Hiroshima & Nagasaki - On the 65th Anniversary of Nagasaki

[eyeball]

Where you may think the US invaded a country or two too many, others may think it invaded a country or two too few.

And this is why I suggest we use a public referendum before sending our troops to other countries. Given the importance of having a high level of public support to ensure the effort is sustained.

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.

They are clearly servile to power if not stupidity when they insult and accuse someone who suggests referenda as being a dictator. Where is the basis in reality for such a ridiculous notion?

[eyeball]

Do try to pay attention.

Show me the basis for believing a referenda is equal to tyranny and why every other country on Earth would have to do the same for it to work here.

Do we go to the polls every time Switzerland holds a referendum?

[ToadBrother]

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.

I think we were referring directly to declarations of war and the like. If you can't keep your own crazy notions straight, how do you expect us to?

[ToadBrother]

And this is why I suggest we use a public referendum before sending our troops to other countries. Given the importance of having a high level of public support to ensure the effort is sustained.

We rather did. In 1935 when Germany marched troops back into the Rhineland in defiance of treaty, the politicians in the Allied countries refused to act because war was so incredibly unpopular with their countrymen, still traumatized by the horrors of WWI.

[g_bambino]

Show me the basis for believing a referenda is equal to tyranny and why every other country on Earth would have to do the same for it to work here.

You have it backwards: every country on Earth would have to be required to hold referenda on maintaining treaties (whatever that actually means) and sending troops abroad in war for it to work, here or anywhere else, and such a rule would need a world dictator to enforce it on everyone. If you were capable of following along, the aforementioned would seem familiar, as it's already been spelled out. (Doesn't it tell you something when more than one other person gets it and you don't?)

This all does, though, rest on the assumption you don't actually want Canada to be a guaranteed conquest for any country that desires it.

[sp]

Edited August 18, 2010 by g_bambino

[eyeball]

I think we were referring directly to declarations of war and the like. If you can't keep your own crazy notions straight, how do you expect us to?

I suggested Canadians should be directly responsible for sending our troops to other countries, by voting to do so in a referendum, at which point everyone went ballistic like a roman candle in every direction.

Dictator! Tyrant! Appeaser! Malcontent!

Are you trying to prove to me most people really are to stupid to vote? Keep it up you just might succeed.

[ToadBrother]

You have it backwards: every country on Earth would have to be required to hold referenda on maintaining treaties (whatever that actually means) and sending troops abroad in war for it to work, here or anywhere else, and such a rule would need a world dictator to enforce it on everyone. If you were capable of following along, the aforementioned would seem familiar, as it's already been spelled out. (Doesn't it tell you something when more than one other person gets it and you don't?)

This all does, though, rest on the assumption you don't actually want Canada to be a guaranteed conquest for any country that desires it.

[sp]

Like I said, we have to one degree, a good example. After WWI, everyone agreed to wide-ranging arms cuts. The League of Nations was going to keep the peace and all would be wonderful. More importantly, at least to this conversation, it was as much as anything the electorates in the Allied countries who made it very clear that they did not want war, and the politicians listened. Rather than stomping on all the obvious and not-so-obvious breaches of the peace by Germany, they hid their faces, continued to pursue ludicrous naval tonnage reductions, massively scaled back their armies, and if anybody dared complain, as the French did when the Rhineland was rearmed in 1935, they were tut-tutted for being hawkish.

All this did, of course, was buy time for Germany to rearm. It began by flaunting naval tonnage restrictions, and after 1935 basically ignored every aspect of the Treaty of Versailles, achieving or approaching Air Parity with Britain somewhere between 1937 and 1938, which was viewed by British military planners as a situation of the utmost danger. And yet, the pacifism persisted even during the final hours when the Allies could have went to war, because the electorates of France and Britain in particular did not want war. Moves were made finally towards a military build-up, but Britain and France were horribly behind. History loves to blame the likes of Chamberlain and Petain, but let us be brutally honest, the reason it happened is because the public did not want a war, and sent the message to the politician that damn the costs and risks, peace must be maintained.

Let's imagine a hawkish Churchill in charge in 1935. I think I would have liked that world.

[eyeball]

You have it backwards: every country on Earth would have to be required to hold referenda on maintaining treaties (whatever that actually means) and sending troops abroad in war for it to work, here or anywhere else, and such a rule would need a world dictator to enforce it on everyone. If you were capable of following along, the aforementioned would seem familiar, as it's already been spelled out. (Doesn't it tell you something when more than one other person gets it and you don't?)

That's just plain nuts. By the way when did Switzerland take over the world?

