Switch Theme:

Politics - USA  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Anyone else hear about Warren wanting the IRS to do our taxes themselves?

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

 Jihadin wrote:
Anyone else hear about Warren wanting the IRS to do our taxes themselves?


They don't have enough people to audit everyone that needs auditing as it is. Now they're supposed to do the whole thing?

I'd honestly like to hear how this will be conducted.

DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

 ulgurstasta wrote:
 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


I was specifically responding to the claim that having a naval presence in Hawaii was adequate provocation for Japan.
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






 BrotherGecko wrote:
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.


Unique it may not be but it is far from common and has about the same heft as Birtherism and 9/11 Truthers.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver





4th Obelisk On The Right

 Ahtman wrote:
 BrotherGecko wrote:
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.


Unique it may not be but it is far from common and has about the same heft as Birtherism and 9/11 Truthers.


Which is to say it is wrong or to say its right or that people don't like to think America in negative terms or that it is secretly true?

As America the empire has nothing in relation to Birtherism and 9/11 Truthing, your point is unclear to me. I apologize.


 
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






 BrotherGecko wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 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.


Here's a history lesson: there is no "good guy". A lot of gak happens. You think we're the first nation to ever flex on other countries, police the world, etc.? We're not. People have been killing each other for centuries.

Outside of Vietnam and the most recent Iraq war, I think we were perfectly justified in fighting WW1 and WW2.

~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






 cuda1179 wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:


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.


Go take upper-level sociology classes, they tend to be more nuetral than people think. But I am honestly tired of most of the stuff you said. Im actually in a Culture/Law of japan class right now and my proffessor just said "Japan Brought alot of (It) unto them to themselves. There where some real atrocities done during the war they still refuse to acknowledge" and he he grew in japa

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






 hotsauceman1 wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:


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.


Go take upper-level sociology classes, they tend to be more nuetral than people think. But I am honestly tired of most of the stuff you said. Im actually in a Culture/Law of japan class right now and my proffessor just said "Japan Brought alot of (It) unto them to themselves. There where some real atrocities done during the war they still refuse to acknowledge" and he he grew in japa


I was actually very surprised by that. Ipman (while a kungfu movie and not a historical only film) touched on the atrocities committed by Japan against the Chinese during WW2 a lot and it was fascinating.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 15:35:36


~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in us
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver





4th Obelisk On The Right

WW2 probably but WW1 was of zero consequence to the US, any side could have won and the US wouldn't of been any worse off. There is also a lot more to US foreign policy than the big wars too. The deaths of several hundred thousand Filipinos comes to mind.

From my stand point I'm not very worried about good guys and bad guys. I don't excuse actions because others guys did it too though, that the purview of playground excuses. I'd like to think I'm willing to hold my country to its claims of being the most moral of all nations.

Either way, I wasn't attempting to convince anybody of anything I was just saying Perigrine was in no way alone or had an opinion held by only old Japanese guys that miss the old days. Perigrine's opinion is one from people with well argued and a solidly evidenced theory on events from the past. If people care they can read up on it on their own time and either pick it up or put it down, not my problem either way.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 15:40:04


 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut




 cuda1179 wrote:

Engineering, math, and economics are all neutral.


The field of economics is not at all a politically neutral subject. Broadly speaking it is the study of the allocation, consumption and generation of resources which is very much a political subject but often it teaches one specific way of interpreting what "the economy" is. Either way it isn't and can't be "neutral". Engineering and mathematics are both subjected to how we value and use them. If one is more economically lucrative to pursue than the other then it isn't politically neutral, either. Equations may be equations but the reasons for people learning them are not neutral.

You think that it is a biased statement to say that capitalism is evil but is it a neutral statement to say that capitalism is good? Is it a statement without any values in it if you say that capitalism is, indeed, neutral?
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






Rosebuddy wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:

Engineering, math, and economics are all neutral.


