|
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. |
A group of youngsters just won a major decision in their efforts to sue the federal government over climate change. An Oregon judge ruled Friday that their lawsuit, which alleges the government violated the constitutional rights of the next generation by allowing the pollution that has caused climate change, can go forward.
Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin ruled against the federal government and fossil fuel companies’ motions to dismiss the case, deciding in favor of 21 young plaintiffs and Dr. James Hansen.
The federal lawsuit is part of a broad effort led by Oregon-based nonprofit Our Children’s Trust. The group and its allies have filed lawsuits and petitions in every state in the country. Filed in August, the complaint alleges that the U.S. government has known for half a century that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels cause global warming and climate change.
“If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health,” Coffin wrote. He called the lawsuit “unprecedented.”
The suit is based on the idea of the public trust — the same doctrine that guides the Clean Water Act. Under the idea of public trust, governments must protect commonly held elements, such as waterways and the seashore, for public use. Under this lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that the climate and atmosphere must be likewise protected.
“This will be the trial of the century that will determine if we have a right to a livable future, or if corporate power will continue to deny our rights for the sake of their own wealth,” 19-year-old lead plaintiff Kelsey Juliana said in a statement following the ruling.
Three fossil fuel industry trade associations, who called the case “extraordinary” and “a direct, substantial threat to [their] businesses” were granted defendant status in January.
Source
|
On April 11 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:
I don't think there is any reading of the Japanese theatre of WW2 in which you feel at all sorry for what happened to Japan.
There is plenty of room to feel sorry for the inhabitants of Nagasaki and Hiroshima no matter how you read the Japanese theatre. This does not preclude you to feel sorry for the Chinese, Koreans and so on, amazing isn't it?
|
Notice that KwarK used the word "Japan" and not the "Japanese" nor "the inhabitants of Nagasaki and Hiroshima." The distinction is important here, I think.
|
Well you shouldn't feel sorry for nation states at all. Or for what happens to them. Only to what happens to the people in them. But I doubt that's how he meant it.
[EDIT]: Just to clarify, I am getting a "they had it coming" vibe from Kwarks post and this is a view I strongly disagree with. When it is so easy in peace time to identify the "they" of the whole state apparatus and all it ever did with the "they" of a particular city I feel uneasy.
|
Norway28781 Posts
when did anyone really feel sorry for a country rather than its inhabitants though?
|
I think most people are just underestimating how high the civilian casualty ratio was. Two out of three victims of WW II were civilians, it's not as if there is such a thing as a clean war and that nuclear weapons are somehow more horrible and vicious than anything else. Given that the nuclear bombs cut the war short by months or even years I don't think it's that hard to defend the use actually.
|
Well, I think it bears worth mentioning that tendencies to sympathize with tacitly anthropomorphized countries as opposed to their inhabitants are pretty prevalent here in the US. And it doesn't stop there; just look at what is being said in the Armenian/Azerbaijan conflict thread and it's clear that plenty of people are very concerned with the repute of countries above people.
|
On April 11 2016 05:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:In Norway, and I believe most of Europe, the general consensus is that dropping the atomic bomb(s) was a terrible war crime. Not that anyone was expecting Kerry to apologize - but I do believe a significant portion of Europeans would appreciate that.  I think the most heated debate I've had with my family (and we frequently have heated debates, in a loving manner of course;) ) originated in me saying that it was possible to defend their use. In general this belief correlates positively with leftist political views and negatively with studying history in university - greater understanding generally makes people more accepting of Hiroshima (Nagasaki is considered at best gratuitous among university professors as well though).
It's pretty sad that studying at the university makes you forget simple facts, then. The fact that Japan was ready to surrender. That the figures given to estimate the human cost of an invasion were pulled out of thin air. That Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rushed to end the war before the Soviets could be part of the peace agreement, no matter at what cost. That Manhattan Project's chief himself said that the bombing was unnecessary to the war effort. And so forth.
The atomic bombing was a war crime, though it must be recognized that if it wouldn't have happened, a perhaps even worse atomic bombing would have happened at some point in the future. But that's no justification. And as always, the one who wins writes history.
On April 11 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:
I don't think there is any reading of the Japanese theatre of WW2 in which you feel at all sorry for what happened to Japan.
