Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Sanders should have good showings in Oregon, Montana and New Mexico with the potential to win all 3. California might be close but I think the Clintons still have a strong support base there and Hillary should win it.
Judging by the pictures coming from rallies in California, I seriously doubt it.
And that is the problem that we're seeing... major media outlets aren't showing the huge numbers he's drawing, and the votes he's pulling, because delegates are still going to Clinton because, as we've discussed a lot, the system is rigged. I did see an article that apparently earlier this week, or last week Maine voted for, and got rid of their delegate system entirely.
No if you go that route, Princess Grace, Grace Kelley that is. Ah Carumba!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Sanders should have good showings in Oregon, Montana and New Mexico with the potential to win all 3. California might be close but I think the Clintons still have a strong support base there and Hillary should win it.
Judging by the pictures coming from rallies in California, I seriously doubt it.
And that is the problem that we're seeing... major media outlets aren't showing the huge numbers he's drawing, and the votes he's pulling, because delegates are still going to Clinton because, as we've discussed a lot, the system is rigged. I did see an article that apparently earlier this week, or last week Maine voted for, and got rid of their delegate system entirely.
They are showing it though. They are covering it as if it is a close election, and while it is closer than she or really anybody expected, it isn't particularly close. She is beating Sanders by more than Obama ever led Clinton (I'm not even factoring in super delegates, just elected delegates). It sure doesn't seem like it though as Sanders supporters are extremely vocal in their support and he does draw large crowds at rallies. And how exactly is it rigged if she has a lead of roughly 2 million votes in the popular vote over Sanders? It seems like the delegate count is reflecting this reality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/11 22:40:51
Hillary Clinton for months has downplayed the FBI investigation into her private email server and practices as a mere “security inquiry.”
But when asked Wednesday by Fox News about Clinton's characterization of the bureau's probe, FBI Director James Comey said he doesn’t know what "security inquiry" means -- adding, “We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.”
The FBI director reiterated that he’s “not familiar with the term security inquiry” when told that is the phrase Clinton has used.
As for the timeline for the investigation, Comey, during a briefing with reporters, said he prefers doing the investigation “well” over promptly and said he’s not “tethered” to a schedule.
The briefing comes amid reports that FBI investigators have been meeting with top aides in Clinton’s inner circle, including Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. The interviews have stoked speculation that the investigation may soon be drawing to a close, in the heat of the 2016 political season.
Asked Wednesday if he would make a public report, regardless of whether criminal charges are pursued, Comey said he would not say at this time. But he said there are “no special set of rules for anybody that the FBI investigates.”
Clinton and her campaign team repeatedly have described the probe as a security inquiry. Most recently on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Clinton used the term when asked how she’d respond to people worried the FBI probe is a “big deal.”
“I say what I’ve said now for many, many months,” Clinton said. “It’s a security inquiry. I always took classified material seriously. There was never any material marked classified that was sent or received by me, and I look forward to this being wrapped up.”
The FBI probe is proceeding as Clinton tries to wrap up the Democratic presidential nomination. Though she leads by hundreds of delegates, she has not yet clinched the nomination and rival Bernie Sanders is vowing to take the fight to the convention – he fueled his own underdog bid with a primary win Tuesday in West Virginia.
There appear to be several moving parts in the FBI investigation.
Former State Department IT staffer Bryan Pagliano, who installed and maintained the server, has been granted immunity by the Department of Justice and is cooperating with the FBI.
In another development, the infamous Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer,” who was extradited to the U.S. to face cyber charges, recently told Fox News he easily breached Clinton’s personal email server in early 2013.
Fox News could not independently confirm the claims. But an intelligence source told Fox News last month that Guccifer, whose real name is Marcel Lehel Lazar, could help the FBI make the case that Clinton’s email server may have been compromised by a third party. Lazar told Fox News that he spoke with the FBI at length on the plane when extradited from Romania to Virginia last month.
