war, yay or nay.

[In Dust and Ashes]

ok, so I had posted this somewhere else and no one cares so I'm cutting and pasting to see what you guys think.

I was glancing through World History for Dummies in search of WWI information when I came across a piece that said this:
"Scientists say humankind is not the only war making species...Researchers have seen bands of male chimps, all from one group, raiding another band. If they can, they kill all the other group's males and gain mating privileges with the females.
Jane Goodall, the most famous researcher to study chimps, said, "if they had firearms and had been taught to use them, I suspect they would have used them to kill."

this struck me as particularly interesting because I've often heard it said that humans are the only animals that participate in mass murders for personal gain (or collective gain). somehow, this seems to make us worse than the rest of the living creatures on this earth. But, as examplified in this piece, violence isn't just human--it's natural in other animals too.
now the question is, does that make it right? is nature right?
perhaps it's the tools we use that make it so wrong. nuclear weapons kill millions in one blow. if we were to kill with our bare hands, would that make it any better? or would that simply degrade us to the lowness of the apes. perhaps our weapons and war technology is something to be proud of after all.
maybe, our ability to kill others is an advancment of the species.
it's just a thought....

[In Dust and Ashes]

oh and after I wrote that I remembered ants and bees also make war. massive wars.

[In Dust and Ashes]

massive wars on a tiny scale.

[Kinbote]

War is simply the use of violence to achieve a political end. While war isn't innate, I think violence almost certainly is - when I bump my head against the curtain rod thingum in the shower, which happens more often than I'd like to admit, my first, near-instant reaction is to strike and destroy said rod. As such, I don't think there's anything wrong with violence per se, provided it's channeled in productive ways (how one defines "productive" is of course variable, and open to debate).

Um. I was going somewhere-or-other, and saw several paragraphs lined prettily up in my mind, but I've lost track. Well...as for right or wrong, such is impossible to say. The one initiating the violence will always think it's right; those in sympathy with the one initiating the violence will tend to think it's right. Vice versa for the one on the receiving end and his sympathizers.

[In Dust and Ashes]

what do you mean war isn't innate? do you think it's a learned behaviour?

[Kinbote]

Violence is innate; the organization of it isn't. The organization is a consequence of being a social species.

[In Dust and Ashes]

well being a social species is innate.....

[Kinbote]

Yes, but it's not a direct correlation.

[In Dust and Ashes]

if we're innately sociable creatures, we inheret the qualities that come with that. you say one of those is war. therefore, war is innate, no?

[In Dust and Ashes]

wow, I reached 5000 posts

[Fab]

I don't think saying that animals do it means it's right for us to do it. The difference is that we're vastly mote intelligent and have better communicative skills than animals. Whilst it may be natural to make war, we've evolved to the point where we should be able to avoid it.

[Fab]

Or if you don't believe in evolution, what I said about being more intelligent and having better communicative skills should still apply.

[vordabois]

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -- Isaac Asimov

[Jackal]

Did you know that hippo's kill more people per year than lions?

The whole deal to me is that we are born violent, like animals. And if we were cave men it would be natural and ok to kill eachother to get land, food, women, tools, whatever. Just like chimps.

We have every means available to get what we need now without violence. Yet we still use it. It's just seen as bad because we know better.

Language and society hasn't changed us, it just makes us control ourselves.

[In Dust and Ashes]

so you guys all think that war is bad and that animals are just not able to stop it, but now that we're better than them, it's time to override our instincts and not kill people....

well apparently it's not working, cus we now do war more than animals....
so are we really able to override our instincts? or do we just think we can? perhaps it's logical, but do our actions really reflect logic?

[In Dust and Ashes]

....I wonder how much more overpopulated this world would be if we didn't have war....

you know, in the old testiment, when God sent Israel to war against nations, he usually had very specific orders such as "destroy everything, leave nothing left alive and nothing to plunder."

[In Dust and Ashes]

just so everyone is clear on this, I think war is one of the most facinating acts that we do. I would love to study war history, but my college doesn't offer such a course.
WWI was most definately the best. :yes:

[DrHibbert]

You mean the worst? WWI was pretty darn horrific.

