(I'll make this short: My previous attempt to post this fizzled… :) )
Why do we fight wars?
Sure, sometimes we're attacked and we have little choice — fight or die.
There are also religious reasons, mostly incomprehensible to even our most devout brethren! :)
But -then- there are philosophical differences between cultures (nations, military powers — call them what you will).
The U.S. government's masters did not understand Japan. Their philosophy of war was beyond our ken.
Some few of their senior officers (previous to and during WW II) did understand us, but could not escape the dictates of their philosophy.
I've been asked if my nation's nuclear assault on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes… I've said no, and tried to explain a bit to the silly questioners. They not only remained convinced of the justification of their condemnations, they started to re-write history!
(A fairly common European reaction.)
What I'd of you is that you try to discuss here a simple proposition:
To save both the Japanese people and the post-WW II U.S, Emperor Hirohito had to be humiliated!
—————————————————————————————————
I'll let you take it from there. You're bright enough…
Are any of you brave enough? :)
To save both the Japanese people
Now they were nuking Japanese populations for humanitarian purposes...
My Goodness and you accuse Europeans of re writing history. It would help any discussion if you stop entering into paranoiac domains Oakdale.
[I'll wait to see if more knowledgeable posts ensue… Perhaps, from someone who knows the difference between "humane" and "humanitarian"? :)]
Okay.
You need a little more promting:
Automation Replacing People
Jerry,
“…
This is both a humbling book and, in the best sense, a humble one. Ford, a software entrepreneur who both understands the technology and has made a thorough study of its economic consequences, never succumbs to the obvious temptation to overdramatize or exaggerate. In fact, he has little to say about one of the most ominous arenas for automation — the military, where not only are pilots being replaced by drones, but robots like the ones that now defuse bombs are being readied for deployment as infantry.
…”
This is part of an ongoing process that has spanned decades and started with the aircraft navigators. When I was a Navy C-130F navigator, 1982 through 1985 inclusive, we had six crewmen; pilot, copilot, flight engineer, navigator, radioman, and loadmaster.
The current C-130J has a crew of three; pilot, copilot, and flight engineer/loadmaster.
Indeed, the Navy and the Air Force stopped teaching celestial navigation back about the year 2003.
The opening salvo of the “Rise of the Machines” and the displacement of the navigators came with the introduction and widespread deployment of compact aircraft inertial navigation systems (INS) and Global Positioning System (GPS) in the 1980s and 1990s, respectively. At first, the INS took 15 minutes to initialize the mechanical gyroscopes and would be thrown off by a gust of wind that rocked the wings of the aircraft, necessitating a further 15 minutes to re-initialize..
I remember sitting at Naval Air Station Keflavik, Iceland for the better part of two hours whilst the palletized INS we were using to ferry a short range T-39 Sabreliner executive transport jet re-initialized again and again as gusts of wind shook the aircraft. It was maddening to get to 14 minutes and 39 seconds into the 15 minute initialization process, only to have to start again when a particularly strong gust of wind shook the aircraft.
Once the ring laser gyro system and its roughly 5 second initialization process entered the scene, we overwater navigators became much less necessary. This led apace to the elimination of in-flight navigators.
The wisdom of eliminating us navigators in peacetime was beyond question as both a matter of economy and efficiency. How the U.S. military will cope in a war against a near peer adversary who can destroy a major portion of our GPS satellite constellation and fry the majority of our electronics, including navigation systems, remains to be seen.
I went on to become an Information Technology Specialist in the federal civil service for 24 years before retiring at the end of August 2013; “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.”
Jerry said a little more: "The military has not yet taken away the bayonet, nor should they."
Does any one else understand what that means?
[I'll wait to see if more knowledgeable posts ensue… Perhaps, from someone who knows the difference between "humane" and "humanitarian"? :)]
Okay, so you are not saying the nuking was a humanitarian deed. You are saying the nuking was humane. How does this make your position any saner?
Mankind seems to have irresistible propensities for war and for religion.
Neither is defensible or explainable.
I've been asked if my nation's nuclear assault on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes… I've said no, and tried to explain a bit to the silly questioners. They not only remained convinced of the justification of their condemnations, they started to re-write history!
(A fairly common European reaction.)
What I'd of you is that you try to discuss here a simple proposition:
To save both the Japanese people and the post-WW II U.S, Emperor Hirohito had to be humiliated!
—————————————————————————————————
I'll let you take it from there. You're bright enough…
Are any of you brave enough? :)
In case anybody wondered, it's spelled
s-u-p-e-r-c-i-l-i-o-u-s. (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Frickyoliver.r.i.pic.centerblog.net%2F197055c8.gif&hash=1b6c7595e1c00e4ed331a4af764c53ed" rel="cached" data-hash="1b6c7595e1c00e4ed331a4af764c53ed" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://rickyoliver.r.i.pic.centerblog.net/197055c8.gif)
We fight wars for the same reasons other apes do, that we believe force can be more profitable than persuasion, and that fighting is preferable to surrender. That has proven true often enough that we persist.
In total we would have been better off without wars, including "just" ones, or "humanitarian" as they are called these days, but that doesn't matter as long as it is believed profitable by those in the position to reap that profit. By the way these things go, they may not actually benefit, while others do without originally intending to, but it may still be worth the risk.
Legally, the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were by definition not war crimes. Are some weapons less "just" or "humane" than others? Absolutely, mustard gas during WWII was a nadir of warfare, and many weapons are now illegal, using them would be a war crime. That includes the use of nuclear weapons under many circumstances. As a nudge towards warfare with less death, destruction and suffering, this makes sense.
Why do we fight wars
Human loves competition .
in the old days ... Human Species used to Compete in the Wars nor everything related to War .
and nowadays , Human competes in the Sport , techs , economies, etc .
so it seems , "War" is coded right in the DNA of homosapiens ( sapiens ) , and that genes inherited times by times, from generation to generation .
and in my opinion , those people that love wars are suffered for Hero Complex , God Complex , etc .
i want to shout something like
" War Complex nor Competition Complex " but there is no something like that in the Social science .
on the other hand , the people united because have the same enemy .
to reduce the risk of war in this species .
utopically , the sollution is simple.
Explore the universe , and get another enemies from different race .
Legally, the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were by definition not war crimes.
It depends on
who defines what's "legally". :left:
The following is a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2014/02/05/voices/u-s-and-japanese-apologies-for-war-crimes-could-pave-way-for-nuclear-disarmament/) on behalf of eight organizations involved in anti-nuclear or peace movements in and around Hiroshima. None is associated with a political party.
War isn't legal or illegal; it just is.
I pulled this from
The Atlantic magazine, 1946.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/)
About a week after V-J Day I was one of a small group of scientists and engineers interrogating an intelligent, well-informed Japanese Army officer in Yokohama. We asked him what, in his opinion, would have been the next major move if the war had continued. He replied: "You would probably have tried to invade our homeland with a landing operation on Kyushu about November 1. I think the attack would have been made on such and such beaches."
"Could you have repelled this landing?" we asked, and he answered: "It would have been a very desperate fight, but I do not think we could have stopped you."
"What would have happened then?" we asked.
He replied: "We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated," by which he meant that they would not have been disgraced by surrender.
It depends on who defines what's "legally".
I guess that depends on if who's side you're on matters.
The intent and structure of the aggression should be the only factor. But it's not. Regardless what I say your opinion of it will be jaded by how you perceive me. And for no good reason, only feelings. No one wants to see the fault caused by their fault. So somehow we have the arrogance to argue who is right when everything is wrong.
Hhmm. Trouble with discussing why there are wars in any principled way is slightly detached as you come from a land that has started one after another in one way or again, other. No-one has the same record in the military action and war matters and still goes on. Of course in your own case you will just circle this and get by saying it is bashing but looking beyond that limitation contradicts.
Thinking back to the horror of atomic bombs in Japan killed large numbers of innocents but future generations were affected too. What made it more disgusting was that there had been behind-the-scenes things going on indicating that Japan knew they were finished and that they could end the war in a way that they kept their dignity. We might find that hard to accept due to the behaviour of the imperial Army but it was a deep rooted and very personal tradition in Japan. General McArthur had actually as well informed the President that surrender was coming. This was ignored and instead a damnable atom decision instead. Indeed much of what the US wanted in surrender terms was being discussed in Japan's top echelons and the feeling was that something could be agreed with that dignity superficial touch. but no the damnable instead.
Trouble with discussing why there are wars in any principled way is slightly detached as you come from a land that has started one after another in one way or again, other.
Thank you for proving my point. Oh, and ditto.
Of course in your own case you will just circle this and get by saying it is bashing but looking beyond that limitation contradicts.
Of course in your case it is. That point can be made without it I agree.
I'm not the US. Nor am I responsible for or qualified to judge the past. All I get to do is learn from it. If you ask me nuclear testing should be a crime against humanity. Both of our countries would answer for that one, no?
deep rooted and very personal tradition in Japan.
