Kiss my Red, White and Blue Ass!!

[Anguille]

Without Googling, which character said, "Well, boys, we got three engines out, we got more holes in us than a horse trader's mule, the radio is gone and we're leaking fuel and if we was flying any lower why we'd need sleigh bells on this thing... but we got one little budge on them Rooskies. At this height why they might harpoon us but they dang sure ain't gonna spot us on no radar screen! "

 

[Gunny]

Because Russia and China do not view us through the same lens as we view ourselves, this is an incredibly destabilizing development. A successful missile defense system ironically makes us very unsafe.

They view us as the only country in history to use nuclear weapons on human beings, and they know we were willing to do that as long as no other country could respond in kind. If our missile defense system allows us to return to the nuclear supremacy we enjoyed in 1945, Russia and China fear they will have to choose between submission to American will and unilateral annihilation. Such fears are likely to provoke a response before the system is completed.

Bush’s reckless economic policies have left us in debt to China, and with a severely weakened dollar to boot. China could easily cripple us by cutting off our line of credit. They don’t do that now because the blowback would be severe, but a perceived threat of military attack will change their assessment of that risk.

Ridiculous. We used nukes to end WWII and save a projected 1M US casualties invading mainland Japan.

Whether or not another country could respond in kind was irrelevant. Of course we anticipated that Japan could not respond. A new and novel idea to you appeasing libs nowadays is fighting wars to win without kissing world opinion's and or political correctness's asses.

Our indebtedness to China started in the 90s, bubba, not during Bush's tour, so you can sell THAT one down at the swap meet as well.

Hack.

 

[jillian]

And, of course, level of indebtedness is irrelevant? (I don't know that to be the case, btw... )

Are you one of the "appeasing libs" yutzes now? Personally, I have no problem accepting that there are times war is necessary. I just really take issue with stupid wars. You gonna disagree with that?

 

[Dogger]

Ridiculous. We used nukes to end WWII and save a projected 1M US casualties invading mainland Japan.

I was presenting the issue from the perspective of our adversaries, because their perspective guides their reaction. I said that they "do not view us through the same lens as we view ourselves . . .” and "They view us . . . " etc.

Personally, I think Truman made the right choice. The horrific sacrifices at Iwo Jima and Okinawa gave a very unsettling forecast of the cost of invading the mainland. The fact that Japan rejected peace after the first nuke indicated they would have resisted invasion to the very end.

On the other hand, would Truman have made the same call if Japan had nukes of it's own to drop on San Francisco and Los Angeles? I doubt it. Unlike gunny (the hack), I actually thought this through. So have Russia and China. This has been their perspective, and history objectively supports it. Their perspectives say we will become bigger bullies if they lose the ability to strike back. BTW – isn’t that why all of you NRA types want guns for yourselves?

Gunny's limited perspective suggests we should approach foreign affairs as though only American interests matter. Bush has that same limited intellectual capacity. Ironically, dogged pursuit of our interests to the exclusion of the interests of other nations feeds their fear of the outcome if we can unilaterally disarm them.

 

[Gunny]

I was presenting the issue from the perspective of our adversaries, because their perspective guides their reaction. I said that they "do not view us through the same lens as we view ourselves . . .” and "They view us . . . " etc.

Personally, I think Truman made the right choice. The horrific sacrifices at Iwo Jima and Okinawa gave a very unsettling forecast of the cost of invading the mainland. The fact that Japan rejected peace after the first nuke indicated they would have resisted invasion to the very end.

On the other hand, would Truman have made the same call if Japan had nukes of it's own to drop on San Francisco and Los Angeles? I doubt it. Unlike gunny (the hack), I actually thought this through. So have Russia and China. This has been their perspective, and history objectively supports it. Their perspectives say we will become bigger bullies if they lose the ability to strike back. BTW – isn’t that why all of you NRA types want guns for yourselves?

Gunny's limited perspective suggests we should approach foreign affairs as though only American interests matter. Bush has that same limited intellectual capacity. Ironically, dogged pursuit of our interests to the exclusion of the interests of other nations feeds their fear of the outcome if we can unilaterally disarm them.