Speaking from the Virginia jail where he’s being held, Lazar said the conversation was "80 minutes ... recorded," and he took his own notes. A government source confirmed that the hacker had a lot to say on the plane but provided no other details.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/11 23:08:17
Um.....what's so ironic about it? I've been to college. As I majored in Engineering I was basically in the last bastion of neutrality on the campus. My major required me to take Fact based courses, not fell-good political indoctrination classes. I'd watch as people that can only be described as "not quite cool enough to be hippies" shouted for socialized everything. This was all 16 years ago. I'm sure it hasn't gotten better since then.
You aren't at all politically neutral, tho. I bet you have, say, gender studies or sociology or psychology or the like in mind when you talk about "feel-good political indoctrination classes" and not economics or engineering. This is aside from that about the only thing that could possibly be described as being "politically neutral" is being utterly unaware of the concept of politics itself and even then that's open to debate.
Engineering, math, and economics are all neutral. I took 400 level Psychology classes as electives in my freshman year, and while it might be different for some people I found it to be quite neutral as well.
Gender studies, women's studies, cultural appreciation studies, etc.: yes, I find many of them to be feel-good classes that are packed with as many half-truths, opinions, and falsehoods as there are actual facts. Even back then certain professors were teaching that minorities can't be racist, women can't rape, the US was responsible for Japan attacking Pearl Harbor in WWII, capitalism is evil, refusing to have open boarders to everyone is a human rights violation, and that Republicans are inherently bigoted. Even in my Midwest college in 2001 I was seeing free speech rights trampled for the sake of "political correctness". If anyone should dare lay any blame for any of history's problems on anyone of a "protected group" there was hell to pay.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Clinton keeps using the claim that "nothing was marked as classified" as a way to brush over the email scandal.
Here's the thing though, despite what cartoons and Mission Impossible movies have us believe classified emails aren't marked as "Classified" across the top. What determines if something is classified is the nature of the content. This was spelled out quite clearly in the confidentiality agreement she signed when she took that position.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 02:36:57
Oh for feths sake, we've been over this far more times than I can count: classified documents do have the classification level and other markings plastered all over them as required by the fething executive order. The fact that such markings were missing is arguably a greater issue than any personal email server.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 02:44:43
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
the US was responsible for Japan attacking Pearl Harbor in WWII,
This is actually pretty much viewed as a historic fact among historians today. Japan needed oil, and the US led the charge in an oil embargo on them. I cannot comment on whether or not FDR's comments directly to the Japanese ambassadors helped/hurt the situation, but that is among the pieces of evidence I've seen presented. Basically, at the time, Japan was quickly becoming the cornered raccoon... it could roll over and die, or it could lash out and attack unexpectedly.
I won't comment on whether the US's actions toward Japan prior to the war were done with the explicit intentions of forcing us into a war, but actions do have consequences. Ultimately, we can actually see the trail of breadcrumbs as far back as the Treaty of Versailles (we, the Western nations, treated China like dog gak as well.... and they most definitely resented it)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Japan needed oil, and the US led the charge in an oil embargo on them.
And they needed more oil to expand the operations to increase the Co-prosperity Sphere ie war on China/Korea/Philippines ect. It isn't like Japan needed more oil for fishing, or the US lead the embargo merely for laughs. Sure it isn't like one day Japan just decided to hit Pearl Harbor but it wasn't like Japan was doing nothing before that either. It wasn't a good time for a lot of people.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Ahtman wrote: And they needed more oil to expand the operations to increase the Co-prosperity Sphere ie war on China/Korea/Philippines ect. It isn't like Japan needed more oil for fishing, or the US lead the embargo merely for laughs. Sure it isn't like one day Japan just decided to hit Pearl Harbor but it wasn't like Japan was doing nothing before that either. It wasn't a good time for a lot of people.
Right, but that still leaves the US responsible. We may have had good reasons for doing it, but we placed ourselves directly into conflict with Japanese goals and made war inevitable. Pearl Harbor wasn't some out of nowhere attack on an innocent victim, it was the inevitable next step in the escalation of an existing conflict.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Ahtman wrote: And they needed more oil to expand the operations to increase the Co-prosperity Sphere ie war on China/Korea/Philippines ect. It isn't like Japan needed more oil for fishing, or the US lead the embargo merely for laughs. Sure it isn't like one day Japan just decided to hit Pearl Harbor but it wasn't like Japan was doing nothing before that either. It wasn't a good time for a lot of people.
