6d ago

Pocan to Introduce ELON MUSK Act to Ban Federal Government Contracts for Special Government Employees, Similar To Bans For Members of Congress, Many Other Federal Employees

pocan.house.gov Pocan to Introduce ELON MUSK Act to Ban Federal Government Contracts for Special Government Employees, Similar To Bans For Members of Congress, Many Other Federal Employees

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Representative Mark Pocan (WI-02) announced plans to introduce the Eliminate Looting of Our Nation by Mitigating Unethical State Kleptocracy (ELON MUSK) Act. The legislation would direct Federal Agencies to terminate any contracts held by a Special Government Employee,...

There's this...

You're viewing a single thread.

22 comments

- Well, technically, it was an act of Congress. Congress declared war after Japan bombed pearl harbor and dragged us into WWII
  
  Good thing that's not what I said. An act of congress got the US involved in WWII, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. We were not directly involved in WWII before that. The fact that we also went after Germany at the same time doesn't change the fact that the act of Congress that got us involved in WWII which ultimately led to the US and its allies taking down Germany and Japan.
  So yes, an act of Congress ultimately helped take down the Nazi regime.
  
  It’s so funny to me that Americans think that. They’re taught that in school I’m sure.
  
  Wow you're all over these threads getting ratioed. Easy to see why.
  
  Woo. You are also clearly mentally unwell.
  
  That account just started posting 3 days ago and deleted all posts 11min ago
  
  Well DO they teach you that in school?
- It took nuking their allies in a world that wasn't under the threat of mutually assured destruction.
  
  Huh? Germany surrendered before nuclear weapons were used in Japan. Germany surrendered 8 May 1945; Hiroshima was nuked 6 Aug 1945; Japan surrendered 15 Aug 1945.
  
  Possibly Japan actually surrendered before 6 Aug; it wasn’t recognized until the 15th though.
  
  Nah, that’s what happened but Japan was on the ropes already. It just would have been a much longer, much bloodier war.
  
  Everybody always says that without any evidence anytime this comes up.
  
  How about Eisenhower? I feel like this is fairly good evidence.
  https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/lesson-plans/re-thinking-dropping-atomic-bombs-lesson-2
  "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ’face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
  General Dwight Eisenhower, 1963
  
  Not who you're talking to, but I'd never heard his take on that before. Thanks for sharing it.
  
  What type of evidence are you looking for? Every firsthand account of people involved in the decision makes it clear that:
  they believed a land invasion would be brutal
  they believed Japan would not surrender easily
  they believed using nukes would force surrender faster due to unprecedented force
  they chose targets to maximize weapon effect on target measurements
  they chose targets and timing to maximize visibility to the Soviet Union
  they decided upfront that anything short of unconditional surrender was unacceptable
  they believed terror must be maximized because there were only two bombs
  They're perfectly capable of wanting to prevent an invasion and wanting data.
  
  Most seem to agree that Japan had already lost before the nukes. Whether it would have been "better" than dropping the bombs and how long it would have taken is the bigger debate.
  How far would Russia go once it turned its eyes on Japan? And once, or if, they began pushing the Japanese out of mainland Asia would that change US strategy?
  How long would the Japanese populous endure famine and starvation before revolt? Would they even revolt?
  Would the US do a land invasion after seeing how much, and how long, Iwo Jima and Okinawa took? Or just bomb and blockade?
  Would any of the three even try and get the others to a table to negotiate some form of peace?
  Who knows since it is all speculation.
  
  The evidence is the positions of troops and assets of Japan and the US during that time. An invasion of the Japanese homeland was imminent.

22 comments