to be fair, I don't care about them as much as I care about us

and if we're better, as a nation, I'm sure they will appreciate it

we should be "good"

take the kyoto accords

what is our argument... oh it will fuck up buisness

so... fuck the environment of the world because... we might be a little less rich

that's kind of evil, right? I mean, we have lots of shit already... the poorest amongst us... the panhandlers and criminals have it orders of magnitude better than the destitute of the world

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2009 3:57:48 PM

Quote :

"What if they have a real plan? A strategy? There are any number of situations in which our debt could be used as a seriously leveraging tool"

I'm sure they do have a strategy. They're not trying to get totally screwed by us. They're the creditor nation, and we're the debtor nation. China would rather us pay back some of the money than default, but they want to get paid. I don't think it's in their interests to screw us over. We've screwed ourselves over by living way, way, way beyond our means.

11/16/2009 4:00:28 PM

Quote :

"$4000 toilet seats "

11/16/2009 4:00:36 PM

LOL

<3 McDanger

11/16/2009 4:02:44 PM

^^^

yeah "ourselves"

you, me, and the rest of us

we're not outside of this problem

11/16/2009 4:03:41 PM

Quote :

"what is our argument... oh it will fuck up buisness so... fuck the environment of the world because... we might be a little less rich"

I suspect that the problem is that most of the people opposed to Kyoto, etc., don't think that the proposed restrictions will help solve any problems. Either they don't believe there's a problem to be solved, or they think that the changes wouldn't help, or they think that they wouldn't help as much as they'd hurt, overall. I have a lot of trouble believing that there's any influential group of people who believe, "My increased wealth will destroy the world, but I don't care, I want that wealth."

Very few people, I think, and certainly very few influential people on the world stage, are "evil" in any meaningful sense. They're just idiots trying to do good, who are either confused about what "good" is or how to achieve it. It's a question of who you think is generally closest to having it right.

For example, in terms of the US vs. al Qaeda discussion:

We think "good" means a land of prosperity, with high standards of living and political and civil liberty. We sometimes seek to further this end by bombing small countries into the stone age and killing civilians in the process.

Al Qaeda thinks "good" is a world where everyone follows the same belief system and lacks political and civil liberty. They frequently seek to further this end by bombing whatever they can get at.

I'd like to think that, based roughly on that assessment, we've at least got a better idea of what "good" is, and maybe a very slightly better idea how to go about it.

11/16/2009 4:11:00 PM

certainly they suck

I just wish we didn't

11/16/2009 4:13:43 PM

We don't specifically target innocents and civilians though. Sure, we're kinda haphazard about collateral damage, but they aren't the targets.

The other side DOES specifically target innocents and civilians. That's the biggest difference in my mind when that topic comes up.

11/16/2009 4:22:58 PM

we certainly do though

...

- HOW CAN YOU KILL WOMEN

AND CHILDREN?

- YOU JUST DON'T LEAD THEM AS MUCH


from a movie, but still fun

11/16/2009 4:24:57 PM

Quote :

"Then I guess now my question is why you think a drastic shrinking of the military is necessary. Like someone said earlier, it seems like you have more problem with foreign policy than you do with troop levels."

Troop levels determine our foreign policy. If his advisers predicted invading Iraq would have necessitated pulling out of Afghanistan, Bush would not have done it. But, instead they honestly believed we could wage both wars easily.

A man with a hammer has a nasty tendency to use it, even when inappropriate.

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 5:30 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/16/2009 5:28:26 PM

^^ I would say that we are pretty non-haphazard about killing non-combatants.

Quote :

"Certainly, no reasonable person would blanketly think they're "evil"."

You have got to be shitting me.

11/16/2009 5:31:47 PM

in world war 2 we strategically bombed civilian populations

which is technically still non-haphazard... but still

and you think that all Islamic (I really want to put religious... but I said Islamic) extremists are evil?

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2009 5:35:30 PM

Quote :

"in world war 2..."

You have got to be shitting me.

