quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Yep ... and if you had the bomb, you would have dropped it on Berlin. We are so civilized ... we Westerners.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Do you think the people of the United States would have been in favor of the war with Japan if they knew how Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Perhaps you are interpreting the "dance of international diplomacy", and the calculations, miscalculations and such as "collusion and intent" with 20/20 hindsight, thompson.

It's alway easy to make judgement and see "patterns" years and decades after the facts.  It doesn't necessary make the judgements correct, or the patterns real or accurate, but it does give some people a feeling of power and special knowledge to point them out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Did you know that of the 8 battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor only one stayed on the bottom (the Arizona) and that 6 of the remaining 7 were tactically operational in less than 6 months.  That all of the battle ships at Pearl Harbor were half the size of the the more modern battleships in the USN and that only two of the battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor had 16" guns while the rest mounted only 14" guns.  The hardware that the Japanese destroyed at  Pearl Harbor was antique junque.  The fact that the administration knew in advence of the attack they stocked the harbor with junque and prepared it so that it could be refloated and made operational with a minimum of effort.
thompson

Pure conspiracy theory.

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

No, Bush shouldn't be tried.

"Public opinion" is not necessarily either a reliable measure of morality, nor legality nor of possiblity.  It's often a reflection of who has the loudest microphone, and who can most effectively manipulate the emotions.

Not to mention how the questions are asked.

You won't get any kind of reasoned discussion about this issue here, for the simple fact that on one side, you have enough emotionally involved people who will scream at the top of their voices about every other emotional issue, and they attempt to shout down and shut out opposing viewpoints.

But good luck.

FirmKY

This is just the opposite of one of your previous post in which you mention the "national zietgiest"  ie: public opinion as ample justification for waging war.  You even cited constitutional justification for international facism and thugery.  It appears that you are a little inconsistant in your opinions.
thompson

Not at all, thompson.  I don't think we are talking about the same things at all.  I'm pretty sure that I've never made the argument that "public opinion" is adequate in and of itself for a declaration of a war.

You are confusing a nebelous term (zeitgeist) with "public opinion" as in popular opinion polls.  I'm not sure that the term zeitgeist is as open and shut as what a poll would give you.  I think there is a lot of room for discussion and disagreement about what a "zeitgeist" even is, but I meant it previously as the overall feeling and world-view of not just the popular opinion, but of policy-makers, military personnel, and such.
I am not confusing anything.  I am using your word and your definition of zeitgeist.
Are you now saying that policy makers and- military personnel are not part of public opinion?

And I decline to accept your characterization of "international facism and thugery".  These are emotional terms, not rational terms of a discussion.  They inherently prejudge actions, and give me the sense of a mind already made up and therefore not open to any real discussion.
Previously you cited your own belief in and constitutional justification for international fascism and thugery and now you are not comfortable with the term and discard it as emotional and not rational.  This in spite of the fact that you have defined fascism.  So is it an emotional word or a descriptive word.  Mussolini had no problem with it he was proud to be a fascist and a thug and said so on many occasions.

As an example, when you asked me to provide "proof" that actions such that you describe as "international thugery" were authorized by the US Constitution, and I did so, you were unable or unwilling to address my points, and simply reverted to sarcasm (thanks for telling me you agree with thugery or such).  An emotional argument, not a logical one.
Why would I want to challange your beliefs...it was hard enough to get you to state them.  You did not seem to have any problem with the words fascism and thugery when you cited constitutional authority for them.

That's not a very strong or effective rebuttal seems to me.
Discussion differs from debate in many ways.  It is not my desire to debate but rather to discuss.  It is not my job to bring you a prybar everytime you put both feet in your mouth.
thompson
FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

Can we talk about sex and porn again please?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

Can we talk about sex and porn again please?

missturbation:
Of course we can....just as soon as you put on one of those corsetts of yours and bring me two fingers of tequila reposada and a fatty blunt....oh and while you are up will you put another porn vidio in the player.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: trannysub007

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

Yes quite possibly but i still believe nuclear bombing of hiroshima was wrong and cowardly.

Too bad you weren't there to tell them that. Most Americans i know tend to agree with you, by the way.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

Can we talk about sex and porn again please?

missturbation:
Of course we can....just as soon as you put on one of those corsetts of yours and bring me two fingers of tequila reposada and a fatty blunt....oh and while you are up will you put another porn vidio in the player.
thompson

Sheesh - what did your last slave die of? *giggles*

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

missturbation:
Ecstacy was what the coroner said.
thompson

That would be the drug then i presume

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

No tompson, the plan decided on by the people elected by the poeple of the area called for 100% evacuation, if the leeves breached.  It was a complete loss, and a very disease ridden place.  It was un healthy to stay.  The plan was to get the people out, not make them more comfortable in the disease ridden polluted flood water.  I dispute your 51% figure, people were told to leave, and many didn't for various reasons.  Many quite nefarious, not everyone in New Orleans was a saint.  Why would it boggle your mind that ingesting sewage causes incredible health problems?   That is basic sanitation.  And when people eat they have to poop.  People did not starve to death there, they got hungry.  You can't leave a city during the storm.  They had to leave before or after(remeber the storm lasted for several days), not durring.  It was a massive disaster, and to use it as you are( a political tool) is disgusting, and does nothing to identify and prepare for similar problems in the future.  Lousiana is free to use its Nat Guard in any way they see fit, as is Colorado.   You are using the terror and suffering those peole experienced as a political tool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

Can we talk about sex and porn again please?

missturbation:
Of course we can....just as soon as you put on one of those corsetts of yours and bring me two fingers of tequila reposada and a fatty blunt....oh and while you are up will you put another porn vidio in the player.
thompson

Sheesh - what did your last slave die of? *giggles*

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

I approve of the gov helping both groups.  The ranchers will spend plenty dealing with the aftermath.  The guard got to do a usefull training exercise, and the cost was very minimal.  There were real serious logistical issues in Katrina, no one starved, and yes thousands of pounds of more sewage would have made it worse.  So you would rather have had lots more people die than people be hungry for a day?  I do not get it.  Why do you wish there were more deaths?  Why do you think it has anything to do with a hay drop?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

On the other hand, without all those cattle being fed here and now, how are the poor going to be fed in a few months time? Or is that unimportant as long as the people responsible for producing food get a virtual kicking for being such capitalists?