spot wrote: Not in the least, I'm all for hanging the grunts too - and most especially the damned pilots - if they kill indiscriminately. I'm sick to the back teeth with the guys who give the order to kill indiscriminately or disproportionately or without just cause being immune from any judicial come-back, and I think that's a very fair position to adopt.
i see. so, an analysis of the above yields that you do not believe that soldiers or officers or politicians should be hanged if they kill discriminately. so, killing in war is acceptable to you, so long as the killers kill the right people. is that a fair take?
and here i thought you were being honest when you said you were a Pacifist.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
anastrophe wrote: i see. so, an analysis of the above yields that you do not believe that soldiers or officers or politicians should be hanged if they kill discriminately. so, killing in war is acceptable to you, so long as the killers kill the right people. is that a fair take?
and here i thought you were being honest when you said you were a Pacifist.Why can't you look for a way in which my words cohere instead of trying to find an interpretation by which they don't? They always cohere. The coherent interpretation is correct.
There are courts. There are laws. There are precedents. The precedent of Nuremberg, which incidentally was very much a US-inspired court, discussed the legality of warfare. In my opinion, by any reasonable interpretation of their finding the leaders of the current US and UK administrations should be facing similar charges of declaring and pursuing an illegal war against both Iraq and Afghanistan. The deliberate and deceptive knowing lies form part of this charge, as they did at Nuremberg. The lack of proportionality forms part of this charge, as it did at Nuremberg. The lack of due care in the implementation of the policy of war forms part of this charge, as it did at Nuremberg.
The internal domestic laws relating to those sections of the Geneva Convention which have been adopted there in the US would, in my opinion, if investigation were allowed and charges brought, similarly declare a criminal culpability in the deaths and killings of civilians in Iraq on the part of high-level military planners and their political masters.
All that we get, instead, are sentences against a very few of the grunts in those cases where the mainstream media finally finds it unavoidable to make a fuss about photos or dead Generals in sleeping bags. Nobody, in the military or the political leadership, who gave the orders to set up the facilities in these ways were brought to book. In my opinion each of those grunts brought to court relating to Abu Ghraib were as much victims as those who died in their custody, right down to their lack of training as regards their responsibilities. They were kept pitifully ignorant of their right to blow the whistle on their orders, and on their responsibilities in law. They were petted by their unprosecuted trainers and told they were doing a good job.
Killing in lawful circumstances is legal, however much I abhor that fact. My words which you try to tease into incoherence relate to the injustice of prosecuting the performers while allowing the orderers to get away uninvestigated and continuing as they were before. I would much rather see the instigator tried and convicted than his tool tried and convicted, whether that tool were witting or ignorant. The instigators were undoubtedly very well aware of the laws they were isolating themselves from.
We discussed the term "moral derilict" at one time, you'll remember. I tried to distinguish between volunteer armed forces and conscript armed forces. Ignoring for the moment the duty of soldiers to refuse an order that turns out in retrospect to have been unlawful, both groups kill immediately on command. The conscript has no choice in whether he will put himself in such a position that he must abdicate his judgment and kill when so ordered. The volunteer deliberately and consciously places himself in that position, he becomes a paid killer by choice. It's that abandonment of responsibility for such a major moral choice that I refer to as a dereliction.
As for the duty of soldiers to refuse an order that turns out in retrospect to have been unlawful, I note that when something so filthy as Abu Ghraib is deliberately set up it's staffed by non-professional forces whose training bypasses any mention of such responsibility. That says a lot about the planners.
Pacifism relates to those who adopt it as a practical approach to problem-solving, as does non-violence in general. Give me a gun and I'll refuse to use it. Order me to kill and I'll disobey regardless of personal consequence. The willingness to refuse is more important than the loss it entails.
and here i thought you were being honest when you said you were a Pacifist.Why can't you look for a way in which my words cohere instead of trying to find an interpretation by which they don't? They always cohere. The coherent interpretation is correct.
There are courts. There are laws. There are precedents. The precedent of Nuremberg, which incidentally was very much a US-inspired court, discussed the legality of warfare. In my opinion, by any reasonable interpretation of their finding the leaders of the current US and UK administrations should be facing similar charges of declaring and pursuing an illegal war against both Iraq and Afghanistan. The deliberate and deceptive knowing lies form part of this charge, as they did at Nuremberg. The lack of proportionality forms part of this charge, as it did at Nuremberg. The lack of due care in the implementation of the policy of war forms part of this charge, as it did at Nuremberg.
The internal domestic laws relating to those sections of the Geneva Convention which have been adopted there in the US would, in my opinion, if investigation were allowed and charges brought, similarly declare a criminal culpability in the deaths and killings of civilians in Iraq on the part of high-level military planners and their political masters.
All that we get, instead, are sentences against a very few of the grunts in those cases where the mainstream media finally finds it unavoidable to make a fuss about photos or dead Generals in sleeping bags. Nobody, in the military or the political leadership, who gave the orders to set up the facilities in these ways were brought to book. In my opinion each of those grunts brought to court relating to Abu Ghraib were as much victims as those who died in their custody, right down to their lack of training as regards their responsibilities. They were kept pitifully ignorant of their right to blow the whistle on their orders, and on their responsibilities in law. They were petted by their unprosecuted trainers and told they were doing a good job.
Killing in lawful circumstances is legal, however much I abhor that fact. My words which you try to tease into incoherence relate to the injustice of prosecuting the performers while allowing the orderers to get away uninvestigated and continuing as they were before. I would much rather see the instigator tried and convicted than his tool tried and convicted, whether that tool were witting or ignorant. The instigators were undoubtedly very well aware of the laws they were isolating themselves from.
We discussed the term "moral derilict" at one time, you'll remember. I tried to distinguish between volunteer armed forces and conscript armed forces. Ignoring for the moment the duty of soldiers to refuse an order that turns out in retrospect to have been unlawful, both groups kill immediately on command. The conscript has no choice in whether he will put himself in such a position that he must abdicate his judgment and kill when so ordered. The volunteer deliberately and consciously places himself in that position, he becomes a paid killer by choice. It's that abandonment of responsibility for such a major moral choice that I refer to as a dereliction.
As for the duty of soldiers to refuse an order that turns out in retrospect to have been unlawful, I note that when something so filthy as Abu Ghraib is deliberately set up it's staffed by non-professional forces whose training bypasses any mention of such responsibility. That says a lot about the planners.
Pacifism relates to those who adopt it as a practical approach to problem-solving, as does non-violence in general. Give me a gun and I'll refuse to use it. Order me to kill and I'll disobey regardless of personal consequence. The willingness to refuse is more important than the loss it entails.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
spot wrote: Why is it that some people insist on personal insults like "Precription meds? Crack? Whatever it is it fries you good."? That's so pointlessly rude and so obviously irrelevant and inaccurate.
I don't see the slightest contradiction between what I wrote and what you wrote, both sets of data map together perfectly.
Quite right, sorry for the insults. I was totally in disbelief at what I read in this thread in regards to the incident.
