all. As well we have not used a nuke since ww2. So we do not use nukes in every war. As i said, using the nukes on japan was a tactical choice as opposed to invading and incuring millions of more losses on both sides.
#37 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
I agree with you 100% but the dude you are talking with might have mental dissabilities, like holy shit
User avatar
#39 - carneymaster (06/09/2016) [-]
I might. Or its pain killers. And not knowing which is scary.
#30 - If our point was to avoid invading them and inuring millions m…  [+] (6 new replies) 06/08/2016 on American march "Dragoon... 0
User avatar
#31 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
that's actually what Amerika did in every war. don't get your hopes up.
User avatar
#32 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
Do what in every war?
User avatar
#33 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
"If our point was to avoid invading them and inuring millions more in losses then its more of a tactical choice?"
User avatar
#34 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
so far since ww2 no war or military engagement we have entered into has encountered millions in losses yet. infact aside from the two world wars we have not encountered 6 digit losses at all. As well we have not used a nuke since ww2. So we do not use nukes in every war. As i said, using the nukes on japan was a tactical choice as opposed to invading and incuring millions of more losses on both sides.
#37 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
I agree with you 100% but the dude you are talking with might have mental dissabilities, like holy shit
User avatar
#39 - carneymaster (06/09/2016) [-]
I might. Or its pain killers. And not knowing which is scary.
#28 - It is somewhat true though that most european countries could …  [+] (8 new replies) 06/08/2016 on American march "Dragoon... 0
User avatar
#29 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
actually. bombing japan was US defending itself.
User avatar
#30 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
If our point was to avoid invading them and inuring millions more in losses then its more of a tactical choice? im not sure what it would be really but you dont usually invade an enemy you are defending yourself from.
User avatar
#31 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
that's actually what Amerika did in every war. don't get your hopes up.
User avatar
#32 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
Do what in every war?
User avatar
#33 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
"If our point was to avoid invading them and inuring millions more in losses then its more of a tactical choice?"
User avatar
#34 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
so far since ww2 no war or military engagement we have entered into has encountered millions in losses yet. infact aside from the two world wars we have not encountered 6 digit losses at all. As well we have not used a nuke since ww2. So we do not use nukes in every war. As i said, using the nukes on japan was a tactical choice as opposed to invading and incuring millions of more losses on both sides.
#37 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
I agree with you 100% but the dude you are talking with might have mental dissabilities, like holy shit
User avatar
#39 - carneymaster (06/09/2016) [-]
I might. Or its pain killers. And not knowing which is scary.
#26 - The virtual destruction of the entire country would be prefera…  [+] (10 new replies) 06/08/2016 on American march "Dragoon... 0
User avatar
#27 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
basically ... i started this bit.. because someone said Europe couldn't defend itself without the US. which might've been true. but because of sheer destruction on the japanese vs US side, us went full apoc nuked Japan.

Yes.. Russia would've done the same if they were in the same boat. but they weren't they were litterally throwing everyone they had into a meaningless war for a few cities that were battered beyond repair. Sure honor and all that.

Just goes to show it's okay to call EU shit.. but don't touch pretty US with their faults and flaws.
User avatar
#28 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
It is somewhat true though that most european countries could not defend themselves except russia, poland, germany, england and france. The other countries could not defend themselves. But you made the point of citing the bombings of japan not the US defending itself. And actually russia was busy throwing litteraly everyone they had at germany and winning that half of WW2.
User avatar
#29 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
actually. bombing japan was US defending itself.
User avatar
#30 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
If our point was to avoid invading them and inuring millions more in losses then its more of a tactical choice? im not sure what it would be really but you dont usually invade an enemy you are defending yourself from.
User avatar
#31 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
that's actually what Amerika did in every war. don't get your hopes up.
User avatar
#32 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
Do what in every war?
User avatar
#33 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
"If our point was to avoid invading them and inuring millions more in losses then its more of a tactical choice?"
User avatar
#34 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
so far since ww2 no war or military engagement we have entered into has encountered millions in losses yet. infact aside from the two world wars we have not encountered 6 digit losses at all. As well we have not used a nuke since ww2. So we do not use nukes in every war. As i said, using the nukes on japan was a tactical choice as opposed to invading and incuring millions of more losses on both sides.
#37 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
I agree with you 100% but the dude you are talking with might have mental dissabilities, like holy shit
User avatar
#39 - carneymaster (06/09/2016) [-]
I might. Or its pain killers. And not knowing which is scary.
#24 - So answer my initial question. What would be the better choice?  [+] (12 new replies) 06/08/2016 on American march "Dragoon... 0
User avatar
#25 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
Well... anything would've been better than nukes. but hey..
User avatar
#26 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
The virtual destruction of the entire country would be preferable? The Japanese emperor at the time demanded every citizen be armed and fight to the death. Or perhaps you favor mainland china, vietnam, korea, laos, and a number of other asian countries under japanese control would be preferable?
User avatar
#27 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
basically ... i started this bit.. because someone said Europe couldn't defend itself without the US. which might've been true. but because of sheer destruction on the japanese vs US side, us went full apoc nuked Japan.

