View Poll Results: Are Neocons A Threat To World Peace?

Voters
72. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    44 61.11%
  • No

    28 38.89%
Page 21 of 29 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 285

Thread: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

  1. #201
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Furthermore, we also happen to know that Eisenhower was wrong. The Japanese were not about to surrender. That is why they didn't surrender after the first A-Bomb. It is also why even after the second A-Bomb they didn't surrender, and after we threatened them (a bluff) that we had more (we were plumb out) and were going to turn the entirety of the Home Islands into ash that the vote on whether or not to surrender was still tied, forcing the Emperor to break the tie. And even then portions of the military revolted, kidnapped the Emperor, and attempted to force Japan to fight down to the bitter, honorable end. If it hadn't been for the actions of a very small number of brave individuals, the Emperor's message would never have gotten out on the radio, and we would have had to invade.
    No you don't know that he was wrong. And furthermore what you just said contradicts your notion that the bombings ended the war early. What was giving the Japanese problems was the condition of unconditional surrender. It was days after Hiroshima was bombed before they meet for the first time to seriously consider that condition. Why? It was the decision by the Soviet Union to enter the war that was the game changer. They knew they could not fight the US and the Soviet Union at the same time, so that is what made the emperor change is mind and disregard the hard liners who wanted to fight on.

  2. #202
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Now, towards the end of the war, we were seeing combat kill rates of a little better than 1 to 5 in the US' favor. In Okinawa, for example, the U.S. lost 14,009 men, while the Japanese Imperial Army lost 77,166. Operation Downfall was anticipating 100,000 casualties in the first four days of the invasion of the main island group. However, they weren't facing the same, experienced, Imperial Army.
    Although there were varying estimates Marshall estimated that the casualties for the invasion of Kyūshū, scheduled for November 1, 1945, would be 31,000 in the first 30 days.

  3. #203
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,498

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I can be classified as a Neocon and believe in peace through strength and am appalled by this current social government led by the biggest socialist of all Obama who is destroying the strongest military in the world and turning it into a 3rd rate one.
    Too much of anything is a bad thing, shipmate...and that includes military spending. If you'll pull yourself away from the right-wing echo chamber and look at what we really have compared to the rest of the world - especially concerning the overwhelming quality of our forces - you'll see that we're still #1 by a long shot. If the rest of the world came against us in a conventional war, we'd win hands down...though we'd eventually lose because there's so much that we import - particularly rare metals - that is crucial to our economy. But militarily speaking...we're too powerful...which is why Your Boy Dubya thought Iraq would be a cakewalk...

    ...where he found that his daddy was right - Iraq was a cakewalk...but the exit strategy was a bitch.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  4. #204
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,498

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    Your post reminds me of a rather interesting scene from a movie that I saw a while ago. I think it's quite illuminating



    That's not a kid's game that is being played in Ukraine. The thinking people here among the foreign policy establishment had better think this out and think it out well. Otherwise the world may be headed for a big catastrophe.
    And I'd love to hear what, exactly, the conservatives think should be done instead of economic sanctions.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  5. #205
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,498

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    No you don't know that he was wrong. And furthermore what you just said contradicts your notion that the bombings ended the war early. What was giving the Japanese problems was the condition of unconditional surrender. It was days after Hiroshima was bombed before they meet for the first time to seriously consider that condition. Why? It was the decision by the Soviet Union to enter the war that was the game changer. They knew they could not fight the US and the Soviet Union at the same time, so that is what made the emperor change is mind and disregard the hard liners who wanted to fight on.
    I've often thought that the wiser choice would have been to let the Japanese know that X location was going to get A-bombed, so that they could go watch it and understand just what would happen if they didn't surrender...and that said location should have been in plain view of the Imperial Palace.

    But we should also bear in mind that the two A-bombs only did 2% of the total bombing damage we did to the Japanese mainland - the firebombing was the other 98%. On March 10th, 1945, we firebombed Tokyo...and 110,000 people died in the resulting firestorm. The next morning was nearly freezing cold. I remember this from Martin Caidin's "A Torch to the Enemy" which is likely out of print now...and I think it was then that I started to understand that the better one understands war, the more one hates it. But I still love military history.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  6. #206
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,080

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    It most certainly is debatable. Japan was on the ropes from the destruction that had been inflicted due to aerial bombardment. The Japanese had sent people to seek peace through Russia. MacArthur even said that if the US had included the offer for the Japanese to keep the emperor, they probably would have surrendered in a couple of weeks without an invasion or without a fission bomb.
    Most counterfactual history is debatable. Theoretically there is a world in which Harry Turtledoves' imagined alien invasion halted WWII and redirected it into a global effort against large lizards. That does not make it plausibile. Japan sustained not one, but two nuclear bombings without being willing to surrender, only coming to a tied vote on the matter when more were threatened. They were certainly not about to surrender under the vague threat of a single new bomb whose effects they had not seen.

    To advise means to give advice. Anyone who has had a teenager knows that you advise them even though you know that they have already made a decision.
    Eisenhower said he expressed doubts because he thought Japan was beaten. It turns out that inasmuch as that meant they were ready to surrender, that was incorrect.

    I didn't ask you to give me a precise measurement as I doubt you could even tell me what was the difference between precision and accuracy without referring to some reference. And as far as usage goes, again, people use different points of reference. There is no doubt that the fire bombing of Tokyo was part of the nuclear era because indeed nuclear weapons were being developed at the time. There is no "by your own precision you are wrong."
    You are the one who insisted that the nuclear era began with the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings. It's not my fault you don't know your history. However, as to the actual matter under discussion it is irrelevant for the simple enough fact that violence has been declining for centuries.

