quote:

---

You're losing control now.

If you'd like to know about the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy's closest adviser is a nice place to start. If you'd like to know about the bombing of Japan, a member of Lemay's team is a good place to start. If you'd like to know about the Vietnam War, the Sec of Defense for that war is a good place to start.

---

Ok so I get to prove all my points for the Iraq war using Rumsfeld alone and his conclusions you will accept as truth?

quote:

---

Let's take up a donation to pay to move his US hating ass away shall we.

---

Does he hate the US or take issue with its government's actions?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Let's take up a donation to pay to move his US hating ass away shall we.

---

Does he hate the US or take issue with its government's actions?

---

He said it himself. He prefers Switzerland.

I've never understood the "love it or leave it" crowd. They'll cite "freedom" as the reason why America is somehow better than other nations, yet when you exercise that freedom to criticize the government, then you need to pack up and leave? I've heard it countless times over the pledge and our family's refusal to say it. "Exercise your freedoms as I say, or get out!"

I invite you to start watching the following interview at the 2:42:45 mark. Listen carefully to Mr Vidal's answer, and then purchase his reading list.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Let's take up a donation to pay to move his US hating ass away shall we.

---

Does he hate the US or take issue with its government's actions?

---

He said it himself. He prefers Switzerland.

---

That's not what he said, and you know it. You asked which country has a more virtuous history than the US. He asked the rhetorical question of who has Switzerland bombed lately, so you reply with this:

quote:

---

Switzerland? Seriously? The ones that gladly hid nazi war criminals and their treasures stolen from jews?

Are you that deranged of a human being?

---

Are you claiming the US didn't hide nazi war criminals? The US didn't let Japanese war criminals walk?

quote:

---

I invite you to start watching the following interview at the 2:42:45 mark. Listen carefully to Mr Vidal's answer, and then purchase his reading list.

---

Why in the ever living F would I listen to anything that lefty has to say? Everyone molds their view to fit their politics.


How bout you listen to a Catholic explain why the Bombs were necessary?






Let's look at what happened after they dropped.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-leaflets/

We instituted a campaign to convince the Japanese to stop which worked.

His words "an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation" would be the result if they did not end the war.

A blockade didn't do that. An invasion didn't do that. A Bombs did that.

quote:

---

Are you claiming the US didn't hide nazi war criminals? The US didn't let Japanese war criminals walk?

---

Please point me to evidence of our government hiding nazi war criminals and their stolen jewish treasures.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you claiming the US didn't hide nazi war criminals? The US didn't let Japanese war criminals walk?

---

Please point me to evidence of our government hiding nazi war criminals and their stolen jewish treasures.

---

Operation Paperclip. Don't know about stolen Jewish treasures. But the US certainly "hid" war criminals because they wanted their scientific expertise. Let's not act like the US has ever been virtuous.

I'll do better than that.

Try to stop breathing through your mouth for a few minutes and read:

[url]http://www.theguardian.com/books/2000/jul/13/extract.features11 [/url]

quote:

---

Let's not act like the US has ever been virtuous.

---

I'm done with even acknowledging you pathetic face. Both of you. Pulling **** to defend the Swiss all while playing like you don't hate the US, then say **** like, the US has never been virtuous.


EAD

quote:

---

quote:

---

Let's not act like the US has ever been virtuous.

---

I'm done with even acknowledging you pathetic face. Both of you. Pulling **** to defend the Swiss all while playing like you don't hate the US, then say **** like, the US has never been virtuous.


EAD

---

Wait, when has the US ever been "virtuous"? I'm not defending the Swiss w/ regards to what they did in WW2, but the US certainly was not virtuous in that regard either. Google Operation Paperclip.

But if the US has ever been virtuous, please tell me when it was. Was it when official government policy allowed for the enslavement of an entire race? Or was it while we were trying to exterminate the native population? Or was it while we were taking law-abiding citizens and throwing them in armed camps because their ancestors were born on a particular island in the Pacific?

I love Americans. I don't love government. There's a huge difference. I also don't value an American life above the life of a German, Japanese, Iraqi, etc. I'm not sure why you are getting so upset about this though.

If you scream and yell loud enough, and cover your ears and eyes, maybe it will all go away and you can wake up in an Exceptional American utopia - where hell doesn't exist of course. And where everyone gets orange slices and sugar cookies and the rivers are made of chocolate milk.

