Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Exit Mundi Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Creating the perfect country; worth it?
Topic Started: May 3 2007, 09:22 PM (1,922 Views)
Brutus
Member Avatar
Planning World Domination
[ *  *  *  * ]
bee. . . . . seriously. . . . . . . nothing?

no evidence? no dates or any information whatsoever? in a nut shell, all you said is that my arguments were wrong. you gave no evidence or anything to back up this claim and then you end the discussion.


fine, if thats the way you want it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Brutus
May 15 2007, 04:19 PM
bee. . . . . seriously. . . . . . . nothing?

no evidence? no dates or any information whatsoever? in a nut shell, all you said is that my arguments were wrong. you gave no evidence or anything to back up this claim and then you end the discussion.


fine, if thats the way you want it.

I'm not ending the discussion.....I'm avoiding something that will result in flaming. I apologised for being a dick. But, I did give you a link, and obviously you refused to read it. Now, who isn't providing dates...ect...ect? Read the link I gave you earlier, and better yet, provide some proof against my arguement, something you HAVEN'T done yet. I've got history backing me, what do you have? Outside of your own personal views. But, to be fair, I'll sort back through and re-post the link I provided. Then, do your homework and come back with a rebuttal.

http://www.american.edu/TED/ice/japan-oil.htm This is the link I provided earlier. Try reading it before you make false claims about what I did or didn't post. When, as I stated earlier, you haven't put anything down except your cure all excuse "to say Japan relied on America for oil is stupid". Sorry, you got to do a whole lot better than that, Brutus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mister Sinister
Member Avatar
Delusional Granduerist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Brutus
May 15 2007, 11:19 AM
bee. . . . . seriously. . . . . . . nothing?

no evidence? no dates or any information whatsoever? in a nut shell, all you said is that my arguments were wrong. you gave no evidence or anything to back up this claim and then you end the discussion.


fine, if thats the way you want it.

It's not that Bee did not post any info, it's that he doesn't need to post any. History has spoken and it says the oil embargo CRIPPLED the Japanese's ability to wage war in China. Oil makes the world spin, it powers the engines of war and economy. Without that power source (and incidentally nowhere else to get as much as they needed) Japan's war and economy came to a grinding halt. Pearl Harbor was the inevitable next move for the Japanese, especially after FDR steamed most every ship out there to taunt or "stare down" the Japanese. FDR knew that an attack by the Japanese was the ONLY logical next step for them considering they had been cornered. So, FDR sent the better part of the fleet out to PH as a deterrent. These are the facts of history and cannot be changed regardless of individual perception or opinion. It was a total mistake for the Japanese to attack, and most of them knew it was futile as proved by a certain quote you poo poo'ed earlier after having completely missed the point.

You do really need to go back and explore the history of the relationship between Japan and the US....it all starts with Commodore Perry. After you bone up on that you will better understand the need of the Japanese to attack after being cut off from an oil and scrap metal supply they relied on heavily.

By the by, it is wholly unbecoming to accuse or chastise another for failing to post adequate information to foster their claims while you are conducting your arguement the exact same way (more so, even). The only difference is that history isn't on your side.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
BohemianG
May 15 2007, 08:50 AM
Don't know about you, but I think Brave New World is nightmarish, and I suspect that's the way Huxley intended it to be.

Yes, dystopias are suppose to be nightmarish.
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brutus
Member Avatar
Planning World Domination
[ *  *  *  * ]
i am arguing that Japan was not reliant on american Oil for its very survival, yes it was a disaster when the sanctions were put in place but for the thrid time, Japan had conquered indonesia, which is an OPEC nation that has far more oil than America, so they could have built some rigs their rather than invading, but the sanctions were the perfect excuse to attempt an invasion of America. (i didn't just say "to say Japan relied on America for oil is stupid" you just took one of my posts out of context their).

History is on your side? History changes from source to source and you cannot have it on your side because the peoples' claims change so much. for example the site you provided is American and is (to be honest) bias.

Edit: i would also like to point out that i am verifying what i say from one of my old history books.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BohemianG
Member Avatar
Voted Most Likely to End the World
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
piercehawkeye45
May 15 2007, 08:06 PM
Yes, dystopias are suppose to be nightmarish.

It's actually generally described as an 'ironic utopia' rather than a dystopia, since the vast majority of people are happy but at a terrible cost, which contrasts with 1984 in which people are simply horrendously repressed. Although it's also at a terrible cost.

