disturbing that these anarchists will disrespect and denigrate both the sacrifice of tens of thousands of servicemen and submit to a brutal murdering regime by allowing the supreme ruler of that regime to escape justice with a conditional surrender ?!?!
this is the absurdity of anarchism. maybe this thinking explains why there is absolutely ZERO anarchist societies. They are simply unsustainable because their response to brute force is grand naivete.
moreover, you are so completely deluded by conspiracy theory, minutia, and circumstantial nonsense that you believe the rapists of nanking, singapore, malaya, korea, bataan, et al are less responsible for WWII when compared to FDR !?!?!
do these anarchists believe that there is an equally culpable “FDR” in Nanking that should be blamed for all of his people’s suffering instead of the japanese army?
moreover, lozat admits that the bombs were horrific, yet apparently werent necessary despite that fact the emperor rebutted him less than a week after the bombs were dropped in his only address to the japanese people ?!?!!
thanks for answering my question of why the japanese didnt except unconditional surrender – because they didnt want one of those responsible for the murder of 30 million innocents brought to justice!!!
moral hazard 101 for cluless anarchists: you dont establish a precendent that lets potential mass murderers off the hook to end a war. it simply creates a bubble for the next war that will be infinitely worse. Hence japan is a puppy dog today thanks to the atom bombs, unconditional surrender, and macarthurs conquering benovelence to the emperor.
the emperor rebutted him less than a week after the bombs were dropped in his only address to the japanese people ?!?!!
Yeah, everything that comes out of politicians’ mouths is truth. I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
But Rett, seriously, the bombings don’t require a justification, especially not to anarchists. They have no court in which to try anyone. They can’t go back in time and change things. All they can do is paint the US as the villain. You’re wasting energy bro.
conditional surrender is escaping justice?
the above question is naive?
we have somewhere discuss where responsibility for the war lies and whether it is more or less on the USA than the Axis?
anarchists believe that FDR and only FDR is guilty of murder by atom bomb?
‘weren’t necessary’ for what?
‘all’ the japanese or some japanese?
do you rather brutally kill anyone that stands next to a brutal dictator as a lesson to all innocent people that they should not have dictators dictating them?
the emperor rebutted him less than a week after the bombs were dropped in his only address to the japanese people ?!?!!
Yeah, everything that comes out of politicians’ mouths is truth. I did not have sexual relations with that woman. – olovetto
Dont tell me olovetto, tell your anarchist boys on this thread – they all cite conspiracy theories supported by testimony and reports from …
you guessed it, government bureaucrats and politicians.
hey, if anarchist hate government so much – shouldnt there be a rule, they cant cite a government source supporting their flawed arguments.
hypocrisy isnt it ?
i guess that’s why you have exactly ZERO anarchist societies today. I hope these anarchists dont spend much time at the horse track, they have a propensity for betting on the wrong horse.
That seems a little extreme don’t you think?
conditional surrender is escaping justice?
the above question is naive?
we have somewhere discuss where responsibility for the war lies and whether it is more or less on the USA than the Axis?
anarchists believe that FDR and only FDR is guilty of murder by atom bomb?
‘weren’t necessary’ for what?
‘all’ the japanese or some japanese?
do you rather brutally kill anyone that stands next to a brutal dictator as a lesson to all innocent people that they should not have dictators dictating them?-- nirgrahamUK
total war, dude.
you dont understand it.
try reading sherman’s march through the south to understand how you end war.
in contrast, war in the anarchist playbook would be an endless series of half measures that would lead to defeat. hence there are exactly as many anarchist enclaves on the planet as there are heaven’s gate or jim jones enclaves.
ideologies whose premise is based on fantasy dont last long.
Rettopper I have a simple statement for you, and you say if it is true or false:
States (countries/nations/whatever) are in a state of anarchy amongst themselves.
Another true/false:
It is wise to have someone be judge in their own case
Rett: “ideologies whose premise is based on fantasy don’t last long.”
Agreed. Now, how do you propose to pay for world wide American hegemony?
[EDIT: I know it’s a tough question, so this is the last time I will ask.]
But Rett, seriously, the bombings don’t require a justification, especially not to anarchists. They have no court in which to try anyone. They can’t go back in time and change things. All they can do is paint the US as the villain. You’re wasting energy bro.— bloomj31
The anarchists wont like this, but I actually agree with them on 90% of the issues. They are far more preferable than the leftist rabble that I have dealt with on numerous blogs over the years.