Well, you see, that kind of mentality is exactly what allowed Hiroshima/Nagasaki to happen, as well as well as the regular bombings of Japanese, French and German cities (which are no better than the atomic bombings, don't get me wrong). That mentality that "they deserve it". "They started that war, they should have known better".
Well, breaking news, but a civilian who gives no fucks about politics, a children who doesn't even realize what's happening, a mother who does extra work producing bullets at a factory while her enlisted husband is dying somewhere, are not responsible for the deadly sport called War that governments like to play. And if you don't feel sorry for them, then I have to question your humanity.
|
On April 11 2016 05:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:In Norway, and I believe most of Europe, the general consensus is that dropping the atomic bomb(s) was a terrible war crime. Not that anyone was expecting Kerry to apologize - but I do believe a significant portion of Europeans would appreciate that. I think the most heated debate I've had with my family (and we frequently have heated debates, in a loving manner of course;) ) originated in me saying that it was possible to defend their use. In general this belief correlates positively with leftist political views and negatively with studying history in university - greater understanding generally makes people more accepting of Hiroshima (Nagasaki is considered at best gratuitous among university professors as well though).
who cares what europeans want or appreciate? does japan want it? didnt they specifically tell america they didnt want it? dont you think japan would prefer people move on so that the spotlight will be taken away from what they did? didnt japan modify its history books to make sure parts of its history is not taught to japanese students because they are hiding from it?
personally, when i lived in japan, i was apologized to for japan's involvement. no one expected me to apologize.
|
On April 11 2016 06:43 farvacola wrote:
Well, I think it bears worth mentioning that tendencies to sympathize with tacitly anthropomorphized countries as opposed to their inhabitants are pretty prevalent here in the US. And it doesn't stop there; just look at what is being said in the Armenian/Azerbaijan conflict thread and it's clear that plenty of people are very concerned with the repute of countries above people.
I just don't see how this interpretation works for his comment in this particular context (the context being a discussion about the morality of the atom bombs). We shouldn't feel sorry for the loss of repute Japan suffered due to nuclear explosions?
|
And like oblade predicted, the can of worms has officially been spilled all over the dinghy  Otherworld, the willingness of Japan relative to surrender prior to the dropping of Little Boy is not a fact, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
|
i asked my wife (who is native japanese) and she says an apology is not something japanese people are looking for. she seemed surprised it was even a discussion.
|
From what I've read the Japanese weren't very interested in surrender pre-Hiroshima. After, maybe they were thinking about it but Nagasaki was... a reasonable move for the U.S. to send the message they weren't fucking around. I'm in the camp that the alternative, conventional invasion of Japan would have been far more bloody and left the nation in far worse condition.
|
I consider the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings to be absolute tragedies and I sincerely believe that the U.S. government could have, and should have, proceeded differently (namely by 1. expanding/increasing the blockade of Japan and the bombing of strategic targets, 2. waiting longer for the impact of the USSR's entry into the war, and 3. offering earlier to Japan an "unconditional surrender" that would in reality not have been that unconditional through the assurance that the institution of the emperor would remain in place - which ended up being the case anyway). Dropping atomic bombs on civilians is horrific.
This being said, I suggest anyone interested in the decision-making behind the use of the bomb read J. Samuel Walker's Prompt and utter decision: Truman and the use of atomic bombs against Japan (London, The University of North Carolina Press, 2004). It is a detailed and extremely well-researched study of the topic.
The prime reason for using the bomb was Truman's desire to end the war as early as possible. This reason trumped, by far, the other reasons that were considered "added bonuses". Truman simply did not want American casualties to continue to mount if there was a way to prevent those casualties from happening. American decision-makers were not sure that an invasion of Japan through Kyushu would not be necessary at one point (in fact they actively prepared for it and considered it the best option they had to end the war early until the atomic bomb credibly entered the picture), and even without possible invasion deaths there were thousands of Americans still dying every month as the conflict continued. Truman wanted to end the war as fast as possible, and therefore decided to use the atomic bomb as a means to achieve this objective.
