1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Filibuster compromise

Discussion in 'The OT' started by pjmrt, May 23, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    I will grant you that we allowed the emperor to stay on the throne. I don't want to get intoa discussion of whether the US actually preferred to rule Japan through him.

    I won't grant you the revsionist claim that there were no changes in the Japanese surrender offer after the bombs were dropped. Japan made several key concessions at that time. Was it a questionable call? Well people have been questioning it since it happened so yes.
     
  2. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    "Using" Hirohito to control the Japanese population was I'm sure always a considered option. On a moral level though, how is this much different than offering Hitler amnesty for his assistance in controlling post-war Germany? Faced with a firing squad or hangman's noose, ceding imaginary divinity hardly seems a major concession.

    Had Japan seriously sued for peace earlier and been willing to concede to our demands, they would have had a better hand to play and might have gotten more "key concessions". As it was, Japan was already a defeated nation. A country with virtually no natural resources, most importantly no fuel resources, was under total siege, subject to daily and nightly horrific air raids and able to mount little if any defense against them is in no position to demand any concessions, key or not.

    Given the nature of any negotiation, I'm sure Japanese diplomats "held out" for concessions until the bitter end. But considering the dire straits Japan found itself in, I can't imagine they really thought there was much chance of getting many. For instance, did Japan realistically expect they would be able to decide who among them would be tried for war crimes? Or what "crimes" they might be guilty of? I kind of doubt it. We didn't let German high command make these calls and we're not letting Baathists set the terms for Saddam's trial either. I doubt if we'd have allowed Tojo and Yamamoto to determine their crimes and punishment either.

    The "key concession" they were shooting for, and the one they got, was to keep the Emperor as a figurehead, and exempt him from any charges of "war crimes". With that 20/20 hindsight, this was probably the most pragmatic choice for US after all too, if not the moral and just one. Having Hirohito address the nation to order his people to cooperate with the occupiers was probably a better way to endear US to the population then displaying his head on a spike. But I find it hard to believe it was US that initially suggested this course.

    Did Hiroshima and Nagasaki speed Japan in dropping some demands, once again, "demands" they were hardly in any position to make? I suppose it's possible and even probable. But did they significantly change the end result of total capitulation save for retention of the Emperor? I kind of doubt that too. Although apparently Germany had given their ally some information regarding the power of atomic weapons, Japan's military and leaders, like their American counterparts, probably had trouble concieving of it as anything other than a new, very powerful high explosive. My understanding is, between dropping of the bombs and agreement to surrender, Japanese leaders and negotiators were not entirely aware of the devastation caused, some discounting reports as too horrendous to be possible. Given the probably sorry state of communications in a country that had been carpet-bombed for months, this is not so hard to believe.

    It was we who were in a hurry. The method used in Europe of subdividing Germany between four powers was not very appealing or satisfying. The possibilty of divvying up Japan with "johnny-come-lately" Russia was not an option we wished to consider.
     
  3. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    I don't know what was the MOST importasnt item to the Japanese. But I do know that they made SEVERAL key concessions (and admitting that your God is NOT one was certainly one of them) AFTER the bombs were dropped and the statement that Japn did not change its terms was a false one.
     
  4. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    I apologize Chief. I do get carried away now and then with an argument.:blush:;)

    All this is pretty much water under the bridge. We dropped the bomb, it's over, and we should just get on with life.

    My original point was, although I myself don't see the incident as particularly nefarious or black-hearted, this is NOT the view of everyone. From some perspectives, the facts that we were first to develop these weapons, then used them on an essentially broken, defeated nation incapable of retaliation, in what would be hard to justify as a "defensive act" is a little ironic and worthy of suspicion juxtaposed against the statement we possess them in order to "defend ourselves".:confused:
     
  5. Jun 3, 2005 #125 of 132
    Roger

    Roger Banned User

    518
    0
    Aug 7, 2002
    Jon:

    “"We gave them half of Europe" because that is essentially what they had fought and died for, doing the heavy lifting keeping the Nazis busy for several years as we "contemplated" our invasion of the mainland. All the time begging US and their other "allies" for a "second front". You can argue all you want about their designs and motivations, or the duplicity and gullibility of signing a non-aggression pact with Hitler, but Soviet losses(not looses!) in WWII far exceeded the losses of all other nations combined.

