Post by: roo_ster on November 20, 2007, 09:46:39 AM
1. Some folks make the assumption that other cultures are full of little brown/black/yellow/white folks who, if given half a chance, will show that they are all not brown/black/yellow/white, but Red, White, & Blue Americans on the inside. Providing evidence to the contrary will only bring accusations of racism.
2. Still others make the assumption that our motivations, (life, liberty, prosperity) are held by all and that other cultures will not act "irrationally" in ways to jeopardize them.
3. Some few actually read what other write and listen to what others say, and come to the conclusion that the above contentions are a fantasy and the holders are advocating faith-based foreign policy.
Examples that exhibit tendency #1 is Norman Podhoretz's book World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism. He acknowledges the threat, but insists that the route to success is turning the middle east into a bunch of liberal, democratic states. He does this, despite familiarity with quotations such as the following:
Quote from: Ayatollah Khomeini
We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.
Quote from: Former President Rafsanjani
If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession . . . application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.
Quote from: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map
We see examples of #2 on APS regularly, "What, you think Iran will come & invade?...If they set off a nuke in one of our cities, we'd plaster them, so they will never do so..."
I would like to see the "democratize the ME" folks and "Iran is not threat" types reconcile their positions with the stated intentions and beliefs of those who hold the power in the ME.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 20, 2007, 09:49:43 AM
Brad
Post by: MechAg94 on November 20, 2007, 10:50:21 AM
I think the thing we need to do is try to help the normal people in those countries realize this.
Post by: DustinD on November 20, 2007, 11:00:49 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 11:19:39 AM
I guess you are or he is saying that M.A.D. won't work because the terrorists don't care if one country or the other is wiped out, only if they get a victory in the end?
It's easy enough to prove that hardly any Muslim extremist believes what you claim: if they believed it, they'd already have blown themselves up. The fact is that suicide bombers are recruited in the same way that cult members are: vulnerable people are pumped full of love, belonging and a sense of mission, and then sent out to do their masters' bidding. Some of them are completely unaware that their truck or suitcase is wired to explode, and think they're acting as couriers.
There are very few human beings who are actively suicidal. Evolution has spent millions of years weeding that out of the gene pool.
The purpose of your rhetoric is the same as any other wartime rhetoric: to dehumanize the enemy so that killing them is acceptable, and to justify the claim that killing them is the only option. Both sides do it in every war ever fought. We thought the Germans were mindless killing machines in both world wars, too. Mysterious how they magically changed from mindless killing machines into a bunch of clubbing party-animals like magic, isn't it? Those Russkies shook off their zombification meds PDQ after the cold war ended, too. It won't be long before Muslims are our weird foot-washing friends again, and the Chinese become the zombies from "Night of the Living Dead."
--Len.
Post by: roo_ster on November 20, 2007, 11:43:20 AM
I guess you are or he is saying that M.A.D. won't work because the terrorists don't care if one country or the other is wiped out, only if they get a victory in the end?
I think the thing we need to do is try to help the normal people in those countries realize this.
Pretty much. MAD is a deterrence only if both sides consider their own destruction a deterrence.I think the thing we need to do is try to help the normal people in those countries realize this.
The "normal" people in those countries have no power. Without power, they are of little consequence. They are trotted out by those in power every so often for a photo shoot to capture "the mood of the Arab/Iranian street." IOW, they are props and cannon fodder for those in power.
Post by: roo_ster on November 20, 2007, 12:15:01 PM
I guess you are or he is saying that M.A.D. won't work because the terrorists don't care if one country or the other is wiped out, only if they get a victory in the end?
It's easy enough to prove that hardly any Muslim extremist believes what you claim: if they believed it, they'd already have blown themselves up. The fact is that suicide bombers are recruited in the same way that cult members are: vulnerable people are pumped full of love, belonging and a sense of mission, and then sent out to do their masters' bidding. Some of them are completely unaware that their truck or suitcase is wired to explode, and think they're acting as couriers.
There are very few human beings who are actively suicidal. Evolution has spent millions of years weeding that out of the gene pool.
The purpose of your rhetoric is the same as any other wartime rhetoric: to dehumanize the enemy so that killing them is acceptable, and to justify the claim that killing them is the only option. Both sides do it in every war ever fought. We thought the Germans were mindless killing machines in both world wars, too. Mysterious how they magically changed from mindless killing machines into a bunch of clubbing party-animals like magic, isn't it? Those Russkies shook off their zombification meds PDQ after the cold war ended, too. It won't be long before Muslims are our weird foot-washing friends again, and the Chinese become the zombies from "Night of the Living Dead."
--Len.
My aim is to humanize and de-Americanize those who are non-American humans. My aim is to treat them as adults and grant them the sincerity of their stated convictions. I am writing about real human diversity, not the faux-"diversity" of diverse skin tone and lockstep philosophy of the academy.
The quotes above are not something I made up, mangled, or mistranslated...and not something the leaders of Iran are ashamed of. Follow the links. You'll find that the Mahmoud quote is from an article on iribnews.ir, Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.
Real. Human. Diversity. Once one realizes that not all humans and all cultures are identically motivated, one has to admit that the carrots & sticks that work for Americans or others in the West may not be effective on others from different cultures. It is not that difficult a concept, but some are unwilling to entertain it in the same way some would not entertain a non-geocentric cosmology: it upsets too many dearly-held articles of faith. Better to impute nefarious motivations to those so uncouth as to mention it in public.
Oh, using the current life & health of Mahmoud & Co. as proof that Mahmoud, the Ayatollah, and their buddies are not willing to sacrifice millions of Iranians, Azeris, and other ethnicities in Iran is a non-starter. They are the least likely to pay with their lives, given the past history of aggressive dictators. Why should they, when millions of Iranians can take it in the face, instead?
Also, why are folks so willing to believe that American religious types are willing to engage in sub-optimal, self-limiting behavior, but when we cross the seas, THEIR inhabitants are very models of rationality?
Post by: Manedwolf on November 20, 2007, 01:13:46 PM
Also, why are folks so willing to believe that American religious types are willing to engage in sub-optimal, self-limiting behavior, but when we cross the seas, THEIR inhabitants are very models of rationality?
Didn't you know? It's always America's fault.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 20, 2007, 01:39:08 PM
The purpose of your rhetoric is the same as any other wartime rhetoric: to dehumanize the enemy so that killing them is acceptable, and to justify the claim that killing them is the only option. Both sides do it in every war ever fought.
I would demean myself to rebut this, so I will just laugh at it.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 20, 2007, 03:53:40 PM
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 05:05:41 PM
The purpose of your rhetoric is the same as any other wartime rhetoric: to dehumanize the enemy so that killing them is acceptable, and to justify the claim that killing them is the only option. Both sides do it in every war ever fought.
I would demean myself to rebut this, so I will just laugh at it.
As you wish. It's accurate though. Just ask the nearest German about how they changed into normal people from dirty boche murdering hun bastards. It was like magic. A couple signatures on a treaty, and evil incarnate are suddenly human beings again.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 05:13:43 PM
My aim is to humanize and de-Americanize those who are non-American humans. My aim is to treat them as adults and grant them the sincerity of their stated convictions.
That's interesting! If so, why do you refuse to grant them the sincerity of their stated intentions?
- Al Qaeda has plainly stated that they hate America because of its intervention in Muslim nations, and that their goal is to expel the US from those nations, most importantly Saudi Arabia. Your translation of that is, "they hate us for our freedoms and want to destroy western culture, setting up a global caliphate and imposing sharia law on Albuquerque."
- Mahmoud Ahmedinejad stated that he regards Israel as an oppressive regime that will inevitably "pass from the pages of history." Your translation is that Ahmedinejad intends personally to "wipe Israel from the map" (an idiom that doesn't exist in Persian) and unleash armageddon, ushering in a global caliphate.
- Muslims the world over condemned the attacks of 9/11/2001, held candlelight vigils and otherwise poured out sympathy for the United States. Your interpretation of that is that "they were dancing in the streets."
And so on. What you call their "stated intentions" may indeed be the stated intention of some drooling whacko somewhere, but when you convert it into a justification of, say, invading Iraq, it's pure propaganda. The Muslim world would be equally justified to quote some KKK kleagle somewhere, impute his ravings to Americans everywhere, and call for an invasion of the US.
--Len.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 20, 2007, 06:17:24 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on November 20, 2007, 06:21:43 PM
- Al Qaeda has plainly stated that they hate America because of its intervention in Muslim nations, and that their goal is to expel the US from those nations, most importantly Saudi Arabia. Your translation of that is, "they hate us for our freedoms and want to destroy western culture, setting up a global caliphate and imposing sharia law on Albuquerque."
I suppose the bit about hanging gays and stoning women for adultery is okay with you?
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 20, 2007, 07:15:40 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 20, 2007, 07:21:17 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 20, 2007, 07:58:35 PM
as a retired junkie i beg to differ we like stuff that makes us happy
Touche!
Post by: Len Budney on November 21, 2007, 03:23:43 AM
Al Qaeda has plainly stated that they hate America because of its intervention in Muslim nations, and that their goal is to expel the US from those nations, most importantly Saudi Arabia. Your translation of that is, "they hate us for our freedoms and want to destroy western culture, setting up a global caliphate and imposing sharia law on Albuquerque."
Read the transcripts of what the leaders actually say, not Nancy Pelosi's edited version.
As usual, assertions without any actual quotes, or even a link. I wait breathless for a link.
Quote
I suppose the bit about hanging gays and stoning women for adultery is okay with you?
Are you suggesting that we invaded Iraq to rescue the gays? Why didn't Bush say so! Everyone knows that rescuing gays is a perfect reason to invade a country, kill tens or hundreds of thousands, and turn a couple million into refugees. If only he'd said, "We're invading to make the Middle East safe for gays once again," the American people would have been all over that.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 21, 2007, 03:50:15 AM
I don't know what Len is on these few days...
As Cassandrasdaddy says, junkies aren't into facts. They tend to make one cynical, not high. If you get tired of insulting people as a substitute for rational discussion, though, I look forward to your refutation. Maybe you can team up with Maned Wolf and get those first-hand quotes of Bin Ladin saying, "We hate Americans for their freedom and want to topple western civilization!"
--Len.
PS If you try, don't get too depressed when you crash into a wall of facts. Also don't get exhausted reading Bin Ladin's painfully ponderous prose. Here's a start:
- Bin Ladin's original fatwa against the US, entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" (Jerusalem and Mecca).
