Senseless violence

[Bmble_B]

Why is it that there always has to be a war, just to settle differences between two different nations. Throughout our history as humans, there's always been war, ALWAYS. Why are people (some, not all) too ignorant to settle their differences through speech like mature adults, instead of just duking it out and killing innocent people, over their personal problems.

[Miserabilia]

I don't know.
I think war is absolute nonsense, as s any form of mass violence.
Same reason I think nobody should be honering ANY soldiers of any country.
War is bad.
I don't cheer for american soldiers or any soldiers, I cheer for them to just go home and for these countries to settle their f*ing busenes

/:

[thatcountrykid]

Because sometimes there is never a way to agree and stop thing peaefully. Hitler wouldn't have stopped at peace talks. We were in peace talks with japan when they bombed Pearl Harbor.

[Vlerchan]

Killing those who disagree with you is finalising. Placating them is not.

That's why wars happen.

Same reason I think nobody should be honering ANY soldiers of any country.

So, you don't believe that there has ever been a war that has been worth fighting?

This is what such a viewpoint implies.

[Miserabilia]

Killing those who disagree with you is finalising. Placating them is not.

That's why wars happen.



So, you don't believe that there has ever been a war that has been worth fighting?

This is what such a viewpoint implies.

That's what I think yes.

[Vlerchan]

That's what I think yes.

Up to and including wars fought in defence?

If a community fights back against a foreign aggressor are they automatically 'bad people' in your book?

[Miserabilia]

Up to and including wars fought in defence?

If a community fights back against a foreign aggressor are they automatically 'bad people' in your book?

No, I didn't say bad people.
It's nescecary for them; but that doesn't make the act of the fighting less terrible.
:(

[Vlerchan]

No, I didn't say bad people.
It's nescecary for them; but that doesn't make the act of the fighting less terrible.

Okay, so they are not 'bad people' but rather 'people who act in a terrible manner' or 'people who act terribly'. Noted.

Why is it that you believe that aggression against another in self-defence is 'terrible'?

[Miserabilia]

Okay, so they are not 'bad people' but rather 'people who act in a terrible manner' or 'people who act terribly'. Noted.

Why is it that you believe that aggression against another in self-defence is 'terrible'?

Any form of violence is a shame,
I doubt that the opposing group of people/army is enteriely made up of people that deserve to die and feel terrible pain?

[Vlerchan]

Any form of violence is a shame.
Yes. I'd agree here.

Though, any and every form of violence being terrible is another question entirely.

I doubt that the opposing group of people/army is enteriely made up of people that deserve to die and feel terrible pain?
Dying doesn't necessarily infer terrible pain.

This sentence makes it seem like you believe that some of the opposing group of people/army deserve to die. Why do you think some deserve this faith? I'd believe that all of them deserve the same faith because obviously they wouldn't be receiving such a faith unless they were acting in the manner that the same some who you (and correct me if I'm wrong here) believe deserve to die.

[Miserabilia]

Yes. I'd agree here.

Though, any and every form of violence being terrible is another question entirely.


Dying doesn't necessarily infer terrible pain.

This sentence makes it seem like you believe that some of the opposing group of people/army deserve to die. Why do you think some deserve this faith? I'd believe that all of them deserve the same faith because obviously they wouldn't be receiving such a faith unless they were acting in the manner that the same some who you (and correct me if I'm wrong here) believe deserve to die.

Oh derp i meant it as dying OR feeling terrible pain and survinving /:

This sentence makes it seem like you believe that some of the opposing group of people/army deserve to die.

Yea I derped it.
I don't think anyone deserves to die at all.
Sorry /:

[Vlerchan]

I don't think anyone deserves to die at all.
Sorry /:

No bother.

Though, I suppose we've hit a dead-end here. I don't have a problem with death in the name of a greater/favoured cause, so that's that.

[Miserabilia]

No bother.

Though, I suppose we've hit a dead-end here. I don't have a problem with death in the name of a greater/favoured cause, so that's that.

k :P

[Harry Smith]

Because sometimes there is never a way to agree and stop thing peaefully. Hitler wouldn't have stopped at peace talks. We were in peace talks with japan when they bombed Pearl Harbor.

America weren't in peace talks due to the fact that peace talks require them to be at war with Japan which they weren't until Pearl Harbour.

But in general I'd not really call all war senseless violence, I mean yeah diplomacy should be used as much as possible along with organisations like the UN and the EU, but there are times when it's in the national interest to engage in warfare-except I'd say that was only in very limited circumstances such as the Falklands war

[xxdrakeTxx]

because war is a way to get things from countrys that dont like you for example the war in iraq was over oil , all wars are faught over resources of one kind or another and violence is in human nature as well as in the nature of all territorial preditors and it keeps our population down which is a nice plus . war is a nessasary evil .

