Charlottesville: Race and Terror – VICE News

[AUDub 11,153]

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

If they don't want to call mercy, it's their own fault if they have to starve to inexistence.

"They."

"They" were the ones responsible for the plight of their people, Showa and the top brass of the military. "They" would have sat comfortably in the palace while their country crumbled around them, well fed for a time by a populace eager to please their God. Yeah, we dropped the bombs and I'm glad we did in hindsight.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed because those lunatics in charge wouldn't surrender. Yes, the fate of these Japanese civilians was a tragedy. The responsibility for that tragedy rests solely on the fascists that wouldn't ******* surrender. It was their fault their people suffered, whatever course we chose. 

We destroyed their navy and they kept fighting. We destroyed their air forces and they kept fighting. We took back all of the real estate the Japanese had stolen from their unoffending neighbors in their lust for expansion and they kept fighting. They were willing to kill their own women and children rather than see them surrender. We destroyed their ability to attack us, or even defend themselves from our massive conventional aerial bombing campaign. They fought. They fought. They fought they fought they fought.  We destroyed every major city in Japan and they kept fighting. They wouldn't negotiate and they wouldn't even offer to negotiate-

-until we obliterated two of the remaining cities. Showed them that we didn't even need to have an "honorable" fight to obliterate their country. We chose a course that we believed would save American lives and end the war promptly, saving theirs too. I find no fault in that choice decades after the fact, even in the face of all the Monday Morning Quarterbacking that surrounds the issue. 

Quote

Two bombs plus decades long of radiological effects left on the country though. 

And that's a consequence we weren't even aware of, so the idea of applying that regarding moral culpability is laughable. Some of our invasion plan even utilized nukes to clear the beaches ahead of our landing forces.  

Quote

That's like shooting a rabbit with a .50 machine gun. Alternatives could been had. 

Hardly.

Invade? The stock of Purple Hearts made in preparation is still here. Blockade them? Draw out the war, putting our own forces at risk, costing an untold amount of treasure, and killing millions of their citizens to boot. Test one? It's a war, and no army pulls its punches. You hit hard, and you do so unless you're the one that wants to get hit harder.

Any of these options would have extended a war in which thousands were dying everyday, even near the end. The goal in war should be to end it quickly. We did that. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

They" were the ones responsible for the plight of their people, Showa and the top brass of the military.

Well then let them be responsible for their own deaths.

 

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Yeah, we dropped the bombs and I'm glad we did in hindsight

Makes no sense whatsoever. Sounds more like you're trying to convince yourself that you're right.

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

We destroyed their navy and they kept fighting. We destroyed their air forces and they kept fighting. We took back all of the real estate the Japanese had stolen from their unoffending neighbors in their lust for expansion and they kept fighting. They were willing to kill their own women and children rather than see them surrender. We destroyed their ability to attack us, or even defend themselves from our massive conventional aerial bombing campaign. They fought. They fought. They fought they fought they fought.  We destroyed every major city in Japan and they kept fighting. They wouldn't negotiate and they wouldn't even offer to negotiate-

Now you're just complimenting the resolve of the Japanesep. Cut off their food supply, weaken the target, and then attack. Strength from resolve will give way to hunger, which of course, malnourishes the body of and decreases the morale of the troop. Those hungry soldiers would've eventually turned against their own cause. Also,  not only would this be Japan effectively hanging themselves, the radiological effects of hunger and starvation at their own hand wouldn't have lasted decades either. Their major cities wouldn't also necessarily be turned into a parking lot

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

And that's a consequence we weren't even aware of, so the idea of applying that regarding moral culpability is laughable.

Maybe they should look first before they jump? Run some tests? America was the first country to use the weapon of mass distraction. Intentionally aware of it or not, the American country dropped the bomb on the Japs causing massive amounts of deaths and bodily aberrations for years. 

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

We chose a course that we believed would save American lives and end the war promptly, saving theirs too.

Well, hell? Why don't we just stop the formalities of war and just start nuking everybody from the start since you are a "the end justifies the means" guy that is afraid of having casualties despite declaring war on Japan.

