What Is the Government? - Why We Need a New Outlook
- Print print this page
- Discuss 54 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
This story begins years ago in my AP U.S. History class at Pinecrest.
My class was learning about the Second World War, and we reached the topic of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Heated debate was par for the course in this class, so inevitably an argument erupted over whether those bombings were justified.
The class was evenly divided and quite passionate, and few minds were changed, so we agreed to disagree.
Something struck me about that debate, however, that transformed my outlook. Every student, proponent or opponent, described the bombing possessively. "We bombed Hiroshima," said even the most ardent pacifist.
This struck me as odd. No one in the room had any role in the bombing of Hiroshima. I certainly did not make that decision, and would not have done so, so why should I use language implying that I had?
The experience got me thinking: Why do we refer to everything the government does as "ours"? The language is everywhere: "our" national debt, "our" military budget, "our" entitlement programs. This extends even to government initiatives that the public dislikes. The Iraq War, for example, is judged a failure by the majority of Americans, yet it is still universally referred to as "our" war in Iraq.
The government, it would seem, is us.
This notion is, of course, absurd. The government is just another institution within society; it is no more "us" than any business or nonprofit.
Some may argue that the government was clearly designed to be an instrument of the people. Does the Constitution not begin with the words "we the people"? Is the concept of a republic not based around the notion that the people are sovereign?
Certainly the United States government appropriates the language of popular sovereignty, but this is true of virtually all modern governments, no matter how autocratic. China's government is officially the "People's Republic of China." Is the government of China thus the Chinese people? Surely a government does not represent the people simply because it claims to do so.
But unlike China, some will say, the United States government IS a republic. Americans vote their leaders into office. Does this not make the government their institution?
It is true that the masses elect the government, but the same is ultimately true of all other institutions in society. After all, the people "elect" Walmart by choosing to shop there, and indirectly choose who sits on the Walmart board of directors. (If people stop shopping at Walmart, it's only a matter of time before the shareholders clean house.) Does that make Walmart us?
Indeed, the government is arguably less democratic than other institutions. If a charity doesn't do what the people want it to do, no one will donate to it. If a business doesn't pay attention to what consumers want, it will promptly go bankrupt. But if the government fails to do what the people expect? The politicians who made the decisions may be voted out years later, only to be replaced by politicians from the other party who behave in much the same way.
The government is not the populist institution it claims to be. This is not an anarchist argument; one can accept this while still believing that government is necessary. The state might well serve an irreplaceable function in society, but there should be no illusions about what it is. Necessary or not, it is not "us."
This fallacy that the government is "us" has seriously impaired our ability to check that government's growth. The public seems to be aware of the dangers of runaway government, and polls show that most Americans want cuts in military and entitlement spending, yet no one seems willing to take action.
If we are ever to solve these problems, we must move beyond protest and actively deny the government the means to carry out its absurd plans.
A tax strike, whereby the public refuses to pay taxes en masse until the government changes course, is in order. But how can we starve the beast if we all still believe it's "our" beast?
The government is not "us." We will never make progress unless we understand that.
Andrew Soboeiro is a rising sophomore at UNC-Chapel Hill and a graduate of Pinecrest High School. Contact him at andrew@ thepilot.com.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
jimt 11 months ago
What total b.s. The writer, when you chip away all the fluff and platitudes, is simply "f I don't get my way I'm taking my ball on going home..." I might expect that from an eight year-old. Or, taking a somewhat more adult rephrasing: If the government does things "I" don't like, and does things people who "agree with me" don't like, we should rise up in rebellion, which is what a tax strike would be in legal terms.
Such views, which seem to be increasing among the low informed and undereducated, challenge the fundamental basis of all democracies, not just America's.
This is why the Republican's in general, and the tea party's, in particular, demonization of taxes and government are so dangerous. They not only challenge the premise of our government institutions, they would make goverance utterly impossible. We are doomed as a country if this kind of logic permeates into a minjority opinion.
Pinecrest AP teacher, in at least one case, you did a lousy job when you got to the intellectual basis for the revolution, the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, and the underlying principals of the Constitution.
fatboy 11 months ago
Just try not paying your taxes, and see how powerful the government really is. The only effective way to control government is term limits.
