RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 8:34:46 AM)

Manifest Destiny, the genocide of the pains Indians (which was planned, read Ulyses Grant). You don't need to have two eyes to recognize such open imperialism.

The US has does nothing of the sort. We educated, trained and wanted to trade with those. That trade although on a very small scale, aided the countries we protected much more than exploited it. The Philipine archipelago by itself offered us very little except a good Pacific location for a navy base after WWII when we finally got the Japanese out.
 
You sound like a Brit defending the British Empire. Educating, training and trading with the savages.

Get a grip on the continuing loose use of terms imperalist colonialism. That in its actual form...forces another society upon yours, govt., military, your courts, your law, your education and all of civil society.

You said America was educating and training people because you wanted to trade with them. You imposed trade on people in the same way the Brits imposed trade on people. That in anyone's book is imperialism.

You've got troops in over 40 countries around the world and you may say most of those governments want you there, most governments wanted the Brits in the days of the empire. That is not to say most people in those countries want you anymore than people wanted the Brits and even when they did and do, it is usually to be defended by one bully from a worse bully. It is still colonialism but I understand your wish not to see it that way, most Americans don't like the reality of their foreign policy because it goes against American national myth but then Americans are just about the only people in the world that claim the USA isn't an empire. Just as most Americans claim they are a peaceful nation while having a military that is bigger than the other 18 NATO members put together, plus Russia and plus China and probably plus India.




JustDarkness -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 8:35:17 AM)

was in general ;)




MrRodgers -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 9:26:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Manifest Destiny, the genocide of the pains Indians (which was planned, read Ulyses Grant). You don't need to have two eyes to recognize such open imperialism.

The US has does nothing of the sort. We educated, trained and wanted to trade with those. That trade although on a very small scale, aided the countries we protected much more than exploited it. The Philipine archipelago by itself offered us very little except a good Pacific location for a navy base after WWII when we finally got the Japanese out.
 
You sound like a Brit defending the British Empire. Educating, training and trading with the savages.

Get a grip on the continuing loose use of terms imperalist colonialism. That in its actual form...forces another society upon yours, govt., military, your courts, your law, your education and all of civil society.

You said America was educating and training people because you wanted to trade with them. You imposed trade on people in the same way the Brits imposed trade on people. That in anyone's book is imperialism.

You've got troops in over 40 countries around the world and you may say most of those governments want you there, most governments wanted the Brits in the days of the empire. That is not to say most people in those countries want you anymore than people wanted the Brits and even when they did and do, it is usually to be defended by one bully from a worse bully. It is still colonialism but I understand your wish not to see it that way, most Americans don't like the reality of their foreign policy because it goes against American national myth but then Americans are just about the only people in the world that claim the USA isn't an empire. Just as most Americans claim they are a peaceful nation while having a military that is bigger than the other 18 NATO members put together, plus Russia and plus China and probably plus India.

Yes, as I have written, the U.S. govt. and military's solution for the American Indian was among the darkest periods in our short history. And even though what we did to them had been done all throughout history. This means of course that all of those countries today could still be labeled murderous butchers and colonial imperialists for the acts that for over 1000 years...their predecessors committed.

So we could call the Asians and their Mongol products, Persians, Greeks, Romans, most resulting European tribes/countries...all still muderous butchers or imperialist colonialists.

The difference in modern history is that first I think the Austrians and Russians tried to swallow up their neighbors. Then the Japanese built the worlds most powerful navy and brought real modern warfare to the Pacific islands. What was the Japanese fear ? American colonialism ? Hardly. It was that we were in their way to accomplishing just that in the Pacific.

Yes, we have troops in many countries and you wish to extend that fact to mean they are a measure of our colonialism and yet forget the question of this whole post. Who were the aggressors...

We do not control the German govt. or society and in fact spent to rebuild them. Even the treaty of Versaille while one-sided for sure, did not 'colonialize' Germany.

We do not control the Japanese govt. or society and spent money to help rebuild them.

We do not control the S.Korean govt. or society and have given them foreign aid to help rebuild civil society since that war. Ditto for Puerto Rico.

So just who has been history's aggressors and who is now ?

The whole argument rests on the idea that we do NOT and did not render complete control of their govt. In Japan we had McCarther there too but guess what...he and we left the Philipines and Japan. Colonialists...don't leave, they have to be thrown out.

All of the above would be our absolute legal, governmental and civil possessions if we hadn't left and they are not now and never were to be so-called American colonies and the whole suggestion of Amrican 'empire' is absurd when maeasured against ALL of history.

In modern history, our enemies have been the murderous butchers (aggressors) and did in fact take over all of aspects of society in their favor...we did not.

Now I am going to put the onus on you...pleae describe in detail all of the American colonies and each country in detail, how we are their colonial imperialist masters.








HunterS -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 9:31:57 AM)

quote:


Yes, and it could have been H.W. Bush as just coincidentally he and E. Howard Hunt, both of the CIA were in Dallas on 11/22/63. I wonder why.


Well Hunt was pretty deeply involved in the bay of pigs fiasco
and rather than accept that the whole thing failed because of poor planning was more content to blame Kennedy.

H.




slvemike4u -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 9:36:26 AM)

And could it be said Hunt was allied with the Cuban freedom fighters,despite the lack of a formal treaty.....just asking?




meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 10:04:29 AM)

Now I am going to put the onus on you...pleae describe in detail all of the American colonies and each country in detail, how we are their colonial imperialist masters.

If the Brits used the definition of colonialism you seem to prefer, their Empire was a fraction of the size it was. Troops with boots on the ground was not a big thing in the British Empire either, Britain used economics and quiet threats where possible and troops and gunboats in the last resort. It held down the whole of the Indian subcontinent with less troops than the US has in Iraq. Divide and rule, bribery and blackmail which is exactly how the US operates, except when the Republicans get silly  macho and feel the need to use military force when its not needed.

Trying to find a source but a Harvard history professor said once that if the US came clean and admited to imperialism it would make wiser foreign policy decisions instead of pretending to be a desseminator of democracy.




HunterS -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 10:10:41 AM)

 
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And could it be said Hunt was allied with the Cuban freedom fighters,despite the lack of a formal treaty.....just asking?


You are using "allied" in a rather circutious fashion.  Hunt as an agent of the CIA recruited,trained and armed the Cubans.  In actuallity he was their employer not their ally.
 
H.




HunterS -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 10:22:38 AM)

quote:


Now I am going to put the onus on you...pleae describe in detail all of the American colonies and each country in detail, how we are their colonial imperialist masters.


Aside from Alaska every inch of the U.S. was acquired by force of arms or the threat of such.
Did Samoa request to be part of the U.S.?
Did Hawaii request to be part of the U.S.?
Did Puerto Rico request to be part of the U.S.?
Did half of Mexico request to be part of the U.S.?
Did the Oregon (which was a British colony) request to be part of the U.S.?
Did Spain ask the U.S. to take Louisiana off of their hands?  Yeah we bought it from France who really did not own it.  Check the treaty of San Il Defenso.  You might also ask yourself why a U.S. military expedition which was suppose to be exploring the "Louisiana purchase", which stops at the Rocky mountians,went all the way to the Pacific ocean?
Did the native Americans between the Mississippi and the Applachian mtns. Ask to become part of the U.S.?
Did the Virgin Islands ask to be part of the U.S.?
Did Cuba ask the U.S. to put a naval base in the finest harbor in Cuba in perpetuity?
Did the Phillippines ask the U.S. to rule them for 50 plus years?
Would you like me to go on or can you do your own research from here?

H. 




slvemike4u -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 11:07:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And could it be said Hunt was allied with the Cuban freedom fighters,despite the lack of a formal treaty.....just asking?


You are using "allied" in a rather circutious fashion.  Hunt as an agent of the CIA recruited,trained and armed the Cubans.  In actuallity he was their employer not their ally.
 
H.
Now who is being circutious,financial backing does not equal employment.Those men were on that beach to secure freedom for their country.While taking money from the CIA and perhaps serving the CIA's purpose,I doubt any of them felt like employee's...bu this is just semantics...again!




HunterS -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 11:31:50 AM)

quote:

Now who is being circutious,financial backing does not equal employment.Those men were on that beach to secure freedom for their country.While taking money from the CIA and perhaps serving the CIA's purpose,I doubt any of them felt like employee's...bu this is just semantics...again!


"Freedom fighter" isn't that a euphemism for a thug who wants to bring back Batista or someone like him?
 
H.




slvemike4u -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 11:46:14 AM)

Yes Hunter,lets just skip over your "misuse" of the term employee...and skip right to arguing the use of "freedom fighter"which by the way was used by you not me.As distasteful as Batisa was,and I am certainly not going to defend him..... on the other hand how has Cuba fared under the not so benevolent rule of the Castro brothers.Mabe one can guage their popularity by how many are willing to risk their lives in an effort to leave his "island paradise".




HunterS -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 12:17:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Yes Hunter,lets just skip over your "misuse" of the term employee...and skip right to arguing the use of "freedom fighter"which by the way was used by you not me.As distasteful as Batisa was,and I am certainly not going to defend him..... on the other hand how has Cuba fared under the not so benevolent rule of the Castro brothers.Mabe one can guage their popularity by how many are willing to risk their lives in an effort to leave his "island paradise".


If you are more comfortable with the term "freedom securers" we can go with that but it just does not have the same "J'ne se quoi" as "freedom fighter"
What percentage of the 11 million Cubans have defected to the U.S.?  What economic class did they belong to?
Cuba has the lowst patient to doctor ratio in the world at 170:1 while the U.S. is about thirty five places down the list with about 350:1.  Cuba has universal health care and it is free.  You might want to watch "Sicko" by Michael Moore.   Cuba has the highest literacy rate in the world where under Batista it was slightly over 50%.  One has to wonder what kind of a dictator would want his people to be literate and educated.
You remember Elian Gonzalez?  His momma was suppose to be fleeing Castros "island paradise"  truth is she had a boy friend in Miammi and this was her third trip to go visit him.
If you look into the make up of the gang of thugs who went to the bay of pigs you will find that they were made of a significant number of Batista henchmen.
Perhaps you can tell me why the U.S. has a military base in Cuba.  What gives us the right to station troops in a soverign nation against their will? 
Cuba by any measure is far better off today than at any time in the history of Cuba.
 
H.




slvemike4u -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 2:08:52 PM)

You can try to sell that swill to the denizens of Castro's jails...a benign dictator is still a dictator,sort of like putting lip stick on a pit bull...it's still a pit bull.As for Michael Moore,though I agree with him on many issues,propaganda is still propaganda,and that is his forte...he is an effective film maker,but if you are watching his films and believe you are seeing both sides of the equation....you are mistaken.
You still have not explained how you get to use the word employee,while calling me on characterizing the Chinese as allies.




HunterS -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 4:12:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

You can try to sell that swill to the denizens of Castro's jails...a benign dictator is still a dictator,sort of like putting lip stick on a pit bull...it's still a pit bull.As for Michael Moore,though I agree with him on many issues,propaganda is still propaganda,and that is his forte...he is an effective film maker,but if you are watching his films and believe you are seeing both sides of the equation....you are mistaken.
You still have not explained how you get to use the word employee,while calling me on characterizing the Chinese as allies.


Please do tell me which part of my post was "swill".
Please do tell me which part of my post was untrue.
A few keystrokes will take you to google and you can verify the veracity of my post.
As to the validity of the use of the word employee, if I pay you to do a task you are by definition an employee no matter how much you like the job.
 
H.




slvemike4u -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 4:17:46 PM)

And if our goals and aims intersect you are by definition an ally
Truth is not in all cases the whole truth...To say that Cuba is better off under Castro than they were under Batsista...is not to say they would not be better off with freedom ,is it?




