If you ever decided to leave the USA, where would you go?

[dan2100]

Folks,

I know Chris Baker and I know that he's not a sociopath.

I don't believe he hates Jews, either.

But does anyone genuinely not care whether

Kyrgyzstan gets nuked?

North Korea gets nuked?

Slovenia gets nuked?

Equatorial Guinea gets nuked?

Tonga gets nuked?

Robert

I would far prefer living in a society where people did care (though there would be doubtless be discussions, some of them heated, about what sort of actions those evaluations might lead to) than in a society where the dominant attitude was to brazenly declare indifference to the loss of human life.

I agree. The problem today is, though, anyone who doesn't believe in forcing other people to support, say, military adventures, welfare programs, and the likes tends to be painted as callous and uncaring -- as if the hallmark of caring about others was how much you're willing to coerce everyone else. That's the sort of false dichotomy the really needs to be exposed and refuted.

[algernonsidney]

Merlin , of course he has the legal right to his opinion, but I do not grant him a moral right to his brutal indifference to human life. Do you recall the Kitty Genovese case? A young woman was being murdered on a New York City street; she screamed for help, again and again -- but none of the residents of the apartment buildings on the street, who heard her cries, who witnessed her murder from their windows, took the trouble even to call the police. After all, why should they care? Canada and Israel and Belgium and Iran are not mere abstractions; they are inhabited by millions of innocent Kitty Genoveses, who want to live as much -- perhaps more -- than Chris does . . . even if he does not care to visit them.

This is a straw man argument. If a crime is occurring and I am in a position to do something about it, I am going to do something. However, there is nothing I can do if a rape is occurring 1000 miles away or even 100 miles away. I am not Superman, nor do I have a transporter like the one on Star Trek. In fact, there is no way for me to know when and where rapes are occurring if they are not within immediate sight and earshot. There is no point in worrying about things that I can not control.

I do not have the power to render nuclear weapons harmless. I can't even stop bullets, so I can hardly expect to stop missiles, fighter jets, or tanks. I can only impact what my own country does and does not do. Even with regard to that, my power is quite limited.

I gave a little money to Doctors without Borders right after the earthquake in Haiti. I'm probably the only one on this board who did.

[algernonsidney]

What he was defending is the idea that the American military is here for self-defense....of Americans and the North American continent. As someone else said on a different but related matter if the Objectivist Zionists want to fight for Israel in a free laissez faire non-interventionist capitalist political system no one will stop you.

If you are not willing to fight the war yourself, then do you really think that it is that important? If you are not willing to have it fought in your own neighborhood, then how important is it to you?

It's easy to sit back in the recliner, eat pretzels, drink beer, and watch the war on television as if it were the Super Bowl. It's a little different to get out there and fight.

Unfortunately, I think we do have laws against citizens joining other militaries. Then again, when Israelis spy and steal classified documents, they do just get a slap on the wrist.

If Joe Biden and all the Senators want to give Netanyahu a blow job, they can all go right ahead and do it. I have better things to do, and so do most Americans.

[jeffrey smith]

Merlin , of course he has the legal right to his opinion, but I do not grant him a moral right to his brutal indifference to human life. Do you recall the Kitty Genovese case? A young woman was being murdered on a New York City street; she screamed for help, again and again -- but none of the residents of the apartment buildings on the street, who heard her cries, who witnessed her murder from their windows, took the trouble even to call the police. After all, why should they care? Canada and Israel and Belgium and Iran are not mere abstractions; they are inhabited by millions of innocent Kitty Genoveses, who want to live as much -- perhaps more -- than Chris does . . . even if he does not care to visit them.

This is a straw man argument. If a crime is occurring and I am in a position to do something about it, I am going to do something. However, there is nothing I can do if a rape is occurring 1000 miles away or even 100 miles away. I am not Superman, nor do I have a transporter like the one on Star Trek. In fact, there is no way for me to know when and where rapes are occurring if they are not within immediate sight and earshot. There is no point in worrying about things that I can not control.

I do not have the power to render nuclear weapons harmless. I can't even stop bullets, so I can hardly expect to stop missiles, fighter jets, or tanks. I can only impact what my own country does and does not do. Even with regard to that, my power is quite limited.

I gave a little money to Doctors without Borders right after the earthquake in Haiti. I'm probably the only one on this board who did.

I gave, but not to Doctors Without Borders, since I consider them to be actively aiding and abetting Hamas's terrorism against Israel.

Instead, I gave to an organization that would further my values, which in this case call for a Jewish organization. I want those aid recipients to know that it is not just anyone who is helping them, but that it is Jews who are helping them. So I gave, on a regular basis, to a Jewish organization (American Jewish World Services)which seems to concentrate on economically helping individuals become producers in one way or another.

