The most destructive bombing of the war was by incendiary bombs, in Tokyo and Dresden. Does the use of a single bomb make it morally worse than using 1000s that achieve the same or greater effect?
Dropping the nukes was only the wrong decision with the benefit of hindsight; the USA did not know the effects of fallout at the time.
Besides, you do know that there were no indications that Japan would surrender, and that a land invasion was in the works. Considering the heavy losses suffered in Okinawa and many other amphibious assaults, it was generally believed that a land invasion would result in the deaths of millions.
Blame the unions. It's such a cheap shot. The problem with schools is more likely doctrinal. We've never known how to do mass-education right, and we implement less than we know. A lot of problems are political and traditional. But go ahead, put then entire blame on unions, and a public school "monopoly" - using the term loosely.
Do you really think the bullshit in Iraq or Afghanistan is a full showing of force for the American military?
Um, yes it is, considering that the USA isn't in a total-war economy. Now, how are you guys going to pay for all of this, and what about the soldiers on 2 or 3 consecutive tours of duty just to keep numbers up. Perhaps you think conscription should be enacted so that the USA can show just how big its manly parts are.
They're political occupations designed to stagnate and fail.
The people who enacted these wars were idiots. They worked out the immediate problem, and had no effective long-term strategy. For example, there was no plan for an Iraqi insurgency - Rumsfeld and co. actually believed that they could invade Iraq, remove Saddam, and then hand over the keys to the Iraqi people who would then kiss their feet. Crazy eh? (see here)
It won't be until the next real war, where American soil is under threat of attack or takeover, that the US military will unleash some of the new toys its been hiding.
The USA is continuously getting involved in wars, and experimenting with its new shiny technology. It's almost like it's part of the R&D process. For example, Iraq II used a completely different military doctrine than Iraq I, based on new communications technology.
The last war when American soil was under threat, was the war of 1812. The US invaded Canada, and then got it's ass kicked in a land war. Superior naval technology ensured that survival of the USA. The Webster book of facts lists the USA as the "victor".
US soil was never under threat from the Japanese in WWII, whose territorial ambitions were regionally restricted. Japan did threaten and capture the Philippines, which was occupied by the USA since the turn of the century. (See here.)
Fact is, since 1812, USA soil has never been under threat, but the USA has also had a sobering pattern of hawkish military action and propaganda. WWI and WWII are exceptions, where the USA became involved in extant wars.
Nor is the U.S. led and controlled by a radically conservative theocracy with a demonstrated intent to export insurrection with the stated goal of complete domination.
lol!
I recommend The Power of Nightmares. Not a perfect documentary, but award-winning, and with respect for objectivity.
This BBC documentary is a free download, and describes some of the political history behind characters dominant in Republican politics. Do not watch this documentary if you've got no stomach to look in the mirror and actually see your reflection.
Face it, US hates Iran because Iran won't kowtow to the US government.
Sure. 100% agree. Iranian leaders also seem to be crazy, at least to us Western observers. Iran is not winning international support for its leaders truculence and scurrilous claims about the USA and GB. Their stinky brand of self-serving nonsense must surely be aimed at a domestic audience. Kinda like Mugabe.
Now... the US might hate Iran because it wont kowtow, but the there's also the fact that Iranian leaders have next to no credibility, stoke ideological rivalries and beat war-drums. Keep in mind that this is a country that denies the holocaust occurred, and that Israel should be wiped off the map. I'm the last person to defend Israel's domestic policy, but I think you get the idea.
Get into a warring states situation and it's every bastard for themselves in a no-holds-barred deathmatch.
I think this is a little bit of a self-serving justification. The Kings of Europe used to believe that their authority was a divine right, and that it was "unnatural" to question their authority, since they kept order. IMHO, this meme is alive and well in your comment. The solution to the power-corrupts-King problem came with the division of powers. There is probably a similar structural solution to the no-holds-barred deathmatch that you're describing. Perhaps economic integration and education of the masses, as well as independent media. And a cultural abohoration of jingoism.