HunterS -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 4:53:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And if our goals and aims intersect you are by definition an ally
Truth is not in all cases the whole truth...To say that Cuba is better off under Castro than they were under Batsista...is not to say they would not be better off with freedom ,is it?


If you wish to play with words to make them mean what you wish them to that is your business.  If you wish to challange webster as to the meaning of a word that too is your business.  I find it tedious.
What I said is that Cuba is better off under Castro than at any time in the history of Cuba not just Batista.
Perhaps you should read the "patriot act" and compare that to what ever concept of "freedom" you may cling to. 
The patriot act has removed any vestage of freedom that ever existed in this country.  It makes the rule of Castro in Cuba seem mild indeed.
You do not seem to have ever been to Cuba...I have...btw. Cuban babes are hawt...  The people love Castro.  No other ruler in the world has been in power as long as he has.  The man regularly mixes with the general population and the only attempts on his life have come from the U.S. government.
Don't you think it is more than a little presumptious on your part to decide for the Cubans what sort of government they should have.  Does Cuba try to interfere in the way the U.S. is governed?
You still have not answered one of my points about Cuba.  If you feel unqualified or incapable of doing so then lets just stop here.  If all you want to do is regurgitate "Castro bad commie socialist dictator" please do not waste anymore of my time as I am interested in discussion not rhetoric.
 
H.




slvemike4u -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 5:04:00 PM)

I have no desire to continue this either....you have a different idea of freedom than I do.....I voted in this election when was the last time a Cuban could say that.
Have a good night.




HunterS -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 5:19:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I have no desire to continue this either....you have a different idea of freedom than I do.....I voted in this election when was the last time a Cuban could say that.
Have a good night.


Since you have been unwilling or unable to answer any of the points I have raised it would seem a prudent course of action.
Cubans have elections.  Perhaps if you were to learn a little more about Cuba you might ameloriate your vitriolic stance towards them.
As for you casting your vote today my question is why?  Anyone who has had sixth grade civics knows that we appoint presidents in this country,we do not elect them.
The electoral college appoints the president.
The electoral college is appointed by the state legislature.
The state legislature is chosen by the electorate from an "approved" list of candidates.
The supreme court of the U.S. has rueled that the people have no right to vote for the electors and that in those states in which they have been granted that priviledge that priviledge may be revoked at any time by the legislature.

H.




slvemike4u -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 5:24:18 PM)

Have it your way Hunter,we are back at the beginning...questioning each others definitions,this time the phrase in question is "free elections"...I would differ with you on this,but I am too busy watching democracy at work,despite what you took out of your 6th grade civics lessons.....you have my sympathies.Good Luck




Aslanemperor -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/4/2008 5:28:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

C4 news just reported that the head of the Japanese airforce is now looking for a new job after posting comments to a website that Japan was not an aggressor in WWII, contrary to the official Japanese govt position and likely to piss off the Chinese as much as the rest of us.

I think he might find his reception at the job centre be a bit "Pearl Harbor" so to speak

E

Wow!  This is hillarious.  I think we have another case of someone who's in trouble because he spoke the truth.
The fact was we cut Japan off from much needed oil suddenly and for no reason, and we put countless sanctions on their country which caused thousands to starve.  Pearl Harbor was retalliation for serious blows against their people, and the truth is that they wheren't trying to do anything more than punch the big bully in the nose so he'll leave them alone.  If they'd decided to take pearl harbor, at that time we would have been powerless to defeat them and the asian front of WWII would have played out very differently.  At the time they had much better quallity air carriers and better planes then us.  With Pearl Harbor, they would have been able to block American assistance while they took over Chinese and other oil reserves.  Using these they wouldn't have run into one of their worst problems during the war, which was fuel shortage.
Without Pearl Harbor, the US wouldn't have the ability to launch the nuke against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
<-----  Is a history buff




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875