Yes.. Russia would've done the same if they were in the same boat. but they weren't they were litterally throwing everyone they had into a meaningless war for a few cities that were battered beyond repair. Sure honor and all that.

Just goes to show it's okay to call EU shit.. but don't touch pretty US with their faults and flaws.
User avatar
#28 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
It is somewhat true though that most european countries could not defend themselves except russia, poland, germany, england and france. The other countries could not defend themselves. But you made the point of citing the bombings of japan not the US defending itself. And actually russia was busy throwing litteraly everyone they had at germany and winning that half of WW2.
User avatar
#29 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
actually. bombing japan was US defending itself.
User avatar
#30 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
If our point was to avoid invading them and inuring millions more in losses then its more of a tactical choice? im not sure what it would be really but you dont usually invade an enemy you are defending yourself from.
User avatar
#31 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
that's actually what Amerika did in every war. don't get your hopes up.
User avatar
#32 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
Do what in every war?
User avatar
#33 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
"If our point was to avoid invading them and inuring millions more in losses then its more of a tactical choice?"
User avatar
#34 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
so far since ww2 no war or military engagement we have entered into has encountered millions in losses yet. infact aside from the two world wars we have not encountered 6 digit losses at all. As well we have not used a nuke since ww2. So we do not use nukes in every war. As i said, using the nukes on japan was a tactical choice as opposed to invading and incuring millions of more losses on both sides.
#37 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
I agree with you 100% but the dude you are talking with might have mental dissabilities, like holy shit
User avatar
#39 - carneymaster (06/09/2016) [-]
I might. Or its pain killers. And not knowing which is scary.
#22 - If russia had nuked japan instead of us would that be better?  [+] (15 new replies) 06/08/2016 on American march "Dragoon... 0
User avatar
#23 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
Why Yes... no ofcourse not.
#40 - halonachos (06/10/2016) [-]
Speaking on this point about Russia, one of the reasons the nukes were dropped is that the war needed to be ended quickly. Russia had a temporary ceasefire signed with Japan while Russia fought the Germans but the Germans kinda gave up and that would mean Russia could get in on the Japanese action once again.

In previous discussions the Russians were told that they could influence what happened to countries they fought and seeing as though the Americans and Brits didn't like the idea of Russia having control of many things, believing Stalin to be full of evil, the US wanted to make sure the Japanese surrendered before the ceasefire ended or the Russians decided to end it.

The result was the atomic bomb, while the populace was tired of the war, the populace didn't have the ability to say that they surrendered and the Emperor had to be made to surrender. 2 bombs scared the Emperor enough that he surrendered before the Russians could return to fighting the Japanese.

Seeing what Russia did to East Germany after the war, it probably was for the best.
User avatar
#24 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
So answer my initial question. What would be the better choice?
User avatar
#25 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
Well... anything would've been better than nukes. but hey..
User avatar
#26 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
The virtual destruction of the entire country would be preferable? The Japanese emperor at the time demanded every citizen be armed and fight to the death. Or perhaps you favor mainland china, vietnam, korea, laos, and a number of other asian countries under japanese control would be preferable?
User avatar
#27 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
basically ... i started this bit.. because someone said Europe couldn't defend itself without the US. which might've been true. but because of sheer destruction on the japanese vs US side, us went full apoc nuked Japan.

Yes.. Russia would've done the same if they were in the same boat. but they weren't they were litterally throwing everyone they had into a meaningless war for a few cities that were battered beyond repair. Sure honor and all that.

