Reply With Quote
Care to define exactly what a 'civilian' is, then?
you shouldn't have done that.
now you will be considered a coward on your own team.
Care to define exactly what a 'civilian' is, then?
Don't bother arguing with him. He's never wrong (in his mind.) When he is, he changes the subject or asks stupid questions. If more people ignore him like I do, he'll stop for a bit.
No. But I will go back to what I said about Hiroshima. I said I agreed with Truman about the fact that the Japanese culture had them different than other countries, like France.
I want to get back to you people and what this started from. who believes that US forces have killed tens of thousands of iraqi civilians? This is what brought this up.
I don't think US Forces have killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians directly. I believe the claim was being made that, due to the war, there has been civil unrest and upheaval. This has led to civil war in Iraq, which led to many deaths that might have been prevented in the usual societal structure that was there before the Iraq War.
But I think the civilian point is valid and important as well. You said you agreed with Truman that the Japanese culture was different from France. You said this because you thought Japanese would fight to the last man, correct? But didn't you also say this about America? Do you think America would not fight to the last man?
Why not?
Tens of thousands? Sure. They killed a couple thousand in the much shorter Gulf War by their own count.I want to get back to you people and what this started from. who believes that US forces have killed tens of thousands of iraqi civilians? This is what brought this up.
Here is what NK... saidI agree that the terrorists have killed many civilians.let me get this straight. Spending to ensure every american has healthcare is not ok. but spending to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is ok in your book?
About the America being one I wrote this a page backI believe America to be that kind of country. If I were a bas commie and was wanting to invade America, I would have to think about having to destroy a huge amount of the population. Many strtegists have agreed to that fact.
I (and most of my friends) would fight to the death if ever forced. I don't know about all of America though. I think many (not majority mind you) in this country would subjecate themselves to an aggressor.
But it wouldn't take a majority to subjecate themselves to an aggressor that would make it hard for a majority of us who would fight to keep the aggressor from winning.
All it took was about 20% of the people during the Revolutionary War to defeat the British. Meaning...even though 80% had no interest in becoming sovereign from England...they also didn't support England with their own life.
SpursNCowboys, that's my point.
You said you're ok with a nuke strike on the Japanese because you think all of them would have fought back, or at least, a majority.
Yet you also think that America would do the same. So why wouldn't a nuclear strike against us also be moral?
And Spurnation, I think you're missing the point of the convo I'm having with SpursnCowboys
Im not talking about morals. I am talking reality. Morals doesn't stop the bomb from exploding. That is why we keep as few countries as we can with nukes. Also I didn't say I was ok with it. I said I agreed with Truman. I don't want to monday morning quarterback something like that. He made a tough decision and more Americans got to live because of it. It wasn't a guarantee that we would have beaten Japan. They were dug in pretty well. They did not believe in surrender and neither did their population. However the reason why a nuke strike against us, as far as countries, is we have more and we have more advanced at closer ranges. This is what I mean as a President to keep us safe. I don't want a president to ponder the moral relevance of a situation if we were being attacked.
Agreed that Truman had a hard decision to make, and I would not want to be in his shoes for that.
I think your dismissal of the importance of the moral high ground is too quick though. The moral high ground is what will often win over the populace, and without it, it can be tough to fight a war. Sometimes it is not sheer numbers that win, but willpower and morale.
Right but you have to win, and then worry about winning over. I am sorry to leave the idea that I do not want my country to follow a high moral stand. It is just my morals are different. I think we have been arguing ethics.
Not sure if this has been said, but the age group from 16-24 is the laziest group this nation has ever seen. Their parents also baby the ing out of them.
That is why half aren't working.
So you believe morally that one should do whatever is in their capability to do so? Sounds like Neitzche and his idea of the Uberman.
"16-24 is the laziest group this nation has ever seen"
link?
Unemployment figures are based on who wants to work but aren't. Now I would agree it's easier to lie, and say you are looking not expecting to find work, but I would never attribute the large figure to that.
Think about it this was. For every illegal alien working a low wage job, that a first time job taken for a US citizen. Today's kids may be lazier than past generations, but work is one way to instill better behavior in responsibility.
Even as bad as the economy has been here in Oregon, both my daughters worked, starting in High School. Setting the example of even working low paying jobs or bad jobs tend to rub off on children. In the long run, society, and the parents are to blame. Liberals advocate programs for people not working, so teens see an easy way out. Many live in families on the government take. Only the parents who show shame in being on such programs turn that into a positive for their children.
I agree about getting your kids to work jobs growing up. I started working when I was 14, and I think it had a positive effect.
Ive had a tax-paying job since I was 11. There is no excuse for these brats.
From having to manage these little ers who think they should have a 100k paying job right out of college. That's all the data i need. Plus, there have been countless 20/20, primetime and 60 minutes shows dedicated to the lazy generation.
