Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.

Bottom line


The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .

A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.

Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .

---

You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.

The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.

Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.

Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.

And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.

Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.

Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn

---

Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.

With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.

---

You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.

---

See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….

---

1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.

I never specifically blamed Biden.

Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.

2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out

---

Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.

---

I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.

---

Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.

---

Not at all.

Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.

I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.

What specifically have I backtracked on?

---

I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.

The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.

Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.

---

Well maybe I was mistaken about some posters views but I don't think Sam is "sucking Putin's thing"

You can dislike US foreign policy and DC insiders without being on team Putin

I feel like the "you love Putin" charge is mean to shut down debate far more than it's an accurate assessment of anyone's views

---

And you would be wrong again. Any American that believes that Russia's invasion of Ukraine falls within the just war criteria is exactly what I described.

Stop defending horrid conduct.

---

No one has said Putin's actions in Ukraine fall under the Christian doctrine of Just war.

---

I am saying that, FTR. Otherwise I agree with your post.

---

lol well I stand corrected.

I should then say that most of us are not making that argument

---

Never said or suggested anyone other than Sam has made the argument. While Kai's silence is disappointing, I don't think he is making this argument either. Just a bunch of whataboutism out of him.

Now hopefully you see why the Putin shill comments are warranted. Anyone who could defend this despot's actions in Ukraine (among other areas) is not a Christian, much less a person with any semblance of a moral compass. The idea that Christ would be ok with Putin's decision to invade and kill others is a demonic distortion of his teachings. There is no other way to describe it.

---

You might want to kind of try to understand JWT before passing judgment, but maybe that's just me.

---

As always, the offer stands for you to make an argument for the following well-settled JW criteria: 1) Ukraine posed an imminent threat to innocent life; and 2) Russia exhausted all other alternatives.

You must suck as a lawyer, BTW. I should have steered you a different direction when you asked my advice about going to law school all those years ago.

---

Says the guy who doesn't know what negotiation means. Do all your clients automatically get their way or else start slinging bombs?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.

Bottom line


The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .

A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.

Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .

---

You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.

The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.

Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.

Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.

And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.

Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.

Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn

---

Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.

With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.

---

You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.

---

See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….

---

1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.

I never specifically blamed Biden.

Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.

2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out

---

Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.

---

I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.

---

Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.

---

Not at all.

Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.

I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.

What specifically have I backtracked on?

---

I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.

The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.

Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.

---

Well maybe I was mistaken about some posters views but I don't think Sam is "sucking Putin's thing"

You can dislike US foreign policy and DC insiders without being on team Putin

I feel like the "you love Putin" charge is mean to shut down debate far more than it's an accurate assessment of anyone's views

---

And you would be wrong again. Any American that believes that Russia's invasion of Ukraine falls within the just war criteria is exactly what I described.

Stop defending horrid conduct.

---

No one has said Putin's actions in Ukraine fall under the Christian doctrine of Just war.

---

I am saying that, FTR. Otherwise I agree with your post.

---

Redbear-

See? I agree, it's incredible, but this is the immoral POS you're defending.

---

I think that if you really understood what we're doing in Ukraine, you would find it extremely immoral. We have utterly destroyed that country for the sake of economic and geopolitical advantage while lying to them about the chances of success in the war. Reasonable chance of success is another factor in evaluating a just war, by the way.

---

Speaking of lying.

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.

Bottom line


The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .

A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.

Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .

---

You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.

The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.

Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.

Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.

And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.

Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.

Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn

---

Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.

With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.

---

You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.

---

See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….

---

1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.

I never specifically blamed Biden.

Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.

2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out

---

Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.

---

I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.

---

Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.

---

Not at all.

Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.

I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.

What specifically have I backtracked on?

---

I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.

The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.

Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.

---

Well maybe I was mistaken about some posters views but I don't think Sam is "sucking Putin's thing"

You can dislike US foreign policy and DC insiders without being on team Putin

I feel like the "you love Putin" charge is mean to shut down debate far more than it's an accurate assessment of anyone's views

---

And you would be wrong again. Any American that believes that Russia's invasion of Ukraine falls within the just war criteria is exactly what I described.

Stop defending horrid conduct.

---

No one has said Putin's actions in Ukraine fall under the Christian doctrine of Just war.

