|
On October 10 2009 12:37 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:29 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such... that was highschool, but iono. Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions. There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910.
It isn't the duty of America to police the world. It isn't our duty to defend other nations. Do you scream and yell at Switzerland? Why is it America's responsibility to enter the war on the behest of Manchuria?
America was directly attacked for the reasons I enumerated, and none other.
|
On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
You seem to think America's responsibility is the defense of other nations. I don't. America's responsibility is to America.
|
United States44241 Posts
On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America?
Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
|
On October 10 2009 12:37 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:29 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such... that was highschool, but iono. Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions. There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910.
Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans?
Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post.
no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given.
seems there was a misunderstanding.
|
On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
that's not a practical way of thinking.
|
United States44241 Posts
On October 10 2009 12:45 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:37 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:29 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such... that was highschool, but iono. Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions. There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910. Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans? Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post. no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given. seems there was a misunderstanding.
Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane.
|
On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it.
Why then did no country invade America when we were slaughtering the Indians? Do you think that another country had the right to invade another Sovereign country at the behest of the Indians? That, then, that country had the right to superimpose it's belief system on those people at the point of a gun?
Many nations, have caused many atrocities. Do you not believe that you can change other's ideals, by ideals themselves? America doesn't go prodding around killing our own population, anymore does it? Did it take a war to achieve that? Did it take a war to achieve that in other nations, in other time periods? No, and no.
Secondly, no Nation can afford what you advocate. We would be in many many countries. Burma/Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, etc. It also wouldn't be advantageous, because you have to change their viewpoints, or else it'll happen all over again.
So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
|
On October 10 2009 12:48 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:45 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:37 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:29 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such... that was highschool, but iono. Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions. There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910. Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans? Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post. no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given. seems there was a misunderstanding. Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane.
which means,
placing sanctions on an insane country will make them hostile towards you.
i don't think Aegraen is disagreeing with you, you guys are just being picky on what info you provide in your posts.
|
United States44241 Posts
On October 10 2009 12:48 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. that's not a practical way of thinking.
Read the link below. That is the practical outcome of a Japanese military occupation. American oil was being used in the war effort against the Chinese people. The American economy was a silent partner in perhaps the worst atrocities mankind has ever committed until they refused and imposed sanctions. To say that sanctions were wrong and that as long as these things aren't happening to Americans they're okay is absurd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
|
United States44241 Posts
On October 10 2009 12:50 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:48 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:45 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:37 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:29 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such... that was highschool, but iono. Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions. There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910. Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans? Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post. no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given. seems there was a misunderstanding. Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane. which means, placing sanctions on an insane country will make them hostile towards you. i don't think Aegraen is disagreeing with you, you guys are just being picky on what info you provide in your posts.
Not placing sanctions upon them makes you a consenting partner to their insanity. When a guy is mowing down innocent civilians there comes a point where you should stop selling him bullets.
|
On October 10 2009 12:48 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:45 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:37 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:29 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such... that was highschool, but iono. Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions. There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910. Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans? Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post. no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given. seems there was a misunderstanding. Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane.
America, did start the conflict, with it's Foreign Policy. If we had a non-interventionist Foreign Policy Japan would have never attacked the United States. Why would Japan attack it's source of oil? It never would. Who do you know that would attack its trading partner?
|
On October 10 2009 12:53 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:50 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:48 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:45 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:37 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:29 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such... that was highschool, but iono. Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions. There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910. Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans? Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post. no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given. seems there was a misunderstanding. Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane. which means, placing sanctions on an insane country will make them hostile towards you. i don't think Aegraen is disagreeing with you, you guys are just being picky on what info you provide in your posts. Not placing sanctions upon them makes you a consenting partner to their insanity. When a guy is mowing down innocent civilians there comes a point where you should stop selling him bullets.
So, Switzerland is the ultimate evil I take it?
|
On October 10 2009 12:53 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:50 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:48 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:45 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:37 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:29 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such... that was highschool, but iono. Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions. There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910. Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans? Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post. no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given. seems there was a misunderstanding. Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane. which means, placing sanctions on an insane country will make them hostile towards you. i don't think Aegraen is disagreeing with you, you guys are just being picky on what info you provide in your posts. Not placing sanctions upon them makes you a consenting partner to their insanity. When a guy is mowing down innocent civilians there comes a point where you should stop selling him bullets.
but we did stop selling to them... 0_O
i'm so confused...
