For whomever asked

[westvirginia]

I'm surprised you aren't all over this development.

 

I thought about it, but realized I'd probably just be

 

In our previous disagreement you used a SCOTUS decision you admitted you disagreed with to support your arguments. I love a good debate, but against disingenuousness, I'll pass.

 

Has that been handed down yet?

[Pope Flick]

It is amazing how many people believe, just because something is written in text in a book, that it is the absolute truth. Books, even history books, can be very opinionated.

 

That's why I defer to my grandfathers and uncles about this. It was a terrible time in the world, and terrible decisions had to be made, in part to keep more terrible things from happening.

[Azazello1313]

one factor in using the a-bomb was looking ahead to the cold war, truman showing stalin what he had and not "owing him" as much. a much bigger factor was getting an unconditional surrender from japan with a minimum of american casualties. which makes it the right decision on a lot of levels.

[Bill Swerski]

I have no law degree...whoever suggested that. I am a financial advisor who adviser somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 million dollars give or take a million. I was pre-law in college

 

My bad. I thought that you actually had credentials to back up your intellectual arrogance.

 

...which means I have read lots and lots of landmark Supreme Court cases and have a greater understanding of Substantiative Due Process than most non-lawyer types who have never had to submit briefs.

 

That's nice. I took differential and integral calculus in college, but don't pretend to be a mathematician here.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Bill Swerski

[Ursa Majoris]

a much bigger factor was getting an unconditional surrender from japan with a minimum of american casualties. which makes it the right decision on a lot of levels.

Bingo.

[TheShiznit]

Shiznit, I really don't understand your position at all. OK, Japan offered a very conditional surrender before the bombs. One of those many conditions was keep the emperor. Then, after the bombs, Japan surrendered (again supposedly) and got to keep the emperor as a figure head. What is your point?

 

Very well said! thanks.

 

But seriously....it is the very lack of patience that this adminstration showed pre-Iraq that lead to many American soldiers needlessly dying as Truman's lack of patience with the process of securing the unconditional surrender The US could live with to stop the war. Instead, we had to kill innocent humans to prove our point.....something there terrorists tried to do on 9/11. I am not equating the two....I made the point...in another thread that was deleted....that indeed some around the world deem our dropping of the bombs as a terrorist type act. It does no good to simply say....no it wasn't. The facts are there was a road map to surrender that was not expedient for one reason or another for President Truman. Virtually every influential military person of the time vehemently disagreed with this strategy...including Eisenhower, MacArthur, and etc.... They did not feel mass killing of innocent humans as a viable means to ending a inherent military struggle. That is specifically what we get "angry" with terrorists about. For what it is worth....the historically significance of dropping the bombs has different meaning to different people in the world. Maybe that is why the dissenters at the time didn't want to drop the bombs and give the surrender olive branch more of a chance. But the fact remains that there was a surrender offer in hand.....and we a-bombed them anyway...when most of all the military leaders disagreed.

[TheShiznit]

My bad. I thought that you actually had credentials to back up your intellectual arrogance.

That's nice. I took differential and integral calculus in college, but don't pretend to be a mathematician here.

 

Oh really...not real sure I was pretending to be anything other than I am. It is you that made the mistake in assuming fact not in evidence...not me.

[Azazello1313]

Very well said! thanks.

 

But seriously....it is the very lack of patience that this adminstration showed pre-Iraq that lead to many American soldiers needlessly dying as Truman's lack of patience with the process of securing the unconditional surrender The US could live with to stop the war. Instead, we had to kill innocent humans to prove our point.....something there terrorists tried to do on 9/11. I am not equating the two....I made the point...in another thread that was deleted....that indeed some around the world deem our dropping of the bombs as a terrorist type act. It does no good to simply say....no it wasn't. The facts are there was a road map to surrender that was not expedient for one reason or another for President Truman. Virtually every influential military person of the time vehemently disagreed with this strategy...including Eisenhower, MacArthur, and etc.... They did not feel mass killing of innocent humans as a viable means to ending a inherent military struggle. That is specifically what we get "angry" with terrorists about. For what it is worth....the historically significance of dropping the bombs has different meaning to different people in the world. Maybe that is why the dissenters at the time didn't want to drop the bombs and give the surrender olive branch more of a chance. But the fact remains that there was a surrender offer in hand.....and we a-bombed them anyway...when most of all the military leaders disagreed.

