What do you hate most about your own country?
11 Nov 2019, 7:52 pm
JohnPowell wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kiprobalhato wrote:
one nuke was necessary, two was too much (IIRC the japanese government was already moving to surrender before the second bomb dropped)
B.S. They had agreed to surrender before the first bomb.
How? Where's the document? I would like to read it. Can you tell me where it's located? It's part of history, it should be available to the public.
Go to the war memorial at Hiroshima.
Are you fekkin kidding me? Where in the US can I view these documents?
You go to Palestine, join the rebels and report back.
General Douglas MacArthur
"The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed]that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
All the US had to do was allow the Emperor to stay on as token figure and Japan would have surrendered. As that was the deal after the bombs anyway. The dropping of the bombs was unnecessary and indefensible.
Well, Saddam was toppled from power because letting him stay would have meant the same Iraq. So, my guess is that in Truman's eyes, the same Emperor would have meant the same Japan. And the general was not the President...
I don't think people much care what either one of us think. We are not in power.
Saddam was removed on a pack of lies because neocons wanted him gone. He was zero threat to the US. It's not about guessing, you don't just drop nukes on cities on a hunch.
Everything is always a lie, isn't it?
_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.
Neurocognitive exam in May 2019, diagnosed with ASD, Asperger's type in June 2019.
11 Nov 2019, 7:55 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kiprobalhato wrote:
one nuke was necessary, two was too much (IIRC the japanese government was already moving to surrender before the second bomb dropped)
B.S. They had agreed to surrender before the first bomb.
How? Where's the document? I would like to read it. Can you tell me where it's located? It's part of history, it should be available to the public.
Go to the war memorial at Hiroshima.
Are you fekkin kidding me? Where in the US can I view these documents?
You go to Palestine, join the rebels and report back.
General Douglas MacArthur
"The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed]that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
All the US had to do was allow the Emperor to stay on as token figure and Japan would have surrendered. As that was the deal after the bombs anyway. The dropping of the bombs was unnecessary and indefensible.
Well, Saddam was toppled from power because letting him stay would have meant the same Iraq. So, my guess is that in Truman's eyes, the same Emperor would have meant the same Japan. And the general was not the President...
I don't think people much care what either one of us think. We are not in power.
GAWD!! ! !
I hate it when folks cant argue their own point (even when I don't have a dog in the fight).
BAD ANALOGY.
Both were examples of "regime change" though they didn't call it that in Truman's time, but that's the only similarity.
Both for us today, and for Truman ( and for us to figure out who he himself was thinking about at the time) why make the dumb inaccurate equation of Hirohito to Saddam Hussien? Why not make the more obvious and more accurate analogy to the right person?
Truman, like most folks in the allied nations, assumed that the Emperor of Japan was equivalent to (guess who?). To Adolf Hitler. The guy we were fighting at the same time we were fighting Hirohito.
With all three axis powers nothing less was acceptable to the allies then unconditional surrender and (what we now, in the post W Bush era all call)"regime change". Get rid of Hilter, of Mussolini, and of whoever runs Japan. So Truman equated the Emperor with Hitler and Mussolini. To his credit MacArthur correctly read Japanese culture and knew the emperor was an unchanging sacred cultural institution for the Japanese people seperate from the rest of the state and its ever changing politicians. . So with MacArthur's influence we switched from Truman's assumptions to doing the whole "let them keep their emperor" thing, but "demote their emperor to being a symbolic figurehead, on the model of the King of England" thing . Which turned out to be the right move.
Don't compare Hirohito to Saddam Hussein. it doesn't help your argument. Saddam Hussien was no Thomas Jefferson, but the war we waged to topple him is way too controversial and unpopular today (even among GOP voters) to use as a positive example of anything. Saddam Hussien was not the head of a major power that threatened the world in a war of aggression the way Hitler and the ruling regime of Japan were. We didn't invade Iraq to save our own county the way we needed to fight the Axis. Though Bush tried to SELL us on the notion that it WAS something like that.
I don't care if you believe my argument. What's done is done. Going for the leader in wars is not without precedent, in fact it's pretty common.
_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.
Neurocognitive exam in May 2019, diagnosed with ASD, Asperger's type in June 2019.
11 Nov 2019, 9:33 pm
^yes, it's called a decapitation strike which is a term i'm very fond of...
it is often missed, that there was a contingent of japanese ultra-militarists in the final days of WWII who planned to place the emperor under house arrest - overthrow him, in effect - destroy the "jewel voice" broadcast recording, the royal communiqué to the japanese populace of the imperial house's intent to surrender (and in fact probably the first time many japanese citizens even heard their sovereign's voice) and continue the japanese war effort even after both atomic bombings.
an effort led by kenji hatanaka who ended up having to kill himself cause he couldn't convince enough officers in the army
just putting that out there. it's not that there was a consensus among the japanese of whether to surrender or not before or after the bombings, if he had his way the allies most likely would have had no choice but to execute "downfall" - whose casualties would have dwarfed those of the bombings
...or nuke a third time?