- Bin Ladin's statement on October 7, 2001.
- Another Bin Ladin piece declaring Bush a "crusader" and the UN "complicit."
- In this video transcript, Bin Ladin says that the US are the real terrorists, and finishes by reiterating that the goal of his terrorism is to make America stop supporting Israel against the Palis.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 21, 2007, 06:35:26 AM
1) Are you vouching for the sanity and creditability of somebody who maintains America is on a crusade and is killing Muslims because they are Muslim?
2) Do you support the idea that westerners and jews should just pack their bags and leave the Near and Middle East just because the nut that maintains the above wants them to do so?
3) Do you believe the nut-in-chief and his mini-nuts have the right to demand such a thing and punish non-compliance by purposefully killing thousands of civilians?
4) Do you believe that western culture is better or worse than the worldviews and practices of said nutcases?
As far as attacking you, yeah, I have been on your case more recently because you have been annoying me. You are smug, condescending, and patronizing, which might have been tolerable if you were also logical, informed, and right. But you are not. You have outlandish impractical ideas that smack of reciting ideology to us, a smattering of partial facts put together by selective reading to support a twisted worldview to which you have already consigned yourself a priori and will not be shaken from regardless of what we say. On top of that, you willfully and purposefully ignore arguments given by a list of other posters when those arguments undermine your chosen worldview. You are not here to think, but proselytize. If you would like to be taken seriously, you have to develop the ability for critical and self-critical thought, as well as the mental flexibility and honesty to change your opinions in the face of facts. Dropping the unjustified smugness would also be nice, although not a requirement.
Post by: Werewolf on November 21, 2007, 06:38:02 AM
Quote from: fistful
I would demean myself to rebut this, so I will just laugh at it.
That reads so much like the statement of one who either lacks the intellectual capacity to respond or just plain knows that they have no rational or fact based basis with which to respond.
Instead they make emotion based and condescending statements in an attempt to redirect the discussion away from their particular failing.
NOTE TO MODERATORS & APS MEMBERS: God knows, I'm no angel and I'm sure as hell not defending Mr. Budney - but sometimes fistful just goes too far and needs to be called on it. After all - this is the ArmerdPoliteSociety. To the best of my knowledge, it is not the ArmedCondescendingAsshatSociety
Post by: MechAg94 on November 21, 2007, 06:49:48 AM
Quote
As usual, assertions without any actual quotes, or even a link. I wait breathless for a link. rolleyes
Since when have you posted your own quotes and link when telling everyone else they are wrong and uneducated? Len, is there some reason why you insist on being so insulting and confrontational over the last week? It just makes you appear foolish and insures no one listens to anything you say. If you want an example, look at your first post in this thread. You quote me and immediately tell me my claims are wrong. If you had bothered to read, you would have seen that I was just trying to summarize the point of the original post, not make claims. Please Just post your opinions and refrain from attacking everyone else. It would be helpful.
Post by: beatnik on November 21, 2007, 08:08:58 AM
Quote
I suppose the bit about hanging gays and stoning women for adultery is okay with you?
In a word, yes.
If they're really such animals, then they don't deserve their sovereignty.
If we're going to run their lives for them we should have the stones to do it.
But that's not what you guys are suggesting: Iran is going to go down the same way as Iraq. Why are we dealing with nation building when we could be dealing with subjugated territories? Why are we allowing people you admit are animals to rule themselves? I mean, all I hear on NPR is stories about how soldiers have to pay Iraqis to pick up the garbage on their own streets!
What sense does it make to judge a society as inferior, based on stonings, and yet consistently try to prop up that society? The gays/women argument simply doesn't stand up. It boils down to "they're poopyheads so we're going to kill them".
For that matter, why does the "they're poopyheads" argument not work in Burma? Or Somalia?
I much prefer the other alternative: &*$&^ them, we've got our own problems. If some non-governmental entity started the "machine guns for Zoroastrians" charity, I'd be on board - but I'm pretty sick of sending 28% of my income to help build nations which are just going to end up spitting on us.
And lay off Len Budney - it seems obvious to me that he's just responding to obvious baiting here. I haven't made a career of reading this forum, but it seems obvious that Manedwolf only shows up to troll, and Len's just responding to it. Some of us just aren't as good as others about not feeding the trolls (or think that everyone's here to discuss, not vilify).
Post by: Len Budney on November 21, 2007, 12:23:07 PM
1) Are you vouching for the sanity and creditability of somebody who maintains America is on a crusade and is killing Muslims because they are Muslim?
Credibility? No. Sanity? No. The question on the table is what his motives are.Quote
2) Do you support the idea that westerners and jews should just pack their bags and leave the Near and Middle East just because the nut that maintains the above wants them to do so?
No. I'm just discussing what his motives are.
Quote
3) Do you believe the nut-in-chief and his mini-nuts have the right to demand such a thing and punish non-compliance by purposefully killing thousands of civilians?
No. I'm just discussing what his motives are.
Quote
4) Do you believe that western culture is better or worse than the worldviews and practices of said nutcases?
Better, overall. But that has nothing to do with identifying his motives.
Quote
As far as attacking you, yeah, I have been on your case more recently because you have been annoying me. You are smug, condescending, and patronizing...
Perhaps. On the other hand, I either link directly to the evidence (example: see above), or I state exactly what to look up to understand my point (example: the law of diminishing marginal utility). You can attack the evidence, or in the latter case demand a link. But notice that in the above discussion of Bin Ladin's motives, you switch subjects to whether I personally agree with Bin Ladin (I don't, but it's beside the point), and top it off with a personal commentary on my smug, condescending, patronizing self.
The reverse is not true. I've stated once or twice that someone needs to read up on the economic concepts he's discussing, but I also told him what to read. I didn't call him stupid, and I don't think he's stupid. He just happens not to have read a certain topic which happens to be relevant at the moment. I haven't returned Maned Wolf's obnoxious sarcasm, nor yours. I haven't indulged in personalities at all. I keep to the subject, even if you don't like how I express myself, and I give my evidence.
If you give the same courtesy, I won't quibble with your "tone" in doing so. I'll be truly appreciative.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 21, 2007, 12:44:39 PM
Werewolf, I've been called on my past behavior, and have responded accordingly. The comment to which you refer is not in any way remarkable or any more "condescendingly asshatted" than a hundred other comments we see here every week. Like when you called me a condescending asshat, for instance.
It's accurate though. Just ask the nearest German about how they changed into normal people from dirty boche murdering hun bastards. It was like magic. A couple signatures on a treaty, and evil incarnate are suddenly human beings again.
No, it's really just mushy-headed, left-wing popular mythology. Besides, the Japs signed the treaty, and you must know how many WWII veterans still hate them.
Post by: Len Budney on November 21, 2007, 08:42:35 PM
No, it's really just mushy-headed, left-wing popular mythology.
That would disappoint me to learn, because I still have an ingrained dislike for leftists. But it's not; it's simple fact. The enemy du jour is portrayed as evil incarnate, as long as it serves the government's propagandistic needs. Then they're rehabilitated, and the next enemy takes their place.
In WWII it's perhaps more dramatic than any other war: Stalin was worse than Hitler, at least in terms of raw body counts. We excused unspeakable atrocities by the Soviets even while we (rightly) condemned Nazi atrocities. The same WWII vets who (understandably) hate the Japanese don't hate the even worse Soviets.
Nor were a majority of Germans either evil or Nazis. As Goebbels himself admitted, the majority of Germans didn't want war; they were dragged into it by leaders who convinced them that they were under attack and facing a dire national peril. The same way, incidentally, the American people were convinced to back the war: they didn't want war either. They elected Roosevelt in 1940 because "he kept us out of the war." Roosevelt then did everything in his power to drag us into the war. The majority of Americans and Germans weren't evil; they were simply hoodwinked by their leaders. (I considered using "schmucks" as a synonym for "hoodwinked by their leaders," but suspect that such a characterization of "the greatest generation" would cause a nuclear explosion.)
--Len.
Post by: Werewolf on November 22, 2007, 06:01:38 AM
Quote
The enemy du jour is portrayed as evil incarnate...
Statement of the obvious. What's your point?Quote
...as long as it serves the government's propagandistic needs.
OK - again - pretty obvious. How else is a government supposed to get it's population behind a war - tell it how nice the enemy is? How they're such wonderful people and we only wanna kill 'em because our Army needs the practice and they just happen to be the most convenient folks at the time to practice on? That's nothing new. Why do you think Lincoln made slavery an issue in the Civil War? Not because he had anything against it but because he knew it was an issue that the masses could wrap their hearts around and get all up in arms over. He certainly didn't want them wrapping their minds around anything - they might just figure out that the southern states really did have the right to secede and where would that have gotten him?Governments start wars. People fight them. Unfortunately for govenments most people aren't going to go off and risk life and limb on a lark - they need a good reason. More often than not the reason the government has doesn't jive with what most would consider something worth dying for. So what's a government to do? It lies. Too bad for the people because them's the facts, that's reality. Been that way since Chief Stone Breaker decided he wanted Chief Bear Killer's wife 100,000 years ago but knew his warriors were'nt gonna go out and risk death just so the chief could get a little strange.
The US government's methods aren't any different from those of Chief Sone Breaker other than what it does impacts more people.
Don't like the Iraq war - TOUGH!
Deal with it or change it.
HINT! You'll have a better chance of dealing with it than changing it.
Quote
In WWII it's perhaps more dramatic than any other war: Stalin was worse than Hitler... more obvious stuff cut for brevities sake
Again - what's your point? That the US government is exactly the same in the methods it chooses to control the masses as every other? Nothing new there.Post by: Len Budney on November 22, 2007, 06:11:31 AM
Quote
The enemy du jour is portrayed as evil incarnate...
Statement of the obvious. What's your point?
Quote
...as long as it serves the government's propagandistic needs.
OK - again - pretty obvious. How else is a government supposed to get it's population behind a war... Governments start wars. People fight them... Don't like the Iraq war - TOUGH!
Quote
...Stalin was worse than Hitler...
Again - what's your point? That the US government is exactly the same in the methods it chooses to control the masses as every other? Nothing new there.
You call it obvious, and I agree. What's interesting is that some would deny it, including right in this here thread. See, the "islamo-fascists" really are evil incarnate! And the Saudis (where Wahhabism, and most of the 9/11 hijackers, come from) are our good friends and allies--they're not "islamo-fascist" at all. Etc., etc.
