John Hancock

Sakpo

I'm really at loss to express my offense at the disrepect intentional or not that you show me in this paternizing and presumptive reply.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sakpo
[B]I agree most Marxism does make the presumption that capitalism must take place in order for industrialization to occur prior to a communist revolution (which orthodox marxism says will inevitably occur, which is obviously untrue). Is that what you were getting at? I'm not a marxist though, so I don't really agree with them about the whole thing (I don't think it ever was really right about a lot of stuff from the start, and it is quite outdated now, most of its current thinking being quite silly).
____________________________________________

Then you concur that Marxism in it's presumption of capitalism a necessary step twixt monarchies and community goverment was an evolutionary dead end? I thought it very clear that I meant Marxism is defunct. I'm inclined to believe that man and his goverments are evolutionary hence commual goverment has as far as I know developed only as far as the French Revolution's P.J. Proudhon. Can you see any improvements since that period?
____________________________________________

As for our republic, it no longer has a representative government (if it ever truly did). Massive voter fraud carried out by the Republican Party and its agents, primarily targeting blacks and non Cuban hispanics in Florida, which denied thousands of Americans their lawful rights, followed by a sickening display by the scum pictured in my attachment, ended any illusion of a proper democracy here.
___________________________________________

"Representative Republic run in a democratic manner" is the accepted manor (false as I think that lable is as a definition) our US goverment is labled. Where did you come across presuming I indicated that the lable has now or ever has had any validity? I have on this board posted to the contrary. (although I possess a contrary nature I meant specificaly, it's a joke)

Thanks for the great .gif.

posted by me:
I define people not possessions the only acceptable citizens of any nation. Do you believe that our current is peaceably salvageable or will the growing disparage in wealth lead to such a large majority of disenfranchised that suicide attacks become the only option for the desperate poor?
___________________________________________


I don't think suicide attacks by the poor will do a bit of good. They would be an ineffective strategy (in fact highly counterproductive) and morally repugnant (seeing as their failure would be so highly predictable and the suffering they would cause). They would obviously harm those that carried them out, those whom they targeted, and those against whom the elites retaliated against. I doubt suicide attacks could win any strategic victory, they would only cause pain and suffering and destruction. None of those things is desirable.
_________________________________________

Sakpo this presumption that I'd even suggest that suicide attacks were a viable tactic is downright insulting "geeze my knees" young man I put an :eek!: as the end.
___________________________________________


America really is a grand experiment, a new thing...we'll have to see what happens while we're around to see it. And we'll have to do what we think is right. I am always hesitant to endorse beginning violence, we must recognize as people that we cannot always percieve things clearly in the heat of the moment, that we can rarely truly understand the full ramifications of our actions, that we can not plan the future on a grand scale and try to manipulate it into being....though we have to try. Still, when we can see our actions will predictably cause significant suffering we must be hesitant to go ahead anyway out of concern for some planned greater good down the road, as to do so is quite arrogant, and it is this mentality ("I can break eggs now so we all have an omellete later") that in combination with technological advance largely caused the 20th century to be the horror that it was (see Robert Conquest's book Reflections On A Ravaged Century for a worthwhile read about this). I'm not saying we shouldn't try to improve things, think big, or act, I'm just saying we have to be careful about our willingness to subject others to suffering because we think it will cause greater good to happen later...human beings often miscalculate in this area.
_______________________________________

No josh Sherlock? The question however is people not possessions the only acceptable citizens of any nation and hence the usurption corporate personage being an impediment to evolution away from broker parties stifle advancement towards goverment for and by the people?

I suppose I owe you an aplogy for presuming that you are quick and diligent young man who's familiaity with current events enabled you to quikly comphend what you read.
___________________________________________

I'm not a genius. I don't know what's going to happen or what we should do (heh, neither do the geniuses). I just know I don't want to hurt anybody else unnecessarily.
__________________________________________
Yes we're all human and you've hurt my feelings.

Martin Buber

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Had we not been providing huge amounts of aid the soviets wouldn't have done much against the Nazis. You contributed bodies, not equipment.

Huge amounts? Very little actually made it through until 1944 by which time Germany was definitely on the back foot.

Who else was doing much in the Pacific theater?

