|
It's Latin food though so it should go with a heaping of cilantro.
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
whats wrong with mackerel and tomatoes? just throw in some garlic and onions and youve got a good meal going
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:It's actually not that bad, taste-wise norway.txt: "Not that bad, it just looks bloody awful"
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:norway.txt: "Not that bad, it just looks bloody awful" you'll find that mostly, norway is pretty bad, but looks very nice see also: the nature of, the people of
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:i guessed the politoons thread and 'added another layer of poo poo' but alas I am repentant for our crimes but I don't think that "Should we have nuked Japan" is a historically resolved issue, as I've heard compelling arguments for both sides
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:man that would just suck to have your genes go "lol nope" about eating certain foods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allergy
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:whats wrong with mackerel and tomatoes? just throw in some garlic and onions and youve got a good meal going The trouble is that a Norwegian will see you eating that meal and say "Hey, maybe we should add some loving lye to that".
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
zoux posted:I am repentant for our crimes but I don't think that "Should we have nuked Japan" is a historically resolved issue, as I've heard compelling arguments for both sides oh it was resolved, my thesis that we should have nuked tokyo first and only is the resolution
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
zoux posted:I am repentant for our crimes but I don't think that "Should we have nuked Japan" is a historically resolved issue, as I've heard compelling arguments for both sides the problem with the debate imo is it's often treated as a seperate issue from strategic bombing, which it shouldn't be as everyone saw the atomic bomb as the logical conclusion to strategic bombing. which can be a strike against it (strategic bombing's effectiveness is dubious) or for it (it accomplished the intended goal of strategic bombing campaigns by demoralizing the civilian population)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:The trouble is that a Norwegian will see you eating that meal and say "Hey, maybe we should add some loving lye to that". you know what would really add some panache? letting it rot for a while
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
zoux posted:I am repentant for our crimes but I don't think that "Should we have nuked Japan" is a historically resolved issue, as I've heard compelling arguments for both sides
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
zoux posted:I am repentant for our crimes but I don't think that "Should we have nuked Japan" is a historically resolved issue, as I've heard compelling arguments for both sides It is pretty much agreed that the amount of nuking inflicted on Japan was not right. Regarding whether Japan should have been nuked more or less is still an open debate, though.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:you know what would really add some panache? letting it rot for a while or you can ferment it in a tin can, that is also a classic
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:the problem with the debate imo is it's often treated as a seperate issue from strategic bombing, which it shouldn't be as everyone saw the atomic bomb as the logical conclusion to strategic bombing. i just don't see it as that distinct from all the other 100k casualty bombing campaigns we did. As a historical precedent and setting the table for the Cold War and nuclear arms race it was clearly significant but as far as being a uniquely heinous war crime well 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
zoux posted:I am repentant for our crimes but I don't think that "Should we have nuked Japan" is a historically resolved issue, as I've heard compelling arguments for both sides due to institutional inertia on the US side and internal political disarray between the "never surrender" and the "its about time to surrender, maybe" factions on the japanese side the bombing was going to happen no matter what the better question was, how did the bombing trigger the end of the war amd how did that influence early US nuclear policy leading into the cold war
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
zoux posted:i just don't see it as that distinct from all the other 100k casualty bombing campaigns we did. As a historical precedent and setting the table for the Cold War and nuclear arms race it was clearly significant but as far as being a uniquely heinous war crime well ya that's my point
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
zoux posted:I am repentant for our crimes but I don't think that "Should we have nuked Japan" is a historically resolved issue, as I've heard compelling arguments for both sides the only thing which ain't resolved is whether we should have stopped nuking them, or whether we should have nuked the germans first imperial japan had to die, zoux. they were the nazis of asia who bombed loving pearl harbour. When you bomb loving pearl harbour, how the gently caress do you think the war is gonna end? Its gonna end with someone getting nuked, thats how. Japanese civilians didnt wanna get nuked? Shoulda overthrown their government and unconditionally surrendered! Whats that, they didn't? Then they deserved it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
The US only had two bombs so. . .
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:the fact that it's a 'historically unresolved issue' to people is sick also its war dude, if you are taking the position that war is categorically bad then i dont see why nuking japan was any different than fire bombing dresden or even bombing campaigns that killed far fewer civilians, as I don't think there's a moral body count threshold where a thing suddenly goes from good to bad
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
nuking germany after it surrendered would probably be considered bad form
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Hahah yes. Japan is so unreasonable!!! *demands unconditional surrender*
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:the problem with the debate imo is it's often treated as a seperate issue from strategic bombing, which it shouldn't be as everyone saw the atomic bomb as the logical conclusion to strategic bombing. You can't wage war when you have no civilians. In WW2, there were no civilians in Japan or Germany, there were only repressed minorities and fascists.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Hahah yes. Japan is so unreasonable!!! *demands unconditional surrender* *kills 20 million Chinese* hmmm it looks as if Japan is not quite as reasonable as you imply after all
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
the argument to my mind is that one can only compare the a bombs as a moral issue with respect to other belligerent actions in the war and as far as that goes I don't see it as unique
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You can't wage war when you have no civilians. In WW2, there were no civilians in Japan or Germany, there were only repressed minorities and fascists. oh good that has nothing to do with what i said
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
well the bit with dropping the bombs is that, unlike conventional bombing where there's sort of sustained effort to actually level a city, nuking them was pretty shocking. like in the blink of an eye, two cities just erased from the planet. also how terrible the aftereffects were -- but we only loosely understood that at the time. in term of being "repentant for our mass murders" -- are the victors of any war ever made to apologize for what they do to win it?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:*kills 20 million Chinese* hmmm it looks as if Japan is not quite as reasonable as you imply after all Thats a reaosnable number in the context of that era. Plus there are a lot of Chinese!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
oh hey japan, you've killed almost as many people as nazi germany so we'll let you have any say at all in peace terms
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
yeah i have 0 allergies and thank god daily for this
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Hahah yes. Japan is so unreasonable!!! *demands unconditional surrender* I have no problem nuking folks who operate extermination camps. Don't like it? Don't be a loving nazi operating gas chambers.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
zoux posted:its war dude, if you are taking the position that war is categorically bad then i dont see why nuking japan was any different than fire bombing dresden or even bombing campaigns that killed far fewer civilians, as I don't think there's a moral body count threshold where a thing suddenly goes from good to bad
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:oh hey japan, you've killed almost as many people as nazi germany so we'll let you have any say at all in peace terms oh whats that, you want to keep manchuria after testing bio weapons in it? well okay japan
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Serious replay though: Germans were completely conquered. Japan was not.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:oh hey japan, you've killed almost as many people as nazi germany so we'll let you have any say at all in peace terms Germany treated Allied POWs better than Japan, to say the least.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:well the bit with dropping the bombs is that, unlike conventional bombing where there's sort of sustained effort to actually level a city, nuking them was pretty shocking. like in the blink of an eye, two cities just erased from the planet. also how terrible the aftereffects were -- but we only loosely understood that at the time. I get how shocking and awesome the bombs were at the time but I'm not sure how that fits into the moral calculus of the act.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Sometimes you have to do some raping and murdering to make some eggs
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Oracle posted:They firebombed Japan too. Something about releasing bats with incendiaries attached to their legs so that when they went to roost in the eaves of houses... yeah. Plus plain ol' firebombing. they didn't do the bat bombs, have you even ever read GBS?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
and i think we can also agree that it wasn't a matter of if the bombs were going to get dropped on someone, it was only a matter of who was going to drop them on who first.zoux posted:I get how shocking and awesome the bombs were at the time but I'm not sure how that fits into the moral calculus of the act. it's the scale of what we were doing that mattered. in traditional bombing, people have a chance to survive. with the nukes, they did not. also, loosely, we could not be as discriminate w/r/t civilian targets.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
zoux posted:they didn't do the bat bombs, have you even ever read GBS?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:oh hey japan, you've killed almost as many people as nazi germany so we'll let you have any say at all in peace terms A few more nukes and we could've solved this issue. Shoulda executed the emperor, I tell you what. Show the world the power of 'living gods' in the fight of American firepower.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:20
|
|