7nine,
Earlier you said this:

quote:

---

You must be a democrat if you think your government should be righteous. Government in all forms is evil. The trick is to have as little of it as possible.

---

If government, in all forms, is evil, then why do you get mad when we say the US government isn't virtuous? Do you believe evil and virtue are compatible? I'm confused, because you are clearly getting mad, but your own statement earlier in the thread would indicate that the US government has never been virtuous.

It's true we've had close calls. And it's true that the weapons carry a substantial safety risk just sitting there.

But this isn't responsive to the point I'm making.

The question is what would have happened if just the soviets had the weapon.

quote:

---

The question is what would have happened if just the soviets had the weapon.

---

Who knows? We can try to make guesses, but any American predicting Soviet behavior is about as unbiased as any Soviet predicting American behavior. They very well may have done what the country did the last time only 1 nation had this weapon, but we really do not know.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The question is what would have happened if just the soviets had the weapon.

---

Who knows? We can try to make guesses, but any American predicting Soviet behavior is about as unbiased as any Soviet predicting American behavior. They very well may have done what the country did the last time only 1 nation had this weapon, but we really do not know.

---

Thank goodness the world didn't have to find out.

Unless you can establish that no one would develop it to conquer the world absent someone else developing it first, there's not really a point to the debate.

The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction has some merit in a sense - which demonstrates just how depraved mankind is.

quote:

---

Thank goodness the world didn't have to find out.

---

Except for the innocents that were killed in Japan.

quote:

---

Unless you can establish that no one would develop it to conquer the world absent someone else developing it first, there's not really a point to the debate.

---

You create a standard by which all debate is then shut down. The thread wasn't about government policies and whether they are "right" or not from a political perspective. It was meant to be about the morality of creating a weapon designed for nothing other than vaporizing entire cities. As Christians, is this ability something we should really be championing and rationalizing? It's what Zahnd was talking about with man now being able to undo creation. With the push of a button, all of humanity could be wiped away. This is a frightening power to rest with an organization that even a staunch state-defender labels as "evil". So, whether there is political practicality behind these weapons, in my opinion it doesn't change how Christians should view these weapons.

I don't get what point either side is trying to make here. People not named Jesus are imperfect and sometimes make evil (or at least nefarious) decisions that they perceive to favor their side. These people run governments. Development of the A bomb and the decision to use it was accomplished by such people. Many powers were actively pursuing the technology and it was going to be developed by someone.

I think that out of all possible outcomes, the best one came to be.

America is not perfect but compared to the other nations of the earth past and present; it is exceptional.

Well, do you think the soviets for example had as much respect for life as we did? The Japanese?

You've raised the argument it was wrong even to create the weapon--not to use it. Just to have it.

It doesn't appear to even have occurred to you that other countries weren't waiting for us to do it themselves. And you don't seem to be calculating that into your analysis now.

All you seem to say is you don't know and you're not going to speculate, so in your opinion it was still wrong for us to develop it.

I guess if that's the way you want to debate, where alternatives are not considered, have at it. What a silly debate to have.

Exceptionally great, yes. New Rome is certainly impressive and has accomplished much. You won't see me revoking my citizenship any time soon.

Exceptionally good, no.

quote:

---

Exceptionally great, yes. New Rome is certainly impressive and has accomplished much. You won't see me revoking my citizenship any time soon.

Exceptionally good, no.

---

Now we're getting somewhere. Please describe your objective definition of good.

quote:

---

Well, do you think the soviets for example had as much respect for life as we did? The Japanese?

---

I don't think so, but I also don't believe the US had as much respect for life as people claim they did. The Japanese would certainly question the US's respect for life.

quote:

---

You've raised the argument it was wrong even to create the weapon--not to use it. Just to have it.

---

Yes, I agree with Zahnd that just creating this weapon, which is designed to do nothing but to kill massive amounts of people, was sinful.

quote:

---

It doesn't appear to even have occurred to you that other countries weren't waiting for us to do it themselves. And you don't seem to be calculating that into your analysis now.

---

I fully understand other nations were trying to develop them to. Other countries doing something wrong, IMO, does not justify us doing something wrong. Especially when we laughingly claim to be a "Christian nation".

quote:

---

All you seem to say is you don't know and you're not going to speculate, so in your opinion it was still wrong for us to develop it.

---

I don't know. The Soviets may have developed them and never used them. I have no clue, and neither do you. Would they have? Maybe. I certainly wouldn't have been surprised if they stooped to the level that the US did.


I try not to look at this through political lenses. I try to only look at it through my faith in Christ, so what other nations may or may not do has no bearing on what I would do. It's like we teach our children, it doesn't matter what someone does to you. All you can control are your own actions, so with those actions, we should glorify God.

quote:

---

America is not perfect but compared to the other nations of the earth past and present; it is exceptional.

---

How do you define "exceptional"? Is it an issue of economic prosperity or political freedom? Or is it tied to morality?

The development of s deterrent that you believe will discourage someone like Stalin from killing another 12 million people is not sinful.

The Japanese would question us? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_nanking

quote:

---

The development of s deterrent that you believe will discourage someone like Stalin from killing another 12 million people is not sinful.

---

Do you honestly believe that "creating a deterrent" was why we developed the bomb? I've never read anything that indicates that that was our motivation. Was it an unintended result of it? Sure, but the intent was to kill cities full of people with one bomb. If anything, the "deterrent" effect probably played more of a role in the decision to use it than it did in the decision to develop it.

quote:

---

The Japanese would question us? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_nanking

---

And, just like Americans rationalize the mass slaughter of innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'm sure you can find Japanese nationalists that would attempt to justify the rape of nanking.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The development of s deterrent that you believe will discourage someone like Stalin from killing another 12 million people is not sinful.

---

Do you honestly believe that "creating a deterrent" was why we developed the bomb? I've never read anything that indicates that that was our motivation. Was it an unintended result of it? Sure, but the intent was to kill cities full of people with one bomb. If anything, the "deterrent" effect probably played more of a role in the decision to use it than it did in the decision to develop it.

---

You've got to be kidding? Didn't Einstein personally warn FDR in a letter that we better get the bomb before Hitler?

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Japanese would question us? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_nanking

---

And, just like Americans rationalize the mass slaughter of innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'm sure you can find Japanese nationalists that would attempt to justify the rape of nanking.

---

You're certainly free to compare the two.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The development of s deterrent that you believe will discourage someone like Stalin from killing another 12 million people is not sinful.

---

Do you honestly believe that "creating a deterrent" was why we developed the bomb? I've never read anything that indicates that that was our motivation. Was it an unintended result of it? Sure, but the intent was to kill cities full of people with one bomb. If anything, the "deterrent" effect probably played more of a role in the decision to use it than it did in the decision to develop it.

---

You've got to be kidding? Didn't Einstein personally warn FDR in a letter that we better get the bomb before Hitler?

---

Is there anything that indicates the US motivation behind building a weapon designed to destroy entire cities was to create a deterrent? Or was it to win the war? If I'm not mistaken, this was a highly classified project so how much of a deterrent can it be when nobody knows we have it until we use it?

The intent was not to be a deterrent. That may have been the result, but I've seen nothing to indicate that was why they were created in the first place.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Japanese would question us? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_nanking

---

And, just like Americans rationalize the mass slaughter of innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'm sure you can find Japanese nationalists that would attempt to justify the rape of nanking.

---

You're certainly free to compare the two.

---

One resulted in 130,000-250,000 dead. The other 40,000-300,000.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The development of s deterrent that you believe will discourage someone like Stalin from killing another 12 million people is not sinful.

---

Do you honestly believe that "creating a deterrent" was why we developed the bomb? I've never read anything that indicates that that was our motivation. Was it an unintended result of it? Sure, but the intent was to kill cities full of people with one bomb. If anything, the "deterrent" effect probably played more of a role in the decision to use it than it did in the decision to develop it.

---

You've got to be kidding? Didn't Einstein personally warn FDR in a letter that we better get the bomb before Hitler?

---

Is there anything that indicates the US motivation behind building a weapon designed to destroy entire cities was to create a deterrent? Or was it to win the war? If I'm not mistaken, this was a highly classified project so how much of a deterrent can it be when nobody knows we have it until we use it?

The intent was not to be a deterrent. That may have been the result, but I've seen nothing to indicate that was why they were created in the first place.

---

It was classified because we didn't want others to get the bomb using our expertise. At some point, once you have it, you do let the world know.

quote:

---

It was classified because we didn't want others to get the bomb using our expertise. At some point, once you have it, you do let the world know.

---

Yeah, we let the world know when we dropped it on a large population center filled with civilians. If the effort is to create a deterrent, then you let the world know before you ever use it. The bomb wasn't created, though, to be a deterrent. It was created to kill, and just so happened to be an effective deterrent in the nuclear age we accelerated.