Hiroshima, 6 August 1945

Trumpy said:
There's a place for you to act as an interpreter after Trump returns to the WH.
Click to expand...

That would be an easy job. I just be a clown and translate for him.

original.gif
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch Uncle,

I wanted the people behind 911 brought to justice. It was a terrible crime, not a military attack. No nation attacked us. It was terrorism carried out by a rogue group. That group and it's leader were our enemy, not the Taliban.

I disagreed with the Afghanistan War before we ever started it, and always have. Now, it's looking like another Vietnam, another failure, a US hopeless military blunder, (forced by dumb civilian decision making) another example to the world that our forces can't simply go in and dominate a low-tech un-uniformed gang of hidden combatants that mixes with the local civilian public.
Click to expand...

Great post. I agree with everything you wrote. I especially hated bush's description of a "war on terror" as if you could pin down terror so simply.
 
AProudLefty said:
Yep. Even Damocles is my puppet.

Haw haw ..... haw!

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

What was the sword of Damocles?

Evan Andrews

The famed “sword of Damocles” dates back to an ancient moral parable popularized by the Roman philosopher Cicero in his 45 B.C. book “Tusculan Disputations.” Cicero’s version of the tale centers on Dionysius II, a tyrannical king who once ruled over the Sicilian city of Syracuse during the fourth and fifth centuries B.C. Though rich and powerful, Dionysius was supremely unhappy. His iron-fisted rule had made him many enemies, and he was tormented by fears of assassination—so much so that he slept in a bedchamber surrounded by a moat and only trusted his daughters to shave his beard with a razor.

As Cicero tells it, the king’s dissatisfaction came to a head one day after a court flatterer named Damocles showered him with compliments and remarked how blissful his life must be. “Since this life delights you,” an annoyed Dionysius replied, “do you wish to taste it yourself and make a trial of my good fortune?” When Damocles agreed, Dionysius seated him on a golden couch and ordered a host of servants wait on him. He was treated to succulent cuts of meat and lavished with scented perfumes and ointments. Damocles couldn’t believe his luck, but just as he was starting to enjoy the life of a king, he noticed that Dionysius had also hung a razor-sharp sword from the ceiling. It was positioned over Damocles’ head, suspended only by a single strand of horsehair. From then on, the courtier’s fear for his life made it impossible for him to savor the opulence of the feast or enjoy the servants. After casting several nervous glances at the blade dangling above him, he asked to be excused, saying he no longer wished to be so fortunate.

For Cicero, the tale of Dionysius and Damocles represented the idea that those in power always labor under the specter of anxiety and death, and that “there can be no happiness for one who is under constant apprehensions.” The parable later became a common motif in medieval literature, and the phrase “sword of Damocles” is now commonly used as a catchall term to describe a looming danger. Likewise, the saying “hanging by a thread” has become shorthand for a fraught or precarious situation. One of its more famous uses came in 1961 during the Cold War, when President John F. Kennedy gave a speech before the United Nations in which he said that “Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness.”
Click to expand...



Who knows?

Maybe your account name was once, Dionysius.
 
christiefan915 said:
Great post. I agree with everything you wrote. I especially hated bush's description of a "war on terror" as if you could pin down terror so simply.
Click to expand...

It was at the time when our society's custom was to give a blanket pass to all "Islamics" because we knew very little about Islam and we were encouraged to believe the lies about it which were being spread by many Muslims and the Bushies didn't want to offend the innocent.

The term "War on Terror" didn't target innocent Muslims or non-violent Muslims and signaled what we were against.

Terrorism.

What we have learned since then is that even though we had to stop terrorism, non-violent Jihad is more effective in destroying a free nation than terrorism is.
 
This is the threat in the 26 July 1945 Potsdam Declaration that warned Japan of prompt and utter annihilation if they did not unconditionally surrender. This was obviously a veiled reference to nuclear strikes.

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action.

The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
Click to expand...

According to Encyclopedia Britannica this warning was transmitted to Japan by radio broadcast and in millions of leaflets dropped over Japan.

My thought is that something more direct could have been employed to convince civilians of the threat they faced.
 
Phantasmal said:
There’s been so many dates, hard to keep track. How delusional does one have the be to believe this? It’s funny, but sad at the same time. It’s shocking how easily people are duped.
Click to expand...

If I was petty minded enough to want to bust your balls or ball-etts, I might record your prediction to use to chide you in the event the prediction becomes reality.

But it is a long shot to ever occur and I don't need proof from any one event to make the point that Lefties and Libs are usually victims of their own existing design flaws.

And it would be mean-spirited to do so, anyway.

The point is to make America great again.

Not to NECESSARILY demean you guys and gals.
 
Cypress said:
This is the threat in the 26 July 1945 Potsdam Declaration that warned Japan of prompt and utter annihilation if they did not unconditionally surrender. This was obviously a veiled reference to nuclear strikes.



According to Encyclopedia Britannica this warning was transmitted to Japan by radio broadcast and in millions of leaflets dropped over Japan.

My thought is that something more direct could have been employed to convince civilians of the threat they faced.
Click to expand...

You think the civilians weren't aware of the warning?
 
Cypress said:
1) The threat was ominous but hardly very direct or specific.

2) Supposedly it was illegal in Japan to listen to enemy broadcasts or pick up enemy leaflets.
Click to expand...
The warnings weren’t the first time the USA used leaflets, so you’re right, they were pretty much ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top