I don't think our data maps at all however; you are insinuating the KAL crew was somehow duped into flying the track of a US SIGINT collection flight. This was not true. I assumed you were deliberatley distorting the facts in order to bait people. I rose to the bait. I'll behave and stick to the facts in the future if you don't deliberatley try and bait people. If you want to insult the U.S. civilian government go ahead I could care less. I served in the USAF for 16 years and will not accept the spreading of lies or slander against the U.S. military unchallanged. We are not perfect but we are honarable (at least most us). If you want to argue face to face (cyber face to face
) with a trigger pulling, bomb dropping baby killer I'm your huckleberry..
I don't see the slightest contradiction between what I wrote and what you wrote, both sets of data map together perfectly.
Quite right, sorry for the insults. I was totally in disbelief at what I read in this thread in regards to the incident.
I don't think our data maps at all however; you are insinuating the KAL crew was somehow duped into flying the track of a US SIGINT collection flight. This was not true. I assumed you were deliberatley distorting the facts in order to bait people. I rose to the bait. I'll behave and stick to the facts in the future if you don't deliberatley try and bait people. If you want to insult the U.S. civilian government go ahead I could care less. I served in the USAF for 16 years and will not accept the spreading of lies or slander against the U.S. military unchallanged. We are not perfect but we are honarable (at least most us). If you want to argue face to face (cyber face to face
) with a trigger pulling, bomb dropping baby killer I'm your huckleberry..You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Hush Scrat, don't even think of upsetting anyone. I have an article to find from a London Sunday Times I read years ago, it may take me a while.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
spot wrote:
We discussed the term "moral derilict" at one time, you'll remember. I tried to distinguish between volunteer armed forces and conscript armed forces. Ignoring for the moment the duty of soldiers to refuse an order that turns out in retrospect to have been unlawful, both groups kill immediately on command. The conscript has no choice in whether he will put himself in such a position that he must abdicate his judgment and kill when so ordered. The volunteer deliberately and consciously places himself in that position, he becomes a paid killer by choice. It's that abandonment of responsibility for such a major moral choice that I refer to as a dereliction.
and this is where the sterility of your abstracted ideology, formed from the comfort of your armchair, becomes abhorent.
no twisting of your words - "the volunteer deliberately and consciously places himself in that position, he becomes a paid killer by choice. it's that abandonment of responsibility for such a major moral choice that i refer to as a dereliction".
my father volunteered in world war II, after having been told by an elderly jewish neighbor whom he was very fond of, that "they're killing the jews". he went willingly. he killed numbers i will never know, because he could not talk about it. he paid a terrible cost. he despised war ever after - but he never, ever, not once ever expressed regret for having fought. he regretted the lives lost, he regretted the carnage he saw, but he never, ever suggested that he felt that what he did was immoral. what would have been immoral would have been to not volunteer. he had a moral duty to try to stop the advance of evil aggression. He was one of the "lucky" ones who didn't die in the process.
so my father was a paid killer who abdicated his moral responsibily by your definition. no twisting of your words.
Pacifism is morally derelict, because it refuses to meet violent aggression with violent resistance, when violent resistance is the only means of survival.
you would let the violent aggressor kill you, rather than kill him. you forget that after you've gone to your ever after peaceful reward, your act of moral character has left a killer behind, who can and likely will take more innocent lives. Pacifism is simply selfish. 'let the murderer continue to wreak his destruction; at least i didn't compromise my principles!' fat lot of good principles do you after your dead. it's a hollow ideology. 'screw those who are left in the corporeal world after i'm gone'.
We discussed the term "moral derilict" at one time, you'll remember. I tried to distinguish between volunteer armed forces and conscript armed forces. Ignoring for the moment the duty of soldiers to refuse an order that turns out in retrospect to have been unlawful, both groups kill immediately on command. The conscript has no choice in whether he will put himself in such a position that he must abdicate his judgment and kill when so ordered. The volunteer deliberately and consciously places himself in that position, he becomes a paid killer by choice. It's that abandonment of responsibility for such a major moral choice that I refer to as a dereliction.
and this is where the sterility of your abstracted ideology, formed from the comfort of your armchair, becomes abhorent.
no twisting of your words - "the volunteer deliberately and consciously places himself in that position, he becomes a paid killer by choice. it's that abandonment of responsibility for such a major moral choice that i refer to as a dereliction".
my father volunteered in world war II, after having been told by an elderly jewish neighbor whom he was very fond of, that "they're killing the jews". he went willingly. he killed numbers i will never know, because he could not talk about it. he paid a terrible cost. he despised war ever after - but he never, ever, not once ever expressed regret for having fought. he regretted the lives lost, he regretted the carnage he saw, but he never, ever suggested that he felt that what he did was immoral. what would have been immoral would have been to not volunteer. he had a moral duty to try to stop the advance of evil aggression. He was one of the "lucky" ones who didn't die in the process.
so my father was a paid killer who abdicated his moral responsibily by your definition. no twisting of your words.
Pacifism is morally derelict, because it refuses to meet violent aggression with violent resistance, when violent resistance is the only means of survival.
you would let the violent aggressor kill you, rather than kill him. you forget that after you've gone to your ever after peaceful reward, your act of moral character has left a killer behind, who can and likely will take more innocent lives. Pacifism is simply selfish. 'let the murderer continue to wreak his destruction; at least i didn't compromise my principles!' fat lot of good principles do you after your dead. it's a hollow ideology. 'screw those who are left in the corporeal world after i'm gone'.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Scrat wrote: Goeasy on the drama Anastrophe. I'm trying to eat. Maybe you should ask your father about the millions of other people who died because of German imperialism. Why is it the Jewish blood seems to be worth so much more than that of others?
no no no. Scrat, don't nibble the bait.
anastrophe is bringing up his dead dad again so we can't morally argue with him. I don't think he'll mind this comment as he approved of Anne Coulter's widow rant: If you are going to debate don't use your sorrow to hide behind.
no no no. Scrat, don't nibble the bait.
anastrophe is bringing up his dead dad again so we can't morally argue with him. I don't think he'll mind this comment as he approved of Anne Coulter's widow rant: If you are going to debate don't use your sorrow to hide behind.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: no no no. Scrat, don't nibble the bait.
anastrophe is bringing up his dead dad again so we can't morally argue with him. I don't think he'll mind this comment as he approved of Anne Coulter's widow rant: If you are going to debate don't use your sorrow to hide behind.
how's kensloft doing?
anastrophe is bringing up his dead dad again so we can't morally argue with him. I don't think he'll mind this comment as he approved of Anne Coulter's widow rant: If you are going to debate don't use your sorrow to hide behind.
how's kensloft doing?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Scrat wrote: Goeasy on the drama Anastrophe. I'm trying to eat.
if it were fiction, it would be drama. since it's not fiction, i'll ask you to bugger off.
Maybe you should ask your father about the millions of other people who died because of German imperialism. Why is it the Jewish blood seems to be worth so much more than that of others?
this from someone who denies that stalin's genocide was even really a genocide? you're a fine specimen, scrat.
if it were fiction, it would be drama. since it's not fiction, i'll ask you to bugger off.