[Harry Smith]

because war is a way to get things from countrys that dont like you for example the war in iraq was over oil , all wars are faught over resources of one kind or another and violence is in human nature as well as in the nature of all territorial preditors and it keeps our population down which is a nice plus . war is a nessasary evil .

Iraq wasn't about oil at all....

It was about removing a corrupt, murderous dicator who not only killed his own citizens with Gas but then tried to make a nuclear bomb for 20 years. Nothing to do with Oil- I mean we were buying it from Saudi Arabia and the other middle eastern countries-we didn't need to invade for oil. The western world isn't that stupid

[Stronk Serb]

I honor my dead family members who died defending our fatherland. They fought for our ways and for the generations that are to come. That's why we must make sure their sacrifices aren't in vain.

[Vlerchan]

Iraq wasn't about oil at all....
It was always about the oil.

Hussain wanted to sell it in euros. This would have undermined the dollar and had the potential significantly increased the price of oil for the US, regardless of where it was buying from. Invasion would put a clear end to this. Invasion also worked to flood the entire market with oil which lowered the price of oil, regardless of where you were buying from, and thus lowered the prices of all goods that require oil in their production.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy

The western world isn't that stupid
It was stupid enough to believe that it wouldn't completely destabilize the region and prompt the rise of violent extremist (in this case Islamist) factions, as history had shown previously to happen, if it invaded Iraq. The only way the West doesn't look stupid is if it invaded Iraq for the reasons I outlined above.

[Rocketsnail]

Well this came to mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX7V6FAoTLc&feature=kp

[Danagal]

Only narrow minded people say it was for oil.

[Vlerchan]

Only narrow minded people say it was for oil.

And what's the opinions of broad minded people, such as yourself I would presume, on the issue?

[thatcountrykid]

America weren't in peace talks due to the fact that peace talks require them to be at war with Japan which they weren't until Pearl Harbour.

But in general I'd not really call all war senseless violence, I mean yeah diplomacy should be used as much as possible along with organisations like the UN and the EU, but there are times when it's in the national interest to engage in warfare-except I'd say that was only in very limited circumstances such as the Falklands war

I mean talks for in going peace between us and japan and for japan to stop their expantion in the pacific

[Sir Suomi]

Because at the end of the day, there's always going to be someone who disagrees with you, and feels like the only way to solve the problem is by dropping a 200 lb. bomb on your front steps, and in order to stop that from happening, you drop a 500 lb. bomb on his whole village. Humans are violent by nature. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it, it's simply embedded in us, stretching back to our ancient nomadic days, where in order to continue your tribe's existence, you had to take away someone else's resources and land.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum" ("If you want peace, prepare for war")

[xxdrakeTxx]

Iraq wasn't about oil at all....

It was about removing a corrupt, murderous dicator who not only killed his own citizens with Gas but then tried to make a nuclear bomb for 20 years. Nothing to do with Oil- I mean we were buying it from Saudi Arabia and the other middle eastern countries-we didn't need to invade for oil. The western world isn't that stupid

yeah sure a currupt ruler . that is total bs i personally dont believe anything the media or gov. says . if we went in there because of a bad ruler then why did we replace him with people who are just as bad we dont care about any middle eastern goverment until it starts to mess with our resources . look at any conflict really. or is the afgan people paying us , no , then were there for oil or some other resource . and now in replacment of the (terroist) they have police forces and rampent pedophilia . we are there for a reason. and as for the we didnt need to invade for oil take a look at america its home to some seriously greedy people. you can say it was about a terroist all you want but in fact we are terroist we bomb countrys not really caring about what we hit . we dont get involved unless it involves us our money or our resources . and to say our goverment actual cares about another country unless it is currently paying us is well kinda crazy

[MercenaryMarksman]

Its human nature! when you get mad at someone you have the urge to kill them (anger) but because you've grown up knowing thats wrong you don't do it. War is simply that anger only much more complex and flamboyant.

[Vlerchan]

If someone has verifiable evidence supporting the claim that aggression is fundamental to or a part of human nature or that human nature exists at all then I'd love to see it.

I mean talks for in going peace between us and japan and for japan to stop their expantion in the pacific

Is this before or after the US began aggressively imposing economic sanctions on Japan? The ones that had the potential to decimate its national economy and technically constitute and act of (indirect, albeit) war.