Which is why Hirohito didn't stand trial. What was best for Japan was weighed, not just a lust for revenge. He asked the Japanese people to "bear the unbearable" in his surrender speech. Which doesn't sound like unconditional surrender was ever on the table. And then you are basing what you seem to think you know about MacArthur's knowledge on what? Very little probably, least you would of spelled his name right.
You should consider the long term affects of radiation wasn't understood. Marie Curie had just died before the onset of war and may not of even understood why she was sick. I doubt much effort was given to the health concerns during the war. Further more the US does give compensation to those that were affected... Even from nuclear testing. The UK does not.
But you've proved my point. You simply want to reach out and put down something that you don't like because of irrational feelings. Regardless if the reason you don't like the US has anything to do with the issue at hand. If you want to prove that wrong (?) back your statements up with proper use of who you are talking about (again I'm not the US nor do I agree with everything "American") and try to leave out the wasted words expressing how you feel about the US...
Trouble with discussing why there are wars in any principled way is slightly detached as you come from a land that has started one after another in one way or again, other.
We are literally talking about the war Europe started here. Try to understand what you just did here. You won't, but try. There's plenty of fault to go around.
Perhaps, from someone who knows the difference between "humane" and "humanitarian"? :)
You're losing faculties.
It seems that ersi still has the patience for answer you, (under his harsh logical appearance he has a sensible heart...).
I'll wait until you return as the old Oakdale that had something to say worthwhile instead of making us watching the decrepitude of a once bright mind...
It depends on who defines what's "legally".
[From the letter:]
We also urge you to acknowledge that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 was a crime against humanity involving the indiscriminate mass killing of civilians. Accordingly, we urge you to offer an official apology to the victims of these war atrocities. We are convinced that an American apology is vital to achieve the abolishment of nuclear weapons.
The "explanations" later offered show the writer (and those other subscribing plaintiffs) to be woefully ignorant children…otherwise known as "academics".
If the U.S. acknowledges these two "war crimes" — Great Britain, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and, soon, Iran will give up their nukes?
If psychological and Machiavellian analysis of history is pursued, the counter-factual is a required. But whimsical speculation fails as a support for such.
(I'll make this short: My previous attempt to post this fizzled… :) )
Why do we fight wars?
Sure, sometimes we're attacked and we have little choice — fight or die.
There are also religious reasons, mostly incomprehensible to even our most devout brethren! :)
But -then- there are philosophical differences between cultures (nations, military powers — call them what you will).
The U.S. government's masters did not understand Japan. Their philosophy of war was beyond our ken.
Some few of their senior officers (previous to and during WW II) did understand us, but could not escape the dictates of their philosophy.
I've been asked if my nation's nuclear assault on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes… I've said no, and tried to explain a bit to the silly questioners. They not only remained convinced of the justification of their condemnations, they started to re-write history!
(A fairly common European reaction.)
What I'd of you is that you try to discuss here a simple proposition:
To save both the Japanese people and the post-WW II U.S, Emperor Hirohito had to be humiliated!
—————————————————————————————————
I'll let you take it from there. You're bright enough…
Are any of you brave enough? :)
I'm bright enough and brave enough but not fool enough or energetic enough to present rational statements to the audience available in this forum.
Well… It won't be the first time I've played the fool! :)
Harris wanted to debate some war and terrorism with Chomsky. Here's the short version of the exchange (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=1096.msg39889#msg39889) for you, Oakdale. The longer version is on Harris' blog.
I am giving you generous options to answer this question: Whose argumentation (and view of morality/legality) to you tend towards?
1. Harris
2. Chomsky
3. Neither
4. Both
With reasons. Tell why you answered the way you answered.
I'm familiar with both Harris and Chomsky…
Harris is a well-known Voodoo Scientist, whose philosophical ideas are unarguably incoherent.
Chomsky is probably the world's most well-known conspiracy theorist.
While Harris' work is pure bunkum (fMRI statistics used to argue politics…), Chomsky's early work as a linguist was good; and his later work was brilliant — which is to say, interesting and productive. (Not necessarily correct, though! :) I'd put his Universal Grammar -the transformational generative version(s)- higher in likelihood than, say, Julian Jaynes' Origin of Consciousness…. But still…)
When someone first said, "There's no arguing tastes" they captured the full import of these two "celebrities" exchanging their views of morality!
Only a fool would take them seriously. (Except for the possibility of fireworks! :) )
Thanks for the answer, but we are still not at the bottom of it.
When someone first said, "There's no arguing tastes" they captured the full import of these two "celebrities" exchanging their views of morality!
What is the point/factor/characteristic that determines when an argument about morals/laws is substantial and not merely about tastes? What makes Harris-Chomsky exchange merely about tastes?
Do substantial differences exist at all on this topic? For example the consie pundits you quote every now and then, is their opinion a matter of taste or of the essence?
Do substantial differences exist at all on this topic? For example the consie pundits you quote every now and then, is their opinion a matter of taste or of the essence?
(I assume you meant
conservative rather than "consie" — or was that some neologistic jibe? :) )
I'd say that
anyone who adopts a God-like omniscience leading them to moral certainty is -technically- insane, and dangerous…
But anyone with a little humility and lots of experience (and some knowledge of history) can -given agreed upon facts- achieve a reasonable understanding of the moral dimensions of actual events. (Indeed, projecting such into the future is what we expect our leaders to do! Isn't it?)
Do you really believe Harris and Chomsky were disputing about
facts?
Note: Harris has claimed that there is no such thing as free will… So: Blame and exhortation and praise are pretty much beside the point, aren't they? :) (I mentioned his
incoherence earlier: Anyone who rejects free will necessarily places morality beyond their realm of discourse… Or did he merely mean to pointlessly pontificate? :) Well, some of us here do that!)
Do substantial differences exist at all on this topic? For example the consie pundits you quote every now and then, is their opinion a matter of taste or of the essence?
(I assume you meant conservative rather than "consie" — or was that some neologistic jibe? :) )
I was under the impression it was normal English as the native speakers use it (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=consie). And I note that you didn't answer the actual question, whether the consie pov is something more than taste or not.
I'd say that anyone who adopts a God-like omniscience leading them to moral certainty is -technically- insane, and dangerous…
Mkay. And someone devoid of (God-like omni)science and with nothing to lead them to moral certainty would be technically sane or at least harmless? How is it working out for you?
But anyone with a little humility and lots of experience (and some knowledge of history) can -given agreed upon facts- achieve a reasonable understanding of the moral dimensions of actual events. (Indeed, projecting such into the future is what we expect our leaders to do! Isn't it?)
I tend to agree here, but it doesn't answer what to do about the
definitional differences of morality, differences that are bound to have an effect on any and all understanding of moral dimensions, whatever the facts.
For example, we are here in this thread discussing whether war and nuking is moral or not. We agree on the facts - war exists, nukes exist, we even agree that U.S. nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki - but we have diametrically opposed judgement of their moral dimensions. How come?
Do you really believe Harris and Chomsky were disputing about facts?
No. First off, I don't believe. I observe. Second, Harris didn't have any two facts in the same category so as to permit "a reasonable understanding of the moral dimensions of actual events" at all.
Chomsky had the facts and the categories to permit an analysis and to yield a moral evaluation of the events that onlookers can follow along. Harris didn't. So, it was not even a dispute, definitely not about the facts. Harris only has some quibble about the moral judgement on some events and policies, but since he lacks the factual and experiential context and the metaphysical categories to make his own analysis, he is just being his ordinary incoherently pontificating self.
Monday morning quarterbacking 70 years after the game has been played is going to accomplish what to anyone's satisfaction? Did the nuclear assault save a million allied lives and cause Japan's surrender or was it a war crime? There is plentiful evidence for both schools of thought.
Many hundreds of thousands of allied lives were spared by the use of atomic weapons, there is little doubt of that. On the other hand, Japan's economy was collapsing in the summer of '45 because the US Naval Fleet blockade (subs), had effectively strangled oil and raw materials supply lines. If our fleet had simply lingered offshore for a few more months, we could have witnessed the Japanese people starve to death or perish under conventional bombing--much more humane to some here I'm sure. In short, today's evidence indicates that the Japanese had no chance of sustaining effective resistance. However, much that we now know was then uncertain (hence the 20/20 hindsight).
In a discussion of what is humane in wartime, nobody here is arguing the use of nuclear bombs in the context of the March of 1945 fire-bombing raids that preceded it. 500,000 Japanese citizens were killed in those raids, more than twice as many as in Hiroshima & Nagasaki. I seriously doubt that anyone involved in the decision making of using the A-Bomb saw themselves as setting a precedent for mass destruction in scale--in efficiency, yes I'm sure. More people died in the single March 9 incendiary attack on Tokyo than in the initial blast at Hiroshima (little was known then about the effects of radiation--Marie Curie probably died without knowing what killed her). Massive death and destruction was being rained on Japan in 1945, is it a war crime simply because we found a more efficient method of doing what we were going to do anyway?
