Iceaura, after repeating the 10032th time how stupid I am, writes: No. I'm talking about the consistent bipartisan picture. Republicans invent undeclared drone wars, Democrats not only continue it but extend it, above also support Al Qaida terrorists in Syria directly and Daesh (via support of Saudi Arabia) indirectly. There are opposing factions, I know, Ron Paul, but these are outsiders The point being? Have I ever named Japan "soft power"? If you think so, sorry for a strange misunderstanding. For the US empire, there are no such issues. So, it is clear that once there happens something in Asia, where one can take sides and win in this way additional power, they will take it. I was talking about a conflict between Japan and Vichy France over Indochina, which seemed to play a role in the justification of the oil boycott against Japan, which provoked Pearl Harbor. It was not meant to be anything about after WW II. Fine that we agree about this. The question is, of course, how you name in this context the support of jihadi terrorists, like those child head cutters, in Syria? Is this yet soft power, because those who have cut the boys head have not been US soldiers, but are only paid, trained and supported with weapons by the US? .
Just because you are a pacifist nation, it doesn't mean you cannot object to human rights violations comrade. The US objected strenuously to Japan's mistreatment of Chinese e.g. Rape of Nanking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre And Russia has no moral right to rule over Crimea, Georgia, or any of the other states it craves for. Americans cared, because they opposed the spread of communism which as you should know is a dictatorial form of government. This is really simple, transparency, freedom, and democracy versus no transparency and dictatorship. It really is that simple. This gets back to Russian inability to understand democracy.
Where is your evidence to support your claim that he is paid by the Russian government for post? Being a fanboy isn't particularly compelling regardless of your point of view. Go USA...
Oh poor Seattle, your right wing feathers getting ruffled. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If there happens some massacre, you can even start a war, and such a war would be morally justified. But this was known not to be sufficient for most Americans to start a war. Because they did not care at all about what is done to some Japs do to some Chinamen. So, to start the war, one had to invent something different, and did. An oil boycott, which provoked Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. This attack was already sufficient for the sheeple to accept the war. A classical example of polittechnology in democracies. If democracy is more than a propaganda phrase, it has any right to rule Crimea, given that the large majority of the population of Crimea voted for joining Russia in a referendum. Russia does not rule over Georgia at all. And does not plan to. It has good neighbourhood relations with South Ossetia and Abchasia, but does not rule these states too. Not more than America rules Germany. Learn the history I was talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor All this has nothing at all to do with communism. In case you have forgotten, in WW II the US was fighting in a coalition with communism, in its most horrible Stalin time.
If there happens some massacre, you can even start a war, and such a war would be morally justified. But this was known not to be sufficient for most Americans to start a war. Because they did not care at all about what is done to some Japs do to some Chinamen. So, to start the war, one had to invent something different, and did. An oil boycott, which provoked Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. This attack was already sufficient for the sheeple to accept the war. A classical example of polittechnology in democracies. If democracy is more than a propaganda phrase, it has any right to rule Crimea, given that the large majority of the population of Crimea voted for joining Russia in a referendum. Russia does not rule over Georgia at all. And does not plan to. It has good neighbourhood relations with South Ossetia and Abchasia, but does not rule these states too. Not more than America rules Germany. Learn the history I was talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor All this has nothing at all to do with communism. In case you have forgotten, in WW II the US was fighting in a coalition with communism, in its most horrible Stalin time.
But it has everything to do with the rather stupid implication that Japan was a poor victim in WW2: If it wasn't for its then aggressive policies with regards to its neighbours, there would have been no economic sanctions...and no infamous unprovoked attack on an unsuspecting Nation, and no subsequent declaration of war on Japan. And btw, I've been to Japan three times, and if I had a choice to live anywhere other than where I am living now, my choice would be Japan.
You do understand, what you're writing doesn't make sense? Obviously Americans did care about Japan's lawlessness and human rights violations. That's why the US embargoed oil and iron going to Japan. Japan was doing what Russia has done. It invaded the lands of its neighbors. As you well know, Japan began the war by first attacking the US military on US soil and then declaring war on the United States. And Nazi Germany quickly followed with a declaration of war against the United States. Yeah, you attack the US military, that's grounds for war, and when you follow up that attack with a declaration of war, yes, the US will respond in kind. Well, here is the thing comrade, in democracies people don't vote with a gun pointed to their heads. Your beloved Mother Russia first invaded Crimea and then held a referendum in which all those invading troops could vote. Additionally, that vote, as you well know because we have had this discussion before, only had 2 options: annexation now or later. That's really not much of a choice comrade. That's not how it's done in democracies. Except it does, you know full well, Russia illegally invaded Georgia as well. "Russia signed "alliance and integration" agreements with Abkhazia in November 2014 and South Ossetia in March 2015. Both treaties formally placed the respective militaries of the breakaway republics under Russian command, while the agreement with South Ossetia also included provisions integrating its economy with that of Russia.[19][20] The border between Russia and South Ossetia was also effectively dissolved, with customs being integrated.[21] An aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin said in early 2015 that the border with Abkhazia should also be removed.[22] Georgian officials have strenuously condemned the deepening of the occupied territories' economic and military dependence on Russia, calling it "creeping annexation".[23] Georgian officials denounced integration treaties signed between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Abkhaz and South Ossetian counterparts in 2014 and 2015 as attempts to annex the breakaway regions into the Russian Federation.[2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_territories_of_Georgia I think you need to read your references more carefully. Yes, Japan's invasion of China had nothing to do with communism. Who said it did?
I believe you are a blind Nazi of American version. What business we had to invade Granada what business we had to go to Panama a sovereign county and remove the president and Jail him, why did we interfere in Chile and killing Alliende , I can add more and more an other good one was Vietnam, Have we not learned not mingle with other nation . I can see defend ourself . We did not like when USSR put bases in Cuba , does that not apply why we want to put missiles in Georgia . Please learn history , Nazi like your mentality in this country are going to bring us closer to unwanted war.
Who is we kemosabee? Your English is atrocious. You are Russian, remember? You are having difficulty keeping your story straight comrade. Did the US annex any of the lands belonging to the countries you mentioned? NO, not a single one. The US invaded Granada because the legitimate government and its head of state was murdered. The US restored the rightful government. As for Panama, you do realize at the time the US had a lease on Panamanian land and 30,000 US troops stationed in Panama? If you know your history, you should know the US built the Panama Canal and ran it for a number of years. The US built, maintained, and defended it. The Panamanian government was at the time run by a dictator who said a state of war existed between Panama and the US government. In the days preceding the invasion Panamanian troops had killed a US Marine and physically harassed and threatened many Americans. When the US invaded, it replaced the dictator with a democracy. The US didn't annex any lands. In fact, the US government turned over even the Panama Canal, the canal build and paid for by US taxpayers, to the Panamanian government. The US no longer has a military presence on Panama or control of the Panama Canal. Additionally, the US didn't like it when Russia put nuclear missiles in Cuba. You forgot to mention the bases the US was upset about were nuclear missile bases. And that resulted in the Cuban Missile Crisis and Russia's, i.e. the Soviet Union, withdrawal of those missiles. The US doesn't want nuclear missiles, much less nuclear missiles, in Georgia, nor has it indicated it wants missiles in Georgia, nor does it need them...oops. And I have already addressed Vietnam. Before you go telling other people to "please learn history", you need to learn history comrade. If Russia doesn't want war, then it needs to stop invading and annexing the lands of its weaker neighbors. And it needs to stop playing grade school games with it's military. It really is that simple. And if you knew your history, you would know that your beloved Mother Russia, i.e. the Soviet Union, was allied with Nazi Germany. Facts matter comrade. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Whatever, once I have not made any such claim, why should I care about your fantasies? The problem was that the US has been presented as a completely innocent victim of evil Japanese aggressors. The point was not that Japan was somehow innocent - nobody was innocent in the two world wars. The point was that the US has taken sides in the World War, and this was the free, unprovoked choice of the US to side with Stalin's communism and the two greatest colonial powers in this war. And the US was fully aware that these actions can lead to war with Japan. This was a war between different coalitions of evil states. On the one hand, fascist states and Japan, on the other hand Stalin's communist empire and the two big colonial empires France and Britain. The original idea of the American founding fathers was not to participate in such wars. But this old idea, name it isolationism or pacifism, was dead. The US wanted to participate in this war, wanted to become an empire, and in fact already was a colonial empire at that time (Philippines). It could not start the war itself, because the isolationists were politically yet too strong to start a war. But what could be done was to provoke Japan to start the war. That's propaganda for small children. LOL. And in Crimea they didn't. Except in bad Western propaganda fantasies. LOL. But, given that this is a fantasy I have never heard before, can you support this with a link? No. The choice was independence, based on the 1991 constitution, or accession to the Russian Federation. At that time, independence has been already declared, so it was status quo vs. accession. And it is standard in a democratic referendum to have only 2 options. This nonsense has been already refuted in sufficient detail. Any objection? This is what sovereign states sometimes do, to sign contracts and agreements. You. You have replied commenting in #122 my remarks about what Japan did at that time, namely I will add that if Roosevelt would have decided that it is better to join the other coalition, the US propaganda would have found sufficient reasons to present all members of the enemy - the colonial powers Britain and France as well as communist Soviet union - as much more horrible than the peaceful German and Japan victims of those evil powers.
