George Soros and Bush

What's not a threat to America? They're paranoid..
They love being threatened so much that they have to make up threats themselves, just to turn that "threat level thingie" up a bit.

hlsasystema.jpg
 
Maybe this goes a little bit off topic, but it sticks generally to the "threat" mentality.

Have you read Orwell's "ninteen eighty four"?
If not, I recommend it strongly, it's an excellent book, and if you're into politics you'll certainly enjoy it. If you have, and it lies on a shelf in your bedroom, check the "war is peace" chapter. Then grab a newspaper. See?

Forgive me if I don't describe the book or the chapter here, as it would be a huge spoiler.
 
Bradylama said:
Yes, yes, 1984, who is Brittania at war with, and all that.
Click to expand...
Thats Ocenia. Basically, I am as to Trekkies are to Star Treck, as am I to 1984. Im even the Project Head of a Hearts of Iron mod for it.
 
France, Germany, England, and most of Europe as well as the world calls us terrorists or Bush a threat. We haven't attacked them. So what you said about us becoming terrorists is false Wooz69. And Iraq was no threat, to non-Americans. But I am sure if they harbored your enemy you wouldn't go after them and be pissed either. As for the threat level thing, I don't think we will ever have a day until Osama is captured, that the thing will go down to level one. Now here is my personal dilemma. During World War 1 and 2, Europe, both Axis, and allies, asked us to be join the war on their side and be active in world politics. America tried to be neutral, but we were brought into both wars dramatically. In World War 1, it was a possible attack from Mexico if they chose to agree to Germany's proposal of an alliance. In World War 2, it was a filthy attack from the Japanese. Well once it was over, the U.S.S.R. was the new threat. Not so much for Europe or the rest of the world as much as for America, but no one still like the communist nation. So they allowed America to impose our will on them as long as we promise them our protection and mutual friendship. Then the U.S.S.R. went the way of the Nazis. And in one sudden instant, Europe turned on America and basically said, "Get the fuck out." Pardon my language. Now I am not saying all of Europe or the world is evil here. America is full of scumbags and idiots. But what the world did to America after all that America did for them, is inappropriate. Now I am not sure if we did bad things for Europe in those times, if we have them you must inform me of such so I can at least make this a two sided argument. But how would it make you feel if this situation happened to you? Let's say it was switched, and Europe took care of America instead, and we said "Get the fuck out." Wouldn't you be angry? So my point being, the world wanted us to be vigilant and take out the evil empires (Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R, Fascist Japan) then when the threats over, for the time being that is, everyone says be neutral, stay out of foreign affairs. But that is what caused the wars in Europe and the Pacific to escalate to a World War(s). So why in God's name should we let history repeat by making that same mistake of staying neutral and pretending everything will solve itself on its own behalf? Am I false here in thinking such, or is there a good point to my argument? I think there is a valuable point and lesson to be learned here. Staying active may have bad side-effects in the beginning, but they won't affect countless innocents in the end.
 
King said:
During World War 1 and 2, Europe, both Axis, and allies, asked us to be join the war on their side and be active in world politics. America tried to be neutral, but we were brought into both wars dramatically. In World War 1, it was a possible attack from Mexico if they chose to agree to Germany's proposal of an alliance. In World War 2, it was a filthy attack from the Japanese.
Click to expand...
Besides Mexico, one of the main reasons why America joined the WWI was German total war policy at sea. German submarines undiscriminatingly attacked all non-German ships, whether they be civilian or military, hostile or neutral. Many American ships were destroyed and lives were lost, so USA declared war on Germany and its allies. Truth is, there were strong forces in USA that insisted on joining the war since day one. After tragic losses of many American lives at sea, that idea got strong public support and USA joined the war.

In WWII, USA fought a silent war against the Axis since 1940. Besides aiding British with supplies, they also issued a trade embargo on Japan, to prevent them from gaining access to oil. Japan couldn't get oil from USA, but they couldn't get it from middle-eastern countries either, because US army was situated on the Filipines. Oil shortage left Japan with no choice but to attack. Many historicians claim that Roosevelt in fact wanted to provoke Japan into attacking first, to get public support for the war in Pacific. Just before the attack on Pearl Harbor, 88% Americans were opposed to US joining the WWII, but war in Pacific was inevitable, as both powers (USA and Japan) struggled to increase their influence over the region. By pressuring Japan into attacking first, USA made them look like bad guys (which they indeed were, but that's not the point) and quickly got huge public support for the war on the Axis. So you see, the "filthy" attack of Japan on Pearl Harbor was in fact much expected and desired by Washington. And don't trust the movie "Pearl Harbor", it's the most deceitful, unrealistic, one-sided view of the Pacific conflict ever.
 
Maybe *coughcough* somebody wanted middle eastern terrorists to attack first in order to get enough support for starting a new war?
:)
 
Yeah I heard about that talk about how our government wanted for war to get out of the depression. Is it true? Likely, makes sense, but look at it this way, the war was coming for us whether we wanted it or not. So, hell, at least make us look like the innocent ones trying to avoid war so no one would say crap about us. It was a smart move in politics, but costed many lives, so to say whether it should be frowned upon or not, is not appropriate. Why? Well, like I said, it was coming at us whether we needed it or not. The Japs actually pretended to be our pals. Which is why the attack is considered filthy and devilish.
 
