i read a really good bumber sticker yesterday

it said

I LOVE MY COUNTRY

IT IS MY GOVT. I'M AFRAID OF

that pretty much says it all

I'm not so much afraid of my government. On an individual basis I think
sometimes certain police have too much authority, but that is largely a
hiring issue.

My government provides social security.
They have an environment that promotes good medical care.
They let me have phone and internet.
They let me have cable for my TV.
They let me go fishing.
They let me travel.
They let me speak my mind.
They let me have my own personal opinion about faith.
They let me study and work in the field I choose.
They give me the opportunity to make a better life for myself and my
family.
They let me study to have whatever education I want.
They have a program to enable most people to purchase a home.
They have supplemental programs to help those who need it most.
No, I'm not so afraid of my government.

i agree philosopher

but those days are numbered

the united states people

are trading away their liberties

for a false sense of security

have you read the patriot act

check out the thread on it

there is directions to find it there

i think if you type

united states patriot act of 2001

in google you will get a copy of it

many of those things are slowly being eroded away

did you know that any act that endangers the public
that you do could get you classified as a domestic
terrorist

not a biggy you think

if you get a traffic ticket for speeding
that could be considered endangering the public
could it not

did you also know that if you speak out at a public meeting
against the way things are run by the established power
that could be considered as an act of domestic terrorism
thus makeing you a terrorist

did you also know that if you are considered a terrorist
you can be detained and held for as long as they want
without giving you any contact with anyone and not
have to tell any one they are holding you or
where you are bn held

yes i love my country

BUT YES I AM AFRAID OF THIS COUNTRIES GOVT.

but hey what do i know

IMO, and with all due respect to contrary opinions,

'adj4u' is much closer to the truth (facts) when he says:

'I LOVE MY COUNTRY' - 'IT'S MY GOVERNMENT I'M AFRAID OF'

Then when 'philosopher' counters with:

'NOT AFRAID... MY GOVERNMENT PROVIDES...'

Whatever you have listed 'philosopher', is much more a function or
result of solid respect of your Constitution, than that of ‘a’
government.

And in that Constitution, which provides the 'constituting context' for
all those things you have listed, and so much more 'philosopher', the
first words are 'WE THE PEOPLE', not 'WE THE GOVERNMENT', nor 'I THE
KING', nor 'I THE PRESIDENT'!!!

The people elect, and dispose of a government in a democracy, based on
the administration’s 'good service' towards, and 'solid respect' of
'THE PEOPLE'S CONSTITION', and the nation's affairs!!!

To critique the top servant of the Constitution, and first
representative of the PEOPLE, is not some capricious or dishonoring act
towards the nation, it is, on the contrary, the PEOPLE's first civic
duty and obligation.

Otherwise, what is that voting right that our democracies have made
sacred, ... an oath of loyalty to the President/King/Government for
life?!?!? One is not born a ‘donkey’ or an ‘elephant’!!!

'We the People' should never be made to feel intimidated for speaking
their concerns about the conduct of the administrators of the nation's
constitution, and affairs.

Also ‘philosopher’,
(nothing personal by the way, it’s just that you also made THIS comment
below)

YOU SAID:
“… Strong values and a good work ethic makes this country important
morally
as well as militarily and economically. We benefit the world in myriad
ways.
Contrast this with exporting of terrorist support to countries around
the world and trying to destabilize regions.”

Are you suggesting that when the most interventionistic country of all,
and by one heck of a long margin, is exporting ‘guerilla and militia
warfare’ to every corner of the planet, that would be “… benefiting the
world in myriad ways” , as you say?

Don’t know where to go from here, but I would suggest that a ‘solid
reality check’ on ‘what’s so’, is essential in one’s exercise of his
voting right in anyone of the ‘free-world’ democracies.

Again ‘philosopher’, I am addressing the comments you posted, not you
personally.

And thank for the opportunity to voice the other side of the coin.

I wish just once someone would check the facts before posting a paranoid
theory. This time it is Japan tried to surrender when Russia invaded
Manchuria but we wouldn't accept their surrender because we wanted to
nuke them. Operation August Storm, or the Battle of Manchuria began on
August 8, 1945, with the Soviet invasion of the Japanese puppet state of
Manchukuo; ...

I assume that since you post here you have access to a computer, if you
would have happened to Google Russian Invasion of Manchuria you could
have found out that the invasion started on August 8, 1945 AFTER we
dropped the first nuke on Japan.

Japan refused to surrender till after we dropped the second nuke.
Truman's decision to use the nukes saved us an estimated one million
U.S. casualties that were expected if we invaded the Japanese home
islands.

The Russians entered the war after it was assurred that Japan would
surrender because they wanted a hunk of the Japanese Empire which we did
not allow them to have.

When you use erroneous data to support your argument, it causes you to
loose credibility and indicates that you should have spent less time
messing around on the computer and more time cracking the books when you
were in school

gardenforge maybe you should reasad the entire thread before
picking and choosing a sentance to respond to

i also said in the post i posted b4 the one that you
picked the line out of that

it was an accusatin that was made against the truman administration it
is easy to pull anything and use it to manipulate it to any point of
view

so maybe you should read an entire thread b4 jumping to a conclusion of
your own

it takes away from your credibility as well

1. "the only country to use them was the united states

and truman has been accused of extending wwII
to use them to intimadate the world powers with them"


2. "if you think united states was losing maybe a history
read is in order

japan tried to surrender when the soviets invaded manchura

and truman would not let them

not sure of the exact ordre of events

but was on either history channel or discovery

that truman wanted to use the atomic blast to put fear
in the minds of those that would oppose the united states"

The above are your 2 posts, show me exactly where I jumped to any
conclusions. We dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima on 8/6/45. Russia
invaded Manchuria 2 days later on 8/8/45 and we dropped the second bomb
on Nagasaki on 8/9/45. Japan surrendered a few days later. Perhaps a
history read is in order for you

phil-

im with you, i do not fear my government, for i am the government. I
decide who is allowed to pull the purse strings. does the government
allow me to do anything- no, they do however promote an atmosphere that
continues to allow me to enjoy the freedoms that i already have and hold
true.

Voil-

i think your dancing around with semantics and splitting hairs, maybe it
is because he didnt articulate it the way you would have i dont know.


loosing my freedoms? well to a certian extent we all are when we allow
the few to out weigh the many. here im talking about special rights to
certian groups of people while others are told that their rights are
suspended so that we do not offend the very few. so, they have more
rights than me because why? oh their special little people, ok yeah that
makes sense, not.
all the while to few people are willing to stand up to the bullies and
allow themselves to be ran over-- not this texas boy.

the constitution- hey dennis bless the constitution, the single most
effective document ever written in the world in regard to governance.

the real terrorism we should focus on right now is
the strem of illegal immigrants & NAFTA being forced
upon us by after hours voting in congress...

and we do have a limit on how much we can do in
the world ..physically...we just dont have the manpower..
will we accept a draft?...doubt it...

and I believe the speech by Ahmadinejad has been
argueably taken out of reference thru interpretation
and may be a bit of propaganda....

well garden

good point

but the referance was not from anything taught in high school

it was a broadcast on either discovery or history channel

get the point of origen right

and maybe it was wrong on the show maybe i remembered it wrong

i hope i can get to see it again to find out

be well

may much good come to you and yours

The moral, ehtical, and even legal questions over the Hiroshima and
Nagasaki bombings, have not been addressed to this day, and may not be
in the foreseeable future. But the question of the hour, as I think some
of you have indirectly raised, might be the following:

"... given that the only nation that has used nuclear bombs against the
ennemy,
... has yet to answer to the moral, ethical and legal questions around
its use against Japan,
... how is that nation legitimate, in ruling over the nature of useage
of 'nuclear' power by an another nation.

There is much that has been written on this unfinished business. To
close the debate on a 'slam-bang' chronological order of events, would
be arguing that this debate is over. Nothing could be farther from the
truth.

Here are experts of information any kid can find on 'Wikepedia'. An
indication that this topic is very much mainstream and contemporary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
**************************************************************

Debate over ‘A’ bombings of Japan

Support

Preferable to invasion

Those who argue in favor of the decision to drop the bombs generally
assert that the bombings ended the war months sooner than would
otherwise have been the case, thus saving many lives. It is argued that
there would have been massive casualties on both sides in the impending
Operation Downfall invasion of Japan,[50] and that even if Operation
Downfall was postponed, the status quo of conventional bombings and the
Japanese occupations in Asia were causing tremendous loss of life.

