Originally Posted by RockPusher Yes, by definition it is interventionist. We cutoff their supply to petroleum. We also buddied up with the USSR. We also sent the Flying Tigers to attack them on the Silk Route. Yes... we were being VERY interventionist. WHOA! So *not* trading is interventionist?!!? But trading ...
| |||||||
 |
| View Poll Results: Would we be Better off if we were Isolationsit during the 20th Century? | |||
| Yes - we would be Better Off |     | 8 | 38.10% |
| No - we would Not be Better Off |    | 13 | 61.90% |
| Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll | |||
| Register to Post a Reply |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
12-31-2007, 04:03 PM
| #61 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster  Realist 
| Originally Posted by RockPusher WHOA! So *not* trading is interventionist?!!? But trading is also intervening in the region from someone else's perspective...............wtf, now we're intervening whether we trade or not?!?! 
| ||||
     |
|
12-31-2007, 04:04 PM
| #62 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz Exactly.
I like my neighbor so I mow part of his lawn. I hate the guy on the other side of him. If my neighbor buddied up with the other guy, according to RockPusher, I'm still obligated to mow part of my neighbor's lawn. Bullshit. | ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 04:04 PM
| #63 | ||||
| For those about to rock...  libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Trading isn't intervening unless it's favored trade. Ask Switzerland. | ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 04:07 PM
| #64 | ||||
| Member Republican
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz
Are you saying that you believe that NO person in the US would be willing to trade with Japan freely if we did not embargo them? It was not that the US gov stopped trading. The US gov intervened against FREE TRADE by preventing US companies from selling. | ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 04:09 PM
| #65 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by RockPusher We didn't "interfere with trade" with japan. We stopped trading with them because they were in china and wouldn't leave. We gave them options and they ignored them. Obviously they thought being in china was more important than getting oil from us so that leaves it up to them to find a new supply for oil.
We are not REQUIRED to trade when the other party is doing something we don't like. | ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 04:10 PM
| #66 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Originally Posted by 7960 We aren't required to do anything, the question is should the US gov't step in the way of US companies doing business. That's what restricting trade is all about.
| ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 04:12 PM
| #67 | ||||
| Member Republican
| Originally Posted by 7960
You are conflating free trade with government restriction. If you OWNED Standard oil and did not want to trade with Japan, that is one thing. If the government INTERVENED by forbidding you to trade, that is QUITE another thing. | ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 04:14 PM
| #68 | ||||
| Member Republican
| Originally Posted by 7960 Either we intervened or we did not. You cannot have it both ways. Stopping trade is intervention.
This is a red herring to the question of intervention anyway since we were KILLING THEIR TROOPS before the war. I have known two Flying Tigers who confirmed this :-) | ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 04:21 PM
| #69 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by RockPusher Talk about a red herring.......I've never seen where japan has even hinted that what you claim is a reason for their attack on us.
| ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 04:22 PM
| #70 | ||||
| Banned  Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by RockPusher So you're not upset at the government intervening with other countries, you're upset at the government intervening with your private company?
| ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 04:37 PM
| #71 | ||||
| Member Republican
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz Both. In this example, they are one in the same. Intervention by restricting Americans from freely trading with Japan is specifically targeting the nation.
I think that our big intervention bringing about the war was ATTACKING THE JAPS IN CHINA with US funded mercenaries.... Flying Tigers. | ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 04:42 PM
| #72 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by RockPusher Can you please show me where japan says that had anything to do with attacking us?
| ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 06:39 PM
| #73 | ||||
| Member Republican
| Originally Posted by 7960
No, the Imperial Japanese did not put this in a press release. In fact, they were not big on press releases in general. We began deploying mercenaries in Burma during the Summer of '41, and we began mercenary attacks against them in Nov 1941. Can you imagine how we could directly attack them in such a manner without pissing them off? Seriously?!? | ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 06:47 PM
| #74 | ||||
| Liberty, now and forever  Libertarian Party DFW
| Originally Posted by RockPusher The attack on Pearl Harbor was in the planning stages long before November of 1941, and even before the summer of 1941. The plan was originally offered up to the Imperial Japanese high command in January of 1941, and from there detailed planning commenced. Their fleet launched for the attack on Nov. 26, 1941.
__________________ “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased.” --Alexander Hamilton--  | ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 07:04 PM
| #75 | ||||
| Member Republican
| Originally Posted by Publius
We currently have a plan for invading Canada. No kidding! Of course we don't currently plan on doing so, but if they started attacking our troops in Iraq, we would certainly consider it. Every country has plans for a wide variety of strategic options. That way, plans can be enacted quickly. What do you think constituted more of an imperative to attack us?... Was it our refusal to trade with them, or was it our killing of their airmen and soldiers, harassing their logistics and destroying their equipment in China? Perhaps it had something to do with our counterfeiting Imperial script and distributing it in China? What makes more sense? The whole concept that they attacked us for trade reasons is intellectually dishonest but expected in our school systems since we won the war. It would AMAZE you to learn the American History that is taught in other countries. Quite a different perspective on us from elsewhere. | ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 07:05 PM
| #76 | ||||
| Member Republican
| Originally Posted by Publius Incidently,
The Flying Tigers was actually in its implementation phase back in January '41. | ||||
| |
|
01-01-2008, 02:33 PM
| #77 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by RockPusher Thanks. That's what I thought.
| ||||
| |
|
01-01-2008, 02:36 PM
| #78 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by RockPusher So show me.
I'm sure *someone* from japan and/or china has put something about this online. I know I put my entire curriculum online when I taught.......find me an educational site that shows chinese/japanese history where *they* say what you're claiming. Because as of now all we have is you saying "can you imagine...seriously?!?!?"  | ||||
| |
|
01-01-2008, 03:48 PM
| #79 | ||||
| I wonder Independent San Antonio, Texas
| Originally Posted by RockPusher Yeah we ain't a we in this country we are all I's and me's. Let any company including multinationals do what ever the hell they want, doesn't matter what is best of the country or we.
| ||||
| |
|
01-01-2008, 03:53 PM
| #80 | ||||
| Member Republican
| Originally Posted by 7960
Okay, can you find me primary sources from Japan that say they attacked us solely because of our refusal to sell them oil? Let me know how that works out for you slick. Don't be so obtuse. Objective analysis of history doesn't always work that way. Deductive reason is often employed in determining historical perspective based on time lines and logic. I have read this history before, so I know I am not the first person to make this astoundingly common-sense conjecture, although I am not going to invest the time to do your research for you to dig up articles in agreement with this astoundingly logical conclusion. It is a fact that we attacked the Japs first. I can tell you this from primary sources. I have spoken with men who killed Japanese in China before Nov '41 while flying for the Flying Tigers... A bleedingly obvious American operation. The Flying Tigers were notorious for running their mouths and the world knew exactly what we were up to in the Summer of '41.... plus, it is highly likely that the purchase and deployment of the equipment was common knowledge. If you think that our creating a mercenary air force then using them to successfully attack the Japanese in China before the attack on Pearl Harbor was a non-factor, then I suggest, in all seriousness, that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. It would be like acknowledging that someone lit the fuse to a stick of dynamite yet believe the explosion was initiated by static electricity. You get ZERO points from me regarding online curriculum. Have you seen any school curriculem that documents the Japanese military control of the Chinese opium market or how the profits from opium was used in their war efforts? Unlikely that you have, yet it is well documented. Can you find any Spanish documentation of the written languages of the native S. Americans? There was |
