world 37 history debate

[DeletedUser71940]

Well I doubt that it was only the oil, the oil might have been one of the reasons, but if the theory about the sunk submarine is correct then I would expect that Japan had declared out of honour, oil was just a bonus. The dispatchment of carriers was a conspiracy for sure, as you said the population would not support the war unless angered, Pearl harbour was that trigger that set off the population and increased America's millitary due to enlistment of troops, vowing vengeance. As I said oil couldn't be the reason, maybe it was just an add on but there are other reasons for if they wanted oil, they could have simply traded with other countries, despite the war there were several countries undisputed, after all Germany had their oil from somewhere and so did Italy. Oil had always been a problem and will always will be one untill it is completely depleted, but I seriously doubt that the intention of oil was the main cause for the attack on Pearl harbour.

And yes I was taught that Einstein had given the secret of atomic bomb to the America because he believed that Germany would be monsters and would abuse the power he would gift them, and America would use it righteously. Guess he was wrong.

 

[DeletedUser]

Einstein wanted to use it as a power source, we turned it into a weapon. He clearly protested against it being used as a weapon.

Check anything yamamoto wrote about it, it was purely oil, cause there country would DIE without it. I have never heard of the sub theory with either means I am piss poor at my job, or it is just plan wrong. The Japanese were never the type to hide there intentions or there reasons for what combative action they take. It is hard to explain the ethics they have without going into lots of details I dont care to type out. Just look up bushido and keep in mind ever officer in there military was expected to follow it. If they say the reason was oil, then that is likely the reason.

As far as the carrier thing, well it isn't 100%. America just as likely if not more then likely, had an idea that if Japan had the balls to attack pearl harbor we needed to not leave all our coins in one pot. We knew there fleet was out to sea, so it is likely we just took a calculated risk, and sent the carriers to sea just in case of the attack. Keep in mind you can calculate the earliest time Japans fleet could get to us, from setting there fleet to sea. Just about when they could have gotten there our carrier fleet was gone. However I dont think we would have just let them hit us to go to war, we could have just as easily defended against the attack and used it as an excuse to go to war, with the same effect, Just doesn't make sense to take such casualties when the same effect could be achieved threw less expensive means.

 

[DeletedUser71940]

Well I see no further point arguing about the causes of the war seeing as there are different theories floating around, I've personally never heared of the oil incident, nor have you heared of the submarine one, 'tis okay. About the Pearl Harbour in my opinion if they defended the Pearl harbour and Japanese would have been rebuffed, it wouldn't have had similar effect on the public, most would have probably just shrugged and said "They have no fleet, what harm can they do?" or something along the lines of that. The incident was meant to be seen as a massacre on the Japanese side in order to provoke anger in the public and lust for vengeance. I still do not understand as to whether the segregation of the Japanese living in America was intentional, as usual when there is a war people always find someone to blame closer to home.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you can find a 1.000 year period in which nations haven't broken apart, and reformed in some way or another I will eat my words. Past that, the facts say it happens, and will happen again.

Ohhhh....Egypt, Venice, Ottomans, Romans (Dunno if we are counting Civil wars or not), China, Whole bunches of Indian states before the 'civilised' countries came along; I suspect quite a few of the german states - Bavaria, Wurtemberg, Hesse-were formed in the middle ages, and lasted until either Napoleon or Prussia finished them off; I'm fairly sure the Aztecs and Mayans were around for a *long* time too. Possibly the native americans, though they weren't so obsessed with boundaries.

BTW, though, the vast bulk of nation-state boundary changes were due to external factors - marrying in to other states, military defeat, etc. Collapse of nation-states due to internal pressures are rare...not unheard of by any means, but relatively rare.

PS I've fixed the links to Wikipedia...

 

[DeletedUser]

Ohhhh....Egypt, Venice, Ottomans, Romans (Dunno if we are counting Civil wars or not), China, Whole bunches of Indian states before the 'civilised' countries came along; I suspect quite a few of the german states - Bavaria, Wurtemberg, Hesse-were formed in the middle ages, and lasted until either Napoleon or Prussia finished them off; I'm fairly sure the Aztecs and Mayans were around for a *long* time too. Possibly the native americans, though they weren't so obsessed with boundaries.