Maybe you should ask your father about the millions of other people who died because of German imperialism. Why is it the Jewish blood seems to be worth so much more than that of others?
this from someone who denies that stalin's genocide was even really a genocide? you're a fine specimen, scrat.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
You do go downhill fast, dear boy. It's not edifying, but it's not unexpected either.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
spot wrote: You do go downhill fast, dear boy. It's not edifying, but it's not unexpected either.
no worse than your dear buddy koan. tell us about shellybelle while you're at it.
then stuff your sanctimony where the sun don't shine, okay honey?
no worse than your dear buddy koan. tell us about shellybelle while you're at it.
then stuff your sanctimony where the sun don't shine, okay honey?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
i see koan's reporting my post. unsurprising. spew sewage, then go crying to daddy when someone dishes back at you on the same terms.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
i just realized that some of those details i posted were non-public. hard to keep track with everything i've had to listen to from this harpy.
i've deleted my post. i apologize for posting details i'd forgotten weren't public domain, so to speak. i don't expect any apology from her for her despicable comments though, nor would one be accepted.
i've deleted my post. i apologize for posting details i'd forgotten weren't public domain, so to speak. i don't expect any apology from her for her despicable comments though, nor would one be accepted.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
actually, there are TOS on this board that you used to care about. I posted within the rules. You are the one who creates the games.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: actually, there are TOS on this board that you used to care about. I posted within the rules. You are the one who creates the games.
what a perfect reply. it's only the "rules" that matter, not common decency.
i do, however, sincerely apologize for posting what i did. fighting disgusting indecency with disgusting indecency is unclear on the concept, so i get the muddy teddy bear for that one.
what a perfect reply. it's only the "rules" that matter, not common decency.
i do, however, sincerely apologize for posting what i did. fighting disgusting indecency with disgusting indecency is unclear on the concept, so i get the muddy teddy bear for that one.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
anastrophe wrote: so my father was a paid killer who abdicated his moral responsibily by your definition. no twisting of your words.You've laid it out fairly well there, I think.
There wasn't the slightest reason for the US to have engaged in World War Two save for one thing - a desire on the part of FDR to take what could be took from participating, primarily in the Pacific. To that end he goaded the Japanese for eighteen months into their attempted removal of US seapower locally with what became their Day of Infamy at Pearl Harbor, and he did this solely in order to gain enough support in Congress and the US Media to commit US troops abroad both in Europe and in the annexation of the Pacific territories. Your father, along with many other volunteers, abdicated their moral discrimination as regards killing when they went along with him instead of rejecting his lying and deceptive policy. I wish they hadn't. Who benefitted by US intervention save the US itself? Communist China, predominantly, which would never have come into existence had the US left Japan as the local dominant military force in the region. Stalin's Soviet Union, which had an briefer time bringing the European Axis Powers down than would otherwise have been the case.
While we're at it, the same argument goes for World War One, in spades. On both occasions the cause of peace would have been strengthened by an isolationist US staying out of things. Sadly we've never yet had one.
There wasn't the slightest reason for the US to have engaged in World War Two save for one thing - a desire on the part of FDR to take what could be took from participating, primarily in the Pacific. To that end he goaded the Japanese for eighteen months into their attempted removal of US seapower locally with what became their Day of Infamy at Pearl Harbor, and he did this solely in order to gain enough support in Congress and the US Media to commit US troops abroad both in Europe and in the annexation of the Pacific territories. Your father, along with many other volunteers, abdicated their moral discrimination as regards killing when they went along with him instead of rejecting his lying and deceptive policy. I wish they hadn't. Who benefitted by US intervention save the US itself? Communist China, predominantly, which would never have come into existence had the US left Japan as the local dominant military force in the region. Stalin's Soviet Union, which had an briefer time bringing the European Axis Powers down than would otherwise have been the case.
While we're at it, the same argument goes for World War One, in spades. On both occasions the cause of peace would have been strengthened by an isolationist US staying out of things. Sadly we've never yet had one.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Anne Coulter wrote: their positions as widows immunize them from any criticism or debate over their opinions.
You have defended Coulter in the past. Why does her reasoning now seem indecent? Oh, because you are in the role of the widows.
I dislike Coulter but I don't see why you have a problem with the logic of a woman you profess to enjoy.
You have defended Coulter in the past. Why does her reasoning now seem indecent? Oh, because you are in the role of the widows.
I dislike Coulter but I don't see why you have a problem with the logic of a woman you profess to enjoy.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
spot wrote: You've laid it out fairly well there, I think.
There wasn't the slightest reason for the US to have engaged in World War Two save for one thing - a desire on the part of FDR to take what could be took from participating, primarily in the Pacific. To that end he goaded the Japanese for eighteen months into their attempted removal of US seapower locally with what became their Day of Infamy at Pearl Harbor, and he did this solely in order to gain enough support in Congress and the US Media to commit US troops abroad both in Europe and in the annexation of the Pacific territories. Your father, along with many other volunteers, abdicated their moral discrimination as regards killing when they went along with him instead of rejecting his lying and deceptive policy. I wish they hadn't. Who benefitted by US intervention save the US itself? Communist China, predominantly, which would never have come into existence had the US left Japan as the local dominant military force in the region. Stalin's Soviet Union, which had an briefer time bringing the European Axis Powers down than would otherwise have been the case.
While we're at it, the same argument goes for World War One, in spades. On both occasions the cause of peace would have been strengthened by an isolationist US staying out of things. Sadly we've never yet had one.
you're an amazing person, spot. you live in an england that would not exist today had it not been for the US assisting europe in stopping hitler's advance. you live in a fantasy world where all is backroom conspiracy, genuine evil like the nazis would have been benign. the millions killed at their hands - an inconvenient bit of fluff. the rape of nanking - a pointless and meaningless datapoint, in your preference for japan to have been pre-eminent. no worries about innocents raped, tortured, and killed - it wasn't the US doing the killing, so it can't be all bad!
but as i pointed out, you spew your sterile ideology from the comfort of a land protected by a military force and a police force. you consider them an inconvenient bit of fluff as well. you have the privilege to spout nonsense about the past, because of the protection they provide.
ah well. it's not like your tinfoil-hat notions are a surprise either.
There wasn't the slightest reason for the US to have engaged in World War Two save for one thing - a desire on the part of FDR to take what could be took from participating, primarily in the Pacific. To that end he goaded the Japanese for eighteen months into their attempted removal of US seapower locally with what became their Day of Infamy at Pearl Harbor, and he did this solely in order to gain enough support in Congress and the US Media to commit US troops abroad both in Europe and in the annexation of the Pacific territories. Your father, along with many other volunteers, abdicated their moral discrimination as regards killing when they went along with him instead of rejecting his lying and deceptive policy. I wish they hadn't. Who benefitted by US intervention save the US itself? Communist China, predominantly, which would never have come into existence had the US left Japan as the local dominant military force in the region. Stalin's Soviet Union, which had an briefer time bringing the European Axis Powers down than would otherwise have been the case.
While we're at it, the same argument goes for World War One, in spades. On both occasions the cause of peace would have been strengthened by an isolationist US staying out of things. Sadly we've never yet had one.
you're an amazing person, spot. you live in an england that would not exist today had it not been for the US assisting europe in stopping hitler's advance. you live in a fantasy world where all is backroom conspiracy, genuine evil like the nazis would have been benign. the millions killed at their hands - an inconvenient bit of fluff. the rape of nanking - a pointless and meaningless datapoint, in your preference for japan to have been pre-eminent. no worries about innocents raped, tortured, and killed - it wasn't the US doing the killing, so it can't be all bad!
but as i pointed out, you spew your sterile ideology from the comfort of a land protected by a military force and a police force. you consider them an inconvenient bit of fluff as well. you have the privilege to spout nonsense about the past, because of the protection they provide.
ah well. it's not like your tinfoil-hat notions are a surprise either.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Scrat wrote: And he tosses out yet another red herring.
save it. you want red herrings? here's one:
Why is it the Jewish blood seems to be worth so much more than that of others?
