The Bear's Key

And right there, you lose any credibility. How so... ....when you forgot to mention that one little detail about human shields?... However I stand by my point because... No, there is never just one way to choose. That's not the fault of the soldiers, but whoever directly commanded that incompetent kind of warfare. I'm sure the Japanese couldn't move quite as fast when dragging along body shields. It might not even take a fairly superior commander to overcome a recognized/familiar battlefield challenge that actually hurts the enemies' movement. And to use it advantageously vs that enemy. Plus find a way to deal with the body shield problem. With higher mobility than enemy soldiers dragging villagers in front of them, the Allies have a chance for movement and placement to become a major tactical advantage. Especially since it wasn't a new tactic used by the Japanese. So if now I've regained credibility , might you want to address my other points you just skipped by?

It's possible there's no horse, of course. Of course, such would happen only if we learn those aren't the kinds of cases people are blustering about.

An extra week or two beyond the measley 3 days waited. At the very least. You really think someone needed an excuse for civilians about several weeks of fighting that no one would've even known to account for? Interesting. Guess he finally bought into the hyped rationale. And that's where it becomes idiocy, as no one "has to" do any such thing -- unless of course, it's really just an unsubstantiated "what if" you're throwing forth. I find it a bit unrealistic that servicemen would find a need to gun down so many thousands of schoolschildren. But if you're correct, that speaks volumes about the minds that view such as a necessity of war's progress, being the ones ultimately who decide how to end the war quickly (i.e. atom bombs). Or maybe, the same as it'd be for any other nation's leader, they probably whisked him to safety as the firebombing became clearly imminent -- perhaps in underground or reliable pre-built shelters. And once there, heard updated accounts of it. Source: The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski, starting at 41:14 minutes in ("Knowledge or Certainty") -- via Wikipedia. As the war continued, Szilárd became increasingly dismayed that scientists were losing control over their research to the military, and argued many times with General Leslie Groves, military director of the project. His resentment towards the U.S. government was exacerbated by his failed attempts to avoid the use of the atomic bomb in war through having a test organized that could be witnessed by Japanese observers* who would then have the opportunity to surrender and spare lives. Below is foresight by Leahy... (referencing CharonY's post, again ) The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion... And the petition by 70 scientists to Truman also reveals foresight... The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale. If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. .... Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States -- singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power. The added material strength which this lead gives to the United States brings with it the obligation of restraint and if we were to violate this obligation our moral position would be weakened in the eyes of the world and in our own eyes. It would then be more difficult for us to live up to our responsibility of bringing the unloosened forces of destruction under control. He admitted it might be used in certain instances -- such as if the terms for Japan's surrender were made public in detail and just as important, assured the Japanese they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland....but only if still with all that, Japan refused surrender. I do give recognition to that possibility.... ...however, no one really has concrete evidence of all the decision making parts that led to the atom bomb droppings. And though it's good habit to offer people the benefit of doubt, lavishing it on can well be a detrimental habit. When a possibility exists involving the lure of power, and secrecy prevents knowing if mechanisms truly exist for proper checks and balances, then I'm not going to dismiss the reasonable possibilities -- especially if history's long filled with the power hungry being able to realize their goals due in part to leadership secrecy1 and misdirection2. And we definitely have one of the two in play. It's my opinion....highlighting that other possibilities may well exist, and secrecy disallows any thorough verification. Unless of course you're able to show us that the only possible behind-the-scenes version of the atomic bombing events is the commonly advertised one. *Wow, parallel thinking. Although my scenario differs a bit.