BTW, though, the vast bulk of nation-state boundary changes were due to external factors - marrying in to other states, military defeat, etc. Collapse of nation-states due to internal pressures are rare...not unheard of by any means, but relatively rare.

PS I've fixed the links to Wikipedia...

Researched as opposed to guessed:

Egypt 3000 years
Venice almost exactly 1000 years
Ottomans only 800 years
Roman Empire - Between 500-1500 years (If you count the east seperately, it lasted 1000 years)
China...again, depends ow you count it, but 3,000-odd years
Gupta Dynsty in India...about 1500 years
Bavaria 1,100 years
Hesse, you could argue 1,000 years, but more like 700 since the Thuringians took charge.
Mayans, about 2,000-3,000 years, again, depending how you define them.
Aztecs, I was totally off..only about 300 years.

 

[DeletedUser]

PS The Apache were a definable nation, though not really a nation-state, for about 800 years

PPS I'm aware this is 3 posts in a row, which probably means I'm 'out'

 

[DeletedUser]

None of those nations lasted 1.000 years without augmentation to there government or ruling families. That's like saying the UK is 600 years old, the government failed, then was changed. Tried to take other nations like Ireland, had to make changes to appease everyone. Even the USA had our civil war, though since the Union won, there was almost no augmentation to our form of government. All these wars are based off of profits, the south wanted to keep slaves for profits, Britain wanted colonies to expand it's access to natural resources. Like I said history always repeats itself, if you want to change it, be prepared to stop it dead in it's tracks when the time comes. I don't believe in just hopping for the best and taking the risk with my family, I would rather be sure the citizens of my country are capable of fighting back the government in the face of oppression. Like I said, be it by the scroll or the sword, oppression always comes, to deny that is to deny our past. Those that don't learn and prepare for the past to try and repeat itself are bound to relive it.

Also look at where these nations are now, the vast majority fell into poverty. Been plenty of blood shed, and oppression all the way threw them all. Which is the main reason why the ruling houses, and government styles changed so much.

 

[DeletedUser71940]

'tis true, there are no unique events in history. Be it the reasons for the event occuring, the motives of the event or how it was executed, the events always repeat themselves in one sense or another.

 

[DeletedUser]

OK, please define for me 'oppression' as you understand it. Also 'augmentation'. Initially you stated "If you can find a 1.000 year period in which nations haven't broken apart, and reformed in some way or another I will eat my words". Since you haven't, I've clearly misunderstood what you said.

In most of the nations I stated , for most of the time, there are a few threads;

1) The form of government remained substantially the same. The exact ruling families/dynasties may have varied - in the same way democracies change rulign parties - but so what?

2) There was no arms control (There may have been in the German states, not my best area - in fact, I'd guess there was in later centuries)

3) The vast majority of people were oppressed like crazy. Really didn't matter to them if the Emperor was called Han or Tsi.

 

[DeletedUser]

Also look at where these nations are now, the vast majority fell into poverty.

So what? The citizenry having/not having spears/arrows/muskets has nothing to do with the socioeconomic/military/strategic factors that led to the nation's downfall.

Please keep the argument consistent; you are arguing, as I understand it, that having a an armed citizenry prevents governments from oppressing their own citizens, not, unless I've missed it, that it keeps their nations prosperous.

 

[DeletedUser]

How does citizens not being armed, not reflect on a nations poor defense and thus defeat via opposing military powers. I figure someone from the UK talking to an American would know how an armed population dressed in civilian clothing can alter a war. If ya even been to the middle east or know someone that has, ask them how deadly it can be to be going up against people in civilian clothing. During our revolutionary war we did more damage with our militia's engaging in gorilla warfare then we could do fighting England head to head. It was only when the militia's were cutting supply lines that our general army was capable of really winning battles. That and George Washington was a good tactician.

augmentation falls under any change other then there government type, and ruling families. Families tend to change because someone back stabbed someone else, not because they couldn't make kids. That in itself is a revolution of sorts.

As far as what oppression is, I figure that would be pretty easy to figure out. Anything unfair about the government that pass's the tolerance level of the civilian population. Be it to much tax's, bias laws, corrupt officials, or over bearing military rule.

