Posted on 12/21/2007 6:43:53 PM PST by OCCASparky
No, my position, as before, is that he was not a serious historian because he just made stuff up when he couldn't find sources to substantiate his claims. His work is not history, but historicized fiction.
No compromise was being offered other than "my way or the highway" by the western powers.
I'm sure you know this is a completely false claim.
Japan had a choice of invading Manchuria or not invading Manchuria.
You mean like the American position in the Philipines?
No, I mean completely unlike the US in the Philippines - the two situations couldn't be more different, in point of fact.
The new war from 1937 was based upon attempting to install a government friendly to Japan.
No, the new war was to create not just a client state but to provide Lebensraum for Japanese nationalists by slaughtering Chinese civilians wholesale and appropriating their property.
One might as well claim that the Nazi blitzkrieg of Poland was simply to install a friendly government in Warsaw.
Rather, the Western position was based upon forcible trade centered on the distribution of narcotics backed by military power with a country which was not interested in commercial intercourse.
Not only do you simplify British policy here, you conflate US policy with UK policy.
For an American perspective, they would be equivalent to Columbia and Mexico warring against the US to allow free distirbution of Cocaine and Marijauna and taking Miami and Long Beach as entrepots to enable the distirbution of illicit drugs in the continental US.
No, it would be analogous to the Mexican navy blockading the Gulf until the US agreed to export all kinds of goods to Mexico with only minimal duties.
The US did not use the implied threat of blockade to flood China with US-manufactured narcotics. You realize now, I hope, how bizarre and off-base your analogy sounds.
I'm sure third worlders everywhere would beg to differ with this assessment of the impact of western Colonial warfare.
They can say what they like, but they cannot alter the historical record.
America's overseas warfare was radically different in purpose, method and result than Japanese. It would behoove me to point out that the people of the Philippines made common cause with the US against the Japanese in the Second World War. If the USA's policy toward the Phlippines as an overseas territory was indistinguishable from that of Japan's why would millions of Filipinos have risked their lives fighting against Japan on behalf of their evil US masters? Why wasn't the Japanese invasion of 1942 seen as a joyful liberation from the evil US? Why is MacArthur a revered figure in the Philippines to this day?
To any American who does not hate his own country and his own countrymen, the answer is obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War
Wikipedia as a serious historical source? It's sub-Toland.
America took prisoners of war - including irregulars - in the Philippines. The US did not employ "concentration camps."
You mean like the Japanese putting Emperor Puyi on the throne of Manchukuo, or cultivating relations with leading native families in the Philippines, Indonesia, and India?
Not really. The issue is not whether Japan employed the usual political machinations that every power always does - the issue is what Japan did that was extraordinary and atypical. The English did not round up and kill over one million Irish in a 10 year period and import one million English over a 5 year period.
And how could you fail to remember the English cause and response to the potato famine in Ireland, or the campaign of enclosure in Scotland to rout the Highlanders, or the origins of "kidnapping" on the streets of Glasgow?
The English "caused" the potato famine now? Is that like Louis Farrakhan's theory that AIDS is deliberate germ warfare by the US government against its own citizens? Yes, the English completely failed to adequately address the famine, and yes the English decided to enforce property law in the Highlands - but that hardly compares to an active campaign of deliberate genocide.
Yes, because an even greater empire was in the making, one that would direct the actions of not some mere corner of the world, such as the Japanese desired in East Asia and Oceania, but of the entire globe and all peoples within it, and still does so to this day. That would be our country, lead by our erstwhile East-Coast WASP Internationalist elite and their feal servants who they admitted to the halls of power.
Drama and archaism combined with inexact language do not equal argument.
The United Kingdom was an Empire: it ruled 22% of the earth's surface beyond its original sovereign territory.
For the US, the number is significantly less than 0.5%, almost all of it gained by peace treaty and not deliberately conquered.
The US is not an empire - and the Edward Said/Noam Chomsky argument that economic and political influence equals conquest is, quite frankly, stupid.
How do you, a Catholic, come to the aid of this gang of bloody-handed criminals who have done nothing but subvert our constitution and our standing in the eyes of the world?
Nothing in my Catechism tells me that I am obligated to hate my native land and my Catechism specifically forbids me from lying about America or about anything else.
And, as a Catholic American who loves his country and doesn't like engaging in the sins of lying and detraction against it, I can also point out that nothing you've described "subverts" the Constitution in any way.
The US Constitution leaves foreign policy entirely in the hands of the Executive and the Senate. It does not contain any strictures regarding the conduct of foreign policy.
Not always.
I had not heard that one before.
Ron Paul: “Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the—that iron, iron fist..”
You can check the transcript (about half way down this page)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/page/4/
Is there some reason why you don’t want to say whether you agree or disagree with that statement by Ron Paul?
You responded in #568: “Actually, RedRover first implied that we Paulnuts would start wearing t-shirts thus:””Oh, my gosh. What’s next for Paulnuts? “Pearl Harbor was an inside job” t-shirts?”(RedRover, post #515)”
You need to go back and read the thread starting in #487 where you said: “...FDR had foreknowledge of the Japanese attack, but chose to allow the fleet to take the hit.” Since your post #487 preceeded RedRover’s post #515, you can’t blame him."
I believe the first mention of Pearl Harbor occurred in this post #450, posted by DugwayDuke:
"For example, if RP had been president in 1941, and if RP discovered the Japanese fleet 150 miles off Pearl Harbor on 6 Dec, would he have felt the need to convene Congress and get a Declaration of War prior to launching an attack against that fleet? Or, would he have felt the need to wait until the first bomb fell on Pearl?"
It's no wonder you didn't know where this idea came from, it came from you.
“It’s no wonder you didn’t know where this idea came from, it came from you.”
That’s twice you’ve dodged the question by attempting to blame others. First, you blamed Red Rover. Now you’re attempting to blame me. I said nothing about any conspiracy involving Pearl Harbor in my post #450. You injected that in your post #487.
Now quit dodging the question. Quit trying to shift the blame to others and answer the question: “why did you allege a government conspiracy at Pearl Harbor?
You might also try and answer the question I’ve now asked three times: “Can you provide one credible source that supports your allegation that we had ‘help and cooperation of the afghan government’ or that the Taliban was not in control of Afghanistan?”
You can continue to dodge, twist and turn, but it is only your credibility that is at state.
What has that to do with whether we invaded and conqured the Indian’s country and put them in Reservations by force?
Some things can’t be undone.
It’s just another case of exactly what the DBM does. “Don’t pay it no mind.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.