Presidential vapor in Hiroshima....

[untermensche]

I called Vietnam imperialism. Not WWII.

Try to keep up.

Did you not declare that the war between the US and Japan was all Roosevelt's fault? Because unless you've just edited your post I can quote you.

I said the US went to economic war before Pearl Harbor.

Is that all Roosevelt's fault?

Maybe. But it is like Jefferson and his slave owning.

There are parts of the men I like and parts I don't.

Is that in some way forbidden if you support a decent man against bought out opponents?

 

[Tristan Scott]

Accordingly, the Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939 the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.”[2] The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in southeast Asia.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930

Okay.
So, we provoked their attack on Pearl Harbor, and they provoked our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This changes....what, really?

Except the article in question is not an accurate depiction of the pre-war conditions. It's an opinion piece, based on the writings of well known revisionists. For example Harry Elmer Barnes work is cited. Barnes is a revisionist and a holocaust denier. In other words this article is horseshit.

 

[Ford]

Did you not declare that the war between the US and Japan was all Roosevelt's fault? Because unless you've just edited your post I can quote you.

I said the US went to economic war before Pearl Harbor.

Which you used to justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Basically, you're saying that all the people who drowned in the Arizona had it coming.

 

[untermensche]

I find the wiki article vague then. Because it clearly states at the beginning that the numbers include civilian casualties in Laos and Cambodia. If you have numbers for those nations, bring them.

You know what? Forget it. This is clearly an off topic tangent. If you would like to complete the task and come up with number, I suggest starting another thread. I still don't think they will come anywhere near the civilian casualties suffered at the hands of the Germans and the Japanese.

Frankly, I am sympathetic to your cause. I hate it when my nation gets involved in stupid, senseless wars. WWII and the nuclear bombing of Japan is not one of them.

The point originally was that the US was not all that concerned about the Chinese. It gladly killed Asians in Vietnam for really no reason beyond they wanted to do things their way.

The US was worried about Japanese power. That is why it started it's economic warfare to try to weaken Japan.

The US didn't give a damn about the Chinese.

- - - Updated - - -

I said the US went to economic war before Pearl Harbor.

Which you used to justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Basically, you're saying that all the people who drowned in the Arizona had it coming.

Where exactly did I justify the attack of the US military base?

- - - Updated - - -

Accordingly, the Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939 the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.”[2] The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in southeast Asia.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930

Okay.
So, we provoked their attack on Pearl Harbor, and they provoked our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This changes....what, really?

Except the article in question is not an accurate depiction of the pre-war conditions. It's an opinion piece, based on the writings of well known revisionists. For example Harry Elmer Barnes work is cited. Barnes is a revisionist and a holocaust denier. In other words this article is horseshit.

Argument by insinuation and association.

In other words a horseshit argument.

 

[Ford]

Where exactly did I justify the attack of the US military base?

Are these not your words?

The US went to war, economic war, against Japan long before Pearl Harbor.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Accordingly, the Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939 the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.”[2] The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in southeast Asia.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930

And Japan wasn't doing anything in China was it? Japan was just a peaceful nation and was minding it's own business and the US decided to stop selling it oil?

Did you read the article?

The US went to war, economic war, against Japan long before Pearl Harbor. Which was just one event in that war.

And why did the US go to economic war with Japan? Because the Japanese were committing severe atrocities in their occupation of China. They were continually killing civilians by the thousands daily. They didn't try to hide it, they bragged about it in the Japanese press and continued to commit those atrocities throughout the war. Even as the nukes were dropped on Japan, the atrocities continued. Not only did the nukes shorten the war for both the US and Japan but also saves hundreds of thousands in China and elsewhere throughout the orient.

Is that why?

Who told you this?

If the US was so opposed to atrocities why did it carry out one of the worst atrocities in history in Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos?

I think your timing is all fucked up here. Viet Nam Cambodia and Laos all happened more than twenty years after World War 2. How could they have affected the thinking in 1945?

 

[untermensche]

Are these not your words?

The US went to war, economic war, against Japan long before Pearl Harbor.

Again. Where do I justify the attack of the US military base?

Economic warfare is not some magical justification for everything.

What Japan was justified in doing was lessening it's military buildup and using more resources at home.

But it chose to try to take the US out of the game long enough to take enough resources to be able to defend it's conquests.

 

[ZiprHead]

The point originally was that the US was not all that concerned about the Chinese.

Prove it. Vietnam doesn't do it.

The US was worried about Japanese power. That is why it started it's economic warfare to try to weaken Japan.

Japan was using that power to slaughter Chinese in the millions

The US didn't give a damn about the Chinese.

Again, prove it.

And explain what your would your solution have been?

 

[Ford]

Are these not your words?

Again. Where do I justify the attack of the US military base?

Economic warfare is not some magical justification for everything.

Well you brought it up, but I tell you what...you can clarify your position here quite easily.

Simply state that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was unjustified.


I'll wait.

 

[untermensche]

I think your timing is all fucked up here. Viet Nam Cambodia and Laos all happened more than twenty years after World War 2. How could they have affected the thinking in 1945?

The thinking during WWII didn't change by Vietnam.

- - - Updated - - -

Again. Where do I justify the attack of the US military base?

Economic warfare is not some magical justification for everything.

Well you brought it up, but I tell you what...you can clarify your position here quite easily.

Simply state that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was unjustified.


I'll wait.

<snip> You are not my master.

I am innocent until a shred of guilt is demonstrated.

You have nothing but poor interpretations.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Simply state that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was unjustified.


I'll wait.

Hope you're comfy.
Maybe have a Snickers bar?

