[Snake Logan]

Snake, your continuing insistence on drawing links between the current mindless agression, and the unprovoked aggression we comitted to provoke Islamic attacks, I say that your attempts to liken this situation in any way shape or form to World War 2 are reprehensible.

I wasn’t trying to link them. I was trying to say that unless Americans understand the causes of wars, more needless wars in the future will come about.

We are not fighting "Islamic fascists" We are not fighting fascists of any kind.

The terrorists in 9/11 were Islamic Fascists. Those fighting in Afghanistan are Islamic Fascists. But I am not here to debate that. I already won that debate in another thread.

We did not provoke Japan in world war 2.

Embargoes are provocations.

We did not provoke Germany.

I never said that.

An embargo is not an act of war.

It should be. Countries interfering with another country’s trade is inexcusable. Just because America has the economic power to enforce embargoes, doesn’t make America’s embargoes are just.

It was an attempt to slow Japan's rape of Manchuria. It was an attempt to deprive the Japanese of fuel that was used to transport people to death camps and to fuel generators that supplied power for medical experiments.

Did it achieve that? No. Japan instead expanded its brutality to include half the continent and most of the Pacific.

And finally to suggest that Roosevelt did as much to provoke an enemy assault as the current US regime has to Islam, is an insult to the memory of a great man. Would the other allied powers have won the war if the US hadnt intervened? You know what, I think so. But I'm glad we did because the fact that we joined the right side is one of the few things that gives me a bit of pride in this nation.

Lend-Lease was giving Britain, USSR, China, various anti-German guerrilla units in Europe and anti-Japanese guerrilla units in Asia unimaginable amounts of food, medical supplies and guns. When America entered the war, the Germans were already being slaughtered in Stalingrad and the British were winning in North Africa against Rommel. Japan only had control of parts of China, Indochina and a bit of the Pacific. America WAS fighting fascism. What Roosevelt did was provoke Japan in a needless war that turned the Pacific, the Philippines Hong Kong, Burma, the Dutch East Indies and Papua New Guinea into killing fields.

Wow. You really are taking this oppositional disorder of yours to new levels. World War 2 was a needless war? I'll let someone else handle this one...

I said the war against Japan was needless. At least at that point it was.

[Spoon Poetic]

The terrorists in 9/11 were Islamic Fascists. Those fighting in Afghanistan are Islamic Fascists. But I am not here to debate that. I already won that debate in another thread.

*giggles* Uh-huh...

Embargoes are provocations.
...
It should be {an act of war}. Countries interfering with another country’s trade is inexcusable. Just because America has the economic power to enforce embargoes, doesn’t make America’s embargoes are just.
...
Did it achieve that {discourage Japan's war/torture/invasion stuff}? No. Japan instead expanded its brutality to include half the continent and most of the Pacific.

What the U.S. did had nothing to do with Japan's expanding brutality. And the U.S. was perfectly right to stop trade with Japan - the stuff that America was trading to Japan was being used to help their mission of torture, killing, and invasion. America did not want to be a supporter of that.

Let's put it into an analogy that anyone with half a brain could understand:
Let's say that Person A, Al, is a serial killer. Person B, Bob, knows that Al is a serial killer. Al plans to kill as many people as he can in his lifetime, and he wants certain weapons to do that: a machete and an Uzi. Bob also knows this. Bob does not like killing people for no good reason and doesn't like what Al is doing. However, he sells a machete and some Uzi ammo to Al anyway. Then Al goes and uses those things to murder a bunch of people. This makes Bob an accomplice. He knew what was going to be done with those weapons he sold Al, but he sold them anyway. Not only does that mean he helped those murders to happen, but it also will imply to everyone else in the world that Bob supported the idea of murdering those people.

If you couldn't tell, Person A Al is analogous to Japan, and Person B Bob is analogous to America. Of course America wasn't going to continue providing Japan with things to aid their campaign. And Japan didn't do more damage because of this! They went on with plans they had already had to launch a bunch more attacks in different places. And Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they thought it was good timing; what with everyone being occupied with the war in Europe.

[Chefelf]

Snake, I think it's awesome you suspect we don't comprehend the shock Americans felt when those towers fell. Immediately afterward, I billeted folks stranded at the airport until they could get alternate transport worked out. We all watched the news and felt the shift to the right on the tv shows we watched and the papers we read. I live close to the US border, and I visited after those towers fell. I talked to people from a number of different walks of life and yes, I comprehend the shock that people felt when the towers fell.

That's easy for you to say! You were a Canadian watching it on the news in Vancouver! Imagine all those Americans watching it on the news in, say, Seattle. Big difference, my friend. Big difference.

[Jordan]

It's true, I remember exactly where I was when I first heard. I remember who told me, the room, the time, the class, and I recall going home at the end of the day and watching it over and over and feeling 'shocked'.

I also recall seeing American flags hanging in peoples yards and outside their apartment balconys where I lived. I even remember local news talking to people working in high rise towers in my city, and one lady said she felt nervous because a plane could easily ram into her work place.

We were shocked and some were scared, and we're Canadian.

[Slade]

They stopped my English class and we went to a room with a TV and watched the news for a little while, which was mainly replaying the footage over and over again. My friend at the time shared his seat with me. I said "Jesus..." when I saw it, and then was mildly disappointed in myself because I'm not religious and could have been a bit more secular with my exp​ression of shock and disbelief. Oh, then there was all the talk about my town being in danger, and me telling people that terrorists had better things to do then blow up all of the cows around my hometown.

It's still not a phrase or event that allows you to ignore all rationality and reasonable intelligence to rally sheeple like Rudy has been trying to do, of course. It's a shame humanity is so knee-jerk and emotional in its responses to turmoil to the point of it only taking a bit of perpetuation of fear to put absolute power into the hands of the pigs.

[Simperin' Fool]

It was an attempt to slow Japan's rape of Manchuria. It was an attempt to deprive the Japanese of fuel that was used to transport people to death camps and to fuel generators that supplied power for medical experiments.

Did it achieve that? No. Japan instead expanded its brutality to include half the continent and most of the Pacific.

Hey, bastards will be bastards. If you get in a traffic accident and flip the other driver off, that doesn't make it your fault if they pull a gun and start shooting random people.

[Spoon Poetic]

Did it achieve that?

"No. Japan instead expanded its brutality to include half the continent and most of the Pacific.

Hey, bastards will be bastards. If you get in a traffic accident and flip the other driver off, that doesn't make it your fault if they pull a gun and start shooting random people.

However, it will be partially your fault if you gave that person a gun knowing what they were about to do with it. Hence my previous analogy.

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 05 February 2008 - 07:23 PM

[Simperin' Fool]

Indeed. Plus, it would be pretty stupid, because they'd be shooting at you first.

[Spoon Poetic]

Well, I mean, like if you were in the passenger seat and dude's like, "Man, I think I want to start shooting a bunch of people because that one flipped me off!" And then you're all like, "Totally, here's a gun and some ammo, mate." Instead, you should have totally embargoed Road Rage man!

[Simperin' Fool]

"That's it, I'm placing sanctions on your car."

"Whaddaya mean-- hey, I need that to steer!"

[J m HofMarN]

I wasn’t trying to link them. I was trying to say that unless Americans understand the causes of wars, more needless wars in the future will come about.

So you werent trying to say that WW2 and the "War onterrorism Islamic fascism" were alike, you were merely trying to say that they were booth "needless wars" involving fascists. Maybe you dont understand what constitutes a link, but when you say that two very different wars both had no cause and were against a similiar enemy, that is linking them. So let me spell this out for you:

World War 2 was necessary to keep the world from falling into the hands of fascism. We saw how they ran things in Spain after they took over, and that fate could well have befallen much of, if not all, the world if people hadnt fought against it. It was fought against fascists who amassed huge amounts of power and built up their country's military and pride.

the "war on terror" is a war we started when we terrorised Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, etcetera. It is a war fought by the oppressed against the oppressors. The enemy facing the US are waging guerilla warfare and hiding in caves. They do not often appeal to nationalism but rather to religion. They do not take pride in their military might, but in the purported righteousness of their struggle. They do not goose step. They dont do that goofy salute. They dont wear tiny mustaches. They are not fascists. Bush calls them that to liken this struggle to world war 2. The only fascist involved, the only person who appeals to blind nationalism, patriotism, and talks up the prowess of his military while collecting mroe and more power, is George Bush.

Oh and here's another big difference. People like to kill fascists. Their own people especially. Remember the bombing plot against Hitler? The underground resistance? Mussolini swinging from a lamp post? So if thats how fascists relate to their people, why is it that not one Pakistani or Afghan has stepped forth to either kill or tell us the whereabouts of Mr. Bin Laden? Could it be that he bears little resemblance to a fascist?

The terrorists in 9/11 were Islamic Fascists. Those fighting in Afghanistan are Islamic Fascists. But I am not here to debate that. I already won that debate in another thread.

Congratulations on your "win" I must not have seen it cuz I was vacationing over in reality. As for the "terrorists" on 9/11 being "Islamic Fascists" did you poll any of them? I dont remember it being a fascist tactic to kill yourself by driving planes into buildings. Also what is the relationship between terrorists and islamic fascists? I mean are they the same group or what? I remember when at first we just called them terrorists, but then, around the start of war with Iraq, we decided that they were Islamic Fascists, and that coincidentally enough Saddam was also an Islamic Fascist, and thus as he was part of a group that included Al Qaeda he had to be promptly lynched.

Embargoes are provocations.

So Cuba or Iran or North Korea could lob a few cruise missiles at us and it would be kosher with you?

It should be. Countries interfering with another country’s trade is inexcusable. Just because America has the economic power to enforce embargoes, doesn’t make America’s embargoes are just.

You're right, it doesnt. The situation is what determines that. And the situation was that Japan was allied with the nazis and was invading sovereign nations. If our material was going to be used for a war we didnt approve of we had every right not to provide it. That would have made us an accessory.

Did it achieve that? No. Japan instead expanded its brutality to include half the continent and most of the Pacific.

This is perhaps one of your greatest logical fallacies. Japan NEEDED oil to make war. We took some of it away. And you claim that because of this their war effort was expanded?

If X requires A to produce quantities of B, and we subtract an amount of A, B does not and mathematically can not increase.

Are you seriously suggesting that if we hadnt interfered Japan would have eventually gotten tired and stopped invading countries? Theres a name for that policy, Snake, and it didnt work terribly well for the right honorable mr Chamberlain. I'm going to go with what mathematics insists to be the sane conclusion: That without our oil embargo Japan would have made it at least as far as New Zealand.

[Snake Logan]

*giggles* Uh-huh...

Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

What the U.S. did had nothing to do with Japan's expanding brutality. And the U.S. was perfectly right to stop trade with Japan - the stuff that America was trading to Japan was being used to help their mission of torture, killing, and invasion. America did not want to be a supporter of that.

And yet American weapon manufacturers were still supplying weapons to the Nazis up until the second Germany declared war on America.

Let's put it into an analogy that anyone with half a brain could understand:
Let's say that Person A, Al, is a serial killer. Person B, Bob, knows that Al is a serial killer. Al plans to kill as many people as he can in his lifetime, and he wants certain weapons to do that: a machete and an Uzi. Bob also knows this. Bob does not like killing people for no good reason and doesn't like what Al is doing. However, he sells a machete and some Uzi ammo to Al anyway. Then Al goes and uses those things to murder a bunch of people. This makes Bob an accomplice. He knew what was going to be done with those weapons he sold Al, but he sold them anyway. Not only does that mean he helped those murders to happen, but it also will imply to everyone else in the world that Bob supported the idea of murdering those people.

The analogy would be better if you replaced the machete and Uzi ammo with food and water. The Japanese didn’t throw oil on their enemies to kill them, they used the oil for planes, ships and APC‘s.

If you couldn't tell, Person A Al is analogous to Japan, and Person B Bob is analogous to America. Of course America wasn't going to continue providing Japan with things to aid their campaign. And Japan didn't do more damage because of this! They went on with plans they had already had to launch a bunch more attacks in different places. And Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they thought it was good timing; what with everyone being occupied with the war in Europe.

Let me tell you how it went. America and the Netherlands provide Japan with almost all their oil. Suddenly, out of nowhere, America and the Allies put a trade embargo on Japan. Japanese leaders think that they will run out of oil in about a month’s time. Japanese leaders get desperate. Japanese leaders attack America and the Allies and then join the Axis. Allied and American soldiers are caught off guard. Without adequate supplies, they are either killed or sent to concentration camps. Allied civilians suffer similar fate. Areas in China that were under control of Allied nations and housed hundreds of thousands of Chinese refugees are now under Japanese control.

[Snake Logan]

So you werent trying to say that WW2 and the "War onterrorism Islamic fascism" were alike, you were merely trying to say that they were booth "needless wars" involving fascists. Maybe you dont understand what constitutes a link, but when you say that two very different wars both had no cause and were against a similiar enemy, that is linking them. So let me spell this out for you:

Firstly I don’t believe in this ‘war on terror’. Only an American would be stupid enough to think you can fight a strategy… with the same strategy. Secondly, I don’t believe that the war is against Islamic Fascists, I think it is simply a reason to expand Americas influence by building even more bases around the world.

World War 2 was necessary to keep the world from falling into the hands of fascism. We saw how they ran things in Spain after they took over, and that fate could well have befallen much of, if not all, the world if people hadnt fought against it. It was fought against fascists who amassed huge amounts of power and built up their country's military and pride.

The last word is confusing me. Are you being sarcastic or are you actually against national pride?

the "war on terror" is a war we started when we terrorised Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, etcetera. It is a war fought by the oppressed against the oppressors. The enemy facing the US are waging guerilla warfare and hiding in caves. They do not often appeal to nationalism but rather to religion. They do not take pride in their military might, but in the purported righteousness of their struggle. They do not goose step. They dont do that goofy salute. They dont wear tiny mustaches. They are not fascists. Bush calls them that to liken this struggle to world war 2.

When fascists get desperate, they employ less then honourable tactics, like Islamic Fascists tend to do. In the battle of Berlin, Hitler used child soldiers. In its war against Ethiopia, Mussolini used Mustard Gas. In the civil war, the Fascists used mass executions. Just because those fighting in Afghanistan don’t wear matching uniforms or have moustaches, doesn’t mean they are not Fascists.

As far as the righteousness of their cause is concerned, you have to be a complete idiot if you think the Fascists in WW2 didn’t believe enough in their cause to give their lives. And as we cross over from the other thread, I remind you that many Fascist dictators during WW2 used the local religion for their own means, much like the Fascists in the Middle East use Islam and Arab nationalism for their own means.

The only fascist involved, the only person who appeals to blind nationalism, patriotism, and talks up the prowess of his military while collecting mroe and more power, is George Bush.

Blind nationalism and patriotism? I guess since you already agreed in the last block of text that those fighting in Afghanistan are not doing so for the sake of nationhood but rather religion, I will agree with you here. Though in the other thread you did claim they did so for the sake of nationhood, I am sure you have come to seeing the conflict my way.

Oh and here's another big difference. People like to kill fascists. Their own people especially. Remember the bombing plot against Hitler? The underground resistance? Mussolini swinging from a lamp post? So if thats how fascists relate to their people, why is it that not one Pakistani or Afghan has stepped forth to either kill or tell us the whereabouts of Mr. Bin Laden? Could it be that he bears little resemblance to a fascist?

Well Mussolini ruled Italy for two decades with almost no resistance. The bomb plot against Hitler was made by a few rogue officers. And as for the reason why they don’t give the whereabouts of Osama: he is rich, powerful and I doubt a lot of people know where he is.

Congratulations on your "win" I must not have seen it cuz I was vacationing over in reality. As for the "terrorists" on 9/11 being "Islamic Fascists" did you poll any of them? I dont remember it being a fascist tactic to kill yourself by driving planes into buildings. Also what is the relationship between terrorists and islamic fascists? I mean are they the same group or what? I remember when at first we just called them terrorists, but then, around the start of war with Iraq, we decided that they were Islamic Fascists, and that coincidentally enough Saddam was also an Islamic Fascist, and thus as he was part of a group that included Al Qaeda he had to be promptly lynched.

Bush calls them Islamo Fascists or some such nonsense. They are not. Those who blow themselves up are strict to the code of Islam. They are Clerical Fascists and more specifically they are Islamic Fascists.

So Cuba or Iran or North Korea could lob a few cruise missiles at us and it would be kosher with you?

If by ‘us’ you mean America then yes. Americans need to be taught a lesson. 9/11 obviously didn’t teach them anything. Americans still believe they are the world’s police.

This is perhaps one of your greatest logical fallacies. Japan NEEDED oil to make war. We took some of it away. And you claim that because of this their war effort was expanded?

Some of it? America took all of it.

Are you seriously suggesting that if we hadnt interfered Japan would have eventually gotten tired and stopped invading countries? Theres a name for that policy, Snake, and it didnt work terribly well for the right honorable mr Chamberlain. I'm going to go with what mathematics insists to be the sane conclusion: That without our oil embargo Japan would have made it at least as far as New Zealand.

America was caught off guard when it put a trade embargo against Japan. It didn’t expect the Japanese military to do something so drastic. I believe that Japan needed to be contained but that America should have built up a proper military beforehand and not allowed Japan to take so much and turn so many places into battlefields. Provoking a country when you are not prepared for war is a stupid thing to do.

[?!!]

World War 2 was necessary to keep the world from falling into the hands of fascism. We saw how they ran things in Spain after they took over, and that fate could well have befallen much of, if not all, the world if people hadnt fought against it. It was fought against fascists who amassed huge amounts of power and built up their country's military and pride.

The last word is confusing me. Are you being sarcastic or are you actually against national pride?

First off you're comparing simple national pride with extreme nationalism and delusion, and there's a big difference. Hitler and his ilk believed that Germany was superior to everyone else, enough to constitute mass invasions and genocide. Hitler had his people believing that no other state was worthy of existence unless under German rule. Second he wasn't even talking about pride, you just jumped upon any word you could find to oppose. You would make a great biased news reporter.

...Secondly, I don’t believe that the war is against Islamic Fascists, I think it is simply a reason to expand Americas influence by building even more bases around the world.

Yep. That's the reason that we got into this war. Bases. Not liberation, not a proposed threat, not oil, as some say. We just want to have the secure feeling of knowing we have got everyone covered.

Please. We're plenty influential already. I doubt even Bush would have started a war that caused a huge disapproval of him and weakened his control in the white house and cost hundreds of billions of dollars just so we could have bases on other countries.

...And as for the reason why they don’t give the whereabouts of Osama: he is rich, powerful and I doubt a lot of people know where he is.

Gee, that reminds me of someone. Oh yeah. HITLER.

Bush calls them Islamo Fascists or some such nonsense. They are not. Those who blow themselves up are strict to the code of Islam. They are Clerical Fascists and more specifically they are Islamic Fascists

Yeah, I know. A whole two letters totally separates his position on the enemy from yours.

If by ‘us’ you mean America then yes. Americans need to be taught a lesson. 9/11 obviously didn’t teach them anything. Americans still believe they are the world’s police.

As an American, I find it insulting that you think the killing of thousands of innocent people is what should happen to fulfill your desire to see America weaker than it is.. We just happen to be a very powerful country, and we have no plans to dominate the world or invade countries just so we could control them. Your lack of respect for the lives of human beings is, if I may say so, despicable.

America was caught off guard when it put a trade embargo against Japan. It didn’t expect the Japanese military to do something so drastic. I believe that Japan needed to be contained but that America should have built up a proper military beforehand and not allowed Japan to take so much and turn so many places into battlefields. Provoking a country when you are not prepared for war is a stupid thing to do.

So, let me get this straight here. So as not to provoke a country into war, a reasonable alternative to placing an embargo is... to prepare for war?

The analogy would be better if you replaced the machete and Uzi ammo with food and water. The Japanese didn’t throw oil on their enemies to kill them, they used the oil for planes, ships and APC‘s.

And they used those for...

[Casual]

Where did you study history Snake? We were not winning in Africa in 1941. As much as I hate to admit it had America not entered the war when it did at best we would have come to a very one sided peace deal with Germany but most likely we would have been invaded outright even Churchill himself knew that.

I remember where I was on 9/11 I skived off school that day and saw it on the news minutes after the first tower was hit, American or not I was still fairly shocked by it.