PaleRider 11 months ago
There's a document that starts with, "We the People....."
pgericson 11 months ago
@jimt.... don't necessarily blame the teacher. As the author points out, everyone in the class used the word 'we' in discussing a government action. The author was the outlier in this case. I agree with you in the main: the argument should be focused on urging people to take responsibility for the outcome of their choices at the polls. Government takes on a life of its own when the people cease to hold representatives individually accountable for their actions. For a democracy to function effectively, citizens must make the effort to stay abreast of what government is or is not doing, let their representatives know how they feel. Although I don't agree with them necessarily, I don't have a problem with citizens who seek a reduced tax burden and smaller government. Their right to disparage government is at the essence of a democracy. My concern lies with those -often holding vastly different views of the role of government- who sit on the sidelines rather than balance the passion of the Tea Party activists with their own passion for maintaining government's current role in society.
Iam 11 months ago
What a brilliant piece, Andrew. It is a wonderful world we are moving into as you and others in your generation begin to make the changes that too many of us old folks can’t or won’t make. Lead us forward young man!
jimt 11 months ago
And as far as I know, the Government is staffed by people who are part of "...the people." The author contends that the Government has become an institution that is inherently at odds with the beliefs, objectives, and preferred policies of "...the people." In short, it no longer serves the "national interest." To which I ask, what is the "national interest," and what are the objectives and policies of" the people", and how should those policies be implemented by the Government in a fashion such that there is a broad consensus that they are being implemented in accord with the vast majority of "the people"? Answer that and you may win the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest accolade vested upon a private citizen.
Madison, among others, anticipated that different "factions" would emerge over time, and that national leaders would develop policies/laws that represented some kind of middle ground between the objectives and ideology of said "factions." The writer asserts that government is no longer "our" government because it is no longer acting in "the national interest," and no longer "represents" "the people." Stated differently, he believes that there is "the people," and "the government" and government is acting against the preferred interests of "the people," making it inherently illegitimate to the point that "the people" should refuse to pay their income taxes anymore. If there is an undeniable consensus among "the people" with regard to the "national interest" and how the national interest should be advanced by laws and administrative policies I hope he will enlighten me with the content of said interest and the do's and don'ts of how it should be implemented. Botten Line: I think his fundamental premise is not only wrong, it's absurd and a recipe for disaster.
Pgericson, you are absolutely correct. But I still, in part, blame the teacher because he/she presumably gave a high grade to an individual who doesn't understand the fundamental premise of how our Government is "of the people by the people, and for the people". I also think it is ironic that the author is attending an Ivy League quality university funded by "the people," at a fraction of the cost of an actual Ivy League school, and who, in their wisdom, deliberately chose to create such a school using their tax dollars and then turned the actual administration of the school over to "government bureaucrats."
If we've gotten to the point where the citizens of the United States think of their Government as a separate, self-sustaining entity apart from and acting against "the people" we are doomed. He is essentially arguing that the theory of "nullification", the right of a state, a county, a city, to simply refuse to comply with laws and administrative requirements of the Federal Government is a valid way of responding to Federal actions they oppose. That is Constitutionally wrong and would lead to chaos.
The_AnonymusProfit 11 months ago
Tax strike ey? I wonder if anyone here understands the difference between liberty and tyranny.
skylinefirepest 11 months ago
So I am led to believe that JimT is good with an administration that is fighting a very hard war on it's citizens and wants to take from the well off to give to the not so well off! Even though said leader and his wife are members of the "1%". Strange. As I've said several times before I think the people would agree to a modest FAIR tax adjustment if it went to the abolishment of this incredible debt we are staggering under. But government has never been trustworthy with the use of OUR money and would simply spend any increase maybe giving it to China to study prostitution or some such crapola!! After all, that is the spending record of our government...give it to countries that hate us to try and buy a little friendship!
Thatcher 11 months ago
Great column, Andrew! And jimt, Andrew's post shows we are not doomed. There are many young folks (and older folks, like me) who understand that a government can't give away "free stuff," and that spending twice the amount it take in in taxes is unsustainable..."and would lead to chaos." You know this, right?
AndrewSoboeiro 11 months ago
@jimt: No, that’s not what I’m arguing at all. I didn’t say that the government “has become” an institution that is not of the people; I said that governments are ipso facto not of the people. The most democratic government in the world is still less responsive to the population than any business, trade union, or non-profit, because those institutions actually rely upon the voluntary support of the rest of society. Wal-Mart will promptly go out of business if the people decide they don’t like it; the same does not hold true of Congress.
And I never once said that there is some “national interest” that can be defined and implemented; don't put words in my mouth.
As far as your claim that I don’t understand the principles of American government, I’d like to think that between the history and PoliSci classes I’ve taken in high school and college, my reading of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Federalist Papers, and the debates that I regularly have with “Constitutionalists,” I have a reasonably good understanding of those principles. It’s not that I don’t understand those principles; it’s that I don’t buy them. That’s the case I make in this article; it’s not that the framers didn’t want a government that was “of the people,” but rather that such a thing is not, and has never been, a reality.
As for your point that I benefit from government services, read the article again: “One can accept this while still believing that government is necessary. The state might well serve an irreplaceable function in society, but there should be no illusions about what it is. Necessary or not, it is not ‘us.’”
Thatcher 11 months ago
Well said, Andrew. You'll find that folks like jimt post and then disappear, because they have no response, Keep up the good work!
pgericson 11 months ago
@Andrew Since we are stuck with having a government, I would think the smart thing to do would be to make it more like us through active participation in the process rather than standing on sidelines and complaining that it is not us. Wouldn't this be a preferred response?.
jimt 11 months ago
With regard to your belief that you have, "... a reasonably good understanding of [government] principles," please tell us where the Framer's, those fools, got it wrong? Obviously they thought government could be responsive to the people since in their view the government would be, as Lincoln phrased it four score and seven years later, "of the people..."
And if government simply cannot, by its very nature be, "...of the people,” becasue if the people don't like it it still won't go out of business, as I gather you implicitly believe it should, tell us how you'd manage the running of the Country. Andrew, how would you like government to become more responsive to "the people?" Provide us please, concrete proposals not broadly states goals or vague objectives. For example, every time a government agency drafts a regulation in keeping with a piece of legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, should that draft regulation be placed on line for public comment? And after the comment time, should the regulation then be voted on by "the people," at home via their computer? That's the kind of specificity I want from you.
It saddens me more than you'll ever know that someone who is as obviously bright as you are, has already grown so cynical about our Government that you question the very principals on which our Government was founded, and has operated, with more successess that I think you give it credit for, a Country which has been more successful than most, by any definition of "success" you care to apply.
My generation in college and grad school (late 60's - early 70's) was very idealistic. We thought government could be an actor for good. I guess Watergate changed that, and the culmination of that change is the anger and distrust that results in the absurd philosophy, if you can call it that, of the so-called Tea Party and their representatives in Congress; people who I doubt have even the understanding of the role of government and its institutions that you have.
Maybe, on consideration, we should delay this debate for a while. Maybe, after you graduate with "distinction," in Political Science ("distinction," in this case, means you got straight A's in your major and an A on your senior thesis) and a Minor in 17th - 19th Century U.S. History, a Master's in Government (with a distinction on your 264 page Master's thesis, "distinction" in this case meaning your Faculty Thesis Advisor reads it an goes, "damn I wish I'd written that!") from an elite school, not Hillsdale College, I mean a real University, and work on Capitol Hill for a couple of years, we can continue the discussion.
Thatcher, you of all people should know that I don't post and then disappear.
AndrewSoboeiro 11 months ago
@pgericson: I hardly see how trying to understand the government, and publishing my conclusions, qualifies as "standing on sidelines and complaining." Yes, we need to take action to fix the problems that exist, but at some point we have to understand what it is we're fighting against and what the alternative is.
At any rate, I do propose one measure (of many) that would make the government vastly more responsive to the population: a tax strike. Such measures have proven quite powerful in history (it was known as the "power of the purse" in colonial times, and made British-appointed governors more populist). But I can't have a tax strike on my own. If I alone refuse to pay taxes, I'll be thrown in prison, and the strike will go nowhere. If, however, a large portion of the public joins me, there's not a thing the government can do short of throwing millions of people in jail (which would hardly solve the budgetary shortfall). But I don't have millions of people who will strike with me right now. Perhaps if I put my views out there, more will join.
jimt 11 months ago
Andrew, beware of what you wish for, because in the future it can be used against you. Just ask Robespierre.
Let's say, just for the sake of argument that you get millions of people to go on a tax strike in protest of whatever it is you are protesting. Then what happens? What happens when millions of people go on a tax strike to protest something they oppose, because it is the exact opposite of what you went on strike for and Government then caved in your favor? Do we just get into a strike vs. strike tit for tat? How does that make the Country better?
Andrew, rather than proposing a tax strike, work to make government better with positive ideas, not threats. Research the life and work of Eve Carson, your late student body president. Learn from her. Strive to lead the kind of life she lead for her much too short life. Do the kind of work she did. Dream the kind of dreams she dreamed for a better, more just society. Watch the tape of her memorial service held in the Dean Smith Arena. Believe me, doing these things will cure for your cynicism and sense of estrangement from government without sapping your hopes and dreams that our Country can be made better.
With that, I now retire from this discussion as I will be away for a week and don't have a laptop. I wish you well.
AndrewSoboeiro 11 months ago
@jimt: The entire point of the column was to explain where I think the framers got it wrong. Government is not "of the people," at least no more than any other institution in society.
"if government simply cannot, by its very nature be, 'of the people'... how would you like government to become more responsive to 'the people?'"
Again, reread the article: "A tax strike, whereby the public refuses to pay taxes en masse until the government changes course, is in order." And if that fails, go one step further and call a general strike. This isn't some utopian concept; it's worked countless times in history. Much of Europe (notably Belgium) obtained universal suffrage as a result of general strikes; in the Roman Republic, the plebeians gained their rights by refusing to work or even live in the city until the patricians relented. These methods work because they deny the state the means to carry out its agenda.
And if there is tax strike against tax strike, "tit for tat?" So be it. It's the people's money; they shouldn't hand it over to a cause they don't believe in. The experience would generally reduce the size of government, since it would have to be very careful in all its spending to not offend any large groups. I've no objection to this.
I'm no cynic. I believe in building a better world; I just don't think a better world is compatible with a government as powerful as the present one.
"It saddens me more than you'll ever know that someone who is as obviously bright as your are has already grown so cynical about our Government that you question the very principals on which our Government was founded" What are you implying, that "bright" people shouldn't question things? Surely there is no principle so absolute that it should not be scrutinized. I don't buy that government can be "of the people." If you disagree, explain why; don't just impugn me for not agreeing with the framers.
I'm sure you have plenty of education and experience in history and government, and I'm not trying to pass myself off as some omniscient expert on these things. But that does not give you the right to put words in my mouth. Debate me if you are wont to do so, but don't make my position out to be anything other than what it is.
For the record, I am not a supporter of the Tea Party. Occupy Wall Street has some potential; the Tea Party is a joke.
JD 11 months ago
the Tea Party is a joke.
I agree with this.
drefleury 11 months ago
How much could the author be paying in taxes as a sophomore at Chapel Hill? Just wonderin...
drefleury 11 months ago
This is the rhetoric I just heard from Mitt Romney. He said we need to create private institutions to "compete with government." This distorted view is repeated among the ranks of the right... And it leads to people arguing for tax strikes, etc. yikes.
AndrewSoboeiro 11 months ago
I pay sales taxes on everything I buy, and payroll taxes on every cheque I earn. At any rate, it's not a question of the burden on me specifically; it's the principle of the matter.
I'm not a Romney supporter; he's even more of a joke! His idea of private institutions "competing" with the government is banks and big businesses subsisting on government handouts. Don't conflate libertarianism with the Republican Party; they've nothing in common.
came_home 11 months ago
A tax strike would do more harm than good. At this point, a time when government, especially our state legislature, has enough functional problems to begin with (take the faults present in the budget the NC Senate just passed, for example), depriving it of much of its funding would only worsen already-detrimental cuts to areas like public education. However temporary the tax strike may be, a blow would still be dealt. I agree that the system needs fixing, but it is reparable, and an attempt to partially paralyze the government isn't going to help that process.
I'd be curious to hear how you think the public education that you benefit from should be funded, were this tax strike to happen. Surely education is not one of these "absurd plans" that the government is carrying out?
Most college students don't have a great deal of taxable income. I wouldn't use an argument like this (advocating a tax strike) until you yourself have a steady income and pay legitimate taxes. Right now it seems as though you are calling for millions to take an action and champion a cause in which you won't be actively participating, at least not for a few years.
moonchild7 11 months ago
Gee Andrew, are you sure you're getting your "money's worth" there in Chapel Hill? It seems you haven't been reading the right books or having any relevant life experiences. Here's a little bit of the Founding Manifesto of Students For A Democratic Society(1962): "We seek the establishment of a democracy of individual participation governed by two central aims: That the individual share in those social decisions determining the quality and direction of his life; that society be organized to encourage independence in men and provide the media for their common participation." You definately need to read Tom Haden's(essentially) PORT HURON STATEMENT. You also need to read THE STRAWBERRY STATEMENT, THE ESSENTIAL GHANDI, MLK's "I HAVE A DREAM" speech, Jack Newfield's, A PROPHETIC MINORITY and James Millers' DEMOCRACY IS IN THE STREETS. My favorite though is SISTERHOOD IS POWERFUL(1970) since it changed my life. Did you forget Andrew, how the people in the streets during the sixites put their lives on the line and how some lost their lives DEMANDING their CIVIL RIGHTS and an END to an UNJUST WAR? Why are people forgetting what my generation did? It was just too remarkable wasn't it? Not paying taxes? Oh, like the RICH want to be able to do (and are doing)? That's Lame and destructive ultimately. The Government is US but it's now being bought out from under the 99%er's by the Corporations and the Rich. You should be letting all of your Congress-persons know how you feel and if they don't do their job (like those obstructionists the TEAPOTTERS) they must be VOTED out.............Or else Andrew HIT THE STREETS like I did. I will admit though, The Military Industrial Complex is BIGGER and STRONGER than ever and that's not good. That's why the CONSPIRACY THEORISTS say that 9/11 was a CIA Operation, to keep the MIC going. Who know's anymore?
The_AnonymusProfit 11 months ago
@ Author Andrew @ Chapel Hill
Andrew, I am very glad that you took the time to write in to the pilot with your letter. Who did you have your history classes at Pinecrest with? 2 teachers at PHS I credit with the formation of political understandings and my views on history, those teachers were Mr Carter, and Mr Butler, I took ELPSA, and AP US history with Carter, and US Military History and AP European History with Mr Bulter. I also took World History with Ms Harding who was a wonderful teacher if not somewhat of a clutz outside the class room.
I can neither say weather I agree or disagree with your points. I need a better understanding of what you think of our government. I would love to talk with you sometime when your on break. In the mean time. Please continue submitting your letters and comments here. It is always good to hear from students.
As to all the people responding to Andrew. Why not instead of critisizing a student..Ask questions, he is obviously willing to answer them. Maybe then you could get a better understanding of what he thinks. And if you disagree with him that's fine. But in the end he has just as much right to his opinions as moon child unfortunately does.
PS Andrew, Pay absolutly no attention to anything moonchild7 says, she is mentally unstable and probably a danger to herself.
The_AnonymusProfit 11 months ago
Also Andrew, a web site you might enjoy perusing.
www.USAVSUS.info
Thatcher 11 months ago
jimt (17 hours, 33 min. ago)-- You are correct, and I owe you an apology. You are one of the few liberals on this site who does not run from your comments, or responses thereto. While I often disagree with you, our back-and-forth has largely remained civil. Thank you for that. And unlike most liberals here, your comments are well thought out and insightful (as opposed to childish insults). Again, my apologies. Cheers!
The_AnonymusProfit 11 months ago
@ moonchild, And you are an authority on what the right books are? You get more delusional with each passing day.
skylinefirepest 11 months ago
Hey Thatcher...don't go giving JimT too much praise for his comments....just check a few of the comments he has made to me in the last few months. Yes he is a Liberal...No he is not opposed to calling names!
Thatcher 11 months ago
skylinefirepest-- I saw many of those posts. But everyone deserves a chance at redemption, and he has done much better recently. I actually like reading his posts...liberal yes, but more substantive than most liberal posts. To me, I'd rather debate ideas than trade insults. And I think jimt realizes he has more intellectual firepower than 99% of the liberals here, and that once he stops with personal attacks (or, in fairness to him, responding to personal attacks), he will be more persuasive. Cheers! (Love your posts, by the way!).
jimt 11 months ago
Someone tell pest that I an discerning about who, or what, I call a pest. pest is a pest and I treat it accordingly.
Thatcher 11 months ago
jimt-- I certainly don't know all of the history between you and skylinefirepest. Seems like alot of bad blood back and forth. Maybe this would be a great time to bury the hatchet...for both of you. You both are way too smart to get caught up in personal attacks. Cheers!
jimt 11 months ago
Is it a personal attack to call a fool a fool? An ignoramus an ignoramus? A liar a liar?
I thought the right appreciated "straight talk" that isn't all PC.
Thatcher 11 months ago
jimt-- I'm not a PC guy, and I like straight talk. Yes, it appears that I remain the Ned Flanders on this site. So be it. To me, there is no reason why you guys can't put the past behind you. Please give it some thought.
Thatcher 11 months ago
Posted this before, but it seems appropriate here again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qcLy8.... Cheers!
Bentpan 11 months ago
Sorry Mr. Soboeiro you're wrong, our Government IS "We the People" and like us, it's occasionaly selfcentered, foolish and outright stupid but it, like us, generaly tries to do the right thing, has made brave and wise choices, has proven itself frequently generous. As someone once said its a terrible way to run a country but it's also better than all the other options. So no The government is not just another institution within society, it gets tweaked and defined every 2 years evolving to reflect the people it serves.....So if you don't mind I'll see the founders as the gifted wise men they were and give a sophomore at UNC-Chapel Hill who believes the occupy movement has merit ( BTW how many legislators has this movement put into office as opposed to the TEA party) and The TEA party is a joke, the attention he deserves, perhaps common sense is reserved as an elective in unc senior year curriculum. You're not on the Football team are you? That would explain a lot.
moonchild7 11 months ago
Profitman, I just gave Andrew a few "suggestions" of books he might want to read that he possible NEVER heard of before, That might give him some "insight" into things. Haven't you ever read a book that someone suggested? College professors do it all the time yet some of their suggestions aren't necessarily good ones. I read the Strawberry Statement in 1970 as a Junior in HS. It was a little less daunting than college text books but was a great personal account of what happened. I also saw the movie which was terrible, don't watch the movie(music was good though). I'm going to send this to my son (a Pinecrest Graduate) to see if he has any "ideas" or "opinions" for Andrew. Although he's been quite busy; in fact he called me yesterday, at lunchtime, from Times Square NYC where he and other Supervisors were doing some "Street and Building Analysis" for possible future projects. So he might have nothing to say.
skylinefirepest 11 months ago
JimmyT....Once again I'll give you the opportunity to bury the hatchet! Just be so kind as to tell me when and if you think that I'm lying. I can substantiate everything that I say so I'm not going to let you get away with that. Otherwise you're just another loonie liberal name caller that can't back up what you post. If you want to be taken seriously then you have to produce more than what you've been doing. Typical of the left when you can't respond you resort to name calling and your past history is proof!
RmeMP 11 months ago
Mr Soboeiro,
While I mean no disrespect in my following comments, I personally feel you are a very smart young man who's bright mind is being wasted on leftist views. You want to know why "we" bombed Japan? We bombed Japan out of the lack of respect they showed us as a nation when they cowardly bombed Pearl Harbor; when they did that, we as AMERICANS were hurt physically and emotionally - so we payed it back ten fold.
You see, back then Americans were a very pridefull people. We didn't refer to the government - we referred to being an American. Our government isn't the problem, the quality of the elected officials are the problem. With American values declining with each generation, is it any wonder what a crack pot government we have in Washington?
Sadly, you don't see the great American spirit anymore - and as a veteran, that hurts me.
The_AnonymusProfit 11 months ago
No moon, you told andrew he was reading the wrong books. Meaning that you know what the "right" books are. See I understand and grasp the English language, something you have proven time and time again not to.
See moon the problem with written word is there is a record. For instance JimHeim will now always be known as the guy whos opinion is worthless because he has done no original research.
But moon let me recommend a book to you. Its called Mien kampf. I think it sums up your ideas and beliefs quite nicely.
Bentpan 11 months ago
RmeMP 22 minutes ago
We bombed Japan out of the lack of respect they showed us as a nation when they cowardly bombed Pearl Harbor....................................Hate to disagree with you RmeMP While I'm sure that was an added bonus, but our main reason for dropping "the BOMB" twice on Japan was that it was estimated that a landing on the home islands would cost up to 250,000 american lives and probably at least twice that in Japanese lives. It was in fact the humane thing to do and as the son of a pacific theater vet, I personaly am gratefull President Truman made that call. Also if memory serves we attempted to get the Leaders of Japan to cease hostilities the previous month( july 1945) in talks at Potsdam, so as to avoid using this terrible weapon.
RmeMP 11 months ago
Since were talking books, I have a great one to add, "The Art of War".
Bentpan 11 months ago
RmeMP SHHHH Moonchilds already at war with us , with Sun Tzu's help she might actually figure out how to be effective.
RmeMP 11 months ago
Bentpan, while I respect your decision to disagree with me - I must now disagree with you (lol). Your reasoning may have been the politicians public reasoning behind the bombs, I believe president Truman was going for the "OMG" factor - and it worked. Look how long it took for someone to suckerpunch the USA again...
If we would have done to Afghanistan, what we did to Japan, the Taliban and radical Islam would not be the problem that it is today.
Bentpan 11 months ago
RmeMP "If we would have done to Afghanistan, what we did to Japan, the Taliban and radical Islam would not be the problem that it is today."
Of that we most definitely agree, I told many the purpose of war is the same as a street fight, either to bend someone else to your will or to punish for trangressions, in either case you kick their ass and go home, providing your purpose isn't to take tribute. and ours never is, so why when it has failed time and time again are we doing the winning of hearts and minds. And since I'm on a rant anyhow, is it my imagination of were we kicked out of Iraq ( make no mistake I'm glad we finally left, just looks bad to win the war and be told to get out by those you put into power)
Nezumi 11 months ago
Bentpan, I actually think it looks good (from a global perspective) that we respected the wishes of a government we made an effort to help construct to represent the will of the people; further, we adhered to the agreement to withdraw forces signed some years ago. The true democratic nature of that government, and the issue of leaving Iraq with the regional influence of Iran in the ascent is another discussion.
The_AnonymusProfit 11 months ago
There are many reasoning's behind the dropping of the A bomb, one that i certainly ascribe to is that we had a new weapon, and we needed a place to use it.
Bentpan 11 months ago
Nezumi , You are of course correct to a degree, it just doesn't "feel" that way, especially when our reason to leave is predicated on Iraq threatening arrest of American troops for what sounds like "War crimes" to me thats highly disrespectfull, but having said that more power to them and since they are an oil rich country, I trust their government no longer needs our financial support either. Tongue in cheek, as if our government ever tires of attempting to buy alliances, rather than making them earn ours.
moonchild7 11 months ago
I've read "The Art of War" RmeMP and Bentpan. Can't you tell? I also read "Mien Kamph" in my SOC 310 "Social Ethics" class Profitman. I told Andrew about a few books to read so he can STOP being SO CONFUSED about WAR, POLITICS, GOVERNMENT, DISSENT, FREEDOM, LIBERTY, TAXES and PROTESTS. So yes Profitman, I told him he was reading the WRONG books because he's just too confused to be a Sophmore at UNC. My son sent me an email in response to Andrew. He only had a few extra minutes at lunch and here's what he told me to tell him: "My response to Andrew is for him to participate, define "society" and to recall these words...."We the People of the United States, In order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure Domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America." He also told me he himself needs to read a couple of the books I recommended. He had so much "Hands On" experience at home with my "Socialist Beliefs and Experiences", he just never felt the need to read anything else about those times but now he does.
The_AnonymusProfit 11 months ago
You know what moon, you should not be recommending books. Your a looney toon. And i dont care about your son or what he thinks until he creates a name and starts posting. As far as i know yohr son is just anotber pink elephant in a long list of figments that inhabit your mind.
RmeMP 11 months ago
This is just my opinion as a veteran, but what do I know...
MY belief, is that we should have the most trained, and best equipped military in the world. We should leave the UN and keep our nose to ourselves; HOWEVER, if we are ever attacked, we should unleash our military to unleash Hades on our enemy. NO reporters, NO public pictures or video and very few rules. Our military should be able to absolutely destroy our enemy by whatever means needed and then come home, and be welcomed come with open arms. We should scare our enemy and inflict so much god awful pain and suffering that they would NEVER think about attacking us again.
But I know people like moonbeam would never be able to accept that.
