• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deus Ex Machina

Member
This still rings true..

ObamaHillaryDuel001.jpg


On Hardball they shown clips of Hillary on Fox today. She said she'll take it to the convention. And talk about angry! She looks like she doesn't care about anything!

video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23833970#23833970
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Tamanon said:
It's always "necessary" to the people who write the history books:p

I agree that the first bomb was "necessary" personally, not so much on the second one.
Click to expand...


And my only point (so you personally) would be.......has it been necessary since? Has it been necessary in any war since WWII? Do you see us needing to do it again knowing that 1,000s of innocent people will die?
 
B

Boogie

Member
Tamanon said:
It's always "necessary" to the people who write the history books:p

I agree that the first bomb was "necessary" personally, not so much on the second one.
Click to expand...

That's the other area of legitimate contention.

My position after reading the accounts of the Japanese War Council is that the second bomb was necessary, because the military leaders would have argued (and were in fact arguing), that America could only possibly have built one bomb, and so they should fight on. The second bomb proved that was not the case.

(ironically, the US was out of atomic bombs after Nagasaki)
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Boogie said:
The only way you can judge Truman's decision is by rationally analyzing the situation HE WAS IN.

Now, I know you don't know much about that, so here's the short version.

Truman could have:

a) Invaded Japan, killing untold thousands of Americans and certainly more Japanese than died in the atomic bombings,

b) Continued the firebombing and blockade of Japan, which certainly would have killed more Japanese than the atomic bombings.

c) loosen the requirement for unconditional surrender

d) drop the atomic bombs, killing ~200,000 Japanese, and end the war.

The ONLY alternative that can even be legitimately discussed is option c.

My opinion, and that of many historians, is that would be unacceptable. You cannot go to war against a militaristic power, and then leave its militaristic leaders and bureaucracy in place.

Therefore, whatever whining bullshit you want to do, doesn't change the fact that the bombs were the right decision.




The situation today is ABSOLUTELY NOT COMPARABLE to the Second World War, and you bringing it up shows your ignorance.
Click to expand...

So again the only time in world history that killing hundreds of thousands of people with atomic weapons was during WWII? That's basically what you are saying right?

Again you are looking at the whole situation through the lenses of a pure die hard American. What if some other country deems it nessacry to drop the bomb on us? Would they be in the wrong if they were seriously being threatened in the sameway we ran over Iraq?
 
B

Boogie

Member
mckmas8808 said:
And my only point (so you personally) would be.......has it been necessary since?
Click to expand...

Of course not. The end of WWII in the Pacific was a unique historical situation. Plus the whole Mutually Assured Destruction thing.

Has it been necessary in any war since WWII? Do you see us needing to do it again knowing that 1,000s of innocent people will die?
Click to expand...

Again, no. Because the only thing that would "require" the use of nuclear weapons would be a third World War. In which case, we're already fucked.
 
K

KRS7

Member
Can you guys please make a new thread to discuss WWII and Japan. I really don't see the relevance in this thread.
 
B

Boogie

Member
mckmas8808 said:
So again the only time in world history that killing hundreds of thousands of people with atomic weapons was during WWII? That's basically what you are saying right?
Click to expand...

Essentially, yes.

Again you are looking at the whole situation through the lenses of a pure die hard American.
Click to expand...

I am not fucking American. So your attempt at discrediting me through my personal perspective is not only wrong, it is insulting. Cut that shit out.


What if some other country deems it nessacry to drop the bomb on us?
Click to expand...

Well, clearly they would be suicidal then, considering the US has them outgunned in that regard.

Would they be in the wrong if they were seriously being threatened in the sameway we ran over Iraq?
Click to expand...


A legitimate question, though again, a moot one, since the realities of the geopolitical situation means that would be the international-relations equivalent of suicide-by-cop.
 
D

Deus Ex Machina

Member
Why are people digging up old shit on Michelle?

This is from January, before the "I'm really proud" remark.

MICHELLE: We don't like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables, y'all living in different dorms. I was there. Y'all not talking to each another, taking advantage of the fact that you're in this diverse community because sometimes it's easier to hold onto your own stereotypes and misconceptions, it makes you feel justified in your ignorance. That's America. So the challenge for us is, are we ready for change?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032708/content/01125108.guest.html
Click to expand...

We haven't heard anything controversial since the proud remark, so people are going back years to find anything on her that may seem hateful to others.
 
S

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
syllogism said:
Both candidates should start stressing this

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/27/clinton-tells-democrats-dont-vote-for-mccain/
Click to expand...
both Clinton and Obama need to stress it, but people are reading the tea leaves a bit too hard if they expect these visceral reactions from core voters to linger till November. even if this goes to the convention I expect either Clinton or Obama to play nice with the party and endorse the other, with most of their respective supporters in tow. regardless of the spin there is very little that separates them in terms of policy, and as Clinton mentions, whatever differences exist PALES when compared to McCain.
 
K

KRS7

Member
Deus Ex Machina said:
Why are people digging up old shit on Michelle?

This is from January, before the "I'm really proud" remark.