    Sure, but you’re using your own reasoning rather than the secret meetings in Malta and their agenda. You make sense but it’s based on nothing but your good opinion and not on real events or facts. WW1 was the first step towards world government and the League of Nations and what were their goals and their prize? They overthrew most of the monarchies and stole the power away from nations and strong families and turned them into democracies where whoever buys the politicians own the country. I have maps dated back in the 1950’s that have Taiwan listed as China and the ten NAFTA’s (economic zones) of the world:

    Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
    Rev 17:13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
    Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

    “Twice, in less than half a century, Germany had become an aggressive war machine. The Soviets presented a convincing case they were entitled to not let it happen again. And again, considering the price they had paid, it was a case hard to argue against.”

    True but I will argue against it. Germany was financed both times by Wall Street and big interest in Europe who were both funding both sides of the war like McMahon of the WWF. When you fund both sides you don’t lose do you? No, you win and win big regardless if Hulk Hogan wins or Rowdy Roddy Piper. Then now we can talk about Chiang Kai Sheck (our ally) who would have won the Chinese Civil War if the US didn’t cut off supplies and money to him. What is your explanation of this? Did Russia deserve this to for their part in the war? Of course not and your premise is bogus although good thinking on your part. We handed over China along with half of Europe without firing a shot.

    We fought against communism alright. We weakened the US at the expense and promotion of the newly created UN in the illegal conflict in Korea. We took over the Golden Triangle drug trade and hooked our troops on drugs while demoralizing this country and creating a CIA based counter-culture of “meatheads” during Viet-Nam. The groomed JFK was molded for the job but he then found a conscience and vowed to fight against the NWO and was killed a short time later. They got a double dose of demoralizing the nation with killing JFK then the illegal war in Nam.

    “And if "godless communists" were such an integral part of the NWO plan, how and why did they fall into such disarray that their main bastion, the Soviet Union, was allowed to disintegrate, purportedly pushed over the brink by US God-fearing Americans”

    For a one world government to succeed they don’t want division. They want everybody on their same page. The Soviets didn’t fall because they were doomed by an evil, unfair, unjust, political and economic system from the very beginning. The Soviets would have lost if it wasn’t from this US government breaking the act of neutrality with Lend Lease programs where we were arming Germany’s enemies not to mention harassing or provoking the hell out of them (undeclared war which Hitler had to put up with) by restricting their U-boat movements in the Atlantic not to mention all the armed convoy of supplies to Europe. It doesn’t matter because Hitler was one of them. He was a nephew of the Rothschild’s.

    Anyway, the Soviets didn’t fall because they were doomed to fail before they started. The United States and the free world fell when the Berlin Wall was torn down. The USA went from being Godly, moral, strong, and productive; to an evil abortion (baby killing), kicking God out of school, a lender nation to a debtor nation; and from an exporter to an importer. The Soviets were never strong until after the WW3 and you think they have fallen? There number one quote is “when you are weak, boast of strength; when you are strong, feign weakness. So here we are today. Can the USA build a military aircraft today without importing many key components from China? America (Babylon) has fallen has fallen and will be slammed soon. The land of riches that enjoys the pleasures of booze, drugs, sex, dirty music and movies, that trades in the souls of men, and buys the goods from the world
    which make the prices of the worlds wax rich instead of loving God. The land of modern convenience like multiple TV’s, internet, computers, cars, cell phones, music, chasing the American Dream (the almighty dollar), and video games instead of loving your neighbor, teaching the children about God and doing what’s right. Woe to Babylon and the beast world economic system and entertainment provider who perverted and corrupted the entire world.