Many great empires fell after they started to create large standing militaries. They are economic leaches, and serve no cultural purpose other than stoking the pride of jingoists and hawks. It happened to the Romans, and the Soviets. Eisenhower himself coined the term "military-industrial-complex"; an impotent warning to the USA citizenry. That's what's taken over the USA, which seems to get involved in military action every few years.
While you might opine philosophical justifications for a USA hegemony, based on the principle of world peace, others are screaming beware the ides of March. There is some sense of the USA sowing the seeds of its own demise.
Someone needs to brush up on their history a bit.
It seems we've met a mirror image projection.
Based on my knowledge of history, and IMHO, the best thing the USA can do, is reduce it's military budget, increase education standards, focus on internal cultural issues (such as freedom of the press) and further economic integration with the rest of the world. And invest in high-tech sustainable technology. It seems unlikely that any of these issues will be given the priority they deserve.
I sense a problem that can be solved with S****ISM (deleted as a proactive measure to stop the political-right from having a heart-attack). The BBC news is light-years ahead of anything in the USA. It's also politically independent, unlike state-run newspapers in Iran, China and Russia.
Can you not see a simple solution when it's staring you in the face? Has Rupert Murdoch out-foxed you all? Create an independently funded public institution, with a mandate to "educate", "inform" and "entertain", and maybe the citizens of the USA wont score so poorly on survey questions such as "were WMDs found in Iraq".
And your news content wont be beholden to advertising interests.
I agree with you - mostly - however this factoid may require more consideration, if only to strengthen your points:
Sorry, forcing women they have to wear a head-dress is absolutely not acceptable.
Most countries force women to cover their breasts - except Canada, where women have the right to bear there breasts =) Most women don't feel repressed by having to wear clothing that covers their breasts, which is too bad IMHO.
The dress code for women in Islamic countries seems extreme to us, however, Islamic women don't really see it that way by on large. By analogy, some cultures might consider it odd that women should cover their breasts.
The Shah of Iran banned Hijab, a move that was tremendously unpopular. Some women simply refused to leave the house because they weren't allowed to cover up.
On a side note - the Hijab can be worn in such a way to allow a women to suggest that she's interested in getting married - even just a temporary marriage.
So please consider the cultural construction of western and Islamic notions of Hijab before writing it off as ABSOLUTELY morally wrong.
The GP is suggesting that free communication in the birth-right of every human being, irrespective of spiritual belief. Are you really suggesting that this point has no bearing on the people of Iran? That, for some reason, totalitarianism is acceptable if painted in terms of cultural norms?
Jingoism is jingoism, no matter where you're from and what your culture is. Same goes for censorship. They are separate issues. Jingoism in the USA has cost the USA a lot of moral credibility around the world. But that does not negate the fact that censorship is bad thing. You can't impugn the moral veracity of aspects of the constitution simply because USA politics involves extremists and jingoist voices.
The notions of good and bad are culturally constructed, however, a cross-cultural analysis reveals a tremendous amount of overlap. Censorship is bad - period, whether the USA is Iran, Iran is the USA, the USA is the USA or Iran is Iran.
While the truth may be on your side, the delivery is not. If you speak like that you'll meet a mirror-image projection, and nobody will listen. That's because, for better or worse, the context of what is said is far more important than the actual content.
Try not to feel too depressed or self-congratulatory. It's a frustrating situation to be sure, but thinking you know more than others will just make it worse. I wish I understood the mechanisms of that better. I think it has to do with primitive parts of the brain.
Watch Carl Sagan for an example of how to extol the virtues of science, and communicate with the "superstitious"
You don't know that. The mind is a powerful thing. There is much that we "wise" sapiens do not understood. There are well established scientific phenomena that could explain such results... for example demand characteristics. Believing in a cure may be more powerful than you expect. There's good reason why many alternative healers believe in what they do.
And surely you must realize the worst kind of evidence short of fabricated evidence is anecdotal evidence.
Careful with the vitriol. You can't blame someone for not having your point of view, just because they don't have the same understanding of epistemology that you do. You may as well blame a foreigner for not speaking your language. And besides - reflect a moment - just how much do you really know about epistemology anyway? Most of us know very little.
all the other absurd lying pieces of worthless trash out there who profit off of the superstition and naivety
fyi, these guys actually believe in what they are doing. So they aren't lying - deluded is more accurate. It's an epistemological problem, something which many of us know little about.
