Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 27, 2025 01:07
VIEWED: 114591
PAGE 14 of 46

PREV PAGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT PAGE

SECOND

Saturday, May 21, 2016 12:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

I'm probably going to regret this, but...
I predict you won't.

You predict wrong.

In my post to you I posed 3 main questions (and some sub-questions):

1. What specific actions you would put the Allied air commanders on trial for
2. Whether you think the Allied bombing campaigns were broadly morally acceptable, outside of the most egregious raids
3. What you think of the 1943 bombing of Hamburg, and did it constitute a war crime

And in your response you addressed... none of them.

As I say, like arguing with a television set.

I'm not somebody who is trying to look good in the history books.

I don’t care about the morality of WWII. I would not have respected any boundaries about what I was not permitted to do. I would not have cared how many American troops died while targeting the top Nazis or Japanese Generals. I would have bombed the Emperor’s palace. I certainly would not have wasted bombs or planes on women and children. Killing them gets me no closer to winning the war, so why do it other than they are easy targets? They are easy to find, they move slowly, and easy to kill, but you have accomplished nothing by killing them. And as little as I care about fighting a morally admirable war, I certainly would not have lied from 1939 until today about why I killed. I would not have been making Post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments about my morally superior war strategy, like America does. To make that point clearer, America killed millions of German and Japanese civilians, so America came to the wrong conclusion that killing millions of civilians was especially how WWII was won.

Maybe I need to make it even clearer than that. American went on to build thousands of H-bombs, only suitable for killing hundreds of millions of civilians, because America thinks it won WWII by killing millions of civilians. Winning WWIII should be really quick and easy since America was willing and able to kill a hundred times more people than WWII. I must add that along with this nonsense that guided Americans thinking there was also a sensible reason to build thousands of H-bombs: trillions of dollars could be made from the building of H-bombs and their delivery systems of rockets, submarines and long range bombers. Americans may not correctly understand how to win a war, but American business knows how to make trillions of profits.

I goofed by not making the connection between WWII and losing in Vietnam. America came to all the wrong conclusions about how WWII was won and then applied those conclusions to Vietnam. America was bombing South Vietnam! How the hell would that win a war with North Vietnam? And if you have an unsolvable diplomatic problem with the leadership of North Vietnam, you kill that leadership of North Vietnam, not bomb the countryside of your ally. And you certainly do NOT assassinate the President of South Vietnam, like happened during the Vietnam War. That would be as stupid as planning to assassinate Stalin, our WWII ally. Oh, I forgot Republicans were planning to kill Stalin after WWII. Awfully expensive to start a nuclear arms race with a former ally like Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_and_assassination_of_Ngo_Dinh_Die
m

THGRRI

Saturday, May 21, 2016 2:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

I do not wish to go into a protracted opinion about our dropping the bomb except to say, we would have had to land our troops on the shores of a country that believed its emperor was a god. The number of American dead could have exceeded two hundred and fifty thousand. I would add that their treatment of others who had fallen victim to them was to say the least, abominable.

The second bomb was dropped because the first did not bring them to the table. After the second bomb was dropped it still took more than two weeks for them to surrender. Russia declared war against Japan at this time, and it is believed it was because they feared the Russians more than us that they surrendered.
That's a nice story that appeals to Americans' vanity, but it is not true. On 9 May 1945 (Moscow time), Germany surrendered, meaning that if the Soviets were to honour the Yalta agreement, they would need to enter war with Japan by 9 August 1945. The Japanese were caught completely by surprise when the Soviets declared war an hour before midnight on 8 August 1945, and invaded simultaneously on three fronts just after midnight on 9 August. The Russians waited until the last day so that Japan would run low on fuel, food and ammo. Japan did as predicted, using up its fuel, food and ammo.

The million Russians rolled up the Japanese Army like it was a carpet. Americans were too afraid to invade and, to justify being chickens keeping as far away from Japan as possible and only lobbing bombs at it, the Americans gave grossly inflated predictions about American deaths. Fortunately for America, Russians didn’t believe the American predictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29

As I said, the Japanese were more afraid of Russia than it was of the United States. Japan was witnessing for three months now the difference in treatment of Germans and Jews at the hands of Russia, as opposed to the United States. Also, The commencement of the Russian invasion you speak of fell between the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9, and was not on Japan itself. Some also suggest it does not appear Stalin was overly impressed with the atomic bomb's potential. Not so much as to think it might compel a nation as averse to surrender as Japan, into an earlier capitulation.

I stand by what I posted. The fact that you suggest these facts are a nice story and appeals to Americas vanity suggests a bias on your part in interpreting the facts. You like many others need to research the Japanese psyche before you judge. Remember, they were about to defend their god. Remember the suicide bomber, it started there with planes and what I remember being called bonsai attacks that sent thousands of Japanese at a time to their deaths.

SECOND

Saturday, May 21, 2016 5:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

I stand by what I posted. The fact that you suggest these facts are a nice story and appeals to Americas vanity suggests a bias on your part in interpreting the facts. You like many others need to research the Japanese psyche before you judge. Remember, they were about to defend their god. Remember the suicide bomber, it started there with planes and what I remember being called bonsai attacks that sent thousands of Japanese at a time to their deaths.

My bias is that I dislike historical reference material written by liars.

While you’re claiming the high moral ground, I claim you’re standing on a hill of dung. Less metaphorically, a hill of lies and misinterpretations and missing information. Here is one little story about how war is truly fought by people who are incompetent at the art of war.

Morley Safer wrote a newspaper column about a visit to Saigon by Arthur Sylvester, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs — i.e., the head of all the U.S. military’s PR.

Sylvester said, “Look, If You Think Any American Official Is Going To Tell You The Truth, Then You're Stupid.”

Sylvester didn’t stop there, saying, “I can’t understand how you fellows can write what you do while American boys are dying out here,” he began. Then he went on to the effect that American correspondents had a patriotic duty to disseminate only information that made the United States look good.

A network television correspondent said, “Surely, Arthur, you don’t expect the American press to be the handmaidens of government.”

“That’s exactly what I expect,” came the reply.

The Pentagon hated having these words and much more accurately printed in the newspaper. “Unless you get Safer out of there, he’s liable to end up with a bullet in his back,” said the Pentagon to Safer’s boss. With high quality people like this in the Pentagon, it is easy to see how America has gotten its ass beaten in war after war.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/20/pentagon-official-once-told-morley
-safer-that-reporters-who-believe-the-government-are-stupid/

I don't find it one tiny bit surprising that the US Army Air Force killed civilians to impress Emperor Hirohito under the assumption he cared what happened to Hiroshima despite him not caring at all about anything but himself and his glorious lineage being pissed on by the Russians.

If you want to win a war with a country like Japan, start killing the people at the top of the hierarchy, not the bottom, because you have to kill millions before those on the top notice the loss of those on the bottom. During the war, America should have had more Operation Vengeance and less fire bombing of houses made of paper and wood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vengeance

There is a fascinating article today about how we’re really good at forgetting all the terrible things we’ve done. It is not about War.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/20/were-really-good-at-for
getting-all-the-terrible-things-weve-done/

THGRRI

Saturday, May 21, 2016 5:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

I stand by what I posted. The fact that you suggest these facts are a nice story and appeals to Americas vanity suggests a bias on your part in interpreting the facts. You like many others need to research the Japanese psyche before you judge. Remember, they were about to defend their god. Remember the suicide bomber, it started there with planes and what I remember being called bonsai attacks that sent thousands of Japanese at a time to their deaths.
My bias is that I dislike historical reference material written by liars.

While you’re claiming the high moral ground, I claim you’re standing on a hill of dung. Less metaphorically, a hill of lies and misinterpretations and missing information. Here is one little story about how war is truly fought by people who are incompetent at the art of war.

Morley Safer wrote a newspaper column about a visit to Saigon by Arthur Sylvester, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs — i.e., the head of all the U.S. military’s PR.

Sylvester said, “Look, If You Think Any American Official Is Going To Tell You The Truth, Then You're Stupid.”

Sylvester didn’t stop there, saying, “I can’t understand how you fellows can write what you do while American boys are dying out here,” he began. Then he went on to the effect that American correspondents had a patriotic duty to disseminate only information that made the United States look good.

A network television correspondent said, “Surely, Arthur, you don’t expect the American press to be the handmaidens of government.”

“That’s exactly what I expect,” came the reply.

The Pentagon hated having these words and much more accurately printed in the newspaper. “Unless you get Safer out of there, he’s liable to end up with a bullet in his back,” said the Pentagon to Safer’s boss. With high quality people like this in the Pentagon, it is easy to see how America has gotten its ass beaten in war after war.

And I don't find it one tiny bit surprising that the US Army Air Force killed civilians to impress Emperor Hirohito under the assumption he cared what happened to Hiroshima despite him not caring at all about anything but himself and his glorious lineage being pissed on by the Russians.

