Obama Cowers Again

[Jamie6.5]

Semantics. Applying pressure to a smaller nation that has large physical impact to their populace will be seen as an attack. Verbal, physical, economic, to those feeling impact or threatened will view it as an attack.

No mention of why those pressures were applied? Maybe to slow down Japan's expansionist policies? Who was attacked up to that point, and by whom? The Japanese were clearly the aggressors.
You know, the policies that had them invading most of indo-china, after invading and occupying China in 1937, in their quest for natural resources. One of your "3 Rs."
Then there is the Tripartite Pact between Italy, Germany and Japan in the fall of 1940, when the "Axis Powers" were officially formed. Tying Japan to the greatest aggressor the modern world had seen to date, Germany. Having invaded or annexed most of central and eastern Europe.

You seem to have gone from a student of revisionist history to a teacher of it.
To read your diatribe here one would think Japan the victim.
THEY WERE THE AGGRESSORS! All over S.E. Asia.

Your disagreements aren't based on the overt dislike of a black man voted into power

Ahhh yes, the race card again,...
Welcome to MSNBC folks.
Brought to you by NWFA!

 

[SonicBlue03]

Size or not, it works both ways.
Threaten our interests, then we too have a green light to see it as an attack.
To believe otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.

Again, not disagreeing. The position taken throughout the thread by those vehemently against President Obama's bow has been a position of black-and-white 100% fault on the Japanese. And that's not the case. There is culpability on both sides and it's dishonest to not acknowledge that in conflict.

Fair enough but again I could go on and elaborate for hours on end as to why I agree and disagree w/ you, and that is because it is not a cut-n-dry issue as is the case behind all world conflicts.

Which roundabout is my point. My issue is with those that see it as black and white. For the most part, I think I've tried to communicate that there are two sides and no shining knight in armor.

By the latter portion of that statement your assumption seems to be that most disagreements you experience on the subject matter are in fact based
on the overt dislike for a black man in power? I think not.
That is too convenient an excuse that is used these days (typically by white people far more than by black folks) to counter legitimate concerns people have with an inexperienced, far too liberal President that has squat to do with the man's skin color. After all, he is half white.
Are there those that are of that mind set? Sure there is... As there are those who believe that any, and all criticism of the current President and his Administration is based solely on the man being black.

That was more a poke at the folks that actually do thinly veil their inherent racisms with politics, and while generally a minority you normally can get a good sense of those ones right off the bat - which I agree those folks are as narrow minded as the folks overly defensive and quick to pull the skin color card. President Obama is no better or worse than any other elected politician or sitting President in the past 40-some years, yet the rhetoric from the right is outshouting the squeaks of the left during the last two terms.

I don't envy the man the job he has, and as our elected President I wish him success even if he pushes policies I don't agree with. In three years the people will be giving the option to vote their conscience as to whether or not the U.S. made any progress under the sitting administration.

 

[SonicBlue03]

No mention of why those pressures were applied?

Wrong. Go read my post again.

Maybe to slow down Japan's expansionist policies? Who was attacked up to that point, and by whom? The Japanese were clearly the aggressors.

Against China. Japan had attempted incursion into Russia and gotten thumped. Another Chinese/Japanese war we opted to assert our influence on. Was the U.S. in danger of invasion? No.

You know, the policies that had them invading most of indo-china, after invading and occupying China in 1937, in their quest for natural resources. One of your "3 Rs."

Not sure your point unless you're validating my 3 R's.

Then there is the Tripartite Pact between Italy, Germany and Japan in the fall of 1940, when the "Axis Powers" were officially formed. Tying Japan to the greatest aggressor the modern world had seen to date, Germany. Having invaded or annexed most of central and eastern Europe.

You seem to have gone from a student of revisionist history to a teacher of it.
To read your diatribe here one would think Japan the victim.
THEY WERE THE AGGRESSORS! All over S.E. Asia.

It's not revisionist, it's documented history. And don't forget that we didn't get involved in WWII as a great crusade to right wrongs, we did so when our interests were threatened - just like our involvement in any conflict globally over the past century. Otherwise why did we let the Brits take a pounding for over a year before we started to pay attention?

Ahhh yes, the race card again,...
Welcome to MSNBC folks.
Brought to you by NWFA!

