The election

[unclemick]

Listen up folks! 18 pages and we break the record(remember SWR?). And then Dory breaks his silence and it's 'Jeez Louise" time - once again.

Don't you just love this---heh, heh, heh, heh --- November what!!

 

[Michael]

Since we no longer have MAD (mutually assured distruction) with the Russians...

Actually we do. Being short on funds, the only thing the Russians have been very careful to upgrade is their Strategic Rocket Corps (nukes). They know that they can no longer defend their country with their regular army, so they keep their nukes to discourage anyone from invading them. We can invade Iraq with impunity, and even use small nukes to destroy terrorist caves in Afghanistan if we absolutely need to, but we cannot invade Russia without risking turning the US into a radioactive wasteland.

 

[John Galt]

The US is already a "wasteland". The "radioactive"
part remains to be seen.

John Galt

 

[johnblake]

August 6th was the aniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. 170,000 people died instantly and then a bunch later on through the years.

Terrorism can be very effective.

 

[Telly]

The "Doomsday Weapon" IS the ultimate solution. But we need to build ours powerful enough so there is no "Mine Shaft Gap".

Does anybody remember the call back codes? They were on the desk, coded into a puzzle...

Just keeping this thread going, in a non-political mode

 

[charlie]

Many condemn the US for dropping the bomb but the fact is that it prevented the need for an invasion of the
Japanese home islands thus preventing a horrific
cost of US and Japanese lives. One high ranking
Japanese admiral admitted as much in his biography.
Another fact lost on US haters is that many more people
were killed by LeMay's fire bombing of Japanese cities
than by the two atomic bombs. War is truly hell, but
personally, I want to be on the winning side.

Cheers,

Charlie

 

[trumpeting_angel]

I wonder what it's going to take for us to be on the winning side in Iraq? Doesn't seem to be going all that well so far. If he can't say "nuclear," can we expect him to be able to pronounce, "quagmire?"

Oops, not supposed to attack or be sarcastic, I forgot. I am better off just keeping my mouth shut, I can't write in a civil way about him.

Anne

 

[Hyperborea]

Many condemn the US for dropping the bomb but the fact is that it prevented the need for an invasion of the
Japanese home islands thus preventing a horrific
cost of US and Japanese lives.

That's a nice comforting attitude to try and assuage American consciences over the use of weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets.  It's "interesting" that your defence of this is that "golly we killed a whole lot more civillians with firebombing so this one ought to be ok".

The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .

In being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff

"Mr. Byrnes (Secretary of State) did not argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war. . . Mr. Byrnes's . . . view [was] that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable in Europe."
Leo Szilard - atomic scientist

So, who are you going to believe?  A revisionist?  Or two guys who were there?

I'm sure that the Romans felt that torching villages and crucifying civilians was quite acceptable maintain their hegemony but that didn't make it right nor moral.

 

[John Galt]

The entire history of mankind is warfare and conflict.
Does anyone see anything different today? Wars, WMDs and
armed forces are created to kill people. In so far as they
do it they are doing what they were designed to do.

John Galt

 

[Nords]

WWII & atomic weapons

Hyperborea,

Although historians acknowledge the controversy over the decision to "end" the war with nuclear weapons, historians (Japanese as well as occidental) generally agree that the Japanese military was only persuaded after Nagasaki. Even after Hiroshima they were sure it was an anomaly, exhorting their troops and the civilian population to apply innovative "homeland defense" measures.

I've spent a lot of time at Pearl Harbor and the USS MISSOURI Memorial with Dick Fiske and other survivors. They don't agree with ADM Leahy. Just about any WWII veteran-- especially Army or USMC infantry-- will recall their great relief at not having to carry out the invasion. After Iwo Jima and a host of other islands with entrenched resistance, no one was looking forward to invading the main Japanese islands.

It's interesting that you quoted Szilard. I enjoyed Scientific American's article on his collaboration with Einstein designing safer refrigerators. Szilard had the inspirations but Einstein was the one who could work with the industry and file the patents. Later the same dynamic repeated itself-- Szilard was one of the first to realize that nuclear fission was achievable, but he didn't exactly have the interpersonal skills to attract the funding & teamwork that'd be necessary to develop the concept. He carried Einstein through the mathematics but it was Einstein who had to write the letters and make the introductions.

One of Szilard's grandsons is carrying the torch with military technology today... http://www.mrpopovich.com/Staff.htm

 

[charlie]

Good post, Nords. It was probably wasted on deaf
ears, however.

Charlie

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Gosh we have a fabulous ability to turn one tough subject into several others!

I'd offer a few things up on the ending of WWII. For starters, having some considerable knowledge of our leaders of that time, I feel far more comfortable with their well informed opinion to do what they did to end that war than the current administrations grasping at minority reports to use as 'reasons' for starting one.

And before we mourn the women and children we killed, check in with multitude of Korean and Chinese families that 'met' the Japanese invaders on a regular basis over the centuries. Of course, a Japanese historian will tell you that this was simply in response to the Mongol invasions in the 1200's.

Our campaign to bring WWII to a close gave us an island by island perspective on who we were dealing with: an enemy that would do anything and everything to make our victory as long and painful as possible. And every one of our servicemen and women who lost their lives had a family back here hoping they'd return.

I guess the good news is that overall most countries are a lot less barbaric and vicious than just fifty or a hundred years ago. We're progressing. Now if we can just get some of these pesky religions to stop exhorting people to kill each other, we'll be all set.

 

[unclemick]

My father was happy as heck, Harry dropped the bomb - otherwise there was an outside chance he might not have made it back for me to drive him nuts as a teenager. (LSV - Phil., Iwo, Okanawa and sitting in Guam when the bomb dropped). Other than the Kamikazees scaring the willies out of everybody - being Navy he always claimed he got the most banged up on SP in New Orleans well after VJ Day - everybody wanted to be a civilian again - hang the paperwork.

 

[John Galt]

Truly , bleeding heart liberals make me want to puke.
Mankind is destined for warfare and conflict. Thousands
of years of history verify this. There are too many people anyway. A few less won't matter. Let's just accept it and not slip over
into the liberal camp, i.e. "Can't we just all get along?"
Yeah, Rodney King; now there is someone we can follow.

John Galt

 

[unclemick]

John

Go out and hug a tree - you'll feel better. Remember - the givernment is here to help you - even when they screw up - they mean well.

Although I do harbor a secret desire to strangle a spotted owl - especially if it comes off the timberland partnership in which I have a 5% interest. Vactionland development now - oh well - it may work out.

 

[Hyperborea]

I see.  The "American" attitude is that it's moral to obliterate civilians, fund death squads, torture prisoners, and overturn democratically elected governments as long as it's the US government (or it's contractor) that does so.  But it's highly immoral for others to do so.  What an arrogant position to take.  This is what makes Americans so disliked in many parts of the world.  I would suggest that those Americans retiring overseas think twice about it and even if they do to invest in tall fences, dogs, and guards (and make sure that the guards are well paid).

As for "John Galt", I guess that his opinion of the morality of somebody like al Qaeda running planes into the World Trade Center was that it was ok.  I mean "There are too many people anyway.   A few less won't matter."

 

[Cut-Throat]

As for "John Galt", I guess that his opinion of the morality of somebody like al Qaeda running planes into the World Trade Center was that it was ok. I mean "There are too many people anyway. A few less won't matter."

Excellent point! - I'll bet the bleeding heart liberals of the Middle East that don't want war "Make him want to Puke Also". - Hey, maybe if He was born in the Middle East he might have even volunteered to fly one of those Planes - As Patriotic as he is!

 

[John Galt]

Hey! I didn't say it was the way things should be.
But, it is the way things are. Atrocities abound.
Genocide is widespread. Want and suffering are
the norm in many areas of the world. Do I wish
everyone could live in peace and plenty? Of course!
The world does not work that way.

John Galt

 

[Hyperborea]

And before we mourn the women and children we killed, check in with multitude of Korean and Chinese families that 'met' the Japanese invaders on a regular basis over the centuries.

Wow, I hope that you're not serious.  You're not suggesting that it's ok to be immoral if the other person was first are you?  Didn't your mother teach you that?  There is no denying that the Japanese did some horrific and barbarous things in Korea, China, and throughout Asia.  But you can't seriously mean that it gave the US the right be barbarous do you?  Do the horrific things that US did in China (along with most of the European powers) give the Chinese the right to be barbarous to the US?

Oh wait, perhaps you weren't serious since you made this comment in another thread.

Nah, I'm rarely serious and if you're not sure assume I'm not.

 

[Hyperborea]

- Hey, maybe if He was born in the Middle East he might have even volunteered to fly one of those Planes - As Patriotic as he is!

Likely, since as George Bernard Shaw said, "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it." It wouldn't have mattered what country he was born in.

 

[Cut-Throat]

Hey!  I didn't say it was the way things should be.
But, it is the way things are.  Atrocities abound.
Genocide is widespread.  Want and suffering are
the norm in many areas of the world.   Do I wish
everyone could live in peace and plenty?  Of course!
The world does not work that way.

John Galt

Well, can you explain exactly why Bleeding heart Liberals want to make you Puke?

 

[Cut-Throat]

Although I do harbor a secret desire to strangle a spotted owl - especially if it comes off the timberland partnership in which I have a 5% interest. Vactionland development now - oh well - it may work out.

Unclemick,

This brings to mind an old Canadian Guide from Newfoundland that I knew. Whenever the Topic of Spotted Owls and Bleeding Heart Liberals would come up, he would start describing his receipe for Grilled Bald Eagle with Stuffing. Very, Very tasty he claimed and perfectly fair game in Canada as the Spotted owl was in the States!

 

[Hyperborea]

he would start describing his receipe for Grilled Bald Eagle with Stuffing. Very, Very tasty he claimed

Wouldn't a bald eagle be tough and stringy? Actually wouldn't any carnivore?

 

[johnblake]

Wow, I hope that you're not serious. You're not suggesting that it's ok to be immoral if the other person was first are you?

The people killed in those bombings did nothing to deserve their fate (well, maybe a few did something.)

In a time of war anything goes: torture, and yes, killing innocent people. Anyone who believes that America is immune from committing these attrocities is mistaken. It happens every time. Bush's suggestion that the prisoner abuse is 'un-American' is absurd. It's absolutely _human_ and happens all the time. If people believe that our leaders are immune from the strategies and temptations that have plagued every leader since the beginning of time they are in for a rude awakening. (Like what happened at Abu Graibe. I have friends that supported Bush's efforts in Iraq, until they saw those pictures.)

Do these observations make me a 'US hater'? Or a bleeding heart liberal? (what exactly is a bleeding heart liberal anyway?) I don't think so. Questioning our government, and holding them accountable is about as American as we can get. Now if I went along with whatever the party in power does because I'm a 'xx' or 'yy' to the bone, now that's Un-American.

 

[Rockpile 03]

John Galt,
I've been following your posts for a long time. Your adherence to Ayn Rand's philosophy seems as unbending as al-Qaeda's allegiance to militant Islam.

Could you explain your recent comment that in two years you'll draw your social security benefit? How can a Randian disciple who believes government is unnecessary and people should rise or fall on their own justify participating in "socialism?"

I'm really curious. Perhaps some others are as well.

Howard Roarke