Also look at the Scottish, they were oppressed by England, and they had there arms taken away. I forget what the punishment was if they were found with a weapon, but I bet it wasn't something you don't walk away from without permanent injury or maybe not walk away at all. They reached there limit, and they revolted. Not because they wanted there kingdom back, but because they wanted there right to live a quality life back. They have the rare honor of being successful in there revolt considering they were unarmed, and comparatively to the English, untrained. Most revolts that take place like that end in the revolutionaries being mascaraed, especially now in the day of firearms. I'd gladly take a cheap wooden spear, or a rock vs a sword, the a knife vs a gun.

As far as what I am arguing.

1 - More people having firearms and the proper education about them is better for society as a whole.

2 - Citizens having firearms, makes it much harder for a government to try and oppress a population

3 - Citizens having firearms and a basic education of them is best for the defense of one's own country

 

[DeletedUser]

How does citizens not being armed, not reflect on a nations poor defense and thus defeat via opposing military powers. I figure someone from the UK talking to an American would know how an armed population dressed in civilian clothing can alter a war. If ya even been to the middle east or know someone that has, ask them how deadly it can be to be going up against people in civilian clothing. During our revolutionary war we did more damage with our militia's engaging in gorilla warfare then we could do fighting England head to head. It was only when the militia's were cutting supply lines that our general army was capable of really winning battles. That and George Washington was a good tactician.

augmentation falls under any change other then there government type, and ruling families. Families tend to change because someone back stabbed someone else, not because they couldn't make kids. That in itself is a revolution of sorts.

As far as what oppression is, I figure that would be pretty easy to figure out. Anything unfair about the government that pass's the tolerance level of the civilian population. Be it to much tax's, bias laws, corrupt officials, or over bearing military rule.

Also look at the Scottish, they were oppressed by England, and they had there arms taken away. I forget what the punishment was if they were found with a weapon, but I bet it wasn't something you don't walk away from without permanent injury or maybe not walk away at all. They reached there limit, and they revolted. Not because they wanted there kingdom back, but because they wanted there right to live a quality life back. They have the rare honor of being successful in there revolt considering they were unarmed, and comparatively to the English, untrained. Most revolts that take place like that end in the revolutionaries being mascaraed, especially now in the day of firearms. I'd gladly take a cheap wooden spear, or a rock vs a sword, the a knife vs a gun.

As far as what I am arguing.

1 - More people having firearms and the proper education about them is better for society as a whole.

2 - Citizens having firearms, makes it much harder for a government to try and oppress a population

3 - Citizens having firearms and a basic education of them is best for the defense of one's own country

I was going to write again, that I was being pedantic asking for definitions, as it doesn't really help our discussion, but you got in before me. So I'll move on, as I really am not getting what you're saying about augmentation.

To your points, then - and, by the way, I don't think we will resolve anything as I think we're probably both rationalising essentially emotional situations. (I come form a non-gun, guns are bad background, and nothing you say is likely to shift me. You come form a gunned, guns are good, background, and nothing I say is likely to shift you from that.) But the argumentation is fun.

(1) I don't have the statistics, but I'd guess that *general* crime levels are probably pretty consistent across gun/non-gun cultures (And BTW, we shouldn't make this simply an argument about US vs. Europe. There are both gun and non-gun cultures in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. I'd love to know if anyone has any knowledge about them). In terms of murder rates, it's useful to compare not just overall rates, but gun and non-gun.

So, for example, the US (In 1999 - getting up-to-date stats on this stuff is more effort than I care to put in (IE Not on Google's front page in fact from www.guncite.com/) had a non-gun murder rate of 1.98 (Deaths per 100,000 population). The UK (1997) had a non-gun murder rate of 1.30 - so, this is people grabbing knifes, pushing people under trains, whatever. Switzerland, FWIW, has a rate of 0.74.

(That figure somewhat supports my earlier contention that the US is a more violent society than Europe, but it's not a massive gap).

So, the US is most violent, then the UK, then the Swiss - but not by massive amounts, we're all, more or less, on the same page.

But, here's the interesting figure. Murder crime-rates with guns in the US - 3.72. In the UK - 0.11. In Switzerland, 0.58. So, the US has 35 times more gun murders than the UK. Even the orderly Swiss - who are less likely to pull out one of their knives to stab you with - even they, have a gun murder rate 5 times that of the UK.