[AUApostle 7,651]

7 hours ago, auburnphan said:

There are usually several indicators including their flags, clothing and volume of noice.  They make their presence known.

There was a photo circulating early on showing 3 white buses that folks claimed brought Antifa...was that ever verified?

[AUbritt 611]

@Bigbens42, thanks for posting all the links to various accounts regarding antifa. I'm learning a lot.

I'll probably end up on some terror watch list for visiting Slate, though.

Here's hoping more Republicans come to their senses before that.

[Strychnine 1,802]

5 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

@Bigbens42, thanks for posting all the links to various accounts regarding antifa. I'm learning a lot.

I'll probably end up on some terror watch list for visiting Slate, though.

Here's hoping more Republicans come to their senses before that.

 

I wish they had spared us all by coming to their senses during the primary.

[auburnphan 6,050]

1 hour ago, AUDevil said:

There was a photo circulating early on showing 3 white buses that folks claimed brought Antifa...was that ever verified?

Not that I read.  

[AUDub 11,153]

 

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

Well then let them be responsible for their own deaths.

The fascists were responsible for the death of their citizens either way. You cut out a very salient point. The effects of a blockade would be much slower to reach them than the effect on their citizenry. They could have held out for quite some time while their citizenry starved around them.

The firebombing campaign also would have continued, and as you said, the death toll there can't be understated.

All of this while they threw away Japanese lives with kamikaze attacks against our blockading ships, putting our soldiers at risk needlessly, and all while spending tremendous amounts of treasure and materiel to maintain a blockade of a very large island nation, which doesn't come cheap.

Quote

Makes no sense whatsoever. Sounds more like you're trying to convince yourself that you're right.

It makes perfect sense. We made the best choice in a list of bad options. The Truman administration was rightly worried about the fact that a million casualties would be too much for the American public and that even without massive public anger or a domestic revolt, his administration would be forced to confront the American public with the news of so many dead and be destroyed by the failure to save American lives while having the possession of a weapon that could end the war quickly.

Quote

Now you're just complimenting the resolve of the Japanesep. Cut off their food supply, weaken the target, and then attack. Strength from resolve will give way to hunger, which of course, malnourishes the body of and decreases the morale of the troop. Those hungry soldiers would've eventually turned against their own cause. Also,  not only would this be Japan effectively hanging themselves, the radiological effects of hunger and starvation at their own hand wouldn't have lasted decades either. Their major cities wouldn't also necessarily be turned into a parking lot

By August, 1945, the supposedly defeated Japanese Empire was costing the United States 900 casualties a day. We had firebombed over 60 cities and destroyed most of their factories, yet they were still fighting back. They now had a few radar guided anti-aircraft guns that were taking a toll of our B-29s and their fighters were still destroying them, even if it meant ramming them. The war was apparently over by our accounts, but not from the Japanese point of view. General Mattis more recently expressed the proper attitude towards the enemy that modern revisionists do not understand: “No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.” And the Japanese wouldn’t say it was over.

Let us digress for a moment to better understand the Japanese leadership's position and attitude and how this affected the course of the war and the attitude of the Japanese people and military.

Gyokusai was a Japanese philosophy has been expressed as, “Better to be a shattered jewel than a roofing tile.” The Gyokusai ideology reached its peak during WWII and was expressed in action, as honorable death in combat was far preferable to living as a prisoner. This philosophy is outside Bushido or any religion and was part of the Japanese psyche applying to soldiers and civilians alike. The Japanese Army regularly chanted the mantra, “Whether I float as a corpse in the waters or sink beneath the grasses of the mountainside I willingly die for the emperor,” and concluded “The life of a warrior is like a cherry blossom which lasts but three days.” There were many slogans but towards the end of the war one of them was, “One plane for one battleship. One boat for one ship. One man for one tank or ten men.” Another slogan to indoctrinate the warrior spirit was, “Duty is weightier than a mountain, but death is lighter than a feather.” An example of this is Kazuo Sakamaki, an ensign in the Japanese Navy who was captured when his submarine ran aground after Pearl Harbor and he requested to be shot or allowed to commit suicide.

The Allies had won the war in Europe and were now turning their power on the Japanese Empire. The determination of the Japanese to literally fight to the last man had been demonstrated on Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and a hundred other battles. It was anticipated that the invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall, would involve up to a million US casualties and incidentally wipe out the Japanese population. Operation Downfall was the combination of Olympic , the invasion of Kyushu scheduled for November 1, 1945, and Coronet , the invasion of Honshu scheduled for March 1, 1946. The Japanese estimates were that 20 million Japanese would die. Diplomatic and military decrypts had shown that the garrison of Kyushu had increased from 150,000 men to 545,000 while all of Japan now had a garrison of over 2,000,000.

The spring and summer of 1945 saw the Japanese planning and preparing for the Ketsu-Go, or the Decisive Battle for the Homeland (https://fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm). All school classes were cancelled which freed up more than 13,000,000 young people for the coming battle. By the summer of 1945, these people were divided into three types: Special guard Forces composed of older men who were assigned to build fortifications and transport supplies. The Independent Companies who were mobilized reservists who were building camouflaged landing strips for kamikaze’s and were trained for combat. And then there were the Civilian Volunteer Corps formed in June 1945, who were everyone else above the age of 15 and who were set to make munitions, food, and making last ditch weapons. The West was fighting against an enemy where even the women and children were being trained and armed with sharpened bamboo poles to kill the Americans. They were instructed to, “always thrust tall Yankees in their belly.” In short, everyone above the age of 15, male or female, was going to be a soldier to defend the Homeland. Around 2 million civilians were part of the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps that were trained for combat even if it was only with sharpened bamboo spears. By August, 1945, the Japanese had accumulated 5,350 airplanes, over 1,000,000 gallons of gasoline and 6,200 fast suicide boats in preparation for the forthcoming American invasion.

This indoctrination and philosophy led to the approval and creation of Operation Kikusui which was the organization of the kamakazi attacks during the American attack on Okinawa. The attacks were called “kikusui” or “floating chrysanthemums.” These are the well known and (in)famous kamikaze attacks where a pilot would dive his aircraft into an American ship. This philosophy also inspired the soldiers to make Banzai charges into machine guns.

These are the people who simply didn’t surrender. They literally jumped off of cliffs to their death before surrender. Look at the statistics that faced the Americans. In 1943, at Buna, New Guinea, out of 14,000 Japanese troops, not one surrendered. In 1943, on Kiska, Alaska, out of 2,500 troops, there were 28 prisoners, some wounded. On Tarawa, out of 3,600 troops, 17 surrendered. On Saipan, there were 32,000 troops, and there were 921 prisoners. On Peleliu, out of 10,900 Japanese soldiers, 19 were captured, along with 183 laborers. On Iwo Jima, there were 21,000 troops, and 216 surrendered. In the Philippines, 56,263 Japanese soldiers were killed, but only 389 surrendered. Just in the battle for Manila, 1,000 US soldiers died, but the entire garrison of 17,000 Japanese soldiers fought and died to the very last man-and over 100,000 civilians were massacred. On Okinawa, graves registration buried 110,701 dead and 7,401 were captured. Simply put, these are not an enemy you can scare. They didn’t scare. They looked Death in the face up close and personal, face-to-face, eyeball-to-eyeball, and didn’t blink. With very, very few exceptions, they simply wouldn’t surrender.

Simply put, what we were up against is lost upon you.

Quote

Maybe they should look first before they jump? Run some tests? America was the first country to use the weapon of mass distraction. Intentionally aware of it or not, the American country dropped the bomb on the Japs causing massive amounts of deaths and bodily aberrations for years. 

This is special pleading. No one knew at the time if the bombs would even work, let alone what the long term consequences would be. Even a decade later, the long-term effects were not understood. In the 1950s, both the United States and the Soviet Union tested bombs in the open air. Both the United States and the Soviet Union put concentrations of troops within a certain distance of the detonation to see what the effects of exposure to the shock wave would be.

I think it is grossly unreasonable to claim some sort of moral turpitude based on something which no one knew would occur. The United States wanted to end the madness, wanted to end the war. Far, far more people, including Japanese civilians, would have died if a conventional invasion or blockade of Japan were carried out. The bombs ended the war, and that was a good thing. The United States ended a war they did not start, and during which the Japanese slaughtered millions of people and visited untold horror on other, offending people, and that was a good thing.

This is just another example of erecting the atomic boogeyman. One does not routinely hear moral outrage at the conventional bombing of Japan (or of England or Germany, or of Poland, or of the Soviet Union, or of China, or of Hawaii etc.). One does not hear outrage about the atrocities committed by the Japanese from 1895 right up until the surrender 50 years later. One only hears this self-righteous moral tone about the use of the atomic bombs. As I've already asked (rhetorically, of course) were the victims of conventional bombing any less dead? Was the horror and the agony any less for the surviving victims of firebombing? (Firebombing which began in Europe, and was "perfected" as a technique there long before it was exported to the far East.)

No, one does not hear any such outrage. The outrage is only for the two atomic attacks. The question of morality only arises from the two atomic attacks. I am genuinely perplexed by this special pleading with regard to the atomic bombs. Those two bombs may have wreaked more damage than nay other two bombs in history, but that means nothing. Would the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki somehow have been better off if they were the target of repeated conventional attacks in the lead up to an invasion of Kyushu? I say no. I further say that a special case is made about the atomic bombs, and that's why I say an atomic boogeyman.

Quote

Well, hell? Why don't we just stop the formalities of war and just start nuking everybody from the start since you are a "the end justifies the means" guy that is afraid of having casualties despite declaring war on Japan.

Because something happened soon after the war.

And with that, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction came to be.

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 minute ago, Bigbens42 said:

The fascists were responsible for the death of their citizens either way. You cut out a very salient point. The effects of a blockade would be much slower to reach them than the effect on their citizenry. They could have held out for quite some time while their citizenry starved around them

There are rules of war for a reason. I'm sorry I can't adjust to your "end justifies the means" twisted argument. If the Japanese wants to starve their innocent citizenry, let them. That's not our problem. We shouldn't have harmed them though save for reasonable occasions where mistakes happen. Again , two wrongs don't make a right. 

We have been over this before. If you want to entertain yourself with this discussion, feel free to read over our last one

[homersapien 11,386]

Nice effort Ben but it's wasted.  

Jeff's clearly not interested in debate - he just wants to"kick ass" and save face.  

Clearly, he's ignorant of the history and doesn't care that he is.  You can't have a rational discussion with such a person.  

[aujeff11 6,243]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Nice effort Ben but it's wasted.  

Jeff's clearly not interested in debate - he just wants to"kick ass" and save face.  

Clearly, he's ignorant of the history and doesn't care.  You can't have a rational discussion with such a person.  

Well good morning to his tag-team partner and fellow pseudo intellectual, too!

[AUDub 11,153]

21 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

There are rules of war for a reason.

There are rules of war that both sides routinely violated, but that doesn't make us equally morally culpable. Run the numbers. Study our respective reasons for the fight. Look at the reasoning behind our choices. We paid evil unto evil, no doubt about that, but there is a matter of degrees you do not see in your ham handed attempt at equivocation. 

21 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

I'm sorry I can't adjust to your "end justifies the means" twisted argument.

That would be the case if I considered the bombs the ultimate evil we could have visited upon them. 

21 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

If the Japanese wants to starve their innocent citizenry, let them. That's not our problem. We shouldn't have harmed them though save for reasonable occasions where mistakes happen. Again , two wrongs don't make a right.

"Two wrongs don't make a right"

By that logic, we should have never entered the war in the first place. War is ultimately evil. War is hell. War is sometimes necessary for the betterment of the world. Our cause was just, even if some of our methods questionable. 

And yes, it was our problem. I'm under no illusion we did what we did to save Japanese lives, but our own people were at risk. Blockades/sieges are messy, ugly affairs. Thousands of our people killed per week. Untold amounts of treasure and materiel. A war weary world. Amphibious invasions crank that up to 11. 

We needed to end the war quickly. We chose a course of action that did that. There is no moral equivalence here, not matter how many times you try to shoehorn one in. 

21 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

We have been over this before. If you want to entertain yourself with this discussion, feel free to read over our last one

And you failed then too, just like you're failing now. 