The Americans anticipated losing many soldiers in the planned invasion
of Japan, although the actual number of expected fatalities and wounded
is subject to some debate. It depends on the persistence and reliability
of Japanese resistance, and whether the Allies would have invaded only
Kyūshū in November 1945 or if a follow up Allied landing near Tokyo,
projected for March 1946, would have been needed. Years after the war,
Secretary of State James Byrnes claimed that 500,000 "American" lives
would have been lost, however in the summer of 1945,[citation needed]
U.S. military planners projected 20,000–110,000 combat deaths from the
initial November 1945 invasion, with about three to four times that
number wounded. (Total U.S. killed in action on all fronts in World War
II in nearly four years of war was 292,000.[8])


Opposition

Objections to the bombings generally emphasize one or both of two
points:
1. That the bombings were inherently immoral due to the massive civilian
casualties.
2. That the bombings were unjustified and unnecessary for tactical
military reasons.

Inherently immoral

A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the
bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes or crime
against humanity. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein
and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in
1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who
had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:

"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?"[58]

As the first military use of nuclear weapons, the bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki represent to some the crossing of a crucial barrier. Peter
Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American
University in Washington DC wrote of President Truman:
”He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species. It
was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity."[65]

Kurznick is one of several observers who believe that the U.S. was
largely motivated in carrying out the bombings by a desire to
demonstrate the power of its new weapon to the Soviet Union. Historian
Mark Selden of Cornell University has stated "Impressing Russia was more
important than ending the war in Japan."[65]

Takashi Hiraoka, mayor of Hiroshima, upholding nuclear disarmament, said
in a hearing to The Hague International Court of Justice (ICJ):
"It is clear that the use of nuclear weapons, which cause indiscriminate
mass murder that leaves [effects on] survivors for decades, is a
violation of international law".[66][67]


Militarily unnecessary

Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds
hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.

One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General
Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany,
informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on
Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent
reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of
the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and
so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief
that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was
completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country
should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose
employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save
American lives."[72][73]

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the
bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer
in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of
Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S.
Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter
Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted
Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[73] and Admiral Ernest King, U.S.
Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[74]
and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific
Fleet.[75]

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb
played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the
defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of
the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[76]

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no
material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already
defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of
Staff to President Truman.[76]

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds
of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered,
reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by
the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the
Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all
probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even
if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered
the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or
contemplated."[77][76]

Well, so you're suggesting that since the United States bombed Japan in
WW2 that they have no moral high ground to stand and oppose nuclear
proliferation unless they are prepared to get rid of their own nuclear
weapons.

Even then it seems that is not enough to make up for having used them in
Japan. The way I read this, the United States can not be redeemed under
any circumstances. I find myself wondering if you are American yourself.
I'm not so sure that matters so much, because obviously the perception
of the country is relevant wherever you are from.

Your analysis does not make note of the fact that the United States did
not use nuclear weapons in any of the subsequent wars, including Korea,
Vietnam and Iraq. Nor does it make note of the efforts to reduce the
world's overall nuclear arsenal.

For the United States to eliminate all of its nuclear weapons while
every rogue state is trying to attain them seems not too practical. So
if that is what you are suggesting I consider it just plain silly, and
not really worth consideration. But hey, that's just me.

I see your argument against the States as very one sided, as if you
prefer only to see the facts supporting your position. That is a nice
touch in debate or sales, but in civil discussion I think it is
reasonable to take a fair look at both side of an equation.

'Philosopher'

" I see your argument against the States as very one sided, as if you
prefer only to see the facts supporting your position. That is a nice
touch in debate or sales, but in civil discussion I think it is
reasonable to take a fair look at both side of an equation. "

Contrary to you Philosopher, I haven't decided what MY position is.
What I have posted are pro and con 'Wikepedia' arguments, mostly
reflecting the current debate in the US. They are NOT MY ARGUMENTS.

But I figured, for good measure, , that precisely presenting both sides
of the equation as I have done, would balance out your one sided
presentation.

Also, in keeping with the spirit of a "...civil discussion" as you
point out, please advise, when you say in your opening message:

"... If anyone has comments on this I'd be interested in hearing them."

Do you mean it???