Right, but that still leaves the US responsible. We may have had good reasons for doing it, but we placed ourselves directly into conflict with Japanese goals and made war inevitable. Pearl Harbor wasn't some out of nowhere attack on an innocent victim, it was the inevitable next step in the escalation of an existing conflict.
I agree that the US oil embargo prodded Pearl Harbor. What is often left out of the discussion is that the embargo was as a response to Japanese aggression to our allies in the area. Quite frankly I'd rather not trade with a country that systematically was machine gunning thousands of small children, slaughtering civilians, practicing government mandated slavery, or government mandated gang rape and kidnapping.
This is like saying it's a man's fault I shot him. He should have known better than to intervene while I was raping his wife.
cuda1179 wrote: I agree that the US oil embargo prodded Pearl Harbor. What is often left out of the discussion is that the embargo was as a response to Japanese aggression to our allies in the area. Quite frankly I'd rather not trade with a country that systematically was machine gunning thousands of small children, slaughtering civilians, practicing government mandated slavery, or government mandated gang rape and kidnapping.
This is like saying it's a man's fault I shot him. He should have known better than to intervene while I was raping his wife.
And none of that refutes my point: the US may have had good reasons for getting in the way of Japan, but Pearl Harbor was the entirely predictable* result. We said "bring it on", they brought it.
*Assuming you understand the power of aircraft carriers.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I agree that the US oil embargo prodded Pearl Harbor. What is often left out of the discussion is that the embargo was as a response to Japanese aggression to our allies in the area. Quite frankly I'd rather not trade with a country that systematically was machine gunning thousands of small children, slaughtering civilians, practicing government mandated slavery, or government mandated gang rape and kidnapping.
While maybe not "machine gunning thousands of small children".... we certainly still do business with countries that have less than sterling track records when it comes to treating people humanely (see: China, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, etc.)
I don't think "responsible" is the right word to describe the Pearl Harbor situation. It makes it sound like the Japanese were doing nothing and one day the US tried to provoke them into killing Americans; saying the USA was responsible for getting Japan to attack them is essentially national victim blaming. I think it is good to understand the situation and why things happened, but I don't think I would go so far as use the word "responsible" to describe it.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Ahtman wrote: saying the USA was responsible for getting Japan to attack them is essentially national victim blaming.
Except it isn't victim-blaming because the US isn't a victim. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a legitimate military target, in the context of an escalating conflict where war was pretty much inevitable (and understood to be inevitable on both sides). The fact that they fired the first shot before we could do it doesn't make us the victim.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Dakka OT. Where a the state that initiates violence with one country in furtherance of a war with a third country is equally guilty as the second country, whose only offense was saying the war with the third country was brutal and unjustified, and refused to take any part in it's continuance.
Stay classy Dakka OT Politics thread
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/12 06:04:12
LordofHats wrote: Dakka OT. Where a the state that initiates violence with one country in furtherance of a war with a third country is equally guilty as the second country, whose only offense was saying the war with the third country was brutal and unjustified, and refused to take any part in it's continuance.
Stay classy Dakka OT Politics thread
I guess you're going to overlook the part where the US imposed trade restrictions on Japan and was building up its own forces for an expected war? Japan shot first, but it's pretty likely that we would have shot first if they'd waited long enough for us to have the opportunity. It's not like all those battleships at Pearl Harbor were there to give a nice tropical vacation for the sailors.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: I guess you're going to overlook the part where the US imposed trade restrictions on Japan and was building up its own forces for an expected war?
And you're going to overlook that the only reason that happened was because Japan was waging an extremely brutal war in China, and had engaged in open warfare with Britain, Russia, and France as part of the exploding Second World War? For arguing that we shouldn't look at the Pearl Harbor attack in a vacuum, you're sure shoving the whole thing into that Dust Devil.
