Well, I guess politics and football are too very different spheres. There can, of course, be cross-over, but football is a game, the aim of which is to beat your opponent. Politics, on the other hand, is a good deal more serious than football, as it affects every aspect of all people's lives and can often be a matter of life and death. For me, politics is about finding a way to live together with others, preferably in harmony for mutual benefit.
I like
this Chomsky quote on the matter of the purpose of politics and social policy:
"Since oppression and repression exist, they are reflections of human nature. The same is true of sympathy, solidarity, kindness and concern for others - and for some great figures, like Adam Smith, these were the essential properties of humans. The task for social policy is to design the ways we live and the institutional and cultural structure of our lives so as to favor the benign and to suppress the harsh and destructive aspects of our fundamental nature."
Perhaps you think both football and politics are about beating your opponent? That certainly appears to be how Trump views the world; good guys and bad guys, winning and losing.
Has my political thinking been unclear? If so, where? I've backed up all my "weird notions" with evidence, have I not?
Atomic bombs are nuclear weapons; they source their energy from nuclear fission, which is the splitting of the nucleus of an atom into smaller parts.
The actions of those in power and authority should always be subject to scepticism, critique and challenge in order to keep power in check. Systems of power and control have a burden of proof; they are not self-justifying and their professed righteousness or moral authority is not self-evident. So of course I'll question the psychopathic decision to drop two atomic bombs on civilian populations. I'd question it regardless of who did it and regardless of who was on the receiving end of it. It was a war-crime.
I'm always suspicious when I hear the unquestionable spirit and honour of the humble soldier being invoked – a sentimental red herring, of course - in order to insulate authority and justify the criminal decisions made by those higher up the chain of command. You're erecting a straw man, for I'm criticising the policy-makers who made the decision and gave the orders; those at the top. The soldiers who carried out their military duty don't even have to be brought into the discussion. Sure, they could have expressed or felt moral qualms about their instructions, but they're small fish. If a certain soldier was reluctant to act on his orders, someone else would simply have taken his place and carried it out.
I'm sure the soldiers who took part in the bombing operations sincerely believed in the righteousness of what they were doing - they may even have thought their was some humanitarian merit to it - but the US and British armies are tools that act to protect and enforce the interests of the US and Britain; not Ireland. Let's not kid ourselves.
And, c'mon, the British army has hardly been a friend of Ireland. Don't insult me. I resent being told I owe thanks to the British army, given their track record here in the north of Ireland and the oft-fatal costs their actions have had for my community and, indeed, family. For all you know, I could be here typing in spite of the British army.
What you say is a bit like that other common refrain of brain-dead war-glorifiers: "If it wasn't for the British army in World War II, we'd all be speaking German."
Why do they think we Irish are speaking English?
Anyway, should the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be thankful to the US and British armies? Hardly. Why is their pain, suffering and death erased from your narrative? Just sit back, have a read of what you're writing and try to realise that there is a world of people with feelings, needs, concerns and rights just the same as you beyond your US/UK-centric bubble. You're pretty much lauding the wiping out of two entire Japanese cities. It's positively unhinged.
Perhaps you can have a stab at answering the question below, originally posed by Leo Szilard?:
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"
Out of interest, are there any circumstances under which you believe North Korea would be justified in nuking the US? If so, what are they?
I'm not sure how you can condemn, without the slightest hint of irony, Ahmadinejad for allegedly threatening to wipe a country off the map (although that allegation is grounded in a misinterpretation of his words, which were spoken in Farsi) but then praise Trump for threatening to wipe another country off the map.
Erm, he is:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/w...c-missile.html
"The Pentagon conducted a test of an unarmed intercontinental ballistic missile on Wednesday [August the 2nd], with the timing expected to be of note in both North Korea, which recently tested its missile arsenal, and in China, which has been urged by the Trump administration to pressure North Korea on its nuclear program."
I don't doubt the nation of Japan is scared about the situation. That's why the US needs to accept there's a bit of give-and-take here, sit down and talk. Kim is prepared to do so and has been for a number of years.
I do also have to ask, however: how come you're all of a sudden now so concerned about the welfare of the Japanese, yet you were praising the vapourising of two of their cities by the US only five sentences prior? Something tells me your professed or new-found concerns may not be wholly sincere and that you may just be exploiting their fears for the purposes of making an
argumentum ad passiones...
Out of interest, what is your suggested solution to the present dilemma? Further threats and heightened military action? What consequences do you foresee arising from that?
Of course Kim's standard of living is one of luxury in comparison to the living standards endured by average North Koreans, but that doesn't mean he can't also feel intimidated or threatened by US foreign policy, which is evidently hostile towards him. I'm offering theories as to why he is behaving in the manner he is. There is a context and there are reasons for his conduct.
Originally Posted by mark12345
Bookmarks