Show me where. However after the first bomb was dropped, they and everyone now "knew". Japan could've been given more time and a video of the U.S. test explosions as a visual confirmation of what just occured in Hiroshima. Then we could've waited. Well according to CharonY's earlier post, MacArthur disagreed with the necessity of the bombings. The source is from a book I don't have access to, but perhaps others with historical familiarity of WW2 can verify it. I'm sure the first bomb dropped clarified it. But if saving lives were really paramount, a simple test drop from a plane beforehand solves that. Seen? Or heard about it? A daunting visual of the everything-all-at-once destructive mushroom cloud is far more effective, I'd presume. The scientists involved would likely not have volunteered their efforts if anyone remotely suspected the bomb would actually get used. So it's much like the Iraq War, not likely to have received support if the first goal offered was to remove Saddam. Instead it was to reduce casualties (from WMD...except 60 years later it's not ours. Nor theirs, as it's nonexistent) Oh I never thought him guilty, just misled...and a (hurried) freshman -- easy combo. Note I said: more time between the first and second atom bombings. Give the emperor video footage of the U.S. tests after Hiroshima was bombed, so he could see first hand what occured and how devastatingly quickly/powerful. Perhaps not quite, JohnB. Drawinging again on CharonY's post, the following who qualify as critical decision makers -- potentially affecting thousands or millions of lives -- seem to also have expressed disagreement with the atom bomb's use... Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President) Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet. Doesn't even make sense. Reconnaissance can be of extreme strategic value and yield critical enemy weaknesses. I can't imagine an enemy at war saying, "oh, let them fly, it's only recon". But disregarding that... Even if the first recon didn't get challenged for the quoted reason, I'm sure after the first bomb drop, it'd have automatically made the second recon highly suspect.

Well good thing you used it, as I didn't know that it's elective. I had thought insurance generally didn't cover it *just because*, so therefore a universal plan might -- or so I thought was the argument. My bad. I have to pay cash for treatments unfortunately, so I'm not as familiar with health insurance coverage in general. So if electives don't really get covered, and Obamacare doesn't plan on covering them, it's a moot point and I'm not concerned about it. People really should chill a bit about the partisan labeling of members here though, we have similar goals and the opposition isn't the misinformed, but the misinformers...who fully know better, and poison the well intentionally spreading confusion and/or harm. It's well to be pissed off by the seeming avalanche of political treachery, which is ruining good efforts/causes purposely (and it's often more frustrating when someone doesn't realize it and even happily defends them or repeats the spoon-fed propoganda). But we must care that our passions don't become a hatred transforming us into what once we hated -- for an old clichè. Or that it makes us blind to the possible ulterior actions of those offering a cure.

(Just a reminder of the context for what I said) No long history of vehement opposition, and no rights of body privacy and control threatened. No long history of vehement opposition, and no rights of body privacy and control threatened. ie. no Roe vs Wade. Another thing Obama might need to clarify periodically, for the sake of not having wingnut leaders fill in the blanks themselves.

Sure, that's why a top priority by the Allies seemed to be for the emperor and other princes (of his family) who'd been implicated to be exonerated from all war crimes Certainly, as the excuse that best fit the parameters of an official explanation and naturally believable. We lack sufficient evidence that what occurred behind the scenes matches their excuse. So asking ourselves questions from every conceivable angle is how I tackle it. For instance, the plan for the bomb resembles the Iraq war. The stated rationale given changed -- and how many people gave it a deeper thought? The bomb's purpose was to acquire it before Germany did. However, ask yourself. If Germany, without its own bomb, had ignored Russia and kept on fighting -- do you think we'd have nuked Germany twice? Moot point. The rationale changed...from getting to the atom bomb first, to its use for reducing casualties. Nevermind they didn't give Japan a bit longer to surrender before dropping the next one. And I'm sure video copies of the first atomic detonation tests could've been supplied to the emperor for his witness, as a visual threat of what's to occur fairly soon if he didn't comply. First, I'm against government-led executions, as many here are. Second, like I mentioned the emperor and princes responsible for those atrocities were spared. Option #1 is thus partly false. The rest is valid if the content were examined in a vaccuum, perhaps. I'm just not convinced the atom bombings were the most intelligent solutions available -- or even on the table.

They were looking for something that would produce a runaway chain reaction of fission. The link has good info on it.

I agree with Pangloss. Far better to deal with the loophole now and preemt the opposition, than be accused of political scheming and calculating the "unforeseen" outcome. I am pro-choice, believing government can't dictate what natural processes occur in a human's body, yet am willing to accept the compromise: taxes don't pay to end a pregnancy if not life-threatening or abusively concieved. The pregnant women seeking termination finds her own cash for it. My reason is simple. The entire issue's long been a gray area with vehement opposition...yet supported by many (even though the procedure is relatively uncommon), as its outlawing potentially affects -- in a negative manner -- the important rights dealing with a lady's own body privacy and control. That we don't pay for it's not bad middle ground. (And keeping it like that doesn't change anything, more importantly) So Obama needs to address the issue directly, otherwise there's a potential for accusations, resentment, and whatever ugliness to ensue.