Anyway. The comment was mostly directed at the fact that Khan seemed to be hinting that a Brave New World-esque country would be 'perfect'.
Mister 'Balls' Sinister
 
Normandy took more balls than Vietnam, it took more balls than Korea, it took more balls than facing mustard gas on a battlefield full of giant ditches with nowhere to run. It took more balls than the world will ever be able to ante up again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
An ironic utopia is a dystopia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BohemianG
Member Avatar
Voted Most Likely to End the World
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
piercehawkeye45
May 15 2007, 08:13 PM
An ironic utopia is a dystopia.

Bah. But it's a specific type of dystopia in which the people are not necessarily unhappy. It's a dystopia purely down to the terrible cost to civilisation incurred.
Mister 'Balls' Sinister
 
Normandy took more balls than Vietnam, it took more balls than Korea, it took more balls than facing mustard gas on a battlefield full of giant ditches with nowhere to run. It took more balls than the world will ever be able to ante up again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
i am arguing that Japan was not reliant on american Oil for its very survival, yes it was a disaster when the sanctions were put in place but for the thrid time, Japan had conquered indonesia,


So what? Big deal, they conquored Indonesia. They were also in the middle of a war in the Pacific, with troops already scattered across the region, and China. Where were they to get the extra funds from to build these glorious new rigs, their ass?

Quote:
 
(i didn't just say "to say Japan relied on America for oil is stupid" you just took one of my posts out of context their).


Is Falcon back? Or are you and he one in the same? You typed it, and it was used against you. Be careful about what you type, to avoid having it used against you "in context".

Quote:
 
History is on your side? History changes from source to source and you cannot have it on your side because the peoples' claims change so much. for example the site you provided is American and is (to be honest) bias.


History is on my side, ask Japan. You know, the Pacific nation in question here, are they also an "American" biased source. You've yet to disprove me....and better yet history. I know the website is American, but can you show where it's bias? Didn't think so. Try again Brutus, this time put some effort into it. You're better than that.....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Khan
Member Avatar
HAVE YOU HEARD OF THIS SWEET WEBSITE CALLED FOUR CHAN DOT ORG?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
BohemianG
May 15 2007, 07:11 PM
piercehawkeye45,May 15 2007
08:06 PM

Anyway. The comment was mostly directed at the fact that Khan seemed to be hinting that a Brave New World-esque country would be 'perfect'.

I am reading the book. More to come later on.
Wine in hand, in the other, Quran,
Both halal I do and haram,
In this incomplete world of a sham,
Neither Pagan I am, nor Musselman!


Omar Khayyam

Come, come, whoever you are,
Wanderer, idolater, worshipper of fire,
Come even though you have broken your vows a thousand times,
Come, and come yet again.
Ours is not a caravan of despair


Mevlana Jalaladdin Rumi
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mister Sinister
Member Avatar
Delusional Granduerist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Brutus
May 15 2007, 02:08 PM
i am arguing that Japan was not reliant on american Oil for its very survival, yes it was a disaster when the sanctions were put in place but for the thrid time, Japan had conquered indonesia, which is an OPEC nation that has far more oil than America, so they could have built some rigs their rather than invading, but the sanctions were the perfect excuse to attempt an invasion of America.


I hate to dress up as Captain Obvious but, wouldn't the Japanese have needed OIL in order to run machinery and build rigs in Indonesia? When your largest supplier of oil refuses to sell to you, you really cannot do much else but attack because you no longer have enough oil to do anything else.

The Japanese's original intent was to exploit Indonesia's resources but they refused to use any major Indonesian players (see Triple A Movement). The Japanese refused to make concessions to Indonesian nationalism and therefore all their efforts in trying to mobilize the masses became a double-edged sword. In other words they could have had all the resources they needed and they still would have failed in exploiting Indonesia in a timely enough fashion to count.

They didn't have the resources to exploit Indonesia (Thank you, US Oil embargo) nor did they (or could they have for they lacked understanding the same way they did when they bombed PH) play the political field properly.

Brutus
May 15 2007, 02:08 PM
History is on your side? History changes from source to source and you cannot have it on your side because the peoples' claims change so much. for example the site you provided is American and is (to be honest) bias.


History's very definition is that it is a chronological record of significant events, including an explanation of their causes. The events or explanations cannot change from source to source, if they do then the events are in dispute and cannot be proven historically (see Crucifiction, Noah's Ark, Genesis to Revelations, ).

Brutus
May 15 2007, 02:08 PM
Edit: i would also like to point out that i am verifying what i say from one of my old history books.


