|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 25 2015 10:37 Millitron wrote:
I think it's the peak of irony that the US, the only country on Earth to ever use a nuclear weapon on people, is going around saying other people are too irresponsible to have nuclear weapons. It's like a drunk driver manning a DUI checkpoint, or a pot-smoking DEA agent.
The DUI analogy would only hold if the drunk driver realized the danger he posed and then became an officer to make sure that nobody else would drive drunk.
The United States dropped two bombs in 1945 on populated areas and has had the capability to drop many more since, but hasn't. That's a long history, including multiple military engagements, of not using them. The two 1945 bombs were considered justified due to the fanatical nature of the opponent and the fact that the opponent directly brought us into the war through an attack. Many historians believe that the Japanese casualties would be significantly higher had we not dropped those bombs. US casualties would also have been clearly higher without the atomic bombs. Finally, at the time the true devastation of a nuclear bomb was not really known, especially the aftereffects.
So the United States had legitimate justification for dropping them when they did (saving more lives, the greater good) and also didn't fully understand how devastating they would be. Significantly larger bombs are now produced and we understand the effects. Also, like it or not, the United States has risen to become the world police. As the police, it is our responsibility to make sure that nobody drops a nuclear bomb again because we know how devastating they can be. When we see a country that actively promotes the annihilation of another country, we are being given a good indication that they will use a bomb if allowed to have one. So we step in. I don't find that ironic at all.
When we see a drunk, we try to take away his keys before he hurts someone.
|
On July 25 2015 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 11:17 Millitron wrote:On July 25 2015 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 25 2015 10:37 Millitron wrote:
I think it's the peak of irony that the US, the only country on Earth to ever use a nuclear weapon on people, is going around saying other people are too irresponsible to have nuclear weapons. It's like a drunk driver manning a DUI checkpoint, or a pot-smoking DEA agent. That's probably not as uncommon as you may think it is. Welcome back to the thread btw. Thanks, though I'm sorry to say I don't think I'm going to stay long. I just felt so much better not being a part of all the bickering. I seriously recommend taking a break from it all, it's so soothing. I just came back because I was curious about what current event was being discussed. Good to see it's a more substantive subject instead of all the identity politics. Yeah, I'm very engaged in campaigning and being a part of Bernie's grassroots movement, I'm just still at a stage where I'm in front of the computer a lot, so I still come by. I imagine after the 29th I'll be in the field more and unable to stay engaged here. Though as elections near more and more low-information opinionated people will be showing up so it will likely be a good idea for me to be otherwise occupied. Really looking forward to Trump's first debate though. Should be interesting to see how republicans/conservatives respond.
I really hate how both parties are handling Trump. The Republicans should ignore him like the joke candidate that he is, but likewise the Democrats are pretty sleazy for pulling that "Trump is the face of the Republican party" thing. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you'd find an equally unserious candidate trying to get the Democratic nomination. The Democrats criticize the Republicans for not openly condemning Trump, but by the same token, the Dems aren't openly condemning their crazy people.
Pretty cool that you're working on Bernie's campaign. I don't agree with a lot of what Bernie says, but I think he's at least sincere. Hillary's flipflopped so many times over the years I'm convinced she doesn't really believe anything.
I'm gonna Stand with Rand, but I wouldn't be super-disappointed to see a Sanders/Warren ticket win. I'll be pretty butt-hurt if Hillary wins.
|
Which of their own crazy people are the democrats not condemning?
Also, it's really not an equivalency, considering that Trump has significant polling numbers, while there aren't any such on the Democratic side at present. Bad form to make an invalid comparison like that.
|
On July 25 2015 12:19 zlefin wrote:
Which of their own crazy people are the democrats not condemning?
Also, it's really not an equivalency, considering that Trump has significant polling numbers, while there aren't any such on the Democratic side at present. Bad form to make an invalid comparison like that.
Jeff Boss for one.
Trump's getting poll numbers because the media is actually acknowledging him. Also because he's a household name thanks to The Apprentice.
If the media would run as much coverage about Jeff Boss, Andy Caffrey, or any of the other absolutely hopeless Democrat candidates, they'd be polling well too. Maybe not quite as well as Trump, but that's just name recognition at work.
|
On July 25 2015 12:41 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 12:19 zlefin wrote:
Which of their own crazy people are the democrats not condemning?