Japan shot first, but it's pretty likely that we would have shot first if they'd waited long enough for us to have the opportunity.
War doesn't work that way. Breaking off oil trade doesn't even remotely amount to Casus Belli, and even if breaking off oil trade did, Japan would still have failed the test since the only reason the embargo was a potential crisis was on account of their unwinnable war in China and throwing themselves into conflict with Britain and Russia and Vichy France. None of those things were America's fault, and Japan creating a crisis for itself does not give them just cause to wage a war on a state that was nominally at peace with them.
Japan's actions were rational within the context of their foreign policy, but we can't really brush aside what that foreign policy was in 1941.The US was no saint (still isn't), but if we're talking about war, guilt, and who was the victim, the US and Japan are not remotely on the same level when it comes to the events that transpired in the aftermath of 1937.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 06:47:40
I never said that the US was wrong to take the position they took in opposing Japan, but it was still a choice they made. They decided to step in and say "this is not acceptable", and knew perfectly well that war was the likely result of that decision. If you step in someone's path and say "bring it on" you don't really get to claim victim status when they bring it, no matter how good your intentions were in opposing them.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: I never said that the US was wrong to take the position they took in opposing Japan, but it was still a choice they made. They decided to step in and say "this is not acceptable", and knew perfectly well that war was the likely result of that decision. If you step in someone's path and say "bring it on" you don't really get to claim victim status when they bring it, no matter how good your intentions were in opposing them.
War was not a certain outcome at that point as far as contemporary minds were concerned. If it were, the US/Japan would have simply declared war instead of attempting continued negotiations. We can see in hindsight that this was a certain outcome, because we know things now that Japanese and American officials did not at the time. It wouldn't be till after the war that the US learned Japan was actually ready to end its wars in Indochina and China, and would have if not for Hideki Tojo and the Imperial Army being outright against anything short of an impossible complete victory on Mainland Asia. Likewise, Japan thought that FDR would relent if they sweetened the pot enough, and in some fantasy flight Tojo actually though FDR would let him Ninking all of East Asia if he just made the deal good enough. They didn't know FDR just didn't give a gak what they offered. He thought they were wrong, and he wasn't budging (to be fair, I doubt any world leader short of Stalin/Hitler/that Italian guy would have gone for such a deal). Had we a better understanding of the state of Japan's internal politics, we might have never put up the oil embargo in the first place. We threw that out as a giant double down thinking "they have to stop now.:" With the advantage of hindsight, FDR's administration might have never pulled that stunt. He didn't want to be dragged into a war with Japan while he was busy trying to drag us into a war with Germany.
And of course, even now most Americans probably don't realize how disastrous it was that Woodrow Wilson, America's favorite punching bag President, tabled the Racial Equality Amendment proposed by Japan in 1919. Americans brushed it off pretty quick, because we just didn't care, but that was a huge deal for Japanese policy makers. Tojo and his friends especially took that very seriously. They viewed any negotiation with the US as pointless, assuming we'd just ignore anything we didn't like when it suited us and given the structure of the Imperial government at the time Tojo could basically say "you're going to do what I want or I'll crash this government and start a new one." Which he totally loved doing. The entire event pretty much put Japan in a "I just don't give a gak anymore" mood. Even as there were people in the Imperial government who favored more sensible courses, radicals were perfectly positioned to block anything reasonable from ever being achieved.
And then we just get back to the more immediate issue, drop all the hypothetical what ifs and address the reality that Japan from 1937 to 1941 was starting a new war annually, was political locked into a foreign policy that found peace anemic, and had joined the "we're committed crimes against humanity on an international scale" club (to be fair, we were already members of that one). While the oil embargo was the immediate spark that put the US and Japan on the path to war, that reality does not twist into erasing that the US was the victim of an unprovoked military action. Economic sanctions can translate into cause of war under most theories of warfare, but not in the context of Japan's situation, where the sanctions would have never happened lacking a half dozen other wars they were already engaged in. Just War theory don't work that way, and I'm unaware of any other theory of warfare that does. The US was under no obligation to sell to Japan the means of continuing its wars, and Japan didn't have the right to bomb us because "feth those Americans for not selling us oil."
