quade 4 #101 August 25, 2004 Quote So, did anyone actually watch the show? I channel-changed through just as Kerry was leaving. I watched it and it was entertaining. Kerry came off less of a stiff than I've ever seen him and Stewart and he bantered a bit about all the different controversies. I'm a little surprised they don'e have videos up yet, but maybe it takes them a couple of days.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #102 August 25, 2004 Quote Quotehe Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army Group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulate to the Allies.. They had as much influence over the Emperor as he does over him, something that is often misunderstood. The Emperor (who is divine but its not worth getting into the differences in 'god' and 'divinity' in the Japanese culture here) understands the implications of giving such an order to his soldiers and so would never do so, until it was generally agreed that fighting was useless. It took two bombs to convince them, and many still took their own lives in shame for their failure the targets for the bombs certainly could have been different, but the demonstration of the futility of fighting was still necessary to convince their warrior class and the people as a whole. Notice the wording carefully writting to omit 'defeat'. without citing the quotes your references on 'lower casualties' for invasion are useless. All studies and evaluations I have seem from the same institutions concluded an invasion to be a much more costly option... QuoteOh, and find me any military leaders at the time that thought it WAS a good idea. The decision to drop it was made by non-military policy decision makers. only about 'where' not 'if'. Politicians usually get it wrong in one way or another….____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #103 August 25, 2004 QuoteThe Emperor was ready to surrender and ORDER his people to do the same. Are you saying they wouldn't have obeyed their living god? And that is the ONLY reason they did. The Emperor did not ask congress to surrender till AFTER the second bomb. QuoteWhat does that have to do with all the military leaders opposed to it before hand? You are the one claiming that modern military schools say it was the right thing. That's not only hindsite, it's incorrect. It is hindsite, but it is not incorrect. And youhave yet to show MILITARY experts saying it was a bad choice. QuoteExactly the point. The entire reason, motivation, and decision makers for dropping the bombs was politcal. Had NOTHING to do with military tactics. Wrong...I guess you would have rather exterminated an entire nation? It would have taken that. They had 2.5 MILLION well armed people, and the rest of the nation would have fought along side them. If it was not for the fact that they thought they had no chance by us turning them into ashes...It would have been bloody as hell. You can bring up that Russia joining made them think...but they knew Russia was going to join us for mths and it did nothing. An invasion of Japan would have been long, and bloody. Think about Iraq, and magnify that a million times. If the Emperor had not begged congress to surrender it would have been ugly. As it was the War General commited suicide the day after the surrender in shame. I REALLY suggest you study the code of the Bushido a bit...Remember they were willing to commit suicide to win. They had 20,000 Kamakazi pilots waiting. Seriously...Read up on Bushido..Some of those guys were still fighting the war 30 years later. http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/ QuoteThe Bushido mentality of Japanese soldiers During World War II, Japanese society was a volatile combination of feudalism and nationalism that concluded in a national acceptance of military rule during the war years. The Japanese armed forces were a highly nationalistic, well established modern fighting force. Their doctrine was the Bushido code of feudal Japan permitted the fighting code of Japan's servicemen. Bushido, the code of the Samurai warrior extolled the offensive, created a lust of battle and condemned weakness. It demanded bravery, loyalty, allegiance to orders and forbade surrender. It was believed that death in combat was honorable. In combat, this code was used to rally troops into suicidal banzai charges, or to encourage encircled troops to take their own lives with grenades before they could be captured. Surrender was disgraceful not only to the soldier, but to his entire family. There are documented accounts of soldier's wives driving themselves to disgrace or death because of rumors that their husband dishonorably surrendered. Even after decades after the war was over, Japanese holdouts wept openly when they heard the war was over, refused to surrender to anyone other than their commanding officer, or apologized for not serving his majesty to satisfaction. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #104 August 25, 2004 QuoteAnd youhave yet to show MILITARY experts saying it was a bad choice. Look again. I certainly did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #105 August 25, 2004 QuoteLook again. I certainly did. Ya know for quoting Sun Tzu you have very little grasp of the ways of warfare. Read up on the Bushido and let me know what you think. I also have several books on the Kamakazi pilots I can loan you. Valuable insite into the mindset of the Japanese at that time. The level of the willingness to die to protect the Emperor and Japan was not really known till much after the war. And some still do not understand it. Really read up on it, and then get back to me."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #106 August 25, 2004 QuoteMost people make a distinction between innocent people in a building and military targets. Even our military usually understands the difference. Your right, we do make a distiction... 1945 was a much different time in terms of how war was conducted. Yet, you ackowledge that our military makes the distiction, but lump us in with the likes of SH... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #107 August 25, 2004 >Yet, you ackowledge that our military makes the distiction, but lump us in >with the likes of SH... We are much better than Saddam. We should keep that in mind. It disgusts me when (for example) I see people defending what we did to prisoners in Abu Ghraib. The USA does not torture people, period - and if that ever happens, it has to be exposed and fixed immediately, not excused or compared to a fraternity prank. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goofyjumper 0 #108 August 26, 2004 But whatever, Kerry is an arrogant, holier-than-though, elitist sack-o-shit -- traits that have all been documented time and time again whenever he is forced to mingle with the "little people". Let's talk about arrogant, Bush stood in front of the UN and basically told them he is going to do whatever he wants! If that is not arrogant, then what is?----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #109 August 26, 2004 QuoteLet's talk about arrogant, Bush stood in front of the UN and basically told them he is going to do whatever he wants! If that is not arrogant, then what is? Yes, this thread is all about Bush. Welcome to the leftist attention diverter club. Diverting attention away from the topic and toward Bush or whatever is the finest argument the left has had to offer lately. And rejoice, you are in fine company. PS: Screw the UN. If you stand behind that org, take a look at their history, and think again. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #110 August 26, 2004 "Screw the UN. If you stand behind that org, take a look at their history, and think again." Just remind us of the official reason we went to war.... Something to do with UN resolutions if I recall correctly.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #111 August 26, 2004 QuoteJust remind us of the official reason we went to war.... Something to do with UN resolutions if I recall correctly. Where'd you get that crap from? It was the WMD, I mean the AQ connection, I mean to save the Iraqis by killing them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #112 August 26, 2004 Quote"Screw the UN. If you stand behind that org, take a look at their history, and think again." Just remind us of the official reason we went to war.... Something to do with UN resolutions if I recall correctly. Actually it was due to the UN not enforcing their own resolutions. The UN did nothing, and has always done nothing."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #113 August 26, 2004 Just out of curiosity how would the UN enforce those resolutions when it has no armed forces? I thought that the member countries submitted resolutions, voted on them and then provided troops. I view the UN as an arena for political debate between countries (a world parliament kind of deal) but its the responsibility of the member countries to abide by the resolutions and to cooperate with them. I see it as the UN can do nothing IF THE COUNTRIES that make up the UN decide to do nothing. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #114 August 26, 2004 QuoteJust out of curiosity how would the UN enforce those resolutions when it has no armed forces? Mainly by using US troops like always. And thats why we didn't need the rest of the UN. QuoteI thought that the member countries submitted resolutions, voted on them and then provided troops. Yep, but the UN was backpeddling on its stance. Quote view the UN as an arena for political debate between countries (a world parliament kind of deal) but its the responsibility of the member countries to abide by the resolutions and to cooperate with them. that is if they can get past things like "oil for food" programs long enough to do something."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #115 August 26, 2004 QuoteLet's talk about arrogant, Bush stood in front of the UN and basically told them he is going to do whatever he wants! If that is not arrogant, then what is? Sovereign nations are supposed to act in the best interest of their own people. That's what "sovereign" means. That's also what we elect our leaders for (to act in _our_ best interest, not the world's). I might disagree with the notion that a particular thing Bush does is in the best interest of the American people. I definitely think it is his duty to act in ways that he sees as being in the best interest of the American people--even if those interests conflict with everyone else on earth.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #116 August 26, 2004 QuoteSovereign nations are supposed to act in the best interest of their own people. That's what "sovereign" means. That's also what we elect our leaders for (to act in _our_ best interest, not the world's). I might disagree with the notion that a particular thing Bush does is in the best interest of the American people. I definitely think it is his duty to act in ways that he sees as being in the best interest of the American people--even if those interests conflict with everyone else on earth. Fair enough. I agree with you. But here is the question: when he does that and fucks up royally, killing thousands while it turns out that country was no thread to the US or the people in the US, do you think he should be re-elected? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #117 August 26, 2004 QuoteBut here is the question: when he does that and fucks up royally, killing thousands while it turns out that country was no thread to the US or the people in the US, do you think he should be re-elected? Honestly, I'll vote for him because I think he'll do a better job as president than Kerry. I mostly think this because of their various positions on domestic issues. My big issues right now are (a) health care--and I think Kerry's got some of the worst ideas I've ever heard, plus his running mate is a lawyer who made his fortune driving up health care costs for everyone (did you know that there are expensive diagnostic tools that yield no improvement in outcomes, yet are used on every pregnant woman in the US, simply to avoid a lawsuit from John Edwards? I'm not joking, the American Academy of Obstetrics and Gynecolegy admits that the devices have no value, but they have to use them, specifically because of actual, specific, "ambulance chasing" style lawsuits filed by John Edwards), (b) taxes, (c) use of National Parks (where republicans are far more likely to come around to letting we, the people, use them) and (d) gun rights. Don't get me wrong, there are things I think that Kerry has better than Bush on the domestic agenda. But on balance, I think I'll be happier in Bush's vision of America than Kerry's. This whole war overseas? Yeah, it sucks. But it sure sucks a lot less than say, Kerry's plans for us here at home. Plus, I simply can't vote for a ticket that includes John Edwards. The man is the worst kind of bottom feeder. I mean, come on, suing the American Red Cross three times, and seeing it as a "major career step"?