In August 1945, 50 million people had already died and I'm sure both sides were desensitized to killing. Moreover, amid a world sick of death in the cause of defeating evil, I'm sure allied lives seemed precious indeed--while our enemy in turn, seemed neither to value his own nor those of the innocent. Those here who condemn the architects of Hiroshima seem to lack a certain humility in recognizing the frailties of decision-making mortal men grappling with dilemmas they have been spared. The allies spent $2 billion dollars on a huge gamble and it paid off--what extraordinary initiative at that time would have been needed for Truman to halt its deployment? Truman's judgement may seem wrong in the eyes of posterity, but can't one see how right it must have seemed to most of his contemporaries? (Please check your conspiracy theories at the door). :knight: :cheers:
Did the nuclear assault save a million allied lives
Did it save one? That's enough justification.
Touché. :knight: :cheers:
For example, we are here in this thread discussing whether war and nuking is moral or not. We agree on the facts - war exists, nukes exist, we even agree that U.S. nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki - but we have diametrically opposed judgement of their moral dimensions. How come?
Greek ancient philosophers said everything that is necessary to these days current populations to know about the subject. Even so populations knows nothing thanks to the Saxonic "teaching" system being imposed worldwide.
Harris should be shuted up immediately and Chomsky it's a leftist idiot living from that. At least he despises the other.
Did the nuclear assault save a million allied lives
Did it save one? That's enough justification.
The real fun it's that your enemies will not forget you words, and they'll be very glad on using your advices this time against you.
That's going to be really funny, oh yes. :)
For example, we are here in this thread discussing whether war and nuking is moral or not. We agree on the facts - war exists, nukes exist, we even agree that U.S. nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki - but we have diametrically opposed judgement of their moral dimensions. How come?
It's probably the large number of facts that you choose not to consider… :) But it also has much to do with your preference for absolutist systems. (Remember the advice: Keep things as simple as possible; but not simpler!)
BTW: Believing that the Urban Dictionary represents "normal English as the native speakers use it" is pretty silly! Who
ever put such an idea in your head?
[…] what to do about the definitional differences of morality, differences that are bound to have an effect on any and all understanding of moral dimensions, whatever the facts [?]
The presumption that there is
any understanding possible, "whatever the facts" is bizarre… I reject it.
Likewise, that you presume the conservatives I cite often are of one mind about even basic principles is naive: People don't "work" that way… :)
Greek ancient philosophers said everything that is necessary to these days current populations to know about the subject.
You mean such fragmentary bits as we've recovered are
sufficient? :)
You seem to have great trust in the validity of your prejudices,
Bel.
You mean such fragmentary bits as we've recovered are sufficient?
"Such fragmentary bits" are the very foundations to all the western reasoning.
You seem to have great trust in the validity of your prejudices, Bel.
You seem to be very unaware of your own ignorance. You effort yourself and read and read and read. Why do you don't understand anything at all? because of the Saxonic "teaching " system.
You are yourself and your circumstances, unfortunately your circumstances don't help. It's fate, it will never change. Get used to. :)
ISIS has claimed it will not destroy the ancient ruins at Palmyra - only the 'statues miscreants used to pray for'.
The extremist militants, who have already smashed up countless precious historical relics across Syria and Iraq, has apparently decided the much-loved UNESCO World Heritage site is worth saving.
Its loss, should it come to that, has been described as a crime against humanity.
(source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3099466/Islamic-State-shoots-dead-20-Palmyra-amphitheatre-monitor.html#ixzz3bTeu5SuB))
A crime against humanity? Yeah. Vandalism… But some people think more of their things than their fellows!
Hey,
ersi, do
you agree that the Islamic State needs to be decimated, at least? :)
Hey, ersi, do you agree that the Islamic State needs to be decimated, at least? :)
I agree the U.S. should not have started the war against Iraq. IS is a result of this war.
I have long thought that a state roughly in the shape of IS makes sense in the region. Except that it should have been Kurdistan. The U.S. invasion has been wrong on too many levels to discuss briefly.
"Such fragmentary bits" are the very foundations to all the western reasoning.
They are
some part of such foundations…
You seem to be very unaware of your own ignorance.
Of what am I ignorant? (Some specifics would help me understand what you're trying to say…)
"You are yourself and your circumstances" makes a good bumper-sticker, almost guaranteed to cause minor road accidents! :)
(Oh, yeah:
That "Saxonic teaching system"…
The curriculum was based on the Latin idea of the seven liberal arts: the trivium of grammar, rhetoric and dialectic, and the quadrivium of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. Barber argues that the quadrivium was an area for specialists only, and Lendinara argues that in the early Middle Ages grammar dominated the curriculum to the virtual exclusion of other disciplines. This may, she speculates, be because the Anglo-Saxons were not native speakers of Latin and needed to devote particular attention to grammar. The emphasis on grammar, however, became what characterized Anglo-Saxon preeminence in linguistics and their characteristic fascination with linguistic detail, reflected in the use of runic and cryptographic alphabets in manuscripts, the study of obscure vocabulary, the use of etymology as a pedagogical device and the fondness for riddles.
(source (http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/1001Foy.htm))
You'll note, most modern sources substitute Logic for Dialectic… That's probably a mistake: Most of ancient logic was lost before Aristotle began to write, and not re-discovered until 1879 — in Germany, of all places!
I agree the U.S. should not have started the war against Iraq. IS is a result of this war.
But do you agree that Iraq should not have started the war against the U.S.? Probably not… For you, facts are superfluous!
I think the war was justified — but bungled, after our victory. (As has been said by many, Bremer is arguably the worst proconsul ever.) IS is the result of that bungling: Thinking a pluralistic
democracy could be transplanted into or grafted onto an alien society… Pure stupidity!
I agree the U.S. should not have started the war against Iraq. IS is a result of this war.
But do you agree that Iraq should not have started the war against the U.S.? Probably not… For you, facts are superfluous!
Show me the fact how Iraq started the war.
I think the war was justified — but bungled, after our victory.
I disagree entirely. The war was absolutely unjustified - and you did not even win it.
It's probably the large number of facts that you choose not to consider… :)
Precisely my point. It's pretty obvious that we have to have some principle or guideline to decide what (other) facts are relevant to the (central) facts at hand. Otherwise we would debate about the scope of the facts endlessly. And the decision, if it ever came to that, would be totally random. We could just as well save all the steam and throw a coin or something.
But it also has much to do with your preference for absolutist systems. (Remember the advice: Keep things as simple as possible; but not simpler!)
Suppose I have such a preference (even though I don't). Isn't this a "fact" that you should consider somehow?
Edit: Alternatively, since I don't have such a preference, perhaps you should revise the manner in which you read facts? Being a reductionist and oversimplifier, you are unable to appreciate the nuances that I in fact express clearly enough.
My presupposition is that we always read our presumptions and assumptions into facts, inevitably. In order to stay adequate, a principled moderation of this tendency is in order. So, thanks for creating this thread. It is an excellent place to bash and mock your false assumptions, your prejudices, and your disregard for facts.
BTW: Believing that the Urban Dictionary represents "normal English as the native speakers use it" is pretty silly! Whoever put such an idea in your head?
It compares well to the usage at IRC. Just a fact of life.
The presumption that there is any understanding possible, "whatever the facts" is bizarre… I reject it.
And when you reject this, everybody will be free to associate the facts to whatever other facts they please. So, you are a principled man of lack of principle. A nihilist.
Likewise, that you presume the conservatives I cite often are of one mind about even basic principles is naive: People don't "work" that way… :)
Just another proof that they are not worth reading. They lack principle.
How did you work that one out Oakdale? Ersi stated that the US started the war and you have managed to morph that around> Ah-ha maybe some other country was it pretending in US uniforms? :lol:
How did you work that one out Oakdale?
Iraq invaded Kuwait and the U.N. decided to intervene. Mostly U.S. Army Calvary chased Iraqi forces back home… And left them free within their borders.
Fourteen uncomplied-with Security Counsel Resolutions later (and one attempted assassination of a retired U.S. president…), Iraq was still belligerent!
The No-fly Zones frequently shot at patrolling aircraft. The U.N. weapons inspectors were frequently denied access to sites of interest…
Saddam was playing a dangerous game. And he lost: He convinced the world's intelligence services that he had -at least- an immanent nuclear capability… That was the last straw.
(That's the "simple" version of the story, intended for Europeans.)
A crime against humanity? Yeah. Vandalism… But some people think more of their things than their fellows!
As if there were a conflict between the two. Killing people, taking away their culture, their children, their past, their future is all part of the same pattern. This has been done depressingly often in history, it is a wonder there is anything left of it.
Buildings and culture has a life span too. But their impact shouldn't be underestimated. There is a difference "this building looks like what the Romans could have lived in" and "these Romans lived in that building", it is embodied history.