This misleads. 1) The wars invented by Republican administrations were not "drone wars" - they were invasions and other applications of conventional military and "counterinsurgency" force. The Democrats in the US government largely opposed them in the first place, cut back on them somewhat rather than "continuing" them (and fought the Republicans to do even that little) and did not extend any of them (the longstanding US military involvement in the current wars in Libya and Syria was largely Republican doing, for example, as was the US support of what became Daesh). 2) By "factions" I am not so naive as to be talking about Parties, or using conventional concealments and disguises such as "bipartisan". Most of the major factions in US politics have some Democratic Party representation. Americans know this. There was no conflict between Japan and Vichy France over anything. Japan and Vichy France were allies, of a kind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Indochina_in_World_War_II The point being to contrast soft power - such as the WWII oil embargo against Japan, which was bloodless in itself - with hard core military conquest and assault, such as the horrific Japanese invasion and occupation of China and neighboring regions as well as Pearl Harbor, which is much worse for its victims. We see the same contrast today. I name it war crime and utter stupidity. So I of course oppose installing Trump in the White House. He represents the US political faction most likely and directly involved in committing the worst of these war crimes and stupidities, and his nature and personality is of a piece with this kind of behavior.
OK, then, so you agree that Japan provoked the economic sanctions and oil embargo then. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! They were bullying, and in turn, paid dearly for their bullying.
AFAIK, the use of drones, at least in Pakistan and Yemen (above states where the US has no official state of war) has been heavily extended in comparison with the W time, and this extension was done by Obama. Fine. This essentially supports what I think. Namely, first, that in a two-party system above parties will be essentially indistinguishable, except in irrelevant questions. Then, that who essentially rules America - the deep state - controls above parties. It is, then, natural that each of the factions of the deep state can be found in above parties. The role of the two parties is, essentially, the democratic cover of the deep state rule. Maybe I have misinterpreted the phrase "Japan's 1940 move into Vichy-controlled Indochina further raised tensions." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor But, if one thinks about it, that means that what caused the oil embargo was nothing but a peaceful agreement between allies: So, by the way, let's also check that the Nanking massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre was 1937, has not caused any boycott. Whatever, above variants - a conflict between two colonial powers, or a peaceful agreement between them - would have been irrelevant for an isolationist or pacifist America. And my point was not at all any defense of imperial Japan, but simply to note that the unprovoked aggression of Japan is a fairy tale. This does, of course, not change the fact that it was Japan which started the war. From the point of view of international law the US has the right to boycott everybody, for no reason at all, just for fun. So, Roosevelt's political game was successful. See above, my point was not at all to present Japan as some innocent victim. It was simply to correct the propaganda lie of the unprovoked aggression. I think it is quite clear that without the strong isolationist positions of American people at that time Roosevelt would have attacked Japan himself.[/QUOTE]
The only country other then Germany to partake in unprovoked aggression on WW2 was Japan...And as history shows they paid the price and deservedly so. And its even clearer that your political views are so tainted and biasly extreme, that you really ain't worth debating with.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You also implied the Holocaust was "over played" also, I hear. What other weird takes on history do you have?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And he has the audacity to accuse me of fantasies!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I cannot tell you what you like to invent to be my position. Once you obviously are unable to read and interpret texts, and seem to invent my support of the other side whenever I simply correct errors in some presentation, I would suggest to try the following: Claim that the US were on the moon in 1865. Wait for my correction that no, they have not been on the moon 1865, and conclude that I support the conspiracy theory that the US moon landing was faked.
No one's inventing anything except yourself and your fabrication of certain scenarios that are just not valid. If as you say Japan was "provoked" into attacking Pearl Harbour, then so to was Britain and the US provoked into the economic sanctions and oil embargoes put on Japan, due to its aggressive expansion policy and subsequent cruelty in those regions. And of course Japan at that time was virtually ruled by the military, and was allied with Germany as far back as 1936. Japan also had plans to invade Australia and came mighty close until driven back on the Kokoda Trail and the Battle of the Coral sea. So please understand that if you prefer to make implications, driven by your "anti mainstream media" obsession, then you will certainly face opposition to your fabricated and invented claims.
That was a reduction in the US combat efforts - a drawdown of US military presence, a pullback from W's War. Uninformed once again, your "thinking" leads you into the weeds and abandons you in confusion. I won't even bother with the domestic stuff - you have no idea how any of that works in the US, and in your ignorance cannot be expected to distinguish different Supreme Court nominees or bureaucracy staffing choices. But are you truly unable to distinguish sanctions, embargoes, etc, from full blown military assault and invasion: the Iraq War? There was nothing peaceful about the German occupation of France or the Japanese occupation of China during WWII. They called it a "war" for a reason. Evidence of an isolationist, pacifist America. Right? Japan was in the middle of maximum unprovoked aggression, had launched a full scale military war of invasion and occupation against its neighbors, had seized the coal and other resources of its neighbors and was aiming its military at the oil fields farther away, years before it was "provoked" by a soft power, peaceful, free market (you like the free market decision, right?) attempt to slow it down a bit. Unprovoked aggression by Japan was in full swing, and Pearl Harbor was part of that - a calculated choice of target given the circumstances. That is not a myth.