[In Dust and Ashes]

I know, but strategy wise it was hillarious.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
I know, but strategy wise it was hillarious.
It was pathetic. Pointless idiocy. ...let alone the class divisions and shooting anyone who fled. YAY! Lets deliberately kill our own troops! :rolleyes:

[In Dust and Ashes]

exactly. the whole thing was so retarded that if it wasnt for the fact that it acutally happend, I would be laughing on the floor.
and the way it started was just as stupid as the way it was carried out. if it wasn't for everyone having treaties with everyone else, World War I would have been a simple uprising between two nations that no one really cared about.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Well Im sure those countries cared.

Has anyone seen that awful-looking film about the footy game that the British/German troops had on Christmas Day?

[Nak Nak]

War as history fascinates me. I'm against it personally, but it is extremely interesting. Strategy wise WWI was horrific indeed. Consider the Somme. Where the British troops were ordered to advance WALKING for fear that they'd lose formation. As a result thousands of men were slaughtered by the German machine gunners that had set themselves up as soon as allied bombing stopped. Ludicrous!!!

WWII is the most interesting tactically, simply because of the diversity of combat.

[Noshus Klam]

Originally posted by Nak Nak

WWII is the most interesting tactically, simply because of the diversity of combat.

I just finished up classes on Midway and Market Garden, the most interesting classes I have taken so far.

[Nak Nak]

Originally posted by ..i..
I just finished up classes on Midway and Market Garden, the most interesting classes I have taken so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

[In Dust and Ashes]

:offtopic:

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

How is it?
You have a thread about war, they/we are discussing war!

[Nak Nak]

Favourite generals anyone?

Erwin Rommel for me.

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Narcissistic Nihilist
How is it?
You have a thread about war, they/we are discussing war!

I was hoping to concentrate more on the moral aspects of war in general. not specific wars.

[Dalton C Calhoun]

OMG! Have you guys seen Blackadder Goes Forth? It was this tv show all about a bitter, sarcastic commander in WWI. Oh, and Blackadder is played by Rowan Atkinson, aka Mr. Bean. It's so funny! I love seeing the struggles between class and rank. I think it's great! :cheers:

[In Dust and Ashes]

away from us, thread slayer, you're not welcome here unless you have a relevant post.
and it had better by blatantly relevant... :mad:

[Fab]

You'd be hard pushed to find a Brit who hasn't heard of Blackadder.

[Puberty]

I'll make a relevant post, Jacki! I think your argument is really sound. WWI was pretty ridiculous. However, most fighting ends up looking that way.

Did you know that hippo's kill more people per year than lions?
No, I did not know that. Hmm, that puts a really sinister twist on that game Hungry, Hungry Hippos. LOL! :)

[Jackal]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
so you guys all think that war is bad and that animals are just not able to stop it, but now that we're better than them, it's time to override our instincts and not kill people....

well apparently it's not working, cus we now do war more than animals....
so are we really able to override our instincts? or do we just think we can? perhaps it's logical, but do our actions really reflect logic?

No, I think we should be able to kill people. My instincts make me want to kill people and fuck a lot of people, but what good is that? I can't just do what I want or I would go against everything that we think is "good".

War, what is it good for?
Absolutely nothing.:)

[Kinbote]

Originally posted by Nak Nak
Favourite generals anyone?

Erwin Rommel for me.

I like Rommel, too.

And Grant was neat. His whole attritional thing at Petersburg, I guess, but moreso his alcoholism, and the fact that he ate cucumbers in vinegar, a favorite of mine, for breakfast most days, and how, as president, he was given to pissing out the window of the Oval Office.

And Napoleon, since his only real ideology was self-glorification, and he was sure willing to fuck up a lot of shit for it.

[DrHibbert]

I'm distantly related to Grant. Not something I'm particularly proud of, but interesting.

[Kinbote]

If nothing else, he had the least-embarassing facial hair of any of our late 19th-century presidents.

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Jackal
No, I think we should be able to kill people. My instincts make me want to kill people and fuck a lot of people, but what good is that? I can't just do what I want or I would go against everything that we think is "good".

War, what is it good for?
Absolutely nothing.:)

the difference between killing (murdering) and war is the difference between personal gain, which is widely accepted as being selfish, and mass gain, which is widely accepted as being loyal or patriotic.
war can bring about many good things.
cliche example:
america is credited to joining WWII in order to stop Hitler.
yadda yadda yadda.

it's too late for me to really get into this now...I need a bed.

next person to quote that song to me gets shot in the face.

