Was there pre-WWII? The Geneva Conventions were in 1949.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magn
Printable View
Was there pre-WWII? The Geneva Conventions were in 1949.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magn
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
The Geneva Conventions were in effect long before WWII but got many additions in 1949.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
Japan was not willing to surrender, they would fight till their last man and there are ofc no facts about what would have happened, only estimations. Based on logic and previous experience, e.g. Okinawa, losses on both sides were estimated to be skyhigh.
If japan actually would have fought to the last man/women/child the atom bombs wouldn't have resolved the process. It is war you are not going to say "we are just going to give up" But like every country that was greatly out matched they would have likely given up when it became clear. I still believe the casualties caused by the bombs is likely less then would have died had it been a normandy style invasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodz
Documentation from Japan's leadership shows that the government actually was prepared to fight to the last man. When the bombs struck, Emperor Hirohito(who wasn't a very strong emperor) cut through and called for surrender, given the hopeless situation of facing hundreds of nuclear bombs, devastating the country and the population in such an enormous degree without any real chance to fight back.
The bombs were a bluff though, the US had NO MORE nuclear bombs at the time and couldn't have nuked Japan anymore for a while, but the effect was what they had hoped for.
My point is that you could have made the situation look hopeless without a nuclear bomb... Does not take so much. But as I said in my last post I do think the result quite possibly was less deaths then if no bomb. The end of world war two was well done except for giving russia soviet states. Everything that america touched turned out pretty decent, everything russia touched sucked.Quote:
Originally Posted by stoffi
None of the major powers of WW2 have been in a major conflict since WW2. So in some ways the war was a success I guess in restoring peace.
The U.S. economy is about to tank. It has been on life-support for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio86
Where did you get those Rose-colored glasses. It would take alot of explaining. But there are things the U.S. does that most people believe are very good things. The reality is that these things are extremely bad. The U.S. is the worst thing to ever happen to the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio86
To the original question, Where did it all go wrong. Humans are not designed to live under a government like a Republic. It never works. Never. I said NEVER. The moment you create a Republic it begins to attract evil corrupt people. They can easily take control of a country in a short time and any freedom you thought you had goes out the window. The Republic then seeks to expand its power though it ceased being a republic at that point, having become a Plutarchy Masquarading as a Republic to keep the people in line. Then they decide to form a Union with other Republics to gain even more power for the people running the show. The States (COUNTRIES) joined together to form the Union. And it was thoroughly evil. The Souther nations tried to leave, forced to form their own Union to be strong enough to resist the Norths power. A war was forced by the North, it was not necessary and 700,000 Americans were killed. Now most people think that war was over slavery which is a total lie. Since the Civil War... all U.S. citizens are slaves.
Where did it go wrong? It was born wrong. Born a republic, doomed to failure from conception. The people may have had good intentions and they paved one Hell of a road.
The Nation States should have become Kingdoms which cannot become corrupted nearly as easy. This is the natural state of man. If your King is a really bad man, kill him. But they apparently couldn't pull that off. Often the Heir gets the hint. Usually Kings are good and care about their people. His Imperial Majesty Achaeos hopes to see the system reinvigorated and the people awakened from their braiwashed condition which makes them hate Monarchies for no good reason. If enough people wake up and join the Empire, many Kingdoms may be created in it. And the result, 900,000 years from now, humanity will still live, having survived great catastrophe thanks to the Emperor.
troll post is troll.
hes slightly right on the slavery part but mostly bull. the war was over cotton, not slaves. the north couldnt compete with the slaves in the south.norathern states had laws to prevent slavery the south didnt. if the war was over slavery they would have been better off after the war not worse.i had to study this once and the info would suprize you. masters normaly didnt hurt or kill thier slaves.no slave masters were the devil but slaves were very expencive. even picking one up in louisiana in todays dollors would be arround 36,000.so if you abused them to bad or killed them you were out all that money.vs after the war they just picked them up and payed them such low money a dog couldnt live on much less a person.
when there was a problem with them they hanged or beat them to near death. they couldnt get away with that in pre cival war times because of the ammount of money they would lose.the only former slaves that did ok are the ones that moved to northern states.
i looked it up years ago a good slave from L.A in about 1860 was arround 900$. in baton rouge L.A paper in 1860 i found new Colt Walker revolvers selling for 21.50$. simular gun today would be a colt single attaction 3rd generation selling between 925$ and 1125$ depending on options and finish
You can easily be rich in America if you have no morals. You going to say that I am without facts, and, I am going to tell you that I've traveld the country and I have always struggled to find work. When I do find work I take it. But the work I find is never long lasting or stable. I've gone to soo many places in search of work... I've been turned down by every Walmart I've applied for. I've applied to at least 10 different ones and 2 of them I applied for over three years. You going to tell me I am without facts because I cannot prove anything, and, I'm going to respond that you are only calling me a liar, in a round a bout way. If I have anything (like the ability to type this information to you) its because I do work when I can work. The only people I see with a lot of money do things that would violate my morals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azartyn
I grow so tired of stereo typing people with beards calling them lazy and worthless bums. I think men without beards look like Women. But I would never give them trouble about this --deny them work. I am totally anti gay, but, I've had many gay friends that would never have known I was. I really believe in live and let live". I think as long as you are not doing something that effects the health of the those around you, drastically hurt the earth -- or some other major bad thing, you should be allowed to work, without being F%$ with. I do not think you should have to brown noise just to earn your daily needs.
Why to people keep trying to whitewash the slave trade and practice? Slavery was horrible, and the South has been trying to play that "slavery wasn't all bad" meme for 150+ years because there are still people gullible enough to buy into it. It's only true that the North didn't really care about the slaves, or at most cared very little even if they supported abolition on moral grounds as a reasonable person would.
This thread has been a riot... I'll have to check into some things... But I have to say... I see no pride in being American. I have no facts, but, I've long suspected Canada did/ is better then the USA.. but I'm sure it has/had its share of issues, as well.
If I was American I would have great pride in my countries history. They have done more great things over the last 200 years then any other country! They have also created lots of problems. But hey we are arguing about them on something they invented (the internet).
If you want to argue that America has been bad for the world then fly over to Canada on an airplane (invented in america) and let me know in person. Or call me on a telephone (american invention, as much as canada trys to take credit)
The fact is America has a ton to be proud of. I think everyone should to some extent love the country they live in. National pride does a ton to get things done that cannot be done without volunteers and hard work.
Anyway I do not support some of americas past military moves, but on the other hand I do support some of them. I think their healthcare is being improved upon under barrack and I do believe as times get worst they will become more socialist then they are now, which to me is a good thing. But a huge part of what has allowed America to be a manufacturing power and innovative nation is its capitalist back bone. It might not be good for the lower class but it is what brought us transportation/internet/cell phones. etc.
If you want to sit here and argue that a place as unimportant to the world economy as norway, and how norway runs its economy (exporting natural resources) is the pillar in which we should all strive for you can continue to do so. I am glad you love your country. But it would not work in the USA because their economy is based on innovation and manufacturing, not selling oil.
The Tzars in russia were great emperors. The Khans in China equally awesome. Unfortunately these empires make for good reading and not good living. The british empire was probably the least corrupt being as it got to write its own history for the most part. It still did a ton of terrible things including killing off almost all of the american native population. Similar stories in Africa. But meh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Priest of H.I.M. Achaeos
i blame big money :P
I'd have to think that, while I'm not even close to the opinion that slavery is or was good, that it is still the northern side's motives that have been completely and utterly whitewashed. For example, it is said that Abe Lincoln did not even do the Emancipation Proclamation out of principle, but just to try to hurt the south's economy. I think Agronaut's point would be that even with slavery being so horrible, once they were free, things did NOT get better... sure, things have now, over a long period of time because forcibly changing a law doesn't change people's opinions instantly. Ideally, it's the people's opinions that change first. Then such laws can be passed. But even more ideally, as the people's opinions keep evolving, you would theoretically not even need a law anymore.
yea, we don't need laws about stealing or murder, pretty much everyone already agrees those are wrong, right?