The field of economics is not at all a politically neutral subject. Broadly speaking it is the study of the allocation, consumption and generation of resources which is very much a political subject but often it teaches one specific way of interpreting what "the economy" is. Either way it isn't and can't be "neutral". Engineering and mathematics are both subjected to how we value and use them. If one is more economically lucrative to pursue than the other then it isn't politically neutral, either. Equations may be equations but the reasons for people learning them are not neutral.

You think that it is a biased statement to say that capitalism is evil but is it a neutral statement to say that capitalism is good? Is it a statement without any values in it if you say that capitalism is, indeed, neutral?


As an engineer, sure, I'll give you economics, but math and engineering? Excuse me, there is no more neutral study than those two. Science is the most neutral of all studies, it's only purpose is to enlighten. Yeah, it can be used for good or ill, but at it's core, it is neutral.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 15:43:19


~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






I get in alot of trouble when I say I think that capitilism itself is a good system. Its just that human rights/worker rights need to be part of it.
We wouldnt have ANYTHING we have today without capitilism. I pissed off this one girl I went out with by saying "You like anime, conventions and cosplay, literally none of that would be possible without capitilism, this pizza place where in would not be here without capitilism)

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






 BrotherGecko wrote:
WW2 probably but WW1 was of zero consequence to the US, any side could have won and the US wouldn't of been any worse off. There is also a lot more to US foreign policy than the big wars too. The deaths of several hundred thousand Filipinos comes to mind.

Eh, I think WW1 was a decent standpoint as far as establishing/maintaining alliances. I know there's more to foreign policy, I was just going off the major events.


From my stand point I'm not very worried about good guys and bad guys. I don't excuse actions because others guys did it too though, that the purview of playground excuses. I'd like to think I'm willing to hold my country to its claims of being the most moral of all nations.


It's hard to be the most moral of all nations in an ever shifting landscape. Sure, we should strive to do the right thing, but most right or wrong actions have far reaching consequences, and "morality" is often relative.


Either way, I wasn't attempting to convince anybody of anything I was just saying Perigrine was in no way alone or had an opinion held by only old Japanese guys that miss the old days. Perigrine's opinion is one from people with well argued and a solidly evidenced theory on events from the past. If people care they can read up on it on their own time and either pick it up or put it down, not my problem either way.


Fair enough. I was just arguing that I think as much as the US may have baited or been responsible for Pearl Harbor, Japan is far more responsible. They chose to act, and we responded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I get in alot of trouble when I say I think that capitilism itself is a good system. Its just that human rights/worker rights need to be part of it.
We wouldnt have ANYTHING we have today without capitilism. I pissed off this one girl I went out with by saying "You like anime, conventions and cosplay, literally none of that would be possible without capitilism, this pizza place where in would not be here without capitilism)


Eh, it's 50/50. Capitalism can be good until things like monopolies happen. Then it's less capitalism and more dictatorship ruled by big money corporations.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 15:47:32


~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






Than that isnt capitilism. That is more or less a dictattorship like you said"

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I get in alot of trouble when I say I think that capitilism itself is a good system. Its just that human rights/worker rights need to be part of it.
We wouldnt have ANYTHING we have today without capitilism. I pissed off this one girl I went out with by saying "You like anime, conventions and cosplay, literally none of that would be possible without capitilism, this pizza place where in would not be here without capitilism)



It's always funny when you get into those kinds of arguments with those kinds of people... For instance, one of my classmates and I have butted heads/debated over trickle-down (he's a big time TEA Party type, looooves Milton Friedman's theories/teachings on economics, etc), when I tell him that I think guys like Milton Friedman are full of crap, that there's more evidence pointing against their views than there is for it, and much of that "evidence" has to be twisted or tailored to meet their views... he thinks instantly (and says as much, in a rather joking way) that I'm a commie and follow the Marx and Engels schools of thought.

Also, when my next door neighbor and I discuss things economically (he's the same type as my classmate), he inevitably seems to equate me saying "well regulated" as meaning "more regulated"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jreilly89 wrote:

It's hard to be the most moral of all nations in an ever shifting landscape. Sure, we should strive to do the right thing, but most right or wrong actions have far reaching consequences, and "morality" is often relative.


While that is true, there are times where we have done some straight up immoral gak as a country. I mean, there was a vocal minority of people in the PNW who were voicing concerns and protesting against the US Government/military during the internment of Japanese citizens. Obviously, we could all drag up instances or situations where an action or institution started off as being a morally acceptable thing, and morals change... but there are plenty of times where an act or institution starts off on the wrong side of morality.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 15:52:39


 
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

It's hard to be the most moral of all nations in an ever shifting landscape. Sure, we should strive to do the right thing, but most right or wrong actions have far reaching consequences, and "morality" is often relative.


While that is true, there are times where we have done some straight up immoral gak as a country. I mean, there was a vocal minority of people in the PNW who were voicing concerns and protesting against the US Government/military during the internment of Japanese citizens. Obviously, we could all drag up instances or situations where an action or institution started off as being a morally acceptable thing, and morals change... but there are plenty of times where an act or institution starts off on the wrong side of morality.


Oh, absolutely. My point was two fold: A) morality is relative, and what may seem like barbaric activities may be justified (and the reverse is true, the Japanese internment camps. I get their premise, but it was absolutely horrifying) and B) Countries shift up and down. We may have done terrible things, but we've also done some good. On the whole, there is no "good" country, just countries.

~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






 BrotherGecko wrote:
Which is to say it is wrong or to say its right or that people don't like to think America in negative terms or that it is secretly true?


It has nothing to do with thinking of America in negative terms but realizing that looking at history in such a way is no better than assuming everything is positive.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
As America the empire has nothing in relation to Birtherism and 9/11 Truthing, your point is unclear to me. I apologize.


Just saying "I have books that say this" doesn't make them accurate or true as there are books that say Obama isn't really American or that G.W. Bush was behind 9/11. Thinking the USA was dressed provocatively which provoked Japan to sneak attack Pearl Harbor and thus is Americas fault is historical revisionism. The problem isn't recognizing there was an embargo and what that meant, the problem is in solely blaming the USA for Japans decision to attack.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 16:21:59


Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut




 jreilly89 wrote:

As an engineer, sure, I'll give you economics, but math and engineering? Excuse me, there is no more neutral study than those two. Science is the most neutral of all studies, it's only purpose is to enlighten. Yeah, it can be used for good or ill, but at it's core, it is neutral.


What we choosy to study and how we choose to structure that study are very much political choices. What we understand "science" to be is not free from ideology. This is not to say that it's bad to not be neutral, it's just that the idea of neutrality is more widespread than actual neutrality.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I get in alot of trouble when I say I think that capitilism itself is a good system. Its just that human rights/worker rights need to be part of it.
We wouldnt have ANYTHING we have today without capitilism. I pissed off this one girl I went out with by saying "You like anime, conventions and cosplay, literally none of that would be possible without capitilism, this pizza place where in would not be here without capitilism)


People would make cartoons and pizzas even if workers owned the means of production, though. If Warhammer or iphones or other trinkets wouldn't have existed without capitalism and/or would cease to be without capitalism then, uh, so what? They aren't that important.

Capitalism did indeed revolutionise production technology compared to feudalism but it's often pointed out that this wasn't done out of sheer good will but rather to extract the largest amount of surplus value possible. What this did to the people doing the gruntwork has not been a priority, exactly. The human cost of capitalism has been a defining aspect of global society for a couple of hundred years now. It's what the worker and anti-colonialist movements have been all about.
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
WW2 probably but WW1 was of zero consequence to the US, any side could have won and the US wouldn't of been any worse off.
The US basically entered WW1 because we had a financial stake in it. Britain and France had exhausted their wealth (sending lots of it to the US buying US goods) and then borrowing gargantuan amounts when that ran out. The world center of banking moved from London to New York. We wanted to keep getting paid and repaid on loans, and basically joined in because an Allied defeat would likely have collapsed the US economy, particularly if Britain and France had defaulted as they almost certainly would have.

In all other aspects, yes the US had no real stake, but, as with everything, follow the money


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in se
Dakka Veteran






 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I get in alot of trouble when I say I think that capitilism itself is a good system. Its just that human rights/worker rights need to be part of it.
We wouldnt have ANYTHING we have today without capitilism. I pissed off this one girl I went out with by saying "You like anime, conventions and cosplay, literally none of that would be possible without capitilism, this pizza place where in would not be here without capitilism)


Thats a silly sentiment, of course you can criticize a system even though you live in it and neither is capitalism the end of history.

Reminds me of this...
Spoiler:


Also

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Than that isnt capitilism. That is more or less a dictattorship like you said"


Capitalism can work just fine with monopolies, as long as you have private ownership of the means of productions that operate for profit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 16:33:54


 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 BrotherGecko wrote:
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.


I don't think that's what he's getting at.

I'd innately question any author who took the geopolitics of US-Japanese relations in the inter-war years, and used that relationship to make a moral judgement amounting to "America was asking for it, and was just as guilty in starting the war as Japan." In a realist sense, this statement is true. US foreign policy and Japanese foreign policy were not compatible, and given our knowledge now prolonged peace was extremely unlikely. That position however does not make moral judgments like "America wasn't the victim." By any standard of looking at war, America was the victim of unprovoked military aggression.

War theory tends to look poorly on the side that throws the first punch in general. It looks even more poorly when that punch is thrown at a tertiary party in continuance of ongoing wars with multiple primary parties when the tertiary party to the knowledge of the aggressor was not an immediate threat (immediate as in tomorrow. It gets even worse when the primary conflicts are all unwinnable, and the new conflict started in their furtherance is to execute a military plan that not only starts another unwinnable war, but doesn't make the other wars winnable.

Japan attacked the US because they believed the US would intervene if the Empire tried to seize British Borneo and the Dutch East Indies. Japan decided to take those territories because it could provide them with oil. They ignored that there wasn't enough oil in these areas to meet their needs (i.e. taking them would not help them win their wars). Whether or not the US would have intervened is pretty hotly debated, but the reality is that the US thought the oil embargo would work, and we put a lot less thought into "what do we do if it doesn't."

The US basically entered WW1 because we had a financial stake in it.


Hey. Let's give Britain some credit here. Nothing gets a country to join a war like finding out another country was talking to its neighbor about a military alliance to take back Texas, and boy oh boy was Britian happy to tell us all about it

Plus unrestricted submarine warfare was kind of a dick move anyway.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 17:03:30


   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

The zimmerman telegram was really a minor affair in the grand scheme of things that was made way worse because Germany basically didnt deny it but tried to explain it as Realpolitik, but wasnt any different than what all the world powers were doing.

Unrestricted submarine warfare was simply the only way submarines could work, when they tried to follow the old establishes rules they were extremely easy to destroy, and British Q ships masquerading as merchant vessels meant they couldnt take the chance, and Submarines were the only answer the Germans had to the British blockade of Germany. Britain sealed off German via suface vessels, going far beyond the accepted blockade norms of the time and preventing even foodstuffs coming in, eventually resulting in mass starvation. We had much less prewar trade with Germany though so we didnt complain much.

The US then basically insisted that any vessel with a US citizen on board was immune to attack, even if it was carrying purely military cargo destined for a combatant nation and under active escort by a combatant navy...which was more than a wee bit ridiculous by any standard...

Then of course in WW2 unrestricted submarine warfare was the norm from day 1, including with the US navy...

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

The Zimmerman Telegram was a big deal, mostly because it caused a complete shift in the attitudes of the American public. We were still pretty Anti-British as a country, and the electorate could care less about joining Britain's side. The economics of the war are pretty straight forward, and unrestricted submarine warfare was totally pissing us off and driving US policy makers towards joining the war. They really needed the electorate to get on board though, and the Zimmerman Telegram got the electorate on board.

And yes. Zimmerman explaining it as realpolitik and then not understanding why we didn't get it is comedy skit material

The US then basically insisted that any vessel with a US citizen on board was immune to attack, even if it was carrying purely military cargo destined for a combatant nation and under active escort by a combatant navy...which was more than a wee bit ridiculous by any standard...


It's definitely unreasonable to expect Germany to magically know which ships had US citizens on board, though on the other hand, why the feth is Germany torpedoing civilian shipping traveling under the flag of states it's not at war with? Total War doctrine does not extend to attacking the citizens and property of non-aggressor states simply because they happen to be traveling to an aggressor state. It's kind of unreasonable for Germany to think it could blow up US shipping and citizens as part of their war with a third party, so I'd say on that particular point the US wasn't being unreasonable at all. We weren't at arms with Germany, and Germany's right to wage its war against Britain does not under any standard extend to attacking US citizens as military targets.

Then of course in WW2 unrestricted submarine warfare was the norm from day 1, including with the US navy...


It got Donitz off

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/12 17:35:16


   
Made in us
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver





4th Obelisk On The Right

 Ahtman wrote:
 BrotherGecko wrote:
Which is to say it is wrong or to say its right or that people don't like to think America in negative terms or that it is secretly true?


It has nothing to do with thinking of America in negative terms but realizing that looking at history in such a way is no better than assuming everything is positive.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
As America the empire has nothing in relation to Birtherism and 9/11 Truthing, your point is unclear to me. I apologize.


Just saying "I have books that say this" doesn't make them accurate or true as there are books that say Obama isn't really American or that G.W. Bush was behind 9/11. Thinking the USA was dressed provocatively which provoked Japan to sneak attack Pearl Harbor and thus is Americas fault is historical revisionism. The problem isn't recognizing there was an embargo and what that meant, the problem is in solely blaming the USA for Japans decision to attack.


I understand the whole I have books comment was rather nebulous lol. The ones I have are all cited academic works not just Uncle Barry's youtube channel. I honestly am not saying I am making the same conclusions as they have with the same info. The point of the book comment was to express that academic work has been made to support Perigrine's position and not being some fringe ideas found on reddit.

Obviously Japan did the attack an is absolutely responsible for their actions but at the same time the US was basically telling Japan to hit it. Japan fell for the trap and got molly whop'd for its efforts. Turned into a territory (more or less) and was completely and utterly removed as a rival power in the East that refused to play by US rules. I sincerely doubt the Japanese Empire's disregard for human life and murder of Chinese nationals ment anything to US policy makers of the time, seeing as they saw no issue in casually killing civilians as a way to defeat an enemy abroad.

Long posted again... :/


 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

"Academic" works get written for fringe positions all the time. May I ask what books these are? I'm pretty widely read on this subject, and I've never seen anyone not a loon equate the geo-politics of the situation to "America was asking for it."

Total War doctrine does not extend to attacking the citizens and property of non-aggressor states simply because they happen to be traveling to an aggressor state.


The Rape of Nanking shocked everyone. Especially in light of reporting on the Boxer rebellion many years earlier, where reporters found the Japanese looting in China "polite" and used it to demonize the comparatively rough conduct of Western soldiers. Even in comparison to previous crimes against humanity perpetrated by Western Imperial Powers, what happened in Nanking was a whole new level. It totally meant something to US policy makers, aided by gak tons of photos running in newspapers around the world, which made all of it really hard to brush off.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/12 17:50:30


   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Northern IA

Not saying that Japan was the worst (Nazi Germany probably had them beat...probably)....

However if you haven't ever read about the horrific things done by Unit 731 (Japanese biological warfare/experimental unit)....it is pretty chilling.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

You have been appropriately warned.

http://www.unit731.org/Experiments.html

I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.

Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 LordofHats wrote:
The Zimmerman Telegram was a big deal, mostly because it caused a complete shift in the attitudes of the American public. We were still pretty Anti-British as a country, and the electorate could care less about joining Britain's side. The economics of the war are pretty straight forward, and unrestricted submarine warfare was totally pissing us off and driving US policy makers towards joining the war. They really needed the electorate to get on board though, and the Zimmerman Telegram got the electorate on board.
right, but again, wasnt any different than what all the great powers were doing, germany just basically got caught with that one...by the British illegally intercepting US transatlantic communications

And yes. Zimmerman explaining it as realpolitik and then not understanding why we didn't get it is comedy skit material
right, had Germany denied it, it would have blown over, most could have chalked it up to British propaganda or left it at least suspect. Germany being honest about it and saying "hey, we're all doing this, this is a 'just in case' thing, you understand right?" was the problem, playing into FrancoBritish information-war stuff of the time.



It's definitely unreasonable to expect Germany to magically know which ships had US citizens on board, though on the other hand, why the feth is Germany torpedoing civilian shipping traveling under the flag of states it's not at war with?
Because they're transporting war supplies to a combatant power? The laws of war at the time allowed them to stop, seize, and sink these vessels, the big issue was that they were supposed to warn the ships and disembark the passengers...which they stopped doing because Submarines were ill suited to taking on passengers and Submarines started getting sunk when they tried to play nice.

Germany gave ample warning to the general public however. hell theres a clip of a newspaper where tickets for the Luisitania (later confirmed to be carrying several million rounds of ammunition and other war supplies) are being advertised...and on the same page is a message from the German Embassy about their current stance on vessels travelling to the UK and the risk of such travel.


Britain was turning away neutral, noncombatant vessels away from German ports and boarding their vessels and seizing their goods, they just werent sinking much of anything because surface vessels could afford to take the risk and people stopped trying to ship stuff to Germany entirely because of the blockade pretty much immediately (and they werent as large a trading partner to begin with).


Total War doctrine does not extend to attacking the citizens and property of non-aggressor states simply because they happen to be traveling to an aggressor state. It's kind of unreasonable for Germany to think it could blow up US shipping and citizens as part of their war with a third party, so I'd say on that particular point the US wasn't being unreasonable at all.
it certainly allowed for interdiction of neutral shipping to a combatant nation. The British were doing it from day 1. The issue with Germany was that submarines could not play by the old rules of "well you have to want them and give them time to disembark first".

We weren't at arms with Germany, and Germany's right to wage its war against Britain does not under any standard extend to attacking US citizens as military targets.
which then meant that the British could just put a US citizen on every ship and make it safe from attack no matter what it was doing by the standards the US was trying to push.

Then of course in WW2 unrestricted submarine warfare was the norm from day 1, including with the US navy...


It got Donitz off
right, but it shows that it was a relatively lame pretext for war when nobody even pays lip service to it the next time around

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver





4th Obelisk On The Right

 LordofHats wrote:
"Academic" works get written for fringe positions all the time. May I ask what books these are? I'm pretty widely read on this subject, and I've never seen anyone not a loon equate the geo-politics of the situation to "America was asking for it."

Total War doctrine does not extend to attacking the citizens and property of non-aggressor states simply because they happen to be traveling to an aggressor state.


The Rape of Nanking shocked everyone. Especially in light of reporting on the Boxer rebellion many years earlier, where reporters found the Japanese looting in China "polite" and used it to demonize the comparatively rough conduct of Western soldiers. Even in comparison to previous crimes against humanity perpetrated by Western Imperial Powers, what happened in Nanking was a whole new level. It totally meant something to US policy makers, aided by gak tons of photos running in newspapers around the world, which made all of it really hard to brush off.


Well currently I have the long essay "Empire as a Way of Life" by William Appleman Williams (lol), "America's Half-Century: United States Foreign Policy in the Cold War and After" by Thomas J. McCormick and the seemingly provocative "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II" by William Blum all inflicted upon me. I'm most of the way through "Empire as a Way of Life" and can say that his stance seemed to be one the Japan attacking the US was exactly what Roosevelt wanted to happen. The other two may or may not specifically make comments about US v Japan but likely are going to take the stance of the US not being innocent in its endeavors around the world.