--scrat, putting words in my mouth, then attacking me for them.
so really. spare me the brilliant reparte.
save it. you want red herrings? here's one:
Why is it the Jewish blood seems to be worth so much more than that of others?
--scrat, putting words in my mouth, then attacking me for them.
so really. spare me the brilliant reparte.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
anastrophe wrote: you have the privilege to spout nonsense about the past, because of the protection they provide.That, of course, is the great lie that's been thrown around ever since the war, and it's plain bullshit. I reject all such notion of protection. May the "protectors" rot in their military bunkers. They are anathema, they do nothing for me whatever, they are the robber barons come back to life and the protectors of privilege. If their organizations were disarmed and disbanded we could all sleep more easily at nights.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: You have defended Coulter in the past. Why does her reasoning now seem indecent? Oh, because you are in the role of the widows.
I dislike Coulter but I don't see why you have a problem with the logic of a woman you profess to enjoy.
have you actually read what she wrote? clearly not. i'm guessing your interpretation was gathered from end-western-corporate-hegemony.org.
i provided the information regarding my father because...i know, it's mind blowing......it's exactly what happened. i'm sorry if it sounded dramatic. it was a dramatic time in human history. it had nothing to do with 'invoking my dead father' (man you are cold as ice!). spot says he was a hired killer. he considers my father immoral, for having taken up arms against hitler. the millions of innocents who died, and the millions more who were saved by using violence to stop the nazi violence, are immaterial to him, and apparently you. because he used violence, he was a murderer. ignoring the distinction, held by civilized people for several thousand years, between the taking of life wrongly, and taking life in defense of innocent life.
there's a fundamental problem with the lofty notion of reasoning with rabid dogs.
I dislike Coulter but I don't see why you have a problem with the logic of a woman you profess to enjoy.
have you actually read what she wrote? clearly not. i'm guessing your interpretation was gathered from end-western-corporate-hegemony.org.
i provided the information regarding my father because...i know, it's mind blowing......it's exactly what happened. i'm sorry if it sounded dramatic. it was a dramatic time in human history. it had nothing to do with 'invoking my dead father' (man you are cold as ice!). spot says he was a hired killer. he considers my father immoral, for having taken up arms against hitler. the millions of innocents who died, and the millions more who were saved by using violence to stop the nazi violence, are immaterial to him, and apparently you. because he used violence, he was a murderer. ignoring the distinction, held by civilized people for several thousand years, between the taking of life wrongly, and taking life in defense of innocent life.
there's a fundamental problem with the lofty notion of reasoning with rabid dogs.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
spot wrote: That, of course, is the great lie that's been thrown around ever since the war, and it's plain bullshit. I reject all such notion of protection. May the "protectors" rot in their military bunkers. They are anathema, they do nothing for me whatever, they are the robber barons come back to life and the protectors of privilege. If their organizations were disarmed and disbanded we could all sleep more easily at nights.
like i said. a sterile ideology, spouted from a warm armchair, free to ignore the concrete reality, because it troubles your sensitivities.
yes, law without enforcement is so infinitely preferable to what you have now. rwanda - vacation destination, right?
like i said. a sterile ideology, spouted from a warm armchair, free to ignore the concrete reality, because it troubles your sensitivities.
yes, law without enforcement is so infinitely preferable to what you have now. rwanda - vacation destination, right?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
anastrophe wrote: like i said. a sterile ideology, spouted from a warm armchair, free to ignore the concrete reality, because it troubles your sensitivities.You go turn and turn on the same merry-go-round, Paul. Bitter, twisted, feckless and meanly vindictive, a hoarder of petty resentments. This notion that the US has a moral duty to police the planet, or that the UK requires an army or an air force to remain self-governing, or that I "live in an england that would not exist today had it not been for the US assisting europe in stopping hitler's advance", become truisms in the public mind simply through constant repitition. They bear no scrutiny at all.
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it
must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.":
Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it
must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.":
Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
spot wrote: You go turn and turn on the same merry-go-round, Paul. Bitter, twisted, feckless and meanly vindictive, a hoarder of petty resentments. This notion that the US has a moral duty to police the planet, or that the UK requires an army or an air force to remain self-governing, or that I "live in an england that would not exist today had it not been for the US assisting europe in stopping hitler's advance", become truisms in the public mind simply through constant repitition. They bear no scrutiny at all.
i said nothing of a moral duty to police the planet. you however call my father an immoral murderer. you care not that some 12 million innocent people were slaughtered at the hands of the nazis. immaterial. Pacifism would have prevailed. it is, quite frankly, laughable. you spit on those who died to stop an evil that could not be clearer or more obvious. you spit on those who serve to defend freedom. the past history of england, overrun time and again by invading hordes, is meaningless to you - the fact that england is no longer regularly overrun is immaterial, it has nothing to do with a strong armed force ready to defend your shores. it's all an illusion. it's actually Pacifism that has defended your shores!
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it
must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.":
Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister
indeed. and for elites such as yourself, repeating phantasies over and over - that hitler was benign, that appeasement would have worked had it been given a chance, that the military that defends your shores serves no function in providing you a safe home to live in.
Pacifism: a man, his wife, and children, at home one evening. the man at the computer in a back room, the wife and children asleep. an intruder armed with a knife enters the bedroom. a scream is heard. the man rushes to the bedroom to find his wife dead, throat slit. he turns and sees the perpetrator, heading for his children's room. he confronts the intruder: "stop! this is immoral! please do not harm my children!" the intruder turns and advances on the man. the man keeps his arms at his sides, and proclaims "i will not raise a hand to stop you, as it is immoral. i beseech you, in the bowels of christ, stop!" the intruder slits the man's throat, but the man goes to his greater reward knowing he did not commit violence, so his moral character remained intact. the intruder then slits his children's throats. four lives taken immorally. possibly more lives taken immorally, since the perpetrator is still alive to continue his violence.
Non-Pacifism: same scenario. instead, after his wife is killed, the man fights the intruder, and kills the intruder. he remains alive. his children remain alive. one innocent life lost. one evil life lost. three innocent lives saved. possibly more, because the perpetrator can no longer continue his violence.
Pacifism is immoral. it is selfishness held in higher regard than the sanctity of innocent life, and defense of same.
i said nothing of a moral duty to police the planet. you however call my father an immoral murderer. you care not that some 12 million innocent people were slaughtered at the hands of the nazis. immaterial. Pacifism would have prevailed. it is, quite frankly, laughable. you spit on those who died to stop an evil that could not be clearer or more obvious. you spit on those who serve to defend freedom. the past history of england, overrun time and again by invading hordes, is meaningless to you - the fact that england is no longer regularly overrun is immaterial, it has nothing to do with a strong armed force ready to defend your shores. it's all an illusion. it's actually Pacifism that has defended your shores!