Now, you can throw statistics around to mean just about anything. And there are obviously cultural differences through those 3 countries - and any others. But what is absolutely true to say is that there is no statistical basis for suggesting that high gun ownership leads to reduced crime. If anything, the statistics tend the other way.

(PS In the statistics above, UK actually means England and Wales - Northern Ireland is a special case, only just noticed it was excluded).

I'll address 2 and 3 at a later point.

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't really think comparing gun crime levels is a good way of comparing crime. After you outlawed guns how high did your other type of murder go up? like knifes, bats, bottles. Everyone doesn't have guns so it just really means when you go up against someone with a gun your straight out SOL. Granted it's not likely to happen, but hey I be most nerds that don't get laid still have the sense to carry a condom just in case. But the biggest thing is that crime doesn't stop, people will still rob other people and use what they can to get what they want. If they got guns they use those, if they have bats or knives they will use those.

Also for our crime rate ya gotta keep in mind were right next to Mexico, which still has a fairly corrupt government. Lots of our crime happens along our boarders, and the UK doesn't have boarders with governments like Mexico. (btw no offense to the guys/gals in Mexico)

I do agree that America should force education on those wanting to buy firearms, and not let just anyone go buy one. I figure a good quiz like the driver test would be more then enough to ensure people know how to use a type of gun. I would recommend one for each type but some might see that as impractical. I wouldn't let violent crime offenders have firearms for at least 7 years after there realize into society, and that time has to be crime free.

With the quiz it only makes sense, why would you trust someone with a gun, yet make them jump threw hoops to get a car.

well that my rebuttal to your response on topic 1, but I do agree that I dont think either of us will end up agreeing with the other lol

 

[DeletedUser]

After you outlawed guns how high did your other type of murder go up?

Just a brief note; I've seen on pro-gun sites in the past the assumption that the UK outlawed guns, post-Hungerford in ?1985?, the impression being that there were loads of guns in UK society prior to that.

In fact we have always had very veryvery low gun ownership - I don't when the first laws came in, but the 1985 law was simply a tightening up.

Interestingly, our murder rate did go up substantially post the 1985 act - but this was due to Harold Shipman, a mass murdering doctor who poisoned old folks - 218 - which is 0.43 /100,000 all on his own.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well weapon control in general has a long history in England/Britain/UK, so the population there not having a large amount of weapons is expected.

America with it's roots naturally is cautious about governments, and thus has strict beliefs in possessing firearms in order to keep our own governments in check or stage a revolt is necessary. Other benefits like national defense, and personal defense are just side benefits we have found. We have a lot more old organized crime in our country, be it from our boarders, or just all the immigrants we let in that have had less then honest intentions in America.

I can see how not having guns works in the UK due to it's seclusion via the sea, and it's powerful navy. Though I do stick to my opinion that people there should own guns and be educated with them for country defense should it become necessary. Maybe just keep them under lock and key, or keep a civilian store of weapons in town somewhere that the police keep track of. With the UK's small population being completely unarmed would pose a large strategic disadvantage should an enemy ever manage to land on your shores.

I still believe that no matter the situation the civilian population should have the ability, to fight back against the government if necessary. Democracy only work if people are allowed to voice there opinion, if they try and take that away you have to take it back. That situation has come up all throughout history, and while I agree with you in hoping for the best, I still believe that you should always prepare for the worst.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok seems gun control is been argued to hell and back, if new info comes up that we can use we can bring it back up.

So for now lets talk about church and state. Should they be separate? how about things like gay marriage?

 

[DeletedUser]

Hell yeah, Church and state should be separate. I mean, how can anybody even ask that question? The separation of organized religion and the state, the idea of secularism, is something that was acheived at huge cost (wars, death, persecution, etc). It was something acheived due to immense sacrifices.

The separation of organized religion and the state is also intimately linked to the idea of the freedom of consience, the right to freedom of belief etc. I mean how can you have freedom of conscience or belief in a situation where the state is linked to one religion.

Plus, any society is made up of people who believe in different religions, gods some of which are very different from each other. You may also have atheists in a society. So when you talk of the relationship between organized religion and the state, which religion do you have in mind? Wouldn't it amount to inequality between the followers of different religions?

