"Whilst the Interstate Commerce Clause has been abused mightily your private conversations are not commerce"
When a significant portion of trading is done human to human, then yes your conversations are commerce.
As for whether you think it's Constitutional, I couldn't care less. You're free to leave whenever you like, or run for office if you think you can change things.
"So what exactly is this great and pressing need for killing all the Japanese.."
Because they would have killed us if we hadn't. Seems like the BEST POSSIBLE reason for killing someone. How you could ask such an incredibly stupid question... You do KNOW what happened in WW2 right? From your post it seems you have no idea the Japanese were the aggressors.
"The kids and families incinerated by those bombs were just as innocent and blameless as any child of the Warsaw ghettos"
No, this is a lie.
The Japanese people were building bombs, guns, planes and ships. The Jews were too, but they were being held at gunpoint. Big difference.
Do YOU realize you come off as another uneducated liberal peacenik who thinks that wars are won by dancing better than the other guy?
People like you are so sad, living pathetic do nothing lives won with the blood of brave soldiers who were willing to do what you never would, because it HAD TO BE DONE.
I'll never accept any argument from anyone about the necessity of the bombs. We were at war, Japan hadn't surrendered.
The point was, Japan doesn't get to play victim in regards to the war. Ever. They don't get to be shocked, or "troubled", or have penetrating insight into the need for nuclear bombings.
THEY STARTED IT. They have no right to complain about how others were forced to finish it.
"Oh yes, because once one side has committed an atrocity they're no longer human, and anything is justified"
Way to miss the point.
The point, so you don't miss it twice, is that once a SOCIETY allows ATROCITIES such as those at NANKING, there should be no reason for them to be shocked when other atrocities occur as a result.
Ok, I THINK that if I'm in a war against another country, and they have already shown the propensity for unprovoked violence aginst other country's civilians (pearl harbor, nanking) and their goal is to completely conquer and subjugate other country's people, then they should be stopped. And if it takes bombing them into oblivion, so be it.
Your turn, what was the alternative, allow Japan to become a Soviet satellite? Lose hundreds of thousands of lives in ground combat? How many fewer died because we only had to use the two nukes? Ever think of that?
So, what was the point of your post other than to accuse me of trolling, then support my point by saying
"the Japanese were trying to trade the lives of several thousand of their soldiers in order to surrender to the Soviets, whom they believed would be more lenient and accepting of their culture"
The KNEW they would have to surrender, yet CHOSE not to, because they WOULDN'T accept the terms.
So, thank you for admitting I was correct.
"If you want to start telling me that the Japanese are the ones who deserved to have hundreds of thousands of civilians to die because they didn't unconditionally surrender, I'll put down the caffeine in order to stay calm"
Is that some pathetic threat? Get over yourself. Yes they deserved it, because they STARTED it. Don't complain when the other guy finishes it, and you don't like how it turns out.
"The second bomb hit and there was no room for question"
Which is why they surrendered immediately after the second bomb. What's this? They DID question? They DIDN'T surrender immediately? But what about what you said...
Stop accusing people of trolling when your post is full of contradictions and factual inaccuracies. You won't look like so much of a jackass.
"By that logic, the death of British civilians by the Germans blah blah..."
No. Japan surrendering a war THEY STARTED would have ended hostilities.
Britain surrendering in a war they were forced to fight because they were attacked would have ended NOTHING except the immediate fighting.
"but the blood is on the hands of those who commit the act when peaceful alternatives were available"
Right, which is why the war JAPAN STARTED by BOMBING PEARL HARBOR is their fault. Everything that happened as a result (including the nukes) can be directly traced to need to fight Japan. So, as you freely admit, they spilt the blood, so it's thier fault.
I like how you came around to the correct side on this.
"Asking them to remove the Emperor would have been like asking the Vatican City to remove the the Pope"
So, either this is WORSE for them than being nuked, and we did the right thing, or it's BETTER than being nuked, and it's their fault they didn't do it.
Boy, you sure didn't think that one through.
"They had accepted the terms up until we changed them to remove the guarantee of the Emperor's position."
That, simply stated, is a lie. Check your facts (you haven't it is obvious) then come back when you're more well read.
Civilians in a military town, directly contributing to the war effort (making bombs, sewing clothes etc) are FAIR GAME according to the rules of war. They were not civilian targets, they were civilians near a MILITARY target. It's an important difference.
But of course, your goal isn't enlightenment or rational discussion, but simply to spout anti-american tripe.