To further help get back on track...it's seems not red herrings or logic fallacies, but simply just misunderstandings of each other. In post #22: Clearly bascule's not referring to wait times, but more like a compariosn between "ever" and "never". No universal: many people will get the healthcare they need. Yet many others will never. Universal: every person will get the healthcare they need. In both cases timing is relative to the procedure, but in the case above that's irrelvant. And I really doubt Pangloss wielded bias in his arguments. He seems to have misunderstood bascule's point, who in turn seemed to view the misunderstanding as a deliberate fallacy. We're only human.

It'd go the same way as the evolution trial: unscientific side* loses, but nurtures a mounting proproganda effort and in less than one hundred years are demanding a "theory" for CO2 Design be taught in schools alongside Global Warming Caused by Humans. *(the Chamber of Lobbyists)

Evidence please. The advertised goal of dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: to preserve lives. A few options were available for this. 1) The cleaner way (i.e. fewest lives taken): accept Japan's probable surrender, even if not unconditionally. But instead, the powers that be chose option 2 and 3... 2) Nuke Japan 3) Ditto Kind of hints someone had a really itchy trigger finger? (behind the scenes of a freshly -- and unexpectedly soon -- sworn-in President)

Obama promised change, huh? Well there you go

I see your point. Guess bascule would have to clear it up -- what he meant, exactly.

The machine's intelligence would be drawn from humans, the machines would have to be totally objective to self-improve without human-type conflicts. Do we know anyone who's truly objective? And if so, will they be designing all the machines? Will their intelligence be enough to solve any dilemma of moral implications? How will machines designed for war, spying, and espionage interact with a machine designed for peace and totally open communications? Wouldn't the machines have to test hypothesis just like humans do (it's doubtful they'd simply "know")? And if so, who's going to approve the funding? I think sometimes people are too quick to jump on the idea that it's going to be all problem-solving and no conflict. An inevitable, break-neck speed, exponential accumulation of knowledge. To do so they'd have to sort out humanity's knowledge, truths from untruths, and to do that successfully the machines would have to access top secret infomation at the highest levels of all governments, and proprietary secrets from major industries/business -- who can design their own machines with the specific intent of propagating misinformation and obscuring what the general machines can learn, in order to protect valuable interests/investments. On a side note, the machines wouldn't at first be like a monkey, but rather would act like they share a common ancestry with monkeys. A fine but important distinction

You're the one making the knee-jerk assumption, ParanoiA. He was referring to Betsy McCaughey, not you. So the reception's still honest It's an understandable error though, since he used the word "your" under the text he was quoting by you. But read it carefully again. Welcome back too , it's cool to hear from you again.

Yeah, I should include the politicians' outreach allies/groups, schemes, and media as part of what I'm addressing, too. So I will. Let it be done A common one... -- Just kill/nuke 'em all let God sort it out. Themes by Pat Robertson... -- For the termites [people] who are destroying the institutions and traditions of Christians, the time has arrived for a godly fumigation. -- Political assassinations recommended And quoting Pat Robertson directly ... "I read your book. When you get through, you say, "If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom [i.e. Washington, DC], I think that's the answer." I mean, you get through this, and you say, "We've got to blow that thing up." I mean, is it as bad as you say?" That's him to the book author of "Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Endangers National Security". And it's not the only time I heard a conservative pundit saying it'd be good to nuke it for purposes of starting over as a nation. One side relies more on humor as a tool, while the other uses (rehearsed) anger a bit more.

In my last post I had meant the leadership, and not the citizens. My apologies for not being more clear on that. Nearly a third way in the post, you might notice the clues: "24/7 sweet-laced rhetoric", "ulterior motives", "Is it just bait for the suckered voters?" Again, just the politicians, not the citizens is what I'm addressing. Nailed the head And sometimes it's even purposeful that bad people end up in charge of good ideas.