I also think that any religion by definition is always obscurantist, ignorant and by definition intolerant. Organzied religion has always, historically been on the side of the powerful and the priviledged. There is nothing neutral or positive about religion.

As for gay marriage. My take on it. You have two consenting adults, they like/love each other, what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their own business. As long aswhat they do doesn't affect me, then I or anybody else have no business interfering!

 

[DeletedUser]

My personal view on gay marriage, why not. I aren't homophobic, it's not like I want it outlawed, however I have to admit, I dislike it when you see very camp men strutting around places acting like some sort of tart. You get straight females do it aswell, however I see it a lot, and it annoys me.

Church just causes one lot of arguments, it's quite hypocritical aswell, like I tried mentioning to this man who was a father of a soldier in Afghanistan, he told me that, and I said about the 10 commandments, and asked him whether he dislikes his son for breaking 'Gods rules'. He couldn't answer. The bible says that people should be treat equally, but the crusades happened, and people regulary kill each other all over the world. I dont understand it?

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, I really want to learn how the thou shalt not kill thing goes in it's original language. I've heard from it being strait out don't kill, to don't kill maliciously. Like the word kill would be more like the English word murder, rather then "kill".

I can explain why people kill real easily. It's our animalistic instinct to want more, and try to attain it threw force or diplomacy but either way there will always be one that is willing to take it against another will. As long as that inherent part of our nature exists there will always have to be people trained to answer force with force.

Negotiation comes in all forms, from words to violence there both ways of trying to have your opponent relent so you can get your goal. When it breaks down to violence in it's most extreme, you really have 2 choices die or kill them.

Personally if there is a god I don't think he will hold it against me, anything I have done I have done knowing what I was doing and more importantly that it was necessary. I don't believe a god would ever condemn his children to "hell" even in the most extremes like say Hitler. If you've ever gone threw an training for thing like interrogation and the dirty methods used there you can get a small grasp of what eternal torture is. To me that's worse then cutting lives short, even millions of them. Just look at the magnitude forever is, then consider burning for that long... then god saying dont kill, or cheat or lie. That's not exactly setting a good example by saying you will be condemned to a fiery hell where you will be tortured forever for doing things against his rules.

As for agreeing with torture, I say it depends on the case. If it's military targets in trouble, I would stick to the book on it, however when civilian get involved I throw the book in the trash. Like say the "terrorists" hit the world trade centers, I see that as a legitimate economic target for countries or organizations engaging in warfare. Yes there was almost 100% civilian casualties, but it had a profound effect on our economy and our ability to trade oil. Economic centers will always be war time targets for enemies, if you work there accept it or pick a safer job/location. However when they started bombing buses in Europe that had no economic value past it's cost which could easily be replaced. It was clear they were targeting civilians and not the money the government has to spend to keep things going or stay afloat. I would be ok with torturing someone higher ranking in there organization to attain intel on there operations involving civilian targets. Or say people that kidnap women, men, and kids for drug trafficking, slavery, sex, or just random things like fetishes or whatever those sick bastards do. I say torture them, then put a bullet in them when you done getting every detail you can from them. People that deal in that business get the kindness from me they would expect from a PCP'd out wolverine. If I think there is any chance of me finding out info from the person in a case of abduction I have no problem with using any means necessary to get that information, then I have even less a problem giving them a neck tie. I show mercy to those who show the same honor in combat, respect among soldier is very common even in our current war. But sometimes there are just dogs that are better dead then alive.

Basically anyone that has seen real war knows most of the Geneva convention is BS and unpractical. Trying to make war clean and nice is fool hearty at best. We should just say no nukes, no chemical weapons, and no torturing of soldiers when civilians aren't being targeted.

 

[DeletedUser]

Agree completly with the geneva convention, it's a proven fact that straight fight to fight on a field isn't going to win, think about Vietnam, guerilla warefare won for the Viet Cong.

If the Viets tried the normal battle tactics with the Americans, no way would they have got to Saigon.

The Geneva convention says no mines or anything, because it can dismember limbs and things, but along that, then guns are banned because they kill?

In war, there isn't rules. Simple as.