11/16/2009 6:05:28 PM

Quote :

"Very few people, I think, and certainly very few influential people on the world stage, are "evil" in any meaningful sense. They're just idiots trying to do good, who are either confused about what "good" is or how to achieve it. It's a question of who you think is generally closest to having it right. For example, in terms of the US vs. al Qaeda discussion: We think "good" means a land of prosperity, with high standards of living and political and civil liberty. We sometimes seek to further this end by bombing small countries into the stone age and killing civilians in the process. Al Qaeda thinks "good" is a world where everyone follows the same belief system and lacks political and civil liberty. They frequently seek to further this end by bombing whatever they can get at. I'd like to think that, based roughly on that assessment, we've at least got a better idea of what "good" is, and maybe a very slightly better idea how to go about it."

11/16/2009 6:48:52 PM

^ i'm impressed

11/16/2009 6:52:19 PM

^^^

what? do you think american policy begins in 1990?

11/16/2009 9:06:11 PM

Of course not, and if we hadn't done a bunch of fighting in the 65 years since WWII, that might be valid, but aside from the fact that WWII was total war, unlike anything that has occurred since, we've fought in tons of places since then, and in particularly the last, ohhh, 4 wars we've fought (Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq), we've gone out of our way to an unprecedented extent (in a way that few, if any, other countries would've done) to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage. I might add that this, at least in the real conflict stage (maybe not in the long-run nation building, in instances where we stick around for that), costs us both dollars and American lives.

At any rate, it's ludicrous, for the purposes of the argument that you are trying to make, to say "BUT, BUT, WE FIREBOMBED DRESDEN AND TOKYO AND NUKED JAPAN TWICE IN WWII." Of course, what you are trying to argue cannot be claimed by any reasonable approach, so straws like that are what you are left to grasp at.

Part of the reason that our military spending IS so tremendous is that we are willing to drop precision-guided EVERYTHING, on pinpoint targets tracked by sophisticated, hugely expensive surveillance methods, etc.


^^^ No doubt about that, and I don't think many would argue otherwise. I, however, have no problem labeling a lot of those motherfuckers as "evil". They are certainly misguided, too, and generally do think that they are doing the right thing, but those things are not mutually exclusive.

11/16/2009 10:36:04 PM

Well shit, Sherman burned Atlanta.

11/16/2009 10:51:31 PM

Exactly.

11/16/2009 11:20:22 PM

Quote :

"If his advisers predicted invading Iraq would have necessitated pulling out of Afghanistan, Bush would not have done it."

There's some truth to this, to be sure -- though it bears mentioning that troops were drawn out of Afghanistan, including some of the most specialized, arguably most important units.

But, in the situation you describe, where essentially all troops would have to be pulled from Afghanistan, I agree with your assessment. I would, however, shy away from "troop levels determine our foreign policy." They are a factor, but not even a dominating one.

Quote :

"I, however, have no problem labeling a lot of those motherfuckers as "evil". They are certainly misguided, too, and generally do think that they are doing the right thing, but those things are not mutually exclusive."

Well, it's true that "evil" is one of those words that's not well-defined in the common usage. Hell, for all I know I'm not even applying it quite correctly in it's official, narrow usage. Generally I take "evil" to describe who knows that something is wrong and does it anyway. Those people exist, and I don't accept mental illness as a meaningful excuse for it.

In general conversation I also don't have a problem with calling al Qaeda evil. Ultimately, though, what I mean is that they are "irredeemably wrong about what is right." I don't think there's any hope to convince them otherwise.

11/17/2009 12:03:28 AM

I have an issue with calling some of our enemies "terrorists". I think that term has been taken away from the proper meaning, and that's bad.

...but I have no problem with calling most militant Islamists "evil". No, they are no generally aware that they are wrong and doing it anyway, but this is a case of being "irredeemably wrong about what is right" to the extent of being unquestionably evil.