But the important thing is that this obvious phenomenon is utterly immoral. The people who fall for it are schmucks. You're right that the ones who don't fall for it will have an uphill battle doing anything about it, because the schmucks are just too numerous and well-placed. You clearly don't fall for it--whether or not you actually agree with the war itself, which I don't know. But when you portray yourself as a hard-nosed realist and exhort me to "deal with it," you're supporting the immorality with your compliance. Pick any other grave injustice you like and picture yourself exhorting people to "deal with it," and you'll see what I mean. (There, I didn't even mention rape. But that's as good an injustice as any other, if you can't think of any to picture yourself "dealing with.")
--Len.
Post by: Werewolf on November 22, 2007, 07:58:41 AM
Quote
But when you portray yourself as a hard-nosed realist and exhort me to "deal with it," you're supporting the immorality with your compliance. Pick any other grave injustice you like and picture yourself exhorting people to "deal with it," and you'll see what I mean. (There, I didn't even mention rape. But that's as good an injustice as any other, if you can't think of any to picture yourself "dealing with.")
--Len.
--Len.
I'm not sure whether the propaganda used by governments to gain the compliance of it's citizens is immoral or not. In some cases it undoubtedly is but in others maybe not.
Governments very often have access to information that its citizens do not (whether or not that should be is another discussion). Governments therefore have the capacity to make informed decisions that the people will not understand. Thus the citizens need to be coaxed. We both know what form the coaxing takes.
If a government's decision is correct and moral is it then immoral to propagandize it's people to get 'em to go along?
In a perfect world with a perfectly literate and educated population capable of critical thinking and making decisions based on fact and logic instead of emotion then propagandizing a populace could reasonably be argued to be immoral. Personnaly I would agree that it would be immoral.
BUT we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world of illiteracy, a world where a lot, if not most people tend to think with their hearts instead of their minds. We live in a world where half the people have IQ's of less than 100 and thinking critically is difficult if not impossible for them (and a whole lot of the other half just find it easier to think with their hearts than their minds). They must be coaxed to do that which they otherwise might not choose to do even though they should. In other words the government must tug at their heart strings and not their minds and what generates action out of a heart is very different from what will galvanize a mind.
Sometimes it is both necessary and moral for a government to propagandize its people.
RE Injustice and Compliance:
There's a prayer I first saw posted on the wall of the armory of my Army basic training unit. I'm sure you're familiar with it and whether or not one believes in GOD its sentiment is still appropriate.
God grant me:
The courage to change the things I can.
The serenity to accept those things I cannot.
AND the WISDOM to know the difference.
Tying one's self up in trying to change things one cannot change is at best a futile waste of time and energy and at worst a risk to one's health and sanity.
It behooves all of us to seek the wisdom to know the difference.
RE my opinion Iraq War:
Is the Iraq war just? I think it started out that way. I believe that Bush and his gang truly believed that Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction and it was necessary to eliminate them to keep the USA safe. That might make me one of the schmucks I suppose.
When it was discovered that he didn't (have WMD's that is) and the administration started waffling on the reasons we were there was when I started doubting that the war was just. AND that was the time to get out. But it's too late now to just up and leave. The power vacuum that would be created and the potential ramifications of that are just too dire for both the USA and the Iraqi people. We've got to finish what we started. It is irrelevant now whether the war was started for good cause or not. We've got to finish it.
Mistakes happen. When they do you learn from them, clean up the mess and move on. Right now the USA is in the clean up stage. For what it's worth, I doubt if it will learn anything and it will be some time before we can move on.
Post by: Len Budney on November 22, 2007, 08:24:17 AM
I'm not sure whether the propaganda used by governments to gain the compliance of it's citizens is immoral or not. In some cases it undoubtedly is but in others maybe not.
Sometimes it's that virtuous moral sort of lying. Right.
Quote
If a government's decision is correct and moral is it then immoral to propagandize it's people to get 'em to go along?
Since governments can be counted on to make incorrect, immoral decisions, the question is rather moot. But supposing so for the sake of argument, the answer is no. The ends do not justify the means.
Quote
God grant me:
The courage to change the things I can.
The serenity to accept those things I cannot.
AND the WISDOM to know the difference.
The courage to change the things I can.
The serenity to accept those things I cannot.
AND the WISDOM to know the difference.
There's a difference between serenely dealing with evil, and declaring that it isn't evil in the first place. That's important. I'm quite serene as I point out the evils of propaganda, despite what Maned may claim to the contrary. Like cancer, there's no cure in sight. But imagine how foolish it would be for people to decide that, since cancer is incurable, therefore cancer is not a disease.
Quote
Is the Iraq war just? I think it started out that way. I believe that Bush and his gang truly believed that Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction and it was necessary to eliminate them to keep the USA safe. That might make me one of the schmucks I suppose.
I believed the propaganda as well. It was the realization that I was a schmuck that snapped me out of my blind conservatism and awakened the inner libertarian.
Quote
When it was discovered that he didn't (have WMD's that is) and the administration started waffling on the reasons we were there was when I started doubting that the war was just.
Same here.
Quote
AND that was the time to get out. But it's too late now to just up and leave. The power vacuum that would be created and the potential ramifications of that are just too dire...
The aftermath will be ugly. The question is whether there's any better alternative. I think the argument can be made that staying is much worse than leaving. If we never withdraw, that would be a moral obscenity akin to our continued occupation of Korea, Germany and Okinawa. If we do withdraw, whenever that is, the aftermath will be as bad as if we withdrew today--so on net it will be worse by the amount of carnage between now and then. In addition, the longer we stay, the more blowback we store up for the future. Which of course means more attacks in some form or other, followed by more disastrous wars, etc.
Quote
We've got to finish what we started.
I said that too, for a long time after realizing that the WMDs were never going to be found. The above considerations, not to mention the multi-trillion-dollar price tag, changed my mind.
Quote
Mistakes happen. When they do you learn from them, clean up the mess and move on.
The assumption that we can clean up our mistakes is dangerous hubris. You can't unkill the dead, and you can't put humpty-dumpty together again.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 22, 2007, 08:37:11 AM
By nature people are gregarious but controversial. They do not agree easily on anything, especially when they are not under immediate pressure to do so. Hence, Parkinson's law on committees. Well, a pure democracy is a giant committee that will never ever get anything done in a timely manner. That is why we have representative constitutional government, wherein the few decide in the name of and for the many, after a suitable electoral process. Part of this is the practical necessity for politicians to "rile up" support for what they deem is necessary.
The reality is that the public cannot hope to affect directly every single decision. Even in the age of the internet, that would be impossible because people would have to be voting in referenda all day long. Hence the expediency of representative government. The downside is that there is a partial loss of control, but that's the price to pay for a practical, effective government. Another issue is the quality of the leaders. That is why, if people are smart, they should vote for character and experience, rather than particular measures. Regrettably, people ignore the politician and focus on promises way too much, failing to appreciate the promises can and usually are broken, but the character and knowledge of the leader generally remain intact, and thus should be used as the true criterion.
Post by: Len Budney on November 22, 2007, 12:10:26 PM
Methinks Werewolf is on the money. Rapists' methods by themselves may be the same, but the purposes and results are quite different.
Nope, sorry, the ends never justify the means.
Quote
If we accept at least on the practical level that ends almost always justify means...
I guess I spoke to quickly. Yeah, if we make a "practical" decision to consider immoral things moral, lots of things suddenly become moral.
--Len.
Post by: Werewolf on November 22, 2007, 12:26:52 PM
Quote
Nope, sorry, the ends never justify the means.
I imagine that there's quite a few million Japanese and American, wives, fathers, children and grandchildren that never would have been if the US had had to invade Japan, that would most assuredly disagree with you on that.
Guess why we didn't have to invade Japan?
But then I guess a million civilian casualties and a couple of hundred thousand military casualties is preferable to having dropped a nuke.
And of course since the ends never justify the means you must believe it is the duty and responsibility of a 110 pound women to fist fight with her rapist instead of shooting him.
Sorry man - but believing the ends do not justify the means in some cases is just so incredibly naive.
Post by: Len Budney on November 22, 2007, 12:30:44 PM
Quote
Nope, sorry, the ends never justify the means.
I imagine that there's quite a few million Japanese and American, wives, fathers, children and grandchildren that never would have been if the US had had to invade Japan, that would most assuredly disagree with you on that.
I take you up on your challenge: find me one Japanese person who is grateful for the nuclear bombings of Japan.
Quote
Guess why we didn't have to invade Japan?
By the way, the myth that Truman nuked Japan to save Japanese lives was started way after the fact. It's pure BS. Japan was desperate to surrender, and had tried several times before the bombings.
Quote
And of course since the ends never justify the means you must believe it is the duty and responsibility of a 110 pound women to fist fight with her rapist instead of shooting him.
Self-defense is always moral, so there's no need for a means-ends argument.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 22, 2007, 03:12:22 PM
the problem was the japanese weren't desperate enough they weren't going for unconditional surrender till the big boom.
my take on it was the first bomb was to get em to surrender and the second was payback
Post by: roo_ster on November 23, 2007, 01:12:40 AM
You've left your moral lodestone too close to your moral compass & gotten it all out of whack.
For instance, propaganda, like any tool, is amoral. It is a value-neutral means, just as a firearm is a value-neutral tool. One would think that a supposed supporter of RKBA would understand such.
The important point is not the fact that propaganda, marketing, and advertising occurs; but that it is true/factual/correct or not.
The quotations I shared were, in fact, correct. Mahmoud's quote was taken directly from his regime's website, for instance. If there is any "dehumanizing" going on, it is the responsibility of the utterer of those words, not the folks who repeat them so as to inform fellow citizens. You might want to consider that their words were not de-humanizing...in their culture.
Len, it is obvious that every individual does not share the same value system. How great an intellectual leap is it to realize that cultures, too, have different values systems?
Post by: Werewolf on November 23, 2007, 06:14:46 AM
Quote
Self-defense is always moral, so there's no need for a means-ends argument.
--Len.
--Len.
Hmmmm...
So - if the end is self defense...
then...
Any means used to achieve that end are justified?
Is that correct?
I'm just trying to make sure I understand exactly what it is you're saying.
Post by: Len Budney on November 23, 2007, 09:58:30 AM
Quote
Self-defense is always moral, so there's no need for a means-ends argument.
