Jauronimo
-
Posts
13,846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Jauronimo
-
-
I believe you're only conceding that you don't want to argue with me, not because you think I'm right, but because you're sick of my bull ****.
No, the discussion was not whether the events were punishment, but whether or not the events were intended to be or inflicted as punishment. That's the definition of "punitive", and that's why it's judgmental: it doesn't describe the event, it judges the motives of the people making the decision, with no evidence other than the event happening. Kind-of like how DIE sees inner-city violence, and immediately jumps to the conclusion that it's because black people are animals. How is that NOT judgmental?
[/quoted]
Obviously, punitive is all about intention or motive. As I've stated several times, I believe I was mistaken regarding the motives as there is no evidence supporting the aforementioned events as punitive in nature. The example you use about DIE clearly places a value on the intention of the participants, in contrast to the word punitive which has no value as to whether punishment is right, wrong, good or bad, and thus is not judgmental.
Its clear now that you were either attempting to define the word punitive for me, or even worse, define the word adjective. Channeling bigfatbillsfan today?
-
You think I abuse you idiots because I enjoy it? It's a viciously Socratic method to get you fools to actually think about the bull **** you spew. Once in a while it works. I would have hoped, in the case of someone who's arguing the History Channel as a source, it would have made them stop and think "Hey, maybe that's not the best info available. Maybe I should dig into this some more before I spout off." I could recommend some books. I have about thirty or so on the subject (some good, some - like Griffith - not so much). But if you don't WANT to be informed, THEN DON'T !@#$ING ARGUE WITH ME, BECAUSE I AM!
Tell you what...when I write an article on this subject (because, after trying to cure your stupidity, it's occurred to me that it would make a pretty decent subject for a magazine article), I'll let you proof-read it. How's that?
What the !@#$ are you talking about? Are you back to "punitive" not being judgmental? Of course it is, how you're using it. You're ascribing motive to action, in this case with a serious paucity of evidence to back it up. You're making a judgement that is, at best (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here), grievously inaccurate.
I've already conceded that I mis-characterized the war in the Pacific as punitive, and acknowledged that as much as many citizens may attribute Doolittle and the firebombing as retribution or punishment, that it cannot be proven to be motive for or an objective of said events.
The word punitive in it of itself bears no judgement. The discussion was whether or not the events were or were not punishment, not whether punishment was justified or unjustified, thus no judgement. Are you doing your best bigfatbills fan impression and really trying to define the word punitive for me or trying to explain how a word in context alters the meaning of a sentence?
-
I don't win until you're capable of curing your own ignorance. Trace the doctrine of strategic bombing through the 30's, through the 8th AF's operations in Germany, the XX AF's operations in the CBI theater, and the XXI's early operations over Japan.
And don't even think of bothering me with Griffith...almost everything he says on the matter is completely unsourced, and his thesis is inaccurate to begin with.
Oh, you just want someone to discuss WWII with, don't you, you big softy. But yeah, I'll get right on that.
Capable of curing my own ignorance? DC Tom's burden on full display.
Any luck defining a word without adding your own connotations? Because I won't rest until you're capable.
-
You are correct sir that it is certainly not unexpected for any president to campaign on his "successes"
but, Mr. Obama's particular hypocrisy is especially funny since its not a matter of him not deserving (or deserving) credit for his "recovery",
but the fact that we hven't really recovered yet and he pretends otherwise.
.
Don;t put this on Barry. He singlehandedly created tens, nay hundreds of thousands of shovel ready jobs. Its our fault, the soft and lazy American people, for failing to seize the opportunity. The opportunity to dig.
-
Oh, I don't want to work, I just want to be paid.
Have you considered Occupying your nearest park or metropolitan area?
-
No thanks- I avoid selfish, whoa is me, criminal, head cases that can't be trusted
So you're a virgin?
-
You really have to hand it to these folks for staying focused, though. Take, for example, this quote from the story.
“We’re not done yet,” said Ben Miller-Jacobson, a 20-year-old Rochester Institute of Technology student involved in the movement. “I’m in it for the long haul. All we need are a few more church laptops and some free wifi.”
I thought they had packed it in. I've been by OWS Rochester many times and not seen a single person there. Just bird **** covered tents and a sign indicating that it is indeed OWS. The park does look dirtier right now than the old subway line, so I guess they can put that in the win column.
-
No, it's not nitpicky at all. It's the central argument. "Punitive" actions are meant to punish. To argue the American prosecution of the war was punitive, you have to argue that the primary intent of any military action - such as the firebombing of Japan - was to punish, with strategic considerations secondary.
So argue it. Show me the records of the XX Air Force's communications with the JCS or USAAF that represented the firebombing as punishment for Pearl Harbor. The records are available - at the very least, there's several sources on LeMay that should quote his motivations and justifications for switching from high-level "precision" bombing to low-level area bombing.
Yes, because "punitive" is not a judgmental word. Are you channeling DIN today or something?
Correct, its not a judgmental word as the word has no value associated with it as to whether punishment is right or wrong. Unless you're suggesting that punishment is never or always justified?
You're right Tom, seeing as no military document will ever describe a mission objective as revenge or punishment I can produce nothing that constitutes proof. Improving morale of U.S. soldiers and citizens has been cited as an objective of the firebomb campaign and the Doolittle raids. Nothing quite like revenge to boost morale, wouldn't you say?, but no shred of evidence. Both events are also popularly described as revenge for Pearl, but again no proof and I don't put much stock in popular consensus anyway. Can't find anything from LeMay or Doolittle even hinting at revenge or punishment.
You win, but don't call me DIN! That's just f'ing offensive and totally uncalled for.
-
Bombing of civilian centers were commonplace in warfare at that time. Youre applying modern military tactics and its morality to how wars were fought 60 years ago. Cant do that. And last I checked, JDAMs didnt exist in 1944.
You need to learn yourself some history, son.
The Emperial Japanese Army made the Third Reich look like schoolchildren.
I'll go learn me some more history as soon as you point out where I suggested that laser guided bomb strikes should have been ordered on Japanese neighborhoods rather than fire bombs.
I'm applying no such morality. The U.S. carried out a conventional bombing campaign on Japan for years until they opted for a firebomb campaign which served little strategic purpose other than to demoralize the enemy and maximize destruction. Theres a difference between errant dumb bombs and firebombs. Even if we had JDAMS in the 40s they wouldn't have been used in the place of firebombs, as a precision strike which minimizes collateral damage was not the intent.
-
That is not an accurate characterization of the Pacific war. There were legitimate reasons for most of the actions taken in the war well and beyond "punitive," if only because it wasn't just Americans that fought in the Pacific - the Aussies at Milne Bay were every bit as brutal as the Americans at Buna-Gona. The Pacific War was, simply, a brutal campaign where neither side asked or gave quarter.
And in regards to surrendering troops...one of the most dangerous things on a battlefield is to try to surrender yourself to the enemy. Generally, guys in the middle of a battle are in a "shoot first, ask questions later" mood, and individuals or small groups attempting to surrender themselves are pretty much dead men walking (including airmen - if you bailed out of a plane over Germany, your options were pretty much evade, find the nearest authority to surrender to, or get killed by civilians). Most POWs in WWII were taken in negotiated surrenders of large groups. Doubly so when you're Japanese and your brothers-in-arms have a history of not surrendering, or faking surrender to nail just one more gaijin.
So the U.S. involvement in the Pacific did not have punitive motives because the Aussies were also waging a war with punitive intentions? And firebombing Japan was not punitive because it also disrupted some industry as well? Thats nitpicky even for you.
As for the latter, I've seen many interviews with GIs who served in the Pacific, on some of the myriad WWII documentaries on the Hitler Channel, where they described the unofficial policy of "don't accept Japanese surrender, they showed no mercy at Pearl." From the mouths of men who accepted no surrender.
I'm not judging their actions, by the way, or claiming them to be horrific or war crimes. Simply comparing the reality of Greatest Generation with whats considered atrocity today.
-
PLease tell me youre NOT trying to paint the Japanese in WWII as innocent victims.
How would you describe the estimated 500,000 civilian casualties in 67 major Japanese metropolitan areas during the firebombing campaign? Ever heard of Dresden? That was a marshmallow roast compared to what took place all over Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Japanese_bombing
-
Even you have to win one once and awhile
Says the Washington Generals of PPP.
-
My point is who the !@#$ thinks it is a good idea to film something like that? Yes war is hell and atrocities are most surely are going to be committed (one of the reasons to avoid war if at all possible) but a person who thinks it's a good idea to film such an act and more importantly even with time to reflect thinks it's good idea to put it on line has something seriously wrong with him.
Definitely a fine display of stupidity. Apparently these guys missed that whole Abu Ghraib thing and how posing for a few mementos can come back to bite you in the ass. Its not like those photos made it on the cover of every magazine and received 24 hour coverage on every major network for months. Not only do they film it, but they upload it to the net. Idiots.
-
I know..............."he leads the charge to overthrow a dictator".............................finest bit of revisionism that I have read this week.
Meanwhile a bad president has a bad administration.
WASHINGTON, Jan 12 (Reuters) - The number of Americans applying for first-time jobless benefits rose last week, a report showed on Thursday, reversing a recent decline and suggesting the labor market remains brittle. Unemployment claims jumped to 399,000 in the first week of 2012, the highest in six weeks Romney claimed, despite the fact that 200,000 jobs were added in December and the rate of unemployment actually decreased. The four-week average of claims also marched higher to 381,750 from 374,000. The Labor Department report also showed 3.63 million continuing claims, up from 3.61 million. Including the millions of workers receiving benefits under emergency federal programs, some 7.3 million Americans were receiving unemployment benefits as of Dec. 24, the most recent date for which comprehensive figures are available. The U.S. unemployment rate has fallen sharply in recent months and was 8.5 percent December, but some economists worry the drop has been due in part to discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force.
Touched it up for you.
-
Bull! CJ is the almighty himself and Brad Smith is a dummy!
-
It's always fascinating to me to read of "atrocities" like this and worse committed by the "Greatest Generation" in World War II.
Well the actions of the Greatest Generation have largely been white washed and are largely absent from today's history books. The punitive nature of the Pacific theater is a footnote. Things like not accepting the surrender of enemy troops and instead opting to shoot unarmed would-be-POWs and fire bombing Japanese cities, which served no purpose other than revenge for Pearl, are swept under the rug.
Given that many Americans buy-in to image of the Greatest Generation as gentleman soldiers, its easy to see why they balk at the reality of war.
-
So, you're saying that in the next SAW or Freddie Kreuger horror movie, it shouldn't be people getting their guts torn out... Freddie should just take to peeing on people?
If peeing on a dead body is "horrific," what should the criminal equivalent be of peeing on a(n unconsenting) live person?
3 months probation according to R Kelly.
-
That video was pretty funny. Too bad it got leaked. BTW, if this is what you find to be "horrific" I have a two step plan for you:
1. Grow a !@#$in dick
2. Check out some of the other videos on that sight or check out some video of women being lashed and children being mutilated.
After gaining some perspective you might not be so horrified at some dead Taliban shitbags getting pissed on.
Remember all the outrage when Moammar was posthumously dragged through the streets getting kicked in the face and sodomized by knives? Or when the mutilated corpses of American contractors were hung from bridges in Iraq? Neither do I.
-
Urinating on the already deceased!?! It's My Lai all over again.
While disrespectful, gross and profoundly stupid, this act is hardly horrific.
-
No the Bickering Bills were good
Beat me to it. The bickering Bills went to the super bowl every year rather than just talk about it.
-
I think Obama has been pretty poor but had done the things I wanted him to do you would have hated him even more.
What did you want him to do?
-
I just don't understand why that chickenhawk Obama has gotten us involved in regime change in foreign countries who pose no threat whatsoever to US interests. While he wages war in Libya and Yemen, unemployment remains upward of 8% here at home. Why does Obama need to police the world? Is it because Libya and Yemen have oil? And he's increased drone strikes, which we all know are of questionable legality, by a staggering 800%. Speaking of questionable legality, why is Obama holding detainees indefinitely in Guantanamo without due process? Aren't alleged terrorists entitled to the same rights as US citizens? His bloodlust knows no bounds.
Any of this garbage sound familiar?
-
Lets all join Dave in reveling in Obama's divisive campaign of class warfare. That's exactly the type of leadership this country needs right now. A multimillionaire champion of the poor who condemns the rich before flying out to Martha's Vineyard. Stunning success, Dave.
-
Wow, a 0.1 year increase in longevity under Obama's term! There's a causal relationship if there ever was one. This is clearly the work of big government. Also, the sun rose this morning. Thanks OBAMA!
Just curious, but why did big government increase the incidence of Alzheimer's, kidney disease, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, Parkinson's and pneumonitis? Hmmm, gues Obama works in mysterious ways.
Wanna win the Division
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Bill Brasky in the first round. Mark it down.