[Sir Suomi]

If someone has verifiable evidence supporting the claim that aggression is fundamental to or a part of human nature or that human nature exists at all then I'd love to see it.


Look at a history book. It's as simple as that. War never has disappeared, instead, it simply evolves. I'm sorry, but we don't live in a perfect world. Like I said, there will always be someone who wants the other guy's picnic basket, and the only way he's going to achieve that is by whacking him over the head with a stick.

[Vlerchan]

Look at a history book. Etcetera.
This does not prove that aggression is fundamental to human nature, i.e., inherent to human beings, i.e., stimulated internally as opposed to stimulated externally.

[Sir Suomi]

This does not prove that aggression is fundamental to human nature, i.e., inherent to human beings, i.e., stimulated internally as opposed to stimulated externally.

Regardless of how it may originate, it still has been proven throughout times that mankind can simply not coexist as a whole for an extended period of time. Violence, war, hatred, all of these things, eventually take a hold of a population. It's not a matter of if, instead, it is a matter of when.

[Vlerchan]

Violence, war, hatred, all of these things, eventually take a hold of a population. It's not a matter of if, instead, it is a matter of when.
I never said that human beings did not have the potential to exhibit aggression if the right conditions arose. I agree that human beings have the potential to exhibit aggression. I just don't agree that it's inherent as claimed a number of times because there is no evidence supporting this claim.

[thatcountrykid]

If someone has verifiable evidence supporting the claim that aggression is fundamental to or a part of human nature or that human nature exists at all then I'd love to see it.



Is this before or after the US began aggressively imposing economic sanctions on Japan? The ones that had the potential to decimate its national economy and technically constitute and act of (indirect, albeit) war.

We imposed those sanctions because of japans agressive act against our allies.

[xxdrakeTxx]

Only narrow minded people say it was for oil.

no people who understand how the goverment and economy work say it was cause of oil. its actual history that most wars are faught for resources may that be land food or oil. if the american goverment actually cared about other countrys and ran a charity aid service to get rid of all the bad dictators then we would be fighting north korea libya and the majority of africa , but sadly war doesnt work that way we fight for stuff that were going to benifit us .

[Miserabilia]

Regardless of how it may originate, it still has been proven throughout times that mankind can simply not coexist as a whole for an extended period of time. Violence, war, hatred, all of these things, eventually take a hold of a population. It's not a matter of if, instead, it is a matter of when.

This is no indication to the human nature itself, except for human nature in the right conditions.
Contrary to what you made it sound like,
war has not always ruled the world;
war is actualy reletively new, compared to the time humans have been around.

In the most primal cultures that still exist,
there is no war.
There are conflicts, but they are resolved within small groups.

The only way a war can occur with humans is within a system where a large group of people will find the same ideas and enemies, and the opposite group aswell. That way the single aggression in each one of them gets used strategicaly, and that is war.

[Vlerchan]

We imposed those sanctions because of japans agressive act against our allies.

The US imposed sanctions because Japan was threatening its colonies and other areas of strategic interest in East Asia. It hoped that sanctions - an oil embargo and it must be remembered that the US supplied 60% of all its oil - would suffocate the Japanese war-machine and stop it from reaching these areas of strategic interest. It had nothing to do with protecting its allies, of which it was happy to watch be decimated in Europe at the time.

The Japanese then attacked Pearl Harbour because now that the US had stopped shipping it oil it had to move in on aforementioned American strategic interests (read: energy resources esp. oil) in East Asia.

[Harry Smith]

yeah sure a currupt ruler . that is total bs i personally dont believe anything the media or gov. says . if we went in there because of a bad ruler then why did we replace him with people who are just as bad we dont care about any middle eastern goverment until it starts to mess with our resources . look at any conflict really. or is the afgan people paying us , no , then were there for oil or some other resource . and now in replacment of the (terroist) they have police forces and rampent pedophilia . we are there for a reason. and as for the we didnt need to invade for oil take a look at america its home to some seriously greedy people. you can say it was about a terroist all you want but in fact we are terroist we bomb countrys not really caring about what we hit . we dont get involved unless it involves us our money or our resources . and to say our goverment actual cares about another country unless it is currently paying us is well kinda crazy

ahaha damn government hiding the secrets from us arg! I never said Iraq was about terrorism, did I? Your getting your wars wrong.

We also have a history of getting involved even if resources/money aren't involved so your wrong to claim that- we went into Iraq in 1990 after they invaded another nation

It was always about the oil.