Thatcher 11 months ago
RmeMP-- Great post! And you are correct!
moonchild7 11 months ago
You're a very sad person Profitman. Not "tuned" into very much either. My son has posted here a few times but just couldn't get into it this afternoon and asked me to "relay" to Andrew his opinion. We are trying to get our "schedules" somewhat matched up so I can visit with him in a few weeks. RmeMP, we no longer DESTROY the ENEMY as you say we should when it comes to WARZ. They have a lot of STRANGE "RULES" now and they go ON and ON and ON and ON. We defeated the TALIBAN in a couple of months yet we're still in Afghanistan over 10 yrs later. We killed Bin Laden last year and we are still in Afghanistan. We went to war with IRAQ who had done NOTHING to us. Now I could be wrong about this and the "ATOM BOMB", but besides the fact that we were the only ones with one, we had to SHOW the WORLD and let that WORLD "Get the DRIFT" that we were going to DROP it on Japan to let everyone know that while we could DROP them all over the WORLD and totally DESTROY it, instead we would make an "example" of Japan and KILL many of their citizens, in order to "SAVE" countless others thru-out the world. It's sorta the "Lesser of two evils" argument. America would "sacrifice" those in Japan so we don't have to "sacrifice" MILLIONS in EUROPE. Sorta a Zero-Sum Game. Why do we still have troops in Germany RmeMP? Didn't we DESTROY them?.....And then BUILD THEM BACK? What kinda WAR Strategy is that?
The_AnonymusProfit 11 months ago
Rmp great post. Total war. Its the best way to go. Moon child the only thing sad here is that if in deed you do have a child, that you are able to indoctrinate that poor child who doesnt understand that his mom is a nut job.
skylinefirepest 11 months ago
And once again, Thatcher, when I confront the JimmyT voice of reason and ask for proof of lying, etc., there is nothing forthcoming. As I said before, I can substantiate what I say and apparently JimmyT cannot.
Thatcher 11 months ago
skyline-- You are correct. But you and jimt have a long history here. And I can understand the bad blood. Maybe he will reconsider his posts. Cheers!
jimt 11 months ago
Here are some very recent posts by pest. Note that he maintains that he can substantiate what he says.
"Thatcher, when I confront the JimmyT voice of reason and ask for proof of lying, etc., there is nothing forthcoming. As I said before, I can substantiate what I say and apparently JimmyT cannot.
“I find it amazing that the Democrats would charge a woman with murder if she killed a day old baby but smile and say it's her "right" to kill that same baby within minutes of birth!” That is a lie. Substantiate your claim.
“We have an administration that has lied at each step of the way, while spending five trillion new dollars of our money and trying to blame Bush for it, while talking trash about our country to foreign countries…” The assertion that Obama or any other official of the Administration has talked trash about the U.S. to foreign countries,” is a lie. Substantiate your claim.
“Unfortunately this administration has decided that Muslim studies are far more to his liking than exploration of Space.” That is a lie. Substantiate your claim.
“Jimmy, how about the "New" party???? Or hasn't the major media bothered to let the public know about that yet? Oabammie is ( or was ) a card carrying member and that spells SOCIALIST.” That is a lie. Substantiate your claim.
“JimT....I must admit, much as I hate to, that you really do make a good argument for abortion!!!” That is a lie. Substantiate your claim.
“Hey dude...just one comment to start the good argument...FIVE TRILLION dollars of OUR money in just over three years!!! Blame that on Bush?? Yeah, Right!! Lowered our credit rating? Spent more than our GDP? The claim that Obama’s Administration has “spent more than our GDP,” is a lie. Substantiate your claim.
“A liberal Republican beats Obama and his goal of making the greatest country on the face of the earth into a third world has-been in a heartbeat.” With regard to Obama’s goal, this statement is a lie. Substantiate your claim.
“Your idol has no business experience, has created czars for everything under the sun, has lowered our respect in the world, has killed our economy, has no idea how to produce jobs ( since he's never really held a productive job! ), has lowered our debt rating..” The statement that the Obama Administration “has lowered our respect in the world…” is a lie. The statement that Obama “…lowered our debt rating..” is a lie, substantiate these claims.
This only goes back ONE MONTH. Pest has over 50 pages of comments, these are drawn from the latest four pages. Now remember folks, he claims he can substantiate EVERYTHING he posts. Let’s seem him do so, in each and every instance I’ve noted as being a lie.
Bury the hatchet with someone like him? Not in my lifetime.