Yes I mean it. I actually have plenty friends who have different
political views than I have. In my shop there is one French fellow, one
German, one Iranian and one Turkish. You can imagine the different
positions we take during discussions. We all get along and we are
friends, but we do not disagree about a lot. I think it is interesting
that we can find common ground in so many ways.

Anyway, I see more of the two sides of the discussion than I let on,
probably because I am so surprised and the high level of intolerance
towards America I see in so many people. I see it as a largely media
driven phenomenon.

I know that the US takes an aggressive position in foreign policy and it
has also done so in clandestine activities as well. I think some of the
actions taken have been poorly advised. But I think some of them have
been necessary.

Right now I think the hands of our CIA and state department are so ties
by the media and fear of the media that they are rather powerless and
afraid to tie their own shoes without permission. If the media is not a
danger to their activities then it seems that their compatriots are,
with the ever present implied threat that any thing done will be given
to the press.

So basically I don't think anyone in government can keep a secret, or
develop a plan and follow through. Howzat?

I think probably the present regime in Iran came to power with 50 or 100
million dollars in support and some hodgepodge of a plan to foster
revolution. With that seed money they reaped the rewards of an entire
country and some very lucrative oil fields. Most likely it took a
little more for Chavez to orchestrate his own rise, but once again I
figure that it was a relatively small amount of seed money and some
strong arm support that brought him to the top.

Both of those situations could have been avoided with some clever action
on the part of either the government or private enterprise. Why Exxon
didn't take any steps to head off the Venezuela thing I will never know.
But I shake my head at the incompetence.

But the way with countries, you let them take root and grow, and they do
just that. Our country is like that as well. Once they get a firm
foothold they become either more difficult to deal with or easier to get
along with, depending, I suppose on the nature of the government and the
people to some extent.

Back to the topic at hand though, Iran with a bomb? I think maybe it
would not be a good idea for now. It would probably be a problem to give
a nuclear weapon to several other countries as well. Some may have them
already, such as North Korea.

I think there may be trouble with Iran, whether they get nuclear weapons
or not. Already they are doing everything they can to prevent peace in
Iraq. I wonder if anybody thinks that demilitarizing Iran might improve
the area. Just in the last few days they have said "Iran has the
capacity to fire tens of thousands of missiles at American targets and
make "nowhere safe" for the United States". So the trouble is not just
nuclear weapons.

North Korea declared war on America right around the time we invaded
iraq this time. Was anyone paying any attention? noooo buddy! Now Iran
claims to have nuclear weapons. I see history repeating itself with
Hussein and his refusal to let the UN inspectors in. I am betting many
of these weapons were obtained from Hussein but thats just my opinion.

barbie statements like that might very well get you excommunicated from
the democrat party. that would mean that iraq would have had WMD's, so
where do the lies come into play again?

thats not a jab BTW.

doc

Ok, I know I'm coming in late here, but it sure has been an interesting
topic and has taken us on some paths I had not thought of. I'd like to
add another twist, maybe on this topic. By the way, I did not read the
link philosopher, sorry, I just dove into the commentary of those who
posted.

In considering this whole matter, I get this overall feeling of "we"
America as being alone, in this battle. As if, what is being addressed
and considered is a one sighted view that America is the only super
power who cares, who's in control, who's involved in the whole middle
east crisis.

Please tell me, is this what I'm hearing? If so, I need a little
education and would appreciate the help. What happened to the United
Nations? Were they not set up as a guardian. Have not other countries
agreed to be given equal votes, equal deliberations, and then accept
with equal responsibility whatever action the UN decides to follow.
I'm lost in the process of how exactly this became only OUR war. I can
google other countries news and see thier own descriptions of this war
from "their" view, as if they were there too, are they?

Sorry, I always hated the game Risk, loved Statego, but that was King
against King, get too many countries involved and I get lost, but I want
to learn, so please - anyone.

not to knowledgeable about the inner workings of the UN however there
are many sites that you can go to to look it up i can tell you what the
US participates in with the UN;

The United States is a generous supporter of key UN programs, funding:
51.4% of the World Food Program budget to help feed 72 million people in
82 countries.*

17.1% of the United Nations Children’s Fund budget to feed, vaccinate,
educate and protect children in 162 countries.*

14.1% of the United Nations Development Program core budget to eradicate
poverty and encourage democratic governance.*

25.8% of the International Atomic Energy Agency budget to ensure safe
and peaceful application of nuclear energy and prevent the illicit use
of nuclear material for weapons.**

22% of the World Health Organization core budget as well as significant
voluntary resources, helping to prevent and control epidemics and to
improve standards of health.**

25% of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees budget to help
protect refugees and facilitate their return home or re-settlement in
another country.*

25% of the International Civil Aviation Organization budget to ensure
safe, efficient and economical air travel.**

* These programs operate strictly on voluntary contributions.
** These programs operate on a combination of assessed and voluntary
contributions.

NOW THEN there are 192 meber nations in the UN, and we're flipping that
kind of percentages of the total bill. stands to reason that the amount
of troops that fall under the control of the UN are mostly americans,
but i dont know how it all works together, its big , bureaucraticly
inefficient and most americans (myself included) dont feel the need for
them any longer,,, of course they are not above corruption either, case
in point was the kick backs kofi anan was getting from the food for oil
program in iraq through his son.

just google, i know i dint really touch on what your question, sorry
about that.

192 countries and one vote each. So we are 1/192 of the vote on a purely
democratic basis. Then there is the security council where we have a
larger vote, but certainly not a majority. With China and Russia in the
security council it is a simple matter to see that US initiatives are
not going to pass unhindered.
One might ask "Why can't we all just get along?" The different
countries have different interests. Some are economic, some are
developmental, some are personal and some are driven by corruption or
greed. With the prevalence of corporate influence in the US governmental
process nobody can say there there the US has no issues or agendas.
Certainly this is true in other countries as well.
The world needs to have more candid discussions about the objectives
of countries and how they can attain their goals without interfering
with the lives of others. This might be possible except for the case
where the country's goals are to interfere in the lives of others. I
think this is the case with Iran, but that is just because of the
rhetoric being espoused by their government, not due to anything I
simply assumed.
When a government is intent on interfering with the peaceful pursuit
of life by others it is easier to conceal a large part of what they are
doing than to be public about it. Certainly that seems to be true about
Iran as well. When someone hides their intentions and actions and acts
with malice towards others, that might justify some strong response by
others, but to prove the reasons and justify the intervention is not a
simple matter.
This problem with Iran will go on and on. The United Nations should
have some ability to deal with this, but unfortunately it does not have
a timely manner to do so. Furthermore if the United Nations had real
power and military strength to back it up, I think it would be curtains
for the United States and our way of life. You might say that is because
of the United States actions around the world, but I would counter that
it is because of corruption and greed in other countries.

armydoc...LMAO!! your probably right on that for sure! But i also
remember Pearl Harbor being attacked. The day of infanmy. And who
attacked us? Did we even see it coming? Truman dropping that bomb lets
all remember the warnings and FLYERS dropped for a week by the USA to
the japanese warning them of the bomb. Right after 9/11 North Korea
declared war on AMERICA. Everyone was busy being POLITIKICALLY CORRECT
at the UN dealing with hussein and his refusal to allow the inspectors
in. After the second try as an american i was saying BULLCRAP. Send the
missles and gawd amighty damm i miss ol ronny raygun! for sure it would
be OVER had he still been president. He just whooped ass and didnt care
about the names later. Now Iran boasts of having nuclear bombs.
Same chit. Dont want the inspectors inside just like hussein. Armydoc i
know one of your brothers with the 101st and i know those WMD were
found. We both know this is true. In my honest opinion and i dont care
if i am a democrat or republican its time to stop with this politikal
correct CRAP. Cut off all aid or help to these countries and lets start
focusing in on our own back yard instead of dealing with these threats
of nuclear weapons, trying to inspect the sites and countries claiming
to have them. I support my president with the war in iraq and believe
good is actually happening for the iraqi people but i am tired of seeing
propaganda and wild claims of the pooooor countries we have been to war
with or this situation with japan and the bombs dropped. Anyone who has
stood at the memorial at Pearl Harbor can feel the loss endured and
lives lost on the day of infamy. I was one who did. Its a powerful and
emotional feeling. Do i pity the japanese and the bombs dropped? Not
after being there at pearl harbor and those japanese were WARNED long
before it dropped. Just my opinion of course.