Me, I care a lot about the history and buildings in Syria (I was about to go there before the run-up to the war). While Palmyra isn't top priority for me, I am still more concerned about its fate than about any building in the US. If it survives this it will likely outlast us, anything we will do, anyone we will know, and anyone they will know in their lifetime. If not, well, we will have its representation in the Daily Mail.
Locally I reflected on this, with the carnage as a backdrop. Södertälje is getting bigger, in part due to influx from Syria and Iraq, new buildings are being built. I visited a building site yesterday, in the centre with an archeological examination that had started a month ago. I learned that this was actually the first one in the city of Södertälje as this is the first building built in the centre since the 1960s when nobody cared. They barely cared enough to move the old buildings they were replacing, not for whatever was left in the ground.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-AzqFFMkydBk/VWd8Ipr-DWI/AAAAAAACYfU/w9EzyGGVH-Q/w1043-h415-no/DSC_7507-PANO.jpg)
At this picture the archaeology company has gotten rid of the 20th and 19th century, the cellar in the middle is from the 18th century with one behind burnt down in the fire in 1650 which allowed a modern town with a grid system to replace the medieval one.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sodertalje.se%2Fmainupload%2Fbilder%2FKommun%2520o%2520demokrati%2FOm%2520kommunen%2FArkivet%2Fkarta%25201648.JPG&hash=cdf396dfd19e0e7e5d90c354c14387ad" rel="cached" data-hash="cdf396dfd19e0e7e5d90c354c14387ad" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.sodertalje.se/mainupload/bilder/Kommun%20o%20demokrati/Om%20kommunen/Arkivet/karta%201648.JPG)
No great antiquity, no great architecture, no great archaeological value, but history unearthed for a week or so until it too will be shipped to a landfill somewhere while the archaeologists dig to look for the last layer below this before the construction of the 21st century building starts a couple weeks from now, to destroy or seal whatever is left for the 22nd or 23rd century to figure out. Sic transit gloria building.
He convinced the world's intelligence services that he had -at least- an immanent nuclear capability… That was the last straw.
(That's the "simple" version of the story, intended for Europeans.)
Saddam didn't. The intelligence was culled and filtered to justify war. Goring had it right. Manipulating the public is not hard:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
...
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/opinion/paul-krugman-errors-and-lies.html
Well, let’s not — because that’s a false narrative, and everyone who was involved in the debate over the war knows that it’s false. The Iraq war wasn’t an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on the basis of intelligence that turned out to be wrong. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war. The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at that. We were, in a fundamental sense, lied into war.
The fraudulence of the case for war was actually obvious even at the time: the ever-shifting arguments for an unchanging goal were a dead giveaway. So were the word games — the talk about W.M.D that conflated chemical weapons (which many people did think Saddam had) with nukes, the constant insinuations that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11.
...
This was, in short, a war the White House wanted, and all of the supposed mistakes that, as Jeb puts it, “were made” by someone unnamed actually flowed from this underlying desire. Did the intelligence agencies wrongly conclude that Iraq had chemical weapons and a nuclear program? That’s because they were under intense pressure to justify the war. Did prewar assessments vastly understate the difficulty and cost of occupation? That’s because the war party didn’t want to hear anything that might raise doubts about the rush to invade. Indeed, the Army’s chief of staff was effectively fired for questioning claims that the occupation phase would be cheap and easy.
The No-fly Zones frequently shot at patrolling aircraft. The U.N. weapons inspectors were frequently denied access to sites of interest…
Saddam was playing a dangerous game. And he lost: He convinced the world's intelligence services that he had -at least- an immanent nuclear capability… That was the last straw.
(That's the "simple" version of the story, intended for Europeans.)
Looking at the "simple" version, I suppose the "complicated" version can be only more false. The inspectors came out of the sites of interest declaring no nuclear weapons were there and to examine more sites only more time was needed.*
The "intelligence" only convinced W and Rumsfeld who (surprise, surprise) were already pre-convinced. Nobody in Europe bought it, except perhaps Blair (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jm0Qwcs53A).** In Eastern Europe (e.g. Poland, acknowledged by W as an ally against "the axis of evil") it was common perception that the so-called intelligence was just propagandistic pressure. The leaders in Eastern Europe went along with the war for completely different reasons than the so-called intelligence. The main reason why Easterners went along was to grab the historic opportunity to be on U.S. side in a real war - to mark all severance of ties to Russia.
And, anyway, Oakdale, you were saying something about "facts". Is "intelligence" - proven wrong after the fact and actually commonly known to be completely made up before the fact - the best "fact" you got?
* Time, not access, and time was not given by the U.S. The only time inspector Baradei's report mentions "access" is in the sentence "Iraq has continued to provide immediate access to all locations." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.unitednations
** I remembered that Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark was also on the supportive side, saying "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. This is not something we just believe. We know." - something that Danish intelligence officers (not to mention the intelligence officers everywhere, including CIA) never knew or believed. And he was litterally smeared for this (http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2003/03/18/denmark3.jpg) patently false opinion so, really, he might have been quite sincere, showing true spirit of sacrifice. Of course, he was soon enough rewarded with the Sec Gen post of NATO for this sacrifice.
i think the US did the right thing , in half .
The U.N sent mandate to intervere Mid-east conflicts .
but The U.S is just Overdo that .
rather than waiting The International alliance troops goes there .
they just went there , shoot here and there then take the credit .
they repeat that pattern , again and again until today .
it seems the U.S is just suffered somekind of insanity .
on the other hand ..
i think.. at this case we should see that objectively , not subjectively.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/opinion/paul-krugman-errors-and-lies.html
I'm sorry,
Jochie, but I've read Krugman's pieces in the N.Y. Times for years… Nothing he'd say would convince me of anything: He's a despicable shill. (But he gets away with it, because he once noticed a simple and obvious explanation of a trade equality asserting itself… BTW: It was only that he'd given a mathematical model that won him the prize. He understands less and less, it seems. So, he pontificates, with enough money to last him… :)
You'll note: He doesn't bother to "do" economics anymore; hasn't for decades… I'd bet he thinks he's an honorary Kennedy! :)
(Let's hope he doesn't drown a young lady whom he's driving home in his drunken stupor… Else, he'll never be President! What? Oh… Never mind. He's probably Jewish, anyway.)
His opinions about war and peace are what you'd expect:
His side is right and the "other side" is wrong; except when his side was wrong… Then, they were bamboozled or confused by circumstances; or not given enough POWER! (Or money… That one recurs on an amazingly frequent basis.)
You may like him - most scoundrels are likable; or appreciate his
semi-oratorical skills… (He does rabble-rouse well!) But you can't get away with using him a source of reasoned argument: He's never been interested in it.
He calls his Blog "Conscience of a Liberal" -dontcha know? But his definition of "liberal" doesn't predate himself — but that's typical! :)
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: Had we not humiliated the Emperor of Japan in an unambiguous way, his nation (and its people) would not have survived the end of this war… That was not an acceptable consummation:
I drink too much beer, sometimes. Others imbibe too much martial philosophy… If I die in a pool of my own vomit, a few will feel bad; and I'll be dead — which I will be fairly soon anyway. But that a nation, a people -despite their transgressions- should perish… That is something not to be contemplated!
The Japanese were ripe for retribution. And no one but the U.S. could save them.
You'll admit, they've done quite well, since…? :)
I drink too much beer, sometimes.
Earlier you have said it was whisky. Are you sure you know what you're drinking?
his nation (and its people) would not have survived the end of this war… That was not an acceptable consummation:
The only thing the world saw not surviving was your fleet at Pearl Harbour under their audacious attack.
Let me see... that was also another American victory I suppose, you simulated a military defeat so to have a justification for an atomic attack (on civilian targets) and therefore... save them? :) ... Bravo!
The Japanese were ripe for retribution. And no one but the U.S. could save them.
I'd suggest renaming the US military to Salvation-Army of the New World Order. :drunk:
I'd suggest renaming the US military to Salvation-Army of the New World Order
All war is hell.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F011%2F617%2FHitler.jpg&hash=785334293b8495876335b1c55b194cdf" rel="cached" data-hash="785334293b8495876335b1c55b194cdf" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/011/617/Hitler.jpg)
All war is hell.
You have the answer at your own signature,
in war everything is complicated by the presence of the enemy... It seems Americans forget that.
Too many Mojitos, Mr. Belfrager.
You've made the common mistake of overgeneralizing. Did you mean some Americans? Most Americans? Too many Americans? Too many Republicans?
You don't dislike an entire nation of people, do you? In that case, I dub you RjBelfrager.
Of what am I ignorant? (Some specifics would help me understand what you're trying to say…)
"You are yourself and your circumstances" makes a good bumper-sticker, almost guaranteed to cause minor road accidents! :)
Sorry, almost jumped that post, you've been a very prolific poster these last days. Trying to save the world with your wise words? :)
On the subject, I never "try to say", I always say very clearly what I said. Recognize however that I forgot frequently that I must talk in a
b-a: ba kind of way to certain readers.