11/17/2009 12:13:45 AM

the point is that we don't have to target civilian populations for the wars we've lately conducted

so we don't

but if we had to for a necessary strategic objective

we would, in a heartbeat

...

so the "others" do as well

they believe that attacking civilian targets meets their strategic objectives

just because they're small and different doesn't make them more culpable

...

you know, don't think I'm defending them, I'm just having a really hard time defending us

but that's just my liberal side talking, give me a second and I'll tell you how I hope that we stay in Iraq for the next 50 years as a strategic staging point to Iran

11/17/2009 8:36:24 AM

To me, the point isn't really that we aren't trying to kill civilians. I mean, yeah, in WWII, we definitely killed thousands of innocent Japanese. I have a huge problem with that, but most Americans buy into the whole "we had to end the war and save American lives" thing, which is complete garbage.

Anyway, the point is that we are killing civilians, intentionally or not, in unjust wars. It doesn't matter that we're trying not to, all that matters is that we are. We could end that very quickly, but we don't.

11/17/2009 8:40:40 AM

and it's more recent than WW II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre

and we attacked civilian targets that has strategic military objectives in Serbia

I'm sure that if I cared to look I could find examples in the Gulf War and the Iraq War.

we bomb airfields... any airfields

we bomb power plants and electrical substructures

this is from wiki (I guess I did care to)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

Quote :

"Government buildings, TV stations, airfields, presidential palaces, military installations, communication lines, supply bases, oil refineries, a Baghdad airport, electric powerplants and factories making Iraqi war machine equipment were all destroyed due to extensive massive aerial and missile attacks by the coalition forces."

all of which have "dual purposes" but which are, in a sense, civilian targets (except military installations... of course... and certainly most of those factories we're also dual use)

I feel like a bit of a... whatever for pointing all this out... but just because we're not trying to hit an apartment or office building doesn't mean we're not hitting civilian targets.

[Edited on November 17, 2009 at 8:51 AM. Reason : .]

11/17/2009 8:50:08 AM

Ok, this thread has become fail. Anyone here actually sit down and study the philosophy of war, or are we all just spouting off emotional nonsense ? Walzer, Anscombe, Aquinas, Hobbes, Taylor, Wasserstrom, etc?

On a related note, just something interesting to think about, not necessarily what I believe - according to Clauswitz, in every war the defender is the one who initiates the war. After all, you can't have a war if you don't resist. Discuss.

11/17/2009 9:51:08 AM

You're an arrogant little shit.

Discuss.

11/17/2009 10:05:15 AM

Quote :

"No, they are no generally aware that they are wrong and doing it anyway, but this is a case of being "irredeemably wrong about what is right" to the extent of being unquestionably evil."

Yes.

If simply having a positive end in mind disqualifies someone from being evil, then I doubt an evil person has ever lived. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all thought their visions of the future were good.

What Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Al Qaeda all have in common are objectively evil actions, regardless of their goals.

11/17/2009 12:34:10 PM

"Objective evil" -- might as well say the only thing they had in common was pixie dust.

11/17/2009 12:38:15 PM

While it's interesting to discuss good and evil (though I really see that concept as rooted in religious tradition, and fairly useless for rational discussion), I think this thread has gotten a little off topic.

11/17/2009 12:44:00 PM

nastoute, there are plenty of examples in this thread for why you're a complete idiot but I'll just comment on this one:

Quote :

"take the kyoto accords what is our argument... oh it will fuck up buisness so... fuck the environment of the world because... we might be a little less rich that's kind of evil, right?"

Our argument is that YES, it would hurt the economy. Our argument is that if every nation agreed to and followed the Kyoto Protocol the result would be a temperature reduction of less than one tenth Celsuis degree over the next 50 years or so. Our argument is that there is not sufficient proof that humans are making the planet warmer through CO2 emissions.

But you want to bitch that we should have signed the Kyoto accord, even though most countries that did sign it exceeded their emission targets, hurt their economies, OR BOTH.

Just reading a lot of these posts make me believe that the US doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning another major war (a la WWII) if people like you bleeding vaginas are in any position of power.

[Edited on November 17, 2009 at 1:22 PM. Reason : k]

[Edited on November 17, 2009 at 1:22 PM. Reason : k]

11/17/2009 1:21:25 PM

The reason we don't have a chance of winning a major war is because warmongerers (like you, apparently) flushed cash and resources down the toilet for no god damned reason. Now we're broke and couldn't defend the mainland against invasion if we had to.

