lol dilbertdayarath wrote:
_WHAT_?Dilbert_X wrote:
the real reason the US provoked Japan into a war.
You have GOT to be trolling
Yes of course, the US happened to have a huge fleet of warships in the Pacific for no particular reason....
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Laying blame on the US for their involvement in the second world war is despicable Dilbert, it shows a gross misunderstanding of history. Not to mention believing that it was all so that they could be at the "top of the totem pole", that, in itself, is even worse.
You can throw all your carefully picked selective bullshit history at me you like. I don't even know how you manage to rationalize that fucked up mindset you carry around. The US is to blame for the war with Japan? You have got to be kidding me.
Getting involved in WW2 was arguably the best thing the US has ever done as a nation. In the pacific theater they were clearly and plainly not the aggressor. Japan, through it's actions in the pacific theater, which in brutality were even worse than what the nazis were doing in Europe at the time, provoked response from the US. You must have one hell of a deep-seated hatred for the US to try and discredit their actions even in this point of history.
You can throw all your carefully picked selective bullshit history at me you like. I don't even know how you manage to rationalize that fucked up mindset you carry around. The US is to blame for the war with Japan? You have got to be kidding me.
Getting involved in WW2 was arguably the best thing the US has ever done as a nation. In the pacific theater they were clearly and plainly not the aggressor. Japan, through it's actions in the pacific theater, which in brutality were even worse than what the nazis were doing in Europe at the time, provoked response from the US. You must have one hell of a deep-seated hatred for the US to try and discredit their actions even in this point of history.
inane little opines
Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes of course, the Japanese happened to invade tons of countries for no particular reason....
lol dilbert. nutter of the year award.
or troll of the year?11 Bravo wrote:
lol dilbert. nutter of the year award.
nutter
it aint trolling if it is accepted and encouraged by our mod group
it aint trolling if it is accepted and encouraged by our mod group
Probably to have some sort of defense in the pacific approach to our western coast? Thats not good enough for you? We strictly had our defensive naval power out there as a giant middle finger to Japan? Oh yes yes we cut off their oil supply so we knew theyd attack us. Or they could have taken their long standing rapist attitude and fucked off and gotten shit elsewhere. They got what was coming to them. They committed despicable acts and needed to get spanked, end of.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes of course, the US happened to have a huge fleet of warships in the Pacific for no particular reason....
Dilbert..
Fleet size was go's back to the Anglo-German Dreadnought race before the Great War.
Treaty's after that war tried to put a stop to it. I.E. the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and the London Naval Treaty of 1930.
By the Second London Treaty, in 1936, Japan had declared it would no longer abide by the terms of the treaty.
The result for the treaty's was that the U.S. didn't build a new Battleship for 20 years and converted 2 Battlecruisers to the Lexington class aircraft carrier.
The Brits, working within the treaty, built the Nelson class, the French built the Richelieu. and Italy lied about the size of ships it was building.
Japan withdrew from the treaty in 1936 and continued the building program that it had previously begun.
Fleet size was go's back to the Anglo-German Dreadnought race before the Great War.
Treaty's after that war tried to put a stop to it. I.E. the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and the London Naval Treaty of 1930.
By the Second London Treaty, in 1936, Japan had declared it would no longer abide by the terms of the treaty.
The result for the treaty's was that the U.S. didn't build a new Battleship for 20 years and converted 2 Battlecruisers to the Lexington class aircraft carrier.
The Brits, working within the treaty, built the Nelson class, the French built the Richelieu. and Italy lied about the size of ships it was building.
Japan withdrew from the treaty in 1936 and continued the building program that it had previously begun.
It's more complicated than that. If we hadn't gotten Japan to attack, two things would've happened.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats what it was basically about, and the real reason the US provoked Japan into a war.
1) Japan would own the Pacific.
2) The Nazies would've forced a truce with the Soviets and the Brits. Germany would basically own continental Europe.
So, we had to get Japan to attack us, so that the American public would support entering the war, Japan would be pushed back to its own lands, and we could help push Germany back.
You can debate the outcome of the European war without American help, but there is no question that a lack of our involvement in the Pacific would have allowed Japan to control most of that ocean.