This is like arguing that girl who got a little tipsy at the bar shouldn't have worn short shorts. If she hadn't the mean old Japanese military dicatatorship wouldn't have raped her in that alley behind the bar.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 07:27:08
Ahtman wrote: And they needed more oil to expand the operations to increase the Co-prosperity Sphere ie war on China/Korea/Philippines ect. It isn't like Japan needed more oil for fishing, or the US lead the embargo merely for laughs. Sure it isn't like one day Japan just decided to hit Pearl Harbor but it wasn't like Japan was doing nothing before that either. It wasn't a good time for a lot of people.
Right, but that still leaves the US responsible. We may have had good reasons for doing it, but we placed ourselves directly into conflict with Japanese goals and made war inevitable. Pearl Harbor wasn't some out of nowhere attack on an innocent victim, it was the inevitable next step in the escalation of an existing conflict.
Viewed from a full historical perspective, the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbour if the US had not imposed the oil embargo, but they were not forced to do it, they could have come back to the negotiating table instead.
A less onerous embargo might have been more effective in nudging the Japanese towards negotiation, but it had already been tried to some degree. Given the history of their involvement in China since the 1920s, it looks unlikely that Japan would have been persuaded to rein back their activities there.
In the long term, the pressure from pro-China people in the US establishment might have led to war anyway, perhaps with the US declaring war on Japan.
Then the question would have been to what extent did the USA have the right or duty to involve itself in defending China against Japan?
And here's the problem: you're arguing about "justice" and which side was right, I'm talking about "responsibility" in a cause and effect sense. It's pretty clear that Japan was wrong, from a moral point of view, and there's a good argument for the US acting to stop Japanese expansion. But that doesn't change the fact that Pearl Harbor (or some similar battle) was a likely outcome of US foreign policy choices. If you're going to say "what you are doing is wrong, and I'm willing to fight to stop you" you don't get to claim victim status when the other side says "ok, we'll fight".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: This is like arguing that girl who got a little tipsy at the bar shouldn't have worn short shorts. If she hadn't the mean old Japanese military dicatatorship wouldn't have raped her in that alley behind the bar.
No, it is not at all like that. The girl in your absurd analogy is an innocent victim. The people who died at Pearl Harbor were casualties in a battle, and part of the same military that the US was preparing to use against Japan. I said it before but I'll say it again: those battleships at Pearl Harbor were not there to give their sailors a nice relaxing tropical vacation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 07:36:01
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: And here's the problem: you're arguing about "justice" and which side was right, I'm talking about "responsibility" in a cause and effect sense.
You're under the mistaken impression that justice is about "right," and is somehow separate from "responsibility." Functionally, most war theorists I've read say there's no such thing as a "right war" though I think World War II does a damn job of coming close. Just War Theory is about ethics, and under what circumstances the "crime of war" is necessary and justifiable.
If you're going to say "what you are doing is wrong, and I'm willing to fight to stop you" you don't get to claim victim status when the other side says "ok, we'll fight".
Except that isn't what happened. What happened is closer to "what you are doing is wrong, and I refuse to sell you the means to continue doing it while hoping that in doing so you'll run out of options and stop" to which the other side responds "I don't want to stop, and if you won't support me, I'll blow up your stuff that I'm just going to assume you want to use to blow up my stuff because you're in my way."
You can't pretend you're talking about pragmatic amoral reality on the one hand ("US foreign policy boxed Japan into a corner"), and then use the other hand to declare a moral position ("the US wasn't the victim"). Claim A does not lead to Claim B.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: No, it is not at all like that. The girl in your absurd analogy is an innocent victim.
Your entire argument hinges on this odd notion that had the US not done something completely within its rights as a sovereign state, and was not functionally an actionable cause for war on ethical grounds, somehow constitutes a forfeiture of status as the victim of a military aggressor. It's completely the same thing.