---

I am saying that, FTR. Otherwise I agree with your post.

---

Redbear-

See? I agree, it's incredible, but this is the immoral POS you're defending.

---

I think that if you really understood what we're doing in Ukraine, you would find it extremely immoral. We have utterly destroyed that country for the sake of economic and geopolitical advantage while lying to them about the chances of success in the war. Reasonable chance of success is another factor in evaluating a just war, by the way.

---

LOL. If I really understood as you... Sure thing, bub.

I've repeatedly said we could have done more to prevent it, and that we shouldn't be intervening. But ok.

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

I've found you all right, but I'm not impressed. Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood. But I understand why you prefer vague and conclusory allegations.

It's what you do.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood.

---

I really wish that we could. Most people on this board can at least follow a train of thought and separate one issue from another. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it just doesn't seem possible with you. I don't know what else to say.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood.

---

I really wish that we could. Most people on this board can at least follow a train of thought and separate one issue from another. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it just doesn't seem possible with you. I don't know what else to say.

---

In other words, instead of defending your position, you would rather engage in obfuscation and accuse the other party of misunderstandings.

Exactly what anyone who has experience debating you would have expected. It's why you have such trouble winning people to your positions, and have difficulty making cogent arguments. You tuck tail and run when someone calls out your bull*****

Let me know if you grow a backbone.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood.

---

I really wish that we could. Most people on this board can at least follow a train of thought and separate one issue from another. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it just doesn't seem possible with you. I don't know what else to say.

---

In other words, instead of defending your position, you would rather engage in obfuscation and accuse the other party of misunderstandings.

Exactly what anyone who has experience debating you would have expected. It's why you have such trouble winning people to your positions, and have difficulty making cogent arguments. You tuck tail and run when someone calls out your bull*****

Let me know if you grow a backbone.

---

It's not my back that you've broken, it's my patience. Let me know if you learn to read.

Realitybites said:

---

Just because someone recognizes that Putin is an effective Russian leader who loves HIS country doesn't mean anything more than that. Don't you wish that we had a President who cared as much about America as Putin does about Russia?

---

Or even one who would sit down and answer questions in a rational, informative way, whether one agrees with him or not? American media can't even seem to process such a thing.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Just because someone recognizes that Putin is an effective Russian leader who loves HIS country doesn't mean anything more than that. Don't you wish that we had a President who cared as much about America as Putin does about Russia?

---

Or even one who would sit down and answer questions in a rational, informative way

---

LMAO. The vatnik circle jerk continues.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood.

---

I really wish that we could. Most people on this board can at least follow a train of thought and separate one issue from another. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it just doesn't seem possible with you. I don't know what else to say.

---

In other words, instead of defending your position, you would rather engage in obfuscation and accuse the other party of misunderstandings.

Exactly what anyone who has experience debating you would have expected. It's why you have such trouble winning people to your positions, and have difficulty making cogent arguments. You tuck tail and run when someone calls out your bull*****

Let me know if you grow a backbone.

---

It's not my back that you've broken, it's my patience. Let me know if you learn to read.

---

No, it was most assuredly your back. And damage to your massive ego aside, it wasn't even that difficult, given your inability to support basic elements of the JWT.

As a reminder, despite repeated promises, you've offered no evidence to support a claim that 1) Ukraine posed an imminent threat to innocent life; and 2) Russia exhausted all other alternatives.

Let me know if you work up the "patience" to support your positions. I know how frustrated you get when asked to do so.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

We get it, you bought into the US bad, Russia good myth. Shill.

---

Life and history are too complicated to try and pigeonhole countries into categories like this.

---

Exactly

Is the United States less murderous than most.....probably.


But don't try to sell this narrative to much of the rest of the world.


Especially those countries we still hit with air strikes, missil launches and drone attacks.

---

Amiright?

---

No, of course not.


You are determined to ignore my point and since you are a bright guy it's not as if you don't understand it.

Last attempt here , then please declare yourself the 'winner'.

Putin is a murderous killer.

However In his view, and the view of the majority of Russians, Putin is doing what's necessary to secure their country from a Ukrainian based nuclear attack. As such missile launches from so close a range would leave Russia almost zero response time.