Last edited by Turquoise (2011-01-09 12:32:44)
Japan owning the Pacific would not have been acceptable, given the US wanted to own it - that was the basic reason.Turquoise wrote:
It's more complicated than that. If we hadn't gotten Japan to attack, two things would've happened.
1) Japan would own the Pacific.
2) The Nazies would've forced a truce with the Soviets and the Brits. Germany would basically own continental Europe.
So, we had to get Japan to attack us, so that the American public would support entering the war, Japan would be pushed back to its own lands, and we could help push Germany back.
You can debate the outcome of the European war without American help, but there is no question that a lack of our involvement in the Pacific would have allowed Japan to control most of that ocean.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
yes, because our goal, like imperial japan's, was the wholesale rape, slaughter and enslavement of east asia.Dilbert_X wrote:
Japan owning the Pacific would not have been acceptable, given the US wanted to own it - that was the basic reason.
lol dilbert
No, the US just wanted to take their material resources without paying more than a token sum - if anything.Reciprocity wrote:
yes, because our goal, like imperial japan's, was the wholesale rape, slaughter and enslavement of east asia.Dilbert_X wrote:
Japan owning the Pacific would not have been acceptable, given the US wanted to own it - that was the basic reason.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-01-09 15:39:53)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
rape is much better
Tu Stultus Es
see, at least we were willing to pay. the nipponese were just being dicks.Dilbert_X wrote:
No, the US just wanted to take their material resources without paying more than a token sum.
So basically the US and Japan wanted the material resources of the Pacific and fought a war over it.
I'm not sure thats noble, honourable and justification for nuking civilians - which is somewhat worse than raping a small proportion of them - but whatever.
I'm not sure thats noble, honourable and justification for nuking civilians - which is somewhat worse than raping a small proportion of them - but whatever.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
ill rape youDilbert_X wrote:
So basically the US and Japan wanted the material resources of the Pacific and fought a war over it.
I'm not sure thats noble, honourable and justification for nuking civilians - which is somewhat worse than raping a small proportion of them - but whatever.
Japan was the victim because they got nuked.
Even though we told them we'd nuke 'em if they didn't stop spawn killing and dolphin diving.
Even though we told them we'd nuke 'em if they didn't stop spawn killing and dolphin diving.
Yes, Pearl Harbor was actually done by the US government with CIA agents flying Jap planes so the US could go to war over oil and rape the world.Dilbert_X wrote:
So basically the US and Japan wanted the material resources of the Pacific and fought a war over it.
I'm not sure thats noble, honourable and justification for nuking civilians - which is somewhat worse than raping a small proportion of them - but whatever.
Hell, Bush was one of the pilots in the war if that tells you anything.
well, i bet for a split second those civilians really regretted having a government that started a war with a materially and technologically superior nation. The japanese had no problem engaging civilians, i guess that came back and bit them in the ass.Dilbert_X wrote:
So basically the US and Japan wanted the material resources of the Pacific and fought a war over it.
I'm not sure thats noble, honourable and justification for nuking civilians - which is somewhat worse than raping a small proportion of them - but whatever.
Nor did the americans, they just did it from 25,000ft so they could feel better about themselves.Reciprocity wrote:
The japanese had no problem engaging civilians.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-01-09 16:00:52)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Uh... Read up on how many people the Japanese killed in China, the Philippines, and various other areas of East Asia. I think you'll find that they killed far more people than we did, and there's really no telling how many more they would have killed if we hadn't gotten involved.Dilbert_X wrote:
So basically the US and Japan wanted the material resources of the Pacific and fought a war over it.
I'm not sure thats noble, honourable and justification for nuking civilians - which is somewhat worse than raping a small proportion of them - but whatever.
I'm not saying our intentions were purely noble, but compared to the Japanese, we were the Boy Scouts.
no dumbfuck its called war. kill more of them versus yourselves.Dilbert_X wrote:
Nor did the americans, they just did it from 25,000ft so they could feel better about themselves.Reciprocity wrote:
The japanese had no problem engaging civilians.
can we all just agree that dilbert would be speaking japanese right now if it weren't for Uncle Sam?
you're welcome dil.
you're welcome dil.