No, the Japanese were negotiating with the Americans, and the USA government knew very well that a Japanese threat was imminent. It's bullshit to call the Japanese filthy devils for attacking when the USA partially wanted it, because they needed an "excuse" for home public to get involved in the war. Furthermore, a declaration of war WAS sent, but due to telegram delays, it arrived too late to actually do any good.

And what's more, do you honestly think that it's smart NOT to go for a surprise attack? Hah! If the USA had been in the Japanese situation, wanting to have more power, then they would have done the same thing.

Also, King, you are seeing things way too black and white. I mean, nations cannot be divided into evil and good, simply because they are not. The USA isn't just good, and other countries aren't just evil.

And you cannot expect countries to stand by a coutry that has helped them before. That's bullshit, just because the USSR helped the world, they should be supported by us? Hah!
 
Sander said:
Hah! If the USA had been in the Japanese situation, wanting to have more power, then they would have done the same thing.
Click to expand...

Nnno. The differences between American and Japanese cultures at the time were simply too great to say that with certainty. While Americans were highly isolationist, the Japanese were violently nationalistic, and had a conqueror personality.

Now, if you're saying if the Americans were the Japanese, then yes. Because you know, we'd be Japanese then.
 
Ehe, what I'm saying is that it doesn't make the Japanese filthy devils because they tried to win, because the USA would've tried to win in the same way, would they have been out for land/power/whatever. Of course, this is only a small ways away from Japanese. *shrug*
 
Ok, first, no we wouldn't have done such things. Otherwise, why didn't we do that to the Soviets. They almost did that to us (Cuban Missile Crisis). Look, I didn't say the Japs were filthy, I said their attack was. And the USSR didn't help the world. The U.S. did, and yes, you should stand by your friends. It's ok to disagree, I don't care if you didn't ally with us in Iraq, it was really our war. No reason for you to die for it, you had nothing to gain. But, saying that we are a threat to the world, saying that we are evil and constantly bad mouthing us (I am not sayin you are, but some are *cough* France *cough*) is no way to treat someone who stuck their neck out for you. France was there for us in our revolution, thank you France, we repayed the favor in WW1 and 2. Then, we took to the field and it was either be commie, or ally with us. So we once again stuck our neck out for them, it was for our good too, but also for theirs. After the Soviet Union dissolved, France begins to excerise their power in the U.N., they almost vetoed the first Gulf War (It's ok to liberate France, but no one else right?) and would have vetoed the Balkan resolution for sure, that's why we went as NATO. So, vetoing the Iraq war didn't make me mad, it was the insults and bad talking us, calling us dirty and evil, and saying we are a threat to world peace is ridiculous. Why must you say such things? Just veto it, and say no hard feelings. I gaurentee things would have been much smoother.
 
The attack was increadibly underhanded, Sander. Although Roosevelt may have wanted war, all throughout the Task Force's voyage to Hawaii, the Japanese were negotiating with America. Both sides actually came up with good alternatives to war, and were still negotiating on terms, when the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor.

That's why Japan's attack is considered underhanded, because they duped us into thinking they wanted peace when they really wanted the Pacific.

Though I do admit, it was genius from a military standpoint. Too bad we salvaged every ship that was sunk, for the Japanese anyways. And with the obvious exception of the Arizona.
 
Actually USSR saved Europe from Nazis in World War II. USA saved Europe from USSR by quickly intervening in Normandy and liberating much of Europe before Soviets had a chance to conquer it and turn entire continental Europe into a communist "paradise".

Nnno. The differences between American and Japanese cultures at the time were simply too great to say that with certainty. While Americans were highly isolationist, the Japanese were violently nationalistic, and had a conqueror personality.
Click to expand...
Again, silly prejudice caused by stupid movies like "Pearl Harbor". If you honestly believe that Japanese people are inherently violent expansionists, either you don't know a thing about Japanese history or you are a racist. Namely, throughout its history, Japan was so closed to the world that they didn't even start trading with foreign countries until late 19th century. I don't think they even waged any wars outside their territory until 1904, when they attacked the Soviets. After WWI Japan was ruled by a violent militarist regime that had strong expansionist tendencies, and that's why they joined the Axis and started attacking their neighbours. Expansionism and imperialism were official policies of their government at that time, and that doesn't make them any different from most other countries of that era, not even from USA (The States were de iure isolationist, but de facto they sought to spread their territory and influence whenever they had a chance). Claiming that Japanese have "violent personality" is equivalent to calling all Muslims terrorists and all Americans idiots. Just because a regime or a group demonstrates those "qualities", it doesn't mean they apply to an entire nation.
 
1) In 1904 Russia was still Russian, not Soviet.
2) While it is true that the rise of the super-right in Japan was not supported by all (basically they won by killing all the opposition until no one had the guts to stand up), it is also thrue that by 1941 most of the Japanese population could be considederd under the ultra-right spell. Why else would they fight so bravely/stupidly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top