Only to spin those of you up that have the latent tendencies. MSNBC has a semi-okay sports section with less ads than ESPN, plus ESPN is owned by Disney and I'm not a fan of the Mouse House. Other than that, untainted news comes from the BBC, not CNN, Faux, or MS.

 

[SonicBlue03]

I already read Advrider. I've gotten some great leads on trails for my KTM, but the larger tanks that go for my Adventure are pointless unless I start rally riding which isn't going to happen.

My position isn't hypercritical of the U.S. It's hypercritical of those who take the position that we can do no wrong and that we're constantly set upon. We are responsible for our own actions and are also accountable for the outcomes of our actions, just like any individual or nation-state in the world.

And poking fun at the folks with racist tendencies isn't trolling. Trolling would be taking the adverse position to incite reaction, anger, or running commentary. To troll would be to say "there should be a Wonderlick-type test to determine eligibility of voters' rights in the U.S." and to push people into a lather. Poking fun at a narrow-minded behavior is just that. My position hasn't been that Japan or Germany were right - and I thought I'd made that clear - my position is that we share responsibility in world events and how they've transpired by our actions, and to acknowledge that we occasionally misstep seems, to me, to be appropriate.

Obama hasn't made enough decisions or made enough changes yet for him to rank as a success or a dud. 11 months in office isn't a long enough yard stick given the crap pile he inherited in my book. His healthcare take has been interesting, but he hasn't really accomplished any change for better or worse yet since nothing has been signed into law. That'll probably tip me one way or the other depending on how that goes.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Wrong. Go read my post again.

I did. You claim an "attack" of economic pressures by the US. Apparently you think this was unwarranted. We were depriving Japan of metals, oil and rubber to slow down their aggressor policy.
Yes, we did it. But again, only to slow down their aggressive expansionist policies.
Try reading real history. All of it. Stop cherry-picking your "facts."

Against China. Japan had attempted incursion into Russia and gotten thumped. Another Chinese/Japanese war we opted to assert our influence on. Was the U.S. in danger of invasion? No.

The League Of Nations was the "UN" of the time and Japan was clearly in violation of it's policies. It wasn't just China. it was also Malaysia, French Indochina, Dutch East Indies, The Philippines, Burma, parts of India, and certain Pacific Islands.
Oh, and they attempted Russia after China, not before.

Not sure your point unless you're validating my 3 R's.

That I am. The Resources Japan was after. The reason they were the aggressors, not the victims.

It's not revisionist, it's documented history. And don't forget that we didn't get involved in WWII as a great crusade to right wrongs, we did so when our interests were threatened - just like our involvement in any conflict globally over the past century. Otherwise why did we let the Brits take a pounding for over a year before we started to pay attention?

Documented and woefully incomplete. You have managed to spin it to show Japan the victim, lashing out against the domination of the aggressor U.S.
And the Brits only "took a pounding" until Hitler tried to cross the channel. Where he got his butt kicked in the Battle of Britain.
You can thank our ambassador, Mr. Joe Kennedy for our isolationism where Germany and Britain were concerned.
FDR should have listened to Churchill, and stopped der fuhrer much earlier.

Clue here: The U.S. was isolationist at the time. Many a political squabble took place over whether we should be helping the Chinese keep from being overrun by Japan in '37

Only to spin those of you up that have the latent tendencies. MSNBC has a semi-okay sports section with less ads than ESPN, plus ESPN is owned by Disney and I'm not a fan of the Mouse House. Other than that, untainted news comes from the BBC, not CNN, Faux, or MS.

Ahh yes, a big fan of Ms Garafalo are you? You and Mr Matthews compare shivers up the leg did you?
Can't stand it when FOX plays a quote of a leftist explaining their beliefs or policies so you label them Faux?
I am not now, nor ever have been a racist of any kind.
And all of my "tendencies" are overt. Not the least bit latent.
That's why I called you out on your misinformation.
If it was latent, I'd have mumbled and shrugged, and called you names.
Like you did us.

 

[SonicBlue03]

I did. You claim an "attack" of economic pressures by the US. Apparently you think this was unwarranted. We were depriving Japan of metals, oil and rubber to slow down their aggressor policy.
Yes, we did it. But again, only to slow down their aggressive expansionist policies.
Try reading real history. All of it. Stop cherry-picking your "facts."

