General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jubjub
Sweeden will be a cakewalk.

I , for one want no part of Finland --- they are very bad dudes -- they handed the Russkies their asses on a platter in WW2.
We also singlehandedly invented the idea of the modern concentration camp. Oh, and Sibelius.
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 05-05-2005, 12:59 AM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#226  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Aziraphale
 
Hm. Nano, I'm still waiting for the part of the constitution that you talked about before. I know that you read my post, and the post of the other guy asking for it ... Because you responded to that post without ansering the question. It's been a few days now ...
__________________
I've been locked out for a month ... wtf
Old 05-05-2005, 01:43 AM Aziraphale is offline  
Reply With Quote
#227  

mofugger
I'm married to a gay man
 
mofugger's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by R@$T@M@N
France wouldn't last one hour against the US.

Germany might be a threat, but they got soft after WWII. 3 Days to take their country.

Spain would could easily be overtaken during siesta.

If the US invaded Western Europe, it would take about less then a week to conquer it.

I'd say we'd have to dedicate a major portion of our military forces to pull it off
__________________
Zombie Outbreak Response Team: Urban Division
Old 05-05-2005, 02:07 AM mofugger is offline  
Reply With Quote
#228  

Nano
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aziraphale
Hm. Nano, I'm still waiting for the part of the constitution that you talked about before. I know that you read my post, and the post of the other guy asking for it ... Because you responded to that post without ansering the question. It's been a few days now ...


Already answered it, i believe. Look back on page 1 @ 200ppp
__________________
Im not elitist, Ive simply been marginalized by the preponderance of idiots in the world.
Old 05-05-2005, 04:07 AM Nano is offline  
Reply With Quote
#229  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aziraphale
Hm. Nano, I'm still waiting for the part of the constitution that you talked about before. I know that you read my post, and the post of the other guy asking for it ... Because you responded to that post without ansering the question. It's been a few days now ...

He was probably thinking about not being able to quarter troops on the populace without compensation.
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 05-05-2005, 07:10 AM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#230  

PopeKevinI
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jubjub
what brilliant motherfucker coined the term "cheese eating surrender monkies" ?

phoney edit : I did a quick Google search -- it was Asmo.

I thought it was "frog eating surrender monkeys"

I like frog better.
__________________
THIS is your brain on drugs: "I'm not a positive thinker. I am a spiralling hexagonal vortex thinker that strobes multiple colors." -ry_goody
Old 05-05-2005, 10:00 AM PopeKevinI is offline  
Reply With Quote
#231  

kindred
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
Nothing.

Ever.

Including japan.


I love how people criticize the use of nuclear weapons in Japan and have absolutely no clue about the existing political and global ramifications at the time as well as the impact and results which carry on to this day. So you want to play the whatif game? What if the bombs had never been dropped?

Here are the very real Possibilities:

Japan and US war carries on to the bitter end, as Japanese stubborness and pride refuses to back down and refuses to accept the American invasion force on its homeland. An extra couple million deaths.

Japan is subdued but not defeated. Japan harbors bitter resentment, rebuilds and has its revenge similar to Germany after WWI. Several hundred million deaths.

Japan never denounces violence, and to this day remains an imperialistic nation that either has or plans to expand its territory and influence. A larger aggressive japanese empire.

Russia doesnt believe the US is serious about nuclear retaliation or is desicive enough to follow through on threats. They are more aggressive in expanding their influence and testing our limits. MAD may not be an effective deterrent as they decide the factors are in their favor to strike first. Global annihilation.

The current stigma over Nuclear weapons is not there. Having never viewed the consequences and horrors involved, the world still views the use of nukes as a viable strategic option. Bans on nuclear proliferation are not as strongly enforced. The likelihood of their use are greatly increased. Global annihiliation or a few countries obliterated.
__________________
Lord, Grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
Old 05-05-2005, 10:39 AM kindred is offline  
Reply With Quote
#232  

Nano
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kindred
I love how people criticize the use of nuclear weapons in Japan and have absolutely no clue about the existing political and global ramifications at the time as well as the impact and results which carry on to this day. So you want to play the whatif game? What if the bombs had never been dropped?