I considered giving to another Jewish organization until I found on their website a description of their efforts which includes helping people navigate the system so they can receive as much government aid as possible--then they went down the tubes as far as I am concerned.

BTW, Chris, when I read your original remarks, I understood them to mean simply that you had no exterior imposed duty to others, not that you were anti-Semitic, or sociopathic, or anything else.

Jeffrey S.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If Joe Biden and all the Senators want to give Netanyahu a blow job, they can all go right ahead and do it. I have better things to do...

Chris,

If that is going to be your level of discourse, then please go do whatever it is you have to do somewhere else.

OL is not Solo Passion and I don't want that kind of crap around here.

You are welcome to disagree all you wish. You are not welcome to try to spoil the good environment we have going here. You are a smart guy and I think you know exactly what you do.

So I hope I am understood and do not have to mention this again.

I just don't have time to babysit people with nasty attitudes as I am under a lot of pressure right now. If you want to be nasty, go hang out with nasty folks. I don't want that stuff here.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Merlin , of course he has the legal right to his opinion, but I do not grant him a moral right to his brutal indifference to human life. Do you recall the Kitty Genovese case? A young woman was being murdered on a New York City street; she screamed for help, again and again -- but none of the residents of the apartment buildings on the street, who heard her cries, who witnessed her murder from their windows, took the trouble even to call the police. After all, why should they care? Canada and Israel and Belgium and Iran are not mere abstractions; they are inhabited by millions of innocent Kitty Genoveses, who want to live as much -- perhaps more -- than Chris does . . . even if he does not care to visit them.

This is a straw man argument. If a crime is occurring and I am in a position to do something about it, I am going to do something. However, there is nothing I can do if a rape is occurring 1000 miles away or even 100 miles away. I am not Superman, nor do I have a transporter like the one on Star Trek. In fact, there is no way for me to know when and where rapes are occurring if they are not within immediate sight and earshot. There is no point in worrying about things that I can not control.

I do not have the power to render nuclear weapons harmless. I can't even stop bullets, so I can hardly expect to stop missiles, fighter jets, or tanks. I can only impact what my own country does and does not do. Even with regard to that, my power is quite limited.

I gave a little money to Doctors without Borders right after the earthquake in Haiti. I'm probably the only one on this board who did.

Chris, I have not said and I'm not concerned with whether or not you are a sociopath, anti-Semitic, or a bigot. I was responding to your statement: "What do I care if Israel is nuked?" I'm quite aware that you are not in a position to stop war or crime or a speeding bullet-- but that has nothing to do with whether or not you give a damn if millions of people are killed.

Your attitude keeps shifting and changing throughout this thread, If you spoke too hastily and in fact you are not indifferent to evil, as you now seem to be insisting, why not say so?

Barbara

[merjet]

Chris Baker, there is an implicit lesson in this episode.

For many people saying "I care" are words of magic, independent of what the speaker does or can do.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Chris Baker, there is an implicit lesson in this episode.

For many people saying "I care" are words of magic, independent of what the speaker does or can do.

Chris,

Also, I consider Prime Minister Netanyahu to be an honorable man. His brother Yonatan died fighting terrorist thugs at Entebbe. He is principled and resolute in fighting terrorism.I often think Israel would be much better off cutting the apron strings and going it alone concerning their self-defense.

The spectacle of the US trying to lecture Israel about peace or about dealing with terrorists is laughable. I do think Israel should stop spying on us and such efforts are pushy and in bad faith.

Jim

[dan2100]

I gave a little money to Doctors without Borders right after the earthquake in Haiti. I'm probably the only one on this board who did.

I don't usually brag about my charitable giving, but I gave money, too, for Haitian relief after the earthquake. And I suspect you and I are not the only ones here who have done so.

[Rich Engle]

So, if you decided to leave, where would you go?

The Italian Riviera, maybe. They have a horrible restaurant-rating system. But on the other hand, they grow distinct native Pesto and that would keep a man alive for a few weeks, if he had a mortar and pestle setup.

rde

[dan2100]

So, if you decided to leave, where would you go?

The Italian Riviera, maybe. They have a horrible restaurant-rating system. But on the other hand, they grow distinct native Pesto and that would keep a man alive for a few weeks, if he had a mortar and pestle setup.

rde

Some member of the Commonwealth of Nations most likely for me. But I think I already said or hinted at that.

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael wrote, "But I do respect Chris's right to be indifferent."

I do not. Precisely what is worth caring about, if human life is not?

Barbara

Whose human life?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Folks,

I know Chris Baker and I know that he's not a sociopath.

I don't believe he hates Jews, either.

But does anyone genuinely not care whether

Kyrgyzstan gets nuked?

North Korea gets nuked?

Slovenia gets nuked?