Hmmmm... So - if the end is self defense... then... Any means used to achieve that end are justified? Is that correct?Obviously not. For example, if a Russian threatens my life, it would be immoral to release a virus that selectively kills all Russians on the planet. Less dramatically, if a man threatens my life, if would be immoral to destroy his entire apartment building, and everyone in it, with an ANFO bomb. This is a fairly elementary question you're asking. The end never justifies unjust means.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 23, 2007, 10:06:10 AM
For instance, propaganda, like any tool, is amoral. It is a value-neutral means, just as a firearm is a value-neutral tool. One would think that a supposed supporter of RKBA would understand such.
I'll give you that: "propaganda" doesn't inherently require dishonesty or lying. But the propaganda we've been discussing does, which is what makes it immoral.
Quote
The important point is not the fact that propaganda, marketing, and advertising occurs; but that it is true/factual/correct or not.
Agreed. But that defense doesn't apply in this case. To carry the defense, you'd need to argue that Muslims really are evil incarnate. Just the bad Muslims, of course. Which is hard to distinguish from all Muslims, since we accuse them all of "dancing in the streets" on 9/11, etc.
Quote
The quotations I shared were, in fact, correct. Mahmoud's quote was taken directly from his regime's website, for instance.
The quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map," involves a controversial translation from the Persian. But assuming the translation is correct, saying such a thing doesn't justify invading and bombing his country, nor demonizing the entire Persian people with one man's hateful remarks. Saying stupid, or even hateful, things, isn't a death-penalty offense--luckily for millions of rednecks right in our own country.
Quote
Len, it is obvious that every individual does not share the same value system. How great an intellectual leap is it to realize that cultures, too, have different values systems?
Sure. But you won't convince me to endorse the slaughter of innocents, nor to agree that ends justify means.
--Len.
Post by: Werewolf on November 23, 2007, 10:35:01 AM
Quote from: Len Budney
The end never justifies unjust means.
Wait... Wait... I'm still confused.In a previous post you claimed that "the end never justifies the means." Never is an absolute.
Yet you now say that the ends never justify unjust means which implies very strongly that ends can justify means as long as the means are just?
Help me out here.
Which is it(?) the end never justifies the means or the end justifies the means as long as the means are just?
And as long as we're discussing what is just; who gets to decide whether or not means are just? Are there quantifiable and qualitative criteria for determining whether or not means are just? If so what are those criteria?
Post by: Len Budney on November 23, 2007, 10:50:26 AM
Quote from: Len Budney
The end never justifies unjust means.
Which is it(?) the end never justifies the means or the end justifies the means as long as the means are just?Um, why would you try to justify something that's already just? If it's just, then it needs no justification.
Quote
And as long as we're discussing what is just; who gets to decide whether or not means are just? Are there quantifiable and qualitative criteria for determining whether or not means are just? If so what are those criteria?
Yes, and the criterion is extremely simple. Any physical interaction with another's person or property, without their consent, is unjust. Everything else is permitted.
--Len.
Post by: Werewolf on November 23, 2007, 12:21:41 PM
Quote
Yes, and the criterion is extremely simple. Any physical interaction with another's person or property, without their consent, is unjust. Everything else is permitted.
And that's the generally accepted criterion? or your criterion?, Len? M'thinks it is your personal criterion. But I'll go ahead and run with it anyway...For example: Based on your criteria the government is acting unjustly by taxing me. No means the government could ever choose to tax me would be just because I do not grant it consent to take my money. But they take it anyway. WOW! The ramifications of that are just fantastic.
But let's get back to who gets to decide what's just.
Lets start out with a little Reductio ad absurdum, shall we?
I think it is just to sacrifice one to save a million without the consent of the one.
You think it is acceptable to sacrifice the million if the 1 doesn't grant their consent.
I wonder who the million would want deciding what's just or not?
I also wonder how one can morally justify sacrificing the million to save the one - after all - based on your criteria "Any physical interaction with another's person or property, without their consent, is unjust.", which leads us back to your contention that the ends never justify the means.
Remember - right now we're at the Reductio ad absurdum stage.
Post by: roo_ster on November 23, 2007, 02:58:10 PM
For just one (recent) example, the bit I placed in bold face has nothing to do with either the general point of my posts (cultures are different and have different value systems) or the specific case of Iran's leaders and their culture (apocalyptic, no regard for human life).
I don't mind debating with differently-minded folks, but I insist on some level of honesty when addressing other folks' arguments. I am quickly coming to the conclusion that you are not demonstrating that minimal level of honesty.
I am reminded of an incident where Karl Marx (who never set foot on a factory floor) upbraided a socialist union organizer/factory worker for his impertinence by demonstrating Marx's lack of touch with reality. Marx ended his tirade with, "Your experience is nothing without my theory." Such has been the rallying cry of navel-gazers ever since.
I think I am finished with you. Enjoy your theory and be sure to send a postcard when your anarcho-capitalist utopia comes to fruition.
For instance, propaganda, like any tool, is amoral. It is a value-neutral means, just as a firearm is a value-neutral tool. One would think that a supposed supporter of RKBA would understand such.
I'll give you that: "propaganda" doesn't inherently require dishonesty or lying. But the propaganda we've been discussing does, which is what makes it immoral.
Quote
The important point is not the fact that propaganda, marketing, and advertising occurs; but that it is true/factual/correct or not.
Agreed. But that defense doesn't apply in this case. To carry the defense, you'd need to argue that Muslims really are evil incarnate. Just the bad Muslims, of course. Which is hard to distinguish from all Muslims, since we accuse them all of "dancing in the streets" on 9/11, etc.
Quote
The quotations I shared were, in fact, correct. Mahmoud's quote was taken directly from his regime's website, for instance.
The quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map," involves a controversial translation from the Persian. But assuming the translation is correct, saying such a thing doesn't justify invading and bombing his country, nor demonizing the entire Persian people with one man's hateful remarks. Saying stupid, or even hateful, things, isn't a death-penalty offense--luckily for millions of rednecks right in our own country.
Quote
Len, it is obvious that every individual does not share the same value system. How great an intellectual leap is it to realize that cultures, too, have different values systems?
Sure. But you won't convince me to endorse the slaughter of innocents, nor to agree that ends justify means.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 23, 2007, 03:21:18 PM
Quote
Yes, and the criterion is extremely simple. Any physical interaction with another's person or property, without their consent, is unjust. Everything else is permitted.
And that's the generally accepted criterion? or your criterion?, Len? M'thinks it is your personal criterion...
It's not Osama Bin Ladin's, if that's what you're asking.
Quote
Based on your criteria the government is acting unjustly by taxing me.
DING! You got it in one!
Quote
The ramifications of that are just fantastic.
You're starting to see how far-reaching the implications of basic morals can be.
Quote
Lets start out with a little Reductio ad absurdum, shall we?
You can give it a shot.
Quote
I think it is just to sacrifice one to save a million without the consent of the one.
Too bad. You're wrong. I hope the one defends himself against your aggression with lethal force.
Quote
You think it is acceptable to sacrifice the million if the 1 doesn't grant their consent.
BS. The hypothetical you are trying to set up here is (1) incomplete, and (2) incorrect. It's incomplete because you haven't even tried to specify why these million people will die unless we kill Joe Schlemiel. It's incorrect because you are trying to blame me for the death of these million people. That's nonsense; I have nothing whatsoever to do with their death. It's the fault of whoever put these million people in peril. Now that person can be killed, because we've already stipulated that self-defense is moral.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 23, 2007, 03:23:33 PM
For just one (recent) example, the bit I placed in bold face has nothing to do with either the general point of my posts (cultures are different and have different value systems) or the specific case of Iran's leaders and their culture (apocalyptic, no regard for human life).
OK. Forgive me for leaping to the conclusion that your remark was (intended to be) relevant to the rest of your post. If it was just an aside, then I answered it. I said, "Sure."
The example you cite doesn't involve any dishonesty, though. If you reread the post, you'll see that I treated your statements with absolute fairness. If you feel otherwise, I invite you to say where.
--Len.
Post by: De Selby on November 23, 2007, 07:30:53 PM
While we're discussing Iranian statements about nukes, I find it interesting that no one ever bothers to quote the Ayatollahs' religious edicts on the manufacture and possession of nukes. There is such a thing in Iran, and as we all know, the Ayatollahs make the supreme law of the land:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2003/10/31/MNGHJ2NFRE1.DTL
Quote
Led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation's "supreme leader," Iranian clerics have repeatedly declared that Islam forbids the development and use of all weapons of mass destruction.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction," Khamenei said recently. "In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923539/posts"The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction," Khamenei said recently. "In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form."
Quote
Senior Iranian cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Emami Kashani said on Friday that production of nuclear bomb is religiously forbidden. "Islam bans shedding blood of nations; on the same ground, production of nuclear bomb and even thinking on its production are forbidden from Islamic point of view," said Ayatollah Kashani in his weekly Friday prayers sermon at Tehran University campus.
Full text from Kashani here:http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/11/islam-forbids-nuclear-weapons-tehran.html
Quote
Any ground, anywhere, any religion, be it Judaism or Christianity, one and all, Islamic societies, Islamic thought and the holy Koran believes in security for all. It is so without a doubt. It is so for the Islamic regime and it is so for our constitution.
But hey, I guess Iranians are only hard-core believers who follow their religious dictates when the dictates are things that tend to confirm our biases against Muslims. When they say things like "Islam absolutely forbids the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons", that's not relevant, because it puts a monkeywrench in the "Islam is bad" machine.
Post by: Werewolf on November 24, 2007, 06:01:29 AM
Quote
Quote
You think it is acceptable to sacrifice the million if the 1 doesn't grant their consent.
BS. The hypothetical you are trying to set up here is (1) incomplete, and (2) incorrect. It's incomplete because you haven't even tried to specify why these million people will die unless we kill Joe Schlemiel. It's incorrect because you are trying to blame me for the death of these million people. That's nonsense; I have nothing whatsoever to do with their death. It's the fault of whoever put these million people in peril. Now that person can be killed, because we've already stipulated that self-defense is moral.
--Len.
We're done...You think it is acceptable to sacrifice the million if the 1 doesn't grant their consent.
BS. The hypothetical you are trying to set up here is (1) incomplete, and (2) incorrect. It's incomplete because you haven't even tried to specify why these million people will die unless we kill Joe Schlemiel. It's incorrect because you are trying to blame me for the death of these million people. That's nonsense; I have nothing whatsoever to do with their death. It's the fault of whoever put these million people in peril. Now that person can be killed, because we've already stipulated that self-defense is moral.
--Len.