You're arguing for populism, which is silly even without that obvious flaw, laws have to defend minority positions. If 99.5% of people think its ok to to beat up gingers, does that mean it should be OK?
Plenty of things throughout history have been done for more self serving reasons than you might like, going to the moon was basically just a prototype test for ICBMs, so what?
You have a source for that? It just doesn't make sense to me, as ICBMs don't even need to escape the gravitational pull of Earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Snowstorm
http://bit.ly/QWL17oQuote:
Originally Posted by lastunicorn
All of the early launch modules were basically ICBMs, the atlas rocket was actually used as one, which was what the US used for their earlier unmanned flights to the moon.
The entire exercise was merely to get the literal, figurative, and technological high ground on the russians who had launched gagarin into space on back of the R7 icbm, after that the Americans got a bit worried and started throwing some weight into the program.
The Saturn V which was used for the apollo XI mission would be completely functional as an ICBM, and capable of carrying the highest payload of any ICBM to date. They never bothered actually strapping a bomb to it, but thats merely incidental, its existence was enough. Once the space race was won and the rocket technology was at that level interest in the program waned and that should really tell you what the motives of it were.
In all of the paragraphs containing the word ICBM in that wikipedia article I don't see a single citation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Make an effort to search yourself then maybe? That was literally the first link i got in my 2 seconds of looking. Why are people so damn lazy these days.
are we being serious right now?Quote:
Originally Posted by lastunicorn
I already told you, the atlas-centaur rocket system was used for all the early moon missions and the damn thing was originally designed as an ICBM, the saturn V was its successor designed to be able to carry larger payloads. The titan rockets that launched the gemini missions and all the probes to saturn, mars etc were also ICBMs originally designed as a backup to the atlas program. The russians were using r-7 ICBMs to launch men into orbit. The rockets used for space flights are the same ones used for ICBMs, there is very little technological difference.
Fact of the matter is, the money went out of rockets as soon as they'd reached more or less maximum potential in terms of ICBM capabilities, the money then went into MIRV systems and ABM systems, neither of which can be demonstrated or furthered by space exploration.
You are making a really ridiculous strawman. In one sense, we technically don't need laws for stealing/murder to reinforce the fact that they are bad. However, we still have laws anyway. Why? It's not really a statement of the society that it's bad. That's a given. The laws simply exist to dictate the punishments under various circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Snowstorm
You keep confusing the particular laws of a certain organization/nation with actual morals. But laws =/= morals. If someone is morally affronted by your behavior, yet there is no law against what you have done, they will push for you to punished for something anyway and try to enact a law to do so in the future. Let's take pro-life people against a person having an abortion in a state where it is legal, for example. On the other hand, actions that are completely within the letter of the law are not necessarily seen as moral. Why don't we take all the loopholes and taxbreaks big banks and corporations weaseled into our laws with lobbyists, for instance?
But I suppose I'm straying from the point. What I was saying about what happens with laws and people's opinions... I was not necessarily saying either were one or the other were in the morally right. What I WAS saying, though, was that if the majority of people think X is bad, they would eventually pass a law to ban it. And eventually, if such an overwhelming majority of people thought X was bad, they wouldn't really need that law anymore... as its only purpose would be to define the punishment at that point. I was simply stating how things are.
Now let's look at your other strawman, lol. If 99.5% of people think its ok to to beat up gingers, does that mean it should be OK? Well... according to 99.5% of the people, yes, it would be!
Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that you have no idea what a strawman argument is. How is it a straw man if it represents your position correctly?Quote:
Now let's look at your other strawman, lol. If 99.5% of people think its ok to to beat up gingers, does that mean it should be OK? Well... according to 99.5% of the people, yes, it would be!
Whoops. I think what I meant was, it's a fallacy. I can't be assed to determine which one, as they're all named and categorized, but whatever. I suppose because of that little slip up my whole argument is rubbish and my credibility is ruined FOREVER!Quote:
Originally Posted by John Snowstorm
A strawman isn't even a formal fallacy at all, and you haven't outlined how any of what I said was a fallacious in any way.
In fact all you did was assert that I said something (?) wrong and I "kept" confusing morals and laws which I'd be interested to learn how I "kept" doing anything since I only wrote two question sentences referring to your post both of which you responded to in the affirmative. In fact I didn't even mention morality, and only barely touched on it.
Formally speaking, I constructed a reductio ad absurdum and you replied agreeing with it, which I guess just makes you absurd.
No, it's not a "reductio ad absurdum" because your implication that the result is absurd simply isn't! You've probably just committed a fallacy with a name twice as long. Sure, you can come up with an action that you, I, and many others are likely to disagree with, but you can't just switch the table and then hypothesize "what if everyone actually thought it was ok...". If so many people actually thought it was ok, there would be an extremely high chance in that, in reality, that your question would sound like, "If 99.5% of people thought jaywalking is OK, does that mean it should be ok?" to us.
And the answer to that would be... uh... probably? We all have different morals, but they may or may not be absolutely just. These morals are also most likely not perfectly in line with the society's... which may or may not be absolutely just.
yea, repealing murder laws because the majority agree that murder is bad already is pretty absurd.
and yea, making laws based solely on majority vote is tantamount to mob rule.
There isn't even a fallacy available for not making a reductio ad absurdum in this manner which isn't absurd enough for you as it isn't a formal logical (dis)proof, you don't have any idea how the rules of logic or debate work, so please stop trying to use them and just have a discussion with me.
Laws are also required to protect minorities from majorities, unless you endorse mob rule, which apparently you do based on your statements.
I think you misread what I was trying to get at. I didn't say murder laws should be repealed. But what I am trying to say is, we most likely don't need them to stop MOST people from committing murder. Everyone already knows it is wrong. The law is only there to dictate punishment.
There is a difference between "we should repeal this law" and "people don't need this law to act justly anyway".
Yes, minorities need to be protected by laws... how do laws get passed though? Ironically, some majority vote is taken at some steps in the process anyway.
This inane argument breaks down when you get to popular crimes. The populous does not self regulate on every action which is detrimental to society.Quote:
we most likely don't need them to stop MOST people from committing murder.
Besides all a law really is is to say this is the penalty for action X, you are not the one assuming laws are moral functions, they are merely a system of rules and penalties devised for the smooth running conduct of a society.
In light of this what you are actually saying is "we don't actually needs laws except that we need laws"
HRMMMM. I wonder if there are any examples of laws that got enacted before the majority popular support was behind that cause. I wonder where I could find such an example!Quote:
how do laws get passed though? Ironically, some majority vote is taken at some steps in the process anyway.
Long story short, laws should not be based on mob sentiment, they should be based on careful, reasonable and conscientious analysis of the facts, the contingencies and the repercussions.
In the specific case of racism laws, you actually do have to legislate because base human instinct and nature is to be subliminally or consciously bigoted against those that look different from you, that's unfortunately just an irrational upshot of our biology, so you do need be careful to protect minorities within your societal structure.
So what, are you saying that if we suddenly repealed all the laws against murder, people (not necessarily a large percentage) would go, "Oh, whew! Glad that's out of the way now!" and start killing whenever they fancied it? I wouldn't. Is the law dictating punishment for murder the only thing stopping you from killing someone? Would your parents be OK with killing someone? Your family? Any of your friends...?
Also, your sarcasm is cute, but you will NOT find an example... unless of course, we are talking about a dictatorship or monarchy government here. Going to pass a law, first the house and senate need to pass a MAJORITY VOTE. How is each congressman/woman selected? By majority vote. Then the bill has to be signed in by the president (or else a supermajority from congress is needed). The president is ideally selected by majority vote, or even if you are counting the electoral college, THEY take a majority vote. The presidential candidates from each party? They are selected by majority vote of their party's delegates. The delegates? Guess how people decide which delegates to pick.... etc, etc, ETC!