_________________
הייתי צוללת עכשיו למים
הכי, הכי עמוקים
לא לשמוע כלום
לא לדעת כלום
וזה הכל אהובי, זה הכל.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
11 Nov 2019, 9:50 pm
Kiprobalhato wrote:
^yes, it's called a decapitation strike which is a term i'm very fond of...
it is often missed, that there was a contingent of japanese ultra-militarists in the final days of WWII who planned to place the emperor under house arrest - overthrow him, in effect - destroy the "jewel voice" broadcast recording, the royal communiqué to the japanese populace of the imperial house's intent to surrender (and in fact probably the first time many japanese citizens even heard their sovereign's voice) and continue the japanese war effort even after both atomic bombings.
an effort led by kenji hatanaka who ended up having to kill himself cause he couldn't convince enough officers in the army
just putting that out there. it's not that there was a consensus among the japanese of whether to surrender or not before or after the bombings, if he had his way the allies most likely would have had no choice but to execute "downfall" - whose casualties would have dwarfed those of the bombings
...or nuke a third time?
it is often missed, that there was a contingent of japanese ultra-militarists in the final days of WWII who planned to place the emperor under house arrest - overthrow him, in effect - destroy the "jewel voice" broadcast recording, the royal communiqué to the japanese populace of the imperial house's intent to surrender (and in fact probably the first time many japanese citizens even heard their sovereign's voice) and continue the japanese war effort even after both atomic bombings.
an effort led by kenji hatanaka who ended up having to kill himself cause he couldn't convince enough officers in the army
just putting that out there. it's not that there was a consensus among the japanese of whether to surrender or not before or after the bombings, if he had his way the allies most likely would have had no choice but to execute "downfall" - whose casualties would have dwarfed those of the bombings
...or nuke a third time?
Years ago, I saw a very good documentary on just that incident on the History Channel... back when the History Channel had real history instead of swamp hillbillies, Ice Road Truckers, and ancient aliens.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
12 Nov 2019, 12:16 pm
MaxE wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Saddam was removed on a pack of lies because neocons wanted him gone. He was zero threat to the US. It's not about guessing, you don't just drop nukes on cities on a hunch.
So what aim of the Neocons was satisfied by Saddam's removal? The (probably predictable) result was a regional power shift in favor of Iran. Is that what they wanted? Why?
To weaken the country by splitting it up and causing sectarian in fighting. They don't care about any future implications beyond getting what they want. They are psychopaths. Demonic.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
12 Nov 2019, 12:18 pm
Persephone29 wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kiprobalhato wrote:
one nuke was necessary, two was too much (IIRC the japanese government was already moving to surrender before the second bomb dropped)
B.S. They had agreed to surrender before the first bomb.
How? Where's the document? I would like to read it. Can you tell me where it's located? It's part of history, it should be available to the public.
Go to the war memorial at Hiroshima.
Are you fekkin kidding me? Where in the US can I view these documents?
You go to Palestine, join the rebels and report back.
General Douglas MacArthur
"The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed]that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
All the US had to do was allow the Emperor to stay on as token figure and Japan would have surrendered. As that was the deal after the bombs anyway. The dropping of the bombs was unnecessary and indefensible.
Well, Saddam was toppled from power because letting him stay would have meant the same Iraq. So, my guess is that in Truman's eyes, the same Emperor would have meant the same Japan. And the general was not the President...
I don't think people much care what either one of us think. We are not in power.
Saddam was removed on a pack of lies because neocons wanted him gone. He was zero threat to the US. It's not about guessing, you don't just drop nukes on cities on a hunch.
Everything is always a lie, isn't it?
Pretty much when it comes to Western wars and foreign policy.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
12 Nov 2019, 12:50 pm
Tim_Tex wrote:
High costs of living and housing in large parts of the country--and nothing being done about it.
Over regulation by government drives the cost of homes up. And I'm not referring to building codes.
Quote:
Several recent studies have documented how increased regulatory and permitting costs affect prices. A report by John Burns Real Estate Consulting in Irvine, Calif., concluded that new homes have become “permanently more expensive to build” because of increased regulations.
Quote:
He now itemizes the regulatory costs so buyers can see firsthand why the price tags for his houses are so high. Among recent charges he has outlined: $8,000 for a new type of storm-water capture device required for each house, $3,500 for customized architectural plans required on every lot and about $15,000 to remove a tree from the property.
The city also has a strict tree-preservation ordinance with penalties of up to $60,000 an acre for illegally clearing trees on lots. Mr. McConnell recently spent an extra three months redesigning a home to both build the stormwater system and avoid a $15,000 charge for taking down two large oak trees on a property.
The city also has a strict tree-preservation ordinance with penalties of up to $60,000 an acre for illegally clearing trees on lots. Mr. McConnell recently spent an extra three months redesigning a home to both build the stormwater system and avoid a $15,000 charge for taking down two large oak trees on a property.