Wrong. No one's against reductions in wasteful spending, nuturing personal responsibility, and defense vs attack. I hear plenty of "goddam wacko environmentalists" or "bleeding hearts". Surely we all have. Yet when's the last time you heard anyone utter: "goddam money savers" or "bastard defenders of nation"? I'll wager you've heard it 0 times. Your comparison has one major flaw: no one believes in or promotes wasting our tax $$, and leaving us either 100% defenseless or unable to mount a proper counter-attack vs an enemy strike, for instance. Any true disbelief lies in whether the "conservatives" are really interested in following up on the 24/7 sweet-laced rhetoric (free enterprise, national security, personal responsibility, nation building), without the usual -- and totally opposite -- ulterior motives. Is it just bait for the suckered voters? In contrast, the right-wing's "disbelief" is not on whether liberals intend to follow through on some needed action, but often on the validity of the scientifically-based conclusions driving the needs for such action. Their "disbelief" is most profound and fallacy-riddled when that action stands to cut into the right-wing's bread-and-butter: private corruption, the uneducated, war, etc. Their "disbelief" is in quotes because it's often an act. They might know full well something's true, but intend to "disprove" it regardless -- especially if such interferes with their agenda, or even if it doesn't...but the idea originated from Dems. You really think it's all equal on both sides? Then here's an easy assignment... Conservatives once persecuted employees of industry and the U.S. government, blacklisting many of their political opponents, abusing government power to cleanse the system of politics unfavorable to them-- illegitimately as well. It's known as McCarthyism. Find us the liberal equivalent of that. As extra credit, find the equivalent of the Prohibition introduced by conservatives and later shamefully withdrawn -- yet not before the explosion in organized crime...which incidentally, they made a promise to defeat as if their Prohibition actions had nothing to do with the problem's magnification. Deja-vu to the conservatives' War on Drugs. Responsible for the supply/demand amplification of today's criminal drug enterprise, yet promosing to end it as if they weren't originally responsible for it. (Sensing a theme here). And probably blame liberals for it all. If you manage those, I've got a ton more for homework assingments

Plus the fact unlike cars, medical prices don't get as visibly advertised.

The article had an omission. Fixed it, though The officials said the White House hoped to make the case to the American people that it was Republicans who had abandoned the effort at bipartisanship. Republicans countered by saying that they simply opposed the legislation and that the public outcry stoked by Republican falsifications -- in a pre-calculated effort -- so later on they can pretend it had validated their view and solidified their opposition... . ....so Dems just gotta improve their lying and manufacturing public outcries in advance. Coordinated with a supposed "duty" to follow the misled public's will. You know, basic Politics 101 -- easy Rove stuff here, get with the program Dems.

I do. What city did the Bush Faces image get pasted throughout? When I say viral nationally, it's real life (i.e. public walls and structures) I'm talking about, not the internet. And the time period is off (i.e. not his first 7 months in office)

Yeah, I so thought about getting a shirt printed of it (minus the "socialism") but I'd have to ensure wingnuts don't mistake it as support. Perhaps this under the image: "Obama, way cooler than Bush" Just to piss off many of them

Definitely, although.....not within his first 7 months in office, and not pasted throughout a city (with a movement determined to take it viral nationally). Furthermore, I think john5746 meant in the context of a Palestinian-American student doing it. The "ethnicity" part of its originator. Also, just image if the Bush caricatures (which aren't even street posters) were labeled "Capitalism" underneath. You'd have to imagine quite severely, because it's actually hard to find. No true Democrat is really against business -- only the unchecked corruption part, and environmental disregard, and waste, that some businesses view as entitled to over people's rights.

I disagree about it being a political statement. The artist was only joking around (pun) on his computer's image editor. I would see myself doing the same to George Washington, John McCain, or Hillary Clinton without it being a political statement at all. If you have the talent and like goofing around, it's on the same level as doodling. If a friend had made that image of a figure I happened to like, I'd congratulate them and find it humorous. Unless it were done as a political "anti" statement because they were driven to do so by politically twisted facts on wingnut media. It's one thing to support and champion your beliefs, it's another to support and champion fabrications of political media origin (calculated to draw your ire against their Number One political enemy). And here I thought someone in the right-wing creative enough to draw that poster. :rolleye (kidding on that last bit, I know some fairly creative right-wingers)