You might want to tout all the laws and system of the US as not a majority at all, and claim that laws somehow mystically came into being without taking a majority vote, but in reality... the whole system is ridden with it.
Are you seriously this dense?
There are countries without laws, they tend to have a real f*ckin high murder rate. Not having a solid system of law order and justice in a society is typically very very bad for that society. Basic anthropology 101 should teach you that.Quote:
So what, are you saying that if we suddenly repealed all the laws against murder, people (not necessarily a large percentage) would go, "Oh, whew! Glad that's out of the way now!" and start killing whenever they fancied it? I wouldn't. Is the law dictating punishment for murder the only thing stopping you from killing someone? Would your parents be OK with killing someone? Your family? Any of your friends...?
so nothing ever passed congress without popular support? you're plain ignorant then. Maybe you should check polling on the stuff that congress passes. wow. just wow.Quote:
Also, your sarcasm is cute, but you will NOT find an example
The NDAA bill this year had a 2% favorability rating on a poll from OpenCongress (granted, that poll isn't the most reliable, online etc, but most certainly a very unpopular bill), passed with bipartisan support.
Bailout of 2008, opposed by majority of electorate: passed, additional 300 odd billion in january also widespread unpopularity, passes congress.
nafta 1993, opposed by majority, passed.
Iraq war funding 2003, opposed by majority, passed.
terry shaivo legislation, passed
impeachment of clinton
how about bushes veto of stem cell research? also unpopular, but it got my sister a job working on it here, so thanks for that bush.
There's a whole bunch of unpopular presidential orders.
Hell the global gag rule switches depending on which party is in office, one of those positions is surely less popular than the other!
It's now popular to end oil subsidies, yet they endure. It is popular to decriminalise cannabis, no sign of that, it is popular to end bush tax cuts and yet congress seems resolute on keeping them. 75% of the popular vote think abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances but roe v wade is hanging on by a thread, if the republicans get to replace a liberal judge that thing is done son. I guarantee it.
Yes, this is exactly what would happen. Current edge cases where sympathy potentially lies with the killer would turn into cases where it is acceptable to kill without trial, vigilantism would grow exponentially. As would crime syndicates in fairness, being able to legally murder someone in full sight of potential squeezes would be great for business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maelor
I like how your initial view seems to be that the "populist view" to these laws is inherently ignorant and bad, then you list all your examples, and ALL these things that DIDN'T have the majority support of the American people turn out to be bad. While I concede that you HAVE given us examples of things that have gone into law without "popular support of American people" (despite all the different types of majority votes which had to happen), I don't think it means much when we are dealing with a corrupt government. Considering the congressmen are not voting on behalf of their constituents, but their corporate/banking masters... yes, technically they DID have a majority vote... from their special interests! (big banks, corporations, industrial military complex) ... probably covers it all.
When did I say populist view is always bad? I said its a bad system to base your laws on and I have given examples, plenty of times the majority will have the right notion as to what is best for a society, but that doesn't mean you should always accept the majority opinion.
So first you claim that laws are dictated by majority because of the electoral system and now you admit that representatives don't represent the majority of their constituents.
Thank you for admitting defeat so plainly. :|
I think we should all agree that countries that are run off bail outs shouldn't voice opinions on politics. Ireland/Greece/Italy/Spain/Portugal your policies have lead your economy to failure.
At least the USA isn't as messed up as you :D
Yes, I am the dictator/monarch/arch-chancellor/chicken-supreme/BurgerKing of Ireland. I run it, own it, set policy and tell it when to go to bed.
I do think the US is just about as messed up as those other countries. The only thing saving it at the moment, though, is that its dollars still have the status of world reserve currency. Therefore any further debt it wants to incur can just be printed away. Other nations are already discussing alternative world currencies, however, so soon the jig will be up.
you guys need a hobby