Yesterday's U.S. elections

Byron · 2002-11-15 05:51:03

Although I'm not too hip about going to war with Iraq, I think we need to give credit to the U.S. and Bush for going through the U.N. and getting that resolution passed to allow weapons inspectors into the country...so if Iraq decides to be cooperative, war could very well be avoided...

That's the the thing about the American people...while they may be rather self-centered as far as the rest of the world goes, they also don't care too much about the U.S. having an imperialistic policy. Poll after poll have indicated that the majority of Americans only support war with Iraq only if we have the backing of the U.N....and as long we stick to this path in seeking cooperation with other nations, I have better confidence that we will do the 'right' thing as opposed just throwing our weight around...which for a country like the U.S., is all too easy to do...

B

Palomar · 2002-11-15 09:39:31

Shaun: But nobody has ever had the kind of military power now wielded by America. And yet U.S. policies, though often self-serving, are still remarkably benign. I still marvel at how the U.S., between 1945 and 1949, was the only country on Earth with a nuclear capability and never used it. You can be quite certain that the U.S.S.R. under Stalin, had it been given the same advantage, would have wasted no time in annexing all of Europe and God knows what else!

*I can never forgive my country for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Never. A friend of mine, in her 70s and now deceased, often gave me a gentle tongue scolding for my stance on this; the few times it came up in conversation, she tried to reinforce to me the "necessity" of these two acts, in that they "ended World War II." Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, at the time, inhabited only by elderly people, children, and women; the men were all off to war. I mean, how below the belt was targeting them? I get sick and angry when I read/hear of the guys on the Enola Gay actually being -happy- about the mission [Hiroshima], glorifying it, etc. If the US were going to target any part of Japan for the atom bomb [and I'm -not- justifying that either], Tokyo would have seemed a more logical target, as it was the nucleus of military matters, ships, etc. But no; we bombed little kids, babies, women, and old people: The absolutely and totally defenseless CIVILIAN population. Damn.

I read the book _Hiroshima_ years ago; it was the hardest book to read I've yet read -- second only to _Night_ by Eli Wiesel.

--Cindy

Byron · 2002-11-15 10:06:10

I think the real reason the U.S. used the atomic bomb on those two innocent cities in Japan was anger and revenge. The U.S. resented the fact that we had lost so many men fighting the Japanese, the Bataan death march, etc, and we just lashed out, pure and simple.

As for the justification that we needed to nuke Japan to end the war, why did we go for a double strike, when they were ready to capitulate immediately after Hiroshima? Hell, why didn't we just bomb an airbase or something..to send the message that we now had the "Big Stick," and were willing to use it. We might've killed a couple thousand of soldiers, but certainly not 200K women, elderly and children ??? And yes, they would have run up the white flag just as quickly as they did when we bombed the two cities.

It's a shame that the U.S. has been able to use the propagada machine so effectively as to convince the writers of history that it was the proper thing to do...it's amazing how few people speak out against that terrible event, even after all these years...

B

Palomar · 2002-11-15 10:25:12

Byron: As for the justification that we needed to nuke Japan to end the war, why did we go for a double strike, when they were ready to capitulate immediately after Hiroshima?

*Yes -- EXACTLY. ???

Byron: It's a shame that the U.S. has been able to use the propagada machine so effectively as to convince the writers of history that it was the proper thing to do...it's amazing how few people speak out against that terrible event, even after all these years...

*Yeah. And to try and sweep it under the rug seems as much an outrage as the acts themselves; if not more of an outrage. Our government is the same which encourages us never to forget the lessons of the Nazi Holocaust. Yeah, well, it's easier to remember other peoples' mistakes...