Also, it's really not an equivalency, considering that Trump has significant polling numbers, while there aren't any such on the Democratic side at present. Bad form to make an invalid comparison like that. Jeff Boss for one. Trump's getting poll numbers because the media is actually acknowledging him. Also because he's a household name thanks to The Apprentice. If the media would run as much coverage about Jeff Boss, Andy Caffrey, or any of the other absolutely hopeless Democrat candidates, they'd be polling well too. Maybe not quite as well as Trump, but that's just name recognition at work.
Also, its partially because there isn't a Hillary on the Republican side. Last time the Democrats had a race without a frontrunner they had crazy person Howard Dean in the lead for quite some time, along with Al Sharpton (got over 10% in some actual primaries), Dick Gehpart who led in Iowa even after a reported confrontation with Howard Dean where he called him a "fag" or "faggot", John Edwards was still the creepiest man alive, etc.
In 1988 Jessie Jackson won several primaries. The Democrats are very capable of vitriolic campaigns, its just they are highly protected by the media. A Republican Hillary is indicted and in the media's doghouse right now.
|
re: millitron
Jeff Boss is a joke candidate with no history of getting anything done anywhere. So I don't think that's an equivalent; I haven't looked up the other names you cite, but that you'd list something as absurd as that Jeff guy means you're not looking at this reasonably. He also doesn't seem to be a Democrat to any significant degree, more often running as independent.
There's no need for the democrats to condemn an obvious nutjob who has no support and who nobody has heard of.
Your assertion that those people would also get good polling if they had coverage is unfounded; while coverage helps, they might well have no support even with coverage.
|
On July 25 2015 12:15 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 25 2015 11:17 Millitron wrote:On July 25 2015 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 25 2015 10:37 Millitron wrote:
I think it's the peak of irony that the US, the only country on Earth to ever use a nuclear weapon on people, is going around saying other people are too irresponsible to have nuclear weapons. It's like a drunk driver manning a DUI checkpoint, or a pot-smoking DEA agent. That's probably not as uncommon as you may think it is. Welcome back to the thread btw. Thanks, though I'm sorry to say I don't think I'm going to stay long. I just felt so much better not being a part of all the bickering. I seriously recommend taking a break from it all, it's so soothing. I just came back because I was curious about what current event was being discussed. Good to see it's a more substantive subject instead of all the identity politics. Yeah, I'm very engaged in campaigning and being a part of Bernie's grassroots movement, I'm just still at a stage where I'm in front of the computer a lot, so I still come by. I imagine after the 29th I'll be in the field more and unable to stay engaged here. Though as elections near more and more low-information opinionated people will be showing up so it will likely be a good idea for me to be otherwise occupied. Really looking forward to Trump's first debate though. Should be interesting to see how republicans/conservatives respond. I really hate how both parties are handling Trump. The Republicans should ignore him like the joke candidate that he is, but likewise the Democrats are pretty sleazy for pulling that "Trump is the face of the Republican party" thing. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you'd find an equally unserious candidate trying to get the Democratic nomination. The Democrats criticize the Republicans for not openly condemning Trump, but by the same token, the Dems aren't openly condemning their crazy people. Pretty cool that you're working on Bernie's campaign. I don't agree with a lot of what Bernie says, but I think he's at least sincere. Hillary's flipflopped so many times over the years I'm convinced she doesn't really believe anything. I'm gonna Stand with Rand, but I wouldn't be super-disappointed to see a Sanders/Warren ticket win. I'll be pretty butt-hurt if Hillary wins.
The media messed up by trying to destroy Trump before he even got going. News networks put all there energy into Trumps remarks about illegal immigration and John McCain but twisted his words and now Truup is using this as evidence that the media is misrepresenting him, giving his campaign credibility.
|
On July 25 2015 11:57 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 10:37 Millitron wrote:
I think it's the peak of irony that the US, the only country on Earth to ever use a nuclear weapon on people, is going around saying other people are too irresponsible to have nuclear weapons. It's like a drunk driver manning a DUI checkpoint, or a pot-smoking DEA agent. The two 1945 bombs were considered justified due to the fanatical nature of the opponent and the fact that the opponent directly brought us into the war through an attack. Many historians believe that the Japanese casualties would be significantly higher had we not dropped those bombs.
This is a view that was initially put forward by a number of historians in the years that followed WW2, but it has been significantly disputed since then. Keep in mind as well that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims were mostly civilians. The use of the bombs is a tragedy of immense proportions.
On July 25 2015 11:57 RenSC2 wrote:
Finally, at the time the true devastation of a nuclear bomb was not really known, especially the aftereffects.
