Replace the constitution :rolleyes:

[Imran Siddiqui]

"There are no moral principles" is itself a moral principle.

Um.. no. A moral principle defines if something is moral or not. Saying there are no moral principles does not make a finding on morality.

In fact, I think a better argument could be made that absolute morality is more inconsistant. After all, both you and Floyd agree that morality is absolute. So who's morality is correct? Your's or Floyd's? WAIT, you have different moralities? If there is absolute morality how is that so?

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Berzerker is essentially correct.

An isolationist nation is not necessarily defenseless. Conscription would certainly not have been necessary for the defense of the US, especially for the USN. In WW2, the USN/Marines were mainly manned by volunteers, for example.

However, such a large navy wouldn't have been necessary, at all. We are postulating a "what if"; ie, WHAT IF Germany/Japan decided to invade the Continental US. But why should they do that? As Berz noted, it would be a logistical and occupational nightmare, even if they DID succeed, which they wouldn't. Neither nation could have supported a large army thousands of miles from home across two major oceans. Not gonna happen.

The navy existing in 1939 was essentially enough to defend the shores of the United States, backed up by ground-based aircraft. If I were in charge, using 20-20 hindsight, I'd scrap the battleships - all of them - in favor of carriers and possibly submarines.

Air power, likewise, isn't a problem. We aren't talking about supplying massive bomber forces overseas, or anything of the sort. We're talking about a large force of interceptor and tactical/naval attack aircraft. Again, conscription is not needed for this, volunteers are more than sufficient. Germany, for example, may have 1 MILLION fighters - but those are patently useless in an invasion of the US. The only fighters/tactical aircraft either the Germans or Japanese would have would be those packed onto carriers - and these are never going to outnumber the land-based aircraft of a major nation that has built up for defense.

Likewise, the Manhatten Project. Conscription isn't necessary for this, by any means. Simply hire enough researchers from universities/find them abroad, as was done historically.

The problem, then, is how to pay for all of this. Remember, we don't need anything NEAR the level of funding of the military during WW2, simply because this is a military geared towards defense, not offense. We're talking about a two-ocean navy, consisting primarily of aircraft carriers, their escorts, and submarines, an air force made up of several thousand fighters and tactical attack aircraft, and a miniscule army. Now, obviously taxation is out, too.

Sava has already given us the solution to this issue. He has implied/stated that US citizens of the time were very patriotic, and very willing to support the government. This being the case, simply fund the military through war bonds, donations, etc. There are probably several other methods that I'm not thinking about, too, that Berzerker can come up with.

So, building a military capable of stopping any German/Japanese invasion force is just not all that difficult, nor does it require 10 million men.

A poor, lame attempt to justify your position... which is, wrong.

Now, a few particular tidbits of stupidity I need to address:

Like your entire position?

They were only enemies when the US made them enemies, and what WW2 vets think doesn't matter. They bought into US propaganda. I don't.

They were enemies because given the chance, they march through our streets and enslave us.

No, society wasn't threatened, nor was there a viable future threat.

So the Nazis were no threat to America. You are an idiot if you believe that.

Really? I thought there were no absolute morals, right? How can a greater good exist, without absolute morals also existing?

This isn't an absolute... DUH... morals are relative to HUMANS. And since we are HUMANS, the greater good is a concept CREATED BY US.

By what or whom?

Social contrat... see John Locke

Just as the leaders of the US manipulated the American people into believing Japanese Americans were a threat.

And a little incident called Pearl Harbor never happened right? Tell that to the Americans who died in the attack.

So? Oh, I see, we can detain innocent people, strip them of their possessions, keep them locked up in tiny rooms, and draft them into defending a society from which they derive no benefit and receive no protection, but we just can't kill them? Why the distinction?

Yes, or they can leave... it's part of living in a society.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Why would an isolationist power not produce weapons to sell to it's allies if not for itself to eventually deter the growing threat?

An isolationist power wouldn't be selling weapons to one side of a conflict (provided it was going to sell weapons to any side) if it wished to remain isolationist.

[Q Classic]

i don't think we need to trash and rewrite the constitution.

it could use some amending, however, but the two big ones currently on the table (flag burning and straight marriage) are ridiculous and deserve to die a bureaucratic death.

i didn't know i could be so cruel.

in any case, i'm almost at the point where i've given up on and resurrection of the original american political ideals, away from all this modern crap that's ruined our country probably beyond the point of no return.

it might be better a few of us just packed up, left, and founded a country elsewhere, separated from the idiots who want to tear everything down.

and that charge is leveled at both sides of the aisle: coulterites and mooreians need not come, you're sure as hell not wanted and you sure as hell will be ****ing deported.

[Dom Pedro II]

Actually, its pretty much an established fact that Roosevelt goaded the Japanese into attacking the US. I mean, the only people who DIDN'T know that we knew were 1) the American people, and 2) the Japanese. And I would bet the Japanese had an inkling...

