In the past there would be debate & discussion before dropping MOABs on a foreign country.
Really? What "past" would this be?
(hint: bunker-busting bombs have only been around since WWII, and the specific sort of weapons you're talking about have only been around for the last decade or two).
Just like there used to be a pause to reflect before pepper spraying seated protesters.
Same here, and again I do not know to what "past" you refer, as pepper-spray is a fairly recent development.
If you want to talk about the equivalent weapons and similar (or more extreme) tactics in the days before World War II
The Tulsa race riot was a large-scale racially motivated conflict, May 31 - June 1st 1921, between the white and black communities of Tulsa, Oklahoma, in which the wealthiest African-American community in the United States, the Greenwood District also known as 'The Negro Wall St' [1] was burned to the ground. Aerial fire bombing of black residential neighborhoods was reported. During the 16 hours of the assault, over 800 people were admitted to local hospitals with injuries, more than 6,000 Greenwood residents were arrested and detained in a prison camp, an estimated 10,000 were left homeless, and 35 city blocks composed of 1,256 residences were destroyed by fire. The official count of the dead was 39, but estimates of black fatalities have been in the hundreds.
In case you missed the key point, the riot included at least one air raid by USAAF fighter-bombers dropping incendiary bombs on American civilians. Most of whom weren't even rioting. Oh, and for extra cruelty value, the riots were pretty much started by the white Tulsans, and the neighborhoods being bombed were the black districts.
Now, true, the North Vietnamese had already invaded Cambodia (and Laos), but the only "debate & discussion" which occurred before we launched our own incursion was within the White House and Pentagon.
These are just two examples: I can produce more (and even bloodier ones) if you'd like me to do so. In general, beware of nostalgia. The past wasn't as nice a place as you imagine.
You seem to enjoy nitpicking individual words and listening to yourself type at great length.
As Paladyn said, we've forgotten "how to play the game."
In the past, that oh so nostalgic past which you feel the need to educate me about, (really? Wikipedia? SRSLY?) there would be political channels used, ambassadors asked to leave a country, or recalled, etc. You know, "the game."
You would do well to not be a complete ass to people you've never met. You might find that they're not so different from you... Just less of an ass.
What I'm saying is that the factual claim you're making is false -- we weren't as nice and deliberate in the past as you imagine. The reason why you probably believe otherwise is that we often forget minor wars and embarassing race riots if they do not occur in a context where a major political party is willing to make an issue out of them.
Just because you don't like Wikipedia doesn't magically make these events un-happen. If you like, I could find you other sources for them: the two examples I mentioned were ones of which I was aware before I ever went online, I learned about one in the 1980's and the other in the early 1990's. And as I mentioned, I could show you many more examples.
As for your argument about "political channels" and "ambassadors," this did not happen in either case. The American authorities simply treated the blacks as "the enemy" in Tulsa 1921, and America neither obtained permission from Cambodia nor made even an informal declaration to Cambodia (afaik) in the Vietnam War.
If you think that I'm "being a complete ass" to you by simply pointing out that you are wrong and giving examples to support my claim, then your problem is with reasoned discussion and debate, not with me in particular.
Oh, of course I am "batshit crazy" if I call you out on a misstatement of fact, then proceed to back it up with online sources. A sane man would simply be blinded with awe by your authoritative presence and enthusiastically agree with anything you say. Indeed, a sane man would grasp that anything you say, even if it was false, would become true by the mere fact of your saying it. Oh, why cannot my mind be awakened to your glorious sanity and my useless reason dissolve in contemplation of the shining beauty which is your opinion?!!!
Really? What "past" would this be?
(hint: bunker-busting bombs have only been around since WWII, and the specific sort of weapons you're talking about have only been around for the last decade or two).
Just like there used to be a pause to reflect before pepper spraying seated protesters.
Same here, and again I do not know to what "past" you refer, as pepper-spray is a fairly recent development.
If you want to talk about the equivalent weapons and similar (or more extreme) tactics in the days before World War II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
The Tulsa race riot was a large-scale racially motivated conflict, May 31 - June 1st 1921, between the white and black communities of Tulsa, Oklahoma, in which the wealthiest African-American community in the United States, the Greenwood District also known as 'The Negro Wall St' [1] was burned to the ground. Aerial fire bombing of black residential neighborhoods was reported. During the 16 hours of the assault, over 800 people were admitted to local hospitals with injuries, more than 6,000 Greenwood residents were arrested and detained in a prison camp, an estimated 10,000 were left homeless, and 35 city blocks composed of 1,256 residences were destroyed by fire. The official count of the dead was 39, but estimates of black fatalities have been in the hundreds.
In case you missed the key point, the riot included at least one air raid by USAAF fighter-bombers dropping incendiary bombs on American civilians. Most of whom weren't even rioting. Oh, and for extra cruelty value, the riots were pretty much started by the white Tulsans, and the neighborhoods being bombed were the black districts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign
Now, true, the North Vietnamese had already invaded Cambodia (and Laos), but the only "debate & discussion" which occurred before we launched our own incursion was within the White House and Pentagon.
These are just two examples: I can produce more (and even bloodier ones) if you'd like me to do so. In general, beware of nostalgia. The past wasn't as nice a place as you imagine.
Reply
As Paladyn said, we've forgotten "how to play the game."
In the past, that oh so nostalgic past which you feel the need to educate me about, (really? Wikipedia? SRSLY?) there would be political channels used, ambassadors asked to leave a country, or recalled, etc. You know, "the game."
You would do well to not be a complete ass to people you've never met. You might find that they're not so different from you... Just less of an ass.
Reply
Just because you don't like Wikipedia doesn't magically make these events un-happen. If you like, I could find you other sources for them: the two examples I mentioned were ones of which I was aware before I ever went online, I learned about one in the 1980's and the other in the early 1990's. And as I mentioned, I could show you many more examples.
As for your argument about "political channels" and "ambassadors," this did not happen in either case. The American authorities simply treated the blacks as "the enemy" in Tulsa 1921, and America neither obtained permission from Cambodia nor made even an informal declaration to Cambodia (afaik) in the Vietnam War.
If you think that I'm "being a complete ass" to you by simply pointing out that you are wrong and giving examples to support my claim, then your problem is with reasoned discussion and debate, not with me in particular.
Reply
Good day.
Reply
ROFLMAO, bub.
Reply
Leave a comment