The history of science is full of consensus breaking ideas. Science is a discourse, not a religion. The only sacred truth is that there is no sacred truth. The consensus, however, can only be broken by _evidence_. So creation scientists and AGW deniers are out of luck.
is the single strongest force driving humanity forward.
You live a privileged life. The basic instincts regards death and/or injury, and sustenance. Impressing people and having sex happen after you've had something to drink, eat, and you're brainstem thinks you're safe.
I think old people are concerned about a perceived lack of self-disciplined development, a meme that seems to have left the modern generation. Maybe it's true, maybe not. One thing is for sure - it's very hard to say what the effect will be.
Personally I think it is a step forward. Furthermore, the decline of social mores towards self-mastery is a little exaggerated, and is an unrelated issue in any case.
Commodities by definition, have the price approach the marginal cost over time.
That's a clear statement that US health care is not a commodity. For example, it costs 11x as much to treat a broken arm in the US compared to Canada. Some entity is frigging with the free market and making a lot of money. Note that there are entities other than the government that can interfere. It seems certain that such an entity would fight tooth and nail to prevent meaningful change to the system. They'd use every dirty trick in the book to manage public perception.
Conservative: Okay. Fine. Aside from the transistor, the aqueduct, the world wide web, nuclear power, GPS and memory foam, what have we ever gotten out of government funded research?
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't trust NZ with nukes. They might get crazy ideas, like seizing all the sheep in the world. (shudder.)
omfg!
The most destructive bombing of the war was by incendiary bombs, in Tokyo and Dresden. Does the use of a single bomb make it morally worse than using 1000s that achieve the same or greater effect?
Dropping the nukes was only the wrong decision with the benefit of hindsight; the USA did not know the effects of fallout at the time.
Besides, you do know that there were no indications that Japan would surrender, and that a land invasion was in the works. Considering the heavy losses suffered in Okinawa and many other amphibious assaults, it was generally believed that a land invasion would result in the deaths of millions.
Blame the unions. It's such a cheap shot. The problem with schools is more likely doctrinal. We've never known how to do mass-education right, and we implement less than we know. A lot of problems are political and traditional. But go ahead, put then entire blame on unions, and a public school "monopoly" - using the term loosely.
Do you really think the bullshit in Iraq or Afghanistan is a full showing of force for the American military?
Um, yes it is, considering that the USA isn't in a total-war economy. Now, how are you guys going to pay for all of this, and what about the soldiers on 2 or 3 consecutive tours of duty just to keep numbers up. Perhaps you think conscription should be enacted so that the USA can show just how big its manly parts are.
They're political occupations designed to stagnate and fail.
The people who enacted these wars were idiots. They worked out the immediate problem, and had no effective long-term strategy. For example, there was no plan for an Iraqi insurgency - Rumsfeld and co. actually believed that they could invade Iraq, remove Saddam, and then hand over the keys to the Iraqi people who would then kiss their feet. Crazy eh? (see here)
It won't be until the next real war, where American soil is under threat of attack or takeover, that the US military will unleash some of the new toys its been hiding.
The USA is continuously getting involved in wars, and experimenting with its new shiny technology. It's almost like it's part of the R&D process. For example, Iraq II used a completely different military doctrine than Iraq I, based on new communications technology.
The last war when American soil was under threat, was the war of 1812. The US invaded Canada, and then got it's ass kicked in a land war. Superior naval technology ensured that survival of the USA. The Webster book of facts lists the USA as the "victor".
US soil was never under threat from the Japanese in WWII, whose territorial ambitions were regionally restricted. Japan did threaten and capture the Philippines, which was occupied by the USA since the turn of the century. (See here.)
Fact is, since 1812, USA soil has never been under threat, but the USA has also had a sobering pattern of hawkish military action and propaganda. WWI and WWII are exceptions, where the USA became involved in extant wars.
Turn off FOX news and read a book!
Why is that modded as funny?
The logic is simple. Change the internal reward structure for their behaviour with a win-win situation.
