Pease help then kindly die.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

It is an amusing photograph though. I would think that with approximately 60% of all global food aid coming from the USA, that you would see more GWB shirts. I guess we leave those out of the care packages.

...mostly 'cause they can't vote--otherwise, Dick Cheney'd see to it that they were included.

[Asphalt]

When i worked in Sri Lanka (mostly teaching English and Environmental work) a number of my students were devotees to OBL and these T-shirts were common enough to see...(as was some evident hatred)
Didn't stop them learning.
Didn't stop me teaching.
we're human.. we do what we need to...

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Asphalt

When i worked in Sri Lanka (mostly teaching English and Environmental work) a number of my students were devotees to OBL and these T-shirts were common enough to see...(as was some evident hatred)
Didn't stop them learning.
Didn't stop me teaching.
we're human.. we do what we need to...

Just out of curiosity, is there any way to know if that T-Shirt said something like, "Go to bed early or OBL will get you?". Just because his face is on the shirt, doesn't mean that it supports him.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Just out of curiosity, is there any way to know if that T-Shirt said something like, "Go to bed early or OBL will get you?". Just because his face is on the shirt, doesn't mean that it supports him.

I'm just guessing, but wearing a shirt that mocks OBL, in a muslim country would probably be a bad thing. In fact, you would probably get a better response wearing a "I love OBL" shirt here in the USA.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

OK. Let's settle this.

According to an official government source, a REALLY BIG number of people died because of the atomic bomb. It was a BAD thing, but necessary.

My $O.O2
I work with the Geriatric population and have met many WWII Vets. Not a single one was upset then or now because we nuked Japan. Not only were they happy (and their children, their children's children...) not to have to invade the main island, they new people who were at Bataan so they thought it was deserved.
Did you know the Japanese military was planning coup of the Emperor because he was surrendering? Imagine that, after 2 cities obliterated they still wanted to fight to the very last man, woman and child. Some estimates say the A-bombs actually saved lives.
(In a Forrest Gump voice) That's all I got to say about that.

[mrbiggs]

Rogue, I agree with you completely. I wasn't arguing that we should not have dropped the bomb. I was saying that the deaths of two entire cities was a huge tragedy, even though it was necessary. I realize that those deaths averted worse tragedies, but I don't think that the effects of the atomic bomb could ever be called a good thing.

[lochinvar]

Again I have to reiterate: What does the atomic bombing of Japan have to do with this particular natural disaster?

[Rogue]

Shrugs his shoulders and says, "I don't know."
And sits back and enjoys the tangents.

[Bokken]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

<cut>
I'll bet I can find 10 sources that disagree with your "accurate" citations. I'm not sure why you are so vehement about the count. If you want to argue about the major points of the post, feel free, otherwise, start another thread about how "Japanese atomic bomb fatalities/casualties are overreported." Then requiring an accurate number would actually be relevant to the subject at hand. Not merely a petty sticking point.

I did argue the major points of your post, and you're now trying to digress away from the fact that I called you on your "nuking Japan killed 200,000+ people instantly" statement. Obviously, thousands died and it was a terrible thing - of that there is NO question.
On the other hand, as you've conveniently glossed over, the targets were military centers, it was wartime, and the alternative was even more horrible to consider. As stated in USSBS, the conservative death estimate for an invasion of Japan was ONE MILLION. Harsh math: The war ended on a nuclear cost of some (short term) 65,000 - 70,000 dead. That is far preferable to a conventional cost of 1,000,000 dead.

The whole thing is an abomination, but please get your facts straight if you're going to play the nuclear holocaust card. Too many people succumb to nuclear hysteria and make wild statements like "200,000 people were vaporized instantly" when it is not true.

I will also accept your bet to find 10 credible, verifiable sources with solid citations that disagree with the USSBS, the citation you so helpfully provided, the Japanese government's count...in otherwords, credible sources that significantly dispute the official death toll of the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. Death toll can include both immediate and long-term deaths. My email address is public on this board. Will a week be enough or would 2 weeks suffice?

Now (finally, I know), to answer Lochinvar's statement of how this relates: esskreemr made a statement which was wildly inaccurate and I disputed what he claimed was fact. I'm not going to rehash the whole thing, you can see it in the prior posts. In essence, this is a big digression from the topic of natural disasters, aid, and the American image around the world.