They might not have been fully aware of the aftereffects, but they very much knew what they were doing with respect to the destruction the atomic bombs would bring about.
|
On July 25 2015 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 11:17 Millitron wrote:On July 25 2015 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 25 2015 10:37 Millitron wrote:
I think it's the peak of irony that the US, the only country on Earth to ever use a nuclear weapon on people, is going around saying other people are too irresponsible to have nuclear weapons. It's like a drunk driver manning a DUI checkpoint, or a pot-smoking DEA agent. That's probably not as uncommon as you may think it is. Welcome back to the thread btw. Thanks, though I'm sorry to say I don't think I'm going to stay long. I just felt so much better not being a part of all the bickering. I seriously recommend taking a break from it all, it's so soothing. I just came back because I was curious about what current event was being discussed. Good to see it's a more substantive subject instead of all the identity politics. Yeah, I'm very engaged in campaigning and being a part of Bernie's grassroots movement, I'm just still at a stage where I'm in front of the computer a lot, so I still come by. I imagine after the 29th I'll be in the field more and unable to stay engaged here. Though as elections near more and more low-information opinionated people will be showing up so it will likely be a good idea for me to be otherwise occupied.
That's awesome man. I'm not enough of a romantic anymore to think he'll win, and honestly I'm kinda worried Hillary will play dirty if he gets too close, but I'm sure rooting for him and I plan to register as a Dem this time around to vote for him if it's not yet a totally forgone conclusion (I'm an independent, so I switch parties to vote in whatever primary I care about more). Good luck to you guys.
|
On July 25 2015 12:41 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 12:19 zlefin wrote:
Which of their own crazy people are the democrats not condemning?
Also, it's really not an equivalency, considering that Trump has significant polling numbers, while there aren't any such on the Democratic side at present. Bad form to make an invalid comparison like that. Jeff Boss for one. Trump's getting poll numbers because the media is actually acknowledging him. Also because he's a household name thanks to The Apprentice. If the media would run as much coverage about Jeff Boss, Andy Caffrey, or any of the other absolutely hopeless Democrat candidates, they'd be polling well too. Maybe not quite as well as Trump, but that's just name recognition at work.
Would you vote for a Sanders/Ron Paul duo?
|
|
|
On July 25 2015 20:23 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 12:41 Millitron wrote:On July 25 2015 12:19 zlefin wrote:
Which of their own crazy people are the democrats not condemning?
Also, it's really not an equivalency, considering that Trump has significant polling numbers, while there aren't any such on the Democratic side at present. Bad form to make an invalid comparison like that. Jeff Boss for one. Trump's getting poll numbers because the media is actually acknowledging him. Also because he's a household name thanks to The Apprentice. If the media would run as much coverage about Jeff Boss, Andy Caffrey, or any of the other absolutely hopeless Democrat candidates, they'd be polling well too. Maybe not quite as well as Trump, but that's just name recognition at work. Would you vote for a Sanders/Ron Paul duo?
Yeah, I would. I don't think that'd be an effective ticket though, because Paul and Sanders are so different on economics. They share a lot of the same beliefs on rights, but their economic policies are so wildly different I don't see how they could make it work.
|
On July 25 2015 16:42 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 11:57 RenSC2 wrote:On July 25 2015 10:37 Millitron wrote:
I think it's the peak of irony that the US, the only country on Earth to ever use a nuclear weapon on people, is going around saying other people are too irresponsible to have nuclear weapons. It's like a drunk driver manning a DUI checkpoint, or a pot-smoking DEA agent. The two 1945 bombs were considered justified due to the fanatical nature of the opponent and the fact that the opponent directly brought us into the war through an attack. Many historians believe that the Japanese casualties would be significantly higher had we not dropped those bombs. This is a view that was initially put forward by a number of historians in the years that followed WW2, but it has been significantly disputed since then. Keep in mind as well that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims were mostly civilians. The use of the bombs is a tragedy of immense proportions.
Who has disputed that?
They had to be civilians to stop the Japanese people. Attacking a military establishment would have just pissed them off. If you look into history you'd see the American choose their locations very carefully. Places that would cause the devastation needed to dissuade the Japanese, without rallying them against America.
|
Washington (CNN) - Two low-profile Texas brothers have donated $15 million to support Sen. Ted Cruz, a record-setting contribution that amounts to the largest known donation so far in the 2016 presidential campaign.
Farris and Dan Wilks, billionaires who made their fortunes in the West Texas fracking boom, have given $15 million of the $38 million that the pro-Cruz super PAC, Keep the Promise, will disclose in election filings next week, according to sources outside the super PAC with knowledge of the giving.