The people who died at Pearl Harbor were casualties in a battle, and part of the same military that the US was preparing to use against Japan. I said it before but I'll say it again: those battleships at Pearl Harbor were not there to give their sailors a nice relaxing tropical vacation.
Say it all you want, but that doesn't really make this logical hoola hoop you're trying to build spin. State's have a right to build and maintain military forces, and unless you've got evidence Japan believed the US was about to attack them in the immediate future for reasons other than as response to Japanese aggression*, you're just spinning a piece of historical fiction as standing evidence.
*which you won't find, because Japan knew the only reason the US would declare war on them in 1941 was as a direct response to Japanese military actions prompting US response which is the only reason they decided to jump to attacking Pearl.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 07:49:02
Let's say I own a house. A violent ex-con, convicted rapist, drug dealer, burglar moves into the house next door. I buy a gun for protection. In what world does that even come close to justifying the neighbor burning down my house because he "was afraid of me"?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/12 10:44:52
jasper76 wrote: There's only one Grace, and that's Grace Jones.
Blasphemer! Heretic!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
cuda1179 wrote: Let's say I own a house. A violent ex-con, convicted rapist, drug dealer, burglar moves into the house next door. I buy a gun for protection. In what world does that even come close to justifying the neighbor burning down my house because he "was afraid of me"?
Your analogy would work better if you and the rest of the neighborhood ganged together to stop the ex-convict from buying gas to his murder-truck rather then bought a gun
Ahtman wrote: And they needed more oil to expand the operations to increase the Co-prosperity Sphere ie war on China/Korea/Philippines ect. It isn't like Japan needed more oil for fishing, or the US lead the embargo merely for laughs. Sure it isn't like one day Japan just decided to hit Pearl Harbor but it wasn't like Japan was doing nothing before that either. It wasn't a good time for a lot of people.
Right, but that still leaves the US responsible. We may have had good reasons for doing it, but we placed ourselves directly into conflict with Japanese goals and made war inevitable. Pearl Harbor wasn't some out of nowhere attack on an innocent victim, it was the inevitable next step in the escalation of an existing conflict.
Thats a fairly unique and interesting viewpoint, shared by you and certain hard right elements of Japanese society.
Empire of Japan invades China and then invades Indochina.
World Powers outraged at these atrocities say hey we're not going to sell you the stuff you use to kill rape and torture with
Empire of Japan then freaks out and attacks everyone instead of, you know, well quitting the killing, torturing, raping and medical experimenting thing and using free enterprise to trade for goods and services.
Peregrine: Thats why the US is responsible.
TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG FROM CINCPAC ACTION COM THIRD FLEET INFO COMINCH CTF SEVENTY-SEVEN X WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE THIRTY FOUR RR THE WORLD WONDERS[8]
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
There's been a lot of recent coverage of Donald Trump's embrace of various
conspiracy theories, so we asked about a bunch of them on this poll to see which
ones his supporters believe and which ones even they say are a bridge too far.
Among voters with a favorable opinion of Trump:
-65% think President Obama is a Muslim, only 13% think he's a Christian.
-59% think President Obama was not born in the United States, only 23% think
that he was.
-27% think vaccines cause autism, 45% don't think they do, another 29% are not
sure.
-24% think Antonin Scalia was murdered, just 42% think he died naturally,
another 34% are unsure.
-7% think Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK, 55% think
he was not involved, another 38% are unsure.
“For the most part we’ve found that Donald Trump’s supporters lap up every
conspiracy theory he pushes out there,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public
Policy Polling. “But the Ted Cruz’s dad was involved in killing JFK one appears to
be a bridge too far even for them.”
And closing the loop on the greatest conspiracy theory of this election- a rare one
that Trump didn't embrace- 5% of voters nationally think Ted Cruz is the Zodiac
Killer, 18% are unsure, and 77% find Cruz not guilty of the charge of being a serial
killer in diapers. So at least he has that going for him.
