Hiroshima & Nagasaki - On the 65th Anniversary of Nagasaki

[eyeball]

Is Nagasaki in France?

Nope.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope.

I didn't think so....maybe if you had your wish about Europe we would be calling the "so called 2nd World War" the "Tough Shit for China War" instead.

[eyeball]

I didn't think so....

You didn't think Nagasaki was in France? I'm glad I was able to clear up your confusion.

maybe if you had your wish about Europe we would be calling the "so called 2nd World War" the "Tough Shit for China War" instead.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

[bush_cheney2004]

You didn't think Nagasaki was in France? I'm glad I was able to clear up your confusion.

Nope...not for even a minute. But perhaps you think the "so called world war" only revolved around Europe.

[eyeball]

But perhaps you think the "so called world war" only revolved around Europe.

Perhaps you forgot this topic description was Thoughts for a More Peaceful World not just Japan.

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps you forgot this topic description was Thoughts for a More Peaceful World not just Japan.

Perhaps you never realized those thoughts applied to today and tomorrow, not 70 years ago.

[eyeball]

Perhaps you never realized those thoughts applied to today and tomorrow, not 70 years ago.

No, I fully realize we didn't hold referendums on whether to get involved in wars halfway around the world 70 years ago. I was clearly applying the idea to today and from now on.

[DogOnPorch]

I also like the scenario made possible where one country's populace votes to send its troops to invade a neighbour and the target country can't deploy troops in defence beyond the ever-encroaching border until a national referendum is organised, held, and the votes tallied, by which point the invaders' flag has been long flying over the conquered capital.

Also a very good point.

eyeballs: On the contrary, generally poorly informed populations make it even easier for unaccountable opaque governments to declare wars on other people.

Your response does not relate to....

DOP: Not only that, it'd be doubtful that any nation would make a treaty with you if it could be nulled by a simple vote of the generally poorly informed population @ large.

Try again.

[jbg]

Think about that,though...But,the German defeat was'nt what brought on the problems afterward...It was the Treaty of Versailles,which was design to punish and impoverish Germany,mostly at the behest of the French,because it dared to challenge French dominance on the continent for the previous 50 years.

How about the fact that most of WW I was fought on French soil and to this day France hasn't recovered from the damage?

[g_bambino]

Horseshit I have, I never said that at all.

Yea, you did; right here: "I'd... put the question of whether to maintain [treaties] to referendum. In conjunction with this I'd pass a law that makes it mandatory that the public likewise pass through referendum any decision to send troops abroad." The plan utterly fails to function if it doesn't involve the entire planet being told when to vote by you. Tyrant.

I said a referendum to send our troops abroad, not to defend our border. Get a grip.

And I said "deploy troops in defence beyond the ever-encroaching border". Pay attention.

[eyeball]

Yea, you did; right here: "I'd... put the question of whether to maintain [treaties] to referendum. In conjunction with this I'd pass a law that makes it mandatory that the public likewise pass through referendum any decision to send troops abroad." The plan utterly fails to function if it doesn't involve the entire planet being told when to vote by you. Tyrant.

You honestly think I mean the royal I in "I'd"..? Look, what it means is we should all vote directly...not just me in a one man referendum. Will you please get a freakin' grip?

And I said "deploy troops in defence beyond the ever-encroaching border". Pay attention.

What encroaching border are you imagining? If you're talking about plate tectonics then yes I suppose there's a border that's getting closer.

[g_bambino]

You honestly think I mean the royal I in "I'd"..? Look, what it means is we should all vote directly...not just me in a one man referendum. Will you please get a freakin' grip?

It would seem I have a freakin' grip: a better one on your own proposal than you do. As I just pointed out, for your plan to have any success, it would need to be applied to every country on the planet; if some countries did what you suggest and others didn't, the former would be conquered by the latter in no time. As such, some world-wide power is going to have to impose this diktat over every nation and, yes, you did say "I'd".

What encroaching border are you imagining?

The one being pushed by an advancing hostile army while the shrinking country's population fiddles with debates and referenda. If you're having a tough time conceiving of these things, it's no wonder you believe so strongly in your ideas: your convictions are founded on naivety.

[sp]

Edited August 17, 2010 by g_bambino

[bloodyminded]

You called my statements on the need to use force "sheer jingoistic nonensense".

No, I called your statements on the benign decency and always-good-intentions of the West to be "sheer jingoistic nonsense."

Only because they are.

And calling out such notions in no way demands the essential goodness of the official enemies. It doesn't even hint at it, unless every conflict always has a "good guy" and a "bad guy."

[bloodyminded]

Indeed, the policy of appeasement, which the West is now engaging in once again, is the path to ruin.

How, exactly, is the West engaging in the policy of appeasement?

At any rate, I read Todbrother's statements a different way. That the isolationists, as well as the pacifists, were dead wrong about World War 2 generally does not instantly translate into all contemporary conflicts.

Hell, every time our leaders enact or support miulitary action, we've now got folks saying "if we don't support our wise leaders, we are once again engaging in appeasement" etc etc.

I seriously doubt that Toadbrother was advocating for such a blanket servility towards Power.

[bloodyminded]

Man... If invading random middle eastern countries and killing hundreds of thousands of people is appeasement Id hate to see whats not.

Just so.

[Bonam]

How, exactly, is the West engaging in the policy of appeasement?