You bash MY country's sytem of education? Apparently, you were never even taught how to cite a reference. By the way, the website you refer to as 'biased' is absolutely chock freaking full of references. A few of them are *slaps head* JAPANESE AUTHORS! You should use them to bone up on your history. Not only that, you should actually investigate ANY website before you slap the bias sticker on it, instead of simply calling it US bias because the website has the name "american" in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BohemianG
Member Avatar
Voted Most Likely to End the World
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Khan
May 15 2007, 08:56 PM
I am reading the book. More to come later on.

Cool. Tell us what you think. There are obviously parts that seem somewhat outdated, but it WAS written in, what, the early 1930s?
Mister 'Balls' Sinister
 
Normandy took more balls than Vietnam, it took more balls than Korea, it took more balls than facing mustard gas on a battlefield full of giant ditches with nowhere to run. It took more balls than the world will ever be able to ante up again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Katastrof
Member Avatar
One Of The Four Horseman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Sinister
 
History's very definition is that it is a chronological record of significant events, including an explanation of their causes. The events or explanations cannot change from source to source, if they do then the events are in dispute and cannot be proven historically (see Crucifiction, Noah's Ark, Genesis to Revelations, ).


Acuttally history is a bit sketchy. I believe there ia a quote that reflects it thebest:

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." Napolean

As we all know losers don't write history, the victors are the ones who write it. Hence all history texts are bias towards whoever wrote them. I bet even if you take my Canadian History Book and compare it to an American one of the same events, you'll have different views on the same things. All literature is bias and therefore history books should be suspect on the validicy. That being said rewriting history is bad plain and simple because that's even more bias. SO basically the only thing truthful about history is tangible things such as artifacts or ruins. Texts have truth to a point but alot of it may be fabricated depending on how far back in history you go. The furthur back the more skewed it gets. Even in the beginning of the 2oth century history is bias with nationlist views blotting out the truth.

That being said, I don't agree with Brutus on his views and no I am not supporting his arguement just clearing this up.

Posted Image

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero"(Seize the day put no trust in tomorrow)
~ Horace
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mister Sinister
Member Avatar
Delusional Granduerist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Katastrof
May 15 2007, 03:24 PM
Sinister
 
History's very definition is that it is a chronological record of significant events, including an explanation of their causes. The events or explanations cannot change from source to source, if they do then the events are in dispute and cannot be proven historically (see Crucifiction, Noah's Ark, Genesis to Revelations, ).


Acuttally history is a bit sketchy. I believe there ia a quote that reflects it thebest:

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." Napolean

As we all know losers don't write history, the victors are the ones who write it. Hence all history texts are bias towards whoever wrote them. I bet even if you take my Canadian History Book and compare it to an American one of the same events, you'll have different views on the same things. All literature is bias and therefore history books should be suspect on the validicy. That being said rewriting history is bad plain and simple because that's even more bias. SO basically the only thing truthful about history is tangible things such as artifacts or ruins. Texts have truth to a point but alot of it may be fabricated depending on how far back in history you go. The furthur back the more skewed it gets. Even in the beginning of the 2oth century history is bias with nationlist views blotting out the truth.

That being said, I don't agree with Brutus on his views and no I am not supporting his arguement just clearing this up.

I'll accept this to a point. History is definitely "Agreed upon" events and causes, otherwise, well there would be no alternative other than having to believe the very latest version you've heard, since there is no consensus.

My point was that the oil embargo (in this case) is that historical consensus for why Japan attacked the US, there are no shades of gray here.

I think once upon a time, history was written by the winners. This has changed rapidly over the past, say, 2 decades with the advent of PC's and the internets.
It is now a whole heap tougher to conceal the truth about events or "cloud the waters" with misinformation. It's harder to accomplish "one" singular Machiavellian version of history, especially if that version is a falsehood, because there are simply too many people out there who are willing to report the truth, and anonymous enough to do it without much suffering under draconian measures that may otherwise keep them from relaying the truth to anyone who cares to read.

That is, until, the Bush regime start cracking down on private bloggers that work for the military. But, that'll never happen. :rolleyes:

So, I agree to a certain extent about the liability of certain events and their place on the timeline runs concurrently with how easily proved or disproved they are. Having said that, there is simply no dispute over the events surrounding WWII, the causes and the effects. It is all too fresh in our minds, unlike the instances I exampled such as Noah's Ark.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
BohemianG
May 15 2007, 03:04 PM
Khan
May 15 2007, 08:56 PM
I am reading the book. More to come later on.

Cool. Tell us what you think. There are obviously parts that seem somewhat outdated, but it WAS written in, what, the early 1930s?

Yeah, but the book is timeless like 1984 or Animal Farm because it relates more to human nature and its lust for power than actually predicting the future.
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Made by Sionthede of the IFSZ.