Next to this are several reinforcing reasons. Firstly, the costs of not using the bomb: there was an impetus to justify the high costs that went into the Manhattan project, and it would have been politically costly not to use a weapon that could have helped save American lives. Secondly, another reason was impressing the Soviet Union and using this as diplomatic leverage. James Byrnes, in particular, thought using the bomb would be useful in his dealing with the USSR. Again, however, this was a secondary reason among others, a bonus. Thirdly, JSW argues that there was a lack of incentives, in the minds of U.S. decision-makers, to not use the bomb, on the diplomatic, political and military fronts. On the moral front, it was an established practice at that point to bomb areas occupied by civilians. There were still some moral objections, and Truman was later disturbed by reports of the destruction at Hiroshima, but those moral objections paled compared to the desire to end the war as early as possible. Finally, another reason which probably played a role to some extent was the fact that the Japanese were viewed in a very negative light due to Pearl Harbor notably (and racism), and it contributed to making bombing them more acceptable.
Of course, there were other people in the U.S. government that had more specific reasons for wanting the bomb to be used, but at the end of the day it was used first and foremost to end the war early and save American lives.
This, of course, does not mean that one cannot criticize the decision to put those American lives that they thought would be saved over the number of civilian deaths that resulted from the bombs.
|
United States43803 Posts
On April 11 2016 06:44 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2016 05:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:In Norway, and I believe most of Europe, the general consensus is that dropping the atomic bomb(s) was a terrible war crime. Not that anyone was expecting Kerry to apologize - but I do believe a significant portion of Europeans would appreciate that. I think the most heated debate I've had with my family (and we frequently have heated debates, in a loving manner of course;) ) originated in me saying that it was possible to defend their use. In general this belief correlates positively with leftist political views and negatively with studying history in university - greater understanding generally makes people more accepting of Hiroshima (Nagasaki is considered at best gratuitous among university professors as well though). It's pretty sad that studying at the university makes you forget simple facts, then. The fact that Japan was ready to surrender. That the figures given to estimate the human cost of an invasion were pulled out of thin air. That Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rushed to end the war before the Soviets could be part of the peace agreement, no matter at what cost. That Manhattan Project's chief himself said that the bombing was unnecessary to the war effort. And so forth. The atomic bombing was a war crime, though it must be recognized that if it wouldn't have happened, a perhaps even worse atomic bombing would have happened at some point in the future. But that's no justification. And as always, the one who wins writes history. Show nested quote +On April 11 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:
I don't think there is any reading of the Japanese theatre of WW2 in which you feel at all sorry for what happened to Japan. Well, you see, that kind of mentality is exactly what allowed Hiroshima/Nagasaki to happen, as well as well as the regular bombings of Japanese, French and German cities (which are no better than the atomic bombings, don't get me wrong). That mentality that "they deserve it". "They started that war, they should have known better". Well, breaking news, but a civilian who gives no fucks about politics, a children who doesn't even realize what's happening, a mother who does extra work producing bullets at a factory while her enlisted husband is dying somewhere, are not responsible for the deadly sport called War that governments like to play. And if you don't feel sorry for them, then I have to question your humanity.
Are we buying into the idea that the people of Japan and Germany had no idea what was going on during WW2 now? Perhaps you'd like to explain the innocence of the Wehrmacht next.
|
On April 11 2016 07:00 kwizach wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I consider the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings to be absolute tragedies and I sincerely believe that the U.S. government could have, and should have, proceeded differently (namely by 1. expanding/increasing the blockade of Japan and the bombing of strategic targets, 2. waiting longer for the impact of the USSR's entry into the war, and 3. offering earlier to Japan an "unconditional surrender" that would in reality not have been that unconditional through the assurance that the institution of the emperor would remain in place - which ended up being the case anyway). Dropping atomic bombs on civilians is horrific.
This being said, I suggest anyone interested in the decision-making behind the use of the bomb read J. Samuel Walker's Prompt and utter decision: Truman and the use of atomic bombs against Japan (London, The University of North Carolina Press, 2004). It is a detailed and extremely well-researched study of the topic.
The prime reason for using the bomb was Truman's desire to end the war as early as possible. This reason trumped, by far, the other reasons that were considered "added bonuses". Truman simply did not want American casualties to continue to mount if there was a way to prevent those casualties from happening. American decision-makers were not sure that an invasion of Japan through Kyushu would not be necessary at one point (in fact they actively prepared for it and considered it the best option they had to end the war early until the atomic bomb credibly entered the picture), and even without possible invasion deaths there were thousands of Americans still dying every month as the conflict continued. Truman wanted to end the war as fast as possible, and therefore decided to use the atomic bomb as a means to achieve this objective.
Next to this are several reinforcing reasons. Firstly, the costs of not using the bomb: there was an impetus to justify the high costs that went into the Manhattan project, and it would have been politically costly not to use a weapon that could have helped save American lives. Secondly, another reason was impressing the Soviet Union and using this as diplomatic leverage. James Byrnes, in particular, thought using the bomb would be useful in his dealing with the USSR. Again, however, this was a secondary reason among others, a bonus. Thirdly, JSW argues that there was a lack of incentives, in the minds of U.S. decision-makers, to not use the bomb, on the diplomatic, political and military fronts. On the moral front, it was an established practice at that point to bomb areas occupied by civilians. There were still some moral objections, and Truman was later disturbed by reports of the destruction at Hiroshima, but those moral objections paled compared to the desire to end the war as early as possible. Finally, another reason which probably played a role to some extent was the fact that the Japanese were viewed in a very negative light due to Pearl Harbor notably (and racism), and it contributed to making bombing them more acceptable.
Of course, there were other people in the U.S. government that had more specific reasons for wanting the bomb to be used, but at the end of the day it was used first and foremost to end the war early and save American lives.
This, of course, does not mean that one cannot criticize the decision to put those American lives that they thought would be saved over the number of civilian deaths that resulted from the bombs.
Justifications like this dovetail nicely with the view that history is nothing but a long and uncertain recount of accidental tragedies and the people who have reacted to them, which seems to me like an appropriately modest way to go about understanding the past.
In other news...
CIA Director John Brennan told NBC News in an exclusive interview that his agency will not engage in harsh "enhanced interrogation" practices, including waterboarding, which critics call torture — even if ordered to by a future president.
"I will not agree to carry out some of these tactics and techniques I've heard bandied about because this institution needs to endure," Brennan said.
Two of the remaining Republican candidates for president have said that they are open to use of the technique, which was banned in 2009.
Donald Trump has gone as far as saying said he'd definitely bring back waterboarding and "a hell of a lot worse" to extract information from potential terrorists.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has said he does not consider waterboarding to be torture under the strict definition of the law. He said he would "not bring it back in any sort of widespread use" by rank and file soldiers and agents, but as commander-in-chief he would "use whatever enhanced interrogation methods to keep this country safe."
The CIA used waterboarding and other techniques on terrorist suspects after the 9/11 attacks. But, in January 2009, President Obama banned the practices in his first few days in office with an executive order.
When asked specifically about waterboarding Brennan could not have been clearer.
"Absolutely, I would not agree to having any CIA officer carrying out waterboarding again," he said.
Director Brennan: CIA Won't Waterboard Again — Even if Ordered by Future President
|
On April 11 2016 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2016 00:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 14:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 14:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 06:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good. Just to be clear this doesn't work with something like the Iran deal because the differences in consequences to having a deal or not are much more dire. I'm curious what sort of deal you think is reasonable that we could have accomplished. Statements like we could have gotten a better deal are just blind idealism. I've said it a variety of ways but I reject the assertion that basically any deal was better than no deal. So you're stumping for Ted Cruz now? My way or no way! lol no, but since people insist on not recognizing the argument I'm making I'm done talking about it. - Insist deal is bad
- Offer no alternative
- When asked for details you have no response
Is your intention to embargo Panama unless they meet some demands you haven't yet specified? You haven't given any details for anybody to understand your position so of course nobody recognizes your argument. It's really not complicated. Don't take the deal unless they give up more than rules they can override if it goes against what they want. Let them keep begging if they don't want to. I have issues with whether it was family farmers or Big Ag that benefited more as a result of the increase of duty free imports to Panama as well. But considering I can't get people to entertain the idea that we didn't need to take the deal in the first place, that would be an even harder point to make. EDIT: I don't need to rewrite the trade deal myself to illustrate that them agreeing to rules they don't have to abide by wasn't enough. Of course I think they could have done more, but are people really arguing having a loophole to ignore the new rules doesn't significantly undermine any rules they "got"? Nobody is saying that the loophole was a good thing. You're just jumping to the conclusion that we should either embargo Panama or some other form of trade retaliation unless they dismantle their bank secrecy laws. This position would never happen and the idea that we can just hold out on trade because they aren't going to nuke us like Iran is not reasonable. If