Reply With Quote
I'm not sure there's anything to discuss at this point, like you said. I was just noting the high noise to signal ratio.
Well I didn't start the topic so I can't tell you.
What exactly about the bill would you like to discuss?
I'm not sure there's anything to discuss at this point, like you said. I was just noting the high noise to signal ratio.
Not that anything's wrong with that. I was a serial offender myself.
You know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. bombing of an ammo depot is a perfect example of psychological goal in mind. It is to make the enemy ( or for you, the allies) panic. The cavalry was all about psyops. They would flank in hopes the enemy would over reinforce. The Airborne, was created to get behind enemy lines to disrupt the battlefield more that do anything actually beneficial to a battle. So you are saying the specific tactical goal of dropping the Abomb was incite fear? You need to study your idea a little more. Maybe reread a few HuffPos threads.
Ok so we are not talking lawful. We are talking morals. Let's use our laws. That would make it so much more easier. We are a democracy. But if we want to use their laws, well ok. How did they get their laws? They won, they were the strongest. So to them, might means right. Ok so we use our might. In Al Qeda then that means anything goes.The problem with using a definition with "unlawful" in it is the objectiveness. What makes something lawful? Do you believe a resident of Hiroshima or Nagasaki believes the use of the bomb was lawful? Do you believe Al-Qeada believes their attacks to be unlawful? Who gets to decide who's laws to use?
It is so easy for you to be able sit here and demonize something that gives you the ability to do so. In 1942 there was no guarantee we would win in Japan or Germany. The closest thing to an island invasion that would be like Japan was the battle for okinawa which began on Easter Sunday 1945. The attack on the sixty-mile long and two-toeighteen mile wide island lasted nearly three months. The battle costed the Americans ground forces 7343 killed 31807 wounded and 239 missing or 35% of the entire force. Furthermore 36 ships were sunk, 368 were damaged, 763 aircrafts were lost. 4907 sailors killed or missing and 4874 wounded.
The US does keep the ocean free from trade. That is just a fact. PRove it wrong if you don't believe it. I don't find us keep markets free that glorious, just a reason why free market is better than all the rest. The others build walls to keep their people in to enjoy their great society.Now, here's where your tiny little brain gets tied up in knots. Its funny because no where did I say the use was wrong or bad. I merely pointed out how it fit the definition of terrorism. Yet somehow the enemy was counting on people like me and great Americans like yourself.
This is why I said the nationalism runs deep in your veins. You make stupid assertions that the US keeps the oceans free for trade (so ing laughable) and you can never honestly critique anything the US does because you're automatically disposed to view it in a glorious light. You even managed to spin America's record of genocide earlier in this thread (they were already killing each other!). You do it all the time.
You are seriously saying the Indians were not fighting each other for the very same land you say we stole from them? I don't think America's history is perfect. But show a country that has better and has done more. I don't know why you have to rewrite history to hate America.
Last edited by spursncowboys; 10-20-2009 at 06:12 PM.
No, I'm going to go ahead and say the purpose of any tactical bombing is not in fact to incite panic but to destroy an enemy resource of some kind. I'm not even sure why you're arguing that this isn't the case.
That isn't psyops.The cavalry was all about psyops. They would flank in hopes the enemy would over reinforce.
Yeah, that isn't psyops either. Are you sure I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about?The Airborne, was created to get behind enemy lines to disrupt the battlefield more that do anything actually beneficial to a battle.
Tactical operations have tactical goals in mind even if there may be psychological side effects. That doesn't mean their psyops.
Target Committee meeting notes:So you are saying the specific tactical goal of dropping the Abomb was incite fear? You need to study your idea a little more. Maybe reread a few HuffPos threads.
7. Psychological Factors in Target Selection
A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.
B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.
8. Use Against "Military" Objectives
A. It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.
This memo from a meeting with General Marshall and his dissent on target selection (he didn't want to bomb a city) is really interesting.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/11.pdf
You or someone else is going to need to translate this paragraph for me because I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to conveyOk so we are not talking lawful. We are talking morals. Let's use our laws. That would make it so much more easier. We are a democracy. But if we want to use their laws, well ok. How did they get their laws? They won, they were the strongest. So to them, might means right. Ok so we use our might. In Al Qeda then that means anything goes.
You did manage to read above where I told you I wasn't against the dropping of the atomic bomb in so many words right? What exactly am I demonizing?It is so easy for you to be able sit here and demonize something that gives you the ability to do so. In 1942 there was no guarantee we would win in Japan or Germany. The closest thing to an island invasion that would be like Japan was the battle for okinawa which began on Easter Sunday 1945. The attack on the sixty-mile long and two-toeighteen mile wide island lasted nearly three months. The battle costed the Americans ground forces 7343 killed 31807 wounded and 239 missing or 35% of the entire force. Furthermore 36 ships were sunk, 368 were damaged, 763 aircrafts were lost. 4907 sailors killed or missing and 4874 wounded.
The US does keep the ocean free from trade. That is just a fact. PRove it wrong if you don't believe it.
I don't find us keep markets free that glorious, just a reason why free market is better than all the rest. The others build walls to keep their people in to enjoy their great society.
You are seriously saying the Indians were not fighting each other for the very same land you say we stole from them? I don't think America's history is perfect. But show a country that has better and has done more. I don't know why you have to rewrite history to hate America.What history am I rewriting? Since when do I hate America? This is hilarious.
He uses the word psyops as often as (the real) Alex Jones.
The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.
If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no cir stances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.
FDR in 1939
"However regrettable the attendant loss of life restriction on military action by the responsible commanders that in their opinion might militate against the success of Overlord or cause additional loss of life to our Allied forces of invasion."
-Roosevelt writing to Churchill about the bombings of 16000-60000 French civilians before DDay.