Contrary to your inability to comprehend what is being said, I addressed the situation as it actually was, not your what-iffery scenario's. Of course the scenario changes if Japan has the nuclear capablity to strike the mainland US. But that isn't the way it was and you attempting to present it as some justification to personally attack me because you have no argument is intellectual dishonesty, nothing more.

It does not make the US bullies, nor is bullying required when making the decision during a time of war to destroy the enemy's means and will to fight while suffering the least amount of casualties to the US. That's called sound strategy and tactics of warfare and it's how you win.

Pursuing our interests first may have gone the way of the dodo, but the consequence to that is we as a society and nation will follow. People such as yourself who enable other nations to lay a guilt trip on the US while they steadfastly pursue THEIR own interests first have your heads and asses wired backwards.

You are big on your stance that we have no right to put our debt on future generations ... so what right is it that you think we have to sell their heritage and Nation down the shitter in the name of apologist political correctness?

There is no limited perspective in caring only what China and any other country thinks insofar as what to expect from them. It's called not putting someone else's best interest before your own. THAT is piss-poor strategy and it's how you lose.

As far as your comment on the NRA goes, you seem to have this bully complex down pat. I don't know any law abiding citizens that own firearms for the purpose of bullying anyone. We own them to defend ourselves against criminals; which, has nothing to do with being bullies and everything to do with self-preservation. The latter being something you don't understand at all based on your post.

Before you presume to talk down to me you need to try loading your weapon with some ammunition.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not only did we avert hundreds of thousands of Allied, mostly US, casualties with the Nukes, we most likely saved the Japanese race. The plan for Japan in an invasion was for every citizen able to take up a bamboo spear and human wave charge the invading forces. Those that failed would then commit suicide rather then be captured.

The potential lose of life to the Japanese would have been catostrophic. Some suggest it could have wiped them out as a viable race.

 

[José]

HAMAS rationalising palestinian terrorism:

All israeli jews have to serve in the Army, therefore they are all potential soldiers.

RetiredGySgt rationalising american terrorism:

Every japanese civilian would be a potential stick-wielding fighter therefore we did them a favor by dropping the nuke on them.

 

[Dogger]

On the other hand, would Truman have made the same call if Japan had nukes of it's own to drop on San Francisco and Los Angeles? I doubt it. Unlike gunny (the hack), I actually thought this through. So have Russia and China. This has been their perspective, and history objectively supports it. Their perspectives say we will become bigger bullies if they lose the ability to strike back. BTW – isn’t that why all of you NRA types want guns for yourselves?

I could have made that last sentence clearer. I wasn't comparing gun owners to bullies, but rather to those who want protection from bullies and thugs. In the case of Russia and China, it would refer to their perception of us as a potential bully should they be disarmed.

People buy guns to protect themselves. They believe that without guns, others will bully and victimize them.

Russia and China have arms to protect themselves. They believe that without arms, other nations will bully and victimize them. That's why they don't disarm. And if we obtain the ability to disarm them unilaterally, they will feel threatened by that.

 

[Dogger]

Contrary to your inability to comprehend what is being said, I addressed the situation as it actually was, not your what-iffery scenario's. Of course the scenario changes if Japan has the nuclear capablity to strike the mainland US. But that isn't the way it was and you attempting to present it as some justification to personally attack me because you have no argument is intellectual dishonesty, nothing more.

If you don't like being called a hack, stop calling me that whenever you can't comprehend my point.

We are not discussing whether Truman made the right decision. We agree that he did under the circumstances. We are discussing how Russia and China perceive us, and my "what-iffery scenario" bears directly on that point.

Did some poor bastard in Texas get shot dead in a driveway for raping a man's wife? No, he was killed because the man perceived incorrectly that he had raped the man’s wife.