You fail to address points and skirt issues. I.E. my hypothetical was set up as Reductio ad Absurdum. For example, I was not trying to blame you for the death of the million. I just wanted you to explain how you, as an observer, could justify their deaths in order to save one who didn't want to die which by your criteria made the means to save the hypothetical million unjust and therefore the million must die. Reductio ad Absurdum. You're a smart guy. You knew that but you sidestepped the issue rathe than address it.
You won't be convinced and neither will I.
Later, Len... Have a happy holiday.
Post by: Len Budney on November 24, 2007, 12:00:31 PM
We're done...
Amazing how often and how quickly one says that when one can't answer the argument.
Quote
You fail to address points and skirt issues...
On the contrary: I specifically addressed why your scenario is too ill-posed to imply the conclusion you wished to draw.
Quote
For example, I was not trying to blame you for the death of the million. I just wanted you to explain how you, as an observer, could justify their deaths...
That amounts to blame. I don't justify the tides. I don't justify hurricanes. And I don't justify deaths that have nothing whatsoever to do with me. Even asking me to "justify" them is nonsensical. If I asked you to "justify" gravity, would you then "skirt the issue" by refusing to do so?
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 24, 2007, 02:10:19 PM
Post by: Len Budney on November 25, 2007, 03:30:52 AM
hey len? how many japanese folk you know?met?
Quite a few, considering I haven't been to Japan. It's possible I just don't realize how many of them are grateful that Truman nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the Japanese offered to surrender, with only one condition: that Hirohito not be deposed, arrested or killed. Perhaps there are thousands of grateful Japanese out there.
But unlikely. It would be an impressive feat of propaganda.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 25, 2007, 06:20:59 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 25, 2007, 09:56:43 AM
...hey maybe you are right but what do i know i'm only 1/2 japanese been to japan...
How many did you meet in Japan that are grateful for the atomic bombings? Or believe that Truman saved Japanese lives in so doing?
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 25, 2007, 10:13:45 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 25, 2007, 10:52:58 AM
grateful? thats a stretch but folk who understand the reason behind the first bomb and are accepting of it plenty. all my family on thjt side except one cousin
I defer to your claim, since I wasn't there: bunches of Japanese people appreciate having been a-bombed
Quote
so len did you accidentally forget to quantify your experience? you wouldn't be dodging are ya?
You didn't "quantify" yours, for that matter. The question is impossible to answer accurately; I've known lots of Japanese people in college and grad school, but as I've admitted, never been to Japan. But none of that's relevant, since I'm not claiming personal knowledge of what Japanese people think. If you're correct, and I can't prove you wrong, the Japanese themselves have bought the propaganda which we know full well to be a lie: almost all of Truman's commanders opposed the bombing, including: General Douglas McArthur; chief of staff, Admiral William Leahy; chief of Naval Operations Admiral Ernest J. King; Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz; Admiral William "Bull" Halsey; Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss; commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces Henry H. "Hap" Arnold; General Claire Chennault of the Flying Tigers; Army Strategic Air Forces Commander Carl Spatz; and Army Air Force General Curtis "Bombs Away" Lemay.
Then of course there was the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, which said in part,
Quote
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
The claim that half a million American lives were saved is a myth that began some time after the fact; the actual projection for an invasion of Kyushu was under 50,000 casualties[1]. Truman himself never claimed that he dropped the bombs to save Japanese lives. Rather, he said things like, "When you deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true[2]."
Truman also lied outright to the American people. On August 9, 1945, he stated: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." The next day he commented to his cabinet concerning his reluctance to drop a third bomb because, "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible." He added that he didn't like the idea of killing "all those kids[3]."
The bottom line is that the Japanese were ready to surrender. All they asked was that Hirohito be spared (which, in the end, he was). Instead, they were nuked. Twice.
--Len.
[1] Barton J. Bernstein, "A post-War Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved," Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 42, 6 (June/July 1986), 38-40.
[2] Alperovitz, Decision, p. 563.
[3] Barton J. Bernstein, "Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little-Known Near Disasters, and Modern Memory," Diplomatic History 19, no. 2 (Spring 1995): 257.
Post by: Werewolf on November 25, 2007, 11:30:31 AM
Quote
The bottom line is that the Japanese were ready to surrender. All they asked was that Hirohito be spared (which, in the end, he was). Instead, they were nuked. Twice.
Firebombed, nuked - ehhh! In the end dead is dead. The japanese got what they deserved whether it saved a single life or no.
Post by: Len Budney on November 25, 2007, 12:46:41 PM
The Japanese got what they deserved whether it saved a single life or no.
I rest my case.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 25, 2007, 01:38:08 PM
Post by: roo_ster on November 25, 2007, 04:29:21 PM
to imagine that some lessor force would cause the japanese to surrender is symptomatic of the inability of the western mind to understand other cultures.
QFT
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 25, 2007, 04:41:05 PM
Post by: Len Budney on November 26, 2007, 04:12:05 AM
forgive me but i'm old enough to know that when i don't know for sure what something means ask so QFT?
It means "quoted for truth." In other words, he seconds your assertion that the people who already had offered to surrender, multiple times, would never have surrendered without being nuked.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 07:37:55 AM
i call it nuclear guilt not too different than white guilt and often occurs in same places. let me let you off the hook len. i can assure you and all your round eyed brothers that the japanese woulda cheerfully nuked the us , or anyone else. if they could
Post by: Len Budney on November 26, 2007, 08:00:18 AM
that would be the same folks who refused the terms of surrender offered them and chose to keep negotiating?
Reference? I already gave some. The only condition they stipulated was that Hirohito not be deposed--and in fact he was not. They refused unconditional surrender, which was an unreasonable demand in the first place. You can't erase their multiple offers to surrender by waving your hands at it.
Quote
i can assure you and all your round eyed brothers that the japanese woulda cheerfully nuked the us , or anyone else. if they could
A person of mixed Japanese parentage who buys the demonization of one parent's entire people. Amazing. Then again we have Joe Farah: an Arab who claims that Arabs understand nothing except overwhelming force. So there are precedents.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 08:28:44 AM
len at that time many japanese woulda kept you in a zoo to bring the kids to see on a holiday. killing you woulda been regarded with the same import that folks here place on shooting a coyote in the chicken house. amongst the more enlightened you'd have been elevated to the same delicate sensibilities we showed the indian tribes as we flattened them. it wouldn't be personal, ya'll would be in the way and have to go.take a look at what happened in china or any other parts of the world the japanese coopted. a nuke or 2 would actually be merciful. heck i forget the details but the japanese were on the nuclear hunt in a small way and you should thank stars they were behind us.that is probably just as good luck as the carriers being at sea instead of pearl.
as to the blather about demonization? thats more your thing than mine len. you see to me what they did made sense given their circumstance at the time. i don't think of them as demons at all heck if the war's gone the other way it woulda been like shermans march to the sea. instant hero
"We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.
"We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated.
"We hereby command all Japanese forces wherever situated and the Japanese people to cease hostilities forthwith, to preserve and save from damage all ships, aircraft, and military and civil property, and to comply with all requirements which may be imposed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by agencies of the Japanese Government at his direction.
"We hereby command the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters to issue at once orders to the commanders of all Japanese forces and all forces under Japanese control wherever situated to surrender unconditionally themselves and all forces under their control.
"We hereby command all civil, military, and naval officials to obey and enforce all proclamations, orders, and directives deemed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to be proper to effectuate this surrender and issued by him or under his authority; and we direct all such officials to remain at their posts and to continue to perform their non-combatant duties unless specifically relieved by him or under his authority.
"We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government, and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever action may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that declaration.
"We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters at once to liberate all Allied Prisoners of War and civilian internees now under Japanese control and to provide for their protection, care, maintenance, and immediate transportation to places as directed.
"The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the State shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender".
Signed of TOKYO BAY, JAPAN of 09.04 on the SECOND day of SEPTEMBER, 1945
Mamoru Shigemitsu By Command and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan and the Japanese Government
Yoshijiro Umezu By Command and in behalf of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters
Accepted at TOKYO BAY, JAPAN at 0908 on the SECOND day of SEPTEMBER, 1945, for the United States, Republic of China, United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and in the interests of the other United Nations at war with Japan.
Douglas MacArthur
Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers
C.W. Nimitz
United States Representative
Hsu Yung-Ch'ang
Republic of China Representative
Bruce Fraser
United Kingdom Representative
Kuzma Derevyanko
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Representative
Thomas Blamey
Commonwealth of Australia Representative
L. Moore Cosgrave
Dominion of Canada Representative
Jacques Leclerc
Provisional Government of the French Republic Representative
C.E.L. Helfrich
Kingdom of the Netherlands Representative
Leonard M. Isitt
Dominion of New Zealand Representative
as always len i am amazed at the depth of your insight into the eastern mindset i'm thinking of starting a thread on natural childbirth and await with bated breath your insight and expertise on that subject as well
Post by: Manedwolf on November 26, 2007, 08:32:46 AM
When they say things like "Islam absolutely forbids the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons", that's not relevant, because it puts a monkeywrench in the "Islam is bad" machine.
"The sons of Adam are accountable for all lies with these exceptions: During war because war is deception, to reconcile among two quarreling men, and for a man to appease his wife." -Mohammed
Post by: Len Budney on November 26, 2007, 08:36:21 AM
len once again poster child for western interprtation of the eastern world.
You keep making these personal remarks, but not addressing the fact that they did in fact offer to surrender.
Quote
len at that time many japanese woulda kept you in a zoo to bring the kids to see on a holiday. killing you woulda been regarded with the same import that folks here place on shooting a coyote... as to the blather about demonization? thats more your thing than mine len...
I hope the irony is abundantly clear here.
Quote
"We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated.
Yup. They surrendered. I don't know if you realize that the Japanese high command intended to refuse to surrender, until Hirohito talked them into it. See, though they wanted to surrender a long time before, they still insisted on the single condition that Hirohito not be deposed. It was Hirohito himself who convinced them to surrender unconditionally despite the risks to himself. Which isn't to say that he wasn't a slant-eyed devil, evil incarnate, yadda yadda.
Quote
as always len i am amazed at the depth of your insight into the eastern mindset i'm thinking of starting a thread on natural childbirth and await with bated breath your insight and expertise on that subject as well
More personal remarks, yet so far zero in the area of factual citations. Citing their surrender only proves that they ultimately did surrender, which was not in dispute.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 08:41:49 AM
In February 1945, Prince Fumimaro Konoe gave to Emperor Hirohito a memorandum about his analysis of the situation and told him that if the war continued, the Imperial house might be in greater danger from an internal revolution than from defeat. [5] According to the diary of Grand Chamberlain Hisanori Fujita, the Emperor, looking for a tennozan, replied that it was premature to seek peace, "unless we make one more military gain".