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it
must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.":
Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister
indeed. and for elites such as yourself, repeating phantasies over and over - that hitler was benign, that appeasement would have worked had it been given a chance, that the military that defends your shores serves no function in providing you a safe home to live in.
Pacifism: a man, his wife, and children, at home one evening. the man at the computer in a back room, the wife and children asleep. an intruder armed with a knife enters the bedroom. a scream is heard. the man rushes to the bedroom to find his wife dead, throat slit. he turns and sees the perpetrator, heading for his children's room. he confronts the intruder: "stop! this is immoral! please do not harm my children!" the intruder turns and advances on the man. the man keeps his arms at his sides, and proclaims "i will not raise a hand to stop you, as it is immoral. i beseech you, in the bowels of christ, stop!" the intruder slits the man's throat, but the man goes to his greater reward knowing he did not commit violence, so his moral character remained intact. the intruder then slits his children's throats. four lives taken immorally. possibly more lives taken immorally, since the perpetrator is still alive to continue his violence.
Non-Pacifism: same scenario. instead, after his wife is killed, the man fights the intruder, and kills the intruder. he remains alive. his children remain alive. one innocent life lost. one evil life lost. three innocent lives saved. possibly more, because the perpetrator can no longer continue his violence.
Pacifism is immoral. it is selfishness held in higher regard than the sanctity of innocent life, and defense of same.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
spot wrote: You've laid it out fairly well there, I think.
There wasn't the slightest reason for the US to have engaged in World War Two save for one thing - a desire on the part of FDR to take what could be took from participating, primarily in the Pacific. To that end he goaded the Japanese for eighteen months into their attempted removal of US seapower locally with what became their Day of Infamy at Pearl Harbor, and he did this solely in order to gain enough support in Congress and the US Media to commit US troops abroad both in Europe and in the annexation of the Pacific territories. Your father, along with many other volunteers, abdicated their moral discrimination as regards killing when they went along with him instead of rejecting his lying and deceptive policy. I wish they hadn't. Who benefitted by US intervention save the US itself? Communist China, predominantly, which would never have come into existence had the US left Japan as the local dominant military force in the region. Stalin's Soviet Union, which had an briefer time bringing the European Axis Powers down than would otherwise have been the case.
While we're at it, the same argument goes for World War One, in spades. On both occasions the cause of peace would have been strengthened by an isolationist US staying out of things. Sadly we've never yet had one.
Great revisionist history there Spot. Would you care to provide any evidence for your opinions.
Let's have a basic history lesson shall we. In 1937 Japan invaded China. The U.S. supported China and cutoff the sale of oil and scrap metal. Is this goading you were referring to? Japan was faced with the simple choice of leaving China or going to war with the US. We know what decsion they made. As I recall after the Pearl Harbor attack Hitler then declared war on the US.
Now to address the fantasy of Communist China. It was really the Japanese invasion of China that led to fall of the Kuomintang. They suffered miltary defeat and lost control in eastern China. It was only saved from total defeat by Japan's suicidal decision to attack the United States and invasion of Southeastern
Asia. The final defeat of Japan brought no improvement to the internal situation of China. China had a history of weakness, humiliation and failure long before the war with Japan started. . This is the atmosphere in which the CPC developed its leadership and growth in. They took advanatge of long standing weakness and capitalized.
As for WW1, the US did not even enter until 1918. The war started in 1914 so how could the US remaining isolationist have improved the cause of peace?
There wasn't the slightest reason for the US to have engaged in World War Two save for one thing - a desire on the part of FDR to take what could be took from participating, primarily in the Pacific. To that end he goaded the Japanese for eighteen months into their attempted removal of US seapower locally with what became their Day of Infamy at Pearl Harbor, and he did this solely in order to gain enough support in Congress and the US Media to commit US troops abroad both in Europe and in the annexation of the Pacific territories. Your father, along with many other volunteers, abdicated their moral discrimination as regards killing when they went along with him instead of rejecting his lying and deceptive policy. I wish they hadn't. Who benefitted by US intervention save the US itself? Communist China, predominantly, which would never have come into existence had the US left Japan as the local dominant military force in the region. Stalin's Soviet Union, which had an briefer time bringing the European Axis Powers down than would otherwise have been the case.
While we're at it, the same argument goes for World War One, in spades. On both occasions the cause of peace would have been strengthened by an isolationist US staying out of things. Sadly we've never yet had one.
Great revisionist history there Spot. Would you care to provide any evidence for your opinions.
Let's have a basic history lesson shall we. In 1937 Japan invaded China. The U.S. supported China and cutoff the sale of oil and scrap metal. Is this goading you were referring to? Japan was faced with the simple choice of leaving China or going to war with the US. We know what decsion they made. As I recall after the Pearl Harbor attack Hitler then declared war on the US.
Now to address the fantasy of Communist China. It was really the Japanese invasion of China that led to fall of the Kuomintang. They suffered miltary defeat and lost control in eastern China. It was only saved from total defeat by Japan's suicidal decision to attack the United States and invasion of Southeastern
Asia. The final defeat of Japan brought no improvement to the internal situation of China. China had a history of weakness, humiliation and failure long before the war with Japan started. . This is the atmosphere in which the CPC developed its leadership and growth in. They took advanatge of long standing weakness and capitalized.
As for WW1, the US did not even enter until 1918. The war started in 1914 so how could the US remaining isolationist have improved the cause of peace?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
anastrophe wrote: have you actually read what she wrote? clearly not. i'm guessing your interpretation was gathered from end-western-corporate-hegemony.org.
Not only have I read what she wrote, I've listened to her discuss it with a news anchorman.
The quoted bit was from the transcript.
Not only have I read what she wrote, I've listened to her discuss it with a news anchorman.
The quoted bit was from the transcript.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
zinkyusa wrote: Great revisionist history there Spot. Would you care to provide any evidence for your opinions.
Let's have a basic history lesson shall we. In 1937 Japan invaded China. The U.S. supported China and cutoff the sale of oil and scrap metal. Is this goading you were referring to? Japan was faced with the simple choice of leaving China or going to war with the US.You puzzle me slightly - you define the goading exactly, you emphasize the absolute compulsion involved, and then you ask whether it's what I meant. Without the embargo Japan would never have attacked Pearl Harbor. Without that attack FDR could never have managed to engage the US in World War Two. You re-make my point entirely.