Equatorial Guinea gets nuked?

Tonga gets nuked?

Robert

I care only to the extent that such nuclear attacks might bode ill for the U.S. (where I and my family live). I care to the extent that it impacts me and my family (primarily) and my countrymen (secondarily, since they provide me with most of my material needs).

I do not have a universal or general love for mankind or humanity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

'I am not my brother's keeper'

That's exactly what I meant.

Last time I checked, only one country in the history of the world has ever used nuclear weapons against another country.

It was the U.S. If the nukes didn't work we would have had to invade the Japanese main islands and that would have produced major and horrendous casualties for our people. The Japanese made it necessary to nuke them. If they had not started a war with us, they never would have been nuked.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

If they had not started a war with us, they never would have been nuked.

OK, so if Iraq nukes the US then remember you had it coming.

[dan2100]

I care only to the extent that such nuclear attacks might bode ill for the U.S. (where I and my family live). I care to the extent that it impacts me and my family (primarily) and my countrymen (secondarily, since they provide me with most of my material needs).

I do not have a universal or general love for mankind or humanity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Will you provide a list of nations you wouldn't care about if they were nuked?

[BaalChatzaf]

I care only to the extent that such nuclear attacks might bode ill for the U.S. (where I and my family live). I care to the extent that it impacts me and my family (primarily) and my countrymen (secondarily, since they provide me with most of my material needs).

I do not have a universal or general love for mankind or humanity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Will you provide a list of nations you wouldn't care about if they were nuked?

No. Use of nuclear weapons has both political and physical fall out. They should not be used except when necessary and only against a nation that has attacked the U.S. or sponsored attacks against the U.S. or has permitted non-nation groups within their borders to attack the U.S.

The purpose of the weapon is to win wars, defend our country and not willy nilly to exterminate people whom we dislike. We can put up with dislike as we have since the U.S was founded.

If we have to resort to punitive expeditions it should be with conventional weapons. For example, I do not favor nuking Somalia to get rid of the pirates. I think we should locate all their boats and dock facility and destroy them with conventional weapons. That will end or deter piracy. We did something like that back in the old days against the Tripoli pirates.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

I care only to the extent that such nuclear attacks might bode ill for the U.S. (where I and my family live). I care to the extent that it impacts me and my family (primarily) and my countrymen (secondarily, since they provide me with most of my material needs).

I do not have a universal or general love for mankind or humanity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Will you provide a list of nations you wouldn't care about if they were nuked?

No. Use of nuclear weapons has both political and physical fall out. They should not be used except when necessary and only against a nation that has attacked the U.S. or sponsored attacks against the U.S. or has permitted non-nation groups within their borders to attack the U.S.

The purpose of the weapon is to win wars, defend our country and not willy nilly to exterminate people whom we dislike. We can put up with dislike as we have since the U.S was founded.

If we have to resort to punitive expeditions it should be with conventional weapons. For example, I do not favor nuking Somalia to get rid of the pirates. I think we should locate all their boats and dock facility and destroy them with conventional weapons. That will end or deter piracy. We did something like that back in the old days against the Tripoli pirates.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Let me try again: Would you care if another nation was nuked? Would it matter to you, especially given your earlier statements, if a nation you didn't think was a US ally or otherwise tied to the US, were nuked? I'm not asking whether you would support nuking such a nation, but whether you would care.

[algernonsidney]

It was the U.S. If the nukes didn't work we would have had to invade the Japanese main islands and that would have produced major and horrendous casualties for our people. The Japanese made it necessary to nuke them. If they had not started a war with us, they never would have been nuked.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Both McArthur and Eisenhower believed that it was a mistake. If they did, what makes you think it was the right thing?

[BaalChatzaf]

It was the U.S. If the nukes didn't work we would have had to invade the Japanese main islands and that would have produced major and horrendous casualties for our people. The Japanese made it necessary to nuke them. If they had not started a war with us, they never would have been nuked.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Both McArthur and Eisenhower believed that it was a mistake. If they did, what makes you think it was the right thing?

The Japanese threw in the towel in two weeks following. Nothing succeeds like success. MacArthur and Eisenhower were not prophets and they had no experience with weapons of truly massive proportions. Not only that it was Get Even on a grand scale. Pearl Harbor was repaid with interest. We taught those arrogant bastards what the gaijin can do when the blood gets hot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Aaron]

It was the U.S. If the nukes didn't work we would have had to invade the Japanese main islands and that would have produced major and horrendous casualties for our people.

See the 'Collateral Murder' thread for response to BaalChatzaf's repeated false claims concerning WWII.

[BaalChatzaf]

It was the U.S. If the nukes didn't work we would have had to invade the Japanese main islands and that would have produced major and horrendous casualties for our people.