The Foreign Ministry sent telegrams to the Allies, announcing that Japan would accept the Potsdam Declaration but would not comprise any demand which would prejudice the prerogatives of the Emperor. That effectively meant that the Tenno would remain a position of real power within the government power that was normally wielded in his name by the people at the tops of the military and governmental hierarchies.
The response from the Allies was received on August 12. On the status of the Emperor it said,
"From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms. ...
The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people."
At the following cabinet meeting, Suzuki argued that they must reject this and insist on an explicit guarantee for the Imperial system. Anami returned to his position that there be no occupation of Japan. Afterwards, Togo told Suzuki that there was no hope of getting better terms, and Kido conveyed the Emperor's will that Japan surrender. In a meeting with the Emperor, Yonai spoke of his concerns about growing civil unrest,
"I think the term is inappropriate, but the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war are, in a sense, divine gifts. This way we don't have to say that we have quit the war because of domestic circumstances."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 08:44:55 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 26, 2007, 09:15:04 AM
last paragraph and first one were the kicker
Especially the last. The Emperor purportedly is glad that some 200,000 of his subjects were killed because it gave him political cover for the surrender he was already prepared to make before the first bomb fell.
And here you claimed that the Eastern mind is alien to us in the West! Hirohito sounds like Cheney and company, for whom 9/11 was a godsend--of just the sort that PNAC wished for.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 09:27:31 AM
I hope the irony is abundantly clear here."
once again len you serve as the best illustration
in your imaginary world the idea of you being put in a zoo is intrinsically eveil and my reference to it is demonizing my family. in the real world i live in its neither evil or good it njust is. that how truth works its not good or bad it just is. i'm no more ashamed or proud of that way of thinking than i am ashamed or proud about my height or haircolor. your not bad or good in that your mind can't bend around this way of thinking your just roundeyedin your mindset. it takes years of immersion to get a westerner to think eastern and most simply aren't capable
Post by: Len Budney on November 26, 2007, 09:34:41 AM
in your imaginary world the idea of you being put in a zoo is intrinsically eveil and my reference to it is demonizing my family.
It would be evil if it were true, but it's BS. Are you claiming that ALL Japanese would like to see all non-Japanese in cages? Or MOST of them? Or even MANY? If so, how do you account for their subsequent embrace of baseball, Hello Kitty and all things western? A generation of hardest hard-core racists gave birth to a generation of relatively normal human beings (except for their unaccountable love of noodles and paper walls)?
Even more interesting would be your experience. If 1/10th of what you say is true, then their hatred for half-bloods would exceed their hatred for foreigners. Was that your experience? And if you experienced bigotry wile in Japan, then perhaps it isn't so much a question of your superior grasp of the "eastern mindset," but rather your own personal demons talking.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 09:36:36 AM
in your imaginary world the idea of you being put in a zoo is intrinsically eveil and my reference to it is demonizing my family.
It would be evil if it were true, but it's BS. Are you claiming that ALL Japanese would like to see all non-Japanese in cages? Or MOST of them? Or even MANY? If so, how do you account for their subsequent embrace of baseball, Hello Kitty and all things western? A generation of hardest hard-core racists gave birth to a generation of relatively normal human beings (except for their unaccountable love of noodles and paper walls)?
Even more interesting would be your experience. If 1/10th of what you say is true, then their hatred for half-bloods would exceed their hatred for foreigners. Was that your experience? And if you experienced bigotry wile in Japan, then perhaps it isn't so much a question of your superior grasp of the "eastern mindset," but rather your own personal demons talking."
len amongst the ideas you are less informed on is the depths of isolation pre ww2 in japan. the average person saw round eyes as baby eaters less than human had been taught that for generations and had no way or reason to know otherwise. again its not good or bad its just the way it was.
you truly demonstrate your miraculous understanding(miraculous since its based on the countless japanese you met here and got to know in depth, a hint len you don't get that close that fast even a guy with your open personality)
of things japanese when you use the word "if" vis a vis my status as a 1/2 breed in japan. you made me laugh. len 1/2 breeds like me were a national shame and disgrace. i'd have more atatus as a black man in japan than as a mixed kid.it could be worse in korea they torture and sometimes castrate kids like me at least the japanese are polite about their attitude.if you were that clueless on such a fundemental core of kjapanese culture it doesn't speak well for the fine details you pretend to grasp. and again here you try to assign some good or evil label to the behavior and thats so roundeye. it just is not good not bad you keep teying len and you might be able to get it i doubt it the only westerners that do have open minds . so you are hamstrung from the word go but i admire folks who attempt to stretch their limitations and boundaries
Post by: roo_ster on November 26, 2007, 09:49:45 AM
forgive me but i'm old enough to know that when i don't know for sure what something means ask so QFT?
It means "quoted for truth." In other words, he seconds your assertion that the people who already had offered to surrender, multiple times, would never have surrendered without being nuked.
--Len.
If you attempt to write for someone, please muster the integrity to get their positions correct.
Post by: Len Budney on November 26, 2007, 09:54:33 AM
forgive me but i'm old enough to know that when i don't know for sure what something means ask so QFT?
It means "quoted for truth." In other words, he seconds your assertion that the people who already had offered to surrender, multiple times, would never have surrendered without being nuked.
If you attempt to write for someone, please muster the integrity to get their positions correct.
There's no knowing exactly why you said "QFT." Presumably, you were seconding the bit you quoted. If so, then my summary is sarcastic but accurate: Cassandra's Daddy is claiming that the Japanese would have fought to the last man had we not nuked them.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 09:58:06 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 26, 2007, 10:00:43 AM
ledn maybe you need to get outside your box... the reallity is out there you just need to leave lens world to find it., expand your horizons a lil change is good once you get past the fear
Do you have anything to add other than poorly spelled and punctuated personal jibes? Just wondering.
Meanwhile, you might have leaked something in your rant. I gather that your time in Japan was spent as a US serviceman. If so, it explains some things, and also makes the bit about getting "outside your box" extra ironic and funny.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 10:02:08 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 10:06:05 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 26, 2007, 10:10:26 AM
I don't know if you're armed, but you're certainly not polite. Good day.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 10:31:29 AM
or are some skeptical folks gonna say you just aren't able to address these points
shucks i'll let you have two more guesses since your first one about "what i keaked" was off. we'll call it an intellectual mulligan
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 02:08:33 PM
you realize some of these guys held out 30 years? does that jibe with your extensive analysis of the japanese culture? albeit from afar
http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/
Philippines
Occupied by the Japanese, and scene of intense fighting in 1945. 4,000 of the 114,000 troops in the Philippines as of August 1945 were still unaccounted for six months after the end of the war, in mid-1946. In the late 40's, only 109 miles from Manila, signs warned about Japanese soldiers still in the hills.
December 1945 - Holdout on Corregidor
A Japanese military person hid out alone in the tunnels under Corregidor for nine months after the island was recaptured by the Americans (March 1945).
January 25, 1946 - Mountain Battle between Filipinos and Japanese
On January 25, 1946 a Japanese unit of 120 men was routed after a battle in the mountains 150 miles south of Manila. The Japanese were armed with small arms and at least one light machine gun. 72 were killed by a Filipino battalion, led by American "Black Hawk" 86th Infantry Division. The survivors were tracked down and most were apprehended.
February 1946 - Post WWII island campaign
In February 1946 on 74 square mile Lubang Island, 70 miles southwest of Manila Bay a seven week campaign to clear the island was begun by the Filipino 341st and American 86th Division.
February 22, 1946 - Lubang island Allied casualties in a post WWII battle
Intense fighting developed on February 22, 1946 when troops encountered 30 Japanese. Eight Allied troops were killed, including 2 Filipinos. The Filipino and Americans sent for an additional 20,000 rounds of small arm ammunition, but not future battles occurred of this magnitude. In early April, 41 members of the Japanese garrison on Lubang island came out of the jungle, unaware that the war had ended.
April 1947- Mortar Team Surrenders
Seven Japanese troops armed with a mortar launcher emerged from Palawan Island.
April 1947 - Fifteen Armed Soldiers
Fifteen armed stragglers emerged from Luzon
January 1948 - Party of 200 Japanese Troops
200 well organized and disciplined troops finally gave themselves up on Mindanao.
March 5, 1974 - Lubang Island - 2nd Lt. Hiroo Onoda
Probably the most 'famous' of the Japanese holdouts, Onoda was the only survivor of a group of four. He surrendered 29 years after Japan's formal surrender, and 15 years after being declared legally dead in Japan. When he accepted that the war was over, he wept openly.
April 1980 - Captain Fumio Nakahira on Mindoro
Captain Fumio Nakahira of the Japanese Imperial Army, held out before being discovered at Mt. Halcon in Mindoro.
January 1997 - 85 Year old Sangrayban discovered on Mindoro
March 1946
A Japanese band of unknown size attacked and killed a six man patrol on Guam.
1961
Two Japanese soldiers hid in the jungle for 16 years after the war. There story is told in a book called The Emperor's Last Soldiers.
Roy Wiggs who was stationed on Guam recalls:
"I remember when they found the two soldiers but other than the fact that one of them was shot and wounded by an overexcited Guamainian while he and his comrade were trying to steal some food. The other one surrendered because he was scared to death and half starved, I don't remember when just that I was there at the time."