We haven't heard anything controversial since since the proud remark, so people are going back years to find anything on her that may seem hateful to others.
Click to expand...

It's all part of the narrative against Obama. I think the goal of the opposition from both parties is to paint Obama as unpatriotic. This is their best bet right now to beat him. You saw it earlier when he was criticized about flag lapel pins. Rumors were being spread that he doesn't recite the pledge of allegiance. But that wasn't working well enough, so now you got Wright and more attacks on Michelle. Hell, some are even trying to link statements from Wright's daughters to Obama. Expect to hear these things throughout the rest of the election. The media is not trying to reflect what americans want to hear about, they are trying to tell americans what to care about. There are way too many serious and fundamental problems affecting this country right now to be distracted by this crap.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
thekad said:
Wow, he said what we've been saying like a trillion times better.

Read this, GAF.
Click to expand...


I don't see why it's so good. Anything there that you see that should be pointed out in particular?
 
J

JaY P.

Member
mckmas8808 said:
So again the only time in world history that killing hundreds of thousands of people with atomic weapons was during WWII? That's basically what you are saying right?

Again you are looking at the whole situation through the lenses of a pure die hard American. What if some other country deems it nessacry to drop the bomb on us? Would they be in the wrong if they were seriously being threatened in the sameway we ran over Iraq?
Click to expand...

Killing thousands of people with an atomic weapon is never right. However, in hindsight, one could argue that it was the gruesome nature of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that made the Cold War a "Cold" war. I for one believe that the events of 1945 was a low point in history, but after studying the subject in my academic career, I feel that if Hiroshima or Nagasaki never happened there would have been a greater chance of a "hot" war. Had the world not witnessed the true nature and destructive properties of nuclear weapons there could have been an even greater probability of nuclear war during the Cold War era.

Edit: just a different perspective from the justified/unjustified arguments.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
KRS7 said:
It's all part of the narrative against Obama. I think the goal of the opposition from both parties is to paint Obama as unpatriotic. This is their best bet right now to beat him. You saw it earlier when he was criticized about flag lapel pins. Rumors were being spread that he doesn't recite the pledge of allegiance. But that wasn't working well enough, so now you got Wright and more attacks on Michelle. Hell, some are even trying to link statements from Wright's daughters to Obama. Expect to hear these things throughout the rest of the election. The media is not trying to reflect what americans want to hear about, they are trying to tell americans what to care about. There are way too many serious and fundamental problems affecting this country right now to be distracted by this crap.
Click to expand...


And I still have to ask this to GAF. If he was white would his patriotism be attack as much as it is now?
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
JaY P. said:
Killing thousands of people with an atomic weapon is never right. However, in hindsight, one could argue that it was the gruesome nature of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that made the Cold War a "Cold" war. I for one believe that the events of 1945 was a low point in history, but after studying the subject in my academic career, I feel that if Hiroshima or Nagasaki never happened there would have been a greater chance of a "hot" war. Had the world not witnessed the true nature and destructive properties of nuclear weapons there could have been an even greater probability of nuclear war during the Cold War era.
Click to expand...


I just wonder if in 5, 10, 20 years from now another country doesn't think the same thing that we thought in the 1940s.

They could say, "hey drop an atomic bomb on America and their people wouldn't want to war with countries with whom that can't prove are in the wrong anymore."

Not saying it's right, but I'm just saying.
 
G

GenericPseudonym

Banned
thekad said:
Wow, he said what we've been saying like a trillion times better.

Read this, GAF.
Click to expand...

I really couldn't care less about whether white people being upset about Jeremiah Wright is justified. It's just a fact, and one that Obama must confront (and has confronted), certainly one blogger can claim his argument is better, but it really doesn't matter in the end. Democracy allows everyone to vote, whether or not they deserve that privilege.
 
S

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
mckmas8808 said:
I just wonder if in 5, 10, 20 years from now another country doesn't think the same thing that we thought in the 1940s.

They could say, "hey drop an atomic bomb on America and their people wouldn't want to war with countries with whom that can't prove are in the wrong anymore."

Not saying it's right, but I'm just saying.
Click to expand...
all you're showing is a base understanding of this specific situation.

would it be better for you if the bomb wasn't dropped, but the Allied forces instead embarked on an eight-month ground invasion that killed a million on both sides and decimated the entire country? diplomacy was pursued and summarily rejected by the Japanese, and criticizing how the Allied forces could have negotiated better is not fair.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
So, Hillary's interview on FOX is saying that it's all Obama's fault that the Michigan and Florida delegates aren't counting.:lol
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
scorcho said:
all you're showing is a base understanding of this specific situation.

would it be better for you if the bomb wasn't dropped, but the Allied forces instead embarked on an eight-month ground invasion that killed a million on both sides and decimated the entire country? diplomacy was pursued and summarily rejected by the Japanese, and criticizing how the Allied forces could have negotiated better is not fair.
Click to expand...


That's to say 1 million would have died on their side. Again I'm just don't like it when people say it's good for us at that time, but never good for anybody else at anytime.