[Nak Nak]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru

america is credited to joining WWII in order to stop Hitler.


Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

[In Dust and Ashes]

sorry.
when I said "credited" I should have said something like...
"is said to have"
or something to that extent.
want to argue specifics of it? go ahead, but i havn't had a history course that mentioned war at all since 11th grade, so I'm a little rusty.

[Nak Nak]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
sorry.
when I said "credited" I should have said something like...
"is said to have"
or something to that extent.
want to argue specifics of it? go ahead, but i havn't had a history course that mentioned war at all since 11th grade, so I'm a little rusty.

I won't argue with you about this particular fallacy. I would like to point out that Hitler as we know him would not have existed had WWI never occurred.

[Kinbote]

I seem to recall that America "joined" the war as a result of its efforts to check the expansion of Japanese influence - or rather, America's efforts to do so provoked Japan's attack. Germany declared war on the US shortly thereafter in the hopes of eliciting Japanese support against the Soviets.

Political support was insufficient for intervention against Germany prior to Pearl Harbor; even material support for Britain was controversial.

[Kinbote]

Originally posted by Nak Nak
I won't argue with you about this particular fallacy. I would like to point out that Hitler as we know him would not have existed had WWI never occurred.

Craig, do you reckon it's apt to say that Hitler was the most successful art school reject ever?

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Nak Nak
I won't argue with you about this particular fallacy. I would like to point out that Hitler as we know him would not have existed had WWI never occurred.

haven't we already declared WWI a massive mistake in this thread?
why do I feel like you're trying to show me up in history knowlege?

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Kinbote
I seem to recall that America "joined" the war as a result of its efforts to check the expansion of Japanese influence - or rather, America's efforts to do so provoked Japan's attack. Germany declared war on the US shortly thereafter in the hopes of eliciting Japanese support against the Soviets.

Political support was insufficient for intervention against Germany prior to Pearl Harbor; even material support for Britain was controversial.

ok, pardon my rudeness, cus I am rather grouchy this late night, but can we drop the "let's show off as much as I know about these topics" thing?

if we must sift through this:
there were many facits to joining WWII, just as there are about the war we're in now. Pear Harbor, in my book, doesn't play much of a part, since our government set it up anyway. and looking back on WWII, no one is even taught much about the war in the pacific. Hitler was and is the main selling point of the war.

[Kinbote]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
since our government set it up anyway.

:erm

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Kinbote
:erm

The fighting wasn't exactly limited to Pearl Harbor that day.

December 7th, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, yes. But they also attacked US Air Bases in the Philippines (and soon after invaded) as well as the British colonies of Hong Kong, Malaya, Borneo and Burma. It was a coordinated effort with multiple military strikes all over Southeast Asia and the Pacific. They were aiming at the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies.

Their ultimate goal with the attack on Pearl Harbor was to knock us out of the fight long enough for them to secure the oil and other key strategic positions before we had the ability to mount an effective counter-attack.


Thomas Dewey, running against FDR in 1944, tried to pull that "FDR knew" claim off to get elected.

Obviously, he lost.

[Noshus Klam]

It's worth pointing out that even Isoroku Yamamoto, the commander of the Japanese Navy, didn't think the Japanese could win. He said that if he was told to fight then at the most, Japan would be able to run free for six months but there would no confidence for the second or third year. He turned out to be right, as The Battle of Midway took place almost six months after Pearl Harbor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamamoto_Isoroku

I don't know, I just find it interesting. Even though he didn't fight for "our" side, he's still one of the greatest naval strategists in the history of war.

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Kinbote
:erm

I've talked about this before.
I have a document released from the library of congress that lists letters talking about.....stuff.....sheesh i havn't looked at it in forever. it's at my parents house. I'd have to pick it up next time I go back.

Japanese did make a very planned attack, yes, but the government set themselves up for the fall.

[Nak Nak]

Originally posted by Kinbote
Craig, do you reckon it's apt to say that Hitler was the most successful art school reject ever?

Well I suppose so, depending on how one quantifies "success".



In response to Hamburgermetricconfusion's confusion about my intent in that other post I would like to say that I mentioned WWI and Hitler as an example of why war is a big Nay.

[Noshus Klam]

His art wasn't really all too bad. Not to say it was great or anything, but certainly better than average.

http://www.hitler.org/art/landscapes/landscape7.jpg
http://www.hitler.org/art/flowers/flower8.jpg
http://www.hitler.org/art/buildings/building5.jpg
http://www.hitler.org/art/buildings/building3.jpg

[Nak Nak]

Originally posted by ..i..
His art wasn't really all too bad. Not to say it was great or anything, but certainly better than average.

http://www.hitler.org/art/landscapes/landscape7.jpg
http://www.hitler.org/art/flowers/flower8.jpg
http://www.hitler.org/art/buildings/building5.jpg
http://www.hitler.org/art/buildings/building3.jpg

Kris, the quality of his art had nothing to do with it! The reason he was rejected was simply because of the Jewish elitism! Duh!

[Noshus Klam]

Originally posted by Nak Nak
Kris, the quality of his art had nothing to do with it! The reason he was rejected was simply because of the Jewish elitist! Duh!

haha.

When do you reckon his hate of Jewish people started to develop? According to a biography I'm reading at the moment, he had at least some Jewish friends while living in Vienna. I gather that it began to grow during World War 1 while the protests and strikes were occuring in Germany.

[Nak Nak]

Originally posted by ..i..
haha.

When do you reckon his hate of Jewish people started to develop? According to a biography I'm reading at the moment, he had at least some Jewish friends while living in Vienna. I gather that it began to grow during World War 1 while the protests and strikes were occuring in Germany.

It was a combination of things I expect. The art school rejection, being short and ugly, being stuck in the bad situation after WWI with inflation etc, seeing Germany humiliated, then watching as talented Jews became more and more successful in post war Germany. Along with what you mentioned.

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Nak Nak
In response to Hamburgermetricconfusion's confusion about my intent in that other post I would like to say that I mentioned WWI and Hitler as an example of why war is a big Nay.

just because I'm not anti-war doesn't mean I think every war is good and I've already said WWI was rather nasty, so I don't see why it has to keep being brought up that's what I'm trying to say to you.

[Nak Nak]

AH, OSIRIA!

[Squirrel]

Blackadder!

Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

Baldrick: But - this is a sort of a war, isn't it sir?

Blackadder: Yes that's right, you see there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

George: What was that, sir?

Blackadder: It was bollocks.

****

Darling: A German spy is giving away every one of our battle plans.

Melchett: You look surprised, Blackadder.

Blackadder: I certainly am sir. I didn't realize we had any battle plans.

Melchett: Of course we've got plans! How else do you think our battles are directed?

Blackadder: Our battles are directed, sir?

Melchett: Of course they are. Directed according to the grand plan.

Blackadder: Oh I see. And would that be the plan to continue with total slaughter until everybody's dead except Field Marshal Haig, Lady Haig, and their tortoise, Alan?

Melchett: Great Scott! Even you know it! Guard! Guard! Bolt all the doors; hammer large pieces of crooked wood against all the windows! This security leak is far worse than we'd imagined!

[vordabois]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
I've talked about this before.
I have a document released from the library of congress that lists letters talking about.....stuff.....sheesh i havn't looked at it in forever. it's at my parents house. I'd have to pick it up next time I go back.

Japanese did make a very planned attack, yes, but the government set themselves up for the fall.

False.

There is no conclusive proof for you to make that assertion.

I don't care what was on the letters, they are hardly damning no matter what they say.

There were nine official inquiries into the attack on Pearl Harbor, and none have come up with the conclusion that Pearl Harbor was premeditated "negligence".

While they showed that there was plenty of information that Japan would attack, none of the "flags" went up because faulty processing and analyzation of this information.

The problem was much the same as the problem that existed before 9/11... We were actively supporting anti-terrorist initiatives, and the existance and devastation of the attack was the result of unfortunate miscommunications and mistakes that should have never happened.

This, unfortunately, is too boring for some people to entertain no matter how much justification exists, and they instead hover around the more exciting "conspiracy theories" because, well, they're kewler.

Now, if you want to make it more general -- to say that our entrance into World War 2 was no surprise -- that would be so much more accurate. Perhaps the fact that we waited for so long before becoming an active party is what ultimately sealed the Axis Powers' fate. Our production power was enormous and completely unmolested. When Winston Churchill heard that we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, it was then that he knew that the USA would enter in force and Britain would emerge victorious. He wrote (of that night):

"Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."