[AUDub 11,153]

34 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Nice effort Ben but it's wasted.  

Jeff's clearly not interested in debate - he just wants to"kick ass" and save face.  

Clearly, he's ignorant of the history and doesn't care that he is.  You can't have a rational discussion with such a person.  

I've seen some laughable ignorance here, but this is close to topping anything I've seen before. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

21 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

There are rules of war that both sides routinely violated, but that doesn't make us equally morally culpable.

We only used weapons of mass destruction and ran concentration camps.

 

21 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

By that logic, we should have never entered the war in the first place. War is ultimately evil.

And by your logic, because war is ultimately evil, "by any means necessary" is just fine. I get it dude. You don't have to justify your bankrupt morality any longer. 

19 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

And you failed then too, just like you're failing now. 

"You can lead a horse to water..."

[AUbritt 611]

@aujeff11 -- Are you seriously suggesting that the US and Nazi Germany were morally equivalent?

Or are you just trying to win an argument?

[aujeff11 6,243]

18 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

@aujeff11 -- Are you seriously suggesting that the US and Nazi Germany were morally equivalent?

Or are you just trying to win an argument?

Are you suggesting that Germany bombed Pearl Harbor?

When did I make such an argument as the one that you claimed? When did I ever bring up Nazi Germany? 

[AUbritt 611]

17 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Are you suggesting that Germany bombed Pearl Harbor?

When did I make such an argument as the one that you claimed? When did I ever bring up Nazi Germany? 

Nope, I'm not suggesting any such thing.

You claimed the US didn't hold the moral high ground in WWII here.

I'm pretty sure that Nazi Germany was in on that particular war.

But maybe you meant to suggest that, although the US held the moral high ground in WWII over Nazi Germany, the US did not hold the moral high ground in WWII over Imperial Japan? I haven't seen much support in your posts for that claim, either.

[homersapien 11,386]

12 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

America sure as **** didn't 

This was your response to my post stating that "according to your logic, America didn't hold the moral ground in WWII.

While that doesn't mention the Nazi's specifically, it's close enough. 

Presumably, your position on the Japanese and the Nazis is similar.  Let us know if it's not.

(Some advice: Weaseling doesn't really help your case.)

[homersapien 11,386]

7 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

Nope, I'm not suggesting any such thing.

You claimed the US didn't hold the moral high ground in WWII here.

I'm pretty sure that Nazi Germany was in on that particular war.

But maybe you meant to suggest that, although the US held the moral high ground in WWII over Nazi Germany, the US did not hold the moral high ground in WWII over Imperial Japan? I haven't seen much support in your posts for that claim, either.

Beat me to it. 

[AUDub 11,153]

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

We only used weapons of mass destruction and ran concentration camps.

Correct. In the course of a just war enemy that terrorized billions, attempted to enslave 100s of millions, murdered 10s of millions, raped millions and performed vile experiments upon hundreds of thousands. An enemy that needed to be crushed under our heel completely to cure them of their brutal expansionist aspirations.

All the armchair generals out there, all the Monday morning quarterbacks seventy years later cry tears for a nation which committed gross atrocities and continued to do so right up until the end trying to compare what we did to them is suffering moral myopia of the highest order.

It's a losing argument. Yeah, we weren't a shining beacon of humanity during the war and there are some things we should be ashamed of, but in comparison to our opponents we were paragons.

Here's another question. If they had the bomb, how long do you thing the Japanese would wait to use it? Germany? Italy? Truth is, they would use it too.

Quote

And by your logic, because war is ultimately evil, "by any means necessary" is just fine. I get it dude. You don't have to justify your bankrupt morality any longer.

I don't think you understand the first thing about morality.

Even extending the war another month was the greater evil. We needed to maintain a sense of urgency, and end the war as soon as possible. Prolonging it another month was not something we wanted.  Not when our own soldiers were dying by the 10s of thousands every month. Not when our POWs languished in Japanese prisons. Not when the Chinese and others were dying by the 10s of thousands in occupied lands as the starving Japanese army happily continued their atrocities. When Russia finally joined in and pushed them out of China, the Japanese, instead of releasing their prisoners, chose to slaughter them instead. For hundreds of thousands of people, those extra days saved their lives.