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #118 August 26, 2004 You do know that health care has skyrocketed under GWB, right? One of the primary goals of his atty gen'l is to stop people from getting cheaper medication from Canada. And the TEMPORARY medicaire drug supplements he enacted WITHOUT a commitment from drug companies regarding prices has resulted in them raising prices by an equivalent amount. So the out of pocket expenses are the same, the tax burden has gone up, and when those supplements expire, the out of pocket costs will go up by the amount of the supplement. His own father chaired a committee that criticized his health care plan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #119 August 26, 2004 Quote Sovereign nations are supposed to act in the best interest of their own people. That's what "sovereign" means. That's also what we elect our leaders for (to act in _our_ best interest, not the world's). I might disagree with the notion that a particular thing Bush does is in the best interest of the American people. I definitely think it is his duty to act in ways that he sees as being in the best interest of the American people--even if those interests conflict with everyone else on earth. I'll agree, but only to a point. Being a Sovereign Nation is like being any individual in the US. You have certain rights and you are allowed to do what is best for yourself -- unless it interferes with the rights of others. The simplest way this is put is, "your rights end at the tip of my nose." You can voice your opinion, but you are NOT allowed to beat me into submitting to it. You can smoke all you want to, but you can’t make me breathe second hand smoke. The list goes on. So, the US (or any country for that matter) has the right to do whatever it feels like within its own boarders. It does NOT have the right to invade other countries such as Iraq did when it started the first gulf war back in 1991. If you assume that Iraq entered Kuwait on a quest for "regime change" (they wanted control of the government) and with the ultimate goal of controlling oil in the region, then what does that say about our recent escapades? Try to take emotion and hype out of it and just look at the actions. What are we to judge by the actions alone?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #120 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuote"Screw the UN. If you stand behind that org, take a look at their history, and think again." Just remind us of the official reason we went to war.... Something to do with UN resolutions if I recall correctly. Actually it was due to the UN not enforcing their own resolutions. The UN did nothing, and has always done nothing. Yes, next we should invade Israel.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #121 August 26, 2004 QuoteBeing a Sovereign Nation is like being any individual in the US. I disagree. Being an individual in the US, you have a government to protect you, and to punish those who harm you. Being a sovereign nation, you do not. There is no effective worldwide government. I'm not sure if such a thing is desirable or not, but that's another discussion. I see being a sovereign nation as more like being an individual in a lawless patch of the old west. You try to make friends with your neighbors, hoping they'll help you in times of trouble. But when push comes to shove, the only one you can count on to look out for you (and your dependents, if any) is you. If that means infringing some other people's rights, so be it. Just as long as you do so carefully enough that you don't piss off enough of your neighbors and they form a posse to come string you up (which would be the danger here). The balance is between your neighbors views (because they effect your future wellbeing) and your wellbeing. "Rights" are useful concepts because they give you an idea of what folks will take before they get pissed off. But I think that's about as far as they go.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #122 August 26, 2004 QuoteYou do know that health care has skyrocketed under GWB, right? Believe me, I am very in touch with the health care issues. And my take on them is very skewed by my own perspective. My self interest is going to override any general argument you make, here. Hmmm. Maybe I do want Edwards in the white house. At least then we could guarantee his frivolous lawsuits wouldn't drive up costs any more.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #123 August 26, 2004 Quote I see being a sovereign nation as more like being an individual in a lawless patch of the old west. That being the case it's no wonder then that we seem to see the current situation in Iraq differently. I do not see the world where anything goes as long as you can get away with it. What you're talking about means that the US gets to run over anyone, anywhere and at any time. Logically then, the only way the world -should- respond is with terrorism because they simply would not be able to look out for their own interests any other way. This is not the way of progress.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #124 August 26, 2004 Tom, thanks for saving me a lot of typing, bewcause I can just say I agree with everything you've stated here. I'm sorry, I can't vote Kerry Edwards for a lot of reasons, but the big three are (1) Kerry's comment about approaching the UN with all due defference and humility excuse me? I want him out for our interests, not everybody elses' (2)John Edwards (3)They'd take my guns and everybody elses, along with a whole slew of other choices. I'm also not voting for Bush becuase I know my state will comfortably go to him and the other state I can vote in will got To the Johns. Besides, I feel better voting my conscience, libertarian.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #125 August 26, 2004 I think he meant you have to be as worried as it you're in the old west, not act as if you're a gang banging, gun fighting, drunkard.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