Clandestino must get his facts from FAUX News
...that's a 97% unemployment rate!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UsaClandestino must get his facts from FAUX News
...that's a 97% unemployment rate!
Population
- 2009 estimate 307,619,000
- 2000 census 281,421,906
there aren't 149 million unemployed though
truth about jobs that no one wants to tell
If the feds don't spend money to put people back to work, the economy won't recover and politics will get uglier
By Robert Reich
Oct. 03, 2009 |
Unemployment will almost certainly be in double-digits next year -- and may remain there for some time. And for every person who shows up as unemployed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' household survey, you can bet there's another either too discouraged to look for work or working part-time who'd rather have a full-time job or else taking home less pay than before (I'm in the last category, now that the University of California has ins uted pay cuts). And there's yet another person who's more fearful that he or she will be next to lose a job.
In other words, 10 percent unemployment really means 20 percent underemployment or anxious employment. All of which translates directly into late payments on mortgages, credit cards, auto and student loans, and loss of health insurance. It also means sleeplessness for tens of millions of Americans. And, of course, fewer purchases (more on this in a moment).
Unemployment of this magnitude and duration also translates into ugly politics, because fear and anxiety are fertile grounds for demagogues wielding the politics of resentment against immigrants, blacks, the poor, government leaders, business leaders, Jews and other easy targets. It's already started. Next year is a midterm election. Be prepared for worse.
So why is unemployment and underemployment so high, and why is it likely to remain high for some time? Because, as noted, people who are worried about their jobs or have no jobs, and who are also trying to get out from under a pile of debt, are not going to do a lot of shopping. And businesses that don't have customers aren't going to do a lot of new investing. And foreign nations also suffering high unemployment aren't going to buy a lot of our goods and services.
And without customers, companies won't hire. They'll cut payrolls instead.
Which brings us to the obvious question: Who's going to buy the stuff we make or the services we provide, and therefore bring jobs back? There's only one buyer left: the government.
Let me say this as clearly and forcefully as I can: The federal government should be spending even more than it already is on roads and bridges and schools and parks and everything else we need. It should make up for cutbacks at the state level, and then some. This is the only way to put Americans back to work. We did it during the Depression. It was called the WPA.
Yes, I know. Our government is already deep in debt. But let me tell you something: When one out of six Americans is unemployed or underemployed, this is no time to worry about the debt.
When I was a small boy my father told me that I and my kids and my grandkids would be paying down the debt created by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Depression and World War II. I didn't even know what a debt was, but it kept me up at night.
My father was right about a lot of things, but he was wrong about this. America paid down FDR's debt in the 1950s, when Americans went back to work, when the economy was growing again, and when our incomes grew, too. We paid taxes, and in a few years that FDR debt had shrunk to almost nothing.
You see? The most important thing right now is getting the jobs back, and getting the economy growing again.
People who now obsess about government debt have it backward. The problem isn't the debt. The problem is just the opposite. It's that at a time like this, when consumers and businesses and exports can't do it, government has to spend more to get Americans back to work and recharge the economy. Then -- after people are working and the economy is growing -- we can pay down that debt.
But if government doesn't spend more right now and get Americans back to work, we could be out of work for years. And the debt will be with us even longer. And politics could get much uglier.
Update: This morning's job numbers are bad enough -- 263,000 more jobs lost in September, and unemployment now at 9.8 percent -- but look behind them and the news is even grimmer. The only reason the numbers don't look worse is that 571,000 workers dropped out of the labor force. Remember, too, that the economy needs about 125,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with a growing population. So we're even further behind.
The numbers would be even worse but for the stimulus package. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Ins ute, the stimulus is saving or creating between 200,000 and 250,000 jobs a month. Without it, job losses in September would have been nearly twice what they actually were.
State governments, meanwhile, continue to shed employees. Here's one of the most depressing statistics I've seen (if you need any additional ones): Some 15,600 teachers didn't return to work in September. They were laid off. So our classrooms are bigger, we have fewer teachers, and our students are presumably learning less -- at the very time when they need to be learning more than ever.
-- By Robert Reich
==============
What's the Repug solution to the jobs disaster? Do they in care?
Doesn't matter if the repugs care or not. The dems are the ones in charge. This is their problem.
As the opposition, the Repugs don't have any proposals or bills to remedy the banksters' economy?
I guess not. I do appreciate deeply that they did propose a federal budget without numbers
Tomorrow it could be yours and mine.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...3/2077987.aspxWith no end in sight to the country's job market woes, the House has agreed to give the jobless in a majority of states another 13 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits," the AP reports. "The bill, which passed the House 331-83, approves the extra three months of benefits for those jobless living in 27 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
