Why is BP taking all the blame?

christiefan915 said:
People way more knowledgeable than me, in fact some great scientific and military minds, have disagreed with the bombings. I've read both sides of the issue and favor the anti-bombing position.

What's curious is how you and SM seem to take it as a personal affront that anybody could hold a different position on this than your own. You guys won! The bombs were dropped. Any discussion of it now is simply an academic exercise. Why are you two so bent over a differing opinion?

I find it especially strange that two people who have no problems talking about their strong religious beliefs haven't taken those beliefs into consideration when it came to using disproportionate force against a population. Are you at all familiar with Just War theory as moral theology plus military ethics, or is that simply an academic position with you (pl.)?

HIROSHIMA
WHO DISAGREED WITH THE ATOMIC BOMBING?

~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER
~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
~~~HERBERT HOOVER
~~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
~~~JOSEPH GREW (Under Sec. of State)
~~~JOHN McCLOY (Assistant Sec. of War)
~~RALPH BARD (Under Sec. of the Navy)
~~~LEWIS STRAUSS
~~~PAUL NITZE
~~~ALBERT EINSTEIN
~~~LEO SZILARD
~~~ELLIS ZACHARIAS
~~~GENERAL CARL "TOOEY" SPAATZ
~~~BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE


...July 1945 poll of 150 atomic scientists regarding whether and how the atomic bomb should be used in the war with Japan (Takaki 1995, 134-5). The poll gave five alternatives: (1) use in manner most effective from a military point of view to bring about prompt Japanese surrender while minimizing the loss of American lives, (2) give military demonstration to Japan with opportunity for surrender before full use of weapon, (3) give experimental demonstration in this country with opportunity for surrender before full use of weapon, (4) do not use militarily but make public the experimental results, or (5) maintain as secret as possible and refrain from using the bombs in the war. President Truman chose alternative 1, even though only 15 percent of the scientists supported it.

Takaki, Ronald. Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb.
Click to expand...

Are you denying my assertion that it saved millions of Japanese lives?
 
christiefan915 said:
People way more knowledgeable than me, in fact some great scientific and military minds, have disagreed with the bombings. I've read both sides of the issue and favor the anti-bombing position.

What's curious is how you and SM seem to take it as a personal affront that anybody could hold a different position on this than your own. You guys won! The bombs were dropped. Any discussion of it now is simply an academic exercise. Why are you two so bent over a differing opinion?

I find it especially strange that two people who have no problems talking about their strong religious beliefs haven't taken those beliefs into consideration when it came to using disproportionate force against a population. Are you at all familiar with Just War theory as moral theology plus military ethics, or is that simply an academic position with you (pl.)?

HIROSHIMA
WHO DISAGREED WITH THE ATOMIC BOMBING?

~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER
~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
~~~HERBERT HOOVER
~~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
~~~JOSEPH GREW (Under Sec. of State)
~~~JOHN McCLOY (Assistant Sec. of War)
~~RALPH BARD (Under Sec. of the Navy)
~~~LEWIS STRAUSS
~~~PAUL NITZE
~~~ALBERT EINSTEIN
~~~LEO SZILARD
~~~ELLIS ZACHARIAS
~~~GENERAL CARL "TOOEY" SPAATZ
~~~BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE


...July 1945 poll of 150 atomic scientists regarding whether and how the atomic bomb should be used in the war with Japan (Takaki 1995, 134-5). The poll gave five alternatives: (1) use in manner most effective from a military point of view to bring about prompt Japanese surrender while minimizing the loss of American lives, (2) give military demonstration to Japan with opportunity for surrender before full use of weapon, (3) give experimental demonstration in this country with opportunity for surrender before full use of weapon, (4) do not use militarily but make public the experimental results, or (5) maintain as secret as possible and refrain from using the bombs in the war. President Truman chose alternative 1, even though only 15 percent of the scientists supported it.

Takaki, Ronald. Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb.
Click to expand...