Nor is the U.S. led and controlled by a radically conservative theocracy with a demonstrated intent to export insurrection with the stated goal of complete domination.
lol!
I recommend The Power of Nightmares. Not a perfect documentary, but award-winning, and with respect for objectivity.
This BBC documentary is a free download, and describes some of the political history behind characters dominant in Republican politics. Do not watch this documentary if you've got no stomach to look in the mirror and actually see your reflection.
Face it, US hates Iran because Iran won't kowtow to the US government.
Sure. 100% agree. Iranian leaders also seem to be crazy, at least to us Western observers. Iran is not winning international support for its leaders truculence and scurrilous claims about the USA and GB. Their stinky brand of self-serving nonsense must surely be aimed at a domestic audience. Kinda like Mugabe.
Now... the US might hate Iran because it wont kowtow, but the there's also the fact that Iranian leaders have next to no credibility, stoke ideological rivalries and beat war-drums. Keep in mind that this is a country that denies the holocaust occurred, and that Israel should be wiped off the map. I'm the last person to defend Israel's domestic policy, but I think you get the idea.
Hostility is a two-way street. What would you do?
omfg!
Yeah, Libya was "scared" into opening to the world by USA actions that actually strengthened indigenous jingoist elements through-out the Middle-East.
rotfl dude.
Get into a warring states situation and it's every bastard for themselves in a no-holds-barred deathmatch.
I think this is a little bit of a self-serving justification. The Kings of Europe used to believe that their authority was a divine right, and that it was "unnatural" to question their authority, since they kept order. IMHO, this meme is alive and well in your comment. The solution to the power-corrupts-King problem came with the division of powers. There is probably a similar structural solution to the no-holds-barred deathmatch that you're describing. Perhaps economic integration and education of the masses, as well as independent media. And a cultural abohoration of jingoism.
Many great empires fell after they started to create large standing militaries. They are economic leaches, and serve no cultural purpose other than stoking the pride of jingoists and hawks. It happened to the Romans, and the Soviets. Eisenhower himself coined the term "military-industrial-complex"; an impotent warning to the USA citizenry. That's what's taken over the USA, which seems to get involved in military action every few years.
While you might opine philosophical justifications for a USA hegemony, based on the principle of world peace, others are screaming beware the ides of March. There is some sense of the USA sowing the seeds of its own demise.
Someone needs to brush up on their history a bit.
It seems we've met a mirror image projection.
Based on my knowledge of history, and IMHO, the best thing the USA can do, is reduce it's military budget, increase education standards, focus on internal cultural issues (such as freedom of the press) and further economic integration with the rest of the world. And invest in high-tech sustainable technology. It seems unlikely that any of these issues will be given the priority they deserve.
Which is entirely subjective by definition, so we're back to the basics: a good programmer writes working programs.
A good programmer writes working programs, that have an underlying simplicity to their architecture.
I sense a problem that can be solved with S****ISM (deleted as a proactive measure to stop the political-right from having a heart-attack). The BBC news is light-years ahead of anything in the USA. It's also politically independent, unlike state-run newspapers in Iran, China and Russia.
Can you not see a simple solution when it's staring you in the face? Has Rupert Murdoch out-foxed you all? Create an independently funded public institution, with a mandate to "educate", "inform" and "entertain", and maybe the citizens of the USA wont score so poorly on survey questions such as "were WMDs found in Iraq".
And your news content wont be beholden to advertising interests.
I agree with you - mostly - however this factoid may require more consideration, if only to strengthen your points:
Sorry, forcing women they have to wear a head-dress is absolutely not acceptable.
Most countries force women to cover their breasts - except Canada, where women have the right to bear there breasts =) Most women don't feel repressed by having to wear clothing that covers their breasts, which is too bad IMHO.
The dress code for women in Islamic countries seems extreme to us, however, Islamic women don't really see it that way by on large. By analogy, some cultures might consider it odd that women should cover their breasts.
The Shah of Iran banned Hijab, a move that was tremendously unpopular. Some women simply refused to leave the house because they weren't allowed to cover up.
On a side note - the Hijab can be worn in such a way to allow a women to suggest that she's interested in getting married - even just a temporary marriage.