Read it again, and also point out what leads you to believe I said it was an unwarranted attack?

The League Of Nations was the "UN" of the time and Japan was clearly in violation of it's policies. It wasn't just China. it was also Malaysia, French Indochina, Dutch East Indies, The Philippines, Burma, parts of India, and certain Pacific Islands.

And we did so because of directive of the LoN? No. As now, we get involved when our interests are directly impacted.

Oh, and they attempted Russia after China, not before.

Fair point. I stand corrected on timeline.


That I am. The Resources Japan was after. The reason they were the aggressors, not the victims.

Documented and woefully incomplete. You have managed to spin it to show Japan the victim, lashing out against the domination of the aggressor U.S.
And the Brits only "took a pounding" until Hitler tried to cross the channel. Where he got his butt kicked in the Battle of Britain.
You can thank our ambassador, Mr. Joe Kennedy for our isolationism where Germany and Britain were concerned.
FDR should have listened to Churchill, and stopped der fuhrer much earlier.

The Brits would be speaking German had Hitler not made a colossal blunder by stopping his attack on Britain and shifted to go after the Russians. Russians die by the millions but are notoriously hard to kill. The Battle of Britian was a key point, but it was Germany's military decisions that kept Britian from having better cuisine.

I'm going to ask you to re-read again what I've written. I did not say Japan was the victim. I've said their perception is that they were being victimized and attacked, and our perception was pressure for our interests. What I've said is that everyone had culpability. That people can't admit that there's no single fault and that everyone isn't perfect is a little sad, don't you think?

Clue here: The U.S. was isolationist at the time. Many a political squabble took place over whether we should be helping the Chinese keep from being overrun by Japan in '40.

And idealist policy gets overriden by interest. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Ahh yes, a big fan of Ms Garafalo are you? You and Mr Matthews compare shivers up the leg did you?
Can't stand it when FOX plays a quote of a leftist explaining their beliefs or policies so you label them Faux?
I am not now, nor ever have been a racist of any kind.
And all of my "tendencies" are overt. Not the least bit latent.
That's why I called you out on your misinformation.
If it was latent, I'd have mumbled and shrugged, and called you names.
Like you did us.

Actually, I think she's a blowhardy c*nt. Funny that your default is to assume I'm liberal and try down that street. It would kill you to know I've been a registered Republican for almost 20 years. Intelligent people of all parties know that Faux is one step removed from the Oxygen Network and MTV in terms of entertainment programming, and also hold most other U.S. news streams in the same regard - U.S. media is there to sell advertising, not to broadcast news. Read up on Murdoch sometime and he's no better than Turner and the rest.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Well then, considering your condescending style herein I would think that you would fit in quite well over there in the "Church, State and Money" forum

Too many cool pictures in the bike threads for me to care about the politics. Politics and guns seem to go hand-in-hand, so inevitably one has to comment at some point. I've ridden with scottdcolbath over there before when I made a trip to AZ - good dude to ride with.

This thread degenerated into the discussion over Japan because some people are **** bent interpreting every action the President does as a slight or snub against the U.S., which is just mind-numbingly dumb. Add to that the position that Japan was 100% at fault for the war and "they attacked us first" is a b.s. statement that needs to be called out. It's not going to change any opinions, but letting a statement like that stand as gospel implies general consent and lack of understanding of what really leads up to war.

 

[m1gunr]

I actually sent an email to the White House today asking them to teach Obama how to put his hand over his heart. I am so sick of his "Crotch Salute."

<broken link removed>

 

[RobertJ.]

I didn't vote for Obama. I don't trust him, or anyone he's appointed. I truly believe that he wants to be part of the "Global Community", and is willing to sell out the U.S.'s sovereignty to do so.

But in all fairness, I'm willing to cut him some slack in the matter of bowing to to the Japanese Emporer. I think he did so out of respect, not submission.

Feel free to dispute any of this, it's just my opinion.

 

[twoclones]

 

[Joe Link]

9. The "Legal & Political" section is to pertain to firearms only. There shall be no legal & political discussion and/or material outside of the "Legal & Political" section.

There are many different people here with many different viewpoints on various issues. Like religion, discussing these issues here is highly likely to offend and very little good can come of it. We need to be focusing on the things that bring us together (firearms), not the things that have the potential to divide us (politics).