But at least we brought "democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan and fought "them" over there so we don't have to fight "them" over here, right?

11/17/2009 1:30:40 PM

No one wants to invade the US. China will result to economic warfare before it does anything with their military, and if we ever did get into a major conflict with a real country we'd all die from nukes.

I mean pretty much anyone large enough to be an invasion threat has nukes, and anyone else is small enough that we'd have no problems dispatching them in a straight fight. The smaller countries can be delt with diplomatically in most cases anyways so they're even less of a threat.

Also the idea that we're going to prevent random acts of terrorism inside our borders is fucking retarded. Theres a million ways to cause havoc inside this country and our current plan of evesdrop-on-the-brown-people is worthless.

Pullback troops from unneeded deployments and obsolete bases, maintain air and sea supremacy for force projection, and use economic and diplomatic measures to deal with the likes of iran or NK. If they ever do go super crazy, send in the fleet to bomb the shit out of them. Fuck this occupying force bullshit.

11/17/2009 1:51:27 PM

^^^

you can fuck off

I don't think you have a clue about what I'm talking about.

11/17/2009 2:45:52 PM

^at least related to what I quoted you didn't have a clue.


^^^Ah, so b/c I call out people for crying over the use of atomic weapons to end WWII I'm a warmonger and people like me are the reason we're in the mess we have right now? lol, sure.

When another country starts an unprovoked war by attacking and conquering your terrority, killing your people, and destroying your military vessels you don't sit around and figure out how to beat them in the nicest, least inconvenient manner for them and their country. No, you beat them in the easiest and fastest manner for you, that results in the least amount of casualties of YOUR citizens

[Edited on November 17, 2009 at 4:17 PM. Reason : or we could just hold hands and hang out on rainbows all day, riding around on unicorns.]

11/17/2009 4:13:53 PM

Quote :

"When another country starts an unprovoked war by attacking and conquering your terrority, killing your people, and destroying your military vessels you don't sit around and figure out how to beat them in the nicest, least inconvenient manner for them and their country. No, you beat them in the easiest and fastest manner for you, that results in the least amount of casualties of YOUR citizens"

yeah... whens the last time that's happened to us?

OMG TONKIN

pfft

11/17/2009 4:52:14 PM

I think he was referring specifically to his justification for dropping the bomb on Japan. They attacked our territory, took over some of it (admittedly not the most exciting or important parts, but still), and so on.

11/17/2009 4:57:30 PM

ahh yes... well

ok

11/17/2009 5:14:59 PM

I am sorry if there was confusion, but yes that is what I was referring to. I suppose the WWII comment of mine was in reply to a tangent within this thread, but it seemed to be somewhat relevant to the conversation at hand.

11/17/2009 11:11:12 PM

Quote :

"Ah, so b/c I call out people for crying over the use of atomic weapons to end WWII I'm a warmonger and people like me are the reason we're in the mess we have right now? lol, sure."

No, that's not the reason. The reason is:

Quote :

"warmongerers (like you, apparently) flushed cash and resources down the toilet for no god damned reason"

. That's in reference to the current wars we're in. You have no problem going to war, as long as there as any (good or bad) justification. And, in the case of the current wars, it's contributed to our massive debt, which is causing serious problems. But onto the WWII issue.

Quote :

"When another country starts an unprovoked war by attacking and conquering your terrority, killing your people, and destroying your military vessels you don't sit around and figure out how to beat them in the nicest, least inconvenient manner for them and their country. No, you beat them in the easiest and fastest manner for you, that results in the least amount of casualties of YOUR citizens"

Looks like you buy into the version of history that says we had to kill thousands of civilians or millions of Americans would have died. I don't buy that. The Japanese were already getting pounded. We could have dropped a nuke off their coast to show them what would happen. Instead, we dropped not one but two nukes on areas that we knew were 90% civilian populations.