 

[Ford]

Simply state that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was unjustified.


I'll wait.

Hope you're comfy.
Maybe have a Snickers bar?

I already got my answer, and it was as expected.


Seems to me I remember a time on this board when you couldn't respond to a valid argument with "fuck off."


Oh well. Times change.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Which you used to justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Where exactly did I justify the attack of the US military base?

seemed clear to me.
Someone said that the attack on Pearl Harbor was unwarranted.
You object and bring up the economic situation, and it certainly seemed to read as if you were offering that as a warrant for the attack. That the US 'started it.'

Where, exactly, did i misread your intentions, there?

 

[untermensche]

Hope you're comfy.
Maybe have a Snickers bar?

I already got my answer, and it was as expected.


Seems to me I remember a time on this board when you couldn't respond to a valid argument with "fuck off."


Oh well. Times change.

It was a demand.

<snip>
I'll wait.

- - - Updated - - -

Where exactly did I justify the attack of the US military base?

seemed clear to me.
Someone said that the attack on Pearl Harbor was unwarranted.
You object and bring up the economic situation, and it certainly seemed to read as if you were offering that as a warrant for the attack. That the US 'started it.'

Where, exactly, did i misread your intentions, there?

To say it had a cause is not to say the cause was just.

I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone over the age of 10.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, wait, was the Pearl Harbor attack unwarranted or not?

If it wasn't unwarranted, what warranted it?

If the economic situation did not justify the attack on the base, then why did you bring it up when you did?

- - - Updated - - -

Ah.
Ambrose Bierce-ing it, then.

Never mind.

 

[untermensche]

So, wait, was the Pearl Harbor attack unwarranted or not?

If it wasn't unwarranted, what warranted it?

If the economic situation did not justify the attack on the base, then why did you bring it up when you did?

It was not the start of aggression between the two nations.

If that is what is meant by unwarranted.

 

[Tristan Scott]

The point originally was that the US was not all that concerned about the Chinese. It gladly killed Asians in Vietnam for really no reason beyond they wanted to do things their way.

The US was worried about Japanese power. That is why it started it's economic warfare to try to weaken Japan.

The US didn't give a damn about the Chinese.

- - - Updated - - -

I said the US went to economic war before Pearl Harbor.

Which you used to justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Basically, you're saying that all the people who drowned in the Arizona had it coming.

Where exactly did I justify the attack of the US military base?

- - - Updated - - -

Accordingly, the Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939 the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.”[2] The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in southeast Asia.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930

Okay.
So, we provoked their attack on Pearl Harbor, and they provoked our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This changes....what, really?

Except the article in question is not an accurate depiction of the pre-war conditions. It's an opinion piece, based on the writings of well known revisionists. For example Harry Elmer Barnes work is cited. Barnes is a revisionist and a holocaust denier. In other words this article is horseshit.

Argument by insinuation and association.

In other words a horseshit argument.

Did you read the article? I ask because your argument with zipprhead that I bolded above is in contradiction to the argument in your cited article that claimed Roosevelt favored China and disliked Japan, citing an opinion write by Harry Barnes the Holocaust denier. Of course we can all ignore the more plausible reason which would be that Japan had been waging an aggressive war against China since 1931, when they invaded Manchuria in 1931.

Did the US have economic interests in Asia? Sure. One of our most lucrative interests was selling oil and scrap metal to Japan, which we cut off because of their war with China. Where's the logic in this? I don't know.

Japan, on the other hand envisioned what it called The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, in which they would throw out all of the Colonial powers and have hegemony over all of East Asia, which to them was peopled by inferior beings.

 

[Bronzeage]

Maybe not. The Japanese have some funny peccadilloes, if their porn is anything by which to judge. However, the last time I was there, about half the visitors were veterans and their families. The atmosphere is quite charged. Most people are speechless, those who can speak, whisper, and the rest are fighting tears.

The ride to the Arizona is after watching a documentary, which includes footage of the Arizona leaping out of the water and breaking in half. The experience gives a person glasses with 1941 corrective lens, which give a clear view that whatever happened to the Japanese after December 7, 1941, was on them.

Oh, I've been there. I was on vacation on the island with my daughter, who'd got it into her head that she wanted to visit Pearl Harbor. She was a teenager at the time, and I think she thought it was going to be something like the crappy Ben Affleck movie. Well that didn't last. Somewhere I've got a picture I snuck of her staring at the wall with all the names. She was very quiet the rest of the day, and I'm very glad she got to see it, and understood what it was.

The time we were there, though, there were a lot of Japanese on the Memorial.

Yeah, that was a little strange. They were all very respectful. I never got the sense that any of them were gloating.

 

[Tristan Scott]

The thinking during WWII didn't change by Vietnam.

In your opinion.

 

[untermensche]

Did you read the article? I ask because your argument with zipprhead that I bolded above is in contradiction to the argument in your cited article that claimed Roosevelt favored China and disliked Japan, citing an opinion write by Harry Barnes the Holocaust denier. Of course we can all ignore the more plausible reason which would be that Japan had been waging an aggressive war against China since 1931, when they invaded Manchuria in 1931.

Did the US have economic interests in Asia? Sure. One of our most lucrative interests was selling oil and scrap metal to Japan, which we cut off because of their war with China. Where's the logic in this? I don't know.

Japan, on the other hand envisioned what it called The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, in which they would throw out all of the Colonial powers and have hegemony over all of East Asia, which to them was peopled by inferior beings.

What you need to do is refute the specific economic measures mentioned.

Argument by "Holocaust Denial accusation" won't cut it.