• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I'll give a nod of approval to President Obama.

OrphanSlug said:
It is bigger than that. The US issuing an apology for using atomic bombs ignores how we all ended up at that decision. It ignores Japan's actions throughout and it also ignores ours up to that point. It takes one event, removes all context, and by apology re-qualifying the event in today's standards.

I would argue it would be a meaningless apology, what we should be focusing on is how quickly we went from that sort of total hatred of the enemy to economic and diplomatic conditions of today between the US and Japan. We do that and no one has to apologize for anything that we really cannot go back and make changes for anyway.
Click to expand...

I think the issue of the apology with regards to the atomic bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki stems from the after effects of the bombs.

The victims of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only included the people who were killed by the force of the bombs exploding, it also includes the people who suffered the effects of radiation sickness.

Many victims of the atomic bombs died after the war had ended.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
The US and USSR were shotgun partners to begin with.
Click to expand...

And thus a perfect example of how strange bedfellows are created by the folly of man... we sent troops in as a feeble attempt to halt the Revolution, attempted to boycott them and then when the capitalistic world turned to hot poop... why sum bitch them Godless Commies broke the back of Nazi Germany.

Then back to hating them godless sum bitches, then St Ronnie warmly embraces them BushII see into Putin's heart and sees good... to now they are out to conquer the world... :peace
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
It awakens them on a purely spiritual level so it's not dangerous.
Maybe, just maybe it might spur other leaders to reflect on working for peace a lot more.
That's about it, because most leaders, liberal and conservative alike, recognize that the global structure of security is nigh well F**KED.
Click to expand...

They do realize the state of security, I am sure. That does not mean that it is in their individual interest to do, what it would take to change it. IT is very close to the Tragedy of the Commons problem.
 
notquiteright said:
Their 'luck' was more a case of our 'ally' The Soviet union was seen as a bigger threat than the two crushed nations- Germany and Japan.

How quickly we went from hating the genocidal nazis and sneaky dirty japs to hating our WWII ally- the one who broke the nazi military strength- the USSR with Germany and Japan now being out strong 'friends' and allies for decades... :peace
Click to expand...

In case you missed it, Stalin was just as bad as Hitler. He killed millions of people through his policies, deported entire ethnic groups from one end of the country to the other, oversaw the creation of puppet states which each killed more then their share, actively collaborated with the Nazis until Barbarossa and refused to abide by the terms of the Geneva Convention.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
And that's all it is.
There is NOTHING wrong with a liberal expressing a desire to rid the world of nuke weapons.
Conservatives would not be faulted for the same wish either.
And isn't it amazing that most on both sides regretfully acknowledge that it is all but impossible.

Still, it's noble for him to call for such a thing anyway.
He's just expressing what any peace loving leader wishes for fellow human beings.
Click to expand...



Ronald Reagan expressed the very same idea.

“We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”
Ronald Reagan, Inaugural Address, 1985

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?”
Ronald Reagan, 1984 State of the Union
Click to expand...
 
Howler63 said:
I had claimed earlier that he would apologize to Japan for the A-Bombs, but he did no such thing. He was a perfect statesman today without being a toady of the politically correct contingent.

Sympathy for victims but no apology as Obama makes historic Hiroshima visit

He expressed sympathy, but offered no apology. Well done, Mr. President.
Click to expand...

I think that the reason he went was two fold: improve relations, and that China is rattling their swords. I think that the Vietnam venture was over the same two things.
 
jet57 said:
I think that the reason he went was two fold: improve relations, and that China is rattling their swords. I think that the Vietnam venture was over the same two things.
Click to expand...

Oh, most certainly.
I heard that China is now considering sending nuke subs further into the Pacific for more saber rattling.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Oh, most certainly.
I heard that China is now considering sending nuke subs further into the Pacific for more saber rattling.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that report. What Japan did to China during the war was far worse than a simple A bomb... (if you get my drift), and those two have been fighting ever since I guess. But China is doing exactly what Japan tried to do by muscling in on territory.