|
On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. Why then did no country invade America when we were slaughtering the Indians? Do you think that another country had the right to invade another Sovereign country at the behest of the Indians? That, then, that country had the right to superimpose it's belief system on those people at the point of a gun? Many nations, have caused many atrocities. Do you not believe that you can change other's ideals, by ideals themselves? America doesn't go prodding around killing our own population, anymore does it? Did it take a war to achieve that? Did it take a war to achieve that in other nations, in other time periods? No, and no. Secondly, no Nation can afford what you advocate. We would be in many many countries. Burma/Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, etc. It also wouldn't be advantageous, because you have to change their viewpoints, or else it'll happen all over again. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
Dude slaughtering the indians was how long ago? like 150 years ago? or 200?
|
On October 10 2009 12:55 BalliSLife wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. Why then did no country invade America when we were slaughtering the Indians? Do you think that another country had the right to invade another Sovereign country at the behest of the Indians? That, then, that country had the right to superimpose it's belief system on those people at the point of a gun? Many nations, have caused many atrocities. Do you not believe that you can change other's ideals, by ideals themselves? America doesn't go prodding around killing our own population, anymore does it? Did it take a war to achieve that? Did it take a war to achieve that in other nations, in other time periods? No, and no. Secondly, no Nation can afford what you advocate. We would be in many many countries. Burma/Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, etc. It also wouldn't be advantageous, because you have to change their viewpoints, or else it'll happen all over again. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone? Dude slaughtering the indians was how long ago? like 150 years ago? or 200?
that doesn't make it an invalid example
|
nobel peace prize for obama? talk about bad timing. this will really put the pressure on his decisions and provide his opponents with more ammunition.
he'll make it through though, I'm sure of it.
|
On October 10 2009 11:58 iloahz wrote:
Nobel peace prize lost all of its credibility 2 decades ago when it awarded Dalai Lama. The Obama award is quite reasonable in comparison.
Nice one :D
|
United States44241 Posts
On October 10 2009 12:54 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:53 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:50 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:48 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:45 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:37 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:29 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such... that was highschool, but iono. Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions. There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910. Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans? Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post. no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given. seems there was a misunderstanding. Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane. which means, placing sanctions on an insane country will make them hostile towards you. i don't think Aegraen is disagreeing with you, you guys are just being picky on what info you provide in your posts. Not placing sanctions upon them makes you a consenting partner to their insanity. When a guy is mowing down innocent civilians there comes a point where you should stop selling him bullets. but we did stop selling to them... 0_O i'm so confused...
Which is good. I approve of this, although it happened much too late. My argument is with Aegraen.
|
On October 10 2009 12:53 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:50 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:48 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:45 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:37 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:29 eMbrace wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such... that was highschool, but iono. Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them. What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions. There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910. Can I never have a conversation with someone from another country without having them take a shot at Americans? Really, I was taught what you just said and this was information I was aware of. The sanctions against Japan were what made them retaliate -- there is nothing wrong in saying that, deciding to leave out the information you provided is just a way to shorten an online post. no one is writing a book on here, well known facts are just considered as a given. seems there was a misunderstanding. Sorry, I inadvertently grouped you with Aegraen. I was attacking the view that America somehow started the conflict with Japan through interfering and sanctions when responsibility for the war lies solely with Japan being insane. which means, placing sanctions on an insane country will make them hostile towards you. i don't think Aegraen is disagreeing with you, you guys are just being picky on what info you provide in your posts. Not placing sanctions upon them makes you a consenting partner to their insanity. When a guy is mowing down innocent civilians there comes a point where you should stop selling him bullets.
Yes, I'm against compulsory State coerced and forced action. If you don't agree with it, and want to stop it, then you go and volunteer your money, your time, your services. You don't say; Draft is on. You have to die for that other person, even if you don't agree with us.
|
United States1610 Posts
On October 10 2009 12:50 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:44 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:42 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:39 Kwark wrote:On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark? Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you. And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool. When was Japan butchering Americans, prior to the sanctions? Why do you think Japan attacked America? Your world view is alien to me beyond comprehension. I'm speaking of a moral imperative that exists when innocents are being slaughtered and a country has the power to stop it. So, yes I'm against interventionism. The law of unintended consequences is imperative. Secondly, if you want to stop it, then volunteer your services and go fight over there for their rights. Why is it ok, to make it compulsory for everyone?
The draft was repealed kind of awhile ago...
I disagree with the rest of your post aswell, but I want to go to sleep 
Basically, there have been countless atrocities committed throughout the course of human history and citing these does not make it OK to continue. I don't agree with forcing ideas or ideologies onto other people, but when things like genocide and other humanitarian crimes are involved, I believe it is the responsibility of those capable to intervene for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves.
edit: INSERT SPIDERMAN QUOTE
"With great power comes great responsibility"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