January 1972
Corporal Shoichi Yokoi was found by two hunters while he was fishing along the Talofofo River. He brought back his army-issue rifle, which he said he wanted to return to "the Honorable Emperor," adding: "I am sorry I did not serve his majesty to my satisfaction." He had seen reports of Japan's surrender in leaflets and newspapers scattered about the island but refused to surrender because he thought they were American propaganda. "We Japanese soldiers were told to prefer death to the disgrace of getting captured alive," he said. He died on September 23, 1997 click to read his obituary
"I am sorry I did not serve his majesty to my satisfaction...We Japanese soldiers were told to prefer death to the disgrace of getting captured alive," - Shoichi Yokoi, 1972.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 26, 2007, 03:32:37 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 03:49:25 PM
if i knew being "impolite " could chase len away i'd have trotted my true nature out a long time ago. i suspect he just got way outa his depth and is regrouping. maybe for the natural childbirth thread i'm planning
Post by: Len Budney on November 26, 2007, 03:57:14 PM
you realize some of these guys held out 30 years? does that jibe with your extensive analysis of the japanese culture? albeit from afar
Some grunt in a cave is meaningless; you're dodging the fact that the Japanese cabled Berlin (and the US intercepted the cable) stating their willingness to accept surrender "even if the terms were hard" (NY Times, 8/11/93, p. 9). Truman's own diary, released in 1979, referred to this cable from the "Jap Emperor asking for peace." The US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded, "certainly prior to 31 December 1945&Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped&and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." Dwight Eisenhower told Secretary of War Stimson that, "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary&.whose employment&[was] no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
Those are solid facts concerning the Japanese command, not some nutcase hiding in the jungle.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 04:07:18 PM
you missed this i bet
and your willingness to dismiss someone else being able to muster more conviction and drive than you could as a whack job further illustrates your grasp of the eastern mindset of the time. and that attitude was pervasive rather than isolated. very important thing i learned was that just because i ain't got the nads doesn't mean someone else doesn't. but contact your extensive network of japanese friends and get back to us. take a look at the reacdtions of the folks interred by our government in camps to further realize how far from understanding you are
Post by: Len Budney on November 26, 2007, 04:24:04 PM
...someone else being able to muster more conviction and drive than you could as a whack job...
Are you trying to get yourself banned, or just testing the boundaries?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 04:31:19 PM
oops i'm sorry i reread it and saw how it could beinterpreted/ i wasn't calling you a whackjob len rather refering to your dismissal of folks with dedication you can only imagine so cavalierly
Post by: Len Budney on November 26, 2007, 04:31:48 PM
"We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight."
This quote came from Wikipedia without any real context. It isn't clear whether it's rhetoric intended to encourage the populace, for example. Or whether it was a face-saving way to inform the emperor that surrender was the only option. Not being an expert on Japan, I don't know what happens to you when you look the god on his chrysanthemum throne in the eye and say, "You've lost; it's time to give it up."
On the other hand, MaArthur, Eisenhower, and just about all the rest of Truman's command believed the bombings unnecessary to bring about Japan's surrender. Perhaps you know something that they all didn't? Nor Truman himself, whose diary entry I have already mentioned?
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 04:46:20 PM
just a lil context
After the nuclear annihilation of two of Japan's cities, the commitment of the Japanese Government to fight until the bitter end was broken and Japan surrendered. France may have it right: The mindset of the enemy is that suicide attacks involving every last person are acceptable and encouraged. Nuclear arms stopped the kamikaze as the population was frightened away from fighting
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/1/19/152553/459
to give you another peerspective on how distant the japanese mindset is from yours len have you heqard of familial suicide?
Post by: MechAg94 on November 26, 2007, 06:31:21 PM
One other issues was that they didn't want Stalin (worse than Hitler) taking any more territory than they already had such as South Korea.
I also remember that the Germans tried to surrender as well prior to being defeated. I believe that US and its allies were determined not to accept any conditional surrender.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 26, 2007, 06:37:40 PM
Post by: De Selby on November 26, 2007, 10:47:40 PM
I also remember that the Germans tried to surrender as well prior to being defeated. I believe that US and its allies were determined not to accept any conditional surrender.
I believe len is making the point that a conditional surrender, on terms that we ended up accepting anyway (not deep sixing the emperor), would have been the alternative. I also think that the evidence shows that accepting such a condition would have ended the war as well. At least, that's what the documentation provided here shows to have been the sincere belief of the US government at the time.
Post by: Iain on November 27, 2007, 12:13:30 AM
heck we've killed more in a single nites conventional raid.
I'm not sure that is quite true, I think the Dresden figures were exaggerated initially although they were high. Interesting to ponder on whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were possible without Dresden.
Post by: Len Budney on November 27, 2007, 02:06:36 AM
I really doubt the nukes killed more people than those other ways would have killed in time.
You're right. The firebombing of Tokyo killed about the same number of people as each of the nuclear bombs did.
Quote
One other issues was that they didn't want Stalin (worse than Hitler) taking any more territory than they already had such as South Korea.
Absolutely. The decision to drop the bombs was apparently intended to be a message to Stalin.
Quote
I also remember that the Germans tried to surrender as well prior to being defeated. I believe that US and its allies were determined not to accept any conditional surrender.
Totally agree. But demanding unconditional surrender isn't reasonable. There are always terms.
--Len.
Post by: roo_ster on November 27, 2007, 07:01:42 AM
How many workers slacking off from their toil does it take to make Marxism untenable? How many charismatic sociopaths or fanatics does it take to make anarcho-capitalism untenable? The precise answer to both questions is unknown, but the existence of both (slackers and fanatics) crap all over the theoretical edifices of the theory-bound. Refusing to acknowledge the guano is not a solution to folks not so invested in the theory.
Note: Acknowledging that cultures are different and are at some level, incompatible is not a claim to understanding all/most/lots of those cultures foreign to Western Civ. Understanding specifics is well and good, but the first and most important intellectual step is being cognizant of differences.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 27, 2007, 07:20:34 AM
I really doubt the nukes killed more people than those other ways would have killed in time.
You're right. The firebombing of Tokyo killed about the same number of people as each of the nuclear bombs did.
Quote
One other issues was that they didn't want Stalin (worse than Hitler) taking any more territory than they already had such as South Korea.
Absolutely. The decision to drop the bombs was apparently intended to be a message to Stalin.
Quote
I also remember that the Germans tried to surrender as well prior to being defeated. I believe that US and its allies were determined not to accept any conditional surrender.
Totally agree. But demanding unconditional surrender isn't reasonable. There are always terms.
--Len.
you are looking in the wrong direction you seem to think that is was the allies that the japanese leadership was worried about. typically confused the japanese leaders cared lil then or now. they were however concerned with the reaction of their own people. you able to wrap your mind around suicide on a familial level?as atonement rather than punishment. its nearly impossible for a westerner and some modern japanese have trouble with it. don't be confused into thinking the scads of exchange students you passed in class were reprentative of their parents and grand parents. there is a huge difference between pre and post war japanese folk
Post by: Len Budney on November 27, 2007, 07:30:24 AM
I think some folks who overly invest in theory are unwilling to acknowledge the diversity of the human condition, perspective, and culture; because in doing so, it voids their theory.
It only voids the theory if there are enough of them. The assumption behind anarcho-capitalism is that criminals will be roughly as numerous with or without government--bearing in mind that absence of government is NOT absence of security services comparable to "police." The theory would be void if Maned is right, and everyone is really a murdering thieving rapist, barely held in check by fear of the police. If he's right, the second the government goes away, Maned and everyone else will immediately open fire on his neighbors and steal their women and Doritos.
The second assumption behind anarcho-capitalism is that the evil people you're talking about are especially eager to get their hands on the levers of power--whether it be a taser and a badge, or C in C of all the armed forces. Under anarcho capitalism, those people will still be there, and will still be evil bastards, but there won't be such terrifying powers out there for them to get hold of. They can become security guards, but since private police are in competition with other private police, they're no longer protected by a blue wall of silence. And so on.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 27, 2007, 07:42:52 AM
The early "Ultima Online" was quite telling. PK (Player Killer) gangs would cluster and ambush newbies coming out of town gates, take their stuff, and use resources to build vast private, ostentatiously decorated fortresses for their l33t gangs...which then ruined the experience for everyone else. Moreso, they were absolutely brutual, usually dismembering their victims for no reason and taking the heads with them, throwing the body parts and items they didn't want around the scene.
Their levels were also so high that the "weak", the new players, would be killed almost instantly and had no chance of fighting back at all, their attacks did little or no damage.
Once the moderators were able to effectively be law and order and respond to complaints quickly with punishment, such things ceased out of fear of punishment, not because the brutal sorts had changed at all.
This sort of behavior has followed natural disasters in the form of looting, and I firmly believe that any large city that lost power for more than a week or so would result in pretty close scenarios to that, utter chaos and lawlessness of a violent sort.
Basically, there's some good people out there, and also some that become absolute animals when they have no fear of punishment.
Post by: Len Budney on November 27, 2007, 07:48:46 AM
If you want a mini model of the consequences of anarchy, look to the papers that have been written on the earlier MMORPGs, before the staff was able to be as effective in controlling abuses as they are now.
Yep. If you want a model of anarchy, look at the video game Grand Theft Auto.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 27, 2007, 07:55:01 AM
There's a big difference between someone hitting a program with a car, and a bunch of people responding to a paged plea of "Please leave me alone, why are you doing this?!" from a newbie, unarmed healer with "HAHAHA!" and "LOL!" as they surrounded and tore the character apart.
That's not quite the same at all.
Post by: Len Budney on November 27, 2007, 08:02:25 AM
That's not quite the same at all.
Neither is a good model of reality. In reality, cost, profit and consequences are all real. That someone is an ax murderer in an MMORPG tells you nothing about their behavior in real life.
--Len.
Post by: richyoung on November 28, 2007, 08:20:21 AM
in your imaginary world the idea of you being put in a zoo is intrinsically eveil and my reference to it is demonizing my family.
It would be evil if it were true, but it's BS. Are you claiming that ALL Japanese would like to see all non-Japanese in cages? Or MOST of them? Or even MANY? If so, how do you account for their subsequent embrace of baseball, Hello Kitty and all things western? A generation of hardest hard-core racists gave birth to a generation of relatively normal human beings (except for their unaccountable love of noodles and paper walls)?
Even more interesting would be your experience. If 1/10th of what you say is true, then their hatred for half-bloods would exceed their hatred for foreigners. Was that your experience? And if you experienced bigotry wile in Japan, then perhaps it isn't so much a question of your superior grasp of the "eastern mindset," but rather your own personal demons talking.
--Len.
There are 7 classes in Japanese society - with the highest class containing the Emporer's family and such, and the lowest containing common gutter prostitutes, and such. All 7 classes are Japanese. Non-Japanese don't even rate in any class or as human beings. In fact, their word for "foreigner" is the same as "devil". Much like the Nazis, they considered all other races subhuman. Infamously, a Japanese doctor carried out a vivisection of an (unanesthetised) chinese girl - who was pregnant with HIS child! Add in beheading contests, rape of nanking, etc, etc, etc. As to "Hello Kitty" and such, I would certainly hope things are better NOW - but that's not what we are talking about, is it?
Post by: richyoung on November 28, 2007, 08:30:13 AM
heck we've killed more in a single nites conventional raid.