The elderly friend I mentioned would also chide me along the lines that I wasn't alive then, I didn't understand the depth of the war issues, how many of our servicemen were being slaughtered, I didn't know the agony of Pearl Harbor, etc. Well, I admit she lived through it, I didn't; however, I maintained my stance on it. She didn't like it; but, of course, the older generation never likes to be criticized by the younger generation.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2002-11-15 13:11:44

If the US were going to target any part of Japan for the atom bomb [and I'm -not- justifying that either], Tokyo would have seemed a more logical target, as it was the nucleus of military matters, ships, etc. But no; we bombed little kids, babies, women, and old people: The absolutely and totally defenseless CIVILIAN population. Damn.

Now before everyone gets all riled up, I'm not defending the bombing of women and children. However, the culture of Japan needs to be taken into account. Hitting a purely military target probably would not have been enough to force a surrender, the japanese military fought tenaciously against hopeless odds on several occasions throughout the war. Also, since we only had two bombs, we were forced to make them count.

To us, Tokyo would be a logical target, but then who would surrender? There was a very real and justifiable concern that any surrender not endorsed by the Emperor would not be honored by the Japanese military. Unfortunately, we had to demonstrate that we were willing to utterly destroy the nation of Japan and that we had the capability to do it while still leaving the leadership intact to surrender.

AltToWar · 2002-11-15 16:29:29

It's fact that Japan was ready to surrender before we nuked them. Japan was in the process of repositioning themselves to be able to dictate more favorable terms in their surrender.

the National Archives in Washington contains U.S. government documents reporting Japanese peace requests as far back as 1943.

The Japanese were concerned with occupation and a loss of soverinty. Had we made our terms for their surrender known to include the emperor keeping his throne, Japan would have surrendered long before we nuked civillians.

Why was unconditional surrender so vital to the US?
Douglas MacArthur himself, convinced that retaining the emperor was vital to an orderly transition to peace, was appalled at the demand for unconditional surrender.

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower is quoted below
"Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. ... I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face."

There is much speculation that the Nuke strike on Japan was the first blow in the Cold War.

It's hard for some of us today to undersand the Mass Paranoia our country felt towards communism.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-15 21:36:28

AltToWar asks:-

So what your saying is, As far as Imperialist Expantionists States go, America aint that bad?
Compared to Hitler, we are a-ok?

Yeah! In its crudest form, that's what I'm saying.
For all of recorded history, there has always been a dominant empire of one sort or another. If there was more than one at any particular time, it was only because they didn't know of each other's existence, or lacked the logistics to wage war over the distance between them.
My opinion is that such behaviour - the dominance thing - is rooted in our primate genetic heritage. There always has to be a dominant alpha male. And, on a larger scale, there always has to be a dominant alpha nation.

However enlightened some, or even the majority, of us become, our politics always take the same shape - generation after generation. It's always a struggle for power between one man and another, or one nation and another. Power and wealth ... it's as simple as that.
And however outwardly caring and humane our political systems may be on paper, however grandiose our speeches about peace and sharing may be, it still comes down to the actions and motives of a few men (usually) in positions of power, or a few men desperately seeking positions of power.
At best our political institutions can blunt the worst effects of such power struggles in most cases. But it's always a containment exercise. We're always battling to keep the evil genie inside the bottle.

Am I a cynic? I suppose I must be. Though I could attempt to take refuge from that accusation in the usual trick of claiming to be a realist!
Empires have risen and fallen, kings and dictators have fought and schemed, and wars have raged over and over through every century in human history. Surely you must allow me to claim to be a realist if I say it's just us - humans. We're the problem! The evil genie isn't really in the bottle, it's in all of us individually. Some of us can control it by an effort of will and an ability to see the 'bigger picture', but most of us can't.
And the worst part of it is the perpetuation of a situation whereby the people, even in a democracy, who attain power, are the people who crave it most. And they're just the people you don't want in positions of authority because they're driven more by primal instincts than by reason.

Getting to the main point ("Break out the champagne!", I hear you all cry in unison! ), my belief is that the human condition I've described will never change. We're a flawed species. Whichever nation you examine in detail, you'll find monstrous acts of barbarity hiding in its history ... any nation!
I don't condone Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but then I don't know enough about what went through Truman's head when he OK'd it. Were his decision processes based entirely on a malicious and blood-thirsty desire to incinerate women and children? Maybe. Did he make the decision lightly? I don't know. I like to think there must have been reasons beyond simple mindless vengeance, but maybe there weren't.

