Why Kerry doesn't deserve your vote

[dr_mabeuse]

Speaking of Truman and the Bomb, I'd heard that there were several options they'd considered:

(1) Invite the Japanese to a demonstration of what the bomb could do.

(2) Use the bomb on one of the smaller islands in the Pacific.

(3) Use the bomb on a relatively unpopulated area of Japan.

The Japanese had virtually no air force at the time. They might have gotten the message.

The fact is, that outside of the people who had actually tested the bomb, most politicians and army brass had no clear concept of what a nuclear explosion was like. An atomic bomb is not like so many tons of dynamite, which is the way they pictured it. In a thermonuclear explosion, you create a bit of the sun right down here on earth. It's so hot that near the center, everything--bricks, people, streets--just vaporize into a plasma gas.

I don't think anyone would accuse Truman of being very visionary or of having an active imagination, so he probably just thought of the A-bomb as a huge blockbuster. It was a different beast entirely.

I heard some guy on the radio a while ago. I've forgotten his name, but he'd been a government arms negotiator during several different administrations, and he was livid about Bush's abrogation of the anti-testing treaties in order to pursue Star Wars. This guy was no bleeding-heart liberal either. He was a rock-ribbed republican. Anyhow, he'd been doing his job for years before he ever got to see an actual nuclear test, and when he did, he said it changed everything. Once he'd seen that blast and felt that heat on his face from seven miles away, it made a crusader out of him. He was adamant on the point that you just can't think of these things as normal weapons.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Speaking of Truman and the Bomb, I'd heard that there were several options they'd considered:

(1) Invite the Japanese to a demonstration of what the bomb could do.

(2) Use the bomb on one of the smaller islands in the Pacific.

(3) Use the bomb on a relatively unpopulated area of Japan.

The Japanese had virtually no air force at the time. They might have gotten the message.

The fact is, that outside of the people who had actually tested the bomb, most politicians and army brass had no clear concept of what a nuclear explosion was like. An atomic bomb is not like so many tons of dynamite, which is the way they pictured it. In a thermonuclear explosion, you create a bit of the sun right down here on earth. It's so hot that near the center, everything--bricks, people, streets--just vaporize into a plasma gas.

I don't think anyone would accuse Truman of being very visionary or of having an active imagination, so he probably just thought of the A-bomb as a huge blockbuster. It was a different beast entirely.

I heard some guy on the radio a while ago. I've forgotten his name, but he'd been a government arms negotiator during several different administrations, and he was livid about Bush's abrogation of the anti-testing treaties in order to pursue Star Wars. This guy was no bleeding-heart liberal either. He was a rock-ribbed republican. Anyhow, he'd been doing his job for years before he ever got to see an actual nuclear test, and when he did, he said it changed everything. Once he'd seen that blast and felt that heat on his face from seven miles away, it made a crusader out of him. He was adamant on the point that you just can't think of these things as normal weapons.

---dr.M.

It's a good thing GWB inherited "the vision thing."

Didn't North Korea become noticably more vocal about their nukes when GWB told the press that he considered a first-strike use of nuclear weapons as a viable option in war?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Speaking of Truman and the Bomb, I'd heard that there were several options they'd considered:

(1) Invite the Japanese to a demonstration of what the bomb could do.

(2) Use the bomb on one of the smaller islands in the Pacific.

(3) Use the bomb on a relatively unpopulated area of Japan.

The Japanese had virtually no air force at the time. They might have gotten the message.

The fact is, that outside of the people who had actually tested the bomb, most politicians and army brass had no clear concept of what a nuclear explosion was like. An atomic bomb is not like so many tons of dynamite, which is the way they pictured it. In a thermonuclear explosion, you create a bit of the sun right down here on earth. It's so hot that near the center, everything--bricks, people, streets--just vaporize into a plasma gas.

I don't think anyone would accuse Truman of being very visionary or of having an active imagination, so he probably just thought of the A-bomb as a huge blockbuster. It was a different beast entirely.