By trying to negotiate, and trying to force our allies to negotiate, with groups that would try to destroy us and/or our allies. Look at the talks with North Korea over the nuclear program: endless conversation, no outcome, while they ended up developing nukes. Look at Iran: we keep trying to offer more and more crap (including highly enriched uranium) in exchange for them to stop their nuclear development, but they don't care. Look at Israel, which is constantly pushed by the EU and countless NGOs to give away land to people that have sworn to destroy it. Look at Europe, where in some countries freedom of speech is being curtailed to appease easily-offended Muslims.

At any rate, I read Todbrother's statements a different way. That the isolationists, as well as the pacifists, were dead wrong about World War 2 generally does not instantly translate into all contemporary conflicts.

No, of course not, every conflict is its own situation and needs to be evaluated as such. However, WWII did (or should have) taught us some valuable lessons. Among those is that when a nation is ruled by a regime bent on conquest and which views others as inferior, acquiescing to its demands is probably not beneficial in the long run.

Hell, every time our leaders enact or support miulitary action, we've now got folks saying "if we don't support our wise leaders, we are once again engaging in appeasement" etc etc.

I seriously doubt that Toadbrother was advocating for such a blanket servility towards Power.

What? It's not about "servility to power" at all. Personally I think our leaders have been making lots of mistakes. They just aren't all exactly the same mistakes as you think they've been making. Where you may think the US invaded a country or two too many, others may think it invaded a country or two too few. People can be on different sides of this debate without being "servile to power" and you need to stop using that as an insult when there is no basis to suppose that it is true.

[ToadBrother]

No, I fully realize we didn't hold referendums on whether to get involved in wars halfway around the world 70 years ago. I was clearly applying the idea to today and from now on.

Apart from the sheer impracticality, what if someone doesn't play fair? You're like Neville Chamberlain on steroids.

[g_bambino]

Apart from the sheer impracticality, what if someone doesn't play fair?

Which is exactly why I said the plan would need to be imposed (and enforced) on everyone in order for it to even theoretically work.

[Bonam]

Which is exactly why I said the plan would need to be imposed (and enforced) on everyone

Umm... imposed and enforced by whom?

[M.Dancer]

Umm... imposed and enforced by whom?

By Comandante EYEBALL of course..

[Bonam]

By Comandante EYEBALL of course..

All must bow before the great eyeball.

[ToadBrother]

Which is exactly why I said the plan would need to be imposed (and enforced) on everyone in order for it to even theoretically work.

Which, of course, means there would have to be someone out there with a powerful military and the unilateral power to use it.

I do love Eyeball's ideas. They are so poorly thought out and yet so fervently defended. Sometimes I don't think he's a hopeless malcontent, but perhaps some sort of performance comedian.

[eyeball]

WTF are you idiots talking about?

Canadians can't hold referendums on Canada's policies unless every other country does too or until commandant eyeball says so?

You guys are completely and absolutely out to lunch.

[bloodyminded]

By trying to negotiate, and trying to force our allies to negotiate, with groups that would try to destroy us and/or our allies. Look at the talks with North Korea over the nuclear program: endless conversation, no outcome, while they ended up developing nukes. Look at Iran: we keep trying to offer more and more crap (including highly enriched uranium) in exchange for them to stop their nuclear development, but they don't care. Look at Israel, which is constantly pushed by the EU and countless NGOs to give away land to people that have sworn to destroy it.

Well, clearly our paradigms of perception are quite different (though not opposite, lest you assume I'm "siding with our enemies" and similar such jingoistic nonsense uttered by some of our brilliant posters here).

Because I don't take it for granted that the US, Canada, Israel, the UK, etc are benevolent nations with benign intentions trying to "do the right thing"...but forever being thwarted by a morally relativist and ungrateful world.

Look at Europe, where in some countries freedom of speech is being curtailed to appease easily-offended Muslims.

No. I agree that free speech laws and policies (and in Canada too) are sometimes repressive, unfair, and overtly politically-correct. But it applies to a lot more than Muslims. In some countries, you can get in legal trouble for denying the Holocaust--in other words, for simply being a dumb-ass. Obviously that has nothing to do with appeasing Muslims.

No, of course not, every conflict is its own situation and needs to be evaluated as such. However, WWII did (or should have) taught us some valuable lessons. Among those is that when a nation is ruled by a regime bent on conquest and which views others as inferior, acquiescing to its demands is probably not beneficial in the long run.

You're offering open-season aggression on the United States of America.

What? It's not about "servility to power" at all. Personally I think our leaders have been making lots of mistakes. They just aren't all exactly the same mistakes as you think they've been making. Where you may think the US invaded a country or two too many, others may think it invaded a country or two too few. People can be on different sides of this debate without being "servile to power" and you need to stop using that as an insult when there is no basis to suppose that it is true.

If, by virtue of the subject being the United States (or any other, including, of course, Israel), one always defends all its military aggressions, and then wishes for more, to boot, then one is by definition being servile to power.

Unless that nation is so magical, so innately noble, that unlike everybody else...it's always, always in the right.

That sounds not only unlikely, when you think on it, but impossible, frankly.

Edited August 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[g_bambino]

Canadians can't hold referendums on Canada's policies unless every other country does too or until commandant eyeball says so?

Do try to pay attention.