FeeTinesAMady

> That doesn't work in real life. In order to know what level of force is necessary, one has to have a perfect knowledge of the opposition. That isn't possible, so you always respond with more force than you think in necessary - overengineering the carnage.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to global nuclear annihilation, and when that consequence became clear, intelligent people finally realized how wrong it is.

But your argument is wrong anyhow. Either you're trying to end the war, or you're not. If you are, you try all avenues, including negotiation. If you don't try negotiation, you aren't trying to end the war, you're trying to prolong it. The US leadership knew they couldn't lose at that point, so they weren't trying to end it.

> The what if game is pretty boring.

It sure is when you lose right away, due to the US never trying to negotiate. Earlier you said that it was "risky" to do so. How?

And It doesn't matter that we don't know what would have happened if the US had attempted negotiations with Japan. It only matters that they never did.

> watching a frustrated care troll twist

What are you talking about?

> Negotiating with irrational actors is risky

They never even tried it.

I'll make this simple. The only justification for the fire bombings and nuclear bombings that has any possible merit is that they were necessary to end the war. However, the US never even tried to negotiate, nor did they try to communicate to the Japanese that they would be willing to allow the Emperor to remain nominally in power. They could have used that to end the war far sooner.

So how could the bombings possibly be necessary to end the war when the war might have been ended by other means? I'm sure you'll say that that wouldn't have worked, but how would you know? The lack of any attempt shows that the US wasn't interested in ending the war: they wanted revenge, and therefore the bombings were not justified.

Yes, they do. See my comment near the top. Nothing disrespectful about it, just opinionated.

So the US killed 500,000 civilians because they didn't weren't willing to negotiate, and you think that that's funny. That says a lot about you.

Mind you, there's a downside to that. An FBI that can infiltrate and dismantle the KKK at will can do the same to any legitimate movement for change, like Occupy, etc.

Except that Japan repeatedly tried to make peace before the atomic bombings, and if the US hadn't been so determined that it be an unconditional surrender and been willing to negotiate, they could have ended the war before that, without any need to even think about invasion. So it was an evil slaughter.

What else can you assume, though? You have no information at that point.

LibreSSL is doing the first part of that. When it's in a useable state, switch to that and leave OpenSSL in the past.

What did they change, if you don't mind my asking? I've been using it for two seasons now, and haven't noticed anything too annoying, although I have been in public leagues only so far.

> There is no tactic

Actually, I've reconsidered. You admit to the realpolitik of the TPP and you admit to how it is try to sabotage China's self-governance (re. intellectual property, which they are MUCH better off without). But you aren't doing so with the point of view of admitting the bad parts of the TPP. You actually think these are good things.

In fact, your entire post is downplaying the negative impacts of the TPP and trying to end on an up note "it's good! It's necessary! "Navigating future global financial and international policy options"! "Major strategic opportunities"! You never list even one! Not even in this response. "I believe that the TPP is important for the future economic viability of the United States." Not a single justification for that. You just keep repeating it, instead. That's the Big Lie method. Keep repeating it until people start to believe it.

> I believe that the TPP is important for the future economic viability of the United States. I included some reasons why in that post, and also in other branches of the discussion. I would also be willing to discuss further here.

You included NO reasons in that post, and no reasons in this one, either. Eventually, in another post, you state that you think it will help "the dollar, US bonds and Western financial institutions". Western financial institutions! Those are the people we want to help now? The people who caused the global economic crisis and got away with it richer than ever?

All of your posts in this thread fit a pattern. You respond to some criticism about the TPP, and you say "I agree!" Then you ignore it and say that the TPP is good. Every post. Repeating it. Repetition. The Big Lie.

If you agree with all of these criticisms, how can you then state that you think it's a net positive? Wait, you say right here: "It is, however, a keystone effort to establish a primary trade treaty in the region at a time it may be otherwise denied from." It almost seems like you think that ANY treaty in Asia would be a good thing. Any US influence at all. And you agree with all the criticisms, and they just don't matter to you. Give up democracy and give up sovereignty, and give corporations their power over national governments. Who cares? We get a treaty out of it. And just getting that makes losing everything else worth it.

> Certainly I do not provide evidence in the prior post that single issue voting is harmful.

Being a single issue voter, while not without drawbacks, means that you can focus your vote on that single issue. And this issue is more important than anything else right now. So single issue voting on this one issue, if the voting is against it, is actually a very good thing.

You won't agree with any of that, though, and I don't care. This is for the rest of the readers.

You are using the tactic of trying to seem just like us and agreeing with us that it's bad: "... it comes with certain trojan horses ... such as requirements mentioned in the article for internet service providers to filter and monitor customer traffic."

Then, with us convinced that you're firmly on our side, you make the bold statement: "The TPP is important for navigating future global financial and international policy options, but bundled with it are laws that would otherwise be rejected at the ballot box."

And you say it again: "You can be sure that the TPP is in the interest of the US's strategic financial and diplomatic future. That's not a lie - nor is it fearmongering."

I'm sure it is in the interests of the ultra-wealthy and elite in the US. What's in it for everyone else, though?

This is your fearmongering: "it is dangerous to be a single issue voter."

Nowhere in your previous post or this one do you come up with ONE justification for that, or for your statement that the TPP is important and necessary. Nowhere.

But Github here is in the position where they are the only external party that could do something about this, because the code is hosted on their site.

> ... Im sure many people don't want GitHub to start arbitrarily banning projects because of a random set of beliefs they have

It wouldn't be unprecedented and it wouldn't be arbitrary. Google Code, for instance, only allows open source projects to be hosted with them. From what I can tell about Github, they allow any license. Doesn't mean that they can't change that policy.

Sure, it's easier to do nothing. But they alone could do something. And Facebook will get the goodwill they want from this without much kickback because nobody does anything.

> ... I don't believe I need to be punished ...

It's not about punishment. It's not: oh, you did something bad, you need to be punished for it. It's that it shouldn't be easy, and doing it in person makes sure of that. That's all it is. And it sounds a lot like you're rationalizing your desire to avoid that situation by telling yourself that it would be better for the employee, as though you won't let yourself consider the idea that it's all about it being easier for you.

Downvotes? Really? Github could make a stand here and disallow licenses that evil and self-serving. With this license, anybody who even uses this software can't challenge any patents of Facebook's. If Github said no, this is wrong, they would set an example for everyone else and single this out as the terrible license it is.