Morley wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 5:07 pm
Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 10:19 am
It's not a dodge if I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY
DID HAPPEN. WHAT ACTUALLY
DID HAPPEN IS A DONE DEAL, SET IN HISTORICAL STONE. I'm only discussing whether what actually did happen could have--and if so, should have--been avoided; NOTHING MORE.
It is indeed a dodge. When you speculate that Japan would never have attacked US territory if the Pacific Fleet had not been in Hawaii, you're positing a hypothetical. You're not discussing what actually did happen.
??? That's exactly what I just got finished saying. You're correct, I am NOT discussing what actually did happen, as evidenced by my words "I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY
DID HAPPEN."
I really don't know how to write it plainer than that. I did my best to press those specific characters on my keyboard to create clear, correct, and straightforward American English. If those words are too vague or murky, then please tell me how I can make them any clearer, 'cause I can't think of anything else.
You're theorizing about what you think might have happened.
YES, I'm very solidly theorizing about what would most likely have happened, as I already pointed out and as should've been incredibly obvious. The reason my "theory" is so solid is because if there was no fleet at Pearl Harbor to bomb, then the Japanese most likely wouldn't have bombed an empty harbor. If you disagree, then by all means, share your reasoning.
Morley wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 5:07 pm
You claim that the fleet being there forced Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor. You seem to be saying that Japan was 100% responsible, but not really, since they were 'forced' into bombing.
??? I claim Japan was forced to bomb Pearl Harbor? Let's review the sentences in question, with blue text entered for clarity:
Dr. Shades wrote:Chap wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:38 am
The US did not enter WWII because it was a kind elder brother who could have perfectly well stayed out of the whole business, but altruistically decided to help the poor little Europeans and Chinese. It entered the war because the Axis powers forced it to, by ruthlessly and very effectively attacking it.
And if the U.S. had kept its fleet on the West Coast, as any sane leader would've done, the Axis powers wouldn't have forced it
[the United States] to
[enter the war], ruthlessly and very effectively or otherwise.
Now, please explain how "the Axis powers" forcing the United States to enter the war means
the United States forced
Japan to attack it.
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and then declared war on the US. Germany declared war on the US. Japan began her invasion of the US territory of Philippines. All of these happened before Congress voted to get involved in WWII. But you say that the US shouldn't have entered the war.
It shouldn't have parked the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, which convinced the Japanese that it was a dagger aimed at the home country. Had it left the fleet on the West Coast, Japan would most likely have been convinced that the U.S.A. had no intent to enter the war, thus making it unnecessary (from their perspective) to neutralize the bases in the Philippines. It should have de-escalated the situation so entering the war would've remained unnecessary.
Given that, it makes sense that I might ask "Whenever someone threatens the US, should she just roll over and beg for mercy?"
No. I've already answered this, plainly and clearly. I don't know how many more times you need me to say "no" before you learn that I really, truly, and honestly mean "no."
Kishkumen wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 7:52 pm
I really wonder how historically literate Shades is, when he suggests through omission that the bombing of Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US were not legitimate reasons to go to war.
*sigh* Here we go again. Let's examine what I actually DID say, not something you baselessly (and falsely) speculate that I suggested (through
omission, no less!). Emphasis added:
Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 10:19 am
Morley wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:19 pm
Then maybe you'll demonstrate some of the knowledge by answering the question as to what the US should have done when Japan took Philippines and bombed Pearl Harbor while Germany declared war on the US.
It should have declared war, which is exactly what it did.
Now, please explain how the words "it should have declared war" magically transform into "suggest[ing] through omission that the bombing of Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US were not legitimate reasons to go to war."
The reason I ask for that explanation is because, as with Morley, I tried very, very hard to press the specific characters on my keyboard that would show up as clear, correct, and straightforward American English on your computer monitor.
Out of curiosity, did I wake up in some bizarre parallel universe wherein all English words mean the opposite of what they do in my universe? Or did I perhaps slip into a weird alternate reality in which all readers interpret all sentences as having the opposite meaning of what those sentences actually convey? Help me out here.
canpakes wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:58 pm
I don’t believe that we need ‘boots on the ground’ in Ukraine, although we already have advisors there. We don’t have a treaty in place that requires us to do so.
We didn't have a treaty in place that required the U.S. Pacific fleet to be in Pearl Harbor, either. So should we post soldiers in Ukraine where they can get shot by Russians?
To the larger question, I have no problem with treaties that could require us to enter battle on foreign soil. The reason is straightforward: (1) cooperation is a necessary component of survival, and (2) not all threats to this nation’s sovereignty and citizens are contained solely within the borders of this nation. And although it’s nice to believe that we can go along to get along and in doing so always be dealing with sensible minds abroad who will respect and choose order and cooperation over conquest and subjugation, that imagined world simply does not exist. This has been demonstrated time and time again for millennia.
It has also been demonstrated--twice!--that fatal alliances lead to fatal outcomes.
One problem with libertarian ideology and isolationism (and the glaring conflict between MAGA isolationist preferences along with their weird adoration of ‘tough guy’ leadership) is that it seems to operate under the premise that what it arguably wants to do can somehow be accomplished while remaining completely isolated and unaffected from detrimental outside forces and intent.
If it is possible to avoid antagonizing detrimental outside forces, is it advisable to do so? For example, if one goes to the zoo and passes by a Tiger's cage, should one put one's hand into the cage?