You're ignorant that you're a Sophist, nothing but a Sophist and, very coherently, you don't even know what being a Sophist means.
(I'm afraid that not even the Wikipedi'as censorship to shape the world to the Saxonic teaching system will help you with this one.)
So, I suggest that without further delays we go to where we should be, at War. :)
I suppose that nobody said yet the first of things about War, that
in War, as in Love, everything goes. :)
RjBelfrager.
:) RjB?
I insist in be named firstly, BjR sounds better.
Course I don't dislike all Americans, very much the contrary, I feel very proud of considering many American people from here as my personal friends and I would treat you all very generously and kindly if you ever visit this part of the world. I just don't like your Governments (as many of you do, I suppose) and certain aspects of your culture.
How about Star Trek's V'Ger?
I just don't like your Governments (as many of you do, I suppose) and certain aspects of your culture.
Well, then, we're in agreement. Our excessive involvement in too many places in the world bothers me.
That may change unless we get a Republican president in 2016, in which case all bets are off. Or....
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2F00%2Fs%2FMTU5MVgxMjQ1%2Fz%2F1FEAAOSwrklVLCP3%2F%24_1.JPG%3Fset_id%3D880000500F&hash=7b4c66c0d8dc74393325831eeb34d403" rel="cached" data-hash="7b4c66c0d8dc74393325831eeb34d403" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTU5MVgxMjQ1/z/1FEAAOSwrklVLCP3/$_1.JPG?set_id=880000500F)
As an enemy, I'm neutral. I fight Democrats and Republicans indistinctly.
But I confess I use separate punctuations, some values more than the others...
Enemies can be neutral? I'm a bit confused.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plattscsd.org%2Flibrary%2Flibrary%2Fimages%2Fconfusion_11.jpg&hash=9d897dd25ff3a3734464994b397f02ec" rel="cached" data-hash="9d897dd25ff3a3734464994b397f02ec" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.plattscsd.org/library/library/images/confusion_11.jpg)
I'm a bit confused.
That's normal. If that makes you felling better you keep on being very photogenic.
Enemies can be neutral? I'm a bit confused.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plattscsd.org%2Flibrary%2Flibrary%2Fimages%2Fconfusion_11.jpg&hash=9d897dd25ff3a3734464994b397f02ec" rel="cached" data-hash="9d897dd25ff3a3734464994b397f02ec" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.plattscsd.org/library/library/images/confusion_11.jpg)
But not, I hope, indistinct.
I'm not going to get into, was Nuking the Japs a war crime......unless you outlaw war itself & make punishment for it retroactive you've got to be smoking angel-dust on that one..........,should we apologize, or not, or will an apology of words suffice, or not.
No, I'm going to be as blunt & crass as always.........I think my favorite part (based on historical records, not memory for I came to this world in the next decade) my favorite part of WWII was the Atomic Bombing of those 2 cities in Japan. The Nips got just what they deserved, or maybe even wanted. It was as fitting as the icing on a fine cake.....a piece we would all savor.
I enjoyed, & still enjoy the company of those for who would not be alive today if those bombs hadn't been dropped.......The thousands upon thousands of lives that would have been lost if we had to defeat the Japs in a more 'civil manner', because they lived, they have given birth to millions of progeny that wouldn't have had their first breaths of free air if those bombs went undelivered.
To this I dance with glee on the anniversaries of the dropping of those bombs, & my pity rests not with the dead, & suffering innocents who were pawns to their emperor, my sorrow rests solely with those who had to endure all those hardships the years prior to the development of those bombs that I wished had come sooner. I also have a place in my heart for those that developed the bombs themselves, one being my uncle who played a vital, but albeit a minor role, who spent untold sleepless nights during & after the bombs creation.
Though the bombs came too late to save my other uncle, who according to accounts died a horrifying death at the hands of his Jap captors, I can only wish, without reserve, an eternal suffering for those peoples the bombs detonated above, & the country that spawned them!
On another note, if my government ever decided to drop a nuke, or two, or few dozen somewhere in the middle east to eradicate those jihadist infestations & all their brethren, I say.....gung ho with gusto to that!
'nuff said, I think I made my point, & just one note more.............having been to war myself, & having to do what I did, not only because I had to, but because I wanted to....it was the right thing to do.....having been to war myself allows me to say "I don't do guilt" when it comes to war's necessary evils.
What a ludicrous comment that was!
Si using the A bombs was fine as that is war? That okays the Nazis then on that weird idea. You totally ignored the historical fact of what was going on behind the scenes regarding Japan dropping out the war. Being so absorbed by your own culture and ways you took no notice of the way Japanes culture worked even if it meant giving them a couple of things just to get the damn war over with. They knew they were finishedand were also trying to fin a way of giving up that would give them even a superficial thing to get where we all wanted - an end. I also made it clear about General McArthur already knew that the Japanese were coming round to an end and it was a play on the word 'surrender.' When the war did end it gave your corporates (as usual) a chance to make money out of those oh, so terrible Japs!
Japan was in ruins, food and equipment running out and the old tale is that the Japs would have fought for every inch so we must blast them to Hell. It is people like your neck of the woods that give your country a laugh for the rest of us but those bombs should never have been dropped. as the chidren of many of the injured were effected. You were gung-ho about dropping Agent Orange in Vietnam to so-called speed things up yet to this day there are still offspring of US soldiers who served there and got infected by your damn spraying. Does anyone take any notice of them - I bet they don't. Even the Emperor knew what had to be done and instead of pushing the things that were going on behind those scenes you did the usual to hell with anybody. Disgusting and immoral.
Disgusting and immoral
There is no war that not Disgusting and immoral .
on the other hand , luckily The U.S Nuke the Nation of Smart People .
Smart people will understand, and retreat if they meet stronger enemies .
but i guess that methode wont works , in Mid-east .
because you deal with idiots there .
Idiots , will never give up even they meet stronger enemy .
they will keep fighting even must lost everything .
Smiley, I agree with most of what you said (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=1125.msg40639#msg40639) — up to the last two paragraphs…
Sparta, I really wish I knew your first language: The points you just made are -as the Brits say- spot-on! Your understanding is keen.
@Smiley: I'm a Vietnam era vet — no combat experience. But I remember a California legislator who said the obvious: "War is killing people and breaking things." I'm still amazed at how few people understand this…
@Howie: You're more the type to clack her knitting needles, aren't you? :) You said, "Even the Emperor knew what had to be done and instead of pushing the things that were going on behind those scenes you did the usual to hell with anybody. Disgusting and immoral."
We effected the end without invading the home islands. And precluded the Russians from doing so… (Not an inconsequential feat!)
But I remember a California legislator who said the obvious: "War is killing people and breaking things." I'm still amazed at how few people understand this…
Point out anyone who doesn't understand this. Everybody understands this. And this is the very reason why nobody wants to end up in a war. You have to be a pretty sick puppy to know war and like it.
Does a surgeon just like cutting people open? (And what about the coroner? :) ) Surely you know more of history than your recent comments indicate…
@Smiley: As Pournelle and Possony said (if I remember correctly…) in their Strategy of Technology, the ways of war change and our best hope of winning is to change them in our favor — by the means which we master, before others can. (Clumsy sentence, I know. What follows was what I wanted to say; this was just to give you a hint to its source.)
I presume that we have given up research on neutron bombs, and tactical nukes of all sorts — for humanitarian reasons, no doubt! That is to say, most of the people in positions of power would cause as much destruction and death as possible — rather than win against a determined enemy.
(I've found [ftp=ftp://cpc1-seac23-2-0-cust35.7-2.cable.virginm.net/shares/USB_Storage/Media/Books/Non-Medical/Jerry%20Pournelle/Jerry%20Pournelle%20-%20The%20Strategy%20of%20Technology.pdf]a new edition[/ftp] in PDF-format, and free. I've not read it yet…)
Does a surgeon just like cutting people open? (And what about the coroner? :) )
They don't
just like it, but they
do like it. Why else did they pick the job?
The same applies to executioners. Warmongerers are closer to executioners, not surgeons. Except that executioners have authorities above them who tell whom to execute, and the executioner obeys with precision. Executioners are not allowed "collateral damage" or "friendly fire".
Warmongerers have no such authority above themselves nor vested in themselves, so they are more like psychopathic serial killers on the loose. Now try to tell me I don't understand war.
Surely you know more of history than your recent comments indicate…
Indeed, I know so much that it's tough to fit it all into brief comments. You, on the other hand know nothing and you don't want to know either, as your recent comments amply indicate.
They don't just like it, but they do like it. Why else did they pick the job?
The same applies to executioners. War-mongerers are closer to executioners, not surgeons. Except that executioners have authorities above them who tell whom to execute, and the executioner obeys with precision. Executioners are not allowed "collateral damage" or "friendly fire".
War-mongerers have no such authority above themselves nor vested in themselves, so they are more like psychopathic serial killers on the loose. Now try to tell me I don't understand war.
Easily: You're the psychopath who would let his civilization die, so that
he, himself can seem
pure…
You don't understand war because you reject most of human history. (I suspect your "system" doesn't accommodate what should probably be called "reality"… But. for you, that's no impediment! You have a logic based upon people you've never known and whom you can't understand. But you would play the fool… Estonia should remain free and prosper; but -do I miss my guess?- you don't think so? (Is it merely their NATO membership, and -perhaps- their commitment to capitalism? If so, your "indoctrination" was very effective!
Mine was too: I am an American. I don't really know what you are. I don't think you do, either.)
If you have a means to preclude War, by all means: Pontificate!
(Or masturbate — I think, is the more appropriate term.)
But if you think you understand those who fight wars (or even those who order wars to be fought…) you're dumber than I could have imagined!
Or you've remained deliberately silent…
Why would you do that?
A quote from the linked-to book:
[…] opponent, not with hopes and dreams about his goal is. [I let this go, because it is very ersi and Belfrager-like… :) ] The dynamics of dictatorship provide continuing source of ambitious advisors who will counsel the rulers of the Soviet Union toward aggressive action, and only through continuous engagement in the Technological War can the United States ensure peace and survival.
Because the goals of the United States and the U.S.S.R. are asymmetric, the strategies each employ in the Technological War necessarily are different. The United States is dedicated to a strategy of stability. We are a stabilizing rather than a disturbing power and our goal is preserving the status quo and the balance of power rather than seeking conquest and the final solution to the problems of international conflict through occupation or extermination of all opponents. In a word, the U.S. sees the Technological War as an infinite game, one played for the sake of continuing to play, rather than for the sake of "victory" in the narrow sense. The U.S.S.R. is expansionist; aggressive; a disturber power which officially states that the only true peace is that of world Communism. Marxist theory would make the Technological War a finite game, to be ended with a clean win.
I'm pretty sure you will not understand this…
But others will.
I'll have mercy on you and ignore most of your drivel. Just the faint points that remotely show some dim rationality.
Estonia should remain free and prosper; but -do I miss my guess?- you don't think so?
Yes, you missed it by a wide margin. Thanks for having the sense to ask.
Now, let me guess: Estonia should remain free and prosper - but on your terms. Anything else but your terms are not freedom and prosperity and countries that don't live on your terms should feel the full wrath of war. (No need to answer, by the way. Hitherto you have gracefully allowed all my rhetorical questions make their point, so don't slip here.)
If you have a means to preclude War, by all means: ----
Ferociously equivocating on
is and
should, aren't we? By your twisted reasoning, everything that
is is, but
should is not.
Whereas by my reasoning, morality is all about
should. There are loons and psychos loose sowing mayhem and chaos - this is an
is. Rightly, they
should be locked up. Sometimes justice happens, but even when it doesn't, it does not make the loons and psychos any less loons or psychos and it does not obviate what they'd rightly deserve.
I am not someone to give up morality when morality is under trial, as opposed to you who never had it in the first place.
War has codes. If not, it's proper of savages, animals and idiots.
Foolish the so called pacifists that thinks that war is not proper of man, foolish the imbeciles that thinks that war has no rules but the rule of the winner.
Now, let me guess: Estonia should remain free and prosper - but on your terms. Anything else but your terms are not freedom and prosperity and countries that don't live on your terms should feel the full wrath of war.
There is a need to answer your
strawman…
Neither
my terms nor my
nation's will matter — except insofar as NATO terms apply. The U.S. has treaty obligations… As do many other countries. (Don't worry about the near future: The Obama administration doesn't honor commitments…) Would you have Estonia leave NATO? Use your political and rhetorical power to effect that.
Did the Soviet Union behave in a moral way towards your country? Do you think the Russians will in the future?
But, I'd ask, What would
you do about another take-over? What would you want others to do?
War has codes.
When you fight others whose "code" is very different from yours, should you just let them win? Or should you adapt to the enemy's way of war and defeat him?
Tough choice, eh? :)
It seems to me that some intellectuals have a death wish… I can accept that, for the individuals themselves. But I don't like the idea that they would want to take so many others with them.
There is a need to answer your strawman…
Neither my terms nor my nation's will matter — except insofar as NATO terms apply. The U.S. has treaty obligations…
Remember, this discussion started with nuking of Japan and with Iraq war. What treaty obligations necessitated these actions? None. It was just U.S. behaving on its own terms, disregarding all other reality. And this is a fact, has been a fact all along, not a strawman.
Did the Soviet Union behave in a moral way towards your country? Do you think the Russians will in the future?
By their behaviour I know what they are. By your behaviour I know what you are. Just a matter of observation. Doesn't even require much thinking.
But, I'd ask, What would you do about another take-over? What would you want others to do?
If justice were acknowledged, we would not have international bullies and countries that behave like subhuman moral bastards. But I am not someone to strawman the world. Nor am I someone to draw up the world according to my own liking. Reality simply exists to draw the right and true conclusions about it.
So, to answer your question, the principle is that when someone is in distress, you can help, but if you intend to be a bitch about it, better don't help, because you are obviously not helping really, only adding to the distress.
You are evidently aiming to boast that U.S. is the best and nicest taker-over of the world, but those who have been taken over have a whole different perspective that you are constantly refusing to acknowledge. And this refusal makes U.S. just another bully, not too different from Russia.
War has codes.
When you fight others whose "code" is very different from yours, should you just let them win? Or should you adapt to the enemy's way of war and defeat him?
Tough choice, eh? :)
Doesn't it matter at all
how you win? And if not, then why should winning itself matter?
I say that the wrong way of winning is worse than losing.
Remember, this discussion started with nuking of Japan and with Iraq war. What treaty obligations necessitated these actions? None.
Not quite none…
Japan declared
de facto war on the U.S. by bombing the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor. We fought for years and, finally, won — without having to kill them all. I doubt many of their other enemies would have been so kind…
Fourteen U.N. Security Counsel resolutions went unfulfilled by Iraq… And Saddam attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president! But you believe in international law, etc., right?
If it makes you feel any better, I'll ask NATO to free your country from its "foreign entanglements". (I don't think my specification of "just you" will hold water…)
Doesn't it matter at all how you win?
Of course. Are you saying you'd have preferred more death and destruction? You're a
strange sort of pacifist. (Almost a Gandhi! He thought the Jews should be willing to become dust to please his "system". The NAZIs would have felt
so bad…)
And if not, then why should winning itself matter?
I say that the wrong way of winning is worse than losing.
You can say that. But you know what that makes you…
Specially if your own ass isn't on the line.
If you grow up defeated and accept it, you will -no matter what- remain defeated. But who would you wish others to be? An image of your crippled self? Is it a form of "misery loves company"?
Remember, this discussion started with nuking of Japan and with Iraq war. What treaty obligations necessitated these actions? None.
Not quite none…
Japan declared de facto war on the U.S. by bombing the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor. We fought for years and, finally, won — without having to kill them all. I doubt many of their other enemies would have been so kind…
One bully beats another bully up. The moral lesson you draw is "That was kind." Telling.
Fourteen U.N. Security Counsel resolutions went unfulfilled by Iraq… And Saddam attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president! But you believe in international law, etc., right?
What was the content of those resolutions? Did any of them call for invasion? Let's see what National Security Archive has to say about the invasion.
As a result of the U.S. and British campaign, and after prolonged negotiations between the United States, Britain, France, Russia and other U.N. Security Council members, the United Nations declared that Iraq would have to accept even more intrusive inspections than under the previous inspection regime - to be carried out by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - or face "serious consequences." Iraq agreed to accept the U.N. decision and inspections resumed in late November 2002. [...]
Over the next several months, inspections continued in Iraq, and the chief inspectors, Hans Blix (UNMOVIC) and Mohammed El Baradei (IAEA) provided periodic updates to the U.N. Security Council concerning the extent of Iraqi cooperation, what they had or had not discovered, and what they believed remained to be done. During that period the Bush administration, as well as the Tony Blair administration in the United Kingdom, charged that Iraq was not living up to the requirement that it fully disclose its WMD activities, and declared that if it continued along that path, "serious consequences" - that is, invasion - should follow.
The trigger for military action preferred by the British government, other allies, and at least some segments of the Bush administration, was a second U.N. resolution that would authorize an armed response. Other key U.N. Security Council members - including France, Germany, and Russia - argued that the inspections were working and that the inspectors should be allowed to continue. When it became apparent that the Council would not approve a second resolution, the United States and Britain terminated their attempts to obtain it. Instead, they, along with other allies, launched [the invasion].
So, to summarise, the first paragraph says the U.S and "allies" pressured U.N. for more inspections - and got it. And Iraq agreed to it.
Next paragraph says that inspections began. Earlier I quoted Baradei saying that Iraq was fully cooperative, but National Security Archive here recalls that U.S. and "allies" charged that Iraq was not compliant enough. Who is to be believed in case of such conflict? Inspectors were there to precisely to determine the facts, and they were there precisely because the security council had demanded it, but U.S. and allies were rejecting the facts, because facts were not suitable to justify the invasion.