The siblings earned their riches with the sale of their company Frac Tech for $3.5 billion in 2011, and since then have shuffled large contributions to the leading social conservative nonprofit groups that aren't required to reveal their donors. But they will no longer be able to avoid detection after giving a historically large and early donation that now make the brothers two of America's most prominent political donors.
Source
Cruz rolling in dough. Nothing like matching almost all of what Bernie Sanders has raised so far, in basically one donation.
|
On July 26 2015 09:17 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 16:42 kwizach wrote:On July 25 2015 11:57 RenSC2 wrote:On July 25 2015 10:37 Millitron wrote:
I think it's the peak of irony that the US, the only country on Earth to ever use a nuclear weapon on people, is going around saying other people are too irresponsible to have nuclear weapons. It's like a drunk driver manning a DUI checkpoint, or a pot-smoking DEA agent. The two 1945 bombs were considered justified due to the fanatical nature of the opponent and the fact that the opponent directly brought us into the war through an attack. Many historians believe that the Japanese casualties would be significantly higher had we not dropped those bombs. This is a view that was initially put forward by a number of historians in the years that followed WW2, but it has been significantly disputed since then. Keep in mind as well that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims were mostly civilians. The use of the bombs is a tragedy of immense proportions. Who has disputed that? They had to be civilians to stop the Japanese people. Attacking a military establishment would have just pissed them off. If you look into history you'd see the American choose their locations very carefully. Places that would cause the devastation needed to dissuade the Japanese, without rallying them against America.
Basically everything you've said about the bombings is the whitewashed, American version of the events. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are very contentious topics in the scholarly/academic community. Historical experts are very divided on the interpretation of these events.
|
United States42640 Posts
On July 26 2015 09:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2015 09:17 killa_robot wrote:On July 25 2015 16:42 kwizach wrote:On July 25 2015 11:57 RenSC2 wrote:On July 25 2015 10:37 Millitron wrote:
I think it's the peak of irony that the US, the only country on Earth to ever use a nuclear weapon on people, is going around saying other people are too irresponsible to have nuclear weapons. It's like a drunk driver manning a DUI checkpoint, or a pot-smoking DEA agent. The two 1945 bombs were considered justified due to the fanatical nature of the opponent and the fact that the opponent directly brought us into the war through an attack. Many historians believe that the Japanese casualties would be significantly higher had we not dropped those bombs. This is a view that was initially put forward by a number of historians in the years that followed WW2, but it has been significantly disputed since then. Keep in mind as well that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims were mostly civilians. The use of the bombs is a tragedy of immense proportions. Who has disputed that? They had to be civilians to stop the Japanese people. Attacking a military establishment would have just pissed them off. If you look into history you'd see the American choose their locations very carefully. Places that would cause the devastation needed to dissuade the Japanese, without rallying them against America. Basically everything you've said about the bombings is the whitewashed, American version of the events. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are very contentious topics in the scholarly/academic community. Historical experts are very divided on the interpretation of these events.
Both nonsense. Americans were bombing Japan indiscriminately and the firebombing of Tokyo was more of a warcrime than Hiroshima was. Morality didn't come into the question, there was simply a desire to bomb the enemy into submission. The suggestion that nukes were somehow crossing a line in World War II is nonsense, that line was crossed a long, long time before then. Hiroshima wasn't uniquely bad, it wasn't even unusual, it was simply the latest incident in an extremely long line of similar incidents.
It wasn't that Hiroshima was somehow needed to convince the Japanese due to the awesome power of the nuclear bomb, nor was it a completely unjustified transgression, it was just another Monday.
|
On July 26 2015 09:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2015 09:17 killa_robot wrote:On July 25 2015 16:42 kwizach wrote:On July 25 2015 11:57 RenSC2 wrote:On July 25 2015 10:37 Millitron wrote:
I think it's the peak of irony that the US, the only country on Earth to ever use a nuclear weapon on people, is going around saying other people are too irresponsible to have nuclear weapons. It's like a drunk driver manning a DUI checkpoint, or a pot-smoking DEA agent. The two 1945 bombs were considered justified due to the fanatical nature of the opponent and the fact that the opponent directly brought us into the war through an attack. Many historians believe that the Japanese casualties would be significantly higher had we not dropped those bombs. This is a view that was initially put forward by a number of historians in the years that followed WW2, but it has been significantly disputed since then. Keep in mind as well that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims were mostly civilians. The use of the bombs is a tragedy of immense proportions. Who has disputed that? They had to be civilians to stop the Japanese people. Attacking a military establishment would have just pissed them off. If you look into history you'd see the American choose their locations very carefully. Places that would cause the devastation needed to dissuade the Japanese, without rallying them against America. Basically everything you've said about the bombings is the whitewashed, American version of the events. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are very contentious topics in the scholarly/academic community. Historical experts are very divided on the interpretation of these events.