But as for setting up Pearl Harbor consciously and specifically, that idea is simply ludicrous.



Anyways, about the larger debate about whether war and social instinct are both innate, Churchill had something kind of interesting to say about it:

"Unless some effective world supergovernment for the purpose of preventing war can be set up ... the prospects for peace and human progress are dark ...If ... it is found possible to build a world organization of irresistible force and inviolable authority for the purpose of securing peace, there are no limits to the blessings which all men enjoy and share."

[Kinbote]

Originally posted by ..i..
His art wasn't really all too bad. Not to say it was great or anything, but certainly better than average.

http://www.hitler.org/art/landscapes/landscape7.jpg
http://www.hitler.org/art/flowers/flower8.jpg
http://www.hitler.org/art/buildings/building5.jpg
http://www.hitler.org/art/buildings/building3.jpg

I'd think twice before calling that better than average.

[Kinbote]

Originally posted by Nak Nak
Well I suppose so, depending on how one quantifies "success".


For one thing, as not living in some "raw space," an "unfinished loft," and feeling very self-impressed and noble for surviving on canned soup and plain spaghetti.

[Nak Nak]

Originally posted by Kinbote
For one thing, as not living in some "raw space," an "unfinished loft," and feeling very self-impressed and noble for surviving on canned soup and plain spaghetti.

http://quirkynomads.com/photos/images/20050523082745_172305px.jpg

[Herr Lipp]

Originally posted by vordabois
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -- Isaac Asimov

I disagree with this post. It is fundamentally inaccurate, as you're a tool if you rely on other people thinking the same as you and not arming yourself.

There's always gonna be someone out there willing to use force for their own games, so not keeping yourself able to respond is asking for trouble.

[Noshus Klam]

Originally posted by Kinbote
I'd think twice before calling that better than average.

Oh nooooooooooooooooooooo.

[Kinbote]

Originally posted by ..i..
Oh nooooooooooooooooooooo.

Well? It's on the level of that bearded guy who makes Landscapes You Can Do at Home in those infomercials. Presuming those still exist.

[Herr Lipp]

You do better then Ted! So people are quick to judge.

[Noshus Klam]

I'm not saying it's great. I'm just saying the average person couldn't make something on that level.

[Kinbote]

I think the average person, with training, can do just as well.

[Herr Lipp]

Maybe Ted's Jewish and is forbidden to be nice to Adolf? :D You dont look Jewish though, to be truthful.

[Herr Lipp]

Back to the war.....

I think Canada gets missed a lot in the appreciation stakes. They did a lot, D-Day landings, North Atlantic crossings under U-boat fire and supplying a lot of soldiers, including the kilted guards heh heh, freak gusts of wind in France would've exposed their genitals to the Nazis. Nice.

[Herr Lipp]

In fact. Most of the commonwealth (Australia, India, Rhodesia and tens of others) countries represented. Big up!

[Kinbote]

Originally posted by Herr Lipp
Maybe Ted's Jewish and is forbidden to be nice to Adolf? :D You dont look Jewish though, to be truthful.

Maybe that's just part of my Hebraic deceptiveness.

[In Dust and Ashes]

vordabois,
your arguements (though wordy) really dont hold much more weight than mine, because at this point, neither of us have offered much for proof. and honestly, I'm more likely to believe the letters that the congressonal government has release over your word.

Originally posted by vordabois
"Unless some effective world supergovernment for the purpose of preventing war can be set up ... the prospects for peace and human progress are dark ...If ... it is found possible to build a world organization of irresistible force and inviolable authority for the purpose of securing peace, there are no limits to the blessings which all men enjoy and share."[/i]

I don't think this would work. you need force to put down uprisings. look at Samalia. I'm sure you know the samali incident that sparked BlackHawk Down. that wasn't just war, that was genocide and the UN couldn't do much at all without the force of an army.
I think war is inevitable. acutally I do more than think. I feverantly believe with all my faith that war is inevitable and that it will cause the death of the world.

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Herr Lipp
I disagree with this post. It is fundamentally inaccurate, as you're a tool if you rely on other people thinking the same as you and not arming yourself.