In much of the worlds view the United States is just as guilty of killing civilians in other countries as Putin.

Which is why the US gets so little cooperation at the United Nations compared to 50 years ago. One can almost see the rolling of the eyes when our UN ambassador condemns violence in other parts of the world.

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

We get it, you bought into the US bad, Russia good myth. Shill.

---

Life and history are too complicated to try and pigeonhole countries into categories like this.

---

Exactly

Is the United States less murderous than most.....probably.


But don't try to sell this narrative to much of the rest of the world.


Especially those countries we still hit with air strikes, missil launches and drone attacks.

---

Amiright?

---

No, of course not.


You are determined to ignore my point and since you are a bright guy it's not as if you don't understand it.

Last attempt here , then please declare yourself the 'winner'.

Putin is a murderous killer.

However In his view, and the view of the majority of Russians, Putin is doing what's necessary to secure their country from a Ukrainian based nuclear attack. As such missile launches from so close a range would leave Russia almost zero response time.


In much of the worlds view the United States is just as guilty of killing civilians in other countries as Putin.

Which is why the US gets so little cooperation at the United Nations compared to 50 years ago. One can almost see the rolling of the eyes when our UN ambassador condemns violence in other parts of the world.

---

Thanks. Relieved to hear your thoughts on Putin. You seem able to recognize what poor Sam cannot.

Now with respect to this invasion, do you believe it was justified under Christian principles and the JWT, as Sam does? Among other things, did Biden's rhetoric pose an imminent threat to innocent Russian lives and did Russia exhaust all other options prior to invading?

As for what Russians believe, you'd have found a number of Germans who agreed with Hitler's actions. Doesn't make those views reasonable, much less does it excuse the war.

With respect to the UN, while again I don't disagree we've committed lots of bad actions in our foreign policy over the years, notice that the countries that oppose us are for the most part run by despots and dictators - countries that don't recognize or adhere to western freedom and democracy. That should speak volumes.

The invasion of Ukraine was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Iraq was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Grenada was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Mexico was justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasions of Canada were justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasion of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Panama were justified in geopolitical terms.


No war or threat of war is justifiable under Christian principles.

KaiBear said:

---

The invasion of Ukraine was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Iraq was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Grenada was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Mexico was justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasions of Canada were justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasion of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Panama were justified in geopolitical terms.

---

Thanks, but unfortunately I am not sure that answers my question, as I am not sure what you mean by "geopolitical" terms. Feel free to expand on that, but my question was from a Christian, JWT analysis.

See my previous questions. Among other things, did Biden's rhetoric pose an imminent threat to innocent Russian lives and did Russia exhaust all other options prior to invading?

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The invasion of Ukraine was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Iraq was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Grenada was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Mexico was justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasions of Canada were justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasion of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Panama were justified in geopolitical terms.

---

Thanks, but unfortunately I am not sure that answers my question, as I am not sure what you mean by "geopolitical" terms. Feel free to expand on that, but my question was from a Christian, JWT analysis.

See my previous questions. Among other things, did Biden's rhetoric pose an imminent threat to innocent Russian lives and did Russia exhaust all other options prior to invading?

---

I updated my previous post regarding Christian principles.

Geopolitical ( to me ) defines a country acting out in their perceived economic and or strategic best interest .

In my view, and certainly in Russia's view , years of talk was not preventing what certainly appeared to be Ukraine's inevitable admission into NATO.

Biden absolutely miscalculated even with 200,000 Russian troops along the border.

Putin absolutely underestimated Ukrainian courage, fighting skills and collective MEMORY of past abuses at the hands of previous Russian and Soviet regimes.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.

And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.

---

That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.

---

So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.

Only in America, folks.

---

Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.

---

Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.

All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.

Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.

---

Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.

---

If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.

---

Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.

---

Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.

---

I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?

---

You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.

---

You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.

You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.

---

Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.

---

You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.

---

Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.

---

In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.

---

Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.

---

The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.

---

You have no point or grasp of reality. Only a cowardly narrative of anti-Americanism built around revisionist guilt. Devoid of facts and only a warped perspective, it's no wonder you claim truths as lies.

---

With all due respect, I don't think an apologist for the mass murder of innocent civilians is in a position to call anyone else cowardly.