If you want to win a war with place organized on Japanese lines, start killing the people at the top of the hierarchy, not the bottom, because you have to kill millions since the top cares nothing about those on the bottom.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/20/pentagon-official-once-told-morley
-safer-that-reporters-who-believe-the-government-are-stupid/

There is a fascinating article today about how we’re really good at forgetting all the terrible things we’ve done. It is not about War.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/20/were-really-good-at-for
getting-all-the-terrible-things-weve-done/

First of all I never claimed the moral highroad, just that your bias is showing. Secondly, you quote one person as though he represented the definitive truth. End of discussion. I was in the army during Vietnam and can tell you. The truth is always subjective and twisted by the interpretations of who is telling it. It has always been up to the reader to check the facts against the so called other set of facts. Then to use some common sense in coming to his or her own conclusions. We would never have seen the anti war protests to the degree we did, if the truth was not getting out.

As for the emperor of Japan. He was against the war and his military acted out against his wishes. He was powerless against his own military regime. He humbled himself greatly after the war in order the save the lives of his countrymen. You post in black and white terms on this topic. Nothing about this affair was black or white.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 21, 2016 9:38 AM

Quote:
Pansie.- THIRDSTOOGE

troll- SIGNY

It's not a hard question and it IS about the topic, and no, it's not that personal. I have no idea who you are IRL. -ONEOFTHETHREE

Why does it matter who I am IRL? Aren't we here to discuss "real world events", not each other? Either there is evidence supporting an interpretation of an event, or there isn't. Or do you prefer just to gossip and backbite? -SIGNY

It matters that I DON'T know who you are - it means you can drop the pretense and be honest. Or at least it should. But instead, you go out of your way to be fraudulent. Take this for example - very much on topic - you rail against banks but you use them all the same.

The way this works, THIRDSTOOGE, is that if I said I used cash you would have said I was "rich", and if I said I took out a loan you would have said I "took money from banks". It was a no-win, disingenuous question. Since you're not being honest with me, why should I be honest with you. Troll.

Quote:
So which is it?

Yes indeed.

Quote:
Would you have taken speaking money from GSachs if offered? Of course you would. Would you be better off as president to be in conflict with banks, or have a professional and even good understanding and relationship with them? Besides Health Care and Defense, it is one of the most critical structures any nation has. But go ahead, be a hypocrite. It only underscores how faulty your logic is and few people agree with your observations. Maybe you should observe that?

A lot of assumptions again, as usual.

Quote:
Just so we're clear I was referring to Sig's repeated use of the word "Oligarch." As far as I am concerned, when haven't the very wealthiest not had more influence over our government? That just seems obvious. I certainly don't need a Princeton study to tell me that.

Not "more". Nearly all.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

1KIKI

Saturday, May 21, 2016 11:22 AM

"I also love how anti-Clintonites (pro-Trumps) try and smear her by saying she is a Hawk."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-
a-hawk.html

One very long article that definitively portrays Hillary the Hawk - but fails completely and without exception to explain why her bent to confrontation under every circumstance would turn out well. That would take analysis of each situation, and the actors and movement, and a laying out of the potential outcomes ... which it doesn't do at all.

So Hillary is a Hawk. I get that. What I don't get is why that's supposed to be so good.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Saturday, May 21, 2016 11:28 AM

"Are you sure you're not a Republican politician?'

Are you sure you're not insane, ONEOFTHETHREESTOOGES?

According to you, Signy is a paid Russian troll in love with Putin, and a republican politician. Do you know how NUTS you have to be to believe both of those - and may I point it out, completely incompatible - ideas, at the same time?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Saturday, May 21, 2016 11:41 AM

" It is how the left-wing defeats the Democrats and Republicans win.'

They're not the 'left-wing'. And your attempt to portray nearly HALF the democratic party as if they are somehow an outside 'other' is dishonest in the extreme. These are REGISTERED DEMOCRATS. People who've asked the question 'are you better off than you were eight years ago?' and answered NO. These are REGISTERED DEMOCRATS who are looking to THEIR OWN PARTY to represent THEM - what a concept!

But honestly, you've sunk about as low as geezer in your pretenses at being reasonable and discerning. You've straw-manned every one of my posts, ignored the facts you couldn't dispute, and now you're engaging in that well-known tactic from the McCarthy era - red-baiting. It's people like YOU in your slavish emulation of Hillary, Debbie and Roberta, who are giving the 'democratic' party it's bad reputation, by your refusal to even consider that your fellow democrats and equally worthy citizens as yourself should be represented.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 21, 2016 6:49 PM

Quote:

The way this works, THIRDSTOOGE, is that if I said I used cash you would have said I was "rich", and if I said I took out a loan you would have said I "took money from banks". It was a no-win, disingenuous question. Since you're not being honest with me, why should I be honest with you. Troll. - SIGNY

Here we go again... nice try. Your honest answer would force you to admit your lie. - THRIDSTOOGE

WHAT "lie"? There is literally NO ANSWER I could give that you wouldn't use against me. Therefore, I refuse to answer.

The rest of your post is just more irrationality and hate, the only relevant part is this ...

Quote:
Just so we're clear I was referring to Sig's repeated use of the word "Oligarch." As far as I am concerned, when haven't the very wealthiest not had more influence over our government? That just seems obvious. I certainly don't need a Princeton study to tell me that.- THIRDSTOOGE

Not "more". Nearly all.- SIGNY

Meh.- THIRDSTOOGE

Because you love being ruled by oligarchs so much you don't care whether you are? Is that why you keep defending Hillary?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 21, 2016 7:39 PM

Clinton fury with Sanders grows

Quote:
Fury against Bernie Sanders is growing in Clinton World.

In public, Hillary Clinton's aides and allies have kept their anger checked, decrying the rowdy outbursts at Nevada’s state convention last weekend but saying they believe Sanders will ultimately do the right thing by helping to unite the Democratic Party.

Behind the scenes, however, they are seething that statements by the Vermont senator are just making matters worse by further alienating his supporters from Clinton, the front-runner for the party's presidential nomination.

The continued combat on the left is also complicating Clinton’s efforts to fully turn her attention to presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, who is reveling in the Democratic feuding.

“This is the worst-case scenario and the one people feared the most,” said one Clinton ally and former Clinton aide.

“Unfortunately, he’s choosing the path of burning down the house,” the ally said. “He continues with character attacks against Hillary. He continues with calling the Democratic Party corrupt, and he not only risks damaging Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party but he's currently doing it."

But the Dem Party IS corrupt!

Quote:
Clinton allies say Sanders is only piling on by insisting that Clinton join him for a debate ahead of California's primary on June 7. The debate would be aired on Fox News, a network Clinton supporters see as fanning the flames between Sanders supporters and the former secretary of State.

A second ally said Sanders should stop criticizing the party and the front-runner’s supporters even if he continues to fight for delegates through the six state contests on June 7.

“It’s inappropriate at this point, and I hate to tell him, it’s not helping him in the long run. It’s only hurting her,” the ally said. “The Republican Party has their nominee, and he’s free and clear of his Republican opponents and is taking shots at Hillary. We need to move closer to that process, and he’s not helping."

So Sanders refuses to say "YAY TEAM!" I guess the Dem Central Committee expects "representing the public" to give way to the tribalism that makes up so much of party politics.

Quote:
In an interview on CNN Thursday, Clinton projected extreme confidence that she will be her party’s nominee.

True

Quote:
The remarks could be read as a signal to Sanders that he should get real with his supporters about his chances of winning the nomination.

“I will be the nominee for my party, Chris,” the former first lady told CNN's Chris Cuomo. “That is already done in effect. There is no way I won't be.”

She added that Sanders “has to do his part to unify the party.”

Why? Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He's been elected as an Independent since forever. So what does he owe The Party? This Party sounds like some version of the Soviet Central Committee.

Quote:
“He said the other day that he'll do everything possible to defeat Donald Trump. He said he'd work seven days a week. I take him at his word,” Clinton said. “I think the threat that Donald Trump poses is so dramatic to our country, to our democracy and our economy that I certainly expect Sen. Sanders to do what he said he would.”

This from the person who has done her best to support Muslim extremists?

Quote:
Clinton currently leads Sanders by 274 pledged delegates, according to The Associated Press’s totals. Including superdelegates, the party officials who have their own votes in the contest, Clinton is 760 delegates ahead of Sanders and just 90 total delegates away from the 2,383 needed to clinch the party's presidential nomination.

Sanders has argued that he can convince superdelegates to switch their loyalty and that he could cut into Clinton’s lead with pledged delegates by winning California. But Clinton only needs to win 10 percent of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination.

Clinton's comments to CNN triggered a

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME