QUOTE
Youre comparing blowing up stone statues of Budha to the holocaust? No. Just no.
There are many forms of genocide. You were the one comparing the holocaust to the cultural genocide in Afghanistan.
No, no there are not. You could get the taliban for trying to destroy a peoples culture, but there arent any budhists living in Afghanistan so it wasnt really an assault on a people or a peoples culture (as there were no indiginous people present to claim the cultural items.) Am I saying it was ok? No. Am I saying the Taliban were ok? No. But I'm saying they were not fascists, and theres no comparison between what they did adn the holocaust.
I brought up this difference to show you yet another reason why they're not fascists. You pointed out this incident as a reason they were fascists, and I pointed to the fact that it appears to be small scale stuff when compared to even Hitler's (comparatively) less malignant operations against Jews such as Kristalnacht.
QUOTE
No the navy bombed pearl harbor. That's what we're talking about if you can manage to keep your mind on one thing for five minutes.
The navy couldn’t have bombed Pearl Harbour without the permission of the army because it was the army that had to see the war through.
You claimed that the Japanese army couldnt spare troops to attack pearl harbor. This was false as the army wasnt involved in the attack.
QUOTE
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia....on_Pearl_HarborAnd yet, I see no evidence that the Japanese were planning on attacking Pearl Harbour
They had been contingency planning for a war with the US for at least ten or twenty years according to that article. I imagine those plans would have had to involve attacks on the Aleutians and on the US's main naval base that was within range of Japan, namely Pearl Harbor.
QUOTE
The USSR had one quarter of its forces in the east. At that point the Japanese military was outnumbered in China and could barely spare 500,000 men needed for the Pacific. The amount of USSR soldiers in the east is much bigger then the amount of Japanese soldiers. The USSR and Japan had a non-aggression pact.
The US and Japan also had a non agression pact. So did Germany and the USSR. If Japan hadnt attacked the US it would have gone after the USSR, you yourself stated they were more interested in Russia than the US. And Russia did indeed have a lot of troops, but they were inexperienced, poorly led, poorly supplied, etc. Hence Germany's swift advances. And an attack by Japan would have been catastrophic for Russian morale even if it wasnt a problem on a strategic basis which it almost certainly would have been.
QUOTE
Basic strategy dictates that Japan could not afford a war with the USSR and would be cut down pretty quickly had they entered a war with the USSR.
Ah dictation on strategy from the man who suggests secretly moving an army over the pacific ocean and then north from australia. Strategy is about more than numbers, regretably.
QUOTE
The Japanese had submarines.
No they didnt. Also the date was 1904. And about 20000 Japanese deaths were due to disease, so the Russians lost more troops due to combat related reasons. It was regardless a sweeping Japanese victory and, get this, is cited as one of the reasons the Czars government fell. So if a few enemy victories far from St Petersburg helped topple the Czar (and drop Russia out of world war 1) what might a series of enemy victories, the surrounding of St. Petersburg (or Leningrad) and an invasion in the East do?
QUOTE
Germans were wandering around Stalingrad and Moscow's suburbs. And your belief is that on a global scale or for the US it would have been better to let Japan join the assault on Russia and wait to enter the war while the last vestiges of red resistance were shredded?
I don’t remember saying anything like that.
You said it was a mistake to "force" Japan to enter the war with the embargo.
But you also say it would not have been better to wait .
So are you now saying that Roosevelt didnt make a mistake there?