---

With all due respect, anyone calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder isn't dealing in reality.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood.

---

I really wish that we could. Most people on this board can at least follow a train of thought and separate one issue from another. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it just doesn't seem possible with you. I don't know what else to say.

---

In other words, instead of defending your position, you would rather engage in obfuscation and accuse the other party of misunderstandings.

Exactly what anyone who has experience debating you would have expected. It's why you have such trouble winning people to your positions, and have difficulty making cogent arguments. You tuck tail and run when someone calls out your bull*****

Let me know if you grow a backbone.

---

It's not my back that you've broken, it's my patience. Let me know if you learn to read.

---

As a reminder, despite repeated promises, you've offered no evidence to support a claim that 1) Ukraine posed an imminent threat to innocent life; and 2) Russia exhausted all other alternatives.

---

As a reminder, I've never claimed that Ukraine was an imminent threat to lives within the borders of Russia proper. Obviously they were more than just a threat to the Donbas, and I do think they left Putin without alternatives.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.

And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.

---

That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.

---

So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.

Only in America, folks.

---

Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.

---

Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.

All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.

Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.

---

Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.

---

If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.

---

Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.

---

Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.

---

I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?

---

You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.

---

You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.

You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.

---

Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.

---

You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.

---

Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.

---

In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.

---

Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.

---

The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.

---

You have no point or grasp of reality. Only a cowardly narrative of anti-Americanism built around revisionist guilt. Devoid of facts and only a warped perspective, it's no wonder you claim truths as lies.

---

With all due respect, I don't think an apologist for the mass murder of innocent civilians is in a position to call anyone else cowardly.

---

With all due respect, anyone calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder isn't dealing in reality.

---

Dealing in your type of "reality" still carries a stiff penalty in Texas. Granted that some counties might look the other way if it's just for personal use…but I'm not taking any chances.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.

And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.

---

That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.

---

So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.

Only in America, folks.

---

Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.

---

Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.

All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.

Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.

---

Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.

---

If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.

---

Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.

---

Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.

---

I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?

---

You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.

---

You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.

You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.

---

Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.

---

You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.

---

Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.

---

In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.

---

Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.

---

The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.

---

You have no point or grasp of reality. Only a cowardly narrative of anti-Americanism built around revisionist guilt. Devoid of facts and only a warped perspective, it's no wonder you claim truths as lies.

---

With all due respect, I don't think an apologist for the mass murder of innocent civilians is in a position to call anyone else cowardly.

---

With all due respect, anyone calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder isn't dealing in reality.

---

Say WHAT ?

For the sake of my Father serving off the coast of Japan in 1945 I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.

For the sake of hundreds of thousands of US Marines I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.


But to much of the rest of the world the US certainly had other options.. To drop the first Bomb as a demonstration offshore , a naval blockade that would have ended the war within 90 days , a negotiated settlement which in part guaranteed the continued status of the Emperor.



To much of the rest of the world the Bomb droppings were an unnecessary slaughter of 300,000 Japanese. The vast majority of whom were old men, women and children.

To much of the rest of the world the use of the Atomic bombs were racist . That white Americans might have been slightly less anxious to drop such horrific weapons on Germans, Bulgarians or Italians.

Guess all these millions throughout the world aren't dealing with reality .


Lucky us .

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.

And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.

---

That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.

---

So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.

Only in America, folks.

---

Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.

---

Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.

All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.

Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.

---

Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.

---

If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.

---

Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.

---

Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.

---

I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?

---

You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.

---

You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.

You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.

---

Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.

---

You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.

---

Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.

---

In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.

---

Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.

---

The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.

---

You have no point or grasp of reality. Only a cowardly narrative of anti-Americanism built around revisionist guilt. Devoid of facts and only a warped perspective, it's no wonder you claim truths as lies.

---

With all due respect, I don't think an apologist for the mass murder of innocent civilians is in a position to call anyone else cowardly.

---

With all due respect, anyone calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder isn't dealing in reality.

---

Say WHAT ?

For the sake of my Father serving off the coast of Japan in 1945 I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.

For the sake of hundreds of thousands of US Marines I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.


But to much of the rest of the world the US certainly had other options.. To drop the first Bomb as a demonstration offshore , a naval blockade that would have ended the war within 90 days , a negotiated settlement which in part guaranteed the continued status of the Emperor.