I'm not sure that is quite true, I think the Dresden figures were exaggerated initially although they were high. Interesting to ponder on whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were possible without Dresden.
Fire-bombing raids killed more people in one attack than either nuking. Hard to believe, but true. The prospect of CONTINUED firebombings, PLUS carrier raids PLUS more nukes PLUS slow starvation coutesy of US subs PLUS [soviet union] "Hey, I wanna play now! [/soviet union] PLUS civil unrest, combined, ended the war.
Post by: Len Budney on November 28, 2007, 08:54:04 AM
Much like the Nazis, they considered all other races subhuman...
Yet they attempted to surrender, and we nuked them anyway.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 28, 2007, 09:51:27 AM
Yet they attempted to surrender
Prove it.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 28, 2007, 09:55:53 AM
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 28, 2007, 10:08:19 AM
The Japanese did not attempt to surrender. The Emperor made an appeal for peace. The two are not the same and you know it.
Try again.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 28, 2007, 10:10:56 AM
A cable from the Japanese Emporor meant nothing in military terms. The people revered the Emporor as a god but the military had power. Period.
Um, proof?
I quoted, like, actual people. Including the man who actually ordered the bombing himself. You've so far only quoted your talking belly button.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 28, 2007, 10:14:24 AM
A cable from the Japanese Emporor meant nothing in military terms. The people revered the Emporor as a god but the military had power. Period.
Um, proof?
--Len.
Um, like cultural history?
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 28, 2007, 10:18:08 AM
A cable from the Japanese Emporor meant nothing in military terms. The people revered the Emporor as a god but the military had power. Period.
Um, proof?
Um, like cultural history?
Citations? Random noun phrases don't constitute proof. You can say "cultural history," and I can reply "metonymous psycohistory." To which you can of course counter "applied zenobiology." To constitute proof, you need to present evidence.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 28, 2007, 10:22:31 AM
Much like the Nazis, they considered all other races subhuman...
Yet they attempted to surrender, and we nuked them anyway.
Do you have any idea how many people in history have said "We surrender!" as a distraction while they took a moment to reload, regroup, or reorganize, hoping the enemy would fall for it?
Determining whether it's a ruse or an actual attempt at surrender involves verifying that all military units had ceased fighting and had laid down arms in all senses of the word...which they certainly had not!
Post by: Len Budney on November 28, 2007, 10:25:51 AM
Do you have any idea how many people in history have said "We surrender!" as a distraction while they took a moment to reload, regroup, or reorganize, hoping the enemy would fall for it?
Your observation might justify caution. It certainly doesn't justify a nuclear frickin' strike. When you fight with your neighbor and he offers to desist, do you watch him closely, or do you blow two of his kids away with a twelve gauge just to make sure?
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 28, 2007, 10:26:49 AM
It is accepted history that, prior to and during WWII, the Japanese people revered the emperor as a humanized deity. A godhead. On a strictly technical level the emperor had social and political power commiserate with his status and station.
In reality, however, the Japanese military was calling the shots, often using the emperor as a puppet in order to keep social order with the general populace. In other words the military ran the show. They hid behind the emperor, pulling his strings as needed to keep the Japanese people on their side. The military wasn't about to give up, give in, or give anything, for that matter. They were, by all accounts, prepared to fight to the death, using the general populace as buffer and shield if needed.
You want quotes? Study history like I did. It's full of them.
Brad
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 28, 2007, 10:50:52 AM
and the "old thinking" is just now really truly fading under a wave of "americanization" a fact that saddens me.
a truly classic example of the 2 mindsets was my moms funeral. she killed herself in fairly late stages of cancer. and the emotions and attitudes amongst the mourners was split along cultural lines. i felt bad for the round eyes they were so uncomfortable visibly winced when the word suicide was used seemed embarassed for me and confused by my acceptance of it. even amongst us kids we split my sisters are more americanized and hung with the white folks. my brother and i were with the japanese folks and there was a level of comfort and acceptance that kept me sane.
when she was near the end she tryed to help dad pick a new wife. brought her single japanese friends by for dinner with dad. an interview as it were. my american friend freak when i tell them. the idea of being that commited to the greater good at the sacrifice of your own immediate desires is sadly not a big feature of american culture.i think it was mark twain who said "the inability to see is mans most common failing" and lens demonstrating today. thats also not a good or bad thing it just is. "pappy" boyington had a decent understanding of the japanes and wrote of it. tough school a pow camp
Post by: Len Budney on November 28, 2007, 10:52:28 AM
It is accepted history that, prior to and during WWII, the Japanese people revered the emperor as a humanized deity.
Right. Not in question.
Quote
In reality, however, the Japanese military was calling the shots, often using the emperor as a puppet...
Even ONE quote demonstrating that would be helpful. But I merely point out that Truman, MacArthur, Eisenhower and practically everyone else at the time saw things differently than you did. They considered the nuclear bomb unnecessary, and then dropped it anyway. Even if they were wrong, they believed that it wasn't necessary to accomplish Japan's surrender, and they dropped it anyway. Now THAT'S creepy.
--Len.
Post by: Scout26 on November 28, 2007, 11:00:49 AM
I'm going to follow my father's advice. "Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Welcome to my ignore list.
Post by: Len Budney on November 28, 2007, 11:03:05 AM
I'm going to follow my father's advice. "Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
No problem. If, rather than discuss actual evidence from the people who actually made the decision, you'd rather call me a pig and ignore me, that's your prerogative. It's interesting how many strong proponents of the right AND the left are alike in this behavior, though. And each likes to accuse the other of "refusing delivery on the facts."
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 28, 2007, 11:06:52 AM
Quote
Truman, MacArthur, Eisenhower and practically everyone else at the time saw things differently than you did. They considered the nuclear bomb unnecessary, and then dropped it anyway.
So, the three people most able to abort the mission, including the very person who made the final decision to go, decided to use nuclear weapons even thought they didn't feel it necessary.
Um, okay.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 28, 2007, 11:11:52 AM
So, the three people most able to abort the mission, including the very person who made the final decision to go, decided to use nuclear weapons even thought they didn't feel it necessary.
MacArthur is on record having opposed it consistently. Evidence is quite strong that Truman opted to do it to send a message to Stalin. But you're dodging the point: the evidence that they did consider it unnecessary to the defeat of Japan is already on the record here. And instead of refuting it (which of course you can't) you attempt to argue that it sounds implausible--despite the evidence that it is in fact true.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 28, 2007, 11:20:00 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 28, 2007, 11:22:03 AM
Quote
Evidence is quite strong that Truman opted to do it to send a message to Stalin.
We've had over six decades to sort out the informational wheat from the chaff and all you can come up with is "quite strong"?
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 28, 2007, 11:24:23 AM
it takes a special kinda commitment and beliefr in ones self to continue to believe in the face of the contrary experience of others.
Because I believe MacArthur over your "experience"? If you study up on the difference between primary sources, secondary sources, and navel-gazing BS, you'll learn that MacArthur's own words, and Truman's diary, are what we call "primary sources." Your assurance that they would never have surrendered without being nuked because "you know these people, and they are absolute in their racism and fanaticism" is... um... not a "primary source."
Quote
but the futher i got from the campus magic kingdom the less able in this regard i become experience can be a cuel thing
How old are you, and when did you finish your PhD? It's possible you're older than I, but I think you've leaped to a conclusion or two here. Not that it matters, since personal slams are ignored anyway.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 28, 2007, 11:29:11 AM
We've had over six decades to sort out the informational wheat from the chaff and all you can come up with is "quite strong"?
You've had five pages to offer a shred of proof, and all you can come up with is "go read history books"?
Hint: Truman wasn't Catholic. But even if he were, and even if he confessed on his deathbed to the precise reasons for nuking Japan, his father confessor would be required to keep that confidence. So absolute certainty what was in his mind at the time disappeared when Truman returned to the dust from whence he was taken.
We'll never know the precise motivation for Bush's invasion of Iraq, either. In 1994, Cheney accurately predicted the failure of the 2003 invasion, as did lots of other people before the invasion began. We know he didn't do it to damage Al Qaeda, because everyone knew Al Qaeda wasn't there before the invasion. But we'll never know exactly what he was thinking.
Anyone who claims certainty is selling something.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 28, 2007, 11:33:53 AM
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 28, 2007, 11:35:35 AM
Len, your tinfoil is a bit tight.
You realize that personal insults (1) are against the policy of this forum, (2) can get you banned, (3) don't bother me, and (4) make you look pathetic. Right?
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 28, 2007, 11:40:50 AM
Len, your tinfoil is a bit tight.
You realize that personal insults (1) are against the policy of this forum, (2) can get you banned, (3) don't bother me, and (4) make you look pathetic. Right?
That's nice. I seem to remember a crack about my overly verbose bellybutton. So what was it about those rules, again...?
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 28, 2007, 11:46:49 AM
That's nice. I seem to remember a crack about my overly verbose bellybutton. So what was it about those rules, again...?
Right. I have nothing against a little give-and-take, as long as it's in the context of an intellectual discussion. For some time now you've had nothing to say apart from your insults. Anyone reading the thread will notice that. They'll draw the obvious conclusion. I merely point that out, in case you care.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 28, 2007, 11:57:59 AM
Brad
Post by: K Frame on November 28, 2007, 12:05:38 PM
Another 6 pages of....
of....
I'm not really sure what.
One of the staff will get back to you on that.
Post by: Len Budney on November 28, 2007, 12:06:16 PM
Your concept of "nothing to say" seems a bit one-sided at times.
No clickable links; no bibliographic references; nothing but throwaway phrases like "cultural history" and "go read history books." I'm afraid that's a textbook example of "nothing to say."
Post by: Len Budney on November 28, 2007, 12:07:58 PM
The moderators and administrators will be the ones who determine what, and what does not, constitute actionable expressions, thank you very much.
I thought a polite request for politeness was in order. There was no threat there, since I merely cited the rules. I certainly know better than to report him. Odds are far too high that the result would be my getting banned.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on November 28, 2007, 12:10:41 PM
Only one person up there at a time and someone else is occupying it right now.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 28, 2007, 12:12:00 PM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
Another 6 pages of....
of....
I'm not really sure what.
of....
I'm not really sure what.
Bah, there's everything in this thread ... intrigue, politics, subversion, espionage, and even a few forays into bodily functions, metallurgy, and religion. Where's your sense of adventure?
Brad
Post by: K Frame on November 28, 2007, 12:13:13 PM
That's all, folks.