    What is shocking is that you are so desperate that you will use any lame excuse to try to score some points. It wasn't a racist remark. The usage connoted the notion that there is a bias in vision due to background, specifically that of a white male who wants to whitewash the sins of the wars the US and it's allies have waged. By contrast, a racist remark would have been to say that what you said what typical of stupid white people. That would be racist. Get it?
    Racism is to impugn characteristics on an individual because of his ethnicity. So, for example, your decree that historians and social scientists who point out that violence has been relatively declining among humans both in peace and in wartime for centuries must be attempting to white-wash American history because he is white is a racist declaration that because the guy is white he is trying to whitewash our nations sins. In reality, his race, my race, your race, none of them have any bearing on whether or not violence has, in fact, declined over the past few centuries - but you tried to make it about that, indicating that you are, in fact, a racist.

    It's also ridiculous, and indicates (again) that you have no idea what you are talking about. Steven Pinker is a leftist. Hint: He does interviews for Al-Jazeera. He does TED talks, he's featured on NPR. Furthermore, he's not exactly a WASP - he's Jewish.

    War has become more gruesome due to the types of weapons that modern armies have at their disposal. When you consider that with one bomb, one third of the population of Hiroshima was killed, that is more gruesome that anything in history. When you consider that two thirds of Hiroshima was destroyed with one bomb by the US, that is more gruesome than anything in history. When you consider the effects that poisonous radiation had on the people that survived Hiroshima, that is more gruesome than anything in history. You tell those people who suffered from such an atrocity that war is less gruesome and see what they say. Yeah, again some white guy who wants to believe such nonsense will engage in self deception and put that notion forward.
    That an interesting claim. "More Gruesome Than Anything in History". More gruesome than the Holocaust? More gruesome than the firebombings of Dresden or Tokyo? More gruesome than the genocides and ethnic cleansings that marked warfare for millennia? The Aztec temples reached an industrial rate of human sacrifice that outpaced Auschwitz, ripping the beating hearts from their screaming victims while their families looked on in helpless, terrified horror at what was about to happen to them - now that's gruesome. A flash of light that instantly incinerates you before you even know what has happened? That's less gruesome. Being tied between two boats and painted with honey so that you could be eaten alive by insects? More gruesome. Being executed by bullet or electric chair? Less gruesome.

    Genghis Khan would be laugh at your claim that the U.S. or the a-bombs were uniquely gruesome. Then he would kill everyone in a hundred miles and have his lieutenants built a pyramid from the skulls. Hell - we dropped leaflets warning the Japanese civilians what was about to happen and warning them to leave the cities. In the annals of military bastardlyness, we're weak sauce.

    In reality, the technological advances that have brought us greater weapons have coincided with an increase in human empathy that have demanded - over time - more conscientious rules governing their use. Today, for example, we talk about "collateral damage" and try to avoid it. For most of human history, raping massacring civilians was just what you did to blow off steam after winning the battle. The ancient stories in the Bible that horrify us now about killing every man, woman, child, and animal of an entire enemy tribe or ethnicity was just how you made a statement. The Romans were masters of that sort of public statement - we don't get the phrase sow the earth with salt because that was their fertilizer technique, after all. Even in the horrors of WWII, sides fed and took care of prisoners of war and helped the surviving populaces rebuild. But the ability to end an individual or factory without killing the entire city it is in has come to necessitate doing so.

    As for talking to people including those in Japan about actual warfare - I have. I lived in Japan for three years, and served alongside their military. I have actually experienced the modern face of warfare (having fought it, and advised others in the fighting of it), and professionally studied warfare of the past. So I wouldn't claim to be John Keegan, but I come to this debate actually having an idea what I am talking about.
    Last edited by cpwill; 04-16-14 at 09:20 PM.

  7. #207
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,080

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Oh, Hey, and I can't help but notice that I asked you to actually - you know - demonstrate your claims that the U.S. had encroached on Russia via the Ukraine and you sort of failed to provide that or even quote it in your response...

  8. #208
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,080

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    I've often thought that the wiser choice would have been to let the Japanese know that X location was going to get A-bombed, so that they could go watch it and understand just what would happen if they didn't surrender...and that said location should have been in plain view of the Imperial Palace.
    We tried that at a place called Hiroshima. It didn't work.

    But we should also bear in mind that the two A-bombs only did 2% of the total bombing damage we did to the Japanese mainland - the firebombing was the other 98%. On March 10th, 1945, we firebombed Tokyo...and 110,000 people died in the resulting firestorm. The next morning was nearly freezing cold. I remember this from Martin Caidin's "A Torch to the Enemy" which is likely out of print now...and I think it was then that I started to understand that the better one understands war, the more one hates it. But I still love military history.
    It is fascinating. People are at their best and their worst, often the same people, often within short time-spans of each other.

  9. #209
    Ayatollah of Rock n Rolla
    SgtRock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 08:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,006

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Putin is a threat to world peace. Iran and North Korea are threats to world peace. Islamic extremist fanatics are most definitely a threat to world peace. Neo Conservatives not so much.
    When America is strong the world is calm, When America is weak tyrants and terrorist slaughter the meek. ~ SgtRock

  10. #210
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtRock View Post
    Putin is a threat to world peace. Iran and North Korea are threats to world peace. Islamic extremist fanatics are most definitely a threat to world peace. Neo Conservatives not so much.
    Neo-Cons are the greatest threat to World Peace. They want an Empire called the New World Order.

Page 21 of 29 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •