|
On February 11 2011 05:34 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 05:32 mcc wrote:On February 11 2011 05:05 Elegy wrote:
It's a recurrent theme amongst Europeans (although Americans certainly do this as well, probably even more) that, when pointing out the crimes of other nations, universally avoid little old Belgium and her...adventures...in the Congo. Not a dig on Europeans, but Belgium is repeatedly ignored or looked over when it comes to mentioning Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc. Belgium's colonial story is actually pretty well known, but frankly it is similar to the story of all colonial powers in Africa, just more fucked up. Yes, I should clarify in that when people talk about the great massacres and butchers of history, it's always Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Occasionally the Turks are thrown in, but I get the general impression that most Westerners tend to avoid their own little colonial legacies in favor of highlighting the more famous examples of human brutality.
I think it's more that Africa just gets shit on by everyone, it's just expected. =/
|
Is it possible to get a link to the story of this colonial Belgium story? I don't believe I've ever heard of it, but it sounds interesting.
|
|
|
There's a lot of aspects of skirmishes in the American Revolution that are still debated.
I was always particularly interested in who actually fired the first shot on the Lexington Common on April 19, 1775. I'm inclined to believe it wasn't a member of the organized militia, as there were only about 80 there that morning with Captain John Parker when he issued his famous order, "Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." It wouldn't make sense for a Redcoat to break rank, either. So who knows.
|
On February 11 2011 05:38 RoosterSamurai wrote:
Is it possible to get a link to the story of this colonial Belgium story? I don't believe I've ever heard of it, but it sounds interesting.
Indeed, I too would enjoy a story link.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On February 11 2011 04:16 Igakusei wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 02:33 danl9rm wrote:On February 10 2011 14:06 geometryb wrote:
the history of jesus The history of Jesus is better documented than for any other person up to and far past that point in history. Don't take my word for it. Read up on it yourself. Political figures in the Roman Empire are the first people that come to mind. Also, the history of Jesus documented by most historians and New Testament scholars is far different than the history you learned in Sunday School. Sure, a guy named Jesus seems to have been crucified by a guy named Pilatus... but to make the logical jump from those few facts that do correlate with Christian tradition to the conclusion that all or even a significant fraction of Christian traditions are therefore likely to be true is a complete non-sequitur and also involves the ignorance (willful or otherwise) of a significant pool of accumulated knowledge.
Political figures left buildings, but if we are to call into question written documentation on the history of Jesus, then we have little confidence of any other historical document.
That is, if one could prove that the writing's purpose was to convey 'what happened,' which from the writings themselves you could determine it. Then it's a matter of, was the meaning corrupted over time- that's where you run into problems.
To be accurate, you'd want quantity of manuscripts and also the earliest possible sources. (To prevent the telephone game effect.)
New Testament 5686 Greek manuscripts- earliest manuscripts within 100 years (conservative guess, some place it earlier.)
Julius Casar's conquest of Gaul 10 copies- earliest manuscript 1000 years from the time it was written.
Tacticus- 20 copies, 1000 year gap
The best one is Homer 600 copies- 500 year gap
Herodotus- only 8 copies, 1300 year gap.
So as far whether the meaning was distorted over time, we'd have to call into question every other historical written document as they do not have near the quantity, nor quality of manuscripts.
So then you'd have to go with the writers themselves are liars, madmen, delusional, etc. I don't really feel like dealing with that argument as I don't really want to derail this too much.
Just look at the number of manuscripts and the gap between origin and earliest copy. Those other historical documents we assume to be true unless proven to be false. The New Testament is generally assumed to be false no matter how much historical accuracy it contains and continues to be considered false unless every single point and historical detail can be verified.
