Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 28, 2011 at 5:15pm

@Paul ... "Faith" being the key word, only a nation of religious sheople could believe such fabrications.

 

Actually, I had to read that beautiful statement once again:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 28, 2011 at 5:22pm

Please show me scholarly acceptance of that claim.

Either we are discussing history or politics here, or else we are discussing conspiracy theories and unfounded claims. I do not hope this is an alternative site, but rather where people take the facts established by experts as the best available truth.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 28, 2011 at 5:26pm

Oh, and the best recommendation for anyone intereted in politics, BBCs 80ies comedy: Yes, Minister! and later Yes, Prime Minister!

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on February 28, 2011 at 5:32pm

This is getting just too long to reply to in this same thread. I recommend we start another thread on the validity of the Second Gulf War.

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 28, 2011 at 5:33pm

{sorry, misplaced}

@arcus...Victors tend to have a skewed vision of history and this affects their writings. History books can lie. There have been dozens of history books removed from scholarly curriculae through the years. The same grain of salt should be applied to reading modern victor history books as needs to be applied to writings from Romans and Greeks. History is a subjective discipline, entirely tainted by interpretation and misinterpretations. In the game of recounting history, books are hardly more effective than oral history. A historical narrative is only as objective as the subjective human who contributed to it.

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 28, 2011 at 5:42pm

You've gone off on a tangent.  Perhaps I haven't been clear.  You have not demonstrated that the German declaration of war on the United states of America, officially or unofficially, was unprovoked.

 

When Roosevelt addresses congress regarding a declaration of war on Japan, he specifically mentions an unprovoked attack.  The formal declaration of war against Japan specifically mentions 'unprovoked acts of war'.

 

Compare this to the declaration against Germany:

 

War Message of the President (Roosevelt) to the Congress, Dec. 11, 1941 "To the Congress of the United States: On the morning of December 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long known and the long expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty, and civilization. Delay invites greater danger. Rapid and united effort by all the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States. I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany and between the United States and Italy. FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT. THE WHITE HOUSE, "December 11, 1941." (Documents on American Foreign Relations, vol. IV, 1941 / 1942. p. 121. World Peace Foundation, 1942)   Joint Resolution Declaring that a State of War Exists Between the People of Germany and the People of the United States, Dec. 11, 1941 "Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it "Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States." (Documents on American Foreign Relations, vol. IV, 1941 / 1942. p. 122. World Peace Foundation, Princeton University Press, 1942)  source   My contention is that characterizing Germany's formal declaration of war against the United States of America as 'unprovoked' belies the nature of the conflict.  It was the culmination of actions on the parts of both the United States and Germany.  I make no statement as to whether or not one side had greater, or more universally recognized justification than the other.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 28, 2011 at 5:53pm

Paul, it is a political message it reads something like the following:

We fucked up and started a war with Germany. From now on, you better fall in line otherwise you will be labeled an evil traitor.

We've tried to get others to fight with our guns, but now we actually have to done some fighting ourselves.

We hope we can do it, otherwise we'll be invaded and they'll kill us all.

If you don't fucking vote yes for anything i put forth, you're in deep shit. Latin America, Sweden, anyone not involved, please join us, and we will ally with you and trade with you, even share some of our wealth if we win.

Edit: Fyi, of less threat, but another problem. (my BS replaced by more accurate meaning)

Therefore, please yadda yadda, se above if you don't do it.

There are of course much more information in there, both what's written and what's not written. I'm no expert, but picking apart a political speech is not impossible for a layman.

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on February 28, 2011 at 3:14pm

Heather,  your emotions are talking, not your brain.  Several of your statements here are just not true.  Arcus points some of them out below. 

 

The American Revolution was provoked by George III's arrogance.  The War of 1812 was also provoked, at least in part, by British intransigence and imperialism.  Unlike Arcus, I don't think the Mexican-American was can be defended very well.  As for your statements about Pearl Harbour, well, they're just false.  The Japanese decided to attack after America cut off its access to natural resources that it was using to supply its horrific imperial wars in Asia.  America was well within its rights to refuse to do business with bad guys.  Weren't you the one complaining earlier about the fact that America didn't do the same with the Nazis until after war was declared?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on February 28, 2011 at 3:30pm

I'm actually not the least bit emotional about this - just disgusted by American self righteousness.  I reiterate my point that Hawaii was an imperial outpost.  Unless I'm unaware of some request that the inhabitants of that island sent to the United States asking to sign up.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on February 28, 2011 at 3:38pm

Actually, your point was that the U.S. provoked attacks.  The fact that the U.S. doesn't have a good excuse for being in Hawaii or the Phillipines doesn't give the Japanese an excuse to attack it.  And, in fact, that is not why the Japanese attacked.  They attacked because the U.S. stopped doing business with them out of disgust.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 28, 2011 at 4:08pm

One nation's imperialism begets anger and anxiety in neighbouring nations. In the 40s Japan and USA were equally at fault, both behaved with same drive. Except that, Japan is a teensy island desperate for resources, whereas the USA is half of North America and has no lack of resources. Japan's imperialism is actually easier to understand!

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 27, 2011 at 11:49pm

Justice is entirely relative, what is just to one may not be just to another.

This USA world vision DOES NOT protect our worldly bodies, the USA has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, one of highest obesity rates in the world, one of the largest income gaps in the world, more homeless people than any other rich country, no real universal health care. NO, the USA is not a model for what planetary politics should be. Every country is a social experiment, not one single country can lay claim to having the ideal solution for all humans to live by, not one. Therefore, we must exercise some degree of intellectual humility and recognise that since we don't have absolute answers, the only just solution is to let other countries find their own path to happiness. For one country to impose is pompous point of view onto the entire planet is utterly ridiculous. We humans are no where near being socially ready for any degree of globalisation.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 21
• …
• 26
• Next ›
• Page