Let's have a basic history lesson shall we. In 1937 Japan invaded China. The U.S. supported China and cutoff the sale of oil and scrap metal. Is this goading you were referring to? Japan was faced with the simple choice of leaving China or going to war with the US.You puzzle me slightly - you define the goading exactly, you emphasize the absolute compulsion involved, and then you ask whether it's what I meant. Without the embargo Japan would never have attacked Pearl Harbor. Without that attack FDR could never have managed to engage the US in World War Two. You re-make my point entirely.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
zinkyusa wrote: As for WW1, the US did not even enter until 1918. The war started in 1914 so how could the US remaining isolationist have improved the cause of peace?US entry into that war allowed Woodrow Wilson a seat at Versailles, where he planted the seeds of World War Two.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
zinkyusa wrote: Now to address the fantasy of Communist China. It was really the Japanese invasion of China that led to fall of the Kuomintang. They suffered miltary defeat and lost control in eastern China. It was only saved from total defeat by Japan's suicidal decision to attack the United States and invasion of Southeastern Asia. The final defeat of Japan brought no improvement to the internal situation of China. China had a history of weakness, humiliation and failure long before the war with Japan started. . This is the atmosphere in which the CPC developed its leadership and growth in. They took advanatge of long standing weakness and capitalized.It's a delight to talk to someone here who actually recognises the accuracy of my remarks, I must say. Yes to all of that, absolutely. Surely you see that two elements were needful for the communists to have taken China and set up the PRC: The destruction of Chiang Kai-shek's power base on the one hand by the Japanese, which you acknowledge; and the inability of the Japanese to maintain their empire and consolidate, which is entirely due to the US entry into the war. Without US interference in asia the Long March would never have ended in the late-forties power vacuum which brought in the PRC.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
spot wrote: You puzzle me slightly - you define the goading exactly, you emphasize the absolute compulsion involved, and then you ask whether it's what I meant. Without the embargo Japan would never have attacked Pearl Harbor. Without that attack FDR could never have managed to engage the US in World War Two. You re-make my point entirely.
I guess we agree I just don't call it goading (sematics). Since we did it in an effort to support China against Japanese agression..
I guess we agree I just don't call it goading (sematics). Since we did it in an effort to support China against Japanese agression..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
spot wrote: US entry into that war allowed Woodrow Wilson a seat at Versailles, where he planted the seeds of World War Two.
Wilson was against most of the provisions of treaty and thoguht they were unfair to Germany. It was the British and French that insisted on the harsh terms that ultimately led to WW2.
Wilson was against most of the provisions of treaty and thoguht they were unfair to Germany. It was the British and French that insisted on the harsh terms that ultimately led to WW2.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
spot wrote: It's a delight to talk to someone here who actually recognises the accuracy of my remarks, I must say. Yes to all of that, absolutely. Surely you see that two elements were needful for the communists to have taken China and set up the PRC: The destruction of Chiang Kai-shek's power base on the one hand by the Japanese, which you acknowledge; and the inability of the Japanese to maintain their empire and consolidate, which is entirely due to the US entry into the war. Without US interference in asia the Long March would never have ended in the late-forties power vacuum which brought in the PRC.
Don't quite understand your reference to the US interference in Asia. Are you still referring to WW2?
Regards
Don't quite understand your reference to the US interference in Asia. Are you still referring to WW2?
Regards
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
zinkyusa wrote: I guess we agree I just don't call it goading (sematics). Since we did it in an effort to support China against Japanese agression..We're down solely to a question of FDR's motives at this point, and agreed on the facts themselves? Then I suggest at least that others besides me have felt that FDR did want to take the US into World War Two, that his exchanges with Churchill as well as his own diaries indicate as much, and that the embargo on scrap steel and oil have been pointed out repeatedly as the tool he employed in his mission.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
zinkyusa wrote: Don't quite understand your reference to the US interference in Asia. Are you still referring to WW2?
RegardsYes, and I agree that the wording was careless. The advance across the Pacific definitely interfered with Japanese arrangements in mainland Asia and it was the interference, rather than the war in the Pacific theater, that I had in mind.
RegardsYes, and I agree that the wording was careless. The advance across the Pacific definitely interfered with Japanese arrangements in mainland Asia and it was the interference, rather than the war in the Pacific theater, that I had in mind.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
spot wrote: We're down solely to a question of FDR's motives at this point, and agreed on the facts themselves? Then I suggest at least that others besides me have felt that FDR did want to take the US into World War Two, that his exchanges with Churchill as well as his own diaries indicate as much, and that the embargo on scrap steel and oil have been pointed out repeatedly as the tool he employed in his mission.
Yes, I agree FDR felt war was inevitable with Germany and Japan and wanted the US actively invloved prior to Pearl Harbor. What you refer to as a tool I would call part of his strategy to deter Japanese agression, re: the emabargo. It was really a brilliant move and forced the Japanese to either pull out of China or attack the US.
Now before you go there Spot I don't subscribe to the theory that FDR knew about the Japanese plans for attacking PH in advance:D
Yes, I agree FDR felt war was inevitable with Germany and Japan and wanted the US actively invloved prior to Pearl Harbor. What you refer to as a tool I would call part of his strategy to deter Japanese agression, re: the emabargo. It was really a brilliant move and forced the Japanese to either pull out of China or attack the US.
Now before you go there Spot I don't subscribe to the theory that FDR knew about the Japanese plans for attacking PH in advance:D
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
spot wrote: Yes, and I agree that the wording was careless. The advance across the Pacific definitely interfered with Japanese arrangements in mainland Asia and it was the interference, rather than the war in the Pacific theater, that I had in mind.
Ah, OK, I don't disagree with your analysis. I simply don't have a problem with our "interference" with the Japanese plans for conquering Asia.
Ah, OK, I don't disagree with your analysis. I simply don't have a problem with our "interference" with the Japanese plans for conquering Asia.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Bravo! Arnold, Anastrophe,and I think Zinky. Although Zinky is tending to agree with spot way too much. Just wanted to show a little support for defending against the US haters. Oh And I almost forgot Bravo! Brownen
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
zinkyusa wrote: Now before you go there Spot I don't subscribe to the theory that FDR knew about the Japanese plans for attacking PH in advance:DThis seems a far more productive way of discussing how we got where we are now.
I have no opinion - since there seems to be no published evidence - as to whether the man at the top knew of the deciphered signal, either as a spectator or participant in the decision to keep secret the ability of the allies to read Japanese diplomatic traffic. I agree with their choice to keep the knowledge tightly restricted. The fact that win-win they kept the secret and got a bigger bang for their buck in the newspapers when the Pearl Harbor attack arrived is irrelevant, but win-win often figures in reinforcing any decision made on the fly. Presumably, though, you're aware of the timetable of the decipherment as far as that goes, and that underlings at least were fully aware of the imminent attack.
I have no opinion - since there seems to be no published evidence - as to whether the man at the top knew of the deciphered signal, either as a spectator or participant in the decision to keep secret the ability of the allies to read Japanese diplomatic traffic. I agree with their choice to keep the knowledge tightly restricted. The fact that win-win they kept the secret and got a bigger bang for their buck in the newspapers when the Pearl Harbor attack arrived is irrelevant, but win-win often figures in reinforcing any decision made on the fly. Presumably, though, you're aware of the timetable of the decipherment as far as that goes, and that underlings at least were fully aware of the imminent attack.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
article
Admiral Richardson confronted Roosevelt about the vulnerability of the fleet at Pearl Harbor prior to the attack. Roosevelt fired Richardson and replaced him with Admiral Hummel, who Roosevelt later made a scapegoat after the attack occurred. This and other evidence are detailed in the recent book Day of Deceit, by Robert Stinnett.
Morton A. Kaplan, emeritus professor of political science at Chicago University, upon reading Stinnett’s tirelessly documented book, changed his mind after 50 years of supporting the surprise-attack theory. Kaplan, who is also the editor and publisher of the magazine The World and I, wrote that Stinnett’s book provides “massive evidence that Roosevelt intended to goad the Japanese into an overt attack. (The World and I, October 2000.)