The logic (I'm thinking about it as if I'm an alien from another country with no bias or upperhand in the matter) just doesn't seem to straight forward imo.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Tamanon said:
So, Hillary's interview on FOX is saying that it's all Obama's fault that the Michigan and Florida delegates aren't counting.:lol
Click to expand...

Yeah it's BS. Hillary is basically saying that she is willing to wreak the party if she can't win.
 
S

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
mckmas8808 said:
That's to say 1 million would have died on their side. Again I'm just don't like it when people say it's good for us at that time, but never good for anybody else at anytime.

The logic (I'm thinking about it as if I'm an alien from another country with no bias or upperhand in the matter) just doesn't seem to straight forward imo.
Click to expand...
it has to be understood in context, something you're refusing to grasp.

that you have to argue it in relation to being an alien really doesn't give me any desire to argue any point with you.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
scorcho said:
it has to be understood in context, something you're refusing to grasp.

that you have to argue it in relation to being an alien really doesn't give me any desire to argue any point with you.
Click to expand...

Alien means a citizen of another country in his statement:p
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
scorcho said:
it has to be understood in context, something you're refusing to grasp.

that you have to argue it in relation to being an alien really doesn't give me any desire to argue any point with you.
Click to expand...

A person from another country man. :lol
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Damn, how will Chris Matthews survive on Wednesday? Obama's going to apparently do the whole hour of the Hardball college tour with him.:lol
 
A

Atrus

Gold Member
scorcho said:
all you're showing is a base understanding of this specific situation.

would it be better for you if the bomb wasn't dropped, but the Allied forces instead embarked on an eight-month ground invasion that killed a million on both sides and decimated the entire country? diplomacy was pursued and summarily rejected by the Japanese, and criticizing how the Allied forces could have negotiated better is not fair.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The ones advocating the use of atomic bombs seem to be the ones showing base understanding.

The Japanese were only granted a matter of days to accept the Potsdam declaration. July 26th-Aug. 6th, and it totally avoids the issue that a pro-surrender Suzuki government came to power in April, and that the surrender movement had managed to sign the Emperor himself on board by early July.

The issue is often made under false dilemma that if the bomb had not been dropped, that conventional bombs would have caused more casualties. Leaving out of course the need to continue to firebomb a people whose only logical recourse in light of having no infrastructure left, is to surrender.

The military leaders still resisted surrendering after the bomb as they did before it. The only ones who surrendered were exactly the same group that supported surrender prior to it.

The sheer speed of the delivery of the bomb, the lack of flexing such power beforehand to convince them of it before dropping it, and the entrance of the Russia all seem to point out that the US among the other allies were in a rush to win. The atom bombs were a display of military power than anything remotely strategic.
 
D

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
At this point I wonder if Hillary is intentionally bombing the Democrats chances of winning this year so she can make another attempt in 2012. She knows she has no chance of winning the nomination. Even for all her talk about stealing the nomination, I can't believe that she actually thinks that will work. She might think that 4 years of McCain would turn even more American's against the Republicans and make it easier to win then.


EDIT: BTW, anything develop of yesterdays Bloomberg's Obama endorsement rumor?
 
B

Boogie

Member
Atrus said:
I disagree. The ones advocating the use of atomic bombs seem to be the ones showing base understanding.

The Japanese were only granted a matter of days to accept the Potsdam declaration. July 26th-Aug. 6th, and it totally avoids the issue that a pro-surrender Suzuki government came to power in April, and that the surrender movement had managed to sign the Emperor himself on board by early July.
Click to expand...

But the "surrender movement" as you put it had no sense of urgency, and was quite irreleveant. As the intercepted diplomatic communiques between Sato and Togo demonstrate, Japan was completely unwilling to surrender on terms acceptable to the allies.


The military leaders still resisted surrendering after the bomb as they did before it. The only ones who surrendered were exactly the same group that supported surrender prior to it.
Click to expand...

But the bombs provided the impetus for those favouring surrender, and the Emperor, to overcome the military leaders who wanted to fight on.

The sheer speed of the delivery of the bomb, the lack of flexing such power beforehand to convince them of it before dropping it, and the entrance of the Russia all seem to point out that the US among the other allies were in a rush to win. The atom bombs were a display of military power than anything remotely strategic.
Click to expand...

Well, certainly they were in a rush to win. That was explicitly stated by Truman to the American military leaders. The primary concern was to end the war as quickly as possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Most Commonly Spoken Foreign Languages in Each State (Besides Spanish)
2 3
121
15K
Mr. Wedgewood replied
  • Locked
USA Today: Clinton in commanding position for 270 EC votes
2 3 4 5
228
39K
Already Torn replied
  • Locked
Gallup: LGBT Identification Up, Vermont Highest (5.3%), South Dakota Lowest (2.0%)
49
7K
poppabk replied
  • Locked
Is it known as the RMV or DMV in your state?
2
72
9K
Desi replied
  • Locked
Fivethirtyeight: The Rust Belt has been turning red for a while.
2
62
12K
Foffy replied
Top Bottom