See the 'Collateral Murder' thread for response to BaalChatzaf's repeated false claims concerning WWII.

My claims are historically correct. No state of war existed between the Soviet Union and Japan from 1941* on, until the Soviet Union declared war in August of 1945. We were lucky to get the surrender of Hirihito. There was an attempted coup by young officers to prevent his command to surrender to be broadcast to the Japanese people. Had that coup succeeded we would have had to invade. The Japanese were utterly fanatic and totally beyond reason. Without the surrender of the Emperor the Japanese would have fought on regardless of how many nukes we dropped on them We would have had to invade and the casualties would have been horrendous.

If the A-bomb did not succeed (i.e. if the trinity test failed) the U.S. would have invaded in summer of 1945 or early in 1946. It was estimated that the invasion of Japan was the equivalent of twelve(!) Normandy Invasions. The estimated casualties: over one million.

Bottom line: The A-bomb was the quickest way of shortening the war with the least number of American casualties. Both Greed and A-Bombs are good.

Ba'al Chatzaf

*there was fighting between Japanese and Soviet troops in 1941, but the battles were indecisive so the Soviet Union and Japan signed a truce. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol.

[Peter]

BaalChatzaf wrote about a WWII invasion of Japan:

The estimated casualties: over one million.

End quote

That’s one million on our side, wounded or dead. One of them might have been my Dad, and then I would not be here now, since I was conceived in 1946. Now that is a weird thought. When I was little, I sat around listening to the Greatest Generation talking about their war experiences and what might have been.

And later in 1966, I was in Japan and I spoke to a Japanese man who had too much to drink in a bar in Sasebo. When my brother and I entered the bar he was pushed and insulted by the drunk guy, and my brother twisted the guys arm behind his back, but then we talked to him. If he had assaulted me I would have punched him out. The guy started crying. The Japanese bartender translated for us, though the guy had halting English. He had lost relatives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and he would never forgive us. My heart went out to him.

But I think Truman did the right thing. I might second guess him about the two targets.

We need to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of madmen, like those in Iran. Those who deny the holocaust want to create another one. We need to stand by Israel.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Aaron]

BaalChatzaf-

Contrary to your previous claims, USSR did fight Japan in China in Aug 1945. The Japanese forces were defeated and Manchuria taken very quickly, and Japan considered this entry of USSR into war as relevant as the Hiroshima+Nagasaki bombings in the timing of the surrender.

The UK invading Argentina would have killed millions of Brits. It's a good thing Maggie avoided that by nuking Buenos Aires back in '82! And that US invasion of the Soviet Union would have been awful; it was to have killed every US male between 19 and 90, and been the equivalent of at least 12,000(!) Normandys! We're blessed that such horrendous casualties were avoided by nuclear annihilation of the Russkies to end the Cold War.

Nevermind arguing your unsupported forecasts about deaths, you're still touting the same false dichotomy. You're also ignoring the military views concerning surrender, invasion, etc. "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

---

I wrote most of this response earlier, and just saw your poison gas thread and advocacy of genocide in war. I'd given you the benefit of the doubt based on MSK's words, but now consider you at best simply a troll.

Aaron

[BaalChatzaf]

BaalChatzaf-

Contrary to your previous claims, USSR did fight Japan in China in Aug 1945. The Japanese forces were defeated and Manchuria taken very quickly, and Japan considered this entry of USSR into war as relevant as the Hiroshima+Nagasaki bombings in the timing of the surrender.

The UK invading Argentina would have killed millions of Brits. It's a good thing Maggie avoided that by nuking Buenos Aires back in '82! And that US invasion of the Soviet Union would have been awful; it was to have killed every US male between 19 and 90, and been the equivalent of at least 12,000(!) Normandys! We're blessed that such horrendous casualties were avoided by nuclear annihilation of the Russkies to end the Cold War.

Nevermind arguing your unsupported forecasts about deaths, you're still touting the same false dichotomy. You're also ignoring the military views concerning surrender, invasion, etc. "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

---

I wrote most of this response earlier, and just saw your poison gas thread and advocacy of genocide in war. I'd given you the benefit of the doubt based on MSK's words, but now consider you at best simply a troll.

Aaron

The utter fanaticism with which the Japanese fought in Okinowa disproves your claim. Their soldiers fought to the death. Very few were alive to surrender. Keep in mind Okinowa was a suburb. When we got to the home islands not only the soldiers would fight us, but every able bodied man and woman would have fought using sharpened bamboo spears if necessary. How do you defeat an enemy like that? You either break their spirit or you kill them. That is what our successful nuclear attack did. It broke the spirit of the Emperor. Once he threw in the towel his people obeyed him and surrendered. That is how one beats the crazies.

Ba'al Chatzaf