To get things back on track, here's my contribution:
Could the current, rampant "anti-America" sentiment in the world be a result of shifting attitudes from the end of the Cold War? America always presented itself as the Shining Paragon of Virtue compared with the Damn Evil Communists, but now since there's no clear-cut "enemy" anymore, are other nations going to continue favorably interpreting US actions, in US favor? Are we the world's bully, policeman, or should we just back off and let everyone else deal with their own problems?

[Asphalt]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Just out of curiosity, is there any way to know if that T-Shirt said something like, "Go to bed early or OBL will get you?". Just because his face is on the shirt, doesn't mean that it supports him.

if its the same ones i saw it definately a pro OBL one...
it had a variation with the towers in the background...

[Inquartata]

Beyond their own regions, I'm not sure other nations have EVER viewed us that way, or been overly inclined to sharing the same goals. We've had consonance of purpose with Europe in European affairs, for instance, but even our close allies there have been...unhelpful...in places like Korea, Vietnam, Suez, and certainly South and Central America...

As for Hiroshima, I propose a minimum figure of 1 million casulaties. After all, those killed did not have the children they would otherwise have had, and their children did not have children, and so on...all those possible future lives, ruthlessly snuffed out! And the number continues to grow!

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Bokken

To get things back on track, here's my contribution:
Could the current, rampant "anti-America" sentiment in the world be a result of shifting attitudes from the end of the Cold War? America always presented itself as the Shining Paragon of Virtue compared with the Damn Evil Communists, but now since there's no clear-cut "enemy" anymore, are other nations going to continue favorably interpreting US actions, in US favor? Are we the world's bully, policeman, or should we just back off and let everyone else deal with their own problems?

Both sides in the Cold War presented themselves as Shining Paragons of Virtue. Both resorted to dirty tricks and Grand Strategy to disrupt each other. They bashed a lot of heads in the process.

Personally, I think that the current "anti-america" sentiment is rooted in four things:

1) US corporate behaviour around the world. Exploited labour, bad community practice, cultural conflict, etc...

2) US foreign policy that paints entire regions as evil, archaic, backward and wimpy coupled with a complete lack of accountability for unilateral actions. Especially the unilateral support for Israel. A double standard, if you will, that encourages resentment from everyone that Israel pisses off (which is quite a lot).

3) US prosperity. Jealousy and victimisation coupled with wholesale exportation of US culture. TV shows that are EXTREMELY offensive to some cultures, showing lots of T&A, lots of rampant materialism, loose morals, vicious competition, and a liberal mindset that rejects local customs as backward and evil. Wearing a burkha is an evil act, even if it is a religious and cultural thing. So, all your young girls are being "corrupted" by the "Great Satan" to behave like prostitutes and your young men to eshew their family responsibilities in favour of chasing same young women, drinking, gambling and carousing. Instead of making money to support your family, you are encouraged to spend money to make yourself feel better.

4) Christian Missionary work. I think that the US is strongly identified with aggressive Christianity, again denigrating local customs and religions in favour of the Christian ideals. Shady practices like giving candy to kids if they'll go to church instead of the local mosque. Stuff like that.

Just some thoughts.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jBirch

(snip) Personally, I think that the current "anti-america" sentiment is rooted in four things:

1) US corporate behaviour around the world. Exploited labour, bad community practice, cultural conflict, etc...

And this behaviour is different than the behavior of US corporations in their own country...how?

2) US foreign policy that paints entire regions as evil, archaic, backward and wimpy

Well, they are. Are we supposed to lie to them and say we think they're all wonderful?

coupled with a complete lack of accountability for unilateral actions. Especially the unilateral support for Israel. A double standard, if you will, that encourages resentment from everyone that Israel pisses off (which is quite a lot).

To whom, exactly, do you feel the US should be accountable? And are we to stifle our preference in friends simply because some Third World countries don't like them? What are we, a high school clique? "I don't like your friend, so you can't talk to her, either." Give me a break...

Not to mention: When was the last time any of the US-bashers considered themselves accountable to us? Shouldn't it work both ways?

3) US prosperity. Jealousy and victimisation coupled with wholesale exportation of US culture.

...and US jobs, which paradoxically they aren't unhappy to get...

TV shows that are EXTREMELY offensive to some cultures, showing lots of T&A, lots of rampant materialism, loose morals, vicious competition, and a liberal mindset that rejects local customs as backward and evil. Wearing a burkha is an evil act, even if it is a religious and cultural thing.

Did I miss a technological innovation, or don't TV sets in the Third World have an "off" switch?

So, all your young girls are being "corrupted" by the "Great Satan" to behave like prostitutes and your young men to eshew their family responsibilities in favour of chasing same young women, drinking, gambling and carousing.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that "drinking, gambling and carousing" is an American invention of the 20th Century, nor do I believe that all Third World children were paragons of responsibility until they saw their first episode of Oprah.

Instead of making money to support your family, you are encouraged to spend money to make yourself feel better.

...on things like drugs, weapons, and fancy daggars with Rhino-horn handles that mark you as a man--oh, wait, they were doing that before the US showed on the scene. Mybad.

4) Christian Missionary work. I think that the US is strongly identified with aggressive Christianity, again denigrating local customs and religions in favour of the Christian ideals. Shady practices like giving candy to kids if they'll go to church instead of the local mosque. Stuff like that.

Now there you might have something...

I think that the current (if a century of blunders can be considered "current") wave of anti-US sentiment is rooted in two things:

1) Simple envy--we "have", and they "have not". Guaranteed to foster resentment, even if we don't try to flaunt it. Hell, I resent Bill Gates having so much money when I don't have what I consider to be enough, and he hasn't done anything to me or mine to warrent such resentment. I don't think it's a stretch to comprehend that the Third World--or even the Second World--might resent us simply because we are prosperous.

2) US naivte and egocentrism, coupled with honest but misguided goodwill.

We--or at least some of "we"--don't seem to understand that because the rest of the world has shown an insatiable appetite for the fruits of our particular style of capitalism--Levis and MacDonalds and Rock 'n' Roll and all the rest--that doesn't ipso facto mean that they want to jettison their own traditions, history, and culture and adopt wholesale the political and economic processes by which these material goods came to be.

The current mess in Iraq is a perfect example. I'm convinced that Dubya sincerely believed that the Iraquis would welcome the Americans as liberators, shower us with gratitude, and fall over themselves in their eagerness to follow our direction in emulating the US political and economic model. That's why we didn't have an exit strategy in place--he didn't think we'd need one. We'd walk in, depose Saddam, take two months to establish a US-type government and economy, and be "Home by Christmas".

That this view is/was hopelessly naive is evident on its face. That events have not turned out as he envisioned is, I'm sure, a complete bafflement to himself and Condoleeza and most of the rest of his coterie. (I think Colin Powell had healthy misgivings about the whole thing, but as a loyal and conscientious man he had to support his chief.)

Until we stop acting like a well-intentioned but completely clueless relative who out of genuine affection buys expensive gifts for people that they don't want, can't use, or are not to their taste, we will continue to piss people off without meaning to. And continue to wonder why they don't want to come over more often.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

And this behaviour is different than the behavior of US corporations in their own country...how?

In that the corporations wield such disproportionate power, the government and the people truly need the economic influx, and they have the capacity to simply up and leave back to the US. Basically, they have a better bargaining position and so can get away with more in foreign countries then they can in their own.

Well, they are. Are we supposed to lie to them and say we think they're all wonderful?To whom, exactly, do you feel the US should be accountable? And are we to stifle our preference in friends simply because some Third World countries don't like them? What are we, a high school clique? "I don't like your friend, so you can't talk to her, either." Give me a break...

To your first comment, evil they are not. Different and aggressive yes, but evil? No. They are acting in the noblist intentions for their citizenry. Even fringe wacko groups like Al-Q. They are no more evil then the US is good.

Stifle your preference in friends? Surely not. Support them in all their stupidity and against all reason? Again, surely not. If your high school chum joins a gang, does that mean that you go around shooting rival gang members? There's a difference between friends and allies.

Not to mention: When was the last time any of the US-bashers considered themselves accountable to us? Shouldn't it work both ways?

Absolutely. I don't remember Iraq invading the US though...

...and US jobs, which paradoxically they aren't unhappy to get...Did I miss a technological innovation, or don't TV sets in the Third World have an "off" switch? I'm sorry but I don't believe that "drinking, gambling and carousing" is an American invention of the 20th Century, nor do I believe that all Third World children were paragons of responsibility until they saw their first episode of Oprah....on things like drugs, weapons, and fancy daggars with Rhino-horn handles that mark you as a man--oh, wait, they were doing that before the US showed on the scene. Mybad.Now there you might have something...

Well, I'm glad you've seen the light then. I'm sure that their TV shows, do, indeed have an off switch. I just think that there's not much on in Iran *EXCEPT* Oprah and Maury that isn't state run propaganda. And that fact makes America seem like a bunch of cheating, drug taking, sex maniacs who worship everything the holy books say is evil. Even local Christian groups aren't big fans of what's on TV now.

