5
   

Trump, be a leader, not a blamer.

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2020 05:10 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
If there is unburned fuel after a (fire)bombing, it is better for the people livng in the area to leave the fuel unburned or for it to be fully consumed so that it can't cause further harm as unburned fuel/pollution?

I don't know the answer to this or whom to believe in this debate, but I question whether leaving fuel unburned is necessarily better than just finishing it off once it's already on the ground.

I'd think it would be better to extinguish the fire if possible.

But once a firestorm is kicked off, it usually does not stop burning until all fuel has been consumed.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2020 05:12 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Actually, he's been peddling this horseshit for years.

All I do is point out facts and reality.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2020 05:14 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I did not claim that the 8th USAAF bombers were responsible for the effects of the RAF's bombing.

The Dresden firestorm was a (deliberate) effect of the RAF's bombing.


Setanta wrote:
To claim that when they had restarted the fires, they had nothing to do with any firestorm is sheer idiocy.

Not at all. Restarting some fires doesn't mean that US bombers had anything to do with the firestorm.


Setanta wrote:
In the last week of July, 1943, the USAAF and the RAF bombed (and firebombed) Hamburg, for eight days, and seven nights. That means that it began with an attack by the USAAF. This triggered a firestorm which raged for days on end, and destroyed an are in excess of six square miles, more than 90% of the area covered by Hamburg.

That firestorm as well was entirely the work of British bombers. The US did not cause any firestorm anywhere in Germany.

In fact, the only time the US created a major firestorm was Hiroshima. And given the effects of the atomic explosion, the Hiroshima firestorm was a bit superfluous.


Setanta wrote:
No one can blame the RAF for the deliberate fire bombing of Japanese cities, often in the full knowledge that residential neighborhoods would be torched.

True. You will never see me say that British bombers launched major attacks against Japanese cities.


Setanta wrote:
You are a disgusting excuse for a human being.

All I do is point out facts.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2020 05:16 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Once again, I have not claimed that the 8th USAAF was responsible for the results of the RAF bombing.

The Dresden firestorm was a (deliberate) result of the RAF bombing.


Setanta wrote:
If you did not consistently distort and lie, you'd have nothing to post.

Notice how no one can point out anything untrue in my posts?
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2020 06:20 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Notice how no one can point out anything untrue in my posts?


Actually, many have.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2020 08:24 pm
While we are on the subject of World War II....

Fact: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.

Fact: Japan refused to surrender until after both A-bombs had already been dropped.

I offer the second fact not to argue that the A-bombs caused surrender. I don't care whether they were the cause of surrender. I offer it as a challenge to untrue claims that Japan was offering to surrender and we used the A-bombs anyway.
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2020 09:28 pm
@oralloy,
Ok.

I offer the fact that you are off subject and are prepared to argue, about everything, all the time.

So, there's that.

And since there are multiple threads with multiple pages with you arguing how right you are, I'm sure you'll make another argument about arguments and how you're right.

So, since you're the only one who wants to argue about arguing, I'll concede you're right about that.
goldberg
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2020 10:49 pm
@goldberg,
the self-denying Trump reportedly said on Saturday that Joe Biden " doesn't write." ROFL. It's a little infra dig for a president to make a false claim and use it to take a dig at another presidential candidate like this. More to the point, Trump is not even in a good position to hurl epithets at Joe Biden for not being a learned sort, since it's widely reported that Trump doesn't even read; he only tweets, watches Fox News, and leers at his models.



goldberg
 
  5  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2020 11:19 pm
@goldberg,
Trump's suck-ups have set out their stall to muzzle news outlets critical of Trump's policies. Trump may have used his presidential powers to persuade the owner of The Weekly Standard, which's a conservative magazine, to shut it down, using it as a means to belittle Bill Kristol , the founder of The Weekly Standard and one of the vocal critics of Trump, just like another conservative writer named Max Boot.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2020 12:01 am
@goldberg,
Quote:
the self-denying Trump reportedly said on Saturday that Joe Biden " doesn't write."

Trump did not bring up plagiarism. Biden does that regular. It is a proven fact he dropped out of an earlier presidential run because of it.

Reality is Biden is senile. His brain is going bye-bye quickly.

Quote:
writer named Max Boot.

A hack named Max Boot.
glitterbag
 
  4  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2020 01:21 am
I've mentioned this before, but DOD is required to declassify documents older than a certain time. You can go to www.nsa.gov and go thru the menu to locate declassified information about many military actions. I've reviewed documents/reports regarding the Korean War, the Tet offensive and a few other documents. Not all of the documents are declassified, so you need to actually go the the site and look for the era you are researching.


It might be dry reading for some, but it is informative.


I haven't read this portion in a while, but if you are interested you can check it out:
Cuban Missile Crisis Document Archive - 1961
https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declassified-documents/cuban-missile-crisis/1961/
Cuban Missile Crisis documents from the year 1961...Room Speeches and Testimonies Declassified Documents Puzzles Our Initiatives Classified...Crisis ...
0 Replies
 
goldberg
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2020 05:15 am
@coldjoint,
Trump's 73. Are you suggesting he is senile as well? Be frankly, I wouldn't use this word to describe an old-geezer like you, in light of the fact I grew up being told to respect old folk.

At the very least, I can't bring myself to call Trump an old basket case no matter how I resent his depraved behavior or his in-your-face remarks against Joe Biden. I'd prefer to use the word prat to describe Trump instead. Teehee.

Max Boot used to work for the Wall Street Journal, which is also owned by Murdoch, the owner of Fox News. The fact that even a former WSJ reporter like Max Boo or Bret Stephens-who once was the deputy editorial page editor of the Journal before joining The New York Times- works hard to lay bare Trump's race-baiting and other wrongful acts, if anything, gives credence to the view that even conservative writers are loth to throw their weight behind a supercilious scammer like Trump. Moreover, Trump has never been a successful businessman as he claims, according to Fortune magazine, The Economist, The New Yorker, Bloomberg Businessweek , and CNBC. Forbes might beg to differ since the Editor-in-Chief of Forbes, Steve Forbes, makes a point of toading to Trump and lambasting liberals on Fox News.

That's why several high-ranking editors working at the Journal have left for other publications, say, the Journal's arch-rival The New York Times. I'd hazard a guess that they wouldn't want to butter up Trump like some columnists working for the Journal.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2020 11:12 am
@goldberg,
Quote:
Trump's 73. Are you suggesting he is senile as well?

No I am not.
Quote:
I wouldn't use this word to describe an old-geezer like you,

That's nice of you, not that my mental health has anything to do with Biden.
Quote:
Trump has never been a successful businessman as he claims, according to Fortune magazine,

That is also an opinion.
Quote:
Max Boot used to work for the Wall Street Journal,

Everyone makes mistakes, I do not hold it against the WSJ. The man is cashing in on hate for Trump and his opinions are just that, opinions. He is a hack.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2020 11:32 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

I'd think it would be better to extinguish the fire if possible.

If there are still people who can be saved by extinguishing it, of course.

But if everyone who can evacuate the fuel-covered areas has done so, then does it make sense to leave that unburned fuel there to either pollute the environment and/or re-ignite at some later time anyway?
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2020 11:44 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

I offer the second fact not to argue that the A-bombs caused surrender. I don't care whether they were the cause of surrender. I offer it as a challenge to untrue claims that Japan was offering to surrender and we used the A-bombs anyway.

Well, think about it: if some force perceived as terrorist threatened the US with some terrible attack unless we surrendered, would we do that?

The point of democracy is to be able to reach common ground without the use of threats to force consent/surrender.

Whether consensus is being sought at the intranational or international level, it becomes impossible to freely negotiate once threats are in play.

This is not to say that Japan and other axis power were innocent victims that were trying to work on democratic consensus-building with the allies. There was authoritarianism going on that escalated to all-out warfare.

It is doubtful anyone would have surrendered to the threat of nuclear destruction without it having been done in practice somewhere. If they would have just sent out films of the testing of the weapons, people might have thought it was just some made-up propaganda or they would dismiss the possibility that it would actually end up being used against their people.

Even today, don't we basically assume that terrorism and/or bombing/war will happen to someone else somewhere else, but not to us directly?

How many people really commit themselves to doing everything they can in their power to averting authoritarianism and war? Of course it is ultimately beyond the control of individuals once the mechanisms are set in motion, but how many people really want peace badly enough to think outside the box of whatever limits they assume prevent real sustainable peace from being achieved?
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2020 12:33 pm
@livinglava,
Have we ever had a president who was considered mentally deranged by a large percentage of the populace or one who equated loyalty with expecting his subordance to break the law for him?
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2020 12:45 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Have we ever had a president who was considered mentally deranged by a large percentage of the populace or one who equated loyalty with expecting his subordance to break the law for him?

1) what does this have to do with the post of mine you are quoting?

2) To answer your question, there was Nixon, but imo it is no coincidence that his unpopularity correlated with his launching of a war on drugs.

So the people who really hated Nixon were probably either beholden to the drug economy for some reason and/or motivated by the culture industry's resonance with the interests of drug culture.

I think the same would happen if a president was against professional sports industry, beer/alcohol industry, or some other widely popular culture industry.

Whether or not that president was inclined to do things that could be used to blame and scapegoat him, such things would emerge somehow to justify public outrage about whatever pacifier was being taken away from the baby, so to speak.

The line from the classic Eric Clapton song comes to mind here, "before you accuse me, take a look at yourself."
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2020 02:26 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
Have we ever had a president who was considered mentally deranged by a large percentage of the populace or one who equated loyalty with expecting his subordance to break the law for him?

Progressives make such false accusations against every Republican president.

Best just to not pay any attention to progressives and their deranged proclamations.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2020 02:27 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
if everyone who can evacuate the fuel-covered areas has done so, then does it make sense to leave that unburned fuel there to either pollute the environment and/or re-ignite at some later time anyway?

That "unburned fuel" is people's homes and possessions and places of employment.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2020 02:28 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
I offer the fact that you are off subject

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are no more off subject than the UK's firestorm at Dresden is off topic.


neptuneblue wrote:
and are prepared to argue, about everything, all the time.

My capability to argue about all possible subjects is better than that of most people. But no one truly has a mastery of all possible subjects.


neptuneblue wrote:
And since there are multiple threads with multiple pages with you arguing how right you are, I'm sure you'll make another argument about arguments and how you're right.

I only use such arguments to respond when other people change the subject and make it all about me.


neptuneblue wrote:
So, since you're the only one who wants to argue about arguing,

I have no desire to argue about arguing.

My desire is to argue about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I also like to argue about the Second Amendment.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How will Trump handle losing the election? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Trump and the Central Park Five - Discussion by ossobuco
TRUMP's GONE---This just in - Discussion by farmerman
Trump : Why? - Question by Yalow
Project 2025 - Discussion by izzythepush
Why so many believe Trump - Discussion by vikorr
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/31/2024 at 05:56:19