So what were the percentages for the other options??

Are you saying that the Japanese Emporer was lying when he told his subjects to fight to the death of every man, woman, and child; if the Americans invaded Japan.
 
Last edited:
I have to admit that i've only read the last page of this thread but i'm sure BP are terribly sorry for their oil leak as well as dropping the atomic bomb on Japan.
 
I think its funny that MacArthur opposed the atomic bombing of Japan when he advocated the tactical nuking of China during the Korean War.

The reason why I consider revisionists to be frustrating over Truman's decision to drop the bombs is that they are willing to casually wish for a nightmarish alternative, and call that alternative the "moral" decision. In theory, there will be more difficult decisions to be made about the use of force in the future, and what we really don't need is the input from those individuals, although my guess is that they will offer their input anyway.
 
Threedee said:
I think its funny that MacArthur opposed the atomic bombing of Japan when he advocated the tactical nuking of China during the Korean War.

The reason why I consider revisionists to be frustrating over Truman's decision to drop the bombs is that they are willing to casually wish for a nightmarish alternative, and call that alternative the "moral" decision. In theory, there will be more difficult decisions to be made about the use of force in the future, and what we really don't need is the input from those individuals, although my guess is that they will offer their input anyway.
Click to expand...

This second-guessing is not the same as Ahmadinejad saying the Holocaust never happened. It's valid to weigh the issues and ponder the consequences of annihilating thousands of people, most of whom, in this case, were innocent civilians. And if we don't consider the morality of our actions, we're no better than the lowest dictators who have no regard for human life.

And once again, what is your position on Just War theory? I'm not saying this to try to entrap you into a "gotcha" statement; I'm really curious.

Pulitzer Prize winning historian James McPherson, writing for the American Historical Association, described the importance of revisionism:

The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes. Supreme Court decisions often reflect a "revisionist" interpretation of history as well as of the Constitution.[1]
 
tinfoil said:
Thank goodness they were finally able to stop the flow. Now get the fucking mess cleaned up
Click to expand...
There should have been much less mess already, but heck we have to wait until day 68 until we can let people with accents actually take some of that oil out of the water.
 
Southern Man said:
Well capped, stock up 7% at end of trading today.

BP = 1, The Obama = 0.
Click to expand...

And by this you demonstrate the sheer idiocy of the anti-Obama neocon mindset.

BP fucked up by drilling 7 thousand feet below what it was legally allowed to, and then was unable to prevent the current disaster because they cheaped out on a back-up system, and DID NOT have an adequate response plan. The result: a devastated eco-system that affects thousands of lives for years to come.

But YOU see Obama as the "bad" guy out to "get" BP because he gets them to pony up some cash to help out those they screwed over through their criminal negligence/incompetance. :cof1: Unreal.
 
Damocles said:
There should have been much less mess already, but heck we have to wait until day 68 until we can let people with accents actually take some of that oil out of the water.
Click to expand...

Obama should have just kicked BP out of the way and got everyone who could do the job at the table to come up with solutions. Barring "security" clearances and waivers and organizations, things would have gone much quicker. But just imagine the GOP blow back if Obama HAD done such a thing? Or did you forget the clown apologizing for Obama holding up BP to extortion and all the hoo-la of late from the neocons and teabaggers (with GOP sympathizers) about Obama fascism and such?
 
Taichiliberal said:
And by this you demonstrate the sheer idiocy of the anti-Obama neocon mindset.

BP fucked up by drilling 7 thousand feet below what it was legally allowed to, and then was unable to prevent the current disaster because they cheaped out on a back-up system, and DID NOT have an adequate response plan. The result: a devastated eco-system that affects thousands of lives for years to come.

But YOU see Obama as the "bad" guy out to "get" BP because he gets them to pony up some cash to help out those they screwed over through their criminal negligence/incompetance. :cof1: Unreal.
Click to expand...
The Obama could have had skimmer ships out there to clean up the oil but did not instruct the EPA to forgo its ridiculous rules requiring 15ppm prior to discharge.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And by this you demonstrate the sheer idiocy of the anti-Obama neocon mindset.

BP fucked up by drilling 7 thousand feet below what it was legally allowed to, and then was unable to prevent the current disaster because they cheaped out on a back-up system, and DID NOT have an adequate response plan. The result: a devastated eco-system that affects thousands of lives for years to come.

But YOU see Obama as the "bad" guy out to "get" BP because he gets them to pony up some cash to help out those they screwed over through their criminal negligence/incompetance.
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
The Obama could have had skimmer ships out there to clean up the oil but did not instruct the EPA to forgo its ridiculous rules requiring 15ppm prior to discharge.
Click to expand...


As the chronology of the board shows, YOU made a moronic statement that I shot to pieces using logic based on readily accessible facts.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=680328&postcount=374

But since you neither have the maturity or the honesty to just acknowledge that you were proven wrong on that point...you move unto yet another neocon talking point that I disproved earlier on this thread.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=672971&postcount=289

Worst, you confuse the EPA with the Jones Act regarding skimmers and ships, and you seem to be totally ignorant as to the information given out by the Coast Guard Admiral on the subject.

:palm: Southern Man insipid stubborness based on ignorance strikes again!
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
As the chronology of the board shows, YOU made a moronic statement that I shot to pieces using logic based on readily accessible facts.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=680328&postcount=374

But since you neither have the maturity or the honesty to just acknowledge that you were proven wrong on that point...you move unto yet another neocon talking point that I disproved earlier on this thread.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=672971&postcount=289

Worst, you confuse the EPA with the Jones Act regarding skimmers and ships, and you seem to be totally ignorant as to the information given out by the Coast Guard Admiral on the subject.

:palm: Southern Man insipid stubborness based on ignorance strikes again!
Click to expand...

Do you deny: The Obama could have had skimmer ships out there to clean up the oil but did not instruct the EPA to forgo its ridiculous rules requiring 15ppm prior to discharge.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As the chronology of the board shows, YOU made a moronic statement that I shot to pieces using logic based on readily accessible facts.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...&postcount=374

But since you neither have the maturity or the honesty to just acknowledge that you were proven wrong on that point...you move unto yet another neocon talking point that I disproved earlier on this thread.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...&postcount=289

Worst, you confuse the EPA with the Jones Act regarding skimmers and ships, and you seem to be totally ignorant as to the information given out by the Coast Guard Admiral on the subject.

Southern Man insipid stubborness based on ignorance strikes again!
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
Do you deny: The Obama could have had skimmer ships out there to clean up the oil but did not instruct the EPA to forgo its ridiculous rules requiring 15ppm prior to discharge.
Click to expand...

:palm: And there you have it folks....the Southern Man just covers his ears and eyes and parrots the same dreck ad nauseum. I say this because not even the Southern Man could be that stupid as to read my response and then repeat his dreck as if he didn't comprehend what he read.

The Southern Man is has done himself in once again. I leave him to his predictable folly.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Obama should have just kicked BP out of the way and got everyone who could do the job at the table to come up with solutions. Barring "security" clearances and waivers and organizations, things would have gone much quicker. But just imagine the GOP blow back if Obama HAD done such a thing? Or did you forget the clown apologizing for Obama holding up BP to extortion and all the hoo-la of late from the neocons and teabaggers (with GOP sympathizers) about Obama fascism and such?
Click to expand...
Obama should have cleared the red tape and allowed people to begin clean up immediately. When even President Clinton is talking about how they "finally" started accepting help you've got an issue that goes beyond all the spin and rhetoric, you've got a leadership gap. Knowing how terrible he was at even the simplest of things like getting as many people as possible into the water cleaning it up, it would have been a disaster if he had done that.

Seriously, if he can't imagine cutting some of the red tape in an emergency, total takeover would have been disastrous. Thank the little gods he was too inept to even attempt that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top