Are we a real threat to Russia and China if they are disarmed? I don’t think so, but they have a different perspective. They know that we used nuclear weapons on Japan and that we threatened to use them in 1950 during the Korean Conflict. They also believe (as you do) that we would not have used them in 1945 had Japanese retaliation been an option. They also know that the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has kept our weapons holstered for decades. If they intelligently weigh those factors, they have every reason to worry if we install a system that unilaterally disarms them while preserving our ability to hit them at will.

Factor in this concern: why do we need to disarm Russia and China if we have no intention to attack them? Don’t answer from our perspective; we already know that. Answer from theirs, and you’ll see why the system is so destabilizing.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain one of history's most abominable experiments.

 

[Abelian Sea]

HAMAS rationalising palestinian terrorism:

All israeli jews have to serve in the Army, therefore they are all potential soldiers.

RetiredGySgt rationalising american terrorism:

Every japanese civilian would be a potential stick-wielding fighter therefore we did them a favor by dropping the nuke on them.

That analogy is lacking.

The only parallel is the "they're all soldiers" part.

The other half of the justifications are backwards of eachother.

Hamas: "...therefore we should wipe them all out, but we phyiscally can't, so our terrorists acts are the next best thing."

RGS: "...therefore in a conventional invasion we'd have had to wipe them all out, so by dropping the bombs instead we saved them a shit ton of casualties."

I do agree with your implication that using the bombs like that was a terrorist tactic; we used the terror of faceless uncounterable honorless destruction to get them to surrender. I also agree with RGS that it saved both sides a lot of lives compared to the probable results of more conventional warfare.

If we had been like Hamas, we wouldn't have used one relatively small nuke, then given them a chance to surrender, then used a second relatively small nuke, then accepted their surrender. We'd have just wiped their nation off the face of the earth.

 

[Gunny]

If you don't like being called a hack, stop calling me that whenever you can't comprehend my point.

I could care less if you call me a hack, since it doesn't apply.

We are not discussing whether Truman made the right decision. We agree that he did under the circumstances. We are discussing how Russia and China perceive us, and my "what-iffery scenario" bears directly on that point.

Correction .. YOU are attempting to justify China and Russia's stances at the expense of your own Nation, and labelled the US bullies for using a weapon no one else had when, as you said, the justitification for using it under the circumstances it was used was there.

China and Russia being our allies at the time we used it would mean little regard would be given to how they perceived our defeating a common enemy.

China and Russia's problems, respectively and collectively are that we stood in direct opposition to their aggression throughout the Cold War, and that would be the basis of their perceptions to this day.

Did some poor bastard in Texas get shot dead in a driveway for raping a man's wife? No, he was killed because the man perceived incorrectly that he had raped the man’s wife.

His perception was based not only on what he observed, but what he was told. But you downplay his role in the play. Had he not had his dick in another man's wife, he would not have even been in the situation to get shot. The fact that he was shot does not in any way justify his morally reprehensible behavior.

Are we a real threat to Russia and China if they are disarmed? I don’t think so, but they have a different perspective. They know that we used nuclear weapons on Japan and that we threatened to use them in 1950 during the Korean Conflict. They also believe (as you do) that we would not have used them in 1945 had Japanese retaliation been an option. They also know that the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has kept our weapons holstered for decades. If they intelligently weigh those factors, they have every reason to worry if we install a system that unilaterally disarms them while preserving our ability to hit them at will.

Their perspectives do not justify their behaviors. Both nations are poster children for human rights violations and naked aggression that has absolutely NOTHING to do with their perception of the US.

I did not say I believed we would not have used nuclear weapons on Japan in 1945 if Japan had them as well. The intent of what I DID say is that it would change the decision-making process and possibly change the decision itself.

In your "what if" scenario, you change the whole dynamics of the War in the Pacific. First, you have to define when Japan actually acquires the bomb in your scenario. Then you have to define their ability and means to deliver such a weapon.

For instance, it they acquire it roughly in the same timeframe the US did, then the Japanese would have used it first on us, probably on Saipan but certainly no later than Iwo Jima. If they wait until Okinawa, then we are in the Japan home islands and they would have to use it on not only us but their own people as well.