So please consider the cultural construction of western and Islamic notions of Hijab before writing it off as ABSOLUTELY morally wrong.
And if Iran was the USA, you'd have a point.
The GP is suggesting that free communication in the birth-right of every human being, irrespective of spiritual belief. Are you really suggesting that this point has no bearing on the people of Iran? That, for some reason, totalitarianism is acceptable if painted in terms of cultural norms?
Jingoism is jingoism, no matter where you're from and what your culture is. Same goes for censorship. They are separate issues. Jingoism in the USA has cost the USA a lot of moral credibility around the world. But that does not negate the fact that censorship is bad thing. You can't impugn the moral veracity of aspects of the constitution simply because USA politics involves extremists and jingoist voices.
The notions of good and bad are culturally constructed, however, a cross-cultural analysis reveals a tremendous amount of overlap. Censorship is bad - period, whether the USA is Iran, Iran is the USA, the USA is the USA or Iran is Iran.
willful ignorance and stubborn superstition
While the truth may be on your side, the delivery is not. If you speak like that you'll meet a mirror-image projection, and nobody will listen. That's because, for better or worse, the context of what is said is far more important than the actual content.
Try not to feel too depressed or self-congratulatory. It's a frustrating situation to be sure, but thinking you know more than others will just make it worse. I wish I understood the mechanisms of that better. I think it has to do with primitive parts of the brain.
Watch Carl Sagan for an example of how to extol the virtues of science, and communicate with the "superstitious"
But the fact remains they can't.
You don't know that. The mind is a powerful thing. There is much that we "wise" sapiens do not understood. There are well established scientific phenomena that could explain such results... for example demand characteristics. Believing in a cure may be more powerful than you expect. There's good reason why many alternative healers believe in what they do.
And surely you must realize the worst kind of evidence short of fabricated evidence is anecdotal evidence.
Careful with the vitriol. You can't blame someone for not having your point of view, just because they don't have the same understanding of epistemology that you do. You may as well blame a foreigner for not speaking your language. And besides - reflect a moment - just how much do you really know about epistemology anyway? Most of us know very little.
all the other absurd lying pieces of worthless trash out there who profit off of the superstition and naivety
fyi, these guys actually believe in what they are doing. So they aren't lying - deluded is more accurate. It's an epistemological problem, something which many of us know little about.
The history of science is full of consensus breaking ideas. Science is a discourse, not a religion. The only sacred truth is that there is no sacred truth. The consensus, however, can only be broken by _evidence_. So creation scientists and AGW deniers are out of luck.
is the single strongest force driving humanity forward.
You live a privileged life. The basic instincts regards death and/or injury, and sustenance. Impressing people and having sex happen after you've had something to drink, eat, and you're brainstem thinks you're safe.
At least somebody is keeping the records in order. A FOI request may be useful for when you want to write your autobiography.
I appreciate where you're coming from. And you are correct. But bear this in mind.
Surely you don't think that you're part of the first ever generation to have no regrets? One can't grow personally without being grounded.
I think old people are concerned about a perceived lack of self-disciplined development, a meme that seems to have left the modern generation. Maybe it's true, maybe not. One thing is for sure - it's very hard to say what the effect will be.
Personally I think it is a step forward. Furthermore, the decline of social mores towards self-mastery is a little exaggerated, and is an unrelated issue in any case.
Commodities by definition, have the price approach the marginal cost over time.
That's a clear statement that US health care is not a commodity. For example, it costs 11x as much to treat a broken arm in the US compared to Canada. Some entity is frigging with the free market and making a lot of money. Note that there are entities other than the government that can interfere. It seems certain that such an entity would fight tooth and nail to prevent meaningful change to the system. They'd use every dirty trick in the book to manage public perception.
Note to USA, Russia and China. Leave us the @#% alone. I heard antipsychotic medication can help with both megalomania and delusions of grandeur.
Maybe interesting to shareholders. Not everyone is a technogeek.
Conservative: Okay. Fine. Aside from the transistor, the aqueduct, the world wide web, nuclear power, GPS and memory foam, what have we ever gotten out of government funded research?
Liberal: Scientific evidence for global warming?
Conservative: Oh shut up.