|
On February 11 2011 05:23 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 05:19 mcc wrote:On February 11 2011 04:54 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 04:50 Sm3agol wrote:Maybe you've missed out on all the crap Japan was doing to deserve things like an oil embargo. You know, little things like being in an undeclared war with our ally China? China deserved to be declared war on. YELLOW RIVER FLOOD (1938) During the Sino-Japanese war, as Japanese forces moved west towards the railroad junction of Chengchow, there to meet up with other Japanese units advancing on Hankow, the Chinese Nationalists blew up the flood dykes of the Yellow River. The resulting flood inundated three provinces and forty-four counties. Between four and five thousand villages and eleven towns were flooded. A total of 3,911,354 people were displaced. Altogether 893,303 lives were lost through drowning. The Chinese Nationalists blamed this atrocity on the Japanese. If that's not enough for you, you can brush up on your pre-Mao era Chinese history here. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTMThen you'll realize that China killed, literally, more of it's own citizens than Japan ever did. Because two wrongs make right ? And how is oil embargo in any way provocation that justifies war ? Also in your example you are trying to justify Japan attacking China by using episode that happened after the war started, really ? As for American actions in WW2, yes they committed atrocities, yes they killed civilians unnecessarily, but nothing compared to the scale of German or Japanese killings. Not even mentioning that the war was started by Germany and Japan and their aggression was definitely not justified in any way. Sorry, but you're wrong. I did not limit US war crimes to WWII. I specifically said that they committed other crimes, such as the extermination of the Native Americans, and stealing of more than half of Mexico's land. Please read more carefully before trying to debate.
I read it carefully and I was reacting just to the WW2 part of it, because for other topics I somewhat agree with you, when you say A and B and I criticize only B it does not invalidate my criticism.
|
On February 11 2011 05:40 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 05:23 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 05:19 mcc wrote:On February 11 2011 04:54 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 04:50 Sm3agol wrote:Maybe you've missed out on all the crap Japan was doing to deserve things like an oil embargo. You know, little things like being in an undeclared war with our ally China? China deserved to be declared war on. YELLOW RIVER FLOOD (1938) During the Sino-Japanese war, as Japanese forces moved west towards the railroad junction of Chengchow, there to meet up with other Japanese units advancing on Hankow, the Chinese Nationalists blew up the flood dykes of the Yellow River. The resulting flood inundated three provinces and forty-four counties. Between four and five thousand villages and eleven towns were flooded. A total of 3,911,354 people were displaced. Altogether 893,303 lives were lost through drowning. The Chinese Nationalists blamed this atrocity on the Japanese. If that's not enough for you, you can brush up on your pre-Mao era Chinese history here. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTMThen you'll realize that China killed, literally, more of it's own citizens than Japan ever did. Because two wrongs make right ? And how is oil embargo in any way provocation that justifies war ? Also in your example you are trying to justify Japan attacking China by using episode that happened after the war started, really ? As for American actions in WW2, yes they committed atrocities, yes they killed civilians unnecessarily, but nothing compared to the scale of German or Japanese killings. Not even mentioning that the war was started by Germany and Japan and their aggression was definitely not justified in any way. Sorry, but you're wrong. I did not limit US war crimes to WWII. I specifically said that they committed other crimes, such as the extermination of the Native Americans, and stealing of more than half of Mexico's land. Please read more carefully before trying to debate. I read it carefully and I was reacting just to the WW2 part of it, because for other topics I somewhat agree with you, when you say A and B and I criticize only B it does not invalidate my criticism.
Alright, then no, American war crimes during WW2 do not exactly rival those of the Germans or Russians. However, in the Pacific Theater, the Americans did have a rather strict "no-prisoner" policy, in that they would shoot unarmed, surrendering Japanese troops indiscriminately which, in turned, resulted in Japanese reluctance to surrender.
|
On February 11 2011 05:34 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 05:33 brain_ wrote:On February 11 2011 05:15 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 05:12 Kipsate wrote:
The fact that Hitler is considered more evil then others is because the west cares less about them(not to sound offensive). The Jews talk alot about the Holocaust while China still reveres Mao and Russia neither hates nor loves Stalin.
Also, history is written by the victor, no suprise there. I think the reason for that is because (according to articles and papers I've read,) Americans generally considered the Asians to be "sub-human." Which is rather sad, in my opinion, but it explained why they cared less about it, and why Americans habitually stole body parts off of fallen Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese soldiers during their respective wars, but never did so to the Germans. I disagree -while there was an element of racism, to be sure, I think that those things were done/tolerated because those wars were far more brutal and "uncivilized". Germans generally didn't brutalize American bodies/prisoners, Japanese did. Actually the Japanese had great respect for the dead bodies of even enemy soldiers, which is why it upset them so much when the Americans did the exact opposite.
That simply doesn't jibe with the countless stories of (and generally held belief that there was) widespread torture and mutilation. Batan Death March? Marines having their penises cut off and shoved in their mouths? Using the screams of POWs being tortured as a Psychological weapon? Etc.
|
One thing about 911 pentagon plane, Boeing planes have depleted uranium counterweight in the tail and wings, they are recovered in plane crashes but you can't find them in the pentagon and if it burnt you can find them today with a geyger counter, the iraki desert is irradiated because of depleted uranium ammunitions from the first iraki war, 20 years later, you can still find radiations.