We STILL had strategic superiority in that we could deliver the weapon to mainland Japan, as we did. So they would not only need the weapon, but a reconstituted militay machine that we had already destroyed most of its ability to strike global targets.

In that scenario, we STILL bomb Japan. The loss of military lives in a war -- even to Japan using nukes on them -- is expected and accepted. The only difference being is the US would more than likely in this scenario completely devastate Japan in retaliation.

Factor in this concern: why do we need to disarm Russia and China if we have no intention to attack them? Don’t answer from our perspective; we already know that. Answer from theirs, and you’ll see why the system is so destabilizing.

I wasn't aware that disarming Russia and China was anyone's priority. Not allowing Russia and China to export nuclear technology to Third World wannabe's seems to be the concern of the day, and IMO, they are ignoring the obvious when putting a few bucks or buckets of oil ahead of giving religious fanatics who are willing to kill themselves to take everyone who doesn't buy their shit down with them. So, from MY perspective, THEIR perspective is short-sighted and flawed.

As is the perspective of anyone who believes this missile defense system will do anything but possibly defend against a first strike. The fallout alone from massive nuclear attacks and retaliation will plunge the entire planet into a nuclear winter that Man has little to no chance of surviving. It's a "feel good" placebo unless they have a nuclear fallout and nuclear winter defense system as well; which, is not really a mathematical probability.

In the end, all this jockeying back and forth doesn't amount to shit. If somebody gets stupid, everybody dies.

 

[Dogger]

Your inability to understand the use of analogies is frustrating. I could explain this to my 10 year old nephew, and he would understand the point.

I've tried to make a complex matter simple enough for you, but you wind up chasing irrelevancies like a child chasing bubbles.

The logistical problems with nuclear retaliation by Japan are apparent, but totally irrelevant to the point. IF they could have retaliated, whether by bombers, missiles, Godzilla or a magic button, Truman would not have pulled the nuclear trigger. Everything you say about the logistics only proves that retaliation was not feasible, and establishes that we will use nukes if do not fear a nuclear response.

How can you not see the manner in which this simple fact affects the perception by Russia and China of our willingness to use nuclear weapons?

 

[Annie]

Your inability to understand the use of analogies is frustrating. I could explain this to my 10 year old nephew, and he would understand the point.

I've tried to make a complex matter simple enough for you, but you wind up chasing irrelevancies like a child chasing bubbles.

The logistical problems with nuclear retaliation by Japan are apparent, but totally irrelevant to the point. IF they could have retaliated, whether by bombers, missiles, Godzilla or a magic button, Truman would not have pulled the nuclear trigger. Everything you say about the logistics only proves that retaliation was not feasible, and establishes that we will use nukes if do not fear a nuclear response.

How can you not see the manner in which this simple fact affects the perception by Russia and China of our willingness to use nuclear weapons?

Actually he not only understood your points, he dismantled them. He's pwned you and you know it. The 10 year old pretend nephew is hilarious though.

 

[Dogger]

Actually he not only understood your points, he dismantled them. He's pwned you and you know it. The 10 year old pretend nephew is hilarious though.

Ryan isn't pretend.

gunny interjected irrelevancies that went nowhere near the central thesis: how our adversaries perceive us, and why. If you could read in context, you would know that.

Why don't you try addressing the point?

 

[Gunny]

Your inability to understand the use of analogies is frustrating. I could explain this to my 10 year old nephew, and he would understand the point.

I've tried to make a complex matter simple enough for you, but you wind up chasing irrelevancies like a child chasing bubbles.

The logistical problems with nuclear retaliation by Japan are apparent, but totally irrelevant to the point. IF they could have retaliated, whether by bombers, missiles, Godzilla or a magic button, Truman would not have pulled the nuclear trigger. Everything you say about the logistics only proves that retaliation was not feasible, and establishes that we will use nukes if do not fear a nuclear response.

How can you not see the manner in which this simple fact affects the perception by Russia and China of our willingness to use nuclear weapons?

What is frustrating is not an inability to understand; rather, an inability on your part to differentiate between understanding and disagreement. I understand EXACTLY what you are saying. I don't agree with your viewpoint. If you weren't so busy trying to prove how intelligent you think you are and would read what I'm posting, you'd probably understand that. Everything I posted is in direct response to shit YOU introduced, not me.

I have not stated that our actions do not affect the perception of others. That's a fact of life at every level. It plays itself out on this board every day. Take for example your self-perception doesn't come anywhere NEAR my perception of you, Wile E. You blow a lot of smoke but I sure as hell haven't seen any display of superior intellect on your part.

Plain and simple, my interests and priorities are with the US. That would be us. I have no issue with other nations placing their priorities first. I really don't give a damn what specific mechanics are involved any further than they affect the US.

I really don't give a damn how they perceive us. That's THEIR problem and I haven't noticed any word nor deed altering their perception because it does not suit their self-interest to do so.

But I see and understand EXACTLY what you are saying. They aren't scumbags for exporting nuclear technology to nations headed by religious fanatics ... WE are the scumbagfs for giving them the perception that they need to.

You can sell that villification of the US down the road. It pisses me off we don't act MORE in our own self-interest so I'm sure as Hell not going to try guilt-tripping my own country when it actually does.

And THAT, Wile E., is just about all you amount to in this thread.


Clear enough for you, Wile E. ?

While you're at your drawing board attempting to impress yourself with how intelligent you think you are, think about sticking to lawyering. A LCpl under 2 years TIS undertands strategies, tactics and scenarios better than you do.

 

[Dogger]

I have never called the US scumbags nor have I vilified my country. Your accusations against me are moronic and preposterous. If you had the intellect to understand my analogies, you would not have wasted so much time chasing irrelevancies.

Every response I get from you shows your need to insult, bully and intimidate. You obviously have a lot of anger and resentment, and I suspect that you hated the educated officers that once ordered you around. You probably thought they looked down on you, and ironically reacted in a manner that they in turn used to justify their condescension. Since military protocol never allowed you to respond to your superiors directly, you probably built up quite an arsenal of insults and retorts that you now vent in this forum. I’ve tried to adjust to your need to show me up, but you should understand that your insulting manner only diminishes your chances of earning my respect.

You feel a need to project a "good v. evil" mentality into this issue, but that has nothing to do with my point: we have to negotiate intelligently and move intelligently when dealing with Russia and China. That requires strength, but posturing and blustering without understanding how they will react is foolish and destabilizing. You may not "give a damn how they perceive us, so it's a good thing smarter people than you are handling it. Unfortunately, with Bush in charge, we are not putting our smartest people on this job.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have never called the US scumbags nor have I vilified my country. Your accusations against me are moronic and preposterous. If you had the intellect to understand my analogies, you would not have wasted so much time chasing irrelevancies.

Every response I get from you shows your need to insult, bully and intimidate. You obviously have a lot of anger and resentment, and I suspect that you hated the educated officers that once ordered you around. You probably thought they looked down on you, and ironically reacted in a manner that they in turn used to justify their condescension. Since military protocol never allowed you to respond to your superiors directly, you probably built up quite an arsenal of insults and retorts that you now vent in this forum. I’ve tried to adjust to your need to show me up, but you should understand that your insulting manner only diminishes your chances of earning my respect.

You feel a need to project a "good v. evil" mentality into this issue, but that has nothing to do with my point: we have to negotiate intelligently and move intelligently when dealing with Russia and China. That requires strength, but posturing and blustering without understanding how they will react is foolish and destabilizing. You may not "give a damn how they perceive us, so it's a good thing smarter people than you are handling it. Unfortunately, with Bush in charge, we are not putting our smartest people on this job.

Ya a liberal pin head that wants to just give away the farm before even talking is an improvement. You are about as smart as a box of rocks. As for shields I guess you still missed the part where we have offered several times to GIVE the Russians the exact same technology so they TOO can build a shield? You do not ever respond to it when brought up. It negates any claim we are trying to "bully" them.

 

[Dogger]

Boring and predictable. :yawn:

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Boring and predictable. :yawn:

Your ignorance IS really Boring and Predictable, you are right.