What gives you the right to do this?

Oooo oooh, almost forgot to comment about the a-bombs!

Do some reading about the "what if" we didn't drop the bombs. I'm saying it would have been WORSE had we not, on both sides obviously. The Japanese, no offense intended to them, were going freakin nuts back then! In some ways worse than the Germans! I've asked before why we didn't first drop one in an uninhabited area as a show of force. Well...first, there was a very limited supply of material to be used to produce such bombs then--it took time. And second, I don't think it would have had any impact. Why? If the first one didn't get them to surrender, and we know where that was dropped, what good is dropping one in the middle of nowhere going to do?

why do you support people you disagree with? your actions embody agreement. your mental space is irrelevant unless it is embodied in action. you therefore legitmize these actions. what form of dictartorship do you wish to adhere to by enacting the rituals that suppress your personal views?
korg, i do not find you or your pragmatic philosophy reprehensible in general. often inpalatable but that is because you willfully play out the role of a curmudgeon or whatever. i find your justification of the use of unconventional weapons and purposefully attacking civilians is reprehensible. that is what i stated. that is what i meant.
yet somehow you understood what that symbol meant and responded with a justification of the american use of nuclear weapons on a civilian population (which was not a multitude but a people, who's will was determined from above). i was inserting a precedent for american use of unconventional weaponry on a civilian population. that was part of the original topic. until the american government apologizes for these actions, they remain precedents that can be called upon in any discussion concerning america's record for violation of international agreements in regards to warfare and the targeting of civilians.
wrong. i accuse them of not thinking period. which i do not do here. i do respect your reflection though it is apparent that you are not as smart as you think you are. my ideas are well articulated. in this case, your guilty concience won't allow you to acknowledge it.
i'm sure you learned this wonderful feminist rhetoric in your vast academic training.

1. I don't support the PERSON who is President.. I support the Office of the Presidency and the actions carried out by that Office. If you cannot understad why... toughski shitski as they say... at this point there's nothing more to say - for you have already labelled my reasons for doing so blind and foolish patriotism - both in this and other threads.

2. One more time - your interjection of the atomic bomb symbol, as I stated and explained, was recognized by me for what it was and I decided to play along - for a while. Your association of atomic bomb usage with the original post - which you admitted was "arguing an extreme" is an old tactic that rhetoricians have used since at least the classsical Greek period. So, it's easily recognized as I pointed it out. The tactic is invalidated by its recgonition by the party arguing the other side - which I did. Your use of an extreme case did not prove your point ---- supposedly that the US government is and has been the Devil Incarnate because it used - gasp - unconventional weapons! OMG! We did? Whooooohooo. Even if we did and the current Adminestration was the Devil Incarnate, so what? That "realization" and revelation to the rest of us poor bastards in the forums won't change a damn thing - so you are ineffectively pissing in the wind --- watch out, it'll blow back on you.

3. As for the rest of the crap you wrote... you've passed the extent of my willingess to deal with your irrational and self-justifying circular logic tonight. Take two aspirins, then grab a hammer and hit yourself in the head with it. You'll feel the same as continuing to try to argue with me.

The best laugh of the night - accusing me of using feminist rhetoric - not recognizing that nearly all feminist rhetoric was stolen from other causes long ago. Even if that were not the case, so f*ing what?

edited to add: "international aggreements" aren't worth the paper they are written on.

Oh I give up, you guys are nuts... I'm out!

i was not using an extreme case nor did i admit to that. i was stating precedent. i was not calling the US government the devil incarnate or evil. i was not stating this was a revelation. i was stating that america historically targets civilians, transgresses on international law/agreements, and uses biological and nuclear weapons. for this reason the justaposition of article one and article two are not a revelation but a consistent with the america we all know and love
the importance of abiding by international agreements is the main reason the US is resisting the war crimes tribunal and the environmental accords.

thanks for the entertainment korg.