I heard some guy on the radio a while ago. I've forgotten his name, but he'd been a government arms negotiator during several different administrations, and he was livid about Bush's abrogation of the anti-testing treaties in order to pursue Star Wars. This guy was no bleeding-heart liberal either. He was a rock-ribbed republican. Anyhow, he'd been doing his job for years before he ever got to see an actual nuclear test, and when he did, he said it changed everything. Once he'd seen that blast and felt that heat on his face from seven miles away, it made a crusader out of him. He was adamant on the point that you just can't think of these things as normal weapons.

---dr.M.

The lack of understanding of what they were unleashing was also on disply at the tests off Bikini Atoll. When considering a safe distance from which to observe the tests they didn't consider radiation at all. Their calculations were purely based on the possible explosive force unleashed and it's maximum blast radius.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Colly,

I don't dispute most of your facts or analysis about Japan being relatively unwilling to surrender unconditionally. I believe there were feelers about conditional surrender.

Be that as it may.

I think you and a couple others mistook the gist of my post. I don't deny there are, from the point of view of the victors, many ADVANTAGES to mass killing of civilians.

I merely point out that this crude calculus has led to the modern variants where it can be done in millions, and from above (not like in Ruanda with machetes.)

That people are willing to make that calculation, now with A bomb, H bombs, and Neutron bombs shows something about the savagery of humankind.

Possibly it shows that all attempts to define 'civilized' or 'humane' warfare are doomed, if not oxymoronic.

If you do endorse or accept the calculus of mass killing {added: of civilians}, then, of course you have no reason to condemn any number of instances, from Carthage, to Nanjing, .... to the World Trade Center.

I can picture Osama doing a Trumanesque calculation: "To invade America is out. Engaging the armies directly is out, as is fighting throught continental US. Perhaps if an examplary incident were done, it would force an end to American's desire to rule the world, interfere in the middle east, and so on. So 3000 lives is a small price (at a cost of 20). In fact it's the humane thing to do."

Perhaps you recall the call of some militarists, during the Vietnam war, to nuke the place, and pave it over as a parking lot. That no doubt would have saved American lives.

There's a calculus of pre emption too, though that's for another post. But there too, if you want to endorse neocon doctrine and justify invading Iraq, I don't see how you can condemn Pearl Harbor, in one sense a master stroke (too bad not followed up).

I'd ask the calulators, "Is there any where you'd stop." (Kahn, in On Thermonclear War, does some calculations are what it would take to win an exchange of H bombs.)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly,

I don't dispute most of your facts or analysis about Japan being relatively unwilling to surrender unconditionally. I believe there were feelers about conditional surrender.

Be that as it may.

I think you and a couple others mistook the gist of my post. I don't deny there are, from the point of view of the victors, many ADVANTAGES to mass killing of civilians.

I merely point out that this crude calculus has led to the modern variants where it can be done in millions, and from above (not like in Ruanda with machetes.)

That people are willing to make that calculation, now with A bomb, H bombs, and Neutron bombs shows something about the savagery of humankind.

Possibly it shows that all attempts to define 'civilized' or 'humane' warfare are doomed, if not oxymoronic.

If you do endorse or accept the calculus of mass killing, then, of course you have no reason to condemn any number of instances, from Carthage, to Nanjing, .... to the World Trade Center.

I can picture Osama doing a Trumanesque calculation: "To invade America is out. Engaging the armies directly is out, as is fighting throught continental US. Perhaps if an examplary incident were done, it would force an end to American's desire to rule the world, interfere in the middle east, and so on. So 3000 lives is a small price (at a cost of 20). In fact it's the humane thing to do."

Perhaps you recall the call of some militarists, during the Vietnam war, to nuke the place, and pave it over as a parking lot. That no doubt would have saved American lives.

There's a calculus of pre emption too, though that's for another post. But there too, if you want to endorse neocon doctrine and justify invading Iraq, I don't see how you can condemn Pearl Harbor, in one sense a master stroke (too bad not followed up).

I'd ask the calulators, "Is there any where you'd stop." (Kahn, in On Thermonclear War, does some calculations are what it would take to win an exchange of H bombs.)

The a-bomb hasn't changed the calculus of killing J. Offensives in the first world war were calculated in the thousands of lives per foot of terriotory gained. A "spectacular" success was Ludendorfs Keisershclat offensive. 1123 square miles of terriotory, for the paltry caost of only 239,000 casualties on the german side. british & dominion troops sufered around 139,000 casualties in the same 18 day offensive and the French got off light, only 77,000.