Actually, its through reading that i have discovered that the generally accepted "choices" were not the limits, and that the bombs ( at least 1 of them, and at most both of them ) were not necessary.

Quote:
Here are the very real Possibilities:

Japan and US war carries on to the bitter end, as Japanese stubborness and pride refuses to back down and refuses to accept the American invasion force on its homeland. An extra couple million deaths.

Japan is subdued but not defeated. Japan harbors bitter resentment, rebuilds and has its revenge similar to Germany after WWI. Several hundred million deaths.

Japan never denounces violence, and to this day remains an imperialistic nation that either has or plans to expand its territory and influence. A larger aggressive japanese empire.
Japan surrenders regardless. In this scenario ( based on the timing of the bombings ) the Soviet union would have entered the pacific theater, entitling them to spoils of war. The ramifications of this are a stronger communist presence in southeast asia. That is the reason the bombs were dropped, not because we needed japan to surrender, but that we needed them to surrender FAST, and it acted as a catalyst for the cold war arms race.

Quote:
Russia doesnt believe the US is serious about nuclear retaliation or is desicive enough to follow through on threats. They are more aggressive in expanding their influence and testing our limits. MAD may not be an effective deterrent as they decide the factors are in their favor to strike first. Global annihilation.
Had the bomb never been dropped, its quite possible the arms race never would have happened.

Quote:
The current stigma over Nuclear weapons is not there. Having never viewed the consequences and horrors involved, the world still views the use of nukes as a viable strategic option. Bans on nuclear proliferation are not as strongly enforced. The likelihood of their use are greatly increased. Global annihiliation or a few countries obliterated.
I will agree, field testing is far more compelling than watching videos of exploding islands; I will concede that it would be more possible for their use during the vietnam/korean wars, had they occured.
__________________
Im not elitist, Ive simply been marginalized by the preponderance of idiots in the world.
Old 05-05-2005, 11:25 AM Nano is offline  
Reply With Quote
#233  

Aziraphale
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
Already answered it, i believe. Look back on page 1 @ 200ppp

Ahh, I missed that post. You did, however, basically say what I said in my post ... except you added the 10th ammendment in there. This does not make a standing army unconstitutional, because when we say unconstitutional, we are referring to the federal constitution, not the constitution of the states. Additionally, the 10th amemdment was not enacted to illegalize a standing army, it was to prevent congress from making laws that prevented the states to function under the federal system.

It's an incredible stretch to say that because of the 10th amendment, the grievences filed by anti-federalists AFTER the constitution was signed (the grievences you mention are not the right ones--the anti-feds APPLAUDED England because they did limit their standing army in England), and that individual states wish to limit their own militias ... somehow makes it federally unconstitutional to have a standing army. Because several states have an amendment in their state constitution that limits the power of a state militia ... and because the 10th amendment protects the states from congressional national legislature that could hurt them ... does not make a standing army unconstitutional.

I suspect that you read a website once that says "Standing armies are unconstitutional..." and then posted it thinking that it must be in the constitution, and then tried to scrap to justify it ... because you've mixed a lot of things up there.
__________________
I've been locked out for a month ... wtf
Old 05-05-2005, 11:41 AM Aziraphale is offline  
Reply With Quote
#234  

Nano
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aziraphale
Ahh, I missed that post. You did, however, basically say what I said in my post ... except you added the 10th ammendment in there. This does not make a standing army unconstitutional, because when we say unconstitutional, we are referring to the federal constitution, not the constitution of the states. Additionally, the 10th amemdment was not enacted to illegalize a standing army, it was to prevent congress from making laws that prevented the states to function under the federal system.

It's an incredible stretch to say that because of the 10th amendment, the grievences filed by anti-federalists AFTER the constitution was signed (the grievences you mention are not the right ones--the anti-feds APPLAUDED England because they did limit their standing army in England), and that individual states wish to limit their own militias ... somehow makes it federally unconstitutional to have a standing army. Because several states have an amendment in their state constitution that limits the power of a state militia ... and because the 10th amendment protects the states from congressional national legislature that could hurt them ... does not make a standing army unconstitutional.