Yet I quote you back your own words.. Note YOU said EXTREME and REVELATION... those were not my words in your mouth.



Hmm... never knew I had grandchildren... I certainly haven't been told of any yet.
As for "right wing professors" to quote... what a laugh. I have yet to meet one, you sanctimonious mass of fecal matter.

As for the level of my academic accomplishments, check the archives for my posts. You are off - then again, so what? My understanding of geo-political events and foreign policy formation, enactment and consequences is based on real world experience, not academic. The academics I deal with seem confused when I tell them that their theories don't seem to hold water when compared against my experience in NATO and USEUCOM Headquarters, nor that in Seventh Fleet or COMMIDEASTFOR. I know that you prove that you have had things published in the PID, the NID and the NATO JAR/JICREP system on similar events as I did for a number of years prior to receiving my first undergraduate degree. I am sure that you were requested, by name, to provide on-the-spot analysis and breifings to visiting dignitaries on such weighty matters as whether or not x or y "international incident" was significant in terms of American foreign policy/a military threat - certainly because you have proven your ability to put aside most of your own bias in order to provide alternative views to your own for those who are real-world international-level geo-political-military decisionmakers - you know, ambassadors, consuls general, embassy and consulate staff, and NATO Headquarters staff. You have done that, correct? I know and can prove that I have - my first such combination analysis-briefing was in 1977, my last was in 1997.


Quoting Ronnie yet again, "there you go again" with that pesky reference to "international law"... the same international law no one else pays any attention to either. The role of the hegemon throughout history is to make the law, not to pay attention to the also-rans and havenots. The US IS THE HEGEMON now and has been for some time now.

let's look at my quote again
not a revelation.
just an extreme example. any example would suffice.
once again, reading comprehension. i guess with all the creative writing you were doing for the government for the last 20 years you were never required to read.
herein lies the idealogical difference. you want to live in a world where military might legitimizes power and i want to live in a world where rational discourse legitimizes power, and we are then fundamentally caught up in a 2500 hundred year old discussion on defining justice and good.

to offer you an extreme case scenario, the idealogical extreme in your world is if i can shoot you before you shoot me, i get to keep your house, eat your food, and enslave your family. in your world, if facism took control of america, it would be justified. now there's some rhetoric for you, old bean

what exactly are you getting at here, korg? your words not mine:

just kidding. i apologize for making you my personal abuse toy.

All kidding aside.. you have zero clue just how long I have strung you along... which post did it start on? Was it this thread? A previous one? You'll never know.

And I don't apologize.

btw, i've been waiting days to drop hiroshima/nagasaki into a thread about american war efforts.

edit:
korg, was that entire passage you pasted from your c.v. an admission of culpability to everything that went wrong in american foreign policy since vietnam?

The descriptions I read of the 'poison gas' bombs sounds similar to smoke bombs the military uses to cover their movements. And, whats wrong with using napalm or phosphurous bombs against the enemy? Anny civilians there have had plenty of time to flee the area. As far as shooting folks waving white flags, there have been several incidents where folks doing so in the middle east have turned out to be suicide bombers. So, if it has been done, what real choice do you have?

I think our government should apologise for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki just as soon as the Japanese decide to apologise for their unprovoked invasions, violations of neutrality, violations of the laws of war, destruction of cultural and archeological sites, genocide, the murder, torture and medical experimentation upon millions of civilians and prisoners of war, blatant usage of internationally banned chemical weaponry, slavery, theft, the rape and pillage of entire nations, not to mention their attacking our Pacific fleet and forces without the courtesy of a declaration of war. They may have surrendered, but they have never made the slightest excuse or apology. Nor have they, in over fifty years of peace ever refered to another country as an ally or even so much as a partner. Let them be first.

Great links. Thank you for posting them. It's important to keep reminding U.S. consumers between their forkfuls of turkey and their shopping binges that tax-payer money is paying for murder and war crimes in their name.

~Ulrika~

Cheers Ulrika