logo Sign In

Obi Jeewhyen

User Group
Members
Join date
1-Aug-2006
Last activity
1-Feb-2007
Posts
440

Post History

Post
#261345
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Time
Tiptup, I'm not sure I properly conveyed the gist of my question. I understand when a war is considered "just" vs. "unjust" (despite some very gray areas) ... but I was wondering when, in your view, the civilians of a society can be held responsible for the war acts of their ruling regime .. and thus be legitimate targets of military attack ... whether for coercion to surrender or as direct "assets" to wipe out?

Iran may be a legitimage target, for example, but are its civilians fair game for attack?



In the case of Japan during WWII, was it necessary to kill people with the atom bomb ... or would a less lethal demonstration of its ability to cause massive casualties have been sufficient? Would it have been more prudent to try a demonstration in less habited areas first, before going on to kill tens of thousands if the demonstation did not provoke surrender?


* * * * *


(oh, and C3PX, don't worry about stinky being mean to me. I'm not reading his stuff, and he knows it. Anything he posts about me is for his own benefit ... and he can continue to masturbate as often as he likes. He won't go blind from that, and I am blind to his posts from now on.)



.
Post
#261288
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Time
I'll actually buy that. And with regimes such as the Japanese Empire, which had sneak attacked us, and Nazi Germany, which needs no further introduction .... I'm afraid the assumption that destroy-them-or-die is a reasonable one. Thus, sigh, they had it comin'.


Funny you should mention "spreading democracy" though. We were told by our leaders that Iraq was a situation of destroy-them-or-die. There was no talk of democracy spread then ... it was all WMD's poised to mushroom cloud some U.S. city. If our leaders were to be believed, killing civilians en masse would have been justified. But since our leaders were either wrong or worse ... well, I'm just glad we didn't purposefully target civilians. (Lord knows plenty upon plenty have died anyway).



I'm certainly willing to concede that defeating Japan was an imperative in WWII. I might even buy that less people were killed and wounded in the nuclear attacks than would have been in any conventional attack(s) sufficient to defeat the enemy.


.
Post
#261279
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Time
Ah, I get ya.

How does one determine when any particular society is pertrating an evil war? For instance, though I don't contend the American (and British) war in Iraq is evil, per se, I could see some reasonable interpretation in finding it illegal and unprovoked (even if our intelligence was wrong about WMD, it was - after all - our intelligence). And since American citizens have the right to vote, our entire society might also be reasonably held responsible for the prosecution of such a war.


On the other hand, truly evil regimes usually don't allow their citizens the right to vote, or protest, or participate in any way in the decision-making of such regimes. How then could we find such a society's civilians to be responsible for any hypothetical "evil war" perpetated by their rulers?



I guess I'm just not clear on when civilians are fair game, in your mind. They rarely are in mine. Even if it were determined that civilian infrastructure had to be taken out for legitimate war goals (i.e, a bridge taken out to disrupt economic activity as opposed to disrupting military transport), would you rather bomb the bridge, or the TV station, or the airport in the middle of night, to minimize casualties? Or is killing as many civilians as possible a legitimate war tactic?

If so, is it legitimate as a tactic of extortion (such as a nuclear strike on a metropolitan area) or is the killing of civilians for the express purpose of wiping out a population ever allowable?


.
Post
#261275
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Time
A poorly-designed robot whose real world tasks got very busy this afternoon.


But, yeah, calling me more names really makes me want to read your stuff and consider a rational response.


How's this ... if you're not pulling numbers out of your ass, your comparisons of casualty rates (though apples and oranges to the comparisons I requested) provide some merit for your argument. Without links though, I have nothing to go by but your word. Ordinarily, I would assume someone who bandies about facts and numbers is not making them up (despite this being, ya know, the internet). But someone who has posted like a 4-year-old does not strike me as the scholarly type. Your demeanor works against you when your communication is all you have to be judged by. So ... perhaps you'll understand that I don't find you trustworthy.



But yeah, if by some chance you're not making shit up, ^ there's your admission by me that your points have merit.







.


Post
#261264
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Time
Actually, I'm reading your post with an eye towards response as you typed that last one. I gave Tiptup first consideration because he's not behaving like a 4-year old.

And, in considering what you have to say in between insults cleverly turned to compliments, I am not merely trying to be contrary or argumentative. If I think you have a valid point, I will be man enough to say so. And if I honestly disagree, I will state my opinion without calling you names.
Post
#261261
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Time
I have to respectfully disagree, Tiptup. The 9/11 attacks, though they dastardly killed over 3,000 innocent civilians, primarily had a very disruptive effect on the entire U.S. economy. Thus, this particular act of terrorism was not merely the type of extortion we usually ascribe to these acts (i.e., attempting to coerce political change).

I don't know if bin Laden was really that saavy, but the 9/11 attack was not merely symbolic or extortionist ... it had a true and significant detremental effect on an entire nation via attack on civilian targets.



Tiptup, are you in any way suggesting that attacks on civilians which actually cause a nation to sustain damage are legitimate acts of war? Please clarify, if you wouldn't mind. As the only person participating in a civil discussion on an adult basis, I would hate to put words into your mouth.


.
Post
#261237
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Time
Stinky, don't assume everyone reacts like you. Perhaps you have no willpower or impulse control.


Me? I can avert my eyes. It's this insane talent I have. I'm almost considering trying out for the Olympic eye-averting team.


In other words, nope, sorry .... I did not read a word of yours between "dumbass" and "fucking moron." I have no idea what you posted about. But see, I read that last post of yours. If you want to post your stuff again without childish namecalling, I'll read it.


* * * *

rob, thanks for the avatar. Can you upload it for me? Us gay retards are even more lame at computer stuff than regular retards.
Post
#261232
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Time
save your fingertips, Stinky. I'm not reading anything that starts will calling anyone a dumbass and ends with calling them a fucking moron. If you have some cogent things to say on a message board, you might want to first learn how to behave on one so that your thoughts are communicated.

Namecalling gets you ignored (besides making it look like your arguments and points have no merit, since you must resort to kindergarten tactics).

I warned you I'm not going to read your stuff if you can't learn civilized communication skillz.



Bye.
Post
#261217
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Time
Stinky, you have a lot of nerve accusing me of not reading your post when it's clear you comprehended nothing of mine ... and checking back, I posted using the English language. Try reading it and attempt to understand before accusing me of what I did not do.

First of all, the word "allies" does not refer to American soldiers. Check Websters. But let me ask again ... in a more See Dick Run sort of way: 1) Were German citizens somehow less willing to fight invading troops than Japanese citizens? 2) Are nuclear weapons less of an option where radioactive fallout might hit the French and British (our allies) as well as the Germans and Italians (not to mention purportedly neutral Swiss, et al.). I'm perfectly aware from the dates in your post (thanks for the info, btw), that nuclear weapons were simply not available for the invasion of Europe. Mine was a hypothetical question designed to find out your opinion on when nuclear weapons are feasible in lieu of invasion.


I took note of your airplane analogy and I find it without merit. Your claim that more Japanese civilians would have died in an invasion than perished in two nuclear bomb attacks and the radioactive fallout result is unfounded. On what do you base such an estimate? Perhaps it might be useful to consider how many German and Italian civilians died in the European invasion as a baseline for comparison.

In any event, it is precisely your conclusions about nuclear weapons casualties vs. conventional weapons casualties that I called into question. I did not ignore it ... I just commented on it in a way you failed to comprehend. I hope I made myself clearer now.



However, since you have resorted to namecalling on your first response to me ... I am going to assume you cannot hold an internet conversation involving controversy. When you learn proper message board behavior, give me ring, ok? (I don't care how lax the moderation on this particular board may be, personal attacks and namecalling are message board verbotens).


* * * * * * *


Oh, and Rob: Yes, homophobia is very, very gay. Your overt homophobia is a weird way to do it, but it serves just fine to let everyone know you're homosexual. Straight guys don't give a fvck about gay. Only 'mo's are phobic. So, send me that photo and we'll see if we can't get something going. Picturing you as Sebatian Shaw isn't doing anything for me.






.
Post
#261197
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Time
So does that mean we would have used Nukes in Germany, to subdue the German citizens who were otherwise going to fight the Americans tooth and nail in response to the invasion?

Or were nukes perhaps an off-the-table consideration for an area populated by allies as well as enemies?


You realize, of course, that claiming the Japanese citizens were - in essence - enemy combatants (to use the modern term for non-military fighting force) is tantamount to a rationalization of terrorism itself - - i.e, seeing civilians as legitimate military/political-objective targets.



And nuking two of their cities in order to save more than would be killed by multiple nuclear weapons strikes .... hmmm, very interesting perspective there!
Post
#261045
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Sorry if I disturbed anyone's harmony or equilibrium.
Actually I think you did a lot of good for our harmony ....

Well, united in rage is not quite the same as harmony. But perhaps it's another one of those many words that some people need to check Websters on. We can't even hold a discussion if we don't speak the same language. The bizarre meanings given to plain English words around here just astounds me.

Seriously, though, I fault Go-Mer for coming to a site called "originaltrilogy.com" and preaching PT-uber-alis. If this is the general politikal bent here, I'll refrain from posting any of my commie peacenik views from now on.



As a hint, though ... Harmony is when you're not blue in the face, when you don't post tirades in all caps, and when you don't tell people to fvck off. Try breathing deep and thinking of kittens.



Oh, and fantasy-oriented though it might be ... when it comes to war and peace and honor and violence, would it not be appropriate around here to ask WWYD? (what would Yoda do?) That's all. Peacenik Out.








.

Post
#261021
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Time
Well, my salute to TipTup and knightmessenger and the few others who are apparently able to respond without letting their darker and/or immature natures get the better of them.

But that's all I will say on the subject. No need to go further. I've riled up enough people already, and that's not really my goal. Sorry if I disturbed anyone's harmony or equilibrium.
Post
#260813
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Time
Yes, to answer bluntly and honesty, I would rather the ENTIRE military personnel of our nation be killed than drop nuclear bombs on CIVILIAN targets. It was a crime against humanity which can not be justified in any manner, not even as a last resort to win a war. Pfft, there have been many wars since then. Shall nukes be the denoument all all wars?

If the choice you presented were between our civilians and their civilians, I would have a different response. But only military targets - including ours - are legitimate in warfare. We "cheated" far worse than Pearl Harbor when we chose to sacrifice the enemy civilians rather than our own military personnel.

If we were unable to prevail any other way ... we should not have prevailed. Why were nukes not necessary in Europe? Why did an invasion work there?


It's very sad that oftentimes the side of "good" is not the mightier side. Perhaps that was the case in WWII, and we were simply not able to honorably defeat the Empire of Japan. I'm sure many reasonably aggrieved parties today cannot honorably defeat the Empire of the United States. Should they resort to defeating us by nuking Los Angeles and Pittsburgh?


.
Post
#260803
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Time
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Alright, but my point was that Lincoln went far, far further than Bush has gone.
Yes, and other elements of his time, notably (in this context) slavery, were far beyond the moral issues of today. So while I don't give the practice of slavery a pass, I grant it more leeway in the 1800's than I would today. Lincoln, same story. I cannot equally judge the actions of another era with the morals of our own. Not to say that Lincoln was right, or that slavery wasn't totally and utterly wrong then and now ... but I hope you get my drift that what may have been acceptable yesterday is not so today. Likewise, I hope some terrible things acceptable today are not accepted in the future.


Originally posted by: Tiptup
Under our justice system, non-citizens should not have the same protections as we do (particularly captured enemies). That’s not to say that decency and ethics should not require us to protect their basic rights as human beings, but that foreign threats should not be given the extra protections we enjoy.
Funny, I thought our rights were "inalienable," not granted to us by ANYONE. That's the whole point of the United States of America - - recognition of inalienable rights. And please feel free to point me to anywhere in the law where non-citizens have unequal rights to justice. The Bush administration made-up from whole cloth the notion of "enemy combatants" precisely so they could deny their rights to justice, and deny them the treaty rights under the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court has twice held that the legal limbo in which the "enemy combatants" have been placed is illegal, and the Bush administration has twice refused to comply with the orders of the highest court in the land. Tell me again how we're not sliding towards totalitarianism.


Originally posted by: Tiptup
I also believe that under certain circumstances government should be granted temporary powers to properly execute a war.
And if war is declared to be permanent, what time limit should be placed on these extraordinary powers? Eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex that would seek to establish a permanent state of war. What else would you call a war on the never-ending tactic of terrorism?


Originally posted by: Tiptup
Violence can be found almost anywhere. Stars are violent. Light bulbs are violent. Surgery is violent. Life is violent. Violence is unavoidable.

Don't insult both our intelligences. I'm not dissing the violence of birds to insects. If I wasn't crystal clear that I'm disparaging purposeful human acts of violence against other humans, let me be so now.


Originally posted by: Tiptup
If a society launches an unjustified war against another, we can conclude that the violence is evil. If another society then seeks to destroy the society that began the unjustified war, that violent action can be considered justified and good so long as the response is properly measured.

And I would generally agree with that. Hence my point about two nuclear bombs not being a measured response - in my hardly unique view.


Originally posted by: Tiptup
To equate the mobilized civilians of the US with the mobilized civilians of Japan during WW2, and then argue that both deserved the same treatment, is disgusting if you ask me. It’s a total lack of ethical judgment whatsoever.

Hmmm, to what equal treatment do you think I am insisting both societies deserve? I am saying civilians of both societies deserve to be FREE OF ATTACK. That is the equal treatment I support. The Japanese supported their country's war effort, and the Americans supported ours. The Japanese people were no more a legitimate target of war than the American people were.

But are we to presume the Japanese people, once nuked, would think that? Perhaps that is a level of generosity foreign to human nature. But we'd better hope not ... lest humanity's constant eye-for-an- eye cycle leave the world ultimately blinded.



.
Post
#260795
Topic
ANH screening with modelmaker Lorne Peterson...WHY ARE THEY SCREENING THE SE??
Time
Not to mention the fact that movie studios and their corporate owners have been involved in making profit from film art for decades. Those in control are not artists ... they are businessmen who employ artists (and hacks) for the purpose of making money ... in a business where years of time and tons of capital must be invested to make that money.

Why would I assume George Lucas immune to such a money-making system when so many have been involved in precisely that?


If the prequels were so drastically different from the original trilogy that the original had to be changed to match, why not take the logical step and make a series of sci-fi movies that are not called "Star Wars?"

I will not be so bold as to assume Lucas had solely mercenary motives in making the prequels. Perhaps they were a labor of love. I have only external evidence to go by. If he had not deemed the two trilogies such a mis-match that changes had to be made retroactively to 20-year-old films, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt as to his motives. But his own actions demonstrate, to me at least, that the profit motive was dominant. Star Wars is a money-making machine.

Furthermore, the lack of any original creations by Lucas since the 80's leads me to believe he is currently a hack, and not an artist. These pieces of evidence would not convict him in a court of law, but they operate in the court of public opinion ... and I have formed my opinion of the man based on them - - not out of thin air or merely because I loathe his work.



.
Post
#260793
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Time
Nope, I do not equate collateral damage (so-called) with terrorism. Terrorism is far more repugnant and evil. Absolutely so.


Murder may be more repugnant and evil than rape, but I feel compelled to decry both ... and both are criminal. Both are worthy of denouncement.


I don't see much ray-of-light in Islamic Jihadist Terrorism, and furthermore I am not a citizen of a nation where that is the prevailing authority. And so I mostly speak out against American evils, precisely because I do see a ray-of-light in the American system of representative democracy and generally judeao-christian-inspired values. I think the abuses and evils perpetrated by many successive waves of the United States government over time are abhorent to the ideals and values of America ... and I cherish my American right to speak out against them without being subject to ill treatment (a right which, btw, has been and is currently abused by government adminstrations of this country).


But don't equate my criticism of my own nation with approval of terrorism or facsism or jihadism or totalitatianism abroad. Don't equate my stance against rape with an approval of murder. Terrorists are scum with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Criticism is wasted. On the other hand, I hope for America to improve ... and criticism of our government is not only warranted, but is profoundly patriotic.


.
Post
#260781
Topic
MTV Interview and New Favorite Movie
Time
Originally posted by: canofhumdingers
interesting. What are the scenes?

1) Just before the still-existing scene at the Airforce Press Conference, there's a missing scene in the Neary home as Roy and Ronnie are getting ready to go. This is where we (used to) first see that Roy has sculpted a miniature mountain in the midst of his miniature train layout. We also see that he's hung UFO-Sighting newspaper clippings all over his "hobby" room, and even hung a couple of Star Trek models. These items are still seen fleetingly in later scenes, but this missing scene really dwelt on the revisions Roy made to his hobby room ... most especially the sculpted mountain. In fact, the entire point of the scene is to show that Roy has gone from merely seeing the mountain (in shaving cream, pillows, mounds of dirt) to actually building it with his own hands.

2) Just before the mashed-potatos scene, there's another missing scene in Roy's hobby room. Ronnie is calling him in to dinner, but he is obsessively scoring ridges into his model mountain. This is very suspenseful for the audience - because the immediately preceding scene is where it's revealed that the "mountain" location is Devil's Tower, Wyoming ... and from the topographic map in the film, it's clear that Roy is getting closer to the actual shape of the mountain. All he needs to do is lop off the top ...

But he goes into dinner and becomes infatuated with sculpting mashed potatos into the mountain shape. In all versions of the film after 1978 (and there have been many), this is the first time we see Roy sculpting the mountain (although he did sorta play with the shaving cream). In these later versions of the film, the audience knows nothing about Roy's miniature train layout mountain before they see him sculpting the mashed potatos. The potatos gag is still funny in its own right, but the real joke is ruined. The scene is a shadow of its former comedic self.

The studio insisted Roy's obsession with the mountain shape be toned down, and these two scenes of him building the mountain at home were cut. Other scenes were also cut, but these two were never restored. I find it hard to believe that the negatives for these particular two scenes were completely destroyed, while many others deleted for the "Special Edition" survived.


My conclusion? Spielberg's a bigger dick than Lucas. A much more talented bigger dick, but a far worse revisionist. Except for a few sound tweaks and the insignificant subtitles issue, Star Wars as it existed in 1977 has now been issued in a home video format. Where is CE3K '77???? Waaaaaaa!!!






.