Admiral Richardson confronted Roosevelt about the vulnerability of the fleet at Pearl Harbor prior to the attack. Roosevelt fired Richardson and replaced him with Admiral Hummel, who Roosevelt later made a scapegoat after the attack occurred. This and other evidence are detailed in the recent book Day of Deceit, by Robert Stinnett.
Morton A. Kaplan, emeritus professor of political science at Chicago University, upon reading Stinnett’s tirelessly documented book, changed his mind after 50 years of supporting the surprise-attack theory. Kaplan, who is also the editor and publisher of the magazine The World and I, wrote that Stinnett’s book provides “massive evidence that Roosevelt intended to goad the Japanese into an overt attack. (The World and I, October 2000.)
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
if to this day, in an alternate universe, the US had not embargoed japan, and japan's truly, truly vicious aggression in the far east had been left unfettered, with who knows what ultimate result (again, i refer spot to 'the rape of nanking' to think about just whom he is defending) - if we had never stopped japan's flow of oil and steel - today, in this alternate universe, spot, and his ilk, would evermore be castigating the united states for having continued to provide them with these critical products necessary to their aggression; the US, cynical profiteers and enabler of genocide.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
It's have your cake and eat it day, apparently. On the one hand all the cries of "godless commie bastard china", and on the other oh we'd rather have the PRC than the alternatives which inaction would have led to.
I'm offering a simple rule of thumb. Leave the internal affairs of sovereign nations alone. A multiplicity of constitutions is far more desirable than an imposed Capitalist interpretation of Representative Democracy. I'd feel a damn sight less incensed over this if the consequence weren't labelled "freedom" every time your White House frontman opens his mouth.
I'm offering a simple rule of thumb. Leave the internal affairs of sovereign nations alone. A multiplicity of constitutions is far more desirable than an imposed Capitalist interpretation of Representative Democracy. I'd feel a damn sight less incensed over this if the consequence weren't labelled "freedom" every time your White House frontman opens his mouth.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
spot wrote: This seems a far more productive way of discussing how we got where we are now.
I have no opinion - since there seems to be no published evidence - as to whether the man at the top knew of the deciphered signal, either as a spectator or participant in the decision to keep secret the ability of the allies to read Japanese diplomatic traffic. I agree with their choice to keep the knowledge tightly restricted. The fact that win-win they kept the secret and got a bigger bang for their buck in the newspapers when the Pearl Harbor attack arrived is irrelevant, but win-win often figures in reinforcing any decision made on the fly. Presumably, though, you're aware of the timetable of the decipherment as far as that goes, and that underlings at least were fully aware of the imminent attack.
Indeed on Dec 6th the US intercepted a 14 part Japanese message and was able to break 13 parts of it. Base on this the US knew an attack was imminent somewhere in the Pacific, but the target was not identified. This was passed to FDR and the Sec. State The last paragraph was decoded at approximately 9 a.m. About an hour later, another Japanese message was intercepted. It instructed the Japanese embassy to deliver the main message to the Americans at 1 p.m. (EST) The Americans realized this time corresponded with early morning in Pearl Harbor. The U.S. War Department then sent out an alert but used a commercial telegraph because radio contact with Hawaii was temporarily broken. Delays prevenedt the alert from arriving at headquarters in Oahu until noontime (Hawaii time) four hours after the attack had already begun. While unfortunate, not indicative of any conspiracy.
I'll address Koan's post shortly.
YZGI, sorry to disappoint but I must give the man credit when he's correct:wah:
I think spot just likes to see what kind of reaction he can get:D
I have no opinion - since there seems to be no published evidence - as to whether the man at the top knew of the deciphered signal, either as a spectator or participant in the decision to keep secret the ability of the allies to read Japanese diplomatic traffic. I agree with their choice to keep the knowledge tightly restricted. The fact that win-win they kept the secret and got a bigger bang for their buck in the newspapers when the Pearl Harbor attack arrived is irrelevant, but win-win often figures in reinforcing any decision made on the fly. Presumably, though, you're aware of the timetable of the decipherment as far as that goes, and that underlings at least were fully aware of the imminent attack.
Indeed on Dec 6th the US intercepted a 14 part Japanese message and was able to break 13 parts of it. Base on this the US knew an attack was imminent somewhere in the Pacific, but the target was not identified. This was passed to FDR and the Sec. State The last paragraph was decoded at approximately 9 a.m. About an hour later, another Japanese message was intercepted. It instructed the Japanese embassy to deliver the main message to the Americans at 1 p.m. (EST) The Americans realized this time corresponded with early morning in Pearl Harbor. The U.S. War Department then sent out an alert but used a commercial telegraph because radio contact with Hawaii was temporarily broken. Delays prevenedt the alert from arriving at headquarters in Oahu until noontime (Hawaii time) four hours after the attack had already begun. While unfortunate, not indicative of any conspiracy.
I'll address Koan's post shortly.
YZGI, sorry to disappoint but I must give the man credit when he's correct:wah:
I think spot just likes to see what kind of reaction he can get:D
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: article
Admiral Richardson confronted Roosevelt about the vulnerability of the fleet at Pearl Harbor prior to the attack. Roosevelt fired Richardson and replaced him with Admiral Hummel, who Roosevelt later made a scapegoat after the attack occurred. This and other evidence are detailed in the recent book Day of Deceit, by Robert Stinnett.
Morton A. Kaplan, emeritus professor of political science at Chicago University, upon reading Stinnett’s tirelessly documented book, changed his mind after 50 years of supporting the surprise-attack theory. Kaplan, who is also the editor and publisher of the magazine The World and I, wrote that Stinnett’s book provides “massive evidence that Roosevelt intended to goad the Japanese into an overt attack. (The World and I, October 2000.)
I have not read the book and can't speak to the massive evidence. I know that Professor Kaplan believes that FDR was not sincere when he said that he wanted to keep the US out of the war and I agree with that premise.
I would disagree with choice of the word goad if Professor Kaplan actually used. There was no reason to goad Japan into war. They resorted to aggression against China in 1937 on their own without any goading. The US embargo was a reaction to agression as I have stated before..
Thanks for bringing up the book I have been meaning to get it.
Admiral Richardson confronted Roosevelt about the vulnerability of the fleet at Pearl Harbor prior to the attack. Roosevelt fired Richardson and replaced him with Admiral Hummel, who Roosevelt later made a scapegoat after the attack occurred. This and other evidence are detailed in the recent book Day of Deceit, by Robert Stinnett.
Morton A. Kaplan, emeritus professor of political science at Chicago University, upon reading Stinnett’s tirelessly documented book, changed his mind after 50 years of supporting the surprise-attack theory. Kaplan, who is also the editor and publisher of the magazine The World and I, wrote that Stinnett’s book provides “massive evidence that Roosevelt intended to goad the Japanese into an overt attack. (The World and I, October 2000.)
I have not read the book and can't speak to the massive evidence. I know that Professor Kaplan believes that FDR was not sincere when he said that he wanted to keep the US out of the war and I agree with that premise.
I would disagree with choice of the word goad if Professor Kaplan actually used. There was no reason to goad Japan into war. They resorted to aggression against China in 1937 on their own without any goading. The US embargo was a reaction to agression as I have stated before..
