Split from: US To Pay War Reparations

[Darth Rotor]

Why? When a solider is pensioned out of the army as a result of being injured by an enemy do we expect the enemy to pay his pension? A society looks after its own - what this does is (as far as my understanding goes) help to rectify an inequality that really should have been addressed a long time ago.
You seem very generous with American tax dollars. May I suggest you consider sticking to your own knitting?

As to the principle, it is laudable, but it seems to be rather late to take care of our own. I wonder at it taking 60+ years to do so.

DR

[aggle-rithm]

You seem very generous with American tax dollars. May I suggest you consider sticking to your own knitting?

As to the principle, it is laudable, but it seems to be rather late to take care of our own. I wonder at it taking 60+ years to do so.

DR

It's cheaper that way. Most of them are dead now.

[Darat]

You seem very generous with American tax dollars. May I suggest you consider sticking to your own knitting?

...snip...


No - this is not a forum for just USA citizens to discuss USA issues, if you wish for that you need to post elsewhere where that is the policy of the forum.

[Darth Rotor]

No - this is not a forum for just USA citizens to discuss USA issues, if you wish for that you need to post elsewhere where that is the policy of the forum.

That isn't the point. Your opinion of how American tax dollars are spent is irrelevant, as is my opinion of how the UK spends tax dollars.

DR

[Darat]

That isn't the point. Your opinion of how American tax dollars are spent is irrelevant, as is my opinion of how the UK spends tax dollars.

DR

No it isn't, there is no requirement at all, either on this Forum or in the real world, to be an "American" to have an opinion on how taxation should work in the USA, how the USA should spend its taxes and so on.

[Darth Rotor]

No it isn't, there is no requirement at all, either on this Forum or in the real world, to be an "American" to have an opinion on how taxation should work in the USA, how the USA should spend its taxes and so on.
I am welcome to tell you that your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, which it is, and which I did.

DR

[ImaginalDisc]

I am welcome to tell you that your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, which it is, and which I did.

DR

Then by your rule you can never offer criticism of any other country, ever.

:boggled:

[Darat]

Then by your rule you can never offer criticism of any other country, ever.

:boggled:

Or anything to do with even another state in the USA that is not funded by Federal money or covered by Federal law. But I'm sure logic and consistency won't hold here... ;)

[Darth Rotor]

Then by your rule you can never offer criticism of any other country, ever.

:boggled:
No, ID, my opinion on how others, in their own nations, spend their tax dollars is irrelevant. Why can't you get your words right? Do you have a problem with comprehension?

DR

[Rolfe]

Didn't know the UK had any tax "dollars" to spend.

Rolfe.

[ImaginalDisc]

No, ID, my opinion on how others, in their own nations, spend their tax dollars is irrelevant.

False. You are a citizen of a country what interacts with other countries. You have a stake, however small, in what Japanese rice farmers choose to plant this season and the labor laws of Indonesia. What you don't have is a vote in the matter. That's entirely different.

[Cleon]

Didn't know the UK had any tax "dollars" to spend.

Rolfe.

I don't think the pound weighs very heavily in this conversation.


(I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.)

[Darth Rotor]

False. You are a citizen of a country what interacts with other countries. You have a stake, however small, in what Japanese rice farmers choose to plant this season and the labor laws of Indonesia. What you don't have is a vote in the matter. That's entirely different.
You misunderstand the phrase "your opinion is irrelevant." When you can understand that, you will have made progress. You are getting close with the relation to the vote, however, which is encouraging.

DR

[ImaginalDisc]

You misunderstand the phrase "your opinion is irrelevant." When you can understand that, you will have made progress. You are getting close with the relation to the vote, however, which is encouraging.

DR

Lovely backpedaling.

[Architect]

I do seem to recall Darth criticising non-US countries, notably Cuba. But I could be wrong....

[ImaginalDisc]

I do seem to recall Darth criticising non-US countries, notably Cuba. But I could be wrong....

He would never do such a thing! He has stated that one's opinion of how a foreign country spends their money is irrelevant, and he'd never be so amazingly hypocritical as to offer an opinion on foreign countries.

[Architect]

Ach, must be my mistake. :)

[bigred]

You seem very generous with American tax dollars. May I suggest you consider sticking to your own knitting?

As to the principle, it is laudable, but it seems to be rather late to take care of our own. I wonder at it taking 60+ years to do so.
No kidding.

This is idiotic. Not as idiotic as "slave reparations," but still idiotic. 'Course that is the defining characteristic of our gov't, after all.

[bigred]

You misunderstand the phrase "your opinion is irrelevant." When you can understand that, you will have made progress. You are getting close with the relation to the vote, however, which is encouraging.

DR
On the one hand I understand your efforts, but you do realize that the light isn't going to come on, don't you?

[Darth Rotor]

I do seem to recall Darth criticising non-US countries, notably Cuba. But I could be wrong....
I do, but you will note I don't suggest how Fidel ought to spend his tax dollars, which is the point at hand, and I'd like to see you cite where I criticize Cuba, and on what topic. The last discussion I recall was in the sovereign right for AMerica to choose to embargo Cuba, or not, based on American sovereign interest. How that relates to Cuban tax and spend I am unaware. Care to enlighten me?

You have chosen to try and apply the matter of the money beyond my point, which is your error, not mine, and your and ID's slippery slope, not mine.

Happy Skiing, to the both of you.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

No - this is not a forum for just USA citizens to discuss USA issues, if you wish for that you need to post elsewhere where that is the policy of the forum.
What was the point of splitting this?

DR

[BPSCG]

What was the point of splitting this?

DRSeconded. Yeah, the discussion is wandering off into two main tributaries, but it's all pretty much related. Now the OP is sitting there all forlorn in the other thread.

Definitions of reparations: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reparations)



The making of amends for wrong or injury done: reparation for an injustice.
Usually, reparations. compensation in money, material, labor, etc., payable by a defeated country to another country or to an individual for loss suffered during or as a result of war.
The act or process of making amends; expiation.
Something done or paid to compensate or make amends.
Compensation or remuneration required from a defeated nation as indemnity for damage or injury during a war.Japan started the war by attacking the US. Japan occupied Guam and subjected civilians there to torture, rape, forced marches, and imprisonment. Japan lost the war. So why is it the job of the US to pay the reparations to the people of Guam?

[brodski]

Didn't know the UK had any tax "dollars" to spend.

Rolfe.

yet...

As we all know from Abdul Alhazreds thread, just as soon as Gordon gets the office attached to his flat the UK will officially announce its membership of the axis of evil, pre-emptive invasion by the US is only a short step away after that.

[Darth Rotor]

yet...

As we all know from Abdul Alhazreds thread, just as soon as Gordon gets the office attached to his flat the UK will officially announce its membership of the axis of evil, pre-emptive invasion by the US is only a short step away after that.
Did you ever notice that the British rag "The Economist" provides amounts in dollars and euros (and sometimes pounds) in its articles? Dollars is a common reference for money in general, like it or not, as of now. This may change in time.

DR

[brodski]

Did you ever notice that the British rag "The Economist" provides amounts in dollars and euros (and sometimes pounds) in its articles? Dollars is a common reference for money in general, like it or not, as of now. This may change in time.

DR
Aside from the economist considering itself an international news outlet, which just happens to be published in the UK, and eth fact that the Economist would never talk about UK "tax dollars", it also publishes the Big Mac index of purchasing power parity (IIRC), and the Mars Bar index of inflation, that doesn’t mean that some smart arse won't start making jokes if I started talking about the federal governments mars bar reduction policy.

[Darth Rotor]

Aside from the economist considering itself an international news outlet, which just happens to be published in the UK, and eth fact that the Economist would never talk about UK "tax dollars", it also publishes the Big Mac index of purchasing power parity (IIRC), and the Mars Bar index of inflation, that doesn’t mean that some smart arse won't start making jokes if I started talking about the federal governments mars bar reduction policy.
I refer to the standard style in the articles, prose, not charts, where comment is made on the size of some event, "the sale of Bank Nine stock for $9 billion(£5 billion) has the market in a fit of worry" and so on. Done also with euros. "Pugeot has recapitalised €1.5 billion ($2.2 billion) of debt via a new bond instrument" and so on.

The quantity is related to dollars consistently.

It is a British rag, albeit globalist in slant, all of your protestation otherwise considered.
The Economist is a weekly news and international affairs publication owned by "The Economist Newspaper Ltd" and edited in London. It has been in continuous publication since James Wilson established it in September 1843. As of 2006, its average circulation topped one million copies a week, about half of which are sold in North America.[1] Consequently it is often seen as a transatlantic (as opposed to solely British) news source.
Based in London, a British Rag. VW sold massive numbers of cars in the US when the Bug first came out, but it is a German company.

DR

[Steven Howard]

Definitions of reparations: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reparations)



The making of amends for wrong or injury done: reparation for an injustice.
Usually, reparations. compensation in money, material, labor, etc., payable by a defeated country to another country or to an individual for loss suffered during or as a result of war.
The act or process of making amends; expiation.
Something done or paid to compensate or make amends.
Compensation or remuneration required from a defeated nation as indemnity for damage or injury during a war.Japan started the war by attacking the US. Japan occupied Guam and subjected civilians there to torture, rape, forced marches, and imprisonment. Japan lost the war. So why is it the job of the US to pay the reparations to the people of Guam?


The bill doesn't say "reparations" in it anywhere. Seems to me that you're the one who introduced the word "reparations", so there's no call to go all dictionary-mad on us now.

Here's the backstory on this that I've been able to put together (based largely on this 2003 statement from Guam's Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (http://www.house.gov/bordallo/gwcrc/Bordallo_Statement_120803.htm)):

The Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945 (Public Law 79-224) authorized payments to American nationals on Guam for death, injury, and property damage resulting from the war. It did not authorize compensation for forced labor, forced march, and internment. There was a one-year deadline, so all claims had to be filed before December of 1946. In 1947, a committee appointed to review the situation on Guam recommended that the deadline be extended and that the claims process be streamlined and simplified. This didn't happen.

The War Claims Act of 1948 authorized compensation for (among other things) civilian American citizens who were subject to forced labor, forced march and internment by the Japanese on Midway, Guam, the Phillipines and other US territories in the Pacific. However, since most residents of Guam were US nationals but not US citizens, the Act did not apply to them.

In 1962, the 1948 Act was amended, with extended deadlines, to provide payments to US nationals (not just citizens), except for Guam. Guam was specifically excluded from the 1962 law.

In 2002, Congress passed HR 308, which became Public Law 103-777, establishing a Guam War Claims Review Commission to decide whether the people of Guam had been screwed over, and if so what to do about it. This commission's recommendations went into the bill we're talking about now.

[BPSCG]

The bill doesn't say "reparations" in it anywhere. Seems to me that you're the one who introduced the word "reparations", That's correct. But the bill prominently describes the atrocities committed by the Japanese, and proposes that the US pay recompense for those atrocities. The only thing that distinguishes these payments from reparations is who's paying it. If Japan were making these payments - as it should, from a moral point of view - they would be called reparations.

[Steven Howard]

That's correct. But the bill prominently describes the atrocities committed by the Japanese, and proposes that the US pay recompense for those atrocities. The only thing that distinguishes these payments from reparations is who's paying it. If Japan were making these payments - as it should, from a moral point of view - they would be called reparations.

"Recompense" is another word that you're introducing. Is it "reparations" or "recompense" when the government compensates victims of natural distasters?

Do you have the same objections to the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945, the Phillipines Rehabilitation Act of 1946, the War Claims Act of 1948, the War Claims Act of 1952, the War Claims Act of 1954, the War Claims Act of 1956, the War Claims Act of 1962, the Micronesia Act of 1971, and the Aleutians Act of 1988?

Here's a handy spreadsheet of all the compensation authorized by Congress to victims of the war in the Pacific. (xls file (http://www.doi.gov/oia/Stories/warclaim/WWII%20War%20Claims%20Matrix%20final.xls)).

[BPSCG]

"Recompense" is another word that you're introducing. Is it "reparations" or "recompense" when the government compensates victims of natural distasters?The difference being that the suffering the people of Guam went through can be pinned on the Japanese, who have the money to pay the reparations.

It's hard to get money out of a tornado.