In any event, in a world bedevilled for millenia by one ruthless empire after another, I see no reason to change my opinion that the current American Empire is easily the most benign we've ever seen.
Even if its absolute power eventually corrupts it so thoroughly that it decays from within (the usual fate of empires), all we can look forward to is the rise of another empire to replace it. And we mightn't be so lucky next time!

Aetius · 2002-11-16 00:36:57

Cobra Commander: "...Service to the Empire..."

Damn straight! And remember, 'Service guarantees citizenship'!

The human race is a warrior species. This is what we do. If you want a human society that is NOT prone to violence and exploitation, you're dreaming an impossible dream. People foolishly imagine that the human beast can somehow be shaped and molded into a 21st-century socialist version of the New Soviet Man.

Western Imperialist civilization is as good as it gets. Do people on the margins suffer? Nobody ever said life was fair. The unspoken belief of some here, though no one wishes to say it out loud, is that redistributing the wealth (by whatever means necessary) and wrecking the current global economic system would be more 'fair'. Sorry, real life doesn't work like that.

As to the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, I say...woe to the conquered. The Japanese were lucky. The Romans would have sold them all into slavery.

I make absolutely NO apologies for my nation's actions as an Imperialist power.

Byron · 2002-11-16 06:58:59

As to the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, I say...woe to the conquered.

I'll keep that in mind when somebody starts dropping nukes on us. You never know what the future may hold...

B

Palomar · 2002-11-16 09:08:58

Aetius: Nobody ever said life was fair.

*Of course life isn't fair. No one here ever said it was. But does that fact give people, or certain persons, "the right" to CREATE unfairness? Was slavery in the USA okay? I don't think so.

Aetius: The human race is a warrior species.

*The human race is also a species capable of reasoning skills [seldom used it seems, unfortunately] and cooperation. Reading Carl Sagan was enlightening; I, too, used to view humanity in as dismal and one-dimensional a light as you. Thank you, Dr. Sagan, for pointing out how ::cooperation:: has, and can, lead mankind to greater achievements than brute force has generally done!

Aetius: If you want a human society that is NOT prone to violence and exploitation, you're dreaming an impossible dream.

*Violence and exploitation will always be part of the human experience. However, that's no excuse for the justification of running blindly and sadistically amok, wreaking havoc and creating atrocities at whim. Humankind can do better than this, and should strive to do better than this. No, I'm not speaking of egalitarianism; I'm speaking of the humaneness which can result from the influence of reason. If you're wondering how I define "reason," consider joining my mailing list to find out more [anyone interested can send me a private message and I'll give you the subscription address].

Aetius: People foolishly imagine that the human beast

*Speak for yourself. I'm not a beast. I'm human.

Aetius: can somehow be shaped and molded into a 21st-century socialist version of the New Soviet Man.

*The "New Soviet Man" -- ? I've never heard of this before.

If you prefer to think mankind can ONLY "live" with the blades of knives constantly at each other's throats, that's your prerogative. I recently quit that school of thought; my personal evolution rejected it. I've also known quite a few people with your stated outlook who are cold and indifferent to the fate of others...oh, but when things work against THEM, boy do they ever whine and complain about it, i.e. the old "I don't care when it happens to you, eat your just deserts you loser -- but you'd better care when it happens to me because I didn't deserve it!" mentality. Yeah...right. People who don't have empathy for others are absolute hypocrites to expect/demand it for themselves. I'm not saying -you- do this, Aetius, but I've known plenty of people like that who talk similarly to you. It's "okay" when it's done to others, but it's "wrong" when it's done to them. Yeah...right.

I probably won't go much further with this discussion.