Over 400 thousand casualties in a few days and they didn't even have real bombers to kill each other from the air. Only one general lost his job over it too.

Atomic weapons just make you add a few zeros to the tally sheet.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

I think battlefield casualties are a whole other matter.

The point now is that *everywhere* is battlefield. Everyone is to be treated as 'combatant'. (Japan, Germany, US, and England together blazed the new variant of the eons-old trail.)

In that sense and respect, there should be no moralizing or complaining about Osama's targetting stock brokers, their secretaries, the cafeteria staff and pregnant women.

In that sense and respect, there should be none of this kind of assuming of high moral ground, e.g, around the Berg killing:

Colin Powell said:

"There is anger in the Arab world over some of our actions," [...]"But that is no excuse for any silence on the part of any Arab leader for this kind of murder. This kind of murder is unacceptable in anyone's religion, in anybody's political system based on any kind of understanding and respect for human rights. And so I would liked to have seen a much higher level of outrage throughout the world, and especially the Arab world, for this kind of action."


Further to strike at a surprising time is desirable , if not required; it's not "infamy" (in the words of Roosevelt, iirc).

 

[raphy]

Read the original statement Raph. Then read the author's allusion to it. If you wish to give Kerry credit for what he said, then give him credit for it. It was strongly worded and totally unambiguous. Facts bear out that much, if not all of what he said was also true.

The author however has a politcal agenda. Since Kerry is taking so much flack for what he said, the author softens it. He basically puts a nice little spin on some very harsh words. In doing so, he injects his political agenda into the primary document, where there was not the same agenda within the document.

I did not make a blanket statement on Kerry, atrocities, or even on his percieved patriotism or non-partiotism. I simply said this particular article, by this particular author is invalid in providing information that is factual.

I majored in history. I subscribe to historical journals and in the case of one of the major ones, as a member of Phi Beta Kappa, I occasionally provide comment on the articles. There is a methodology to history and historical texts. This author is not following the methodology that is required to present something and have it accepted as fact. The interviews conducted are totally irrelevant. If he is not following the methodology required on already extant texts, what guarentee do we have that he is following correct methodology in the interviews? What guarentee do I have he even conducted interviews in the first place?

Doc presented the article to make a point. I did not attack the point, I simply said the article is not proof of his point. Atrocities occured. Kerry spoke out about them. His patriotism has been questioned because of that. I don't dispute any of these points. I would be silly to even try to dispute them. The article however, has a particular spin to it, a spin that is not within the bounds of aceptable when it comes to historiographal and methodological tests.

Doc's point is not invalidated by my pointing out the article is faulty methodologically. In the same breath, the article is not proof of his point. It's a wash. Just one person's opinion on the matter at hand. No more or less valid than anyone else's here.

My point was not that Doc was wrong. Nor that an opposing view was right. My point was simply that the article can not be taken at face value as fact. No more, no less.

-Colly

Um, I do understand that.

Look, I'm no historian, and no intellectual, and certainly no well-rounded political observer. I probably even misunderstood Doc's point.

Let me try and explain why I asked that question.

You see, for a simple man like me, it isn't about the article that Doc posted, or even whether that article is valid or not. I could care less. I don't see the relevance.

Basically to me, it comes down to this:

John Kerry went to vietnam
He saw (and possibly even shared in) atrocities committed by US soldiers.
He came home and spoke about those atrocities.

Those are the facts, yes?

Now, will someone please explain to me what exactly we're arguing about and why that article has relevance (or doesn't)?

 

[raphy]

I think here, I failed pretty badly in explaining the significance of the methodolgical failing to those not initiated into the arcana of Hitorical academia.

-Colly

*grins* .. Maybe, maybe not.

I'm more than prepared to accept that the document is not accurate.

What I don't understand is why that should make a difference.

No one's actually arguing about whether Kerry saw atrocities, or whether he came home and told everyone about them. That's established fact.

I thought this argument (or this part of it) was about whether he should be crucified for doing so?

(and if that's what it's about, I don't see the relevance of the document, whether it's real or fake)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Um, I do understand that.

Look, I'm no historian, and no intellectual, and certainly no well-rounded political observer. I probably even misunderstood Doc's point.

Let me try and explain why I asked that question.

You see, for a simple man like me, it isn't about the article that Doc posted, or even whether that article is valid or not. I could care less. I don't see the relevance.

Basically to me, it comes down to this:

John Kerry went to vietnam
He saw (and possibly even shared in) atrocities committed by US soldiers.
He came home and spoke about those atrocities.

Those are the facts, yes?

Now, will someone please explain to me what exactly we're arguing about and why that article has relevance (or doesn't)?

You are not as unintelligent as you would have us believe.

Doc provided the article to demonstrate the graphic nature of the atrocities commited. The article provides that graphic testimony Via interviews with ex CIA operatives.

The descriptions are graphic. But are they what was actually said by these men? Normally, we accept articles in published form as being substantively accurate. We place our trust in the author, interviwer, editor and those interviewed to be acting in good faith.

This author was not. While I can neither prove, nor disprove the validity of the interviews, I can prove, beyond any doubt, that the author is not following sound methodology in his presentation of a T-1 or primary document. Because I can prove his methodology and historiography are flawed, it means I have no basis upon which to believe his methodology in conducting and reporting interviews is any less flawed.

His faulty methodology, is in changing the words, to fit his agenda, rather than citing the words and providing an opinion based on those words. If the author is willing to change the words in a T-1 source, that I can look up, how much more likely is he to change the words a little here and there in an interview transcript to make the interviews coincide with his agenda?

Doc provided the article to illustrate the horror of atrocities. Were he intent on doing so he could provide 1000 equally as graphic documents that are valid. So in the sense of what it means to his point the answer is practically nothing.

I pointed out the methodological failure, in part to illustrate how partisan politics are creeping into media sources and in part to point out that Kerry supporters realize his protesting is hurting him politically.

Doc's point is sound and throughly made. He need not provide more documents because anyone who disputes the horrific nature of atrocities commited by both sides during vietnam is pretty much beyond redemption anyway.

My points are both supported by the article in question. The author has an obvious agenda. I could not have made a convincing argument that he had an agenda if it weren't for his faulty methodology. I think it was you who pointed out, it's just one word. Similarly, the way he chose to "spin" the primary document shows the author is very concious of the damage being done to John Kerry by his protest activity.

There is no real argument going on over the article. The only real thing that comes from it is relearning the lesson that we should probably all be less ready to accept anything we read as factual during an election year.

-Colly

 

[raphy]

You are not as unintelligent as you would have us believe.

Doc provided the article to demonstrate the graphic nature of the atrocities commited. The article provides that graphic testimony Via interviews with ex CIA operatives.

The descriptions are graphic. But are they what was actually said by these men? Normally, we accept articles in published form as being substantively accurate. We place our trust in the author, interviwer, editor and those interviewed to be acting in good faith.

Okay, so you're saying that on the strength of this article alone, we don't have any proof that those atrocities were committed?

And that's why it's so important whether or not the article is misrepresentative, or faked, or whatever?

Sorry to be stupid here, but I'm still catching up with why it's important.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Okay, so you're saying that on the strength of this article alone, we don't have any proof that those atrocities were committed?

And that's why it's so important whether or not the article is misrepresentative, or faked, or whatever?

Sorry to be stupid here, but I'm still catching up with why it's important.

Try the opposite. The atrocities happened, I'm just saying you can't know that on the strength of this article.

-Colly

 

[raphy]

Doc provided the article to illustrate the horror of atrocities. Were he intent on doing so he could provide 1000 equally as graphic documents that are valid. So in the sense of what it means to his point the answer is practically nothing.

I pointed out the methodological failure, in part to illustrate how partisan politics are creeping into media sources and in part to point out that Kerry supporters realize his protesting is hurting him politically.

Doc's point is sound and throughly made. He need not provide more documents because anyone who disputes the horrific nature of atrocities commited by both sides during vietnam is pretty much beyond redemption anyway.