 

this is going nowhere. you just keep f*cking LYING

[TheShiznit]

Which seems to be what you are doing. Pre law and can't do enough research to support your statement???

 

lol.....which would amaze me if you could actually do research to refute it. Facts in evidence are that USA had a surrender in hand...not one to our liking, but a surrender nonetheless....that with a little more effort could have turned into a palatable one.....and you want me to do more research...why don't you do some so you can formulate an opinion other than one force fed to you.

[Ursa Majoris]

Very well said! thanks.

 

But seriously....it is the very lack of patience that this adminstration showed pre-Iraq that lead to many American soldiers needlessly dying as Truman's lack of patience with the process of securing the unconditional surrender The US could live with to stop the war. Instead, we had to kill innocent humans to prove our point.....something there terrorists tried to do on 9/11. I am not equating the two....I made the point...in another thread that was deleted....that indeed some around the world deem our dropping of the bombs as a terrorist type act. It does no good to simply say....no it wasn't. The facts are there was a road map to surrender that was not expedient for one reason or another for President Truman. Virtually every influential military person of the time vehemently disagreed with this strategy...including Eisenhower, MacArthur, and etc.... They did not feel mass killing of innocent humans as a viable means to ending a inherent military struggle. That is specifically what we get "angry" with terrorists about. For what it is worth....the historically significance of dropping the bombs has different meaning to different people in the world. Maybe that is why the dissenters at the time didn't want to drop the bombs and give the surrender olive branch more of a chance. But the fact remains that there was a surrender offer in hand.....and we a-bombed them anyway...when most of all the military leaders disagreed.

There's so much wrong with this that it's very difficult to know where to begin.

[TheShiznit]

this is going nowhere. you just keep f*cking LYING

 

lol...ok...nice retort.

[Bill Swerski]

Very well said! thanks.

 

But seriously....it is the very lack of patience that this adminstration showed pre-Iraq that lead to many American soldiers needlessly dying as Truman's lack of patience with the process of securing the unconditional surrender The US could live with to stop the war. Instead, we had to kill innocent humans to prove our point.....something there terrorists tried to do on 9/11.

 

I don't believe that we "killed innocents to prove a point." We killed innocents to bring WW II to a grinding halt and to save American lives. I'm not advocating that an American life is necessarily worth more than a Japanese life, but that was the idea at the time. Tens of thousands of our soldiers would've likely died if the war continued for another 6 months and it might've been worse if we had to launch an invasion.

[yo mama]

I thought about it, but realized I'd probably just be

 

In our previous disagreement you used a SCOTUS decision you admitted you disagreed with to support your arguments. I love a good debate, but against disingenuousness, I'll pass.

 

Has that been handed down yet?

Tisk, tisk. Go re-read that thread. I NEVER said I agreed or disagreed with that case. I wasn't being disingenuous, I was merely (and dispassionately) articulating the current state of the law. My point in doing so, however subtle, was to determine if you could enter into an objective discussion with someone when you couldn't categorize them as someone who agreed or disagreed with your subjective opinions on the subject. You failed in that regard, because you made assumptions about what I think, prejudged me, then discounted everything I had to say accordingly. You could have just asked: my opinions on the 2nd Amendment would probably surprise you. Regardless, neither of our respective opinions change what the law *is* and that was the crux of our last exchange. Which is why I thought you might appreciate that link: the DC case could very well represent a significant clarification in this area of the law.

 

No decision yet, but the talking heads all seem to think: (1) the 2nd Amendment will (finally) be found to be an individual right; but that (2) it will have little impact on most states because they are free to regulate to a greater extent than Washington DC.

