[quote]pushharder wrote:
I wasn’t disputing the mokusatsu misunderstanding and you know it. Nice feint.[/quote]
I wasn’t implying that the only motivation for the Allied High Command to drop the atom bombs was anger over their Declaration being ignored, and you know it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
I want my anarchy back!!!
Deep down, so does everyone.[/quote]
Not everyone.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
spyoptic wrote:
Varqanir, who do I talk to about joining the War Room… its for vets, right?
Sorry I didn’t respond earlier.
If you’re serving, or if you served, in the armed forces, then you can join the War Room.
Only another member can invite you in, which I’ll do if you’re a current or former serviceman.[/quote]
thanks, and yes, I served.
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
And please, don’t say Americans are dying “for no reason”.
All politics aside, Men and Women in the military are sworn to protect their Country and people… Getting ordered to go to War by the President and the Senate, is an order to protect the country, thus, its people. Follow?
[/quote]
I swore to uphold the words on a piece of paper. Serving the interests of this land mass come second to that, especially when our “leaders” wipe their ass with that very parchment.
mike
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“As one may imagine, this infuriated the Japanese cabinet (nobody likes being misquoted), but not so much as it infuriated the Allied High Command (nobody likes being insulted). So along with a whole host of more primary reasons they responded with atomic bombs shortly thereafter. In fact, historians agree that the infuriation was, at best, remotely tertiary in the strategic decision making process.”
This would reflect a more accurate rendition, wouldn’t you agree?
[/quote]
No, I’d say it’s woefully inaccurate. One cannot have a “whole host of primary reasons.” A host is a large number of things, and the word primary (which of course derives from the Latin primus, meaning “first”) refers to a singular.
And historians do not agree that “infuriation was at best a tertiary consideration in the strategic decision-making process.” I have never seen this claim made by any historian, let alone heard of any other historian who agrees with it. Not accurate at all.
I know what you meant, and you know what I meant, regardless of what “could be inferred.”
And none of this has to do with a discussion of anarchism.
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
In WWI America was defending itself. the Germans sunk the British ship Lucitenia, which killed 128 Americans. But what really got America involved was a British-intercepted telegram from Berlin to Mexico stating that if America got involved, Mexico should attack the U.S and reclaim Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.
[/quote]
Wasn’t the Zimmerman note WW2? I actually support most of America’s wars, but then again, I’m an imperialist libertarian…[what?]
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I swore to uphold the words on a piece of paper. Serving the interests of this land mass come second to that, especially when our “leaders” wipe their ass with that very parchment.
mike[/quote]
I swore to protect the principles and ideals posited in that piece of parchment. I owe allegiance to no government that fails to abide by those principles and ideals.
Wait, I think we just said the same thing.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I love ya man.[/quote]
Come here, ya big lug.
Masculine and totally non-homosexual bear hug between e-brothers
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
spyoptic wrote:
And please, don’t say Americans are dying “for no reason”.
All politics aside, Men and Women in the military are sworn to protect their Country and people… Getting ordered to go to War by the President and the Senate, is an order to protect the country, thus, its people. Follow?
I swore to uphold the words on a piece of paper. Serving the interests of this land mass come second to that, especially when our “leaders” wipe their ass with that very parchment.
mike[/quote]
lol… ya and I was high on shrooms when I get promoted to cpl.
nah Zimmerman Note was WWI.
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
nah Zimmerman Note was WWI.
[/quote]
Sure enough. You’d think I’d at least hit wiki before asking.
mike
Anarchists of the world, unite!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Anarchists of the world, unite!![/quote]
Just so long as we don’t form a club and elect officers . . . .I’ll be pissed if this starts getting organized - LMAO!!!
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Anarchists of the world, unite!!
Just so long as we don’t form a club and elect officers . . . .I’ll be pissed if this starts getting organized - LMAO!!![/quote]
Can you imagine the Anarchist Party platform? “If elected, I promise to do… NOTHING!”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Anarchists of the world, unite!!
Just so long as we don’t form a club and elect officers . . . .I’ll be pissed if this starts getting organized - LMAO!!!
Can you imagine the Anarchist Party platform? “If elected, I promise to do… NOTHING!”[/quote]
I’d vote for that!
Do you know the Summerhill school? In his book Summerhill A S Neill tells that they tried to live without any rules at all. It didn’t work too well, only the most intelligent pupils were able to adapt and learn so they had to introduce some basic rules, which they are following even today, according to my knowledge. So, yes, pure anarchism is not for everyone.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Anarchists of the world, unite!!
Just so long as we don’t form a club and elect officers . . . .I’ll be pissed if this starts getting organized - LMAO!!!
Can you imagine the Anarchist Party platform? “If elected, I promise to do… NOTHING!”[/quote]
Wasn’t Thomas Jefferson kind of the first American anarchist?
“The government that governs least governs best.”
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Do you know the Summerhill school? In his book Summerhill A S Neill tells that they tried to live without any rules at all. It didn’t work too well, only the most intelligent pupils were able to adapt and learn so they had to introduce some basic rules, which they are following even today, according to my knowledge. So, yes, pure anarchism is not for everyone.[/quote]
I personally doubt that it would suit many; people would realize how much power other people could exert over them. Everyone to this date has failed to give one example of a society that functions with out rules; you should hear the reasoning in the dogma
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Anarchists of the world, unite!!
Just so long as we don’t form a club and elect officers . . . .I’ll be pissed if this starts getting organized - LMAO!!![/quote]
Where is it written that anarchists are unorganized? Anarchists are unruled. There is a difference. We can organize without a power structure in place.