What's funny is that we did that, and now we try to keep anyone we can from getting nuclear weapons. It's like "Oh, well, we know when it's right to nuke innocent people, but you guys don't. See, the United States government is very good at getting things right, so you can trust us to vaporize the right people at the right time!"

Quote :

"or we could just hold hands and hang out on rainbows all day, riding around on unicorns."

We could mind our business and not use nuclear weapons if we're forced into a conflict by an aggressive nation (Hint: people don't really want to attack us because they know what kind of weapons we have. We just go and attack other people, while calling it "national defense").

11/18/2009 9:02:25 AM

Quote :

"What's funny is that we did that, and now we try to keep anyone we can from getting nuclear weapons. It's like "Oh, well, we know when it's right to nuke innocent people, but you guys don't. See, the United States government is very good at getting things right, so you can trust us to vaporize the right people at the right time!""

The only reason we try to keep people from getting nukes is to prevent them from nuking us (or one of our allies, which is just another extension to keep our country safe). Plain and simple. We're not making a statement about other countries' responsibilities. Might makes right means that OUR citizens don't get nuked. As a citizen of this country I don't mind that perk.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 9:09 AM. Reason : allies]

11/18/2009 9:09:10 AM

Oh, I agree that might seems to make right in this situation. It's just dumb to act like we have the moral high ground. What happens when we're not the world's #1 superpower, which may already be the case? What if, at some point, we're not even top 20? Our arrogance may eventually come back to bite us in the ass.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 9:17 AM. Reason : ]

11/18/2009 9:16:50 AM

^Well you don't see anyone attacking Russia now do you. And they're not a #1 superpower anymore. They'd be jack shit if they didn't have thousands of nukes laying around.

Quote :

"Looks like you buy into the version of history that says we had to kill thousands of civilians or millions of Americans would have died. I don't buy that. The Japanese were already getting pounded. We could have dropped a nuke off their coast to show them what would happen. Instead, we dropped not one but two nukes on areas that we knew were 90% civilian populations"

Pretty easy for you to armchair quarterback over 60 years later, while enjoying a lifestyle that was partially brought about by our leaders making that decision

And nowhere have I said our two current wars (or conflicts, whatever you want to call them) are a good idea. But nice attempt at putting words in my mouth. Spend valuable time scouring TWW, you won't see me supporting them anywhere.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 11:05 AM. Reason : k]

11/18/2009 11:03:32 AM

He posts in this thread in between jerking off while playing WoW and cleaning out his room in his mom's basement.

11/18/2009 11:21:43 AM

Yeah, it is easy for me to be armchair quarterback. We're talking about a weapon that causes massive destruction. Everything within a certain radius is guaranteed to die. We shouldn't have used it. It's pretty tough to draw a correlation between our current "lifestyle" and the fact that we nuked Japan. I have a hard time believing that the outcome of the war would have been entirely different without using nuclear weapons.

I'll take your word for it that you don't support either of the two wars. Your original statement (about bleeding heart liberal vaginas, or whatever) sure seemed to suggest that you disagreed with an anti-war approach, but I don't know. The "just reading a lot of these posts" part makes it hard to say exactly what you were in disagreement with.

11/18/2009 11:22:55 AM

Quote :

"Looks like you buy into the version of history that says we had to kill thousands of civilians or millions of Americans would have died. I don't buy that. The Japanese were already getting pounded. We could have dropped a nuke off their coast to show them what would happen. Instead, we dropped not one but two nukes on areas that we knew were 90% civilian populations."

yes, I think I do buy into the version of history supported by most reputable military historians. my grandfather actually helped to plan an invasion of the mainland (his role as an anti-submarine expert was to figure out how to defend the fleet from kamikaze mini-subs). before he passed, he talked often about the casualty scenarios he saw and they were CATASTROPHIC for both the Japanese population and the Allies. you can see in Iraq and Afghanistan how difficult it can be to win against a fanatical population, which the Japanese certainly were.

additionally, we had already fire bombed and killed thousands of civilians with little or no response from the Japanese government. we only had 2 nuclear weapons in our possession so using one to simply send a message probably wasnt a real option. plus, both cities were legitimate military targets...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima

Quote :

"During World War II, the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagasaki

Quote :

"During the Meiji period, Nagasaki became a center of heavy industry. Its main industry was ship-building, with the dockyards under control of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries becoming one of the prime contractors for the Imperial Japanese Navy, and with Nagasaki harbor used as an anchorage under the control of nearby Sasebo Naval District.These connections with the military made Nagasaki a major target for bombing by the Allies in World War II"

But, you know, feel free to change history as you wish you support your viewpoint.

11/18/2009 12:08:53 PM

and yes I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein and I supported the removal of the Taliban.

if that makes me a warmonger, so be it.

11/18/2009 12:10:21 PM

^^Before we dropped the bombs, Japan was trying to negotiate surrender through the USSR. They weren't willing to go with the "unconditional surrender" option because the Japanese felt that the emperor was a god of some sort, and they didn't want him to lose his position. People believe crazy shit, whatever. The point is, we could have easily stopped the bloodshed by allowing the Emperor to retain his position. And, in the end, he did. The idea that Japan wouldn't have surrendered without the nukes is without merit, in my opinion.

And, yeah, it's easy to say this now. Truman might not have known the true power of atomic weapons. Maybe he really did believe that a full land invasion would have been necessary to end the fighting, so it felt like the right decision. I don't believe it was the right decision, though. Just like it may have seemed like the right decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003, we (some of us, at least) now know that it wasn't.

^Overthrowing the Taliban seemed warranted enough. Saddam was a bad guy, but there are a lot of bad guys out there. We don't overthrow every cruel and corrupt government, because it isn't our place. I supported the Iraq war, initially. Really, though, the question should be why we're still in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure, those may have made some sense at first, but now it seems pretty pointless to stay there.

11/18/2009 12:35:55 PM

^^^ Agreed. After Okinawa it became clear that although the Japanese stood no chance of winning the war, they were still heavily committed to fanatical resistance. The Japanese military planned on throwing up as much defense as possible in the hopes of inflicting enough allied casualties to win a conditional surrender. This included arming school girls with bamboo spears and telling them that they owed the emperor one dead american before they were killed. Had Operation Downfall been launched the Japanese casualties would have been in the millions and the war would have dragged on into 1948, by which point the Soviets would have launched an invasion from Korea and started the same brutal scorched earth policy that they had utilized when over running eastern europe.

By late 1945 it was clear that American bombers could destroy any Japanese city in 24 hours. The fact that we used one bomber with one atom bomb instead of several hundred armed with incendiaries was a minor consideration at the time.

^ Yes, the civilian government made peace offerings. Sadly, the military was in control and was committed to fighting to the last man. They went as far as organizing an unsuccessful coup after learning of the plan to surrender following the atomic bombing.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 12:40 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 12:38:08 PM

Why was unconditional surrender so important? The only thing the Japanese were fighting for was the emperor. If we had offered to cease fire, with the condition that the Emperor would have kept his position (which he did anyway), that would have been it. No more American or Japanese lives lost. Instead, we had to be hardheaded, and demand an unconditional surrender. Was that reasonable? That was the time when diplomacy could have been used to save lives, which would have benefited everyone involved.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 12:51 PM. Reason : ]

11/18/2009 12:45:39 PM

Any conditional surrender that they would have pursued would have surely included the retention of all of Manchuria, the Korean peninsula, and a good deal of other conquered territories. This would leave a good portion of east Asia under the heel of the Japanese, who by 1945 had proven that they were brutal occupiers.

Also left untouched would be the militaristic societal structure that had been imposed on the Japanese since the Meiji Restoration. They would have certainly kept their military and their imperial ambitions.

An important thing to consider about the Allied mindset at the time was that this war was a sequel of sorts that had been started by some of the same powers that had been defeated a few decades earlier. As such, many thought that it was in their best interests to fundamentally change the indentity of a warlike people in the hopes of preventing another war 25 years down the road.

11/18/2009 1:09:17 PM