This all does, though, rest on the assumption you don't actually want Canada to be a guaranteed conquest for any country that desires it.

I never said anything about voting before defending ourselves against an attack against our borders. I assumed that would be such an obviously silly idea...but given your mangled treatment of what I said it's not surprising you'd think I meant that we should. Excuse me but, you're telling me too pay attention? That's hilarious.

referenda on maintaining treaties (whatever that actually means)

Are we with them or not with them? lets see a show of hands. How hard is that to follow?

Edited August 18, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Like I said, we have to one degree, a good example. After WWI, everyone agreed to wide-ranging arms cuts. The League of Nations was going to keep the peace and all would be wonderful.

This is a perfect example of what happens when everyone assumes that governments and the people in control of them are properly doing their jobs. The very first thing I pointed out when I joined this conversation was how their lack of transparency and accountability, above all else contribute to war.

[g_bambino]

I never said anything about voting before defending ourselves against an attack against our borders.

Of course you didn't; and I never said you did. What you did say, and what I addressed specifically (why is it so hard for you to follow this?), was that you wish to have a required referendum before our troops could be sent abroad. According to that stipulation, until a referendum question was debated, distributed, voted on, and tallied, our forces could advance no further than the approaching enemy's front line, which would, of course, be the border where our sovereignty and jurisdiction ended and theirs began, ie. between domesic and abroad.

That's just plain nuts.

You are, so far, the only one saying so.

[+]

Edited August 18, 2010 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Like I said, we have to one degree, a good example. After WWI, everyone agreed to wide-ranging arms cuts. The League of Nations was going to keep the peace and all would be wonderful... All this did, of course, was buy time for Germany to rearm.

Yes, that does pretty much illustrate what I'm talking about re. eyeball's suggestion.

[eyeball]

You are, so far, the only one saying so.

Think of me like you do a climate change critic.

[eyeball]

The League of Nations was going to keep the peace and all would be wonderful.

You seem to be saying the will of an alliance of national governments can always be trusted when it comes to going to war but never when it comes to maintaining peace.

I say they can't be trusted to do either.

[ToadBrother]

This is a perfect example of what happens when everyone assumes that governments and the people in control of them are properly doing their jobs. The very first thing I pointed out when I joined this conversation was how their lack of transparency and accountability, above all else contribute to war.

And you'd be wrong. The Allies were quite transparent, going through profound arms cuts, particular naval cuts, whereas the Germans, even before Hitler, were finding ways of breaking the rules at every point.

Some day, my silly friend, you should open up a history book.

[ToadBrother]

You seem to be saying the will of an alliance of national governments can always be trusted when it comes to going to war but never when it comes to maintaining peace.

I say they can't be trusted to do either.

I'm saying that the electorate can be profoundly mistaken. We need look no further than the greatest example of a democratically-decided disaster than the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians had everything you seem to think is important in a good democracy. The voters decided policy directly, and they decided to go to war with Sparta and were utterly defeated.

The point of a representative democracy is to smooth out the dangers of mob rule. The point I'm trying to make is that you can't trust the voter any more than you can trust the politician, and any sensible system must have some way of limiting the ability of both to produce catastrophe.

Direct democracy isn't a panacea. Just ask Socrates. The Athenians democratically voted to force him to commit suicide.

[ToadBrother]

Think of me like you do a climate change critic.

Yes, I do.

[Wild Bill]

Like I said, we have to one degree, a good example. After WWI, everyone agreed to wide-ranging arms cuts. The League of Nations was going to keep the peace and all would be wonderful. More importantly, at least to this conversation, it was as much as anything the electorates in the Allied countries who made it very clear that they did not want war, and the politicians listened. Rather than stomping on all the obvious and not-so-obvious breaches of the peace by Germany, they hid their faces, continued to pursue ludicrous naval tonnage reductions, massively scaled back their armies, and if anybody dared complain, as the French did when the Rhineland was rearmed in 1935, they were tut-tutted for being hawkish.

All this did, of course, was buy time for Germany to rearm. It began by flaunting naval tonnage restrictions, and after 1935 basically ignored every aspect of the Treaty of Versailles, achieving or approaching Air Parity with Britain somewhere between 1937 and 1938, which was viewed by British military planners as a situation of the utmost danger. And yet, the pacifism persisted even during the final hours when the Allies could have went to war, because the electorates of France and Britain in particular did not want war. Moves were made finally towards a military build-up, but Britain and France were horribly behind. History loves to blame the likes of Chamberlain and Petain, but let us be brutally honest, the reason it happened is because the public did not want a war, and sent the message to the politician that damn the costs and risks, peace must be maintained.