Just goes to show it's okay to call EU shit.. but don't touch pretty US with their faults and flaws.
User avatar
#28 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
It is somewhat true though that most european countries could not defend themselves except russia, poland, germany, england and france. The other countries could not defend themselves. But you made the point of citing the bombings of japan not the US defending itself. And actually russia was busy throwing litteraly everyone they had at germany and winning that half of WW2.
User avatar
#29 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
actually. bombing japan was US defending itself.
User avatar
#30 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
If our point was to avoid invading them and inuring millions more in losses then its more of a tactical choice? im not sure what it would be really but you dont usually invade an enemy you are defending yourself from.
User avatar
#31 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
that's actually what Amerika did in every war. don't get your hopes up.
User avatar
#32 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
Do what in every war?
User avatar
#33 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
"If our point was to avoid invading them and inuring millions more in losses then its more of a tactical choice?"
User avatar
#34 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
so far since ww2 no war or military engagement we have entered into has encountered millions in losses yet. infact aside from the two world wars we have not encountered 6 digit losses at all. As well we have not used a nuke since ww2. So we do not use nukes in every war. As i said, using the nukes on japan was a tactical choice as opposed to invading and incuring millions of more losses on both sides.
#37 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
I agree with you 100% but the dude you are talking with might have mental dissabilities, like holy shit
User avatar
#39 - carneymaster (06/09/2016) [-]
I might. Or its pain killers. And not knowing which is scary.
#20 - Im assuming you mean japan right? What would be your counter p…  [+] (17 new replies) 06/08/2016 on American march "Dragoon... 0
User avatar
#21 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
So it's okay to use nukes as long as the US does it. ?
User avatar
#22 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
If russia had nuked japan instead of us would that be better?
User avatar
#23 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
Why Yes... no ofcourse not.
#40 - halonachos (06/10/2016) [-]
Speaking on this point about Russia, one of the reasons the nukes were dropped is that the war needed to be ended quickly. Russia had a temporary ceasefire signed with Japan while Russia fought the Germans but the Germans kinda gave up and that would mean Russia could get in on the Japanese action once again.

In previous discussions the Russians were told that they could influence what happened to countries they fought and seeing as though the Americans and Brits didn't like the idea of Russia having control of many things, believing Stalin to be full of evil, the US wanted to make sure the Japanese surrendered before the ceasefire ended or the Russians decided to end it.

The result was the atomic bomb, while the populace was tired of the war, the populace didn't have the ability to say that they surrendered and the Emperor had to be made to surrender. 2 bombs scared the Emperor enough that he surrendered before the Russians could return to fighting the Japanese.

Seeing what Russia did to East Germany after the war, it probably was for the best.
User avatar
#24 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
So answer my initial question. What would be the better choice?
User avatar
#25 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
Well... anything would've been better than nukes. but hey..
User avatar
#26 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
The virtual destruction of the entire country would be preferable? The Japanese emperor at the time demanded every citizen be armed and fight to the death. Or perhaps you favor mainland china, vietnam, korea, laos, and a number of other asian countries under japanese control would be preferable?
User avatar
#27 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
basically ... i started this bit.. because someone said Europe couldn't defend itself without the US. which might've been true. but because of sheer destruction on the japanese vs US side, us went full apoc nuked Japan.

Yes.. Russia would've done the same if they were in the same boat. but they weren't they were litterally throwing everyone they had into a meaningless war for a few cities that were battered beyond repair. Sure honor and all that.

Just goes to show it's okay to call EU shit.. but don't touch pretty US with their faults and flaws.
User avatar
#28 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
It is somewhat true though that most european countries could not defend themselves except russia, poland, germany, england and france. The other countries could not defend themselves. But you made the point of citing the bombings of japan not the US defending itself. And actually russia was busy throwing litteraly everyone they had at germany and winning that half of WW2.
User avatar
#29 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
actually. bombing japan was US defending itself.
User avatar
#30 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
If our point was to avoid invading them and inuring millions more in losses then its more of a tactical choice? im not sure what it would be really but you dont usually invade an enemy you are defending yourself from.
User avatar
#31 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
that's actually what Amerika did in every war. don't get your hopes up.
User avatar
#32 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
Do what in every war?
User avatar
#33 - rickardur (06/08/2016) [-]
"If our point was to avoid invading them and inuring millions more in losses then its more of a tactical choice?"
User avatar
#34 - carneymaster (06/08/2016) [-]
so far since ww2 no war or military engagement we have entered into has encountered millions in losses yet. infact aside from the two world wars we have not encountered 6 digit losses at all. As well we have not used a nuke since ww2. So we do not use nukes in every war. As i said, using the nukes on japan was a tactical choice as opposed to invading and incuring millions of more losses on both sides.
#37 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
I agree with you 100% but the dude you are talking with might have mental dissabilities, like holy shit
User avatar
#39 - carneymaster (06/09/2016) [-]
I might. Or its pain killers. And not knowing which is scary.
#77 - Im still hungry. 06/07/2016 on Amputation in the... 0
#562 - **carneymaster used "*roll picture*"** **carneymaster rolle… 06/05/2016 on *roll for your new parents* 0