There's always gonna be someone out there willing to use force for their own games, so not keeping yourself able to respond is asking for trouble.

I actually agree with you. at least in some sense...
was it FDR that always said to "speak softly and carry a big stick?"
You need some forceful weight in order to keep order and be respected with a sense of fear.

[Squirrel]

Nay.

[Spaced]

Originally posted by Herr Lipp
I disagree with this post. It is fundamentally inaccurate, as you're a tool if you rely on other people thinking the same as you and not arming yourself.

There's always gonna be someone out there willing to use force for their own games, so not keeping yourself able to respond is asking for trouble.

There's a fundamental difference between preparing for war, and active warmongering. There's nothing incompetent in proper preparedness, but going around saying you're going to nuke anyone who disagrees with you is ridiculous, and more likely to incite war than prevent it.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
vordabois,
your arguements (though wordy) really dont hold much more weight than mine, because at this point, neither of us have offered much for proof. and honestly, I'm more likely to believe the letters that the congressonal government has release over your word.

No "letters from the congressional government" exist, Jacki.

Are you talking about memorandums sent within the military? Because Congress certainly has not provided damning evidence. Otherwise, they would have shown up at least somwhere in those nine inquiries. Beyond that, if there was proof, it really would not have come from there.

I challenge you to put forth any evidence you have on the issue. To go through and detail every bit of "evidence" and to rebut it would take me quite a while (have you seen how thick the 9/11 Commission Report is?), so I'd much rather you whittle it down to what you hold. Conspiracy theorists typically hold only one or two articles in their case, yet putting all of them in their proper place is the only way to see their true relevence [or, irrelevence]. I suspect that any of these "letters" you speak of were memos that merely showed the possibility or imminence of an attack, yet are not indicative of a specific location. Many of these were tragically never taken seriously due to the situation at the time... the heightened alertness that an attack was supposed to have happened anywhere in Southeast Asia inherently means that threats are going to be magnified without any realistic justification.

Bottom line is that Japan never informed its diplomats where and when an attack was going to happen. We know this because of our eavesdropping on their "secure" coded messages.

So then it goes down to the fact that we broke the Japanese code. And yes, the codes were the diplomatic codes, and it was perfectly clear on December 6th that Japan was about to declare war on the USA. So while the Americans knew that Japanese diplomats had been instructed to deliver a certain message to the U.S. government at 1 p.m. on December 7 and then destroy their cipher machine and secret documents, and from this deduced that something big was about to happen, they did not know where to expect the initial attack. Admiral Stark informed his subordinates that they were either going to attack "the Philippines, Thai, or Kra Peninsula, the Dutch East Indies, or possibly Borneo". Unfortunately, American commanders failed to take advantage of what little warning they had through incompetence or bad luck. (As I said before, the Philippines, Borneo, Burma, Hong Kong... All attacked, all ultimately overrun. We had no indication the Japanese would strike at Pearl Harbor.)

(There are many technical reasons for that as well... For one, torpedos weren't supposed to be able to operate in water of that depth. Japanese torpedoes needed 75ft and Pearl Harbor was 40ft deep. Think about that.)


All of this is just Republican bullshit. It's scandalous. The person who propagated this bullshit was Thomas Dewey, the GOP nominee for President in 1944. I stress that because he had the motive. He ran his campaign on two negative ideas:

(a) FDR knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand
(b) That FDR was (and I quote) "a tired old man" (NOTE: FDR was very ill at the time)

Obviously, the GOP was desperate. For him to go and call the Commander-in-Chief "a tired old man" in front of the entire country when it was at war, when they knew he was ill says just about everything that needs said.

If the GOP felt it was acceptable to make such a loathsome comment about such an honorable man, it goes without saying that they'll grasp onto whatever straws they can as hard as they can.

He and the GOP had no chance against FDR and the Democratic Party in those days. Once FDR was elected, he proved that quasi-Keynesian principles, the anti-laissez-faire (the GOP's baby), is superior and the next step in the evolution of capitalism. This spelled disaster for them... Dewey and his lot. The GOP was forced to shift their economic policy to the left, and to this day, he is still reviled by libertarians and far-rightists for making this stand for us and the market.

A lot of people today even go so far as to say that republicans are socialists because they were forced to capitulate with reality and shift to the left.