Your ignorance is astounding. Your arrogance is infuriating. They murdered, enslaved and raped millions of unoffending people for no other reason than a twisted notion of racial superiority and lebensraum. You have the nerve to say our sins were equal, to call me morally bankrupt, but your moral myopia has blinded you to the obvious justifications we had for the choices we made in the course of a total war the likes of which the world has never seen before or since.

[homersapien 11,386]

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

Correct. In the course of a just war enemy that terrorized billions, attempted to enslave 100s of millions, murdered 10s of millions, raped millions and performed vile experiments upon hundreds of thousands. An enemy that needed to be crushed under our heel completely to cure them of their brutal expansionist aspirations.

All the armchair generals out there, all the Monday morning quarterbacks seventy years later cry tears for a nation which committed gross atrocities and continued to do so right up until the end trying to compare what we did to them is suffering moral myopia of the highest order.

It's a losing argument. Yeah, we weren't a shining beacon of humanity during the war and there are some things we should be ashamed of, but in comparison to our opponents we were paragons.

Here's another question. If they had the bomb, how long do you thing the Japanese would wait to use it? Germany? Italy? Truth is, they would use it too.

I don't think you understand the first thing about morality.

Even extending the war another month was the greater evil. We needed to maintain a sense of urgency, and end the war as soon as possible. Prolonging it another month was not something we wanted.  Not when our own soldiers were dying by the 10s of thousands every month. Not when our POWs languished in Japanese prisons. Not when the Chinese and others were dying by the 10s of thousands in occupied lands as the starving Japanese army happily continued their atrocities. When Russia finally joined in and pushed them out of China, the Japanese, instead of releasing their prisoners, chose to slaughter them instead. For hundreds of thousands of people, those extra days saved their lives.

Your ignorance is astounding. Your arrogance is infuriating. They murdered, enslaved and raped millions of unoffending people for no other reason than a twisted notion of racial superiority and lebensraum. You have the nerve to say our sins were equal, to call me morally bankrupt, but your moral myopia has blinded you to the obvious justifications we had for the choices we made in the course of a total war the likes of which the world has never seen before or since.

 

True confession:  

When I was about Jeff's age I used to make similar arguments about our use of atomic weapons on Japan.   As I became older and more informed over the years, I changed my mind.

But even then I would never have suggested the Japanese and the Germans shared equivalent moral responsibility with the US, which is absurd.  

[aujeff11 6,243]

30 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

You claimed the US didn't hold the moral high ground in WWII here.

 

I could've considered an ally to have moral high ground for all you know. If you want to assume that I was equivocating the US to Nazis, go for it. You will fit right in with Homer and BigBen.

 

33 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

I'm pretty sure that Nazi Germany was in on that particular war.

Congrats. You're not brain dead.

 

29 minutes ago, homersapien said:

While that doesn't mention the Nazi's specifically, it's close enough. 

Nope. 

26 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Some advice: Weaseling doesn't really help your case.)

You openly accused me of equivocating USA to Nazi Germany even though I never implied it and then you call me a weasel.Shocking.

 

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

27 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Even extending the war another month was the greater evil.

Wrong. The war could've been extended and we could've let starvation play out. The greatest evil is being the only country to ever use nukes. 

 

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Your ignorance is astounding. Your arrogance is infuriating.

And you are flustered. 

[homersapien 11,386]

1 minute ago, aujeff11 said:

Wrong. The war could've been extended and we could've let starvation play out. The greatest evil is being the only country to ever use nukes. 

OK, let's make sure I'm straight on this.

Atomic bomb's killing maybe 200k, immoral.

Forced starvation killing millions, moral.

That about it?

[homersapien 11,386]

2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

And you are flustered. 

Maybe you are the one who's flustered.  I didn't say that, Ben did.

(But I do agree with him)

[aujeff11 6,243]

Just now, homersapien said:

Atomic bomb's killing maybe 200k, immoral

Yep.

Just now, homersapien said:

Forced starvation killing millions, moral.

 

If I am sparring with you and you don't tap, am I the bad guy for breaking your arm?