Still I was just getting at Perigrine not being some freak sympathizer of to the woes of old Japanese imperialists.

I'm not an expert on anything this and am just dipping my toes on the subject at the moment. I know a great many eyes roll when someone brings up something from a class they are taking in uni but I got stuck taking this stupid class and I will be damnned if I won't waste my time and energy not at least attempting to learn/understand a different interpretation of the commonly accepted story of the US triumph over evil.

 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Vaktathi wrote:
by the British illegally intercepting US transatlantic communications


More comedy skit material

The laws of war at the time allowed them to stop, seize, and sink these vessels,


No they didn't. That's why we were so peeved, and Britain and France liked harping on it to get us involved. Under no standard of war is permission granted to attack third parties who are not engaged in the conflict militarily. The World Wars were marked in general by the willingness of states to completely ignore what were the assumed conventions of warfare and wartime conduct (chemical gas, unrestricted submarine warfare, trench guns, etc), but that doesn't change that the US was not at war with Germany, and Germany had no right under the norms of war to attack American ships and passengers as military targets. Germany giving warning that they were going to attack a non-party to their war doesn't make it better anymore than Zimmerman explaining "we were just saying "if there's a war,"."

Britain was turning away neutral, noncombatant vessels away from German ports and boarding their vessels and seizing their goods,


And that's Britains choice, and their problem.

it certainly allowed for interdiction of neutral shipping to a combatant nation.


I think that under the standards of Maritime law at the time that's a dubious position. It's less likely to piss someone off as much as blowing ships up though.

which then meant that the British could just put a US citizen on every ship and make it safe from attack no matter what it was doing by the standards the US was trying to push.


There's a difference between sinking a British ship when you can't possible know it's passenger manifest, and attacking ships from a country you are not at war with. One is an unreasonable expectation, the other is not.

it shows that it was a relatively lame pretext for war when nobody even pays lip service to it the next time around


Eh, as a pretext for war "you attacked my people and their property even though we aren't at war with you" is a pretty good pretext for war.

I think I've committed a blunder in terminology. When attacking unrestricted submarine warfare, I don't mean to attack Germany for pragmatically deciding they couldn't be nice and play by traditional Prize Rules (that was suicidal as you point out). I mean to attack Germany to attacking ships belonging to states they were not at war with (both with Submarines and surface vessels). That's a war crime, and even in World War II, the US didn't go that far. Of course, in World War II we had the advantage that pretty much everyone was on someone's side, so it was really hard to sink a ship belonging to someone we weren't at war with if only for lack of targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BrotherGecko wrote:


Well currently I have the long essay "Empire as a Way of Life" by William Appleman Williams (lol), "America's Half-Century: United States Foreign Policy in the Cold War and After" by Thomas J. McCormick and the seemingly provocative "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II" by William Blum all inflicted upon me.


Thanks. I'm not familiar with these authors (EDIT: Well McCormick sounds familiar, but I don't think I've ever read anything by him), so I'll add them to the reading list.

Someone doesn't need to be an expert to have an opinion (and me being well read doesn't innately make me one), so go and use your knowledge!

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/12 18:32:21


   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Vaktathi wrote:
 BrotherGecko wrote:
WW2 probably but WW1 was of zero consequence to the US, any side could have won and the US wouldn't of been any worse off.
The US basically entered WW1 because we had a financial stake in it. Britain and France had exhausted their wealth (sending lots of it to the US buying US goods) and then borrowing gargantuan amounts when that ran out. The world center of banking moved from London to New York. We wanted to keep getting paid and repaid on loans, and basically joined in because an Allied defeat would likely have collapsed the US economy, particularly if Britain and France had defaulted as they almost certainly would have.

In all other aspects, yes the US had no real stake, but, as with everything, follow the money



You missed the part of Germany killing our nationals, sinking our ships, and promising Mexico the return of California, Texas, and Arizona.*


*Even Mexico doesn't want New Mexico. Pancho Villa managed to domesticate a few New Mexico scorpions and use them as tanks for his revolutionary army.

-"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!
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: