Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

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! 

RjBelfrager.

I just don't like your Governments (as many of you do, I suppose) and certain aspects of your culture.

I'm a bit confused.

Enemies can be neutral? I'm a bit confused.

Disgusting and immoral

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…

Does a surgeon just like cutting people open? (And what about the coroner? )

Surely you know more of history than your recent comments 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.

[…] 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.

Estonia should remain free and prosper; but -do I miss my guess?- you don't think so?

If you have a means to preclude War, by all means: ----

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.

War has codes.

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…

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?

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-06-01, 14:12:19

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?

Remember, this discussion started with nuking of Japan and with Iraq war. What treaty obligations necessitated these actions? None.

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.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-06-01, 21:15:32

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?

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].

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?

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.

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