If the Boeing burnt, so the uraniaum weights and you could find radiations, no one found them.
|
On February 11 2011 05:30 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 05:27 mcc wrote:On February 11 2011 05:00 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 04:57 Sm3agol wrote:On February 11 2011 04:54 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 04:50 Sm3agol wrote:Maybe you've missed out on all the crap Japan was doing to deserve things like an oil embargo. You know, little things like being in an undeclared war with our ally China? China deserved to be declared war on. YELLOW RIVER FLOOD (1938) During the Sino-Japanese war, as Japanese forces moved west towards the railroad junction of Chengchow, there to meet up with other Japanese units advancing on Hankow, the Chinese Nationalists blew up the flood dykes of the Yellow River. The resulting flood inundated three provinces and forty-four counties. Between four and five thousand villages and eleven towns were flooded. A total of 3,911,354 people were displaced. Altogether 893,303 lives were lost through drowning. The Chinese Nationalists blamed this atrocity on the Japanese. If that's not enough for you, you can brush up on your pre-Mao era Chinese history here. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTMThen you'll realize that China killed, literally, more of it's own citizens than Japan ever did. I'm not saying China was guiltless, but they were our ally at the time, and Japan was clearly...INVADING THEIR COUNTRY??? I'm pretty sure the Chinese weren't blowing crap up in Japan. The Chinese and Japanese had been at war for THOUSANDS OF YEARS prior to this. Anyone can see that the United States only allied with China to try and keep the Japanese in check (just as we've done with the South Vietnamese, South Koreans, and Afghans). If America were truly so holier-than-thou and actually cared about Human well-being they wouldn't have allied a country that killed millions of it's own citizens just because. The Chinese and Russians killed FAR MORE INNOCENTS THAN THE NAZIS EVER DID. That is very misleading statement, nazis were in power for like 12 years. Russians has been around for few hundred. That makes your statement true but pretty worthless. If you meant Soviet Union I would love to see some numbers on that, but it is maybe possible, since it is still 70 years against 12. But if you are claiming that Soviets caused the death of more people between 1933-1945 than I think you are mistaken. It is widely accepted that, during the holocaust, the Nazis killed in the realm of 11,000,000 innocent people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacrehttp://www.archaeology.org/9707/newsbriefs/massacres.htmlhttp://www.brama.com/ukraine/history/terror/index.htmlhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/483936/purge-trialsHere are just some of the numbers. I hope this helps. There are many more, but I'll let you do your own research now.
No I am not responsible for proving your claims. Your links are not news to me, because I am kind of from the area and we learn it at school. My question is, why are you limiting nazi kills to holocaust. You know that they caused other deaths, with the wars they started and all. And even sum of the deaths in your sources does not come close to the millions that died in holocaust.
|
On February 11 2011 05:45 brain_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 05:34 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 05:33 brain_ wrote:On February 11 2011 05:15 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 05:12 Kipsate wrote:
The fact that Hitler is considered more evil then others is because the west cares less about them(not to sound offensive). The Jews talk alot about the Holocaust while China still reveres Mao and Russia neither hates nor loves Stalin.
Also, history is written by the victor, no suprise there. I think the reason for that is because (according to articles and papers I've read,) Americans generally considered the Asians to be "sub-human." Which is rather sad, in my opinion, but it explained why they cared less about it, and why Americans habitually stole body parts off of fallen Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese soldiers during their respective wars, but never did so to the Germans. I disagree -while there was an element of racism, to be sure, I think that those things were done/tolerated because those wars were far more brutal and "uncivilized". Germans generally didn't brutalize American bodies/prisoners, Japanese did. Actually the Japanese had great respect for the dead bodies of even enemy soldiers, which is why it upset them so much when the Americans did the exact opposite. That simply doesn't jibe with the countless stories of (and generally held belief that there was) widespread torture and mutilation. Batan Death March? Marines having their penises cut off and shoved in their mouths? Using the screams of POWs being tortured as a Psychological weapon?
And, at the same time, the Japanese have voiced concern to the fact that, after the US had occupied Okinawa, they committed widespread rape of the inhabiting women.
Additionally, the Allies commonly used Napalm and phosphorous in the Pacific theater, and from what I gather, neither of those feel too good.
|
Read the first link... hard to tell how bad it was from that.
Barely started on the second.. holy shit, that is fucked UP.
|
On February 11 2011 05:45 brain_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 05:34 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 05:33 brain_ wrote:On February 11 2011 05:15 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 05:12 Kipsate wrote:
The fact that Hitler is considered more evil then others is because the west cares less about them(not to sound offensive). The Jews talk alot about the Holocaust while China still reveres Mao and Russia neither hates nor loves Stalin.
Also, history is written by the victor, no suprise there. I think the reason for that is because (according to articles and papers I've read,) Americans generally considered the Asians to be "sub-human." Which is rather sad, in my opinion, but it explained why they cared less about it, and why Americans habitually stole body parts off of fallen Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese soldiers during their respective wars, but never did so to the Germans. I disagree -while there was an element of racism, to be sure, I think that those things were done/tolerated because those wars were far more brutal and "uncivilized". Germans generally didn't brutalize American bodies/prisoners, Japanese did. Actually the Japanese had great respect for the dead bodies of even enemy soldiers, which is why it upset them so much when the Americans did the exact opposite. That simply doesn't jibe with the countless stories of (and generally held belief that there was) widespread torture and mutilation. Batan Death March? Marines having their penises cut off and shoved in their mouths? Using the screams of POWs being tortured as a Psychological weapon?
Yeah but how would you even know? Like the US is going to come out and say "hey everyone we won the war so BTW here's all the fucked up shit we did during the war...". The only reason we know about what the germans and japansese did is because they were defeated so of course the allies want to make them look like the bad guy.
|
On February 11 2011 05:34 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 05:32 mcc wrote:On February 11 2011 05:05 Elegy wrote:
It's a recurrent theme amongst Europeans (although Americans certainly do this as well, probably even more) that, when pointing out the crimes of other nations, universally avoid little old Belgium and her...adventures...in the Congo. Not a dig on Europeans, but Belgium is repeatedly ignored or looked over when it comes to mentioning Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc. Belgium's colonial story is actually pretty well known, but frankly it is similar to the story of all colonial powers in Africa, just more fucked up. Yes, I should clarify in that when people talk about the great massacres and butchers of history, it's always Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Occasionally the Turks are thrown in, but I get the general impression that most Westerners tend to avoid their own little colonial legacies in favor of highlighting the more famous examples of human brutality.
I don't think that is specific to Westerners, I think all nationalities do it unfortunately.
EDIT: But I have to agree that Congo story and other colonial "adventures" should be more publicly discussed and disclosed.
|
On February 11 2011 05:47 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 05:45 brain_ wrote:On February 11 2011 05:34 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 05:33 brain_ wrote:On February 11 2011 05:15 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 05:12 Kipsate wrote:
The fact that Hitler is considered more evil then others is because the west cares less about them(not to sound offensive). The Jews talk alot about the Holocaust while China still reveres Mao and Russia neither hates nor loves Stalin.
Also, history is written by the victor, no suprise there. I think the reason for that is because (according to articles and papers I've read,) Americans generally considered the Asians to be "sub-human." Which is rather sad, in my opinion, but it explained why they cared less about it, and why Americans habitually stole body parts off of fallen Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese soldiers during their respective wars, but never did so to the Germans. I disagree -while there was an element of racism, to be sure, I think that those things were done/tolerated because those wars were far more brutal and "uncivilized". Germans generally didn't brutalize American bodies/prisoners, Japanese did. Actually the Japanese had great respect for the dead bodies of even enemy soldiers, which is why it upset them so much when the Americans did the exact opposite. That simply doesn't jibe with the countless stories of (and generally held belief that there was) widespread torture and mutilation. Batan Death March? Marines having their penises cut off and shoved in their mouths? Using the screams of POWs being tortured as a Psychological weapon? And, at the same time, the Japanese have voiced concern to the fact that, after the US had occupied Okinawa, they committed widespread rape of the inhabiting women. Additionally, the Allies commonly used Napalm and phosphorous in the Pacific theater, and from what I gather, neither of those feel too good.