I'm waiting for the right-wing to yell - "nuke'em!!" They seem to think that it was good enough for Iran in '79...
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, I saw that report. What Japan did to China during the war was far worse than a simple A bomb... (if you get my drift), and those two have been fighting ever since I guess. But China is doing exactly what Japan tried to do by muscling in on territory.

I'm waiting for the right-wing to yell - "nuke'em!!" They seem to think that it was good enough for Iran in '79...
Click to expand...

Hee hee, that's because most folks on the right TODAY seem to think all our problems with Iran started in 1979.
Similarly, they probably have the same myopic view of Sino-Japanese relations, or worse yet, if they support Trump, wouldn't even know the difference between the two.

"Ehhh, those Orientals, pretty good at making ramen and electronics, those guys, not so great at gettin along.
Maybe nuke em a little, that'll settle them down."

TRUMPspeechFINGER.jpg
 
Tigerace117 said:
In case you missed it, Stalin was just as bad as Hitler. He killed millions of people through his policies, deported entire ethnic groups from one end of the country to the other, oversaw the creation of puppet states which each killed more then their share, actively collaborated with the Nazis until Barbarossa and refused to abide by the terms of the Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...

Didn't miss nuttin... never said Stalin was the poster child for human rights- do say we were on him like white on rice from the very beginning- before he saw enimies in every corner... (he did have quite a few and we actively helped many of them) Germany didn't exactly treat captured Russians with Geneva convention kit gloves, and about the only way the USSR had to obtain western advanced technology was through Germany... but throw up quibbles... :roll:

but back to the point- we embraced, bankrolled and shipped millions of dollars worth of gear to the E-Vile godless commie Stalin as only his regime could fight the Nazis when the Germans were kicking all of Europe's asses...

There are the E-Vile thugs we embrace when it suits our purpose- Stalin, Shah of Iran, The 'royal' Saudis, Pinochet, Noriega, Marcos...

We hated the Roosians until we loved them... we used them to drive fears until we mocked them. Then they started to re-established their sphere of influence on their own border and we declare the Red Menace is once again out to rule the world ( a job we reserve for ourselves)

I didn't miss nuttin... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Didn't miss nuttin... never said Stalin was the poster child for human rights- do say we were on him like white on rice from the very beginning- before he saw enimies in every corner... (he did have quite a few and we actively helped many of them) Germany didn't exactly treat captured Russians with Geneva convention kit gloves, and about the only way the USSR had to obtain western advanced technology was through Germany... but throw up quibbles... :roll:

but back to the point- we embraced, bankrolled and shipped millions of dollars worth of gear to the E-Vile godless commie Stalin as only his regime could fight the Nazis when the Germans were kicking all of Europe's asses...

There are the E-Vile thugs we embrace when it suits our purpose- Stalin, Shah of Iran, The 'royal' Saudis, Pinochet, Noriega, Marcos...

We hated the Roosians until we loved them... we used them to drive fears until we mocked them. Then they started to re-established their sphere of influence on their own border and we declare the Red Menace is once again out to rule the world ( a job we reserve for ourselves)

I didn't miss nuttin... :peace
Click to expand...

Stalin had always seen enemies in every corner. The man was a megalomaniac.

The Nazis were Nazis. Of course they weren't going to treat those who they saw as subhuman with kid gloves.

Stalin had agreed to hold free elections in the Eastern European states. Instead, he rigged the elections and ordered thousands more killed, on top of those he'd already purged. It was a case of pick your poison. Everybody knew Stalin was evil, but we made the choice that Hitler was worse.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Stalin had always seen enemies in every corner. The man was a megalomaniac. The Nazis were Nazis. Of course they weren't going to treat those who they saw as subhuman with kid gloves. Stalin had agreed to hold free elections in the Eastern European states. Instead, he rigged the elections and ordered thousands more killed, on top of those he'd already purged. It was a case of pick your poison. Everybody knew Stalin was evil, but we made the choice that Hitler was worse.
Click to expand...

This is where I wish there was a Cpt Obvious icon... so what is your point???

