Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ┼llnephew Tvř­le■°n

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 1168
16
>We've been known to turn perfectly good spam threads into meaningful discussions.

I don't even think it's a matter of that. Over the years lurking here, I've seen threads about a given topic morph into 10 other things. Can't cite anything specific at all, but I can recall many a times seeing a discussion of [X super serious politico-philosophic topic] turn into a discussion about [broken dildos, cat penises, the price of coal in china, etc].

Is fun...

That part happens on every forum I've been a part of.  What is unique here IMO is the part Roger mentioned, the PD habit of redeeming a terrible thread simply via correct application of wit.

Personally I love that aspect, given my unfortunate tendency to knee-jerk and tantrum over every thread I create that does not get the response I was hoping for.

Wit is the best way of getting out of an unpleasant social situation.

It's not always possible, but when it is, it gives most people a way out of the situation with a shred of dignity intact.

I think this is a pretty good tangent for this one.

17
I love me some offal.  Oddly enough, I even had a dream last night that a friend and I went to a butcher shop where I asked if they had various organs before walking out disappointed when the lady told me they didn't have any.  With that said, I've never eaten haggis before.  It's on my bucket list though.  :cry:

The most I've ever done is black pudding, which is basically sausage soaked in blood.

Quite tasty. Weird smelling gas though.

18
So I've been wandering around the internet and I've come across some folks who can't seem to agree on this--and admittedly I'm not sure what to think. So I figure, why not bring it up here?

So pro A-Bomb side says that Japan civilians would have fought and/or committed suicide had the US invaded--possibly to the point where they would have obliterated their whole race. They claim that the 200,000 people who died from the bomb would have been upward toward a million Japanese and allied people who died in an invasion.  The Japanese thought we had only one bomb and wanted to keep fighting after Hiroshima. In addition the targets had factories and military bases that, should they have remained would have made a southern invasion incredibly difficult. This is also the position that Truman put forth (which immediately creates red flags for me, but that's just a gut reaction from this day and age.)

The anti A-Bomb side says that the Japanese were going to surrender anyway because the Soviets entered the war in Manchuria. Both Gen. Eisenhower and Gen. MacArthur have stated that the bomb didn't shorten the war.  These folks claim that the bomb was more as an effort at intimidating the Soviets and the Japanese were the perfect opportunity due to Americans' racist tendencies to think of the Japanese as "cockroaches".  That the pending surrender was based on a promise that the Allies would allow the Japanese imperial reign  to remain intact as their culture was used to.

So I DON'T want to believe that bombing and horrid aftermath of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best solution but there seems to be a good case for it based on the evidence I've found.  The anecdotes from Eisenhower and MacArthur are...well anecdotes and Eisenhower was mostly in Europe and Africa anyway.  I heard that MacArthur was more disappointed that he couldn't do what he did best and storm in there--even after Hiroshima.

Ultimately, I WANT to believe that there is never a use for the bomb so I'd like to reconcile this--even if it means swallowing hard truths.

I dunno...the normal "pro A-bomb" stance I hear is a synthesis of both your presented "pro" and "anti" arguments.

Basically, it follows as:
The japanese would have surrendered anyway because of the Soviets, however, this would have lead to a divided japan, with a southern conquest being perpetrated by the US, and a northern perpetrated by the USSR.
In "North Japan", you'd end up with communist purges, as is per usual with communists, probably some famine from the wonderful execution of communist planning, and possibly a "japanese war" to go right along with the korean and vietnamese ones. God knows how it would effect geopolitics in the long run too...

So the blunt premise is that the A-bombs caused casualties, yes, but far less than a japanese communist state would have in the form of purges, starvation and attempts at conquering the capitalist south...

Conversely, it might have been that Japan ended up being Korea, and Korea, Vietnam, and Vietnam ending up somewhere else.

19
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.

On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.

I don't really know what to think.  It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.


That's true.. Maybe it's better to just let it be a 'damn thing that happened' rather than take a side.  I guess I'd just really like to know if that was really thought out.  I mean Truman doesn't strike me as intelligent to consider those ramifications  and the way he reacted when he heard the news -- all giddylike -- seems to indicate that he was more power drunk than contemplative.

The 20th century was, in my opinion, the most barbaric era mankind ever indulged in.  So of course they dropped the bombs.

This. So much this.

And there was plenty of barbarism outside of the bombs, or WWII in general. The Modern Era was rife with running with technology and the idea of "what can we do to kill the other side faster/stronger/more horrifically than the other guys" without stopping to think. WWI is an excellent example of this. The way warfare technology moved in a period from 1914 to 1919 was INSANE. It became a game of "can we top this?" instead of, "How can we stop this?"

Politics had changed from the kingdoms and empires of the Middle Ages into democracies, dictatorships, and communist states in what was probably a direct result of the industrial revolution. Barriers were broken so fast, nobody gave a fuck.

I'm happy you replied because I've been thinking about Roger's comment on and off today.

WWI was really that time when technology and warfare wedded. Like a kid with a new toy, every country wanted to show off.  Only they were adults with millions of lives on the line.  The bomb seemed to be the capper. Like that moment in Lord of the flies when they got rescued and everyone realized how fucked up they were being.

Only it was a reality that couldn't be reversed.

No, world war I was when that wedding took place.  It was far more awful in terms of carnage.

I would further argue that the wedding was inevitable. There was courtship as early as the American Civil War (birth of machine guns, ironclad hulls, though you could argue the American revolution, with rudimentary submarines. Not being Amerocentric intentionally, it's just that those are the noticeable beginnings of modern war tech from a perspective I'm familiar with). But ultimately, humans have always been at war with each other. WWI just happened to break out at a particular point of runaway technological progress.

I suppose you could further argue that the first world war on any planet would necessarily begin around that level of technology. That level of technology make global war feasible.

20
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.

On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.

I don't really know what to think.  It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.


That's true.. Maybe it's better to just let it be a 'damn thing that happened' rather than take a side.  I guess I'd just really like to know if that was really thought out.  I mean Truman doesn't strike me as intelligent to consider those ramifications  and the way he reacted when he heard the news -- all giddylike -- seems to indicate that he was more power drunk than contemplative.

The 20th century was, in my opinion, the most barbaric era mankind ever indulged in.  So of course they dropped the bombs.

This. So much this.

And there was plenty of barbarism outside of the bombs, or WWII in general. The Modern Era was rife with running with technology and the idea of "what can we do to kill the other side faster/stronger/more horrifically than the other guys" without stopping to think. WWI is an excellent example of this. The way warfare technology moved in a period from 1914 to 1919 was INSANE. It became a game of "can we top this?" instead of, "How can we stop this?"

Politics had changed from the kingdoms and empires of the Middle Ages into democracies, dictatorships, and communist states in what was probably a direct result of the industrial revolution. Barriers were broken so fast, nobody gave a fuck.

I'm happy you replied because I've been thinking about Roger's comment on and off today.

WWI was really that time when technology and warfare wedded. Like a kid with a new toy, every country wanted to show off.  Only they were adults with millions of lives on the line.  The bomb seemed to be the capper. Like that moment in Lord of the flies when they got rescued and everyone realized how fucked up they were being.

Only it was a reality that couldn't be reversed.

No, world war I was when that wedding took place.  It was far more awful in terms of carnage.

I would further argue that the wedding was inevitable. There was courtship as early as the American Civil War (birth of machine guns, ironclad hulls, though you could argue the American revolution, with rudimentary submarines. Not being Amerocentric intentionally, it's just that those are the noticeable beginnings of modern war tech from a perspective I'm familiar with). But ultimately, humans have always been at war with each other. WWI just happened to break out at a particular point of runaway technological progress.

21
At least, the last one I can recollect off the top me head.

22
I brought up haggis because the last conversation I had with Pix here involved whether or not I should go to JP and eat the haggis. She encouraged me to. I'm still skeptical.

Twid,
A little bit Scottish, but way, way more Irish.

23
Eh... I might have missed something but I'm pretty sure that Roger's being sincere and not passive-aggressive.

24
We can eat offal, I think von might be correct.

However, it is worth noting that we can import Irish breakfast meats. It might be specifically UK. There is a restaurant in Jamaica Plain that serves haggis.

25
Pix-

I've not eaten haggis.

26
I have heard that sex with Twid is like all the sweetest highs from all the sweetest drugs packed into a grenade and launched directly at your naughty bits at point blank range.

After the mandatory six year recovery and detox period, every single person who has experienced a shot of Twid has gone on to make the most amazing Metal, even if they used to be a lawyer or something.

That.

Is some impressive advertising. I'm quite flattered.

I don't think I've bonked any lawyers though, but, we won't alert the FDA to that fact.

27
Trix.

What else needs be said?

28
Male shirtlessness in the summer is not uncommon in the US either. I suspect that it's just never occurred to the Irish to do so. Or the Pope made a rule awhile back or something and everyone just forgot that wearing a shirt at all times was a thing.

Its probably part prudish, part lack of sun, part pasty ginger skin that cremates under ambient light.

The skin is not a small consideration. I've only gone shirtless on the street once, and that's when I jogged with my roommate from work to home in the middle of summer. That was also the day I decided that I didn't like jogging in the summer.

29
Male shirtlessness in the summer is not uncommon in the US either. I suspect that it's just never occurred to the Irish to do so. Or the Pope made a rule awhile back or something and everyone just forgot that wearing a shirt at all times was a thing.

30
I'm picturing an office conversation with a random Anglophone dropped into the mix. Or maybe two.

Rupert: Oi there 'ans! 'ow's it?
Hans: Mmmpf
Sean: I tell ya wat dood. This is some wicked good coffee.
Rupert: Oi fink the tea's be'ah to be quoite honest.
Sean: Hans, dood, waddaya do fer fun? Roops an' I are thinkin' of goin' out and gettin' wicked shitfaced at Oktobahfist.
Hans: :blank stare:
Rupert: Oi, mate, youw aww roight?
Sean: Hey I was just thinkin' why do you call Munich Munchen? Do they have a lotta snacks theyah?
Hans: Your talkink is inappropriate.
Rupert: Sorry mate.
Sean: We'll stop the swearin' sorry
Hans: No, your talkink at all is inappropriate! You're makink me talk too!  :argh!:

This is exactly why they declared war against England and the US. Twice.

And lost, presumably.

Italy: Um.... Little help?
Germany: Vat did vee say about zee talkink?!?!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 1168