Let's imagine a hawkish Churchill in charge in 1935. I think I would have liked that world.

Geez, TB! Reading your prose, I couldn't help but keep thinking of the situation in present day Iran...

[eyeball]

And you'd be wrong. The Allies were quite transparent, going through profound arms cuts, particular naval cuts, whereas the Germans, even before Hitler, were finding ways of breaking the rules at every point.

Some day, my silly friend, you should open up a history book.

You remind me of a skipper we had working with us once. Real book smart, memorized the Collision Regs word for word, scored in the high 90's on all his exams which he challenged without taking a single course. Put him on a boat out in the real world of fog, wind, rocks, traffic and current however and it was immediately obvious just how academic all his knowledge really was.

I'm saying that the electorate can be profoundly mistaken. We need look no further than the greatest example of a democratically-decided disaster than the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians had everything you seem to think is important in a good democracy. The voters decided policy directly, and they decided to go to war with Sparta and were utterly defeated.

The point of a representative democracy is to smooth out the dangers of mob rule. The point I'm trying to make is that you can't trust the voter any more than you can trust the politician, and any sensible system must have some way of limiting the ability of both to produce catastrophe.

Direct democracy isn't a panacea. Just ask Socrates. The Athenians democratically voted to force him to commit suicide.

I'll ask the Swiss and of course the Swedes, who I doubt will ever be letting their government declare war anytime soon.

I don't see anything meaningfully limiting the ability of our government to make treaties with countries that break rules at every point and to then wade into their military and moral quagmires as friends and allies.

Edited August 19, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

You remind me of a skipper we had working with us once. Real book smart, memorized the Collision Regs word for word, scored in the high 90's on all his exams which he challenged without taking a single course. Put him on a boat out in the real world of fog, wind, rocks, traffic and current however and it was immediately obvious just how academic all his knowledge really was. h

Translation: You keep proving me wrong, so I've got to have some way to defeat you that doesn't involve rationality or facts.

I'll ask the Swiss and of course the Swedes, who I doubt will ever be letting their government declare war anytime soon.

The Swiss also have a representative democracy, it isn't run purely referenda. And I'd say that little minaret vote shows precisely the dangers of direct democracy.

I don't see anything meaningfully limiting the ability of our government to make treaties with countries that break rules at every point and to then wade into their military and moral quagmires as friends and allies.

What countries would that be?

[eyeball]

Translation: You keep proving me wrong, so I've got to have some way to defeat you that doesn't involve rationality or facts.

There's imagination and common sense but you're way to boxed in by your own misplaced concreteness for these.

The Swiss also have a representative democracy, it isn't run purely referenda.

Excuse me but where did I say we run purely by referenda? You and others consistently spin this strawman argument but its not what I've advocated at all.

And I'd say that little minaret vote shows precisely the dangers of direct democracy.

And I'd say you're right, which is why I don't advocate governing ourselves through pure referenda. Speaking of straw and concrete, notice how the rigidity of your own cement-headed logic lead you and others to suggest that I must also be advocating we do something so stupid as to vote on whether we should defend our borders from direct attack from an invader.

The weirdest counterargument I think I've ever heard though is the notion that before any country could use referenda on whether to go to war they'd have to take over the world and force it to do the same. Leading me to ask, since when did Switzerland take over the planet?

What countries would that be?

Afghanistan for one, and please don't try to tell me our strongest allies through their unprincipled wheeling, dealing and machinations don't contribute greatly to much of the worst conflicts underway in the world. We should be ashamed to count some of these as our allies and its why I'd like to see our so-called defense treaties and formal alliances put to public review and vote on whether to maintain them.

[M.Dancer]

Eyeball only believes in referendums for things he doesn't like...

[eyeball]

Eyeball only believes in referendums for things he doesn't like...

You are a liar.

[M.Dancer]

You are a liar.

I doubt you have the cognitive ability to actually know which side the fense you sit on on any given day...your confused and addled positions defy reason and logic..

Anyway, prove me wrong..where have you advocated a referendum of something inplace today that we don't have direct control over and you personally endorse?

I say the only time you have ever trumpettted a referendum is over something that personally irks you....everything else is fine as it is.

[jbg]

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.

I totally favor repealing Holocaust-denial laws, and most "hate-speech" laws.

[bloodyminded]

I totally favor repealing Holocaust-denial laws, and most "hate-speech" laws.

Me too. (Though I fully support calling out the adherents as fools.) Actual incitement should have to be proved, with the onus on the prosecution.