To much of the rest of the world the Bomb droppings were an unnecessary slaughter of 300,000 Japanese. The vast majority of whom were old men, women and children.

To much of the rest of the world the use of the Atomic bombs were racist . That white American might have been slightly less anxious to drop such horrific weapons on Germans, Bulgarians or Italians.

Guess all these millions throughout the world aren't dealing with reality .


Lucky us .

---

ATL is not seeing the same reality that the rest of the world does. Even some of the men who flew the fire-bombing missions hated what they were doing. The majority were probably okay with it, I don't deny that. But many reasonable people considered it to be a crime even then.

I will add that when I say many considered it a crime, I include even those who directed it. Contra ATL, this is not "revisionism." It's historical fact.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood.

---

I really wish that we could. Most people on this board can at least follow a train of thought and separate one issue from another. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it just doesn't seem possible with you. I don't know what else to say.

---

In other words, instead of defending your position, you would rather engage in obfuscation and accuse the other party of misunderstandings.

Exactly what anyone who has experience debating you would have expected. It's why you have such trouble winning people to your positions, and have difficulty making cogent arguments. You tuck tail and run when someone calls out your bull*****

Let me know if you grow a backbone.

---

It's not my back that you've broken, it's my patience. Let me know if you learn to read.

---

As a reminder, despite repeated promises, you've offered no evidence to support a claim that 1) Ukraine posed an imminent threat to innocent life; and 2) Russia exhausted all other alternatives.

---

As a reminder, I've never claimed that Ukraine was an imminent threat to lives within the borders of Russia proper. Obviously they were more than just a threat to the Donbas, and I do think they left Putin without alternatives.

---

Are you saying that Putin is justified in invading and trying to overthrow the Ukraine govt. because of fighting that has been ongoing since 2014 in areas of Ukraine that Russia has tried to incorporate?

If so, man is that a weak argument. Ukraine posed no imminent threat of death to Russians, and nothing has changed in the skirmishes that have been ongoing since 2014 in the Donbas area of Ukraine to justify the recent invasion.

Some, though not many, of the scientists and staff connected to the Manhattan Project did not want the Bomb used on the Japanese. At least not without dropping the first one somewhere off shore as a demonstration.

Though in fairness few if any of these individuals had experienced the prolonged horror of fighting an enemy who
fought to the death; rather than surrender.

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The invasion of Ukraine was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Iraq was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Grenada was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Mexico was justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasions of Canada were justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasion of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Panama were justified in geopolitical terms.

---

Thanks, but unfortunately I am not sure that answers my question, as I am not sure what you mean by "geopolitical" terms. Feel free to expand on that, but my question was from a Christian, JWT analysis.

See my previous questions. Among other things, did Biden's rhetoric pose an imminent threat to innocent Russian lives and did Russia exhaust all other options prior to invading?

---

I updated my previous post regarding Christian principles.

Geopolitical ( to me ) defines a country acting out in their perceived economic and or strategic best interest .

In my view, and certainly in Russia's view , years of talk was not preventing what certainly appeared to be Ukraine's inevitable admission into NATO.

Biden absolutely miscalculated even with 200,000 Russian troops along the border.

Putin absolutely underestimated Ukrainian courage, fighting skills and collective MEMORY of past abuses at the hands of previous Russian and Soviet regimes.

---

You seem to be forgetting that it was only after Russia's attack on Ukraine in 2014 that talk of Ukraine joining NATO heated up. And of course, Ukraine was a first hand witness to Russia's invasion of Georgia and shelling of Chechnya that helped contribute to Ukraine looking westward.

In short, Russia is largely responsible for pushing the former Soviet bloc toward Europe and NATO. But of course, you guys want to look at the NATO talk in a vacuum.

I also asked you whether you believed Russia's invasion was just under the JWT. Thoughts?

Quote:

---

You're on team Jesus, but don't have a problem with a killer like Putin invading other countries, squelching political dissent and killing innocent people.

---

Multiple people have tried explaining to the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd that the war in Ukraine didn't magically erupt one morning like some geopolitical volcano after Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed. Yet supporters of this war seems to wilfully ignore the slaughter of unarmed civilians by the Ukranian Armed Forces that continued for years before the Russian military finally moved in to stop it.