you want to talk about hurting family farmers that would be not having trade deal with Panama and preventing exports either from an embargo or just a raise in tariffs. I'm not sure a trade deal exists that benefits Big Ag less than family farmers. A more reasonable position would be Big Ag getting a great deal while family farmers get a bad deal, but that wasn't the case with the Panama trade deal. The point of suggesting a deal was thinking about whether Panama would accept that deal and if they didn't what the consequences of that would be. It's really easy to say we could have gotten a better deal and of course they're going to submit to us because USA USA USA. What isn't easy is clearly stating what your demands are, what the repercussions are if your position isn't accepted, and how that effects relations with other nations. You realize the default position isn't "embargo"? Hard to think you're making a genuine argument when you're starting from that misunderstanding. It wasn't us that wanted this deal to start with, Panama wanted the deal. Lot's of countries want trade deals with the US. For instance New Zealand want's a deal, we haven't given them one. The idea that there was some pressing need to make the deal so that waiting for a better deal wasn't possible or preferable I just outright reject. From what I understand about Panama farming and US farming it wasn't family farmers in the US or subsistence farmers in Panama that benefited. Both are poisoning their local water, both are getting squeezed out by industrial corporate farming, and so on. I have to say that you all set aside that Panama is essentially not bound to the deals financial regulations should they choose not to be, and that there is no evidence it actually reduced or made harder the stashing of money of there, incredibly easily. If we're not going to agree on that there's no reason to continue.
You haven't specified a position so I made one up. Panama imports most of their food from the United States so we could compel them to end their bank secrecy laws through an embargo. You're the one who said to use the trade deal as leverage. If your goal is to end bank secrecy then that is a path to take.
So exports to Panama increased by tens of billions of dollars, but family farmers didn't benefit from that? You're going to have a hard time convincing me of that one. Peoples food in Panama is now cheaper since there are reduced tariffs. You're going to have to provide some actual evidence besides vague statements like family farmers are being squeezed.
Regarding the loop hole, has Panama ever actually not given up tax information when requested? I can't find anything about compliance with FATCA, but no news is good news in that realm.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
because of the shifted baseline with war it can be jarring to talk about just use of nuclear weapons. the major division of opinion comes with whether this shift is adopted or not.
|
I don't see a reason to agree with any of the descriptions from GH regarding Panama. There's just too much that's off.
I don't know what 'big ag' means beyond making people sound nefarious. In the end, money is money and jobs are jobs. And I don't know what 'family farmers' means either (and I worked in the field). I think GH is just trying to make up a story that would fit his anti establishment world view but it doesn't fit agriculture.
It's weird that you bring up New Zealand. Not only isn't an Fta off the table with them, it has even been expanded into the regional tpp (the negotiations for this concluded last year). This is because NZ is a Cairns Group member, I.E., one of the countries that's most interested in gaining market access to the US. This is mostly due to their dairy farmer association being incredibly efficient. No 'big ag' there, the biggest shark in the dairy sea is made up of hundreds of small farmers.
As for Panama being able to choose not to abide by the rules of the FTA, you forget that you haven't provided any mechanism for this. Let me help you with that: Panama can choose to not implement the FTA, for example by not eliminating bearer bonds. (Yet we know it didn't choose this path because it eliminated this practice with domestic laws). Then it would be sued by US companies in an ISDS but Panama can try to wriggle out by calling for a arbitration commission where Panama and the US can both appoint judges from a pool of international experts. If it fails this diplomatic test, it will be sued by companies that have more money than the country. If it wins, the US can take on state level arbitration. If Panama still miraculously wins this process, the US can tear up the FTA entirely or in part in retaliation. Panama can retaliate as well but guess who loses more... So that's the rough outline of the mechanisms at play. Doesn't seem too plausible that Panama wants to use them, does it?
The main point remains, why wouldn't the US want the billions of dollars of exports and investment and the additional financial loopholes closed? Where's your argument? Besides 'I want something better'.
Kwark provided you a very entertaining leverage argument but you haven't actually substantiated it at all. Why would Panama be desperate for an FTA with the US? Why would it give up it's financial sector at any point in the future?
As for the historical story, the reasons why the US was time pressured was at least three-fold: Panama had an economic boom and the US had to gain access before markets were saturated by other countries. Panama houses the Panama canal and it's control was somehow connected to the FTA (can't find a good overview anymore). The FTA is part of the US effort to fight crime in the region (linked to the Colombia FTA).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