Thanks for bringing up the book I have been meaning to get it.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
zinkyusa wrote: I have not read the book and can't speak to the massive evidence. I know that Professor Kaplan believes that FDR was not sincere when he said that he wanted to keep the US out of the war and I agree with that premise.
I would disagree with choice of the word goad if Professor Kaplan actually used. There was no reason to goad Japan into war. They resorted to aggression against China in 1937 on their own without any goading. The US embargo was a reaction to agression as I have stated before..
Thanks for bringing up the book I have been meaning to get it.
I haven't read the book either. I'm just constantly amazed how spots words and info can usually be verified very quickly on a google search.
There is no reason to suspect that the quotation marks are misplaced.
I would disagree with choice of the word goad if Professor Kaplan actually used. There was no reason to goad Japan into war. They resorted to aggression against China in 1937 on their own without any goading. The US embargo was a reaction to agression as I have stated before..
Thanks for bringing up the book I have been meaning to get it.
I haven't read the book either. I'm just constantly amazed how spots words and info can usually be verified very quickly on a google search.
There is no reason to suspect that the quotation marks are misplaced.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
ArnoldLayne wrote: I for one thank the mission employed by President Roosevelt, if that is what it was, to enter the US into WWII. I have a very different perspective of those that fought and died for us during that war. I thank every last Allie - and that includes the pacifists that chose to make their own contribution by saving the lives of those on the front line, in any way they saw appropriate
Generating words of pacifism do those men no justice at all. By every bone in our body, exhaust all means to prevent war but I cannot allow the fallen to be tossed aside as mere "killers" simply to bolster the ideals, that by somehow showing an open hand, an aggressor will at once place his hand into it. If only that were so, we wouldnt have to deal with the scenario that Anastophe succinctly put in his post........
When that scenario is juxtaposed against WWII, I'd have killed a thousand Nazi intruders to save my children, my family, my brothers, my people and my peoples children. To offer the hand of friendship while jews are being assasinated in the chambers is nothing short of astonishing. The next time you are attacked by a swarm of angry killer bees please dont smile and offer them the hospitality of your house. Your family will get stung.
I expect the usual lesson in history - of that I have no doubt that I would benefit - to show that nothing but a pat on the back and a cup of tea would have persuaded Dear Old Mr Hitler that it was all a misunderstanding and it would most appreciated if he toddled of back to Germany and be nice to the jews, the Poles, the blacks, the gays, the gypsies and generally any non-aryan types.
Yes I have simplified my arguement and bought it down to its basic level. I'll leave the intellectualising to those who can
I agree with you Arnold. I think in hindsight any feelings FDR had one way or the other about entering the war are immaterial. There is no way the US could have set out the war. I twas just a question of when and how. Japan did the world a favor by launching a precipitous attack on PH and bringing the US sooner rather than later. It is questionable whether the war would have been won by the Allies if the US had stayed out much later. Soviet Russia and Great Britian were barely able to hang on as it was and it took the US a while to get fully on a war footing. It's no secret the Germans were working towards a nuclear bomb and had rockets to possibly deliver them.
Generating words of pacifism do those men no justice at all. By every bone in our body, exhaust all means to prevent war but I cannot allow the fallen to be tossed aside as mere "killers" simply to bolster the ideals, that by somehow showing an open hand, an aggressor will at once place his hand into it. If only that were so, we wouldnt have to deal with the scenario that Anastophe succinctly put in his post........
When that scenario is juxtaposed against WWII, I'd have killed a thousand Nazi intruders to save my children, my family, my brothers, my people and my peoples children. To offer the hand of friendship while jews are being assasinated in the chambers is nothing short of astonishing. The next time you are attacked by a swarm of angry killer bees please dont smile and offer them the hospitality of your house. Your family will get stung.
I expect the usual lesson in history - of that I have no doubt that I would benefit - to show that nothing but a pat on the back and a cup of tea would have persuaded Dear Old Mr Hitler that it was all a misunderstanding and it would most appreciated if he toddled of back to Germany and be nice to the jews, the Poles, the blacks, the gays, the gypsies and generally any non-aryan types.
Yes I have simplified my arguement and bought it down to its basic level. I'll leave the intellectualising to those who can
I agree with you Arnold. I think in hindsight any feelings FDR had one way or the other about entering the war are immaterial. There is no way the US could have set out the war. I twas just a question of when and how. Japan did the world a favor by launching a precipitous attack on PH and bringing the US sooner rather than later. It is questionable whether the war would have been won by the Allies if the US had stayed out much later. Soviet Russia and Great Britian were barely able to hang on as it was and it took the US a while to get fully on a war footing. It's no secret the Germans were working towards a nuclear bomb and had rockets to possibly deliver them.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
zinkyusa wrote: You all get some good drugs over there don't you. Precription meds? Crack? Whatever it is it fries you good.
The Russian pilots read the tail number of the KAL flight and noted the Korean flag on the fuselage. They passed that information back to their ground controller. After checking with higher authorities (the Sovs never did anything on their own iniatitve) the GC ordered the pilots to shoot the KAL flight down. It's all on transcripts boys. The vdr which the Russian's eventually produced showed the crew had no idea they were off course and were flying on autopilot which was incorrectley set. It had been set to either left-of-course in heading mode or had been switched to INS when out of range for a lock. This left the airliner on the constant magnetic heading chosen when the craft left Anchorage. The pilots adimitted to lying about firing warning shots as well. It was a massacre boys pure and simple.
Have a nice evening.
Could you give an attribution for them reading the plain's numbers etc?
I've finally found the time to look at the sources and found nothing to suggest that they came anywhere closer than a mile from the aircraft - bloody good eyesight that.
Indeed, I came across this reference from the Washington Evening Post :-
www.kimsoft.com/korea/kal-007.htm
Which more than suggests that the US presentation to the UN was made in the full and prior knowledge that the shooting had been due to the Russians mistaking the aircraft for a US RC-135 Recconasance flight and that the transcripts had been edited to hide this.
The Russian pilots read the tail number of the KAL flight and noted the Korean flag on the fuselage. They passed that information back to their ground controller. After checking with higher authorities (the Sovs never did anything on their own iniatitve) the GC ordered the pilots to shoot the KAL flight down. It's all on transcripts boys. The vdr which the Russian's eventually produced showed the crew had no idea they were off course and were flying on autopilot which was incorrectley set. It had been set to either left-of-course in heading mode or had been switched to INS when out of range for a lock. This left the airliner on the constant magnetic heading chosen when the craft left Anchorage. The pilots adimitted to lying about firing warning shots as well. It was a massacre boys pure and simple.
Have a nice evening.
Could you give an attribution for them reading the plain's numbers etc?
I've finally found the time to look at the sources and found nothing to suggest that they came anywhere closer than a mile from the aircraft - bloody good eyesight that.
Indeed, I came across this reference from the Washington Evening Post :-
www.kimsoft.com/korea/kal-007.htm
Which more than suggests that the US presentation to the UN was made in the full and prior knowledge that the shooting had been due to the Russians mistaking the aircraft for a US RC-135 Recconasance flight and that the transcripts had been edited to hide this.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Bryn Mawr wrote: bloody good eyesight that.
I'll say ole chap!
Attached files
I'll say ole chap!
Attached files