Mainly the commonwealth, i.e Australian soldiers easily outnumbered the US troops in the invasion of virtually every southern Pacific island. The US almost single handidly took the northern Pacific (i.e the direct route to Japan) but in terms of numbers of personnel involved that was almost a side line (although the naval engagements were awesome!). Borneo & Burma had almost no US presence nor did the battle in the Indian Ocean, in fact the only forces still fighting in the far east as of 1943 were commonwealth forces. The total commonwealth losses in the war against Japan totalled over 900 ships, far more than the US had!

They were neccessary to shake the Japanese leaders out of the resist-to-the-last-man ideas. Once it became obvious we could win without giving them the chance to kill a huge number of Americans they quit.

Very simplistic (nice to see you don't surprise) but almost true, the thought of Russia invading from the north would have ended the war just as quickly and was almost realised. The last minute show of power in Japan was as much for Stalin's benefit as it was for the Japanese.

He was one of the causes.

And he blamed it on terrorism, watch out!!!

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses

He was as good as any other, i.e he was as equal to the task at hand as was Stalin or Roosevelt. He definitely was a better war leader than Hitler or the Italian bloke whose name escapes me.

Amen-Moses

Godbert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Loren Pechtel


Had we not been providing huge amounts of aid the soviets wouldn't have done much against the Nazis. You contributed bodies, not equipment.


Sure, and Germany won the Gulf War

Atomic Bombs Were Necessary To End The Japanese War Quickly

They were neccessary to shake the Japanese leaders out of the resist-to-the-last-man ideas. Once it became obvious we could win without giving them the chance to kill a huge number of Americans they quit.


You could have made that just as obvious by dropping the bombs somewhere in the woods.

Godbert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amen-Moses


Who else was doing much in the Pacific theater?

Mainly the commonwealth, i.e Australian soldiers easily outnumbered the US troops in the invasion of virtually every southern Pacific island. The US almost single handidly took the northern Pacific (i.e the direct route to Japan) but in terms of numbers of personnel involved that was almost a side line (although the naval engagements were awesome!). Borneo & Burma had almost no US presence nor did the battle in the Indian Ocean, in fact the only forces still fighting in the far east as of 1943 were commonwealth forces. The total commonwealth losses in the war against Japan totalled over 900 ships, far more than the US had!

Do you have some links to back that up?

Amen-Moses

Only history, look it up it's fascinating stuff.

Amen-Moses

John Hancock

Amen-Moses

Bento Mussolini (probably spelled wrong but I'm to lazy too lazy to reach for Desk Encyclopedia)

Martin Buber

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Godbert
You could have made that just as obvious by dropping the bombs somewhere in the woods.

So, a bunch of woods are blown down and then there's a big fire--who says the bomb and not the fire did the damage?

A demonstration had to hit a real target of some kind. Also, we couldn't tell them "look at what we are going to do"--we weren't sure enough of the functioning of the bombs. (In fact, the designs used back then had a non-trivial chance of going poof instead of boom. They knew there was a risk of a predetonation {fission initiated before assembly is completed. The result is a yield far below design.} but lacked the computer power to know what the risk was.)

Monkeybot

This was the actual quote. Note that Totalitarianist/Eotai/Trebaxian is not saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were questionable targets. He is not proposing alternative targets, he is asserting that it's a lie to say that atomic bombs were necessary at all to end the war quickly.

IOW, Totalitarianist, you believe there was another option that would have ended the war quickly. I'd love to hear it.

Syphor

How about this one - A redefinition of the Potsdam Proclamation indicating a willingness on the part of the US to respect the sovereignty of the Japanese emperor. That would have gotten a surrender out of the Japanese, one which they had sought for months beforehand.

The atomic bombs were dropped for a few reasons - One was an attempt to bring about quick end to the pacific war before the Soviet Union invaded and got a significant foothold in Northern Asia. Two, as a means of intimidation toward the Soviet Union and finally three, to prevent the necessity of an American invasion which I doubt would have been necessary anyway due to the significant effect that the conventional bombing campaign and total air and sea blockade was already having on Japan, both psychologically and in regards to crippling Japanese industrial capability. So yes IMO the atomic bombing were absolutely unwarranted for an overuse of force against a destroyed enemy and especially against the dense civilian areas of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I've often heard Americans talk about how infamous Pearl Harbour was, and certainly it was, but it was a valid military target, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not and in no way can ever be justified.