[Bill Swerski]

lol.....which would amaze me if you could actually do research to refute it. Facts in evidence are that USA had a surrender in hand...not one to our liking, but a surrender nonetheless...

 

So we should've just accepted whatever they offered... after THEY attacked US.

 

that with a little more effort could have turned into a palatable one

 

That sounds more like opinion than fact.

 

.....and you want me to do more research...why don't you do some so you can formulate an opinion other than one force fed to you.

 

You're an arrogant tool.

[westvirginia]

Tisk, tisk. Go re-read that thread. I NEVER said I agreed or disagreed with that case. I wasn't being disingenuous, I was merely (and dispassionately) articulating the current state of the law. My point in doing so, however subtle, was to determine if you could enter into an objective discussion with someone when you couldn't categorize them as someone who agreed or disagreed with your subjective opinions on the subject. You failed in that regard, because you made assumptions about what I think, prejudged me, then discounted everything I had to say accordingly. You could have just asked: my opinions on the 2nd Amendment would probably surprise you. Regardless, neither of our respective opinions change what the law *is* and that was the crux of our last exchange. Which is why I thought you might appreciate that link: the DC case could very well represent a significant clarification in this area of the law.

 

No decision yet, but the talking heads all seem to think: (1) the 2nd Amendment will (finally) be found to be an individual right; but that (2) it will have little impact on most states because they are free to regulate to a greater extent than Washington DC.

 

You implied you didn't agree with the decision, yet you argued it. Perhaps you can't fathom this, being a hyper-intelligent lawyer and all, but I don't give a hoot about your "determinations" where I'm concerned. I don't categorize you, or anyone else at all. Perhaps that's because I fight with H8, moneymakers, et. al about abortion then the likes of Randull with respect to socialist wealth-redistribution schemes and tax policy. I argue principles. Law is arbitrary, principle is fundamental. I wish to live and let others live according to a simple code: Harm none, and do as ye will. I can't very well assert my rights without the means to defend them now, can I?

[yo mama]

You implied you didn't agree with the decision, yet you argued it. Perhaps you can't fathom this, being a hyper-intelligent lawyer and all, but I don't give a hoot about your "determinations" where I'm concerned. I don't categorize you, or anyone else at all. Perhaps that's because I fight with H8, moneymakers, et. al about abortion then the likes of Randull with respect to socialist wealth-redistribution schemes and tax policy. I argue principles. Law is arbitrary, principle is fundamental. I wish to live and let others live according to a simple code: Harm none, and do as ye will. I can't very well assert my rights without the means to defend them now, can I?

Man, there's lots of laws that I don't agree with, which I nevertheless follow. When individuals can pick and choose which laws they want to follow then all laws cease to have meaning, including the ones we do agree with. I don't think law is any more arbitrary or fundamental than principal: law is merely the enforceable articulation of a society's principles. They are inextricably intertwined. Principles are largely irrelevant without law, and vice versa.

 

Anyways, I thought you'd appreciate the link. If not, sorry to bother you.

[Bill Swerski]

I don't think law is any more arbitrary or fundamental than principal: law is merely the enforceable articulation of a society's principles. They are inextricably intertwined. Principles are largely irrelevant without law, and vice versa.

 

Not to piss on law or anything, but I've always seen it as the lowest common denominator of society's principles. It's an absolute necessity, of course, but many of society's principles are not protected by law.

[TheShiznit]

That sounds more like opinion than fact.

 

Bill...it is an opinion held by most of the military leaders of the day. One turned out to be a very good if not great President in Eisenhower. Argue with my assessment all you want...again...it is welcome...but to summarily dismiss it as ludicrous...history is not on your side there. To simply say it isn't so is not addressing the issue some around the world and within our own military leadership at the time had with the tactic.