And the last paragraph says that U.S. and "allies" finally got impatient, dropped any pretense of due procedure and simply invaded regardless of any U.N. resolutions.
Does this agree with the way you remember the course of events or not? It does with mine.
I would gladly give some credit to you if some little fact were on your side, but unfortunately I cannot. None of the facts is on your side. Your talk consists entirely of puffed-up nationalistically deluded ideological bluff.
When you fight others whose "code" is very different from yours, should you just let them win? Or should you adapt to the enemy's way of war and defeat him?
If there's a war it's because I don't let them win nor I adapt to anything at all... duhhh
Your refusal about accepting that using atomic bombs over defenseless civilian populations it's unacceptable only shows to the world the danger your country is to civilization. Keep on saying it and say it loud, it's favor you do to me.
That's not the better way of defending yourselves, unlike with Japan today there's a lot of people that may want to experiment your own theories on you.
Your refusal about accepting that using atomic bombs over defenseless civilian populations it's unacceptable only shows to the world the danger your country is to civilization.
In fact, what OakdaleFTL tries to defend desperately is nothing else but the new US war doctrine.
I pointed out years ago that the Bush regime had changed U.S. war doctrine such that the role of nuclear weapons was no longer retaliatory to be used in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. It was elevated to a first strike position. It is now our war doctrine that we can initiate a nuclear war on somebody we don’t like, or who we think might not agree with us, or who we think might be prepared to go to war against us. This doctrine applies to countries that do not have nuclear weapons.
source (http://lettersfromglobistan.com/2015/04/04/exceptional-only-in-hypocrisy-the-defining-principle-in-americas-foreign-policy/)
So it doesn't come as a surprise if the USA is perceived as the biggest threat to world piece.
So it doesn't come as a surprise if the USA is perceived as the biggest threat to world piece.
"Piece" was a typo, wasn't it? :) (Probably not: Most former imperialists think that America's influence keeps them from getting their piece, the influence and riches they "earned" by conquering and exploiting primitive peoples the world over. Not to say that
we didn't do it to… :) But we let them run casinos!)
Your source,
Krake, is easily seen to be a case of early-onset senility…
Would you be happy, to see the U.S. retire from the "international" stage? (Work out the impact on your economy…)
Given the real motives and documented objectives of American foreign policy, it is exceedingly clear that Russia’s true crime is her all-too-real ability to defend herself in the world stage. How can American leaders accuse Russia of shameless nuclear intimidation when they openly advocate for the exclusive right of preemptive nuclear war–even against nations without nuclear weapons?
(Krake's source)
These are the ravings of a man who'd long ago lost his senses… And, yet, you take them for
gospel… Damn you and your ilk!
My country
should reasonably reject any and all calls for help, if you are a representative of yours.
But you're not, are you? You're just another crank… You should pray that you don't get what you think you want! :(
We can survive pretty much anything others can do. You are not so fortunate…
We can survive pretty much anything others can do. You are not so fortunate…
You survive nothing, not even a couple (plus the third one right on the Pentagon) of your own airplanes. Stop trolling Oakdale, it's not proper of you.
Ooh! Did someone's feelings get hurt? She must be terribly, terribly… Oh so terribly humiliated! Else why make such an outrageous claim?
Bel, the U.S. will even survive the "reign" of Obama… :)
I'm not "trolling," Belfrager: I'm just not allowing ignorant un-experienced and generally stupid people to set limits upon what I can discuss!
I don't know what can be done about Europe. What's more disquieting is, few (…none, as far as I can tell) in Europe do, either. (Russia -and the emigrant population that is on the way to supplanting western Europeans- pose actual strategic problems that no continental intellectual cares about. (The one or two who would even talk about such are harassed by "hate speech" laws…)
Do you have any type of plan for assimilating Muslim populations into European countries? (I don't have one for my country, either… Those who'd become Americans would, I'd insist, want to become American! Does that strike you as particularly odd? :)
The "other" reasons they might want to be here are not too difficult to imagine, in today's world…)
Would you be happy, to see the U.S. retire from the "international" stage? (Work out the impact on your economy…)
If by retiring from the "international" stage you mean to stop meddling in any corner of the world, then yes.
As for our economy, the industrial espionage your brave people are doing here, it must be a really blessing.
As a side note - while making pessures on your European vassals to stop trade relations with Russia, US trade volume with Russia has encreased by 15% lately.
Your source, Krake, is easily seen to be a case of early-onset senility…
So, so. Wonder who the senile is. :)
What about the new US war doctrine? Do you like it? Isn't it great? You can be sure that the world took notice of it except you can't never be sure how each one will react...
My country should reasonably reject any and all calls for help, if you are a representative of yours.
Are you kidding me? Asking for help? Wonder if your words are the result of blatant ignorance or just the usual hypocrisy.
Are you supposing that US nukes stationed here are for protecting Germany or Europe?
It doesn't need a genius to realise what are they stationed here for. It shouldn't be even for someone like you.
I don't know what can be done about Europe.
Simply, pour more gasoline into the fire. It worked for Iraq, Libya and Syria. Why shouldn't it work for the Ukraine?
After all, Europe must also have its part of fun.
(Russia -and the emigrant population that is on the way to supplanting western Europeans- pose actual strategic problems that no continental intellectual cares about.
That's what we have you for. An intelectual from over the pond who can solve any problem, at least as long as it isn't his own one. :)
Do you have any type of plan for assimilating Muslim populations into European countries?
After setting up the fire in the Middle East you are asking an European for a plan to assimilate Muslim populations?
You must have a very odd sense of humor.
BTW, you did "assimilate" the Indians before. Would that work for Muslims too?
We can survive pretty much anything others can do. You are not so fortunate…
You survive nothing, not even a couple (plus the third one right on the Pentagon) of your own airplanes. Stop trolling Oakdale, it's not proper of you.
Absolutely agree.
The whole American culture has changed. The Patriot Act, neighborhoods in NYC off limit to vehicle traffic and some streets even blocked to pedestrian traffic, constant security checks in major office buildings, the TSA security theatre, etc.
Compare that to England, a quote I found
In 1940-1941 Britain was bombed constantly by the Germans. During one two-month period at the end of 1940 London was bombed every single night -- like having 9/11 every night, in the dark, for two months. They coped. They also grieved and remembered lost loved ones. But they didn't whine and complain about memorials and other grief expression spots for the rest of their lives.
We have more 9/11 memorials in the U.S. and grief expression spots than the actual number of victims.
DnD Sanctuary: An international discussion forum for debating everything under the sun and for making nasty derogatory statements to posters we disagree with.
DnD Sanctuary: An international discussion forum for debating everything under the sun and for making nasty derogatory statements to posters we disagree with.
Well---
somebody's gotta do it....
I never thought about it that way. Makes me smile!
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjEOGp2iuuDgX-5-mlYF_QzMLm80nWIpZ98Z9FEzKcvU51YJfXUg)
Ooh! Did someone's feelings get hurt? She must be terribly, terribly… Oh so terribly humiliated! Else why make such an outrageous claim?
Bel, the U.S. will even survive the "reign" of Obama… :)
I'm not "trolling," Belfrager: I'm just not allowing ignorant un-experienced and generally stupid people to set limits upon what I can discuss!
I don't know what can be done about Europe. What's more disquieting is, few (…none, as far as I can tell) in Europe do, either. (Russia -and the emigrant population that is on the way to supplanting western Europeans- pose actual strategic problems that no continental intellectual cares about. (The one or two who would even talk about such are harassed by "hate speech" laws…)
Do you have any type of plan for assimilating Muslim populations into European countries? (I don't have one for my country, either… Those who'd become Americans would, I'd insist, want to become American! Does that strike you as particularly odd? :)
The "other" reasons they might want to be here are not too difficult to imagine, in today's world…)
What made you think that I'm done with your extermination of civilian populations by using atomics bombs on men, women, children and old people?
Don't you worry with Europe, Russia or how Europe has a plan to "assimilate Muslim populations" (do I need to remember you how racist, how so much against religious freedom and how so proper of the lowest social classes your words are?).
Worry with yourselves.
The whole American culture has changed.
You are very right. That's Oakdale's problem, he certainly loves his country but his country, as he knew it, doesn't exist anymore.
I understand such feeling, many of us are orphans of a world that has disappeared. Gone forever.
Bel, I have a question. When--- since the end of WW2-- did the US use nuclear weapons against civilian populations?
I exclude WW2 because of course everybody has a handle of some sort about that. This question is about since then--- since you seem to want to crucify the US over continued use of these weapons against civilian populations.
Ooh! Did someone's feelings get hurt? She must be terribly, terribly… Oh so terribly humiliated! Else why make such an outrageous claim?