Much has been made of Trump's unpopularity over the course of this campaign
and certainly we find that to be the case too- only 34% of voters have a favorable
opinion of him to 61% who have an unfavorable one. But we decided to take it a
step further in finding out just how much people dislike Trump, by matching him
in a series of heads to heads with things such as root canals, cockroaches, and
even hipsters to see who voters had a higher opinion of. Here's how it stacked up:
Do you have a higher opinion of Donald Trump or
________________
Results (Trump +/-)
Hemorrhoids Trump, 45/39 (+6)
Cockroaches Trump, 46/42 (+4)
Nickelback Nickelback, 39/34 (-5)
Used Car Salesmen Used Car Salesmen, 47/41 (-6)
Traffic Jams Traffic Jams, 47/40 (-7)
Hipsters Hipsters, 45/38 (-7)
DMV DMV, 50/40 (-10)
Root Canals Root Canals, 49/38 (-11)
Jury Duty Jury Duty, 57/35 (-22)
Lice Lice, 54/28 (-26)
New Delhi, May.12 (ANI): United States Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who is seen as a staunch opposer of growing Islamic radicalism across the world, has now found support from the right-wing group Hindu Sena, which held prayers here yesterday for his victory in the US presidential elections to be held later this year.
A priest chanted hymns and members of the Hindu Sena made offerings to fire, as they sat holding posters of the Republican presidential candidate, with "We love Trump" written in bold letters.
The president of the Hindu Sena, Vishnu Gupta, said Trump was the only "saviour of mankind".
"The entire world is suffering due to Islamic terrorism. All these bomb blasts across the world are linked to Islamic terrorism. There is only one saviour of mankind and that is Donald Trump. We have done Yagya today and prayed to god that people of the US elect Trump as their Presdent," Gupta told ANI.
Trump has won both supporters and detractors for his blunt talk and hardline proposals, including a proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States.
The billionaire real estate developer has positioned himself as the answer to growing Islamic radicalism across the world. (ANI)
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Ahtman wrote: And they needed more oil to expand the operations to increase the Co-prosperity Sphere ie war on China/Korea/Philippines ect. It isn't like Japan needed more oil for fishing, or the US lead the embargo merely for laughs. Sure it isn't like one day Japan just decided to hit Pearl Harbor but it wasn't like Japan was doing nothing before that either. It wasn't a good time for a lot of people.
Right, but that still leaves the US responsible. We may have had good reasons for doing it, but we placed ourselves directly into conflict with Japanese goals and made war inevitable. Pearl Harbor wasn't some out of nowhere attack on an innocent victim, it was the inevitable next step in the escalation of an existing conflict.
Thats a fairly unique and interesting viewpoint, shared by you and certain hard right elements of Japanese society.
Empire of Japan invades China and then invades Indochina.
World Powers outraged at these atrocities say hey we're not going to sell you the stuff you use to kill rape and torture with
Empire of Japan then freaks out and attacks everyone instead of, you know, well quitting the killing, torturing, raping and medical experimenting thing and using free enterprise to trade for goods and services.
Peregrine: Thats why the US is responsible.
TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG FROM CINCPAC ACTION COM THIRD FLEET INFO COMINCH CTF SEVENTY-SEVEN X WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE THIRTY FOUR RR THE WORLD WONDERS[8]
There really isn't anything unique about his position. In fact I have 3 books on my kitchen table right now that take that position lol. I know its hard to believe given literal indoctrination via public education but the US isn't much of a "good guy" when it comes to its foreign policy.
The basic idea though is the American empire had been flexing its new muscles (post WW1) on the international stage to dictate the rules to everybody but itself. The Japanese, Germany and even the British empires were obstacles to the US strategy of open markets for its products. China was a major point of contention as the US was anti-colonial and pro-open market. It told everybody you can carve up China but the US keeps access to its markets. Japan disagreed with that stance and thus was an enemy to America. The US was already jn the business of globally projecting its power and would of inevitably came to conflict with Japan, so Japan foolishly struck first. Basically Japan did exactly what the US wanted, give it a reason to go out into the world and enforce itself with public support.
Or so the idea goes.
Either way its hardly unique and is a fairly common view point from what I've been gathering now that I'm aware of its existance.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