--Cindy

Aetius · 2002-11-16 09:27:04

Byron, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Since it is impossible to now destroy the knowledge of how to make weapons of mass destruction, they will always be with us. Someday American cities may fall to them, and to a certain degree we can't control that. Witness the unexpected attacks on September 11th.

Aetius · 2002-11-16 09:35:10

Cindy, call yourself whatever you wish. It changes nothing. I see humanity as anything but one-dimensional.

What I don't see is a lump of clay for social engineers to simply shape and mold as they wish. Like it or not, the ability to reason doesn't change the fact that you and a chimpanzee still share 98% of the same DNA. Think that's irrelevant? I beg to differ.

The Communists believed otherwise. They believed that with proper social conditioning, the human mind could be made totally obedient to the needs of the State, and devoid of all the things you bemoan about the human race. Hence the reference to the "New Soviet Man".

Palomar · 2002-11-16 11:02:34

Like it or not, the ability to reason doesn't change the fact that you and a chimpanzee still share 98% of the same DNA. Think that's irrelevant?

*Nope, I don't think it's irrelevant. It's that other 2% I'm interested in developing in myself to its fullest potential.

As for the 98% shared DNA with that of chimps, I suspect this is being used by persons in a manner of substitution for the old "the devil made me do it!" irresponsibility cop-out. Now it's "The 98% shared DNA with chimps made me do it!" Another convenient irresponsibility cop-out.

Of course there is such thing as natural drives and instincts in we humans, which actually can also serve to impel us forward as well. However, again: I'm interested in that other 2%.

--Cindy

AltToWar · 2002-11-16 12:25:43

People are bad cause the devil made them do it?

The idea that humans are flawed is an absurd response to why humans are unkind to other humans. The concept is a residual effect from Christianity's 'Origional Sin' and has yet to be purged from our culture.

Man is not flawed.

Where the trouble lies is within human culture. Especially western human culture.

Cultures can and do change.

George H · 2002-11-16 13:39:20

*Speak for yourself. I'm not a beast. I'm human.

1/2 hour alone with me, and I bet I could make you feel like a beast Cindy, hehe

AltToWar · 2002-11-16 13:40:44

*Speak for yourself. I'm not a beast. I'm human.
1/2 hour alone with me, and I bet I could make you feel like a beast Cindy, hehe

You mean when she gnaws of her own arm just to escape?

Palomar · 2002-11-16 13:47:11

People are bad cause the devil made them do it?

*You misunderstood me.

I was ::RIDICULING:: the "devil made me do it!" excuse,
-NOT- endorsing it!

I don't believe in the devil or original sin either.

--Cindy

AltToWar · 2002-11-16 14:47:44

My remark was actually targetting few posts made 1 page back, referring to how the strong dominating the weak was Human nature and the fact that the US is so gentle when it decimates another culture that it is therefore in the right.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-16 14:58:20

Yeah, I thought about responding to Aetius' comments, but I'm simply tired of trying to argue cultural / psychological differences in different societies. He pretends that consumerism is a ?natural? form of society, neglecting to realize that consumer propoganda (ie, tv commercials, ads and so on) is indeed a reflection of how a society engineers their people socially.

AltToWar · 2002-11-16 15:33:22

Cindy, call yourself whatever you wish. It changes nothing. I see humanity as anything but one-dimensional.
What I don't see is a lump of clay for social engineers to simply shape and mold as they wish. Like it or not, the ability to reason doesn't change the fact that you and a chimpanzee still share 98% of the same DNA. Think that's irrelevant? I beg to differ.
The Communists believed otherwise. They believed that with proper social conditioning, the human mind could be made totally obedient to the needs of the State, and devoid of all the things you bemoan about the human race. Hence the reference to the "New Soviet Man".

How does the fact that Humans share a majority of our DNA with Chimps prove that humans are somehow destined to be impirelists?

When was the last time a chimp nation annexed it's neigbor?

Has anyone found a case of Chimp Slavery?

For good or for ill Humans do indeed model themselves from their cultural world view.

When we search for our individual place within our culture, we seek a steriotype within our culture to emulate. Our culture is one long story, and it has the usual players. We find the players within the cultural story we are most like and we react in a similar manner to them.

I know this offends some, but even the indiviualists will see that they emulate a preconcieved social identity to some extent if they truely look.

In fact, it is quite difficult for humans to think outside our social paradigm. That is why so many of us think that 'the way things are is the only way they can be.'

Palomar · 2002-11-16 16:07:17

AltToWar: How does the fact that Humans share a majority of our DNA with Chimps prove that humans are somehow destined to be impirelists?

When was the last time a chimp nation annexed it's neigbor?

Has anyone found a case of Chimp Slavery?

*Yep. And does anyone really think chimps are smart enough to build a spaceship and fly to the moon?

AltToWar: For good or for ill Humans do indeed model themselves from their cultural world view.

When we search for our individual place within our culture, we seek a steriotype within our culture to emulate. Our culture is one long story, and it has the usual players. We find the players within the cultural story we are most like and we react in a similar manner to them.

I know this offends some, but even the indiviualists will see that they emulate a preconcieved social identity to some extent if they truely look.

In fact, it is quite difficult for humans to think outside our social paradigm. That is why so many of us think that 'the way things are is the only way they can be.'

*If I hadn't read some books by Robert Anton Wilson a few years ago, I wouldn't understand what you're saying here so clearly. You're right. Reading suggestion: _Prometheus Rising_ by author I just named.

--Cindy

Aetius · 2002-11-16 19:29:23

Chimpanzee bands routinely attack each other in the wild for both surplus food and females. Since the female chimps are taken as prizes by the victors, you could say that war, rape, and slavery are all practiced by our simian cousins.

Does this make it right? Of course not. We're much smarter. And cultures DO change. Look at our own society. Females, ethnic minorities, and homosexuals have many more protections than they did even a single generation ago.

However, the basic human impulses DON'T change. We should always try to redirect them in constructive ways. But admitting that we need to channel them in positive ways is not the same thing as to say that humans are simply cultural automatons to be programmed in whatever way aspiring social engineers think best. The darker side of human nature serves an evolutionary purpose, and you ignore it at your peril.

Check out a book called, "The Lucifer Principle", by Howard Bloom. You'll hate it, because it will rob you of some cherished illusions about humanity. But I doubt you'll read it anyway.

As for the criticism of Western civilization:

Which civilization finally abolished slavery after thousands of years?

Which civilization empowered women with the right to vote?

Which civilization brought the promise of industrialization to the world?

Again...cultures DO change. Human nature does not.

I guess I'm just glad that none of you will ever be in a high position of power on Earth or Mars. Long live the era of Globalization and Corporate Hegemony!

Cobra Commander · 2002-11-16 22:07:56

I guess I'm just glad that none of you will ever be in a high position of power on Earth or Mars. Long live the era of Globalization and Corporate Hegemony!

However, the basic human impulses DON'T change. We should always try to redirect them in constructive ways. But admitting that we need to channel them in positive ways is not the same thing as to say that humans are simply cultural automatons to be programmed in whatever way aspiring social engineers think best. The darker side of human nature serves an evolutionary purpose, and you ignore it at your peril.

Well said. This is exactly what today's liberal social-scientists can't seem to accept. Man is part of nature, bound by the same rules. The natural order is not acceptable by itself as the basis of law, but it is the foundation upon which all else must be built. Ignoring it simply because we don't like it is inviting disaster.

I guess I'm just glad that none of you will ever be in a high position of power on Earth or Mars. Long live the era of Globalization and Corporate Hegemony!

I, for one, plan on running both planets.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-17 00:21:00

However, the basic human impulses DON'T change.

And which basic human impulses would those be?

Which civilization finally abolished slavery after thousands of years?

The one that liberalism existed in.

Which civilization empowered women with the right to vote?