Way to use a quote before we entered the war. ALso if FDR was so against Atomic bombs, why was he secretly having them made so quickly?
Last edited by spursncowboys; 10-20-2009 at 07:56 PM.
Me-What is terrrorism?
You-Its a use of violence intended to incite fear.
You-the vast majority of military operations have specific tactical goals.
Me-you are saying the specific tactical goal of dropping the Abomb was incite fear?
You-No-the purpose of any tactical bombing is not in fact to incite panic but to destroy an enemy resource of some kind.
touché. It is more psychological warfare.That isn't psyops.
I should have spent the time and written it out.
I am positive you don't know what you're talking about. I got lazy and thought I had an abbreviation that worked. You're just simple.Yeah, that isn't psyops either. Are you sure I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about?
covered. I am glad you googled psyops. I hope you actually read what I put and didn't try and be a lawyer the whole time.Tactical operations have tactical goals in mind even if there may be psychological side effects. That doesn't mean their psyops.
I heard that argument. Real interesting huh. After Hiroshima, Japan didn't surrender. So we hit them again. The Japanese Commanders still didn't surrender. The only one who did was the Emperor. So if we hit them in some field, killed all the farmers, wouldn't that have been a pure civilian target and more immoral in your "never been to war" eyes? Then they don't surrender and we hit them with the second. Then we are out, and have to invade.Target Committee meeting notes:
This memo from a meeting with General Marshall and his dissent on target selection (he didn't want to bomb a city) is really interesting.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/11.pdf
This argument would fit your childish definition of terrorism more than the actual events.
You or someone else is going to need to translate this paragraph for me because I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to convey
In so many words. Way to ride the fence. Go read some more philosophers to find a le you don't want to be.You did manage to read above where I told you I wasn't against the dropping of the atomic bomb in so many words right? What exactly am I demonizing?
Christ you wanna loosen the tinfoil hat a little
1052 pages long eh...lots a pages there...........This goverment is a ing joke. In a more civilised time the jerk offs who came up with nonsense like this would have been tarred and feathered.
I know you think you stumbled on to some kind of ownage here but....Me-What is terrrorism?
You-Its a use of violence intended to incite fear.
You-the vast majority of military operations have specific tactical goals.
Me-you are saying the specific tactical goal of dropping the Abomb was incite fear?
You-No-the purpose of any tactical bombing is not in fact to incite panic but to destroy an enemy resource of some kind.
You do realize that the the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not tactical right? They were strategic bombings.
Hmm ok, I'm simple yet you're the one using incorrect terms.
I am positive you don't know what you're talking about. I got lazy and thought I had an abbreviation that worked. You're just simple.
Lawyer huh? This is a message board where the only thing I have to go off of is what you type. If you mean something else, then type it out because there is no mind reading here. Nice job of trying to turn your up into mine though.covered. I am glad you googled psyops. I hope you actually read what I put and didn't try and be a lawyer the whole time.
You are so god damn dense dude. Let me tell you once and for all (even though I thought I did above):I heard that argument. Real interesting huh. After Hiroshima, Japan didn't surrender. So we hit them again. The Japanese Commanders still didn't surrender. The only one who did was the Emperor. So if we hit them in some field, killed all the farmers, wouldn't that have been a pure civilian target and more immoral in your "never been to war" eyes? Then they don't surrender and we hit them with the second. Then we are out, and have to invade.
This argument would fit your childish definition of terrorism more than the actual events.
I do not have a problem with the way the bombs were used.
Its ironic because what you just posted does nothing but support what I've been posting all along. You just can't seem to grasp the concept that I believe the attacks to be terrorism and I don't have a problem with them.
Jesus its like talking to a wall.
There's no fence writing there was just the mistake believing you didn't have to be explicitly explained something that you might be able to infer. Obviously I made the mistake of giving you far too much credit. Yeah, I'll go read more. Using this as an insult is simply mind boggling. "You go read what people smarter than you and me thought! YEAH I TOLD YOU!! PWNED!!!!"In so many words. Way to ride the fence. Go read some more philosophers to find a le you don't want to be.
I'll ask you too, micca. Did you ever comment on the number of pages in a bill when the Republicans were in control of the government?
I never said he was against the weapon. I gave you a quote on his views of that type of bombing.
Why should his views on it have changed after he entered into war? Do those engaged in fights have some higher level of objectivity? Thats a rather interesting proposition if thats indeed what you are proposing.
Yeah Mc cain's immigration bill I thought it only needed four words.....get the out, but oh no he droned on and on, the Mc cain campaign finance reform bill I thought it was a long winded bunch of bull to make sure the in bents stayed in power.So Chimp you think this is resposible legislation? no no let me answer for you......OH YES>
I don't know. I haven't read it.
What part do you consider irresponsible?
Do you have page numbers?
You got spanked manny move along.
Nah, if he got spankes he'd be trying to change the subject like you do when you can't answer a question.
Chimp what you gotta understand here, is that it's not that people don't wanna answer your questions. it's they're just ignoring you, like say when you get a pimple on your ass annoying but of no real consequence.
Nah, if you were ignoring me you wouldn't be responding with ad hominems.
So what part of the bill do you consider irresponsible?
Do you have page numbers?
Yep, keep responding without answering the question.
It's gold.
Here's an "on topic" discussion of this bill.
It ing Sucks.
Any Bill congress puts out that gets involved in our health care... ing sucks.
There. On topic, to to the point, concise...and absolutely correct.
i had to
seems like not doin much besides talking and keep introducing legislation bills kick in will not get results atm to fix things...just fkn patching up until it falls agains
Last edited by TDMVPDPOY; 10-21-2009 at 01:44 AM.
Are you sure he's not going to try to save the Galaxy in Orion's belt?i had to
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