"There are several stories that the Japanese Emperor looked for a way to conditionally surrender, but the American president found that unacceptable -- the Emperor must give up his throne and tell his people he was not a god. (For this culture, that was not negotiable"
So, what you're saying is that Japan could have surrendered unconditionally, and saved many lives.
The fact that they CHOSE not to is no ones fault but theirs.
"but not a single one can think of any reason for the second one other than to evoke terror and how shamefuly we acted. By that time with the threat of invasion gone there simply was no excuse"
Sure there was, Japan hadn't surrendered. In fact, they dragged their feet after the second bomb too. THEY could have saved THEMSELVES by surrendering more promptly.
So if you plan to spend your life blaming someone for an unnecessary second bomb, blame the slow acting Japanese.
His ideology isn't about "free software". Do a little research about the guy before you post. He's the worst kind of inflexible zealot, and it's sad people like you are too lazy to do any research before jumping to conclusions.
Linux is itself a small user base, so claiming a distro is or is not "major" is a little silly.
However, IIRC, Lycoris was the distro installed on the computers sold by Wal-Mart (am I wrong?) so that makes it FAR more "major" than most of the other big players anyway.
"But any serious enterprise would be beyond foolish to entrust their IT center to an OS developed, packaged and supported entirely at the whim of just a couple of guys with no real infrastructure behind them"
You just described not only the foundation of Linux, but the current operating state of most OSS projects.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't sound like you are giving him the benefit of the doubt at all.
It most certainly does sound like you're hanging off his balls with both hands in typical fanboy style.
"Whilst the Interstate Commerce Clause has been abused mightily your private conversations are not commerce"
When a significant portion of trading is done human to human, then yes your conversations are commerce.
As for whether you think it's Constitutional, I couldn't care less. You're free to leave whenever you like, or run for office if you think you can change things.
"So what exactly is this great and pressing need for killing all the Japanese.."
Because they would have killed us if we hadn't. Seems like the BEST POSSIBLE reason for killing someone. How you could ask such an incredibly stupid question... You do KNOW what happened in WW2 right? From your post it seems you have no idea the Japanese were the aggressors.
"The kids and families incinerated by those bombs were just as innocent and blameless as any child of the Warsaw ghettos"
No, this is a lie.
The Japanese people were building bombs, guns, planes and ships. The Jews were too, but they were being held at gunpoint. Big difference.
Do YOU realize you come off as another uneducated liberal peacenik who thinks that wars are won by dancing better than the other guy?
People like you are so sad, living pathetic do nothing lives won with the blood of brave soldiers who were willing to do what you never would, because it HAD TO BE DONE.
You missed the point.
I'll never accept any argument from anyone about the necessity of the bombs. We were at war, Japan hadn't surrendered.
The point was, Japan doesn't get to play victim in regards to the war. Ever. They don't get to be shocked, or "troubled", or have penetrating insight into the need for nuclear bombings.
THEY STARTED IT. They have no right to complain about how others were forced to finish it.
"Oh yes, because once one side has committed an atrocity they're no longer human, and anything is justified"
Way to miss the point.
The point, so you don't miss it twice, is that once a SOCIETY allows ATROCITIES such as those at NANKING, there should be no reason for them to be shocked when other atrocities occur as a result.
Nice try with the straw man though.
Ok, easy.
Japan started a war. Had they not started that war, there would have been no need for killing any of them.
By contrast, the Jews did NOTHING, yet were killed anyway.
So, as I said, you're a moron, and the fact that I had to PROVE it is even worse for you.
"Think for yourself"
Ok, I THINK that if I'm in a war against another country, and they have already shown the propensity for unprovoked violence aginst other country's civilians (pearl harbor, nanking) and their goal is to completely conquer and subjugate other country's people, then they should be stopped. And if it takes bombing them into oblivion, so be it.
Your turn, what was the alternative, allow Japan to become a Soviet satellite? Lose hundreds of thousands of lives in ground combat? How many fewer died because we only had to use the two nukes? Ever think of that?
Of course not.
So, what was the point of your post other than to accuse me of trolling, then support my point by saying
"the Japanese were trying to trade the lives of several thousand of their soldiers in order to surrender to the Soviets, whom they believed would be more lenient and accepting of their culture"
The KNEW they would have to surrender, yet CHOSE not to, because they WOULDN'T accept the terms.
So, thank you for admitting I was correct.