I think that the current (if a century of blunders can be considered "current") wave of anti-US sentiment is rooted in two things:

1) Simple envy--we "have", and they "have not". Guaranteed to foster resentment, even if we don't try to flaunt it. Hell, I resent Bill Gates having so much money when I don't have what I consider to be enough, and he hasn't done anything to me or mine to warrent such resentment. I don't think it's a stretch to comprehend that the Third World--or even the Second World--might resent us simply because we are prosperous.

Agreed.

2) US naivte and egocentrism, coupled with honest but misguided goodwill.

We--or at least some of "we"--don't seem to understand that because the rest of the world has shown an insatiable appetite for the fruits of our particular style of capitalism--Levis and MacDonalds and Rock 'n' Roll and all the rest--that doesn't ipso facto mean that they want to jettison their own traditions, history, and culture and adopt wholesale the political and economic processes by which these material goods came to be.

The current mess in Iraq is a perfect example. I'm convinced that Dubya sincerely believed that the Iraquis would welcome the Americans as liberators, shower us with gratitude, and fall over themselves in their eagerness to follow our direction in emulating the US political and economic model. That's why we didn't have an exit strategy in place--he didn't think we'd need one. We'd walk in, depose Saddam, take two months to establish a US-type government and economy, and be "Home by Christmas".

That this view is/was hopelessly naive is evident on its face. That events have not turned out as he envisioned is, I'm sure, a complete bafflement to himself and Condoleeza and most of the rest of his coterie. (I think Colin Powell had healthy misgivings about the whole thing, but as a loyal and conscientious man he had to support his chief.)

Until we stop acting like a well-intentioned but completely clueless relative who out of genuine affection buys expensive gifts for people that they don't want, can't use, or are not to their taste, we will continue to piss people off without meaning to. And continue to wonder why they don't want to come over more often.

This last seems SPOT ON. I agree wholeheartedly. I'd only add that those gifts aren't just not wanted, but actively insulting too.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by JBirch

Originally Posted by jBirch
1) US corporate behaviour around the world. Exploited labour, bad community practice, cultural conflict, etc...

Originally Posted by lochinvar

And this behaviour is different than the behavior of US corporations in their own country...how?

The relevant comparison is not between US. corporate bahavior in USA vs. US corporate behavior in other countries, but rather between US corporate behavior in other countries, and local corporate behavior in that country. (hope that made some sense!) For example: "Toys R Us" has engaged in anti-union activity over here, despite it being known to anyone who cares to check that several govt. members are card-holding union members, and former high officers of unions. They were forced to back down for that near-suicidal behavior. (How dumb can you get?)

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Well, they are. Are we supposed to lie to them and say we think they're all wonderful?

Well, if you want them to like you - then yes. Diplomacy101: even well-founded criticism is usually not well recieved. Once one pisses people off, one should not be surprised when (for instance) UN. votes do not go ones way.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

I think that the current (if a century of blunders can be considered "current") wave of anti-US sentiment is rooted in two things:

1) Simple envy--we "have", and they "have not". Guaranteed to foster resentment, even if we don't try to flaunt it. Hell, I resent Bill Gates having so much money when I don't have what I consider to be enough, and he hasn't done anything to me or mine to warrent such resentment. I don't think it's a stretch to comprehend that the Third World--or even the Second World--might resent us simply because we are prosperous.

Not always the case. A lot of Bush-haters in Europe are quite well off, definetely above the average american in income/year. OBL was/is a multimillionare.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

2) US naivte and egocentrism, coupled with honest but misguided goodwill.

The current mess in Iraq is a perfect example. I'm convinced that Dubya sincerely believed that the Iraquis would welcome the Americans as liberators, shower us with gratitude, and fall over themselves in their eagerness to follow our direction in emulating the US political and economic model. That's why we didn't have an exit strategy in place--he didn't think we'd need one. We'd walk in, depose Saddam, take two months to establish a US-type government and economy, and be "Home by Christmas".

That this view is/was hopelessly naive is evident on its face. That events have not turned out as he envisioned is, I'm sure, a complete bafflement to himself and Condoleeza and most of the rest of his coterie. (I think Colin Powell had healthy misgivings about the whole thing, but as a loyal and conscientious man he had to support his chief.)

Not that I have any proof of it, but my gut feeling is that Condi, with her academic background in knowledge of other countries, saw this clearly. My personal guess is that Powell stayed on, despite his misgivings, in order to dimish the mess the best he could, easier done within a govt. than outside.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Bokken

I did argue the major points of your post,

At what point did you argue the major points of my post? I must have missed it.

Originally Posted by bokken

and you're now trying to digress away from the fact that I called you on your "nuking Japan killed 200,000+ people instantly" statement.

Actually the statement was: "I'll bet the 200,000+ innocent civilians that died in a flash will remember". If your going to scream about accuracy, please avoid rewriting my words to fit your somewhat obscure agenda.

How am I attempting to digress? I feel the digression has been on your part. If the actual number was relevant to the major points of the post, I would have made a retraction. Instead, I attempted a compromise with a major concession to your statistics. Apparently this wasn't good enough for some reason.

Originally Posted by Bokken

Obviously, thousands died and it was a terrible thing - of that there is NO question.

I'm sorry, this was what I thought WAS the poin of my post. Would you have been happier with "hundreds of thousands" suffered and died? I'm still not sure why you are thread-jacking to this extent.

Originally Posted by bokken

On the other hand, as you've conveniently glossed over, the targets were military centers, it was wartime, and the alternative was even more horrible to consider. As stated in USSBS, the conservative death estimate for an invasion of Japan was ONE MILLION. Harsh math: The war ended on a nuclear cost of some (short term) 65,000 - 70,000 dead.

Funny, a few posts ago, your own statistics would have put the death count at a minumum of 100,000 with up to 110,000 dead. So, you insist on me providing verification for my count, while you yourself drop 30,000-40,000 people from your own count less than 10 posts earlier.

If you're going to insist on accuracy, try to hold yourself up to the same measure.

Originally Posted by bokken

That is far preferable to a conventional cost of 1,000,000 dead.

1,000,000 hypothetical dead. Your implying that 1,000,000 were definitively saved by the U.S. not invading Japan when this is just an estimation.

Originally Posted by bokken

The whole thing is an abomination, but please get your facts straight if you're going to play the nuclear holocaust card. Too many people succumb to nuclear hysteria and make wild statements like "200,000 people were vaporized instantly" when it is not true.

What wasn't true? The statement wasn't true, or the fact that I didn't say it.

I will concede that "200,000+ died in a flash" more than implies that I was saying they died instantly. I will concede that. But you seem completely willing to dismiss death from increased rates of lukemia, hunger/malnutrition, and other effects of a catastrophe of this scale. I won't concede on that point. I will continue with the 200,000+ people suffered and died, is that better?

Originally Posted by bokken

I will also accept your bet to find 10 credible, verifiable sources with solid citations that disagree with the USSBS, the citation you so helpfully provided, the Japanese government's count...in otherwords, credible sources that significantly dispute the official death toll of the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. Death toll can include both immediate and long-term deaths. My email address is public on this board. Will a week be enough or would 2 weeks suffice?

I could probably do it in an hour or so. I have a feeling that even if I provided more than 10 sources, we would be thrown into an argument over what is credible and verifiable with solid citations. Seems to me to be a wasted endeavor.

Originally Posted by bokken

Now (finally, I know), to answer Lochinvar's statement of how this relates: esskreemr made a statement which was wildly inaccurate and I disputed what he claimed was fact.

Actually, I've never claimed it was fact. I believe that I have continually stated that you will not find a definitive count that can be agreed on by all parties. You, however, continue to state that your statistics are the final word. You quote figures that, following the theorem that 1+1 equal 2, would add up to over 100,000 deaths. You then follow this by stating that I was inaccurate while failing to acknowledge the fact that due to the burning of the cities' population records, there ARE NO COMPLETELY ACCURATE DEATH TOLLS. You then drop your count to 60,000-70,000 and completely reword my statements.

Originally Posted by bokken

Harsh math: The war ended on a nuclear cost of some (short term) 65,000 - 70,000 dead.

This is a direct quote, unlike the license that you take when paraphrasing my comments.

I would like to reiterate that I'm willing to accept the 100,000 instant/near instant deaths. The USSBS report of up to 110,000 deaths with over 90,000 injured does not include (nor could it) subsequent deaths from the after effects of such devastation. I would have though that such a concession would be suficient to quell your adamant contention over one

Originally Posted by bokken

I'm not going to rehash the whole thing, you can see it in the prior posts. In essence, this is a big digression from the topic of natural disasters, aid, and the American image around the world.

Actually it is a big digression, which you began. I'm still wiping the spittle off of my shoulders...