The history behind this is very important. It's all just the result of dirty politics.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
I actually agree with you. at least in some sense...
was it FDR that always said to "speak softly and carry a big stick?"
You need some forceful weight in order to keep order and be respected with a sense of fear.

Teddy Roosevelt.

The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."

It stated that we had the "right" to militarily intervene in Latin American countries in order to maintain peace and order if it threatened the stability of the USA. (Of course, that's a matter of opinion, conveniently.) Presidents then used it for justifying military operations that had nothing to do with Europe, and that caused an uproar.

So it was later repealed by the Clark Memorandum in 1930, which stated that we DIDN'T have the right to intervene into Latin American affairs in all cases, and clarified that the Monroe Doctrine was meant for conflicts of interest between the USA and European powers rather than conflicts of interest between the USA and Latin American countries.

FDR then affirmed the Clark Memorandum, and went a bit further by saying that military intervention should be lessened no matter what the circumstances, and gave it the name "The Good Neighbor Policy".

So, NOOO! Not FDR!!! :-p

[vordabois]

Anyways, to go back to the Pearl Harbor thing, wikipedia has a sort of messy entry about the foreknowledge debate, though it is quite thorough, I must say.

Whoever wrote it went down and described almost all of the pieces of evidence that the conspiracy theorists use and does a pretty damn good job of explaining the situation.

It's all well and good, but I especially like the last two paragraphs.

Without seeing those letters, Jacki, as I said before, it's hard for me to elaborate upon them.

But here's a bit of common sense that says quite a bit:

Conspiracy theorists repeatedly point to the fact that Roosevelt desperately wanted the United States to intervene in the war against Germany. This is undoubtedly true, but a basic understanding of the political situation of 1941 precludes this as evidence that the Pearl Harbor attack was "allowed" to happen by Roosevelt. An attack by Japan was no guarantee that the U.S. would declare war on Germany. American anger was directed solely at Japan. The alliance between Germany and Japan called for one to aid the other in case of attack. Japan could hardly claim that America had attacked Japan. In addition, Germany had been at war with the U.K. since 1939, and the U.S.S.R. since June of 1941 without Japanese assistance. It was only Hitler's declaration of war several days later that brought the U.S. into the European war.

If Roosevelt truly believed that an attack at Pearl Harbor would bring the U.S. into the war with Germany, and was intent on allowing it to happen, there were better ways to do it. The carriers of the Pacific Fleet could have been on war alert, and the rest of the Fleet could have sailed days earlier. This would have allowed for a successful repulse of the attack, minimizing American casualties. In fact, it would have been a great victory. As it happened, American power in the Pacific was almost fatally crippled, and thousands of well trained sailors and soldiers died. Even FDR's harshest critics acknowledge his intelligence and grasp of naval matters. A man of his talents surely could have formed a better conspiracy if he had wanted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
[War] will cause the death of the world.

...and you won't see me disagreeing with you too much on this. ;)

[Noshus Klam]

Vordabois is casually watching the board, waiting for someone to make the next move.

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/playuk.php?id=587272

[Nak Nak]

Originally posted by ..i..
Vordabois is casually watching the board, waiting for someone to make the next move.

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/playuk.php?id=587272
HAHAHA

[Noshus Klam]

Originally posted by Nak Nak
HAHAHA

Chuck's is still my favorite.

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/playuk.php?id=580804

[Nak Nak]

Incredible and so true.

[Nak Nak]

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/playuk.php?id=587639

[Noshus Klam]

Originally posted by Nak Nak
http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/playuk.php?id=587639

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by vordabois
So, NOOO! Not FDR!!! :-p

quit trying to show off.
sheesh, what is it with history people? they make bigger nerds than computer geeks and it's always in a very pretentious and annoying way.
I think I'll stick to my english major.
or to avoid the whole mess of stuck up brats, I could just drop out of college. that sounds like a treat.

if I feel like reading the rest of your posts, I'll reply later.

[Nak Nak]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
quit trying to show off.
sheesh, what is it with history people? they make bigger nerds than computer geeks and it's always in a very pretentious and annoying way.
I think I'll stick to my english major.
or to avoid the whole mess of stuck up brats, I could just drop out of college. that sounds like a treat.

if I feel like reading the rest of your posts, I'll reply later.

You get in such a huff when you're proven wrong. If you don't want to talk about history, then don't talk about history! It just shows how ignorant you are when you insult someone for knowing more than you about the subject you brought up in the first place. I don't know where you're getting "pretentious" and "stuck-up" from either.

[In Dust and Ashes]

I haven't even read his post(s) yet, I havn't studies american history in at least 3 years, I havn't studied history at all in one year, I don't really care that much, espeiclaly since this thread was supposed to be geared towards moral issues, I get proven wrong probably more times than I get proven right anyway, and pretentious and stuck up come from every history buff that I've run into.
except for one, who was awesome cus he told history like the best story book ever written.

[vordabois]

But getting Teddy Roosevelt mixed up with Franklin Roosevelt is something I couldn't stand to see.

They were opposites on almost every important issue. It was like night and day.

[In Dust and Ashes]

they're both roosevelts. all I remeber is that one of them dug the cannal and one of them fought the war.

[Squirrel]

And the war won?

[Spaced]

It's so annoying when reason gets in the way of a good argument.

[Squirrel]

I kind of stopped following at about the end of page 2, but I still want to join in.

[Herr Lipp]

Originally posted by Spaced
There's nothing incompetent in proper preparedness, but going around saying you're going to nuke anyone who disagrees with you is ridiculous, and more likely to incite war than prevent it.

Fair point. But not really relevant as that isn't the done thing in the West (since Nazi Germany). More common in the Middle East.

I don't think there'll ever be a nuclear war. Or if someone is stupid enough to do it, I can see a nice chunk of the world population being wiped out via retaliation.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Herr Lipp
I don't think there'll ever be a nuclear war. Or if someone is stupid enough to do it, I can see a nice chunk of the world population being wiped out via retaliation.

I hope you're right. But forever is a long time. And with nations like Iran and Pakistan getting nuclear weapons... Yikes.

I'm more scared of coups in nuclear-capable countries. Could you imagine what might happen if a new Nazi-type movement were to seize power in, say, Russia? Once that government disappears and anarchy grips the country, who knows what could happen to their nukes...

[Herr Lipp]

I worry about China getting the hump in the Future if they are denied fuel/materials/trade rights by the West, even if they are perfectly reasonable requests, as they could see it as the West trying to keep them down. It will have to be handled very diplomatically.

[Squirrel]

Good job we have such tactful leaders, then. :yes:

[Fab]

Originally posted by Herr Lipp
I worry about China getting the hump... please tell me i'm not the only one who thought of My Humps at this.

[Spaced]

Originally posted by Herr Lipp
Fair point. But not really relevant as that isn't the done thing in the West (since Nazi Germany). More common in the Middle East.

Well 'nuking' may be a bit passe, but if you insert 'invade' in place of 'nuke', that isn't far from current US policy of pre-emtive strikes and unilateralism that is far more beligerant than previously accepted foreign policies in the West. That the US places military action so high on it's list of response to international disputes invites the leaders of Rogue states etc. to claim justification for growing militaries and their own 'nuclear deterents'.

[Spaced]

Originally posted by vordabois
I hope you're right. But forever is a long time. And with nations like Iran and Pakistan getting nuclear weapons... Yikes.

I'm more scared of coups in nuclear-capable countries. Could you imagine what might happen if a new Nazi-type movement were to seize power in, say, Russia? Once that government disappears and anarchy grips the country, who knows what could happen to their nukes...

The greatest fear I have concerning Russian or other nukes is that they get sold through the black market trade to the highest terrorist bidder. Unfortunately an easily possible scenario.

[Nak Nak]

Originally posted by Squirrel
And the war won?

stop for the love of god!

i fought the war...but the war won!

[Herr Lipp]

Originally posted by Spaced
The greatest fear I have concerning Russian or other nukes is that they get sold through the black market trade to the highest terrorist bidder. Unfortunately an easily possible scenario.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, many many many European countries have been flooded with small arms for dirt cheap. Pretty worrying if the local dealers/bank robbers now have AK's instead of pistols.

[Squirrel]

There was a story going round a while ago that that Japanese cult who gassed the subway tested a small nuclear device in the outback of Australia.

[Herr Lipp]

Another billion down the swannie (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4650372.stm)