DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... I would like your thoughts on the appology tour

Im saying all countries have.their internal differences, but there are far more countries that are way more oppressive, intolerant, and.have fewer rights than the usa.

Last I checked, all religions were/are free to do as they see fit. [/quote]


The religious freedom laws are a joke. [/quote] Nope. They are pretty standard. If anything, being a Christian is frowned upon.
Or, how jews are treated in the middle east. you know, the whole "kill them all" thing that many of YOUR "tolerant" countries espouse.


Try being gay or trans in 100 different countries in the world. Then come back and tell me the u.s. wouldn't be on your list of the top 15 places.



Are those laws enforced? I don't know, just asking.

If you want to look, I'll bet you can find laws on the books against just about anything you want.


Ignorance. Yes.

Once again, laws/rights isn't the same as intolerance.

Example: Muslims have the same rights in America, but they get treated harshly by society.

Same with other minority groups.

And the tolerance level of Christians is going down, which whether you believe it or not, isn't a good thing.

I think there are countries that are more intolerant. But that isn't my argument. My argument is that we are up there with intolerance compared to other countries. That's been my point says day one.

Just because other countries are worse doesn't mean jack crap.

That's like saying "well, Russia and China are worse, so we get a free pass to do whatever!!!"

Whoa, hold on there. I didn't insult you. Not One Bit.

You laid out a premise that is blatantly false. The U.S. is not even close to being one of the most intolerant countries in the world. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Tell me where I insulted you.

You see what I mean, eve?

Look at arch post.

Because some people made it worse means we aren't intolerant ? What kinda false thinking is that?

That's why I told the other posters, ranking "who's worse" means what? Nothing.

Our country has a huge intolerance level. Comparing countries means nothing, because we don't LIVE in those countries. We leave HERE.

You don't discuss and you don't debate. You throw firebombs and then backpeddle and whine when you get resistance. Grow the hell up.

Yea, you don't actually pay attention to anything I post, obviously. I'm going blow for blow right now and you think I'm back peddling? I'm like Florida homeboy, stand you're ground.

Anyways, Intolerance in this country.

You are talking in a stupid loop. You yourself said we are the most intolerant country on the planet. That means a comparison with other countries

Just give it up because youve lost this arguement

I didn't we are the most, I said we are one of the most.

Now you're arguing grammar? which is funny because I specifically said we are up there. I never said we are the most intolerant.

You're the one who lost the argument. Kick rocks, kid.

So, why'd you do it?

And I still think the U.S. is one of the more tolerant countries in this world.

Race, sexual preference, male female status, religion.

Is there work to do? Could we be better? Sure.

You didn't answer my question though. Take 100 countries and tell me the u.s. wouldn't be in your top 20 in regards to anything.

We'd be in the top 20 of a lot of things.

Like your criteria you just listed, for one. We can absolutely crack the top 20 In intolerance.

We arent.even one of the most. I proved it. You should learn to be a.graceful loser.

Man, and I thought I had childish tendencies.

You didn't prove anything. You're claiming victory for something you didn't even do?

Man the bar is set real low around here.

You totally didn't understand his post?

Lol You cant even own it when you lost. Anyway this argument is getting old and.tired. Try posting facts next time swish. It might prevent you from losing

I understood it completely. I also understand that he isn't even attempting to engage in anything meaningful.

At least I'm engaged in your discussion. But That's why I made that video. I get passionate about my post, yet instead of people engaging, they attack my posting style. It's ridiculous.

I posted facts. You just don't like the response. There's a difference.

Random non relevant trivia doesnt really count.

And yet, I made valid points after that, and then you started pulling your loop argument every time you got nothing left in the tank.

Charge the poster with having no argument first when you run out of points. Cute. Ineffective, but cute.

Nah, when you make things up, like you did with Eve's post about Africa (I still haven't seen where she said Africa was a country) you open yourself up to posts like Dave made.

And how can you be engaged in my discussion when, first of all, it wasn't my discussion, and secondly, you said you're done talking to me because it's "pointless", and thirdly, I don't believe anyone is attacking your posting style (I don't know what vid. you're talking about)......but, people are saying "the u.s. is NOT one of the most intolerant countries.