The one that liberalism existed in.

Which civilization brought the promise of industrialization to the world?

A democratic one (in which liberalism has played a major role).

Again...cultures DO change. Human nature does not.

Okay then. Tell me. What is human nature? Whatever answer you give must be applicable to all humans, and all human cultures. If it's not, I'll reply and tell you so.

Cobra Commander,

Well said. This is exactly what today's liberal social-scientists can't seem to accept. Man is part of nature, bound by the same rules. The natural order is not acceptable by itself as the basis of law, but it is the foundation upon which all else must be built. Ignoring it simply because we don't like it is inviting disaster.

Natural order is hardly applicable within individual species (especially intelligent ones). One could argue that one species dominates another, but within individual species, it's no more rational to say that whites are superior to blacks than it is to say a rich millionare is superior to a poor person. But you would argue that a rich millionare is superior to a poor person, while admitting that a black person is not inferior to a white person.

Funny. It seems like liberal contamination has made you think that people are equal despite color, but aren't with regard to class or wealth. Interesting thing indeed. I wonder how much longer it will be until we destory the concept of class superiority like we have begun to do to race superiority.

Cobra Commander · 2002-11-17 02:21:58

Natural order is hardly applicable within individual species (especially intelligent ones). One could argue that one species dominates another, but within individual species, it's no more rational to say that whites are superior to blacks than it is to say a rich millionare is superior to a poor person. But you would argue that a rich millionare is superior to a poor person, while admitting that a black person is not inferior to a white person.

When did I ever assert that rich people were superior to poor? What I am saying is that within the natural order, the weak are always prey to the strong. The only "right" they have is to fight for survival, but because they are weaker, they usually lose. Law exists to mitigate that tendency, but does not negate it. If you are walking through the woods and a bear attacks you, you have no "right" to safety, all you can do is fight or run. Replace the words "woods" with "city" and "bear" with "criminal" and the essential dynamics of the situation are the same. The philosophical constructs of civil society don't exist.

Funny. It seems like liberal contamination has made you think that people are equal despite color, but aren't with regard to class or wealth. Interesting thing indeed. I wonder how much longer it will be until we destory the concept of class superiority like we have begun to do to race superiority.

"Liberal contamination" implies that I view liberalism in any form as bad, this is not so. Liberalism has been an important part of Western Civilization, though modern liberals often attack that civilization even though it is the basis of their existence. Liberalism, like any philosophical framework, is not inherently good nor bad. I tend to see liberalism in general as a kind of political steroid: taken in controlled doses it makes our society stronger, but if you use too much your balls shrink and you get cancer. We're getting to the "no gonads, rotting from within" stage right now.

Of course, todays "liberals" are in many ways not liberal at all. Of the ten most irrational and intolerant people I know, eight consider themselves liberals. Of the other two, one is a very militant Baptist and the other is a skinhead. Neither of them make the top five.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2002-11-15 05:51:03

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#52 2002-11-15 09:39:31

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#53 2002-11-15 10:06:10

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#54 2002-11-15 10:25:12

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#55 2002-11-15 13:11:44

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#56 2002-11-15 16:29:29

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#57 2002-11-15 21:36:28

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#58 2002-11-16 00:36:57

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#59 2002-11-16 06:58:59

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#60 2002-11-16 09:08:58

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#61 2002-11-16 09:27:04

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#62 2002-11-16 09:35:10

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#63 2002-11-16 11:02:34

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#64 2002-11-16 12:25:43

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#65 2002-11-16 13:39:20

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#66 2002-11-16 13:40:44

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#67 2002-11-16 13:47:11

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#68 2002-11-16 14:47:44

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#69 2002-11-16 14:58:20

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#70 2002-11-16 15:33:22

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#71 2002-11-16 16:07:17

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#72 2002-11-16 19:29:23

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#73 2002-11-16 22:07:56

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#74 2002-11-17 00:21:00

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#75 2002-11-17 02:21:58

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

Board footer