The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[akoff 0]

This is frightening, too. You do realize that there are individual people in this world, right? I hope your view of this world extends past false labels, such as country. Or is it always your belief that any person who was born in a particular region of the Earth is morally responsible for what other people did who were born in neighboring regions?How many people in Nagasaki bombed Pearl Harbor or planned the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

This was war....it was an industrial city...the people were bystanders. Sorry but the factories making war supplies had to goit still comes back to it being a war - they are nasty, evil and bad for business (most of the time) but if you are going to fight one you fight to win as easy / safe and with as little loss of your troops lives as possible and the other side doesn't count.Jeez this sounds like crap you would hear coming from France.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

ok, then we are just not in agreement on the complexity of the situationm, morally it is fine - correct?

i'm not sure if we can say that the action is moral. was it necessary? you can argue that it was. but i dont see how we can arrive at a morally defensible position for killing (insert number of people killed by the bombings) people with two bombs. my main problem with what you said was the clarity with which you call it moral. killing in self defense can be moral. was this in self defense? perhaps. whose self defense? the soldiers. but they didnt make the decision to drop the bomb. truman wasnt in any danger. defense of others? that can be moral. but did we need to go all the way. i dont know. i cant say for sure. i'd have to look it up, but i'd be willing to bet that truman struggled with the decision. i'd bet he didnt see it as the easiest and most obivious thing to do given the situation. i dont know. maybe i just hope that. you seem to beleive the japanese deserved it. but did every single person who died those days deserve it? i doubt it.i think an interesting discussion would be on how necessity, either percieved or real, influences morality. i think you can argue that this was absolutely necessary. i may even, after a thorough review of all the facts from historians of both sides, agree with that. but does that make it moral? i have a hard time saying that killing that many people, most of them innocent of the crimes that have given rise to the necessity, was moral.i could be wrong. i have been before and i will be again.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

This was war....it was an industrial city...the people were bystanders. Sorry but the factories making war supplies had to go

But, do you think that the only way to destroy a factory is with an atomic bomb...?

it still comes back to it being a war - they are nasty, evil and bad for business (most of the time) but if you are going to fight one you fight to win as easy / safe and with as little loss of your troops lives as possible and the other side doesn't count.Jeez this sounds like crap you would hear coming from France.

Right. This is the frightening philosophy. If you think calling it "European" makes it easier for you to dismiss so you don't have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of simultaneously thinking it's okay to kill people without caring and thinking that you're a moral / religious person, then fine, do that.

[Balloon guy 158]

This is one of the most rediculous and embarrassing arguments you've ever made. The people in Hiroshima were guilty because there was a factory somewhere in their city? What the hell?

I know the subject is hard for lefties, but follow along:If a government places a war production facility in a civilian area, and then declare war on another country, who is responsible for the deaths of those civilians?Try to not jump immediately into thinking the US is always wrong and its pretty easy to follow.

But this is simultaneously begging the question and creating a false dichotomy. If one were set on using the Atomic bomb to end the war, isn't it possible that there were ways to use it other than bombing cities? Couldn't one have, for example, bombed remote bases or islands, or pretty much any other target? Or done it only once? Second, it's not obvious at all that it would have taken more total lives to end the war conventionally, and no one knows for certain the answer to this. It was an extremely difficult choice to balance the guaranteed death of 200,000+ against a hypothetical number of dead in another scenario. akoff is crazy when he says that the choice is "easy." I'm frightened of a person who thinks that's an easy choice, frankly.

You know what is easy? Sitting 65 years later without any casualty reports of tens of thousands of American lives lost this month and 3 years of fighting hand to hand for pathetic islands that didn't matter, and judging the actions of a man who had one responsibility, the protection of the American people. No responsibility to the future, no worry about the people who weren't even born telling him that he was wrong for taking action that ended the war, and sent a clear message to Russia to not get rambunctious with all their troops in Eastern Europe and a desire to flex their muscles.It is possible that we could have invaded and only lost half the projected losses of US troops. It's possible that we could have blockaded them and waited till enough civilians starved to death. It's possible that we could have armed the Chinese and Koreans watched them kill every single Japanese person on the island without a shred of remorse. I know its worthy to look at the decision with scrutiny to help make similar decisions in the future. But to second guess the decision of a country who had already lost a million+ lives and seen most of Europe destroyed, who had recently lost 10,000 marines on an island that didn't matter called Peleiu, to ask them to see things with the eyes of a peacenik who's only wars during his lifetime were fought with smart bombs and people screaming to not let even one innocent person die without a lawyer looking into criminal charges, that is ridiculous.

This is frightening, too. You do realize that there are individual people in this world, right? I hope your view of this world extends past false labels, such as country. Or is it always your belief that any person who was born in a particular region of the Earth is morally responsible for what other people did who were born in neighboring regions?How many people in Nagasaki bombed Pearl Harbor or planned the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

? This doesn't even really merit a response. You know that other countries are not filled with liberals from NY who think dialogue is all that was missing to prevent the Khmer Rouge regime from hacking a million people to death for crimes such as having eyeglasses?It would be wonderful to have only people with a certain opinion lined up at the wall and shot en masse I know...( which is your contention ) but until you are willing to get a polling company to go door to door in Iraq, then we have to live in the real world.The entire history of the world up to now, and for the future will always be determined by the aggressive use of force. Wishing it wasn't so while listening to John Lennon sing Imagine on a CD at his grave where he is because a fan shot him with a gun will not make the realities of life any less real.

[Balloon guy 158]

But, do you think that the only way to destroy a factory is with an atomic bomb...?

No but it saves on fuel costs.I know the Tokyo citzens were much happier to burn to death in larger numbers than to be vaporized quickly.

Right. This is the frightening philosophy. If you think calling it "European" makes it easier for you to dismiss so you don't have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of simultaneously thinking it's okay to kill people without caring and thinking that you're a moral / religious person, then fine, do that.

Actually it is 100% the right thing to do to depersonalize our enemy and we do it during every war. The newspapers at the time called them Japs, we call them terrorist now, we called them gooks in Vietnam etc. because we want to protect our soldiers mentally from what we are asking them to do; kill another person.Acting like we must face all moral and social issues before we kill someone pointing a gun at us is naive.

[Balloon guy 158]

i'm going to ignore most of your nonsense becuase LLY handled it. i just wanted to quote this because it made me laugh. i never thought someone would insult me for "trying to be enlightend and fair." WHAT A TERRIBLE THING TO TRY TO DO.

I was going to comment on how it is your MO to let others defend your beliefs because you are incapable of doing it, but you did it for me with the following:

i'm not sure if we can say that the action is moral. was it necessary? you can argue that it was. but i dont see how we can arrive at a morally defensible position for killing (insert number of people killed by the bombings) people with two bombs. my main problem with what you said was the clarity with which you call it moral. killing in self defense can be moral. was this in self defense? perhaps. whose self defense? the soldiers. but they didnt make the decision to drop the bomb. truman wasnt in any danger. defense of others? that can be moral. but did we need to go all the way. i dont know. i cant say for sure.

To arrive at this I would assume your Do-It-Yourself-Labotomy kit finally came in. Good for you, you are now ready to be a democrat.

i'd have to look it up, but i'd be willing to bet that truman struggled with the decision. i'd bet he didnt see it as the easiest and most obivious thing to do given the situation. i dont know. maybe i just hope that.

So any issue you struggle with cannot be moral? Hmm, you atheist with no concrete sense of right or wrong sure are quick to judge other's actions.

you seem to beleive the japanese deserved it. but did every single person who died those days deserve it? i doubt it.

? Since when do we have the ability to conduct war and only kill the people that deserve it? That is so naive it's insane.

i think an interesting discussion would be on how necessity, either percieved or real, influences morality.

That's because you are a spineless loser who gets his morality from the current trend. When you grow up there is a remote chance you won't have to struggle with common sense so much.

i think you can argue that this was absolutely necessary. i may even, after a thorough review of all the facts from historians of both sides, agree with that. but does that make it moral? i have a hard time saying that killing that many people, most of them innocent of the crimes that have given rise to the necessity, was moral.i could be wrong. i have been before and i will be again.

So it might have been ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, but that doesn't make it moral?I don't think english is your first language. I know thinking isn't your forte either.You should stick to your normal sitting on the sidelines and jumping in with stupid little comments to try to pretend you know anything, cause when you actually get in the discussion, you prove how vacant your mind really is.

[vbnautilus 48]

i think you can argue that this was absolutely necessary. i may even, after a thorough review of all the facts from historians of both sides, agree with that. but does that make it moral?

I think it would.

[Balloon guy 158]

without worrying about the rest of your drivel, I will take the integrity of the average defense lawyer over the average prosecutor every day and twice on Saturday.

Bold statement to make when you personally know >1% of the people you are broad brushing.About a that is not known for integrity in the first place.

[mrdannyg 274]

Bold statement to make when you personally know >1% of the people you are broad brushing.About a that is not known for integrity in the first place.

About as bold as saying atomic bombing two major cities was absolutely necessary, knowing >1% of the relevant information.

[akoff 0]

But, do you think that the only way to destroy a factory is with an atomic bomb...?Right. This is the frightening philosophy. If you think calling it "European" makes it easier for you to dismiss so you don't have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of simultaneously thinking it's okay to kill people without caring and thinking that you're a moral / religious person, then fine, do that.

As far as bombing being the only - it was 1945 - you could either carpet bomb or try brand new A-bomb...those were your 2 options. Lose of life scale says one plane with one crew to accomplish the same task as massive multi day / night bombings of conventional bombs... plus 1 for the A bomb. either way lots of people were going to die but this way less our ours and we already established that to people who use logic the enemy doesn't count.Part 2 i don't like any of it, i would prefer we not be the worlds watch dog, i would prefer some other dumb ass pay for the worlds defense but if you are going to fight - you do it to win - kill - save your own lives as much as possible and get out...there is no part way. Part way got us Korea, Vietnam, and the now the middle east. You don't mess around with guns or war - you fight to win and go home.one thing you can't get your arms around is THEY came after us. We just finished it.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

one thing you can't get your arms around is THEY came after us. We just finished it.

Oh if everything was as black and white as it is in your WorldPretty good article I found from Pat Buchanan on why Japan attacked the UShttp://www.theamericancause.org/patwhydidjapan.htmThe American oil embargo gave Japan two choices. Let their Empire disintegrate or fight and they decided to fight.

[akoff 0]

Oh if everything was as black and white as it is in your WorldPretty good article I found from Pat Buchanan on why Japan attacked the UShttp://www.theamericancause.org/patwhydidjapan.htmThe American oil embargo gave Japan two choices. Let their Empire disintegrate or fight and they decided to fight.

fine, i never argued they shouldn't have fought or even if they were right or wrong to fight. I said going for a KO sneak attack at 8AM on sunday before any declaration of war is bullshit - and if you FAIL to deliver the KO blow you are going to lose everything you own...that is black and white. Bottom line is in my opinion if you touch one blade of grass on the dirt of this country in aggresion you will pay 100 times over in cost your land and your people. if you come in the spirit of peace and business we can all make millions! ...so keep the Leaf flag up north and we'll continue to get along as great neighbors! Also it should come as no surprise that FDR good old WW would be in the middle of this. They are after all 2 of Baraks mentors.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

If a government places a war production facility in a civilian area, and then declare war on another country, who is responsible for the deaths of those civilians?

I don't know. It's certainly shared by both of them, I don't know of any way to definitively measure the blame. Why does your tone imply that one answer is obviously correct...?

You know what is easy? Sitting 65 years later without any casualty reports of tens of thousands of American lives lost this month and 3 years of fighting hand to hand for pathetic islands that didn't matter, and judging the actions of a man who had one responsibility, the protection of the American people. No responsibility to the future, no worry about the people who weren't even born telling him that he was wrong for taking action that ended the war, and sent a clear message to Russia to not get rambunctious with all their troops in Eastern Europe and a desire to flex their muscles.

I don't think judging history is THAT easy, but okay. I, of course, wasn't judging whether his decision was right or whether I would have come to a different decisions. I was judging the fact that some said it was an easy decision or clearly was the correct one. There are many parallel scenarios, and it's impossible for me to judge which really seemed the best based on the evidence at the time. But that doesn't preclude me from trying to learn anything from history by thinking about it from multiple angles. Also, the US didn't lose a "million+ lives" in WW2, but that's beside the point

? This doesn't even really merit a response. You know that other countries are not filled with liberals from NY who think dialogue is all that was missing to prevent the Khmer Rouge regime from hacking a million people to death for crimes such as having eyeglasses?It would be wonderful to have only people with a certain opinion lined up at the wall and shot en masse I know...( which is your contention ) but until you are willing to get a polling company to go door to door in Iraq, then we have to live in the real world.The entire history of the world up to now, and for the future will always be determined by the aggressive use of force. Wishing it wasn't so while listening to John Lennon sing Imagine on a CD at his grave where he is because a fan shot him with a gun will not make the realities of life any less real.

Most of this is incoherent and I'm not sure how it relates to what I said. I'm not sure what you even mean by "polling people" or "lining them up against a wall". My point was that citizens don't necessarily deserve to suffer because of the actions of their government, and therefore government should do all they can to avoid the innocent loss of civilian life. If you take a step back, arguing that civilian living from country A is more valuable than civilian living from country B is actually pretty crazy. Unfortunately, humans subconsciously do this all the time, most likely from an evolutionary standpoint.(Oh, sorry, I forgot you don't believe in evolution. I'll try to come up with a colorful picture-book that describes a magical man creating people and putting them on a big floaty boat. Should be easier for you to relate to).

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Bottom line is in my opinion if you touch one blade of grass on the dirt of this country in aggresion you will pay 100 times over in cost your land and your people.

So, if a military person from Japan kills 1 innocent American citizen, it's okay for America to kill 100 innocent Japanese citizens...? That's your "bottom line," your overarching philosophy..? That seems pretty messed up.

[CaneBrain 95]

lofty comparision - you could say the same about a rapist being better then a child molestor

yeah i'll take the average lawyer over the average small business owner too. lawyer jokes are funny---enjoy them---but lawyers are not actually as bad as the worst criminals. Be more of a caricature.

[Dread Aidan 8]

If you take a step back, arguing that civilian living from country A is more valuable than civilian living from country B is actually pretty crazy.

My life isn't more valuable than your life, but I certainly value my life more than yours. No offense.

[akoff 0]

So, if a military person from Japan kills 1 innocent American citizen, it's okay for America to kill 100 innocent Japanese citizens...? That's your "bottom line," your overarching philosophy..? That seems pretty messed up.

no, if japan or any other country makes a hostile attack on our soil for any reason they should pay 100 times over, i am not into body counts. this is a milatary conversation during hostile times 20 years after WW1 ended and right after the war which ended up being WW2 in Europe was already under way...and we were sneak attacked. you guys are attempting to use your liberal modern thoughts to judge the morality or lack there of for an act 60 yrs ago when the world was a different place...it is silly. it was the right move, it was a difficult choice that had to be made. Christ the whole damn world thought it was good - including the our friends to our North (who were fighting on our side granted not many but there are not many of them) it saved lives and nobody outside of Japan gave a damn about the cites becuase it was the way life was. They were tired of dying and fighting....God try to separate the facts of the those times and the world they were living in from your sheltered pussy lives of today (the lives made possible by the generation you are condemning).

[timwakefield 68]

I don't care if I'm Canadian, American, or from Mars. Hearing Americans talk like this, and use ugly pressure tactics on each other to force more of it is absolutely terrifying. Do you guys really see things this black and white? Broad-shouldered American heroes protecting the innocent and the good, destroying the evil foreigners who are looking to destroy everything?

Huh? Did you quote me by accident? Or did you only read the first couple lines of my post? Because my overall sentiment was that things are rarely "this black and white," but that Nazi Germany was one such example. I think we can all agree that Hitler was an Evil Dude with incredibly Evil Intentions, which he carried out to a horrifying extent. Japan allied themselves with Nazi Germany, and then attacked us out of the blue. That's pretty black and white. But I was the one saying the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were extremely gray areas, and not the least bit black and white, so I think it's strange that you think me and akoff were expressing similar sentiments. I agreed with him that Nazis were a bunch of assholes, and that's about the only thing we've ever agreed on.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

So any issue you struggle with cannot be moral? Hmm, you atheist with no concrete sense of right or wrong sure are quick to judge other's actions.

how could you take what i said and twist it into this nonsense. i said i dont know if it was moral, and i'd bet Truman struggled with it because no matter how necessary killing 100,000 people might be, one should think long and hard about the ethical implications of it. my sense of morality is based on promoting the well-being of conscious creatures. and with that i readily admit that there are circumstances that make me pause. in a way, faced with the possible death of millions of people, perhaps the moral thing to do is drop some a-bombs and end it quick. perhaps it isnt. but all i contended was that it simply cannot be viewed as an 'easy decision.'

You should stick to your normal sitting on the sidelines and jumping in with stupid little comments to try to pretend you know anything, cause when you actually get in the discussion, you prove how vacant your mind really is.

i normally 'sit on the sidelines' and make stupid comments because your mind is so incredibly warped i dont think any amount of logic and rational discourse could ever change your mind. i've seen vb and spademan and speedz dominate your illogical nonsense and you dont even blink. it's one hilarious excuse after the other. i hope you're 'leveling' all of us, i hope you really arent this brainwashed by religion - but the morons i interact with daily force me to the conclusion that even intellignet lawyers and succesful businessmen can have their minds so dominated by religion they fail to see the ridiculous nature of their core beliefs.

[brvheart's I Phone 0]

The American oil embargo gave Japan two choices. Let their Empire disintegrate or fight.

False dichotomy - 1Sound logic - 0

[FCP Bob 1,312]

False dichotomy - 1Sound logic - 0

Brv's understanding of history ???????

[Balloon guy 158]

Brv's understanding of history ???????

Well the fact that Japan was in the process of brutally invading China does kind of make our embargo more humanitarian than militaristic.

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't know. It's certainly shared by both of them, I don't know of any way to definitively measure the blame. Why does your tone imply that one answer is obviously correct...?

Because one answer is more correct?

I don't think judging history is THAT easy, but okay. I, of course, wasn't judging whether his decision was right or whether I would have come to a different decisions. I was judging the fact that some said it was an easy decision or clearly was the correct one. There are many parallel scenarios, and it's impossible for me to judge which really seemed the best based on the evidence at the time. But that doesn't preclude me from trying to learn anything from history by thinking about it from multiple angles.

It is also possible that this subject has been dissected and the conclusion is that is was the best option and therefore we can now proclaim it with few words.

Also, the US didn't lose a "million+ lives" in WW2, but that's beside the point

I know, we waited until Russia army was decimated before we entered the war in a kind of Machiavellian strategy that was probably a really good one.

Most of this is incoherent and I'm not sure how it relates to what I said. I'm not sure what you even mean by "polling people" or "lining them up against a wall". My point was that citizens don't necessarily deserve to suffer because of the actions of their government, and therefore government should do all they can to avoid the innocent loss of civilian life. If you take a step back, arguing that civilian living from country A is more valuable than civilian living from country B is actually pretty crazy. Unfortunately, humans subconsciously do this all the time, most likely from an evolutionary standpoint.

Well from an evolutionary standard they would be right. Unless you want to turn evolution on its ear and say that environmental conditions and natural adaptation do not apply across the board on all living species?There is a reason that all the early evolutionist were blatant racist.

(Oh, sorry, I forgot you don't believe in evolution.

That's why I can say that in God's eyes everyone is equal, but you can't.

I'll try to come up with a colorful picture-book that describes a magical man creating people and putting them on a big floaty boat. Should be easier for you to relate to).

The Bible didn't have pictures. you should read it some time, might help you understand what you are misunderstanding.

[Balloon guy 158]

i normally 'sit on the sidelines' and make stupid comments because your mind is so incredibly warped i dont think any amount of logic and rational discourse could ever change your mind. i've seen vb and spademan and speedz dominate your illogical nonsense and you dont even blink. it's one hilarious excuse after the other. i hope you're 'leveling' all of us, i hope you really arent this brainwashed by religion - but the morons i interact with daily force me to the conclusion that even intellignet lawyers and succesful businessmen can have their minds so dominated by religion they fail to see the ridiculous nature of their core beliefs.

We've already established how completely incapable you are of having an actual rational thought. That kind of makes your pronouncement of winners and losers in any debate a little suspect.

[Balloon guy 158]

About as bold as saying atomic bombing two major cities was absolutely necessary, knowing >1% of the relevant information.

Who only knows >1% of the relevant information?Besides suited of course.