Where would you rather be gay, or female? Here, or in the middle east, or russia, or china, etc?

Oh, but we can't compare the u.s. to other countries, because we live HERE, not there. Got it. Yet you can call us intolerant in relation to other countries, even though we aren't allowed to compare ourselves to other countries........wait, that argument sounds like a circle jerk.

Here's a mirror. Look into it.

She group together African countries as if they're all the same.

Here's a pro tip: they aren't. That was the point of that post.

Also, as far as Russia and China, and rather be gay at, one could make the argument that it wouldn't matter, and that it depends on where in any country you live.

Because while their laws are strict, I'll tell you right now I wouldn't want to be gay in Alabama.

Hell. I wouldn't want to be black in Alabama for that matter. Gays in Hong Kong are good, for example.

we're talking collective, though. and collectively, America has some major problems. so the rank doesn't even matter.

And you went from top 20 to comparing two countries. Man this is getting better by the minute.

Let's go, what else you got for me.

Oh, and once again, laws aren't the same as social acceptance/tolerance. I've made that point like 5 times already. Stop ignoring it. Or I'll chalk that up to you choosing to be ignorant of the difference from here on out.

I've read your reply. I'll just stop there.

j/c... although I'll probably regret adding to this conversation. I suppose I'll find out soon enough.

There was no apology, nor should there have been. Having said that, I find nothing wrong-headed about acknowledging the actions of the past... nor do I have a problem with framing those observations against the prospect of moving forward.

It's been 70 years. In all that time, not one single American President has deigned to address this historical game-changer in any significant, official capacity. I find that remarkable in and of itself. To this fact, I must ask an important rhetorical question: "How long is an appropriate length of time to let something like this go unaddressed? From the tone of some of these posts, I'd have to conclude that the answer is: "MORE than 70 years."

And so... if 70 years is too soon- when is "just right?"
Ever?
Never?
Or should it happen when a President who garnered your vote decides it's appropriate?

I noticed that the O.P. used an 'editorial blog' to set up his original premise. I read that link 2 days ago, and decided to refrain from posting at that time. There was a reason for that:

I could smell the OP's 'confirmation bias' in virtually every line written in that Breitbart op-ed.

I've read sentiments like these so many times before here at DT'ers, that I could predict almost every paragraph of that cheap-azz partisan screed before even reading it. There were no surprises... either there, or here at Dawgtalkers. The predictability of that op-ed saddened me- because I wanted/hoped for so much more from my friends, as we entered into discourse about such an important issue..

______________________

In the past 6 weeks, I've buried 2 of America's "Greatest Generation"... Real Men who were role models, mentors, stand-up Fathers, and pillars of their respective communities.

US Army.
US Navy.

The first was My Pops' Best Friend. I thought that my paltry playing of 'Amazing Grace' at his memorial service was the second most difficult thing I'd ever done in my life... second only to burying his best friend- 37 years ago. The second was my Pops In-Law... and the pain in my soul is still agonizingly fresh from carrying my share of his weight to the burial site. I'm 59 years old... and this was the very first time that I've ever been a pall bearer. (My Pops was laid to rest by his fellow Police Officers and WWII veterans...).

"Second Place" is now a dead-heat between Uncle Paul and Daddy George. All three of the Big Men in my life served in WWII. All three served in the Pacific Theater. All three either fell silent, changed the subject, or gave minimalist answers to inquiries about their time served.

The closest I ever got came to The Truth came from my Uncle Paul- the sweetest, gentlest, and most forthcoming of the three (...which is not to be confused with 'weakness'- this Man had a spine of iron: forged from a childhood/adolescence in 1930's-'40's Alabama- at the height of The Klan Era. Dark-skinned, "Ni66er-Black" -at a time and place when biology determined an Amerian Citizen's destiny).