I suspect that you read a website once that says "Standing armies are unconstitutional..." and then posted it thinking that it must be in the constitution, and then tried to scrap to justify it ... because you've mixed a lot of things up there.


1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.


1802 Ohio: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power.

1816 Indiana: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.


Etc etc etc.

By the federal constitution, what is not explicitly in the federal constitution is left to the states, thus meaning that the federal constitution supports those amendments, meaning that through the federal constitution there should be no standing armies. Yes, its a leap of interpretation, but its a valid one.
__________________
Im not elitist, Ive simply been marginalized by the preponderance of idiots in the world.
Old 05-05-2005, 11:50 AM Nano is offline  
Reply With Quote
#235  

kindred
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
Actually, its through reading that i have discovered that the generally accepted "choices" were not the limits, and that the bombs ( at least 1 of them, and at most both of them ) were not necessary.

You dont know if it was necessary or not. The bombs were used, Japan rejected all violence and became a peaceful country. Communism fell apart. Why do you reject the necessity of something that happened when it obviously led to the current status quo? Realistically speaking, how could the status quo have evolved any better than it actually has?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
Japan surrenders regardless. In this scenario ( based on the timing of the bombings ) the Soviet union would have entered the pacific theater, entitling them to spoils of war. The ramifications of this are a stronger communist presence in southeast asia. That is the reason the bombs were dropped, not because we needed japan to surrender, but that we needed them to surrender FAST, and it acted as a catalyst for the cold war arms race.

Japan may or may not have surrendered. Theres a saying from Sun Tzu's art of war "Death is lighter than a feather, duty, heavier than a mountain." I believe every last man, woman, and child would have fought to the death rather than surrender and face humiliation and defeat. Indeed I've watched documentaries of Japanese taking the lives of family members rather than fall into the hands of Americans. If they had not been utterly and completely broken in both spirit and physically, Japan would not have evolved as it did today.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
Had the bomb never been dropped, its quite possible the arms race never would have happened.

If you believe that the face off between the US and the Soviet Union would never have happened, you are quite deluded in your understanding of Stalin and events at that time. That paranoid fuck trusted nobody, and only his fear of us, kept him in check. Diplomacy doesnt work with people like Stalin, only fear and the threat of violence.
__________________
Lord, Grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
Old 05-05-2005, 02:51 PM kindred is offline  
Reply With Quote
#236  

Aziraphale
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
By the federal constitution, what is not explicitly in the federal constitution is left to the states, thus meaning that the federal constitution supports those amendments, meaning that through the federal constitution there should be no standing armies. Yes, its a leap of interpretation, but its a valid one.

Thank you for the list of State amendments, I can't really comment on those as they're ... well, not very arguable (though all claim that because of the danger of liberty, they "ought not" to be erected in times of peace)... but it is not true that what is not explicitly in the constitution is left to the states. I believe that the 14th Amendment (and I'm just guessing, I thought it was the 14th) protects rights that are unenumerated in the bill of rights. This was part of the invention of the Right to Privacy, back in Griswold v. Connecticut. So, we have a problem. If the 10th amendment recognizes unmentioned state amendments as federal amendments if they are not mentioned in the federal constitution; and if the 14th amendment protects implicit (not explicit) unumerated citizen's rights ... then there is a discrepency and a contradiction in the constitution. What would happen if a state made an amendment that went against the rights of some people. In one case, the amendment would not be allowed as those rights unmentioned in the bill of rights are still protected under due process, yet that amendment would be assumed by the federal constitution if it is not mentioned explicitly in the federal constitution.

I think that your interpretation of the 10th amendment may be off. I had always thought, though I admit I could be thinking wrongly, that the 10th amendment acted in the opposite--it prevented congress from passing legislature that certain states explicitly denied in their state constitutions.
__________________
I've been locked out for a month ... wtf
Old 05-05-2005, 05:49 PM Aziraphale is offline  
Reply With Quote
#237  

Nano
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kindred
You dont know if it was necessary or not. The bombs were used, Japan rejected all violence and became a peaceful country. Communism fell apart. Why do you reject the necessity of something that happened when it obviously led to the current status quo? Realistically speaking, how could the status quo have evolved any better than it actually has?

Communism didnt fall apart. Have you seen china lately? It wasnt "necessity" it just sped up the inevitable.


Quote:
Japan may or may not have surrendered. Theres a saying from Sun Tzu's art of war "Death is lighter than a feather, duty, heavier than a mountain." I believe every last man, woman, and child would have fought to the death rather than surrender and face humiliation and defeat. Indeed I've watched documentaries of Japanese taking the lives of family members rather than fall into the hands of Americans. If they had not been utterly and completely broken in both spirit and physically, Japan would not have evolved as it did today.
While the japanese are an honor based society, as much as they hate the chinese i couldnt fathom them quoting sun tzu( even though Sun Tzu was arguably the original military genius. I'd say he was only surpassed by kongming, personally. )



Quote:
If you believe that the face off between the US and the Soviet Union would never have happened, you are quite deluded in your understanding of Stalin and events at that time. That paranoid fuck trusted nobody, and only his fear of us, kept him in check. Diplomacy doesnt work with people like Stalin, only fear and the threat of violence.
Its way too hypothetical for either of us to guess on the veracity of that.
__________________
Im not elitist, Ive simply been marginalized by the preponderance of idiots in the world.
Old 05-05-2005, 08:23 PM Nano is offline  
Reply With Quote
#238  

Nano
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aziraphale
Thank you for the list of State amendments, I can't really comment on those as they're ... well, not very arguable (though all claim that because of the danger of liberty, they "ought not" to be erected in times of peace)... but it is not true that what is not explicitly in the constitution is left to the states. I believe that the 14th Amendment (and I'm just guessing, I thought it was the 14th) protects rights that are unenumerated in the bill of rights. This was part of the invention of the Right to Privacy, back in Griswold v. Connecticut. So, we have a problem. If the 10th amendment recognizes unmentioned state amendments as federal amendments if they are not mentioned in the federal constitution; and if the 14th amendment protects implicit (not explicit) unumerated citizen's rights ... then there is a discrepency and a contradiction in the constitution. What would happen if a state made an amendment that went against the rights of some people. In one case, the amendment would not be allowed as those rights unmentioned in the bill of rights are still protected under due process, yet that amendment would be assumed by the federal constitution if it is not mentioned explicitly in the federal constitution.

I think that your interpretation of the 10th amendment may be off. I had always thought, though I admit I could be thinking wrongly, that the 10th amendment acted in the opposite--it prevented congress from passing legislature that certain states explicitly denied in their state constitutions.

Civil rights is a different ballgame than military appropriation, i feel; the fear was that the military could engage in a tyranny of its own accord were it allowed to stand, thus encroaching on civil liberties. So I think the 14th would support the states again, though that ones out the window for interpretation.
__________________
Im not elitist, Ive simply been marginalized by the preponderance of idiots in the world.
Old 05-05-2005, 08:25 PM Nano is offline  
Reply With Quote
#239  

R@$T@M@N
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
Communism didnt fall apart. Have you seen china lately? It wasnt "necessity" it just sped up the inevitable.
Communism in name only, actually. In fact, there has never been a government on Earth that has followed the teachings of Karl Marx by the letter. Russia was a totalitarian dictatorship. North Korea and Cuba are also totalitarian dictatorships. China used to be like Russia, but the country's is now just a very socialist government, and is slowly turning into a stricter form of democracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
Its way too hypothetical for either of us to guess on the veracity of that.
Are you sure? The events that occured after World War II, such as the violation of the Yalta confrence and the attempt to sever ties between Berlin and the West, clearly showed that Stalin had plans to expand the USSR at least into Germany. He was a megalomaniac in the same vein as Hitler.
__________________
"ps3 graphics is rendered.." - umcpgrad
[M]ilitary [M]ayhem Club: Army ROTC
a50d804637ce1585f6651c00236e489a
Old 05-05-2005, 08:39 PM R@$T@M@N is offline  
Reply With Quote
#240  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:48 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.