My points are both supported by the article in question. The author has an obvious agenda. I could not have made a convincing argument that he had an agenda if it weren't for his faulty methodology. I think it was you who pointed out, it's just one word. Similarly, the way he chose to "spin" the primary document shows the author is very concious of the damage being done to John Kerry by his protest activity.
-Colly

Oh, wait, I think I've figured it out now.

So you can Doc were actually arguing about completely different things.

Doc: Look, look, the atrocities were terrible.
Colly: That article proves that Kerry's supporters are manipulating the media
Doc: The atrocities were still terrible though, regardless of whether the article is manipulated.
Colly: I'm not arguing about that, I'm saying that even Kerry's supporters understand how his protestor days are hurting his campaign.
Doc: But look at the atrocities
Colly: You can't trust the media anymore.

Is there really an argument here?

I mean, Colly, I'm sure you'll admit that atrocities were caused in Vietnam, and Doc - Would you say that it's fair to say that the article was biased in favor of Kerry?

It's so minor a point that it's almost irrelevant.

 

[raphy]

Try the opposite. The atrocities happened, I'm just saying you can't know that on the strength of this article.

-Colly

That's what I meant, if not what I said

So has this whole thing been simply because Doc picked a flawed article?

Goddamn.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

*grins* .. Maybe, maybe not.

I'm more than prepared to accept that the document is not accurate.

What I don't understand is why that should make a difference.

No one's actually arguing about whether Kerry saw atrocities, or whether he came home and told everyone about them. That's established fact.

I thought this argument (or this part of it) was about whether he should be crucified for doing so?

(and if that's what it's about, I don't see the relevance of the document, whether it's real or fake)

This thread, like most of our political threads has wandered from the original content. Kerry's qualifications to get your vote probably havent come up in the last two or three pages.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

That's what I meant, if not what I said

So has this whole thing been simply because Doc picked a flawed article?

Goddamn.

Yeppers, it mostly comes down to me nitpicking his poor article to death. Mostly because I can rather than my crucifing the little bugger meant jack to his point

 

[raphy]

Yeppers, it mostly comes down to me nitpicking his poor article to death. Mostly because I can rather than me crucifing the little bugger meant jack to his point

Shit, and I thought we were discussion an important point of morality and I'd missed something. But no, we're just exercising our right to nitpick a flawed article whose point is proven in many other unflawed documents.

Y'know, Colly, what I said about being a simple man is very true. I may joke about my intellectualism (or feigned lack of it) at times, but when it comes right down to it, I'm an exceptionally simple man in the case of arguments.

I like to cut to the chase, to cut out the bullshit, the splitting of hairs and all that. I like to get right down to the meat and bones of the discussion, to lay out points in easy-to-understand order, in as unambigous a manner as possibly, and I don't like to get diverted by related issues. I'll deal with one thing at one time, and then move onto the next.

I can't believe I wasted so much time trying to figure out what you and Doc were arguing about, when it turns out that you weren't even arguing about anything.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Shit, and I thought we were discussion an important point of morality and I'd missed something. But no, we're just exercising our right to nitpick a flawed article whose point is proven in many other unflawed documents.

Y'know, Colly, what I said about being a simple man is very true. I may joke about my intellectualism (or feigned lack of it) at times, but when it comes right down to it, I'm an exceptionally simple man in the case of arguments.

I like to cut to the chase, to cut out the bullshit, the splitting of hairs and all that. I like to get right down to the meat and bones of the discussion, to lay out points in easy-to-understand order, in as unambigous a manner as possibly, and I don't like to get diverted by related issues. I'll deal with one thing at one time, and then move onto the next.

I can't believe I wasted so much time trying to figure out what you and Doc were arguing about, when it turns out that you weren't even arguing about anything.

Arguments in politics so very rarely come down to simplicities. I do apologise for wasteing your time, I really thought you were just yanking my chain.

In actuality the original post here wasn't about Kerry's percieved lack of patriotism but about his voting record. The argument has sort of ebbed and flowed, covering new ground and occasionally retracing old ground. My deconstruction of the article was really barely even a minor side light to the other issues being discussed similtameously.

Apologies again

-Colly

 

[shereads]

I thought this argument (or this part of it) was about whether he should be crucified for doing so?