For 2 full years after My Father's death, Uncle Paul would randomly check in on me at least once per month. He, along with a very small clutch of True Friends my age were my only lifeline to sanity at the time. After some months, I could talk to him about things outside of My Father, and how empty his passing had left me. I asked him:

"Uncle Paul, did you and Pops ever talk about your days in the war?"
"Yes. Every now and then... but we never dwelt on it."
"I don't think I could ever get over something like that."
"Yes, you could... because you'd have to- if you wanted to have a life after your days in service."
"Do you hate the Japanese for what they did?"
"No. I hate the choices that all our leaders made back then. They took thousands of boys away from their families and futures- and asked them to give their up their lives in places thousands of miles away from their Mommas and Daddies."

BOOM.

I only pressed him one more time about that period in his life. Here's all that Uncle Paul said:

"Bobby 2"... (my childhood nickname, given by My Pops' generation- I'm named after My Father)... "We did what needed to be done... and we did it, so that you and [at this point, he named off me, and all 4 of his strapping sons] would never have to see and do such things. PLEASE... let's talk about something else, son."

I honored his wishes... and we never talked about his military service again.

George was of a slightly different stripe. Until his death 3 weeks ago, he harbored a dislike and mistrust of most folks with Asiatic origins. I never held it against him, because I was never forced to walk a mile in his shoes. When I asked him about his service, he'd tell me entertaining stories about life on the ship, shore leave, etc... but he'd never talk about The Real. I respected him enough to never press. My time with Uncle Paul (30 years before) taught me that.

So.... I've now discussed the personal side of Memorial Day as it effected me- a lucky "Late Boomer" who missed Viet Nam by one scant year. Please allow me to bring this whole "eye-bleeder" home.

_______________

There is a HUGE difference between what the POTUS did this past week, and what our local, personally-driven opinions might be on such a subject. It is the job of ANY standing POTUS to navigate the political, diplomatic and historical waters of World Politics on a level that is almost incomprehensible to those of us not immediately involved.

We don't know The Game.
We don't know The Stakes.
We don't know the immediate gains that might be in the works- and the gains to be had, just beneath the surface.
We don't know the 'chessboard of International Politics.'

...and as such, we're always left to guess what 'The Real Deal' might be- if we form our opinions from sites like Breitbart, Think/Progress or The Drudge Report.

______________

My Uncle Paul would never fall for stuff like this.
My Pops trained me to never fall for stuff like this.
And even My Pops-In-Law cast a skeptical eye upon stuff like this... even if they tried to sell him on stuff he already believed.

In my last political conversation with George, he said:
"I think he's got some good ideas... but not enough make him want to be My President."

The Greatest Generation has spoken.

Perhaps, POTUS 44 has pushed this nation (and the rest of the 1st World) into a new place. That can be scary for some, but I don't fear what this gesture signifies.

After all... ALL THREE of My Mentors raised me to acknowledge this truism:
"A Real Man stands on his convictions, lives with the consequences of his choices... and owns up the the choices he has made."

If I am to hold true to the teachings of these great American heroes without being an hypocrite... then I MUST hold My Country to the same standards that produced the very men who raised me.

As such, I'd expect... and yes, DEMAND that the leader of My Country hold himself to these very same standards.

The very same standards that My Mentors held me to... when they taught me how to become a Real Man.


Frankly, I'm glad that one of Our Presidents finally did what My Mentors would have required me to do... and I couldn't care less if the standing POTUS is someone who recieved the backing of a Breitbart columnist or not.

Some issues are bigger than 'provincial politics' will allow.
In my humble opinion, this is one of them.

Others' mileage may vary... but I wouldn't want to ride in their cars....

Their GPS monitors will only take them to the next available stop.
...and that's a 'few stops short' of what we truly need to see.



.02,
Clemdawg.

Outstanding post! Clem is awesome...

Simple Definition of disagree

: to have a different opinion : to fail to agree

: to be different

: to not be suitable for or pleasing to someone




Simple Definition of intolerant

: not willing to allow or accept something

: not willing to allow some people to have equality, freedom, or other social rights

medicine : unable to take a certain substance into the body without becoming sick

There is a big difference between disagree and intolerant. While we many disagree with many things in this country. We tolerate them more than almost all other countries.

i understand the difference bro, but i really think you're underselling the intolerance level in this country.

I'm sorry erik, but I don't buy into he apologized at all.