Although it is a sad and regretful chapter in history that the US is the only country to have used Atomic weapons, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets because of their logistical and strategic value..
Some say the Japanese wanted to wait out american military intervention so it could continue it's conquest of the southeast Asia. America, per some historians, wanted a complete Japanese capitulation in the quickest way possible to avoid further loss of american lives. I don't know how that could have been accomplished in any other way at the time - if there was a way I'd like to know what it was and why it wasn't attempted.
Per wikipedia: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Hiroshima:
At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military units were located nearby, the most important of which was the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan,[104] and was located in Hiroshima Castle. Hata's command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly anticipated.[105] Also present in Hiroshima were the headquarters of the 59th Army, the 5th Division and the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit.[106] The city was defended by five batteries of 7-and-8-centimeter (2.8 and 3.1 in) anti-aircraft guns of the 3rd Anti-Aircraft Division, including units from the 121st and 122nd Anti-Aircraft Regiments and the 22nd and 45th Separate Anti-Aircraft Battalions. In total, over 40,000 military personnel were stationed in the city.[107]
Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military, but it also had large stockpiles of military supplies.[108] The city was a communications center, a key port for shipping and an assembly area for troops.[73] It was also the second largest city in Japan after Kyoto that was still undamaged by air raids,[109] due to the fact that it lacked the aircraft manufacturing industry that was the XXI Bomber Command's priority target. On July 3, the Joint Chiefs of Staff placed it off limits to bombers, along with Kokura, Niigata and Kyoto.[110]
Nagasaki:
The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest seaports in southern Japan, and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The four largest companies in the city were Mitsubishi Shipyards, Electrical Shipyards, Arms Plant, and Steel and Arms Works, which employed about 90% of the city's labor force, and accounted for 90% of the city's industry.[169] Although an important industrial city, Nagasaki had been spared from firebombing because its geography made it difficult to locate at night with AN/APQ-13 radar.[110]
Unlike the other target cities, Nagasaki had not been placed off limits to bombers by the Joint Chiefs of Staff's July 3 directive,[110][170] and was bombed on a small scale five times. During one of these raids on August 1, a number of conventional high-explosive bombs were dropped on the city. A few hit the shipyards and dock areas in the southwest portion of the city, and several hit the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works.[169] By early August, the city was defended by the IJA 134th Anti-Aircraft Regiment of the 4th Anti-Aircraft Division with four batteries of 7 cm (2.8 in) anti-aircraft guns and two searchlight batteries.[107]
|
The fact that the US made so many Purple Hearts in anticipation of the invasion of Japan that those medals were still in stock 6 decades after the war ended show just how bloody it could have been. Not to mention the Russian advancement into Manchuria was probably a bit concerning to Western powers.
I read an article written by one of the high ranking military men at the time. He said not once did anyone ever mention the morality or need to use the bomb. To them it was just a weapon that cost a massive amount of resources and was really efficient at blowing shit up. There was really nothing to question. It might seem odd to us 70 years later sitting at our computers, but I'm sure it wasn't to people who were actually in charge of trying to defeat an enemy years into the most cataclysmic conflict in human history. Everything everyone did in WW2 was horrible...
|
President Barack Obama’s plan to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would bring as many as 64 of the 116 current detainees -- those deemed too dangerous to transfer elsewhere -- to the U.S. for federal prosecution or continued military detention.
The others would be transferred home or to third countries under terms intended to assure that they won’t threaten the U.S.
The plan, outlined Saturday by Lisa Monaco, Obama’s adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism, would require Congress to change the law that now prohibits the movement of the detainees to the U.S., setting up a fight with many Republican lawmakers who have said they oppose shutting down the detention center.
Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, on Saturday called Obama’s approach a “reckless and dangerous policy.”
The Obama administration plans to win support from Congress in part by presenting the cost of the current arrangement -- about $3 million a year per detainee -- as a waste of money that could be better used for other national security priorities.
The number of detainees is “getting so low that it really doesn’t make any fiscal sense to keep this hugely expensive facility open in Cuba,” Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said Friday at the Aspen Security Forum in Aspen, Colorado.
Obama has sought to close the prison since coming to office in 2009, and is redoubling that effort.
Source
|
United States42640 Posts
If the intention is to detain them indefinitely without trial then why not just execute them? It's hardly any worse. Hell, why not turn them into a 64 man long human centipede because fuck it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