I heard they used nukes too...
|
On February 11 2011 05:47 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 05:30 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 05:27 mcc wrote:On February 11 2011 05:00 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 04:57 Sm3agol wrote:On February 11 2011 04:54 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 04:50 Sm3agol wrote:Maybe you've missed out on all the crap Japan was doing to deserve things like an oil embargo. You know, little things like being in an undeclared war with our ally China? China deserved to be declared war on. YELLOW RIVER FLOOD (1938) During the Sino-Japanese war, as Japanese forces moved west towards the railroad junction of Chengchow, there to meet up with other Japanese units advancing on Hankow, the Chinese Nationalists blew up the flood dykes of the Yellow River. The resulting flood inundated three provinces and forty-four counties. Between four and five thousand villages and eleven towns were flooded. A total of 3,911,354 people were displaced. Altogether 893,303 lives were lost through drowning. The Chinese Nationalists blamed this atrocity on the Japanese. If that's not enough for you, you can brush up on your pre-Mao era Chinese history here. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTMThen you'll realize that China killed, literally, more of it's own citizens than Japan ever did. I'm not saying China was guiltless, but they were our ally at the time, and Japan was clearly...INVADING THEIR COUNTRY??? I'm pretty sure the Chinese weren't blowing crap up in Japan. The Chinese and Japanese had been at war for THOUSANDS OF YEARS prior to this. Anyone can see that the United States only allied with China to try and keep the Japanese in check (just as we've done with the South Vietnamese, South Koreans, and Afghans). If America were truly so holier-than-thou and actually cared about Human well-being they wouldn't have allied a country that killed millions of it's own citizens just because. The Chinese and Russians killed FAR MORE INNOCENTS THAN THE NAZIS EVER DID. That is very misleading statement, nazis were in power for like 12 years. Russians has been around for few hundred. That makes your statement true but pretty worthless. If you meant Soviet Union I would love to see some numbers on that, but it is maybe possible, since it is still 70 years against 12. But if you are claiming that Soviets caused the death of more people between 1933-1945 than I think you are mistaken. It is widely accepted that, during the holocaust, the Nazis killed in the realm of 11,000,000 innocent people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacrehttp://www.archaeology.org/9707/newsbriefs/massacres.htmlhttp://www.brama.com/ukraine/history/terror/index.htmlhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/483936/purge-trialsHere are just some of the numbers. I hope this helps. There are many more, but I'll let you do your own research now. No I am not responsible for proving your claims. Your links are not news to me, because I am kind of from the area and we learn it at school. My question is, why are you limiting nazi kills to holocaust. You know that they caused other deaths, with the wars they started and all. And even sum of the deaths in your sources does not come close to the millions that died in holocaust.
You are responsible for disproving them, which you have yet to do. So far, in this entire debate, I am the ONLY person to post a single supporting link.
I grant you permission to use any search engine you want. Go ahead and get some evidence to refute my evidence, or support your claims.
|
On February 11 2011 05:19 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 05:16 PiousMartyr wrote:On February 11 2011 04:53 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 11 2011 04:50 Sm3agol wrote:Maybe you've missed out on all the crap Japan was doing to deserve things like an oil embargo. You know, little things like being in an undeclared war with our ally China? It's not a question of did japan deserve it, but how it is presented in US history. I thought the controversy was caused because Japan attacked before they declared war. The US has embargos placed on several countries that they aren't at war with. They prevent many goods from entering Cuba, stop people from trading luxury goods and weapons to North Korea, and stop Iran from obtaining nuclear equipment. An embargo is a hostile action, but it's not a act of war. Japan was invading many countries just to expand it's borders and execute it's "divine right". They had no right or reason to attack China or any other country, and the US wanted them to stop. Denying Japan oil was one of their ways to slow down Japans military. I do agree with you that Pearl Harbor is often presented as 100% random and unexpected, but both countries were becoming militarized and there was a lot of tension between them. War wasn't entirely unexpected, but a massive attack without a of war was. No, you can believe what you want, but the attack was not only expected it was desired by the US government.
I do think that the US wanted war, but I don't think they wanted a suprise attack on their home soil. Japan wanted to invade the Philippines, which was a US commonwealth state at the time. If they invaded the Philippines first and fought the US troops there, the US Navy would have time to come to their aid.
Instead, Japan destroyed half of the US's battleships located at Perl Harbor and damaged the rest. They destroyed several destroyers and damaged some cruisers as well. The very next day, they invaded the Philippines. By smashing the US navy before it had a chance to move out they could attack the Philippines without fear of being flanked by the US Navy.
The war economy did wonders for the economy of the US and it provided them with the military to remain one of strongest (if not the strongest) military forces in the world. They wanted war, but they didn't want to lose a huge chunk of their navy or the Philippines.
On February 11 2011 05:21 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 05:16 PiousMartyr wrote:On February 11 2011 04:53 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 11 2011 04:50 Sm3agol wrote:Maybe you've missed out on all the crap Japan was doing to deserve things like an oil embargo. You know, little things like being in an undeclared war with our ally China? It's not a question of did japan deserve it, but how it is presented in US history. I thought the controversy was caused because Japan attacked before they declared war. The US has embargos placed on several countries that they aren't at war with. They prevent many goods from entering Cuba, stop people from trading luxury goods and weapons to North Korea, and stop Iran from obtaining nuclear equipment. An embargo is a hostile action, but it's not a act of war. Japan was invading many countries just to expand it's borders and execute it's "divine right". They had no right or reason to attack China or any other country, and the US wanted them to stop. Denying Japan oil was one of their ways to slow down Japans military. I do agree with you that Pearl Harbor is often presented as 100% random and unexpected, but both countries were becoming militarized and there was a lot of tension between them. War wasn't entirely unexpected, but a massive attack without a of war was. I don't disagree that Japan (along with the U S) was becoming militarized, but the United States knew what they were doing when they began to provoke the Japanese into a fight, The Japanese would have most likely never attempted to expand into North America, or anywhere out of Asia for that matter. Also, the difference between Japan, and the other countries you listed (With the exception of Iran) is the fact that they are backed by other communist countries, whereas America was preventing ALL oil trade going into Japan (which is an island, and has little other option for natural resources aside from trade, and expansion. Also, oil is a necessity for the function of a society, whereas nuclear components are, at this time, not. If modern day China imposed and enforced an oil embargo on the current United States, and refused to back down unless the US withdrew all troops from all countries that are not one of the 50 United States, then I would be willing to bet anything that America would be at war before the end of the year. It's true that an embargo is not an act of war, but when left with no other reasonable option, that would be the most common reaction.
Hmm, true, I forgot that most of those countries were communist.
Japan also wanted to invade the Philippines, which was a US Commonwealth state. They would have wanted to defend that, since it was still technically US soil. It's not like the US had nothing to lose by letting Japan expand.
The embargo was supposed to force Japan into surrendering. Instead, Japan went to war to restore their oil imports.
|
On February 11 2011 05:46 woowoo wrote:
One thing about 911 pentagon plane, Boeing planes have depleted uranium counterweight in the tail and wings, they are recovered in plane crashes but you can't find them in the pentagon and if it burnt you can find them today with a geyger counter, the iraki desert is irradiated because of depleted uranium ammunitions from the first iraki war, 20 years later, you can still find radiations.
If the Boeing burnt, so the uraniaum weights and you could find radiations, no one found them.
I was not aware of this. PM me your source please?
|
On February 11 2011 05:47 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 05:45 brain_ wrote:On February 11 2011 05:34 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 05:33 brain_ wrote:On February 11 2011 05:15 RoosterSamurai wrote:On February 11 2011 05:12 Kipsate wrote:
The fact that Hitler is considered more evil then others is because the west cares less about them(not to sound offensive). The Jews talk alot about the Holocaust while China still reveres Mao and Russia neither hates nor loves Stalin.
Also, history is written by the victor, no suprise there. I think the reason for that is because (according to articles and papers I've read,) Americans generally considered the Asians to be "sub-human." Which is rather sad, in my opinion, but it explained why they cared less about it, and why Americans habitually stole body parts off of fallen Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese soldiers during their respective wars, but never did so to the Germans. I disagree -while there was an element of racism, to be sure, I think that those things were done/tolerated because those wars were far more brutal and "uncivilized". Germans generally didn't brutalize American bodies/prisoners, Japanese did. Actually the Japanese had great respect for the dead bodies of even enemy soldiers, which is why it upset them so much when the Americans did the exact opposite. That simply doesn't jibe with the countless stories of (and generally held belief that there was) widespread torture and mutilation. Batan Death March? Marines having their penises cut off and shoved in their mouths? Using the screams of POWs being tortured as a Psychological weapon? And, at the same time, the Japanese have voiced concern to the fact that, after the US had occupied Okinawa, they committed widespread rape of the inhabiting women. Additionally, the Allies commonly used Napalm and phosphorous in the Pacific theater, and from what I gather, neither of those feel too good.
Funny how a country calls foul on these things only when they become the victims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