    “The "NWO" envisioned by the neocons of this administration is a "New World Order" of American Empire, complete hegemony over the Earth and even space. They have as much said so in numerous public statements and documents. And I have no doubt they have convinced themselves this is what "God" wants. I also have no doubt if they felt "God" was an impediment to their imperial dreams, or if "godlessness" was a quicker means to their ends, they would "convince themselves" otherwise.”

    I can’t argue with that. China, the EU, and Russia will have something to say about our hegemony before it’s over. Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
     
  6. Jun 3, 2005 #126 of 132
    Roger

    Roger Banned User

    518
    0
    Aug 7, 2002
  7. Jun 3, 2005 #127 of 132
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Here is where(among other places:D) you contradict yourself. If the NWO conspiracy is so homogenous and single-minded, what should it matter and who should care who finally implements it? Or are you suggesting there's a Chinese NWO plot, one each from the EU and Russia, and I assume other lesser NWO conspiracies, Israel or Brazil for instance, competing with that of the USA?

    If that's the case, you are describing the world divided into national and idealogical camps competing and at constant odds with themselves. Pretty much what we can obviously see at work today just from reading the newspapers or watching CNN.
     
  8. Jun 3, 2005 #128 of 132
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Well tanks for thinking of me Roger. An interesting link. The politics may be a bit uno0rthodox but I admire anyone who tries to make a difference.
     
  9. Jun 4, 2005 #129 of 132
    Roger

    Roger Banned User

    518
    0
    Aug 7, 2002
    Jon:

    “Here is where(among other places) you contradict yourself. If the NWO conspiracy is so homogenous and single-minded, what should it matter and who should care who finally implements it? Or are you suggesting there's a Chinese NWO plot, one each from the EU and Russia, and I assume other lesser NWO conspiracies, Israel or Brazil for instance, competing with that of the USA?”

    No contradiction. There are different factions because let’s face it, when you get 12 people or 12 families together there will be spats and arguments and different opinions on how to implement it. Some factions favor the EU over the US and what have you. For example: Bush has his delegates and they argue and fight it out at the convention and when Bush or Kerry get the nomination the troops get in line and support them usually no matter what. When the dragon comes they will get in line and follow him as well.

    Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
    Rev 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
    Rev 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
    Rev 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
    Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
    Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
    Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
    Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

    This include you as well Jon unless you take the red pill and accept Christ as you savior and repent of your sins.
     
  10. Jun 4, 2005 #130 of 132
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    I can't argue with that because I won't. I don't debate badly written narratives sounding like they've been inspired by a bad acid trip. Is that the "red pill"?:scratchin

    You should know the quickest way to lose me is to start spouting this Bibliobabble. And BTW, the reason most dismiss all of the even semi-plausable conspiracy theorys, and the theorists, is because eventually almost all of them rest for their bases on some interpretation of what otherwise comes across as an ambiguous drug-induced fantasy. If it's not Revelations or the Bible in general, it's clues and insights gained from "the stars" or after being abducted by aliens. If you ever tire of Biblical fantasy Roger, try the philosophy and prophecy of Scientology or the Raelians. Logically and on basis of fact, or on the level of delusion and gullibility required, there's very little to differentiate between the three.

    With that caveat, what you describe is sort of a loose representative democracy behind this "New World Order", albiet a secret democracy of elites. In that, you are vaguely correct although you grossly overestimate the level of cooperation or "democracy" between the factions or even the awareness of the participants.

    The "Order", as it has been throughout recorded history, is based solely on the accumulation of wealth and power. And any "democracy" is more analogous to the democracy of a corporation. Whomever currently has the most "shares" of wealth and power controls the general direction of the "Order", and minor "shareholders" may even join together to resist major "shareholders". And since "wealth and power" are rather nebulous in that they can be valued by various methods, it's rare any one faction is assured of complete control. Resistance or domination is not limited to boring speeches at quarterly meetings or proxy fights either, it involves the exercise of military and economic might, hot and cold wars if you will.

    Currently western factions are running the show. America and Europe in an uneasy alliance with nations like China and India are dominating. The trick is to keep the present paradigm without allowing non-western parties to gain directional control because that would mean the flow of wealth and power could shift to China and/or India. To an extent we are seeing that now. But that is the price the west must pay to keep them on board.

    Since the defeat of the last significant challenge, communism(China is not "communist", they just kept the name), we've seen Islamic factions rise to make a bid. Their unique and unprecedented "wealth", mostly in the form of oil, gives them considerable clout. They are lacking in the "power" catagory though. They don't have a significant or effective military, and our efforts right now should be understood clearly as a desperate effort to prevent them from gaining the second half of the equation, power. North Korea OTOH has taken a more unconventional back-door route. With virtually no "wealth", they have concentrated on "power" through military might. Although otherwise a small, insignificant and isolated "faction", they have managed to become a "player". They have been, and obviously are today, going to be a tough nut to crack.

    Behind all of this though is NOT some nefarious conspiracy or Satanic plot to "put the mark of the Beast" on everyone. It's much simpler, and much less organized then that. It's the same greed, avarice and the lust for power that has always dominated virtually every human society. In and of themselves, these attributes are not inherently bad, and in fact are probably necessary to progress and the advancement of society.

    Neither is there any imperitive for "mind control" or necessity to invoke Pavlovian responses from the masses in order to facilitate the accumulation of wealth and power by any "elites". It makes it easier, but are more byproducts then anything else. They are employed to placate the majority not directly benefiting from the accumulation of wealth and power by the few. If there were simpler or more effective methods, they would be used. And BTW, the Bible, Quran, Torah, and all the other various religious tomes and tracts are by far the most effective means of mind control to produce Pavlovian response ever devised by Man. For far too many, simply mentioning their names or recitation of a verse or two invokes instant and total obiedience and an overwhelming and complete suspension of disbelief.
     
  11. Jun 4, 2005 #131 of 132
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Roger, what are you doing comingling Christianity and Matrix theology?
     
  12. DS0816

    DS0816 Guest

    305
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Remember the polling that was done prior to the voting in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections? How accurate were those?

    Voters in America have allowed Democrats to have the White House, Senate, and the House to have power simultaneously.

    About Bush's numbers: They've been low before. He's had see-saw numbers. Don't pay too much attention to the approval numbers.


    You made an assumption of me when you wrote, "...but [you] are in the minority." I'm writing of my perception, not personal opinions. Both parties have their good and bad. The country is obviously willing to elect Republicans and Democrats.

    And I didn't mean to come across to you as offering an offical prediction. I could have told you, though, had we the conversation that the 2004 Electoral College would look virtually indentical to that of the 2000 results. I wouldn't expect anything in the 2008 presidential election. (It's not for another three years. And in next year's mid-election, I wouldn't bet on Dems gaining back either the Senate or the House.)

    Everybody is prone to combining wishful thinking with their analyses of perceptions. Or personal opinions can seep through if one isn't careful in articulating some points.

    Three years is a long way off; the rate it's going, though, is that Dems will have to push Hilary Clinton, or they'll find a different star. But they need someone who can rise. (At this point I'm wondering, Who?) We haven't seen a Democrat not from the South win the presidency since John F. Kennedy in 1960. And Kennedy had Lyndon Johnson, from Texas, to help shore up the Southern vote; had it not been for LBJ as JFK's running mate, Richard Nixon would've been elected eight years sooner. Before Kennedy, the last non-South Democrat to win election was Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    When one sees patterns developing, it's hard to ignore. And here's another one: Missouri has gone the longest stretch of time in voting for the candidate that actually wins the election. Keep your eye out on that state.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page