"If you want to start telling me that the Japanese are the ones who deserved to have hundreds of thousands of civilians to die because they didn't unconditionally surrender, I'll put down the caffeine in order to stay calm"
Is that some pathetic threat? Get over yourself. Yes they deserved it, because they STARTED it. Don't complain when the other guy finishes it, and you don't like how it turns out.
"The second bomb hit and there was no room for question"
Which is why they surrendered immediately after the second bomb. What's this? They DID question? They DIDN'T surrender immediately? But what about what you said...
Stop accusing people of trolling when your post is full of contradictions and factual inaccuracies. You won't look like so much of a jackass.
"By that logic, the death of British civilians by the Germans blah blah..."
No. Japan surrendering a war THEY STARTED would have ended hostilities.
Britain surrendering in a war they were forced to fight because they were attacked would have ended NOTHING except the immediate fighting.
"but the blood is on the hands of those who commit the act when peaceful alternatives were available"
Right, which is why the war JAPAN STARTED by BOMBING PEARL HARBOR is their fault. Everything that happened as a result (including the nukes) can be directly traced to need to fight Japan. So, as you freely admit, they spilt the blood, so it's thier fault.
I like how you came around to the correct side on this.
"Asking them to remove the Emperor would have been like asking the Vatican City to remove the the Pope"
So, either this is WORSE for them than being nuked, and we did the right thing, or it's BETTER than being nuked, and it's their fault they didn't do it.
Boy, you sure didn't think that one through.
"They had accepted the terms up until we changed them to remove the guarantee of the Emperor's position."
That, simply stated, is a lie. Check your facts (you haven't it is obvious) then come back when you're more well read.
"The reason they shocked is they were an atrocity"
You men like at Nanking? Forget that, or are you just incredibly ignorant?
So, should I hack this idiotic argument to pieces, or are you willing to admit you're trolling?
Why is this modded insightful?
Newsflash
YOU DON'T GET TO SET THE TERMS WHEN YOU LOSE.
If they chose to accept the terms, then many lives would have been saved. The blood is on Japanese hands.
I love the Hitler comparison.
It allows me to dismiss your opinions in the future, as you are clearly a moron.
Civilians in a military town, directly contributing to the war effort (making bombs, sewing clothes etc) are FAIR GAME according to the rules of war. They were not civilian targets, they were civilians near a MILITARY target. It's an important difference.
But of course, your goal isn't enlightenment or rational discussion, but simply to spout anti-american tripe.
I half expected a "gitmo=auschwitz" comparison.
"There are several stories that the Japanese Emperor looked for a way to conditionally surrender, but the American president found that unacceptable -- the Emperor must give up his throne and tell his people he was not a god. (For this culture, that was not negotiable"
So, what you're saying is that Japan could have surrendered unconditionally, and saved many lives.
The fact that they CHOSE not to is no ones fault but theirs.
"but not a single one can think of any reason for the second one other than to evoke terror and how shamefuly we acted. By that time with the threat of invasion gone there simply was no excuse"
Sure there was, Japan hadn't surrendered. In fact, they dragged their feet after the second bomb too. THEY could have saved THEMSELVES by surrendering more promptly.
So if you plan to spend your life blaming someone for an unnecessary second bomb, blame the slow acting Japanese.
Rape of Nanking
"Troubling" he says...
His ideology isn't about "free software". Do a little research about the guy before you post. He's the worst kind of inflexible zealot, and it's sad people like you are too lazy to do any research before jumping to conclusions.
It's not free (the supported version at least) which I guarantee is part of the reason.
How many of those other distros were sold at Wal-Mart?
Well, my thinking on the subject is this.
Linux is itself a small user base, so claiming a distro is or is not "major" is a little silly.
However, IIRC, Lycoris was the distro installed on the computers sold by Wal-Mart (am I wrong?) so that makes it FAR more "major" than most of the other big players anyway.
Ooooh, Jeopardy, I'll play.
What is a fucking moron, with ridiculous, unrealistic ideas about how the world works, and an irrational belief in failed ideology?
Do I win?
And of course you were modded straight up. No reason, no facts, just an unsubstantiated opinion that the other zealots agree with.
Hey mods, THIS IS NOT YOUR PRIVATE ECHO CHAMBER. Fucking retards.
"But any serious enterprise would be beyond foolish to entrust their IT center to an OS developed, packaged and supported entirely at the whim of just a couple of guys with no real infrastructure behind them"
You just described not only the foundation of Linux, but the current operating state of most OSS projects.
Except this is inconsistent with current tax law.
You're wrong on this.