Bel, the U.S. will even survive the "reign" of Obama… :)
I'm not "trolling," Belfrager: I'm just not allowing ignorant un-experienced and generally stupid people to set limits upon what I can discuss!
I don't know what can be done about Europe. What's more disquieting is, few (…none, as far as I can tell) in Europe do, either. (Russia -and the emigrant population that is on the way to supplanting western Europeans- pose actual strategic problems that no continental intellectual cares about. (The one or two who would even talk about such are harassed by "hate speech" laws…)
Do you have any type of plan for assimilating Muslim populations into European countries? (I don't have one for my country, either… Those who'd become Americans would, I'd insist, want to become American! Does that strike you as particularly odd? :)
The "other" reasons they might want to be here are not too difficult to imagine, in today's world…)
What made you think that I'm done with your extermination of civilian populations by using atomics bombs on men, women, children and old people?
Don't you worry with Europe, Russia or how Europe has a plan to "assimilate Muslim populations" (do I need to remember you how racist, how so much against religious freedom and how so proper of the lowest social classes your words are?).
Worry with yourselves.
Erm, Belfrager, you do remember that you dropped the "n" bomb not a week ago.....right?
The "N" bomb?
If he said "nigger" I didn't give it much weight. I was one of very few in my neighborhood who
never used the term in casual or emotional speech. (I was lucky enough to hear Lenny Bruce's rant, before I reached my teens… He may have been a sick f**k, but he had some understanding of how people get along that he expressed in an unforgettable way.) The primary meaning is derogatory, an insult meant to evoke rage or allow the acquiescence -timidity!- in a class system based upon skin color.
There's no way I could have used that word.
But many of my friends did. I just chose not to…
he certainly loves his country but his country, as he knew it, doesn't exist anymore.
I understand such feeling, many of us are orphans of a world that has disappeared. Gone forever.
I am -despite my age- not so pessimistic. Your history perhaps makes you so. But mine does not.
@
Belfrager: Please use a dictionary, to find the meaning of "extermination"… We killed upwards of 300,000 Japanese with our two A-bombs. (That should satisfy your caveats about radiation poisoning, etc., eh? :) ) Had either the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. had to invade the home islands, how many people would have died?
(You too can try to answer that question,
ersi.)
We did the best we could, with what we had, based upon what we knew then. But some of you think we should have been omniscient… Very well:
You take over!
If you screw the pooch, don't ask us to return to the fray.
If you attack us, we will retaliate…
@Belfrager: Please use a dictionary, to find the meaning of "extermination"… We killed upwards of 300,000 Japanese with our two A-bombs. (That should satisfy your caveats about radiation poisoning, etc., eh? :) ) Had either the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. had to invade the home islands, how many people would have died?
(You too can try to answer that question, ersi.)
As long as you are basically saying "We could have killed them
all, but we didn't. Therefore we are saintly good!", you are just not making sense from the
moral point of view. Nothing to answer, because you are not asking anything sensible.
Apparently, the only "moral" actors when wars occur are the monks who self-immolate… Way to go, team!
But I suspect you'd also applaud any country that loses… (You seem to be that kind of guy.)
As long as you are basically saying "We could have killed them all, but we didn't. Therefore we are saintly good!", you are just not making sense from the moral point of view. Nothing to answer, because you are not asking anything sensible.
Please delete the "saintly" and replace it with "as much as we could be"…
Your fantasy world has never been where nations, especially nations at war, inhabit.
The "moral point of view" is -as you posit it- stupid. It calls for nothing less than suicide… Is that what you'd promote? (Gandhi suggested that, to the Jews too. BTW: What happened to him? And you'll note that the two countries he helped to create are both nuclear powers… Very pacifistic!)
Rather than lotus eaters you'd like us to be lemmings!? Dream on!
as we know ...
NAZI , Japan and italy was ally at that time .
NAzi want to rule the Europe , while Japan want to rule asia , and south east asia .
japanese army is not a joke, their cruelty is inhuman .
of course that was also their tactic to planting fear , to gain respect from the people in their teritories .
The U.S Nuked japan is something bad for the Japanese , for sure ..
but something good for another country .
especially Japan's colony in asia and south east asia .
since .. because of that event, some of them have a chance to Declare their freedom .
on the other hand, not every people nor not every nation are expansionists .
but it does not mean , there are no nations that not obsessed with Expansionism .
AKA , World Domination .
And the USA can get the credit for the monks who set themselves alight in S. Vietnam. In the early days of that mess war a Buddist country was run by an RC dictatorshp supported by the land of the free and home of the brave.
i unsure what is the U.S motives with overdo the U.N jobs .
for credit , make a portfolio , or perhaps another ?
but it seems, the U.S should aware .
because With Great credit , comes tons of enemies .
Please delete the "saintly" and replace it with "as much as we could be"…
As already demonstrated, U.S. didn't even try to be moral. My point was that the adjective "good" is inapplicable here, whatever qualifications we might try to invent. I am not even saying U.S. was not good enough. From the moral point of view, U.S. was evil, and you have provided precisely zero counterargument to this, not even a bit of fact.
Your fantasy world has never been where nations, especially nations at war, inhabit.
At this point you are here alone facing everybody else's differing opinion. This should indicate who lives in fantasies.
The "moral point of view" is -as you posit it- stupid.
Well, this is what I have been saying all along. You disagree with the moral point of view and you replace it with your own immoral point of view and call it (morally) better. Sheer fantasy.
Ersi , at least if want to insult someone , do it like a Sir .
otherwise, perhaps in urban-maxim it used to be expressed as " literally too stupid to insult "
As already demonstrated, U.S. didn't even try to be moral
this was hasty generalization fallacy .
please take a note , i do not have any tendency to the U.S .
but , it is just scientifically annoying , when
every thread goes bad like Jimbro's prophecy .
From the moral point of view, U.S. was evil
What in the world does that mean? A nation, any nation, can be evil? Pick the most egregiously bad national behavior, eg. Nazi Germany, and tell us that
Germany was evil. There was opposition to Hitler within the German army.
Was the Stalinist regime evil? Of course it was. Was there opposition to the regime within Russia? Of course there was, even within the military.
It's easy to single out a nation for ridicule, but it's absurd. How about your country?
Greece, perhaps? We could have fun with Greece. I've often wondered why people post here without indicating their national identity.
From the moral point of view, U.S. was evil
What in the world does that mean? A nation, any nation, can be evil? Pick the most egregiously bad national behavior, eg. Nazi Germany, and tell us that Germany was evil.
Oh. You are not Oakdale, so I must assume there's some integrity, perhaps pedagogical astuteness speaking.
As it's recommended these days, one must not say that the kid is bad. It's some of his
deeds that are bad. (I am yet to be convinced the difference is all that big, but okay for now.)
Was the Stalin regime evil? Of course it was.
Indeed. When evidence points that way, nothing to argue really.
Oh. You are not Oakdale
:o :insane: :zzz:
Erm, Belfrager, you do remember that you dropped the "n" bomb not a week ago.....right?
My good friend, you can call me racist a thousand times consecutively every day and that will only make me laugh. I'm not subject to American hypocrisy and your "political correctness". Nor I have or will ever had a black "president".
If you attack us, we will retaliate…
Keep on dreaming...
Said that, I must say that this a very nice thread, a "fracture" thread. Finally.
Unfortunately, opposition it's not at the same level to make it flourish.
[video]https://vimeo.com/128373915[/video]
Did the nuclear assault save a million allied lives ). :knight: :cheers:
Did it save one?
That would have been enough.
Did it save one?
It saved as many as the firebombings of Dresden did... :sst:
This photo is that of a distant relative of my brother-in-law who was in the European theater.
I find it a bit disturbing, but things change when almost the entire nation is behind a war. My parents bought me an army officers uniform, and I was in a childish heaven. By the time Vietnam came around, I was disgusted by war.
(https://scontent-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10995655_1057904367556529_4230068976769812076_n.jpg?oh=ac9a648a570305c1fbbdce1945822da8&oe=55FAF06C)
This is the tombstone of my brother-in-law.
(https://scontent-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/t31.0-8/11425198_10204820515767805_4807949672745568416_o.jpg)
they started to re-write history!
(A fairly common European reaction.)
What a funny accusation from those that purely invent history.
Erm, Belfrager, you do remember that you dropped the "n" bomb not a week ago.....right?
My good friend, you can call me racist a thousand times consecutively every day and that will only make me laugh. I'm not subject to American hypocrisy and your "political correctness". Nor I have or will ever had a black "president".
If you attack us, we will retaliate…
Keep on dreaming...
Said that, I must say that this a very nice thread, a "fracture" thread. Finally.
Unfortunately, opposition it's not at the same level to make it flourish.
Nope, wasn't calling you a racist, my Portuguese friend; was just pointing out a bit of irony. :beer: :wine:
Hmm, never say never. Immigration tends to change a nation's make up quite a bit. And your lot are accepting loads of African immigrants at this present time. Who can say what will happen in the next generation's time?