He stated some facts.. Can anyone deny that the use of atomic weapons is devastating? It was.. It was also necessary.

He picked on both sides pretty strongly.

I just think that no matter what this president does, he's bound to get beat on for it.

I voted for him in 2008, not in 2012. He's my president but I don't believe he's done a great job at all. Lots of holes to pick on, this just isn't one of them.

I figure it's time for me to jump back in this thread. First of all, I called it the 'apology tour' as that was the name of the article. No, he did not apologize in the sense of he said, 'we're sorry for dropping the bomb.' What he did do was question the USAs moral authority to drop the bombs. I'll deal with moral authority first.

Japan had declared war on the US and didn't tell us. That declaration of war was still in effect. When US forces took Okinawa, it cost us 20,195 deaths and 55,162 wounded, and it cost the Japanese up to 110,000 deaths. It took over a month and a half to take the island. Estimates of the invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall, said that the invasion would cost the US 1 million deaths in the first month, with 4 million deaths by the end. It was estimated it would cost the Japanese 10-40 million by the end of the invasion. Seeing as the Japanse had sworn to fight to the last man, woman, and child, and also considering that the last Japanese soldier to surrender, Hiroo Onada, surrendered in 1974, I believe the Japanese were steadfast in this promise. We saved millions of American lives and millions of Japanese lives by dropping two bombs. The US warned the Japanese that 'utter and prompt destruction' would come on July 26th 1945. They ignored us. We dropped the bomb on Hiroshima on August 6th. We again called for their surrender, and again they refused, so we dropped the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki on August 9th. The Japanese surrendered August 15th. We limited the use of our nuclear destructive capabilities, when we could have bombed them until the glowed. We managed to end the war with the least amount of casualties. I believe we were moral and just in our usage of these bombs, as we limited their use.

I also read some comments that we killed civilians using these bombs and with bombing German cities. There were no civilians in this war. The 'civilians in these cities were working for the governments, mostly building weapons of war. They were members of the war machine, either supporting the factories that made the weapons or working directly in building weapons. I know I sound crass with my statements, but our enemies would not have hesitated to bomb Detroit and other cities that built tanks and other weapons if they had the chance. Almost the entire citizenry of the US was involved in the war effort, and the same went for the Germans and Japanese. I had one grandfather that fought in the European and Pacific theater, and the other housed soldiers awaiting orders as he was medically unable to serve. My family owes a debt to one of the soldiers that stayed with them, otherwise we would have no childhood pictures of my dad and his sisters.

As I stated earlier in my post, the part that ticked me off most is that the president questioned our moral authority. I always have and always will believe we were morally just in dropping nukes, in bombing German cities, and in what we did to win WWII. With the nukes, if nothing else, we showed the rest of the world how horrible they were, and that they were not to be used on a whim. We showed the Germans that we would not accept totalitarianism, especially not their version. We showed them what righteous action could do to save many.

You really don't get it Eric. I should feel sorry for you, but you'd take that as an apology so I don't.

"Well, he didn't apologize.... BUT HE STILL WENT!!!!!"

The argument was lost before it even began.

I think I get it quite well, thank you. I get it so well that I really don't care about your opinion. I even said the pres did not apologize, but feel free to blind yourself to what I said.

Our enemies during WWII did not consider anyone a civilian, which is easily proven by the bombings of the UK and Pearl Harbor. There were plenty of civilians all over the UK and Pearl Harbor. The fact that Nazi subs dropped off saboteurs on our shores should tell you what they thought of civilians. As the countries declared war, everyone in the country was a target, just as today without wars declared.

You really need to go visit Somalia, bro.
or Mexico.


We are not remotely the most intolerant. In fact, we are pretty darn tolerant.

So, I've read the entire thread that now spans several days of bickering...... where was the apology?

What's to be debated here if there was no apology on this so-called "apology tour"?

I think the time for apologies is when Obama leaves office, THAT would be a good time for him to apologize to the Nation!

and I think your overselling it. This could be one of those cases where there is my side, there is your side, and the truth lays in the middle.

Stating facts isn't an apology. I don't see the reason for all the hubbub

I think we know the reason Eric made those comments, even if we leave it unspoken.