Mine is we had a on again off again love hate thing going with the USSR. We 'fear' them, mock them, embrace them, boycott them...

But my question was- where does our sphere end and another world powers begin???

We can't define our sphere to be within 12 miles of Russian or Chinese coasts. We can't demand world powers knee before us and do as we say. So just how upset should we be when regional 'allies' (of all countries Vietnam is now an ally) want us to face off with a world power thousands of miles away from our shores???

carping over Stalin and Hitler is a silly dodge... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
This is where I wish there was a Cpt Obvious icon... so what is your point???

Mine is we had a on again off again love hate thing going with the USSR. We 'fear' them, mock them, embrace them, boycott them...

But my question was- where does our sphere end and another world powers begin???

We can't define our sphere to be within 12 miles of Russian or Chinese coasts. We can't demand world powers knee before us and do as we say. So just how upset should we be when regional 'allies' (of all countries Vietnam is now an ally) want us to face off with a world power thousands of miles away from our shores???

carping over Stalin and Hitler is a silly dodge... :peace
Click to expand...

So China gets to take islands which about a dozen other countries also claim.... Why, exactly?

Because they're China?

This is the 21st century. It's generally accepted that blatant land grabs are wrong.

For example, Russia taking Eastern Ukraine would be a blatant land grab. China declaring all the islands in the South China Sea---especially the Spratleys--- belong to them is a blatant land grab.
 
Tigerace117 said:
So China gets to take islands which about a dozen other countries also claim.... Why, exactly? Because they're China? This is the 21st century. It's generally accepted that blatant land grabs are wrong. For example, Russia taking Eastern Ukraine would be a blatant land grab. China declaring all the islands in the South China Sea---especially the Spratleys--- belong to them is a blatant land grab.
Click to expand...

Because they are a regional power, being China (or Vietnam) is meaningless. having economic and military clout does. We didn't mind invading what ever country we wanted to, and the list includes nations in the 21st century. I don't see our turning the nations over to puppets as 'leaving' a nation.

Russia took eastern Ukraine or did that region vote to leave a thug regime? Did Russia seize Ossettia or did that region vote to leave a dictatorship running Georgia?

So what would you have us do about the South China Sea or the Ukraine?

What did China or Russia do when we invaded Panama, Grenada, pushed a Coup in Chile?

You dodged my question yet again... just what do we do, and where does our sphere of influence end and theirs begins???? :confused:
 
notquiteright said:
Because they are a regional power, being China (or Vietnam) is meaningless. having economic and military clout does. We didn't mind invading what ever country we wanted to, and the list includes nations in the 21st century. I don't see our turning the nations over to puppets as 'leaving' a nation.

Russia took eastern Ukraine or did that region vote to leave a thug regime? Did Russia seize Ossettia or did that region vote to leave a dictatorship running Georgia?

So what would you have us do about the South China Sea or the Ukraine?

What did China or Russia do when we invaded Panama, Grenada, pushed a Coup in Chile?

You dodged my question yet again... just what do we do, and where does our sphere of influence end and theirs begins???? :confused:
Click to expand...

Well, let's see. The USSR stepped up aid to other communist regimes in the area once Allende was overthrown.

Saddam Hussein and the Taliban regime both killed thousands of their own people. Nobody cares that they were overthrown except the usual suspects--- radical Islamists and the anti American shills who pander to every dictator in a ten thousand mile radius.

It's not at all the same thing as what Stalin did after World War Two.

Russia technically hasn't taken Eastern Ukraine yet, but it's rather suspicious that right after Crimea voted to join Russia you had a massive increase in Russo-Ukrainian (for lack of a better word) militancy.

Why should Russia or China be able to seize whatever lands they want? Do you think Russia should be allowed to annex the Baltic States? After all, they're right next door to Russia.

The United States is a superpower. We have made commitments to our allies, and we have allies all over the world.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Well, let's see. The USSR stepped up aid to other communist regimes in the area once Allende was overthrown. Saddam Hussein and the Taliban regime both killed thousands of their own people. Nobody cares that they were overthrown except the usual suspects--- radical Islamists and the anti American shills who pander to every dictator in a ten thousand mile radius. It's not at all the same thing as what Stalin did after World War Two. Russia technically hasn't taken Eastern Ukraine yet, but it's rather suspicious that right after Crimea voted to join Russia you had a massive increase in Russo-Ukrainian (for lack of a better word) militancy. Why should Russia or China be able to seize whatever lands they want? Do you think Russia should be allowed to annex the Baltic States? After all, they're right next door to Russia. The United States is a superpower. We have made commitments to our allies, and we have allies all over the world.
Click to expand...

More quibble... you never answer the question asked do you??? :roll:

Oh and never mind WE loved Saddam and did our best to ignore his mass murder sprees- until we needed a good excuse to invade. We prop up petty thugs and tyrants around the world when they toe OUR line...

but back to the question- JUST WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO???? :peace
 
notquiteright said:
...we had a on again off again love hate thing going with the USSR. We 'fear' them, mock them, embrace them, boycott them...

But my question was- where does our sphere end and another world powers begin???

We can't define our sphere to be within 12 miles of Russian or Chinese coasts. We can't demand world powers knee before us and do as we say. So just how upset should we be when regional 'allies' (of all countries Vietnam is now an ally) want us to face off with a world power thousands of miles away from our shores???
Click to expand...

We face off in the most bloodless way possible: strike a diplomatic deal!
 
notquiteright said:
More quibble... you never answer the question asked do you??? :roll:

Oh and never mind WE loved Saddam and did our best to ignore his mass murder sprees- until we needed a good excuse to invade. We prop up petty thugs and tyrants around the world when they toe OUR line...

but back to the question- JUST WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO???? :peace
Click to expand...

Once again, since you seemed to have missed it:

I would have us follow our commitments to our allies throughout the world and not care about giving the Chinese or Russians a "sphere of influence".

We didn't love Saddam either; we simply hated Iran more then we did his regime at the time.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Once again, since you seemed to have missed it: I would have us follow our commitments to our allies throughout the world and not care about giving the Chinese or Russians a "sphere of influence". We didn't love Saddam either; we simply hated Iran more then we did his regime at the time.
Click to expand...

Again you quibble and deflect- what would we do? What does the wimpy phrase- 'honor our commitments' mean in terms of blood and treasure??? So far you just give empty slogans and mindless deflection.

Now the Saddam thing is like the Stalin thing- we are quite willing to crawl into bed with scum when we hate the other scum worse. Sad, we seem more guided by grudges than realistic global security. Iran was a far less E-Vile than Iraq under Saddam as history has since proven. But thanks to our pathetic childishness Iran is now free to become the regional power Saddam dreamed of being... :doh

We had a 'commitment' with Georgia when the Ossettia affair began, BushII hugged the 'president' of Georgia and called him a dear friend and ally... we stood by (wisely) and allowed Russia it's way there.

What do we do in the Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia, South China Sea.... actions, a plan, not meaningless dribble like some pansy butted politician making speeches no one will act on...

(FYI we don't give China or Russia a sphere of influence- they TOOK it! You want to take it back? Just how?) :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Again you quibble and deflect- what would we do? What does the wimpy phrase- 'honor our commitments' mean in terms of blood and treasure??? So far you just give empty slogans and mindless deflection.

Now the Saddam thing is like the Stalin thing- we are quite willing to crawl into bed with scum when we hate the other scum worse. Sad, we seem more guided by grudges than realistic global security. Iran was a far less E-Vile than Iraq under Saddam as history has since proven. But thanks to our pathetic childishness Iran is now free to become the regional power Saddam dreamed of being... :doh

We had a 'commitment' with Georgia when the Ossettia affair began, BushII hugged the 'president' of Georgia and called him a dear friend and ally... we stood by (wisely) and allowed Russia it's way there.

What do we do in the Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia, South China Sea.... actions, a plan, not meaningless dribble like some pansy butted politician making speeches no one will act on...

(FYI we don't give China or Russia a sphere of influence- they TOOK it! You want to take it back? Just how?) :peace
Click to expand...

You love doing :peace signs don't ya. You've put those at the end of you last three or four posts. It's like you think your funny or something:roll:

Honor our commitments means helping our allies when they need help. Troops, medical supplies, cash, diplomatic influence.....

Crimea is a fait acompli---nothing we can do now. For Eastern Ukraine, set up an independent(with the emphasis being on independent) system, most likely through the UN, for a referendum. Make it clear to both the Ukrainians and the Russians that attempting to tamper with said referendum won't be tolerated. Make it clear to China that they have no inherent right to the islands in the South China Sea. If they want to work something out diplomatically with Taiwan, the Phillippines, Vietnam, etc great, but the US won't stand for blatant agression.

You honestly think the Islamic Republic of Iran--- a state which has sponsored groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and has armed radical Muslims throughout the world---is better then Saddam? Saddam was bully. He was all bark and no bite, as the Gulf War proved. He talked big but couldn't back it up. He was nasty, but Iran certainly isn't "far better".

Being a ***** and pulling out of bases in South Korea and Japan( because China thinks we're too close to their "sphere of influence") and Western Europe(because Russia thinks we're too close to their "sphere of influence") isn't at all productive.
 
Tigerace117 said:
You love doing :peace signs don't ya. You've put those at the end of you last three or four posts. It's like you think your funny or something Honor our commitments means helping our allies when they need help. Troops, medical supplies, cash, diplomatic influence..... If they want to work something out diplomatically with Taiwan, the Phillippines, Vietnam, etc great, but the US won't stand for blatant agression. Being a ***** and pulling out of bases in South Korea and Japan( because China thinks we're too close to their "sphere of influence") and Western Europe(because Russia thinks we're too close to their "sphere of influence") isn't at all productive.
Click to expand...

I do this :peace 99.9999999% of the time... pay attention.

More quibble- like claiming the UN will be able to do anything without our military to enforce the decision... like 'sending troops'... more wimpy empty phrases... you should man up buttercup- you mean getting us into a land war in Asia or in eastern Europe.

define BLATANT aggression... you use a lot of trite phrases but steer clear of meaningful ones.

We have literally hundreds of bases in Asia, most of which are expensive to maintain, have little if any combat use, just monuments from a distant war. reducing the number of bases isn't *****, it's practical.

So once again you say a lot of empty phrases and balk at saying what 'commitment' really means- killing thousands more of our troops... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
I do this :peace 99.9999999% of the time... pay attention.

More quibble- like claiming the UN will be able to do anything without our military to enforce the decision... like 'sending troops'... more wimpy empty phrases... you should man up buttercup- you mean getting us into a land war in Asia or in eastern Europe.

define BLATANT aggression... you use a lot of trite phrases but steer clear of meaningful ones.

We have literally hundreds of bases in Asia, most of which are expensive to maintain, have little if any combat use, just monuments from a distant war. reducing the number of bases isn't *****, it's practical.

So once again you say a lot of empty phrases and balk at saying what 'commitment' really means- killing thousands more of our troops... :peace
Click to expand...

Remember what happened last time we tried to hide behind our oceans? Isolationism doesn't work. It never has, and it never will.

Blatant aggression is a pretty simple term. Going after your neighbors and seizing their land is aggression. Sponsoring guerillas to seize land from your neighbors is aggression. This is pretty basic stuff.

The Russians and Chinese are opportunists. Like any other predators, they prefer easy kills to ones where they have to work for it. Appeasing them only makes more demands further down the road absolutely certain.

Why don't you ask the Vietnamese, the South Koreans, the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, Japan, etc if they want us to leave because they are rightfully in China or Russia's "sphere of influence".

In fact, commitment makes a major war less likely.
 
joG said:
He did shoot off about banning the bomb globally..... I read.
Click to expand...

It'd be a good idea, if possible.

It's probably not such a great thing that we possess the means to exterminate ourselves several times over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom