Obama refuses to apologize
- Thread starter fdd2blk
- Start date
see4
Well-Known Member
lol. not gunna lie. that was kinda funny.Yet you wouldn't catch me dead on a Sportster. lol
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The war ended over 70 years ago.
At least one reason an unconditional surrender was sought wasn't to end the war or "save lives" , it was to provide cover for the future occupation of Japan by the USA military...that is self evident since the occupation continues today.
I ascribe to a "proportionality argument" rationale and reason if individual real people are opposing combatants, say two guys duking it out, the nature of morality doesn't shift if the number of people involved becomes greater or some "official" declares an action a war.
For instance, if you or I repel an offensive attack, with defensive force, our actions are justified, but to kick a down and defeated man when he is clearly defeated goes beyond self defense. If two people were engaged in a fight, I'd say once your opponent is rendered incapable of doing anything offensive, it's time to end the fight and stop using force. Figuratively speaking, the USA kicked innocent people (vaporized civilians) and then occupied their house and continues to today.
If we allow "the rules of morality" to shift when the scale of the fight goes from one man against another to a much larger scale, we are admitting that government can cast aside morality when it is convenient and that some people have a license to use force that goes beyond defensive force and becomes offensive force.
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
They aren't banned for everyone. The USA can and will make up the rules as it goes along.
Political positions are malleable and don't have to be consistent or offer a good explanation for why they are contradictory, since the people who hold the reins are above being questioned... not that many sheep have the wherewithal to even ask questions anymore.
Government schools and television have been effective tools for mind control.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
srh88
Well-Known Member
Yet you wouldn't catch me dead on a Sportster. lol
my old sportster.. ill agree its slow, mine topped out around 120 with a little work. but old sportsters were the shit. that bike took a serious beating and never left me stranded, i got that while i was still racing motorcross so i rode that bike like it was a 10 dollar hooker. when i went to florida i grabbed a 2013 CBR1000rr SP. the orange and white with repsol written down the side. that bike didnt take half the beating the harley took. but im looking for another one now, just dont know if its worth spending 15k on a new one where im at now.. only get to ride it for 2 seasons really here
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
When people fall into a nationalist mindset*, terms like "we" are used to describe actions some individual people do and they become useful to dilute personal responsibility for those individuals actions.
"We" is a useful wordsmithing tool, except for when the enemy does it, then it's called the Nuremberg excuse and isn't allowed.
*not trying to harsh on you, by the way. I just don't think killing people in offensive actions is justifiable.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
If the US were truly committed to not ever going to use nuclear bombs, they wouldn't have a stockpile of them. It would be a fucking disaster if they were used but the situation would be a fucking disaster if the situation called for them at all.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You actually made sense there.
Using any kind of threat of offensive violence against people, whether it is nuclear death or a threat against a person simply for refusing to be part of an involuntary inclusion in another persons "good idea" usually creates a disaster.
Too bad you don't advocate for peace consistently.