Quote:
“It requires these complex site plans not for life safety issues, but so they can control whether or not the house is too tall, whether it has the right look, or if the tree can be saved,” he said.
“impact fees” charged to builders and developers to pay for services such as roads, sewers and parks have climbed 45% since 2005 to an average of $21,000 per home across 37 major markets.
“impact fees” charged to builders and developers to pay for services such as roads, sewers and parks have climbed 45% since 2005 to an average of $21,000 per home across 37 major markets.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/regulatory-costs-inflate-new-home-prices-builders-say-1469209864
You want to do something about it?
Vote Republican.
12 Nov 2019, 1:09 pm
Shrapnel wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
High costs of living and housing in large parts of the country--and nothing being done about it.
Over regulation by government drives the cost of homes up. And I'm not referring to building codes.
Quote:
Several recent studies have documented how increased regulatory and permitting costs affect prices. A report by John Burns Real Estate Consulting in Irvine, Calif., concluded that new homes have become “permanently more expensive to build” because of increased regulations.
Quote:
He now itemizes the regulatory costs so buyers can see firsthand why the price tags for his houses are so high. Among recent charges he has outlined: $8,000 for a new type of storm-water capture device required for each house, $3,500 for customized architectural plans required on every lot and about $15,000 to remove a tree from the property.
The city also has a strict tree-preservation ordinance with penalties of up to $60,000 an acre for illegally clearing trees on lots. Mr. McConnell recently spent an extra three months redesigning a home to both build the stormwater system and avoid a $15,000 charge for taking down two large oak trees on a property.
The city also has a strict tree-preservation ordinance with penalties of up to $60,000 an acre for illegally clearing trees on lots. Mr. McConnell recently spent an extra three months redesigning a home to both build the stormwater system and avoid a $15,000 charge for taking down two large oak trees on a property.
Quote:
“It requires these complex site plans not for life safety issues, but so they can control whether or not the house is too tall, whether it has the right look, or if the tree can be saved,” he said.
“impact fees” charged to builders and developers to pay for services such as roads, sewers and parks have climbed 45% since 2005 to an average of $21,000 per home across 37 major markets.
“impact fees” charged to builders and developers to pay for services such as roads, sewers and parks have climbed 45% since 2005 to an average of $21,000 per home across 37 major markets.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/regulatory-costs-inflate-new-home-prices-builders-say-1469209864
You want to do something about it?
Vote Republican.
The places that are very affordable are in the Deep South or the Heartland, where every other building is a church, and there are no gay bars, marijuana dispensaries, or abortion clinics. There is no red state where marijuana or public nudity are legal, and the Southern states (plus Utah and Idaho) are trying to bring back Prohibition.
_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!
Now proficient in ChatGPT!
12 Nov 2019, 7:47 pm
JohnPowell wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kiprobalhato wrote:
one nuke was necessary, two was too much (IIRC the japanese government was already moving to surrender before the second bomb dropped)
B.S. They had agreed to surrender before the first bomb.
How? Where's the document? I would like to read it. Can you tell me where it's located? It's part of history, it should be available to the public.
Go to the war memorial at Hiroshima.
Are you fekkin kidding me? Where in the US can I view these documents?
You go to Palestine, join the rebels and report back.
General Douglas MacArthur
"The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed]that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
All the US had to do was allow the Emperor to stay on as token figure and Japan would have surrendered. As that was the deal after the bombs anyway. The dropping of the bombs was unnecessary and indefensible.
Well, Saddam was toppled from power because letting him stay would have meant the same Iraq. So, my guess is that in Truman's eyes, the same Emperor would have meant the same Japan. And the general was not the President...
I don't think people much care what either one of us think. We are not in power.
Saddam was removed on a pack of lies because neocons wanted him gone. He was zero threat to the US. It's not about guessing, you don't just drop nukes on cities on a hunch.
Everything is always a lie, isn't it?
Pretty much when it comes to Western wars and foreign policy.
You forgot to include yourself.
_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.
Neurocognitive exam in May 2019, diagnosed with ASD, Asperger's type in June 2019.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
12 Nov 2019, 8:39 pm
Shrapnel wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Prohibition wouldn’t pass in Utah.
Too many liberals in Salt Lake County.
Too many liberals in Salt Lake County.
Prohibition wouldn't pass anywhere in America, conservatives like to drink too.
Quote:
"Here's to alcohol, the cause of, and the solution to, all of life's problems." ~ Homer Simpson
But I'd wager quite a few conservatives would vote for anti-sodomy laws in order to restrain their own secret godless, man loving lust.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Beyonce country music banned from country radio |
26 Mar 2024, 3:45 pm |
| Do you ever wish that there was a country run by autisitics? |
Today, 12:14 am |
| There is this genre that combines country and rap. |
15 Apr 2024, 12:53 pm |
| Trump says country faces ‘bloodbath’ if Biden wins |
18 Mar 2024, 8:54 am |