And you know what? I believe 100% that we knew it was coming (though I don't think we knew how bad it was going to be) and I don't care. I think Roosevelt did the right thing. We HAD to get into that war. There is simply no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Well, maybe some ands...

The term used today for America in the 1930s was intranationalist... not isolationist. You want to see isolationist? Look at Korea in 1880. THAT'S isolationist. The United States just liked to play its own cards and not be held down by any agreements with anyone else.


And also I see all the ingredients for YET another World War II pissing contest........



EDIT: Also, on the earlier matter of secession... I think saying that secession was illegal at the end of a bayonet didn't prove anything. The issue, I think, is still an open one. It was, in fact, the Civil War which was the fire that forged the One Nation. It had never been called a nation beforehand... and yet in the Gettysburg address, Lincoln uses again and again the word he had been careful to avoid previously.

But the issue of secession was never really settled. Because of this one point... according to Lincoln and the Republicans, the Southern states DID NOT secede. They could not have seceded. It was illegal. Fair enough. Then why did the states have to be REadmitted to the Union? If they never left, why would they have to come back in? Never made any sense, no one ever bothered to question it because the gun was to their back, and its never been answered since.

[Japher]

hmmm, just thought I'd point out that today in 1945 that the Atom Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (Aug 6th in Japan). Since I saw WWII being argued. How about taking sometime to observe such a dark day in history?

[Dom Pedro II]

Ummm... but today's August 5th.... ahhh, I see, it was August 6th in Japan... missed that part.

Cool.

[Japher]

Clarification: When it was dropped it was the 5th in the US and the 6th in Japan.

[David Floyd]

A poor, lame attempt to justify your position... which is, wrong.

Tell us why. Astonish us with your intellect.

They were enemies because given the chance, they march through our streets and enslave us.

Hitler didn't want war with the US, and Japan only went to war so that the US wouldn't interfere with her conquests 5000 miles away.

So the Nazis were no threat to America. You are an idiot if you believe that.

Another ad hominem with no substance to back it up

This isn't an absolute... DUH... morals are relative to HUMANS. And since we are HUMANS, the greater good is a concept CREATED BY US.

But saying that the ends justify the means in the name of the greater good is a moral concept.

Social contrat... see John Locke

First of all, don't try to use John Locke to support your position, given that you don't support his major position on rights and the like. Secondly, I don't really care what John Locke says. I'm asking YOU to justify it, not to point to someone else's justification (someone you generally don't even agree with, at that).

And a little incident called Pearl Harbor never happened right? Tell that to the Americans who died in the attack.

What does this have to do with American citizens who happened to be of Japanese descent? Further, many Germans blamed the Jews for the "stab in the back" in WW1, so again, you just created another parallel.

Yes, or they can leave... it's part of living in a society.

I don't recall any of the detainees having the ability to leave. And I want no part of a society that can legally do what it did to those American citizens.

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, David, he IS right about one thing there... he said IF GIVEN THE CHANCE the Germans and Japanese would've been marching through our streets...

Hell, if given the chance, the people of Botswana would be marching through our streets. The distinction is whether or not it'll happen.

And on another note about Japanese detainees, there were MANY Japanese in the United States who were furious of what their country did. In fact, I remember one story of a first-generation Japanese man, elderly at that, who upon finding out about the attack, went into a little room of the house where they had a sort of shrine to the homeland, and he tore the room to pieces.

And as far as Pearl Harbor goes, it was war. The attacked a military target, we did not extend the same curtesy to them when we firebombed Tokyo... If you want to talk about Japanese atrocities, however, take a look at Nangking. That really reflects why we absolutely had to get involved... not for our own sake but for the MILLIONS who were dying around the world...

what was that saying? 90% of the world threatened by 10%? Something to that effect...

[Dom Pedro II]

In fact, I think a better argument could be made that absolute morality is more inconsistant. After all, both you and Floyd agree that morality is absolute. So who's morality is correct? Your's or Floyd's? WAIT, you have different moralities? If there is absolute morality how is that so?

Absolute morality is not inherently inconsistent. Absolute morality does not mean everyone has the same morality... The last part to that equation is that, therefore, both moralities cannot be true.

One must be true and one must be false... or else they are both false. Unless its of the sort where there is no third option.. like "Is there a God/Isn't there a God?"... there's only one possible right answer, it cannot be both, and there can't be a third alternative.

An absolute morality just means that regardless of their opinions, there is a right and wrong that exists beyond them. Whether or not they have it right is something else.

Wow... thank god for Pastor Govantes's class in ethics!

[Sava]

[Dom Pedro II]

don't bang your head against this wall... you wanna take five? Get a drink? Cool off a little bit? I'm being facetious, but only just slightly.....

[David Floyd]

Well, David, he IS right about one thing there... he said IF GIVEN THE CHANCE the Germans and Japanese would've been marching through our streets...

I still don't think this is correct. Neither nation had designs on the US.

[Japher]

That's the great thing about America; no one wants our country because it so full of stupid Americans