[Ursa Majoris]

Bill...it is an opinion held by most of the military leaders of the day. One turned out to be a very good if not great President in Eisenhower. Argue with my assessment all you want...again...it is welcome...but to summarily dismiss it as ludicrous...history is not on your side there. To simply say it isn't so is not addressing the issue some around the world and within our own military leadership at the time had with the tactic.

Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe and was one of the authorities permitting the round-the-clock raids on Germany, which killed many more than the A-bombs.

 

Are you seriously arguing that Eisenhower and Macarthur (who later famously wanted to use nukes in Korea) were against the use of this weapon and would prefer to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of American soldiers instead?

[TheShiznit]

Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe and was one of the authorities permitting the round-the-clock raids on Germany, which killed many more than the A-bombs.

 

Are you seriously arguing that Eisenhower and Macarthur (who later famously wanted to use nukes in Korea) were against the use of this weapon and would prefer to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of American soldiers instead?

 

You can question it as a matter of ...wow....i did not know this....or you can read it for yourself. This is a message board....it is not a college term paper where I have to source my material. If I had time, I would...but with my job, the market, and my hobbies....I do not. You however, take as much time as you need. I already posted a link that related the info in a more practical manner versus in a book type form. In that link it listed all the military individuals who was against the move and wanted more time for diplomacy.

[Bill Swerski]

Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe and was one of the authorities permitting the round-the-clock raids on Germany, which killed many more than the A-bombs.

 

Are you seriously arguing that Eisenhower and Macarthur (who later famously wanted to use nukes in Korea) were against the use of this weapon and would prefer to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of American soldiers instead?

 

To be fair, Eisenhower did regret dropping the bombs years later. Then again, the situation was a lot more complex than merely ending WW II at that point.

 

While there were a number of military officials who weren't particularly thrilled with killing a couple hundred thousand people (can't say I blame them), I see little evidence of them struggling to keep a psychotic, death-and-destruction-obsessed Truman from giving the order.

[TheShiznit]

Ursa...here...from my previously posted link:

 

How did the most knowledgeable men, the top brass in the military, regard the decision to use the bomb? They almost unanimously condemned it. The roll call includes: General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, supreme allied commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF); General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, supreme allied commander of the South West Pacific Area; Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, chief of staff to the President; General of the Army Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, commanding general of the US Army Air Forces; General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz, chief of staff of the US Air Force and commander US Army Strategic Air Force (USASTAF); Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King commander in chief of the US Fleet and chief of Naval Operations. Only Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall, former assistant secretary of war, acquiesced with the decision, insisting that it was a question for the president and not for the military to decide. Two well-known hawks a step lower in rank also criticized the decision The notorious Major General Curtis E. LeMay, commander of the Twenty-First Bomber Command -- who admitted, according to Robert MacNamara in the film Fog of War, that his awesome bombings were war crimes -- was quoted as saying "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all." Another no holds barred tough wartime fighter, Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, Jr., commander of the US Third Fleet asserted "The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."

[TheShiznit]

To be fair, Eisenhower did regret dropping the bombs years later. Then again, the situation was a lot more complex than merely ending WW II at that point.

 

While there were a number of military officials who weren't particularly thrilled with killing a couple hundred thousand people (can't say I blame them), I see little evidence of them struggling to keep a psychotic, death-and-destruction-obsessed Truman from giving the order.

 

I have seen more nuanced retractions in this thread than Bill Clinton.

[yo mama]

Not to piss on law or anything, but I've always seen it as the lowest common denominator of society's principles. It's an absolute necessity, of course, but many of society's principles are not protected by law.

Well, after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights all the high points were sort of covered. Plus, many of society's principles are not protected by law because society's priorities change faster than law makers can act. That, and today's law makers only do two things well: (1) nothing; and (2) overreact. But it still beats living in Darfur.

[Bill Swerski]

I have seen more nuanced retractions in this thread than Bill Clinton.

 

You're quoting from an obscure web site that rails against Dick Cheney and KBR on its home page. Did it ever occur to you that the "information" that it provides may be somewhat biased and not completely accurate?