If I had to choose one over the other, I choose the anarchist’s argument 99% of the time.
nonetheless, you cant let them slide on the few points that we disagree with them on. Otherwise, we would be equally as rigid in our thinking as both them and the leftists.
It is sad that they hurt the effort at reducing the size and scope of government with all this conspiracy theory and extremist stuff that just alienates austrians from the main stream that I believe are ready to join the fight on the side of drastically rolling back government.
like most extremist ideologues, they apparently dont understand the subtleties and machinations of forcing positive change among a diverse populace.
since there are exactly ZERO anarchist societies on the planet today.
what is this ‘ideologue’ game you are playing???. are you going to prove that you are ‘more fluid’ and ‘less fixed’ than each of us individuals are? or better yet, that if one has a sound and consistent position, from which one does not shift, then per se this is worse than having half baked unexamined ideas that you routinely distance yourself from whilst you adopt another makeshift?
whatever. this recurring meme of yours is really ugly
"you cant let them slide on the few points that we disagree with them on.
What happens if we let them slide? Nothing. There is no consequence.
I learned from jiu jitsu that some fights are unnecessary, I submit to you that this is one of them.
Rett: “ideologies whose premise is based on fantasy don’t last long.”
Agreed. Now, how do you propose to pay for world wide American hegemony?
[EDIT: I know it’s a tough question, so this is the last time I will ask.] – chloe
We are overextended.
Moreover, I believe in the use of “soft power” (capitalism) to coopt adversaries or rather their citizenry. FOr example, we should be supporting the citizenry in Iran. We should not use US armed forces to promote our national interests, we should leverage freedom fighters in the nations of our adversaries. We should support foreign proxies, preferably in non-violent struggles, but when as a last resort support them militarily
Most importantly, we are losing the battle at home. We must dramatically reduce the size and scope of government. If we fail to clean house at home, we wont have the wherewithal to protect our national interests abroad.
In summary, the primary survival level threat to the USA is not from abroad, it is from statism at home.
I hope that answers your question.
I hope that answers your question.
You are ignoring my post.
“Most importantly, we are losing the battle at home. We must dramatically reduce the size and scope of government.”
Which parts and/or programs?
Rettopper I have a simple statement for you, and you say if it is true or false:
States (countries/nations/whatever) are in a state of anarchy amongst themselves.-- olovetto
true, the world is anarchic if only because you have autocratic regimes present. paradoxically, it wouldnt be if you had only anarchic enclaves or democratic states. INdeed, I think that anarchic enclaves would thrive and be protected in a world dominated by democratic states (see my early definition and freedom house source)
I dont think that applies to democratic nations that have not or will not engage in conflict.
the anarchic state of the globe only is valid as long as there are autocratic regimes. ONce/if they are removed, the world will be peaceful.
of course, there may be a “soccer war” or some short sharp nationalist conflict, but democratic societies are loath to sanction war against other democratic societies. That is why the US border with Canada is the longest, undefended, peaceful border in the history of mankind (at least until the 1860’'s when canada effectively broke from britian)
We should not use US armed forces to promote our national interests, we should leverage freedom fighters in the nations of our adversaries. We should support foreign proxies, preferably in non-violent struggles, but when as a last resort support them militarily
Most importantly, we are losing the battle at home. We must dramatically reduce the size and scope of government. If we fail to clean house at home, we wont have the wherewithal to protect our national interests abroad.
In summary, the primary survival level threat to the USA is not from abroad, it is from statism at home
That is a lot of “we’s” and “USA’s”, I didn’t even know I was in a battle much less losing one.
true, the world is anarchic if only because you have autocratic regimes present. paradoxically, it wouldnt be if you had only anarchic enclaves or democratic states.
How would either “anarchic enclaves” or democratic states not be in a state of anarchy amongst themselves? Are you saying that someone rules over the “league of democratic states”? That sounds kind of faith-based Ret.
INdeed, I think that anarchic enclaves would thrive and be protected in a world dominated by democratic states (see my early definition and freedom house source)
Based on the history of “the world’s greatest democracy” conquering places who are undemocratic, I’m a bit skeptical about this.
I dont think that applies to democratic nations that have not or will not engage in conflict.
the anarchic state of the globe only is valid as long as there are autocratic regimes. ONce/if they are removed, the world will be peaceful.
lol @ the rest