But just as a reminder for those who are more concerned with truth and justice than Lockheed's share price, here is the backstory.

Ukraine on Fire

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

You're on team Jesus, but don't have a problem with a killer like Putin invading other countries, squelching political dissent and killing innocent people.

---

Multiple people have tried explaining to the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd that the war in Ukraine didn't magically erupt one morning like some geopolitical volcano after Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed and that the Ukrainians aren't the innocent people you portray them to be. Yet supporters of this war seems to wilfully ignore the slaughter of unarmed civilians by the Ukranian Armed Forces that continued for years before the Russian military finally moved in to stop it.

---

Nothing to ignore when it's straight-up RU propaganda you are crapping out. And the RU military was already there in force in 2014.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

You're on team Jesus, but don't have a problem with a killer like Putin invading other countries, squelching political dissent and killing innocent people.

---

Multiple people have tried explaining to the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd that the war in Ukraine didn't magically erupt one morning like some geopolitical volcano after Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed. Yet supporters of this war seems to wilfully ignore the slaughter of unarmed civilians by the Ukranian Armed Forces that continued for years before the Russian military finally moved in to stop it.

But just as a reminder for those who are more concerned with truth and justice than Lockheed's share price, here is the backstory.

Ukraine on Fire

---

A recognized propaganda piece. Par for the course.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The invasion of Ukraine was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Iraq was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Grenada was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Mexico was justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasions of Canada were justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasion of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Panama were justified in geopolitical terms.

---

Thanks, but unfortunately I am not sure that answers my question, as I am not sure what you mean by "geopolitical" terms. Feel free to expand on that, but my question was from a Christian, JWT analysis.

See my previous questions. Among other things, did Biden's rhetoric pose an imminent threat to innocent Russian lives and did Russia exhaust all other options prior to invading?

---

I updated my previous post regarding Christian principles.

Geopolitical ( to me ) defines a country acting out in their perceived economic and or strategic best interest .

In my view, and certainly in Russia's view , years of talk was not preventing what certainly appeared to be Ukraine's inevitable admission into NATO.

Biden absolutely miscalculated even with 200,000 Russian troops along the border.

Putin absolutely underestimated Ukrainian courage, fighting skills and collective MEMORY of past abuses at the hands of previous Russian and Soviet regimes.

---

You seem to be forgetting that it was only after Russia's attack on Ukraine in 2014 that talk of Ukraine joining NATO heated up. And of course, Ukraine was a first hand witness to Russia's invasion of Georgia and shelling of Chechnya that helped contribute to Ukraine looking westward.

In short, Russia is largely responsible for pushing the former Soviet bloc toward Europe and NATO. But of course, you guys want to look at the NATO talk in a vacuum.

I also asked you whether you believed Russia's invasion was just under the JWT. Thoughts?

---

Looked back at several posts and still have no idea what JWT represents.


All I can tell you is Russia evaluated the situation and thought they had little choice but to invade.

From the Ukrainian perspective the invasion is evil and horrific.


Both sides are correct .

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

You're on team Jesus, but don't have a problem with a killer like Putin invading other countries, squelching political dissent and killing innocent people.

---

Multiple people have tried explaining to the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd that the war in Ukraine didn't magically erupt one morning like some geopolitical volcano after Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed. Yet supporters of this war seems to wilfully ignore the slaughter of unarmed civilians by the Ukranian Armed Forces that continued for years before the Russian military finally moved in to stop it.

But just as a reminder for those who are more concerned with truth and justice than Lockheed's share price, here is the backstory.

Ukraine on Fire

---

You seem to be a fan of strawmen. This has been repeatedly pointed out to the pro Putin crowd, nobody here has said that US actions did not contribute to the invasion. The problem is you guys want to disproportionately blame the US for its minor role while ignoring the numerous instances of Russian bad acts and aggression that contributed to the invasion, as well as the fact that it was Putin, who pulled the trigger, and chose bloodshed over diplomacy

By the way, it is funny to me that the best form of proof you have ever Ukrainians, killing civilians is a pro Russian documentary, produced by Oliver stone, and funded by russians. Oy vey.