Posted on 04/22/2007 10:13:19 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
In general, if the US did not sell to one close ally in the Pacific (Australia), there isn’t a real good reason to sell the fighters to another. So, I would say there needs to be some consistentcy first.
Thank you. :)
But this one is so common, that I wonder if there is a hidden desire to maintain old power structures.
No, nothing hidden about it. Zero. Zippo. It's quite overt, and when the "power structure" (where'd you pick up that little bit of Dresden School slang, btw?) favors the People of the United States of America, I am appeased. Especially when I remember that my father and his brothers-in-law and a sister or two waged total war on the Thousand-Year Reich and the We Nation Eighty Million, Unconquered Since Time Immemorial in order to ensure that our families were not slaughtered out of hand, or gassed and burned up in ovens, or murdered in their houses by the grisly thugs of those totalitarian states.
I ALWAYS want an insuperable edge in dealing with ugly people, and I will never forget that the Japanese, when they were transported by visions of their own wonderfulness, thought it meet and fitting to slaughter the citizens of other nations as if they were killing flies. They executed Allied aviators out-of-hand, they killed civilians wholesale, they shot prisoners who were weak, injured, or sick, and what they did to captive American nurses I don't think Jim Robinson would appreciate my retelling on his boards.
No, there is NO "power structure" like one that is grossly and even obscenely favorable to your own people at the expense of peoples who've shown they like to kill people.
Got it?
Don't turn your lip up at me, pal. Wrong guy.
No, it isn't dead. The past is alive as the present. It keeps happening over and over again.
If you don't believe me, look up the term "uniformitarianism".
The Biblical version is, "There is nothing new under the sun," which was almost universally true until our own age of inventiveness, which has deluded many people into thinking that we are somehow free of the templates of the past. Not as long as we have human DNA and corruptible natures, we are not.
You seem to advocate eternal enmity. How far back are you setting your sights? WWII? WWI? The Spanish-American war? The war of 1812? The revolutionary war? Agincourt? The Jews? Og and his band of troglodytes?
Your very welcome :)
There's no doubt that the US has done much to defend democracy in the world. But don't forget, before the US defended democracy in the world, it had to defend democracy in America: Fighting the Civil War to end slavery, giving Indians autonomy, implementing child labor laws, compulsory education, etc. Did you know that history has shown that mobs here in the US had burned, lynched, and dismembered black Americans. Also, during the anti-conscription riot in New York during the Civil War, hundreds of black Americans were hung and burned along city lamp posts. Imagine if you will, that THOSE Americans had led the country. It easily could have happened.
A large portion of Germans were anti Semetic, but not all of them. And not all Japanese took part in propagating the suffering of others.
So, America isn't without blood on her hands. Though, admittedly, it is not on the scale of the 6 million Jews during WWII. Yet, despite the lack of complete innocence, Americans give themselves the right to accel, to study and research the sciences, to build the latest gadgets that the latest technology can build, and to build infrastructure that would give provide great mobility.
Other nations, despite their past, ought to be allowed to build their nation as well without being bridled.
More like, you shot yourself in the foot.
Fighting the Civil War to end slavery
The Civil War was not fought to end slavery. Visit an ACW thread sometime and catch up.
Did you know that history has shown that mobs here in the US had burned, lynched, and dismembered black Americans.
What? NO! The devil you say! But according to Cynthia Tucker, resident black-racist editorial-page editrix for the Atlanta Urinal-Constipation, the actual number is a little over 4500, from 1866 to 1962.
On the other hand, from 1988 to 1996, during the big crack-related crime wave that saw U.S. murders spike up to 25,000/year, it eventuated that 50% of the murder victims were black, of whom 91% faced young black male executioners.
Of the 50% of murder victims who were not black, a quarter were murdered by young black males and another quarter were murdered by "persons unknown" -- which was the crime statisticians' way of politically covering up for the stranger-murder perps, who were overwhelmingly black (comparison with other, similar violent crimes in which the victims survived showed that the mystery 25% of perps were, in fact, mostly black).
So in other words, 3/4's of all the 25,000 murders/year during the high-crime years of the 80's and 90's were committed by young black men, and they committed a third of their murders on whites, Chicanos, Asians, and others.
Out of the hecatomb of 6000 non-blacks murdered every year by those young black men, how many were killed because of their race? Inquiring minds want to know -- and to compare that number, which criminology's number-crunchers are prohibited by urban politicians from sharing with us, with the number Cynthia Tucker agonized over one year, when she was adding up yet again the human cost of white racism.
Are you starting to catch my drift?
Also, during the anti-conscription riot in New York during the Civil War, hundreds of black Americans were hung and burned along city lamp posts.
And hundreds of Irish were cut down with canister by artillery units brought into the city for just that purpose.
America isn't without blood on her hands.
You sound more and more like a liberal every time you post. Thanks for dropping by.
Other nations, despite their past, ought to be allowed to build their nation as well without being bridled.
Take out a loan and buy a clue. Why do you think there were so many Soviet and U.S. troops in Germany for 50 years after the war? Why do you think U.S. troops are still there? To guarantee good conduct by the Germans, is why. It was the unstated cornerstone of European security policy -- and it is the ulterior political underpinning of EU security policy as well and the EU's fundamental raison d'etre. Although the French do have an ulterior policy goal of their own, viz., to break apart and supplant the Anglo-American alliance, which would allow them finally to count coup on, and dominate, their ancient adversary Great Britain at last.
The United States and the Soviet Union were the co-guarantors during all that time, that Germany would not do again what she did in 1869, 1871, 1914, and 1939. The Russians are gone, but we're still there -- and everybody wants into NATO. Hell, I think even Putin would like to join, at some level.
No. Eternal memory. These national characteristics are long, very long, and not to be changed, transmuted, or erased in a few generations, however we may wish they could be, e.g. in the case of Islamic fundamentalists.
Well....my foot is doing okay so far.
The Civil War was not fought to end slavery. Visit an ACW thread sometime and catch up.
I have. I'm one of the few advocating that the CW was fought to end slavery. But I don't want to debate that here. One thing all will agree on, 4 million Americans were under slavery for quite a long time. In the South.
Are you starting to catch my drift?
Well, I am aware that the murder rate of blacks are higher than not just whites but all other races. But here is a website describing who did what and does not absolve whites of wrong doing. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
And hundreds of Irish were cut down with canister by artillery units brought into the city for just that purpose.
Well, an equivalent retort would have been to tell me of a situation where blacks lynched and burned hundreds of whites en masse. But nonetheless, you're actually supporting my arguement in that whether government agency towards the Irish or a mob towards blacks, no people group or country is completely innocent.
So, with those points, America did not deny white Southerners (that had enslved 4 million Americans) the right to accel and build a better society. To elect government officials and be part of congress. To build military bases, etc.
Also regardless of the murder rates of blacks. Most have not committed murders and America does not deny them the right to accel, participate in the political process and have access to the best schools, etc.
I would say the same for other countries as well. They should be able to accel as a people group if they are able to organize themselves in such a manner.
I still stand by my statement of power structure. Lets forget about the rest of the world for now. Imagine if 100 years from now, black Americans are a wealthy minority that owns significantly beyond their population. They've gotten their act together and a bulk of them moved out of the hood and into places like Beverly Hills. They are CEO's, landlords and tech company founders. Would you be comfortable with the thought of white chauffers, white nannies, white butlers working for wealthy powerful black families. And I'm not talking about degrading or lower paying positions either. I'm talking about a setting where being a nanny, chauffer, butler would be a well respected profession. Except maybe half or more of the employers are black instead of predominently white today.
Would you be open to such a change? Pete Rose once said there was something wrong with the world when Japan at one time produced more autos than the US. But why would there be something wrong with the world? Maybe Japan was just productive. What Pete Rose was angst about was a slight and temporary shift in the power structure. One in which the mightiest auto industry wasn't American.
Would you be accepting of a co-spherical prosperity in which the US was still wealther than it ever but another country was even wealthier and carried more weight on the world stage?
Tell me you'd be comfortable with such changes and I'd be more than happy to withdraw my comment and apologize. Until then, my comment still stands.
BTW, my intention wasn't to bring up race issues. I just wanted to point out that no people group is innocent of having blood on their hands. The difference maybe the degree of the acts, but nonetheless, no people group is innocent.
Never sell the F22 to Japan.
They may be an ally but if money is involved they will copy it and sell it to anyone. Toshiba did this with advanced milling machine technology that we allowed them access to. They sold it to the Russians to allow them to make more silent submarines.
Fine, up until that last little dig, that Parthian shot. Your one-upmanship requires me to point out that, at independence, slavery was legal, and practiced, in every State in the Union. Smoke that in your meerschaum of self-righteousness. Don't you even think about dumping off on the South. Cater to your prejudice somewhere else. I'm not having it.
But here is a website describing who did what and does not absolve whites of wrong doing.
Straw man. The point was, your and Cynthia Tucker's beside-the-point whine about social justice is drowned out by the staccato of young black men's Saturday-night specials being discharged into the bodies of non-black murder victims.
.....no people group or country is completely innocent....
You keep saying that, as if the idea has great talismanic power for you, but you have so far failed to connect it to an argument, or make it into an argument in confutation of anything I've posted.
BTW, my intention wasn't to bring up race issues.
Really? You sure fooled me. Maybe you did too good a job of not bringing it up:
There's no doubt that the US has done much to defend democracy in the world. But don't forget, before the US defended democracy in the world, it had to defend democracy in America: Fighting the Civil War to end slavery, giving Indians autonomy, implementing child labor laws, compulsory education, etc. Did you know that history has shown that mobs here in the US had burned, lynched, and dismembered black Americans.
47 posted on 04/23/2007 6:37:24 PM CDT by ponder life
I just wanted to point out that no people group is innocent of having blood on their hands. The difference maybe the degree of the acts, but nonetheless, no people group is innocent.
Your point is still not germane to the original thread of discussion. I still want an insuperable advantage, in a ruthless and demonstrably bloodthirsty world, for my people vis-a-vis any other people, for our security. It is not, as you seem to suggest, immoral to want security for the People of the United States. We've earned the right (as if we had to earn it), in the last 220 years, to enjoy our freedom in peace.
It was not meant to be a one upmanship or Pathian shot. I was simply stating facts. There were 4 million slaves in the South at the time of Civil War. At other times and places, I don't know what the statistics are. I haven't looked into them. Should I have?
Why do say that I was prejudice? Was that fact wrong? If I wanted to talk about slavery in America, should I pick a different era and place in order to demonstrate impartiality?
Had I brought up slavery in the New England area, would that have made a difference? In other words, how do I bring up slavery in America, or any other less than honorary deeds and not be deemed bias, offensive, or prejudice?
I will respond to the rest of the post at a later time, but felt I needed respond to that particular paragraph.
Well, I guess it's a matter of perspective. If I bring up certain facts, such as slavery, lynching of blacks, and the relocation of Indians to reservations along with other subject matters such as child labor laws and compulsory education. How is that bringing up race issues? Honestly, I'm just talking about facts we all agree on.
But then again, you may bring up a different set of facts that someone else may think as race issues. Such as your comment:
staccato of young black men's Saturday-night specials being discharged into the bodies of non-black murder victims.
Now, honestly, I had not made a comment about your observation as racist (though some might deem it such), so I don't believe you should say the same towards me in regards to making note of slavery in "The South".
Your point is still not germane to the original thread of discussion. I still want an insuperable advantage, in a ruthless and demonstrably bloodthirsty world, for my people vis-a-vis any other people, for our security.
I think you're missing my point. Yes, much of the rest of the world is ruthless. Mainly, because there wasn't anyone within their borders that were able to oppose their own internal ruthlessness. In America, there were sufficient people that did. That's why I keep bringing up slavery as the main issue.
Do you not think that people in Germany that supported Hitler were not ordinary everyday people who owned shops and restaurants and said "Hi" to their neighbors. But deep inside, sufficient numbers of them blamed the Jews for their misfortunes. And along comes Hitler who brings it out of ordinary people. Most Germans didn't belong to the NAZI party, but enough of them did (about 30%) to give Hitler alot of weight. One man cannot rule a country without sufficient support from it's citizenry.
Here in America, the KKK onced numbered 5 million. That's only 5% of the population at the time (1900), but it is a significant number. But the KKK had been opposed by other whites through the political and legal system. Do you not think many of these people were ordinary people? Many of them may have been law biding citizens. Even believed in their own goodness. But in the end, they still did what they did, terrorized people in the name of defending what they believed were the true America.
It is not, as you seem to suggest, immoral to want security for the People of the United States. We've earned the right (as if we had to earn it), in the last 220 years, to enjoy our freedom in peace.
No, it is not. It is immoral, when you attempt to intervene in someone else's attempt to want the same thing for their own people.
Michael Moore keeps saying the same thing, but the tendency of his argument, and yours, says different. No, you were not "simply stating facts". You were prosecuting an exercise in moral equivocation.
Had I brought up slavery in the New England area, would that have made a difference?
Yes it would, because you wrapped your red herring in a shot at the South. You resorted to Clintonista propaganda about "them" -- white Southerners -- as The Shame of America, in order to make a moral equivocation about the morality of American civilization weighed in your scales against the totalitarian empires of the 20th century.
I made the point that it is moral for the United States to seek material advantages over rival societies organized on totalitarian or authoritarian principles, in order to defend the liberty of the American People.
You promptly replied by attacking the morality of our society, just like Michael Moore does.
Don't be surprised if I don't get all warm and fuzzy when you do that, especially when you lead off by borrowing a code phrase from the Dresden School lexicon of destructive (they call it "deconstructive") criticism.
Absolutely wrong. Our 20th-century enemies wanted Lebensraum and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and international Communism. Screw them.
Clinton is from Arkansas, I doubt he would refer to the South as the "Shame of America".
in order to make a moral equivocation about the morality of American civilization weighed in your scales against the totalitarian empires of the 20th century.
Alright, I see that I'm up against an anglo version of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. What would the politically correct term(s) be in order to describe the people and the resistance to end slavery in America? Regardless of how it ended, it didn't end with a whimper. So how do go about describing it?
You promptly replied by attacking the morality of our society, just like Michael Moore does.
If you look at my posts carefully, I attacked certain actions in American society (whoever these people are behind these actions, I'll be tight lipped about it). And yes, you are right, I did put them in the same boat as other totalitarian societies. However, I actually complimented the morality of America by stating that certain actions were opposed by other Americans.
Lets change the subject a bit. Did you know that there are millions of street children in Brazil? Many grow up to join ruthless gangs. Well organized global drug cartels. It would be easy to be judgemental of Brazilian society and it's people for societal decays.
But did you know that here in America, there are over 1 million foster children. Think about that, one million children the courts have deemed their parents unfit. Yet, you don't see children on the streets in America. That's because there are millions of other Americans willing step forward and take in these children. That's a compliment to American society as a whole. But it in no way redeem those unfit parents. Many of them are either drug addicts or alcholocs. And imagine if you will, if those people ran the country.
So, let me ask you this: as an American, as you read up on American history, are you more proud of the fact that America ended slavery on her own and had good people in positions of power to enforce it? Or are you more offended by the fact that federal troops intervened on someone's property to ensure slavery did not continue (whether in Mississippi or Vermont and whether it was a white or black slave owner)? If it's the later, then I'm probably a bigger defender of American morality than you are.
Well, originally, it was about Japan. And you equated Japan to the dictators of the past. Yet, Japan today, has a democratically elected government. But you still held them against it.
I was simply stating that American history is not without it's less than flattering background.
Ironically, this term has a political bent to it. But really, it should not. The US has been the most intrumental of bringing this about. And I thank God for that.
It actually is ("germane"). Some countries will move forward from their "ruthless" past. And may move on to achieve great things. I believe it would be wrong to intervene as they begin to achieve it.
Japan has a history of not so flattering actions. Yet, it is a nation at peace and with the rest of the world. If they negotiate with the US for certain technologies or develop it on their own, then I say, leave them alone. And let THEM live in peace.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.