Raphy, if you had seen Python's "Life of Brian" several times, you would know that crucifiction is a cake-walk compared to stabbing. The real question here is not whether Kerry should be crucified, but whether he should be stabbed for reporting that someone was crucified when in fact they may only have been disemboweled.

 

[KarenAM]

"CRUCIFICTION???!!!!"

"Yeah... first offense..."

 

[raphy]

Arguments in politics so very rarely come down to simplicities.

Maybe they should. Maybe that's all y'all's problem. Life is a lot simpler than most people like to make it.

I do apologise for wasteing your time, I really thought you were just yanking my chain.

I rarely do that, darlin' - And not about subjects that I know you're sensitive on, like politics

In actuality the original post here wasn't about Kerry's percieved lack of patriotism but about his voting record.

True enough, and when I said this 'whole' thing, I did not mean the entire thread - but the entire argument about the article quoted by Doc. I thought .. Well, I don't know what I thought now, and it's not important, because the article itself is unimportant.

No apologies necessary.

 

[Belegon]

Y'know, Colly, what I said about being a simple man is very true. I may joke about my intellectualism (or feigned lack of it) at times, but when it comes right down to it, I'm an exceptionally simple man in the case of arguments.

I like to cut to the chase, to cut out the bullshit, the splitting of hairs and all that. I like to get right down to the meat and bones of the discussion, to lay out points in easy-to-understand order, in as unambigous a manner as possibly, and I don't like to get diverted by related issues. I'll deal with one thing at one time, and then move onto the next.

Right there with ya Raphy. I call it (too often) "being a straight shooter" and it has the interesting consequence of being one of the greatest impediments to my career advancement while concurrently producing the majority of the respect I receive from my superiors.

Which is a wordy way of saying that people don't like to hear the truth but they sometimes admit it is necessary.

 

[raphy]

Right there with ya Raphy. I call it (too often) "being a straight shooter" and it has the interesting consequence of being one of the greatest impediments to my career advancement while concurrently producing the majority of the respect I receive from my superiors.

Which is a wordy way of saying that people don't like to hear the truth but they sometimes admit it is necessary.

Couldn't agree more Only wish more people were like that, espicially ones in positions of power.

 

[shereads]

Right there with ya Raphy. I call it (too often) "being a straight shooter" and it has the interesting consequence of being one of the greatest impediments to my career advancement while concurrently producing the majority of the respect I receive from my superiors.

Which is a wordy way of saying that people don't like to hear the truth but they sometimes admit it is necessary.

I used to do that too. Unemployment was a bitch, though, what with COBRA costing $400 a month. Now I agree with my bosses nine times out of ten. The other companies went out of business anyway, and if this one bites the dust I at least won't have an ulcer.

In any job-security shootout between a Straight Shooter and a Team Player, you know who to bet on, right?

 

[Belegon]

In any job-security shootout between a Straight Shooter and a Team Player, you know who to bet on, right?

One good thing about working in a business where the inventory IS money is a bit more respect for hard facts. And i'm very careful to do my shooting only about job stuff and ignore the personality stuff. still, it creates roadblocks, but they can't fire me on performance when I am right and the only person in the office to never have had a loss of greater than $1000. Plus I've saved most of the others jobs at one time or another.

PS, I'm interpreting "team player" as "yes man" when I reply here. I have a very strong teamwork ethic as far as the "support each other" type of stuff. Comes from playing the catcher/goalie/pass-oriented point guard role for so long in my life. Tends to become second nature.

 

[cantdog]

Kerry deserving votes

Hightower

I ran across a little thing for this thread, and came back, but having read a few more pages, I now see the thread is about something else.

Not complaining, just needed to reorient. Wanna talk nuclear war? I had a thought about it not long ago...

It seems to me that the existence of The Bomb and also The Cold War, between them, probably prevented world war three several times over.

No one could posit a big war going to its end, one of the blocs about to lose, and then be sure that the loser wouldn't shift ground and turn it into a nuclear firebath, since they were cooked anyhow. If they didn't do it before that. And since that scenario was unacceptable, people went out of their way to prevent war in the first place, for better than thirty years.

Without the bomb, it would have been messy. So why ban the bomb? It's kept us out of war so far...

Does this make sense?


cantdog