Hussain wanted to sell it in euros. This would have undermined the dollar and had the potential significantly increased the price of oil for the US, regardless of where it was buying from. Invasion would put a clear end to this. Invasion also worked to flood the entire market with oil which lowered the price of oil, regardless of where you were buying from, and thus lowered the prices of all goods that require oil in their production.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy


It was stupid enough to believe that it wouldn't completely destabilize the region and prompt the rise of violent extremist (in this case Islamist) factions, as history had shown previously to happen, if it invaded Iraq. The only way the West doesn't look stupid is if it invaded Iraq for the reasons I outlined above.

It wasn't about oil, I mean you bring up about Saddam wanting to sell it in Euros but we weren't even buying the oil from him because there was a trade embargo placed by the UN-I mean apart from the oil-food scheme we weren't buying oil from Iraq. The invasion may of lowered the cost of oil but that doesn't mean the invasion was for oil. The invasion was because firstly Saddam was breaking every single rule the UN had placed upon him, and the he was using chemical weapons to kill his own people-I know that's not the primary casus Belli for the invasion but I think it goes further in justifying it. I really don't understand why people have some image of Tony Blair and George Bush going 'oh yeah let's go and invade Iraq so that we can get a bit more oil, forget the fact that there are about 12 other oil exporting countries around them'

The US imposed sanctions because Japan was threatening its colonies and other areas of strategic interest in East Asia. It hoped that sanctions - an oil embargo and it must be remembered that the US supplied 60% of all its oil - would suffocate the Japanese war-machine and stop it from reaching these areas of strategic interest. It had nothing to do with protecting its allies, of which it was happy to watch be decimated in Europe at the time.

The Japanese then attacked Pearl Harbour because now that the US had stopped shipping it oil it had to move in on aforementioned American strategic interests (read: energy resources esp. oil) in East Asia.

While I agree with the fact that America weren't 100% innocent in the pacific (it had it's own interests) I don't think that can justify an attack by the Japanese, I mean you have no right to attack a nation like that

[thatcountrykid]

The US imposed sanctions because Japan was threatening its colonies and other areas of strategic interest in East Asia. It hoped that sanctions - an oil embargo and it must be remembered that the US supplied 60% of all its oil - would suffocate the Japanese war-machine and stop it from reaching these areas of strategic interest. It had nothing to do with protecting its allies, of which it was happy to watch be decimated in Europe at the time.

The Japanese then attacked Pearl Harbour because now that the US had stopped shipping it oil it had to move in on aforementioned American strategic interests (read: energy resources esp. oil) in East Asia.

Our territory and our allies were threatened. What, were we supposed to keep giving the oil when they're attacking. As far as Europe we need to take care of our selves first. We were just coming out of the Great Depression.

[Vlerchan]

It wasn't about oil
I explained how Iraqi oil in specific wasn't as key as people like to make out so the fact that the US and the UK weren't purchasing large amounts of oil from the Iraqis at the time is largely irrelevant. Even today you'll find that the primary purchaser of Iraqi oil is China, who consume 50% or so of its oil exports. Iraq was invaded because it freed up its large oil reserves, brought a drop in both the global price of oil and the global price of goods that involve oil in their production, and brought and end to any attempt by Middle Eastern forces to undermine the petrodollar, which would have been very bad for the US economy. The US and UK didn't invade Iraq for their oil. That'd be unnecessary. But the US and UK invaded Iraq because of their oil.

Econ 101: supply goes up, price goes down.

I don't think that can justify an attack by the Japanese, I mean you have no right to attack a nation like that
Japan literally had no choice: it was attack, or put their dreams about a pan-Asian community on hold indefinitely. And the latter was never going to happen. Though, I don't blame the US for Pearl Harbour or the Pacific Conflict, really. It was Japan who first decided that aggressive expansionism in East Asia and the pacific was a feasible objective, and that was never going to end well.

Our territory and our allies were threatened.
Yes.

As long as you realise that Japan had a legitimate Casus Belli against the US as a result of actions taken by the US against Japan because the US felt threatened, but weren't actually being physically threatened by the Japanese.

What, were we supposed to keep giving the oil when they're attacking.
Japan weren't attacking the US.

On a side note Britain and France traded with Germany up until the eve of WWII so it wouldn't have been that strange to continue trading oil. Germany and Britain also did trade during the course of WWI on more than one occasion, though that was an unusual.

As far as Europe we need to take care of our selves first.
That was the prevailing opinion in the US at the time, yes.

We were just coming out of the Great Depression.
No, the US wasn't. The US had largely recovered from the Great Depression at this stage.

[Harry Smith]

I explained how Iraqi oil in specific wasn't as key as people like to make out so the fact that the US and the UK weren't purchasing large amounts of oil from the Iraqis at the time is largely irrelevant. Even today you'll find that the primary purchaser of Iraqi oil is China, who consume 50% or so of its oil exports. Iraq was invaded because it freed up its large oil reserves, brought a drop in both the global price of oil and the global price of goods that involve oil in their production, and brought and end to any attempt by Middle Eastern forces to undermine the petrodollar, which would have been very bad for the US economy. The US and UK didn't invade Iraq for their oil. That'd be unnecessary. But the US and UK invaded Iraq because of their oil.

Econ 101: supply goes up, price goes down.


Japan literally had no choice: it was attack, or put their dreams about a pan-Asian community on hold indefinitely. And the latter was never going to happen. Though, I don't blame the US for Pearl Harbour or the Pacific Conflict, really. It was Japan who first decided that aggressive expansionism in East Asia and the pacific was a feasible objective, and that was never going to end well. Yes

But as you say it wasn't the main role, I'm just sick of people sitting back 10 years later cursing the US and UK for invading and claiming that we did it just for Oil, I think Blair placed oil 7th on his list of reasons and that only came under the guise of having to allow the oil revenue to be used for the people and state of Iraq rather than Husseins family.

With Japan it's correct that no oil would of stopped their pan-asian dream, hence the point of a boycott. I mean they were forced into attacking, the same way that Germany were forced into attacking Poland after they refused to hand over the corridor of land-they had no right to attack even if they were forced into doing it

[Vlerchan]

But as you say it wasn't the main role, I'm just sick of people sitting back 10 years later cursing the US and UK for invading and claiming that we did it just for Oil.
I'm sure 'freedom' and 'democracy' appeared on some memo or another.

I just believe that the primary factor influencing his decision was oil. I'm of this opinion because that's what the evidence supports.

... the guise of having to allow the oil revenue to be used for the people and state of Iraq rather than Husseins family.
This certainly was a guise.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/04/iraq-a21.html

[Hyper]

Why is it that there always has to be a war, just to settle differences between two different nations. Throughout our history as humans, there's always been war, ALWAYS. Why are people (some, not all) too ignorant to settle their differences through speech like mature adults, instead of just duking it out and killing innocent people, over their personal problems.

Because human nature.

And various studies prove so.

For example we don't really argue to find the truth. Arguing is a function of dominance meaning ''NO U'' is the default mode for everyone.

And it's not just about differences... It's about gain aka profit. The crusaders were ''lured'' to Jerusalem with the prospect of gaining land, same with Eastern Europe crusades. The list goes on and on...

[Vlerchan]

And various studies prove so.
Please provide these studies.

[Hyper]

Please provide these studies.

Here (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1698090)

Now I know it's still a theory but it represents well what I believe to be true about reasoning & arguing in general.

[Harry Smith]

I'm sure 'freedom' and 'democracy' appeared on some memo or another.

I just believe that the primary factor influencing his decision was oil. I'm of this opinion because that's what the evidence supports.


This certainly was a guise.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/04/iraq-a21.html

In all fairness you shouldn't believe anything that was said in an Blair Cabinet meeting. I mean the article you show kinda shows the whole attitude towards Blair and Iraq-he was criticized for not having an exit strategy but he has a duty to meet and consult about a potential invasion-he can't just ignore any mention of the oil in his cabinet out of the fear that some conspiracy nut is going to undercover the big bad truth

[Vlerchan]

Now I know it's still a theory but it represents well what I believe to be true about reasoning & arguing in general.
Even if this theory was fact it wouldn't support claims that human beings are inherently aggressive/belligerent/war-like.

Which is what I thought you were claiming.

but he has a duty to meet and consult about a potential invasion-he can't just ignore any mention of the oil in his cabinet out of the fear that some conspiracy nut is going to undercover the big bad truth

“The future shape of the Iraqi industry will affect oil markets, and the functioning of OPEC, in both of which we have a vital interest.” Minutes of a meeting of government officials held on May 12, 2003.

It should be stressed that this was secret until a Freedom Of Information Act was lodged and then they had to reveal this information.

[thatcountrykid]

I explained how Iraqi oil in specific wasn't as key as people like to make out so the fact that the US and the UK weren't purchasing large amounts of oil from the Iraqis at the time is largely irrelevant. Even today you'll find that the primary purchaser of Iraqi oil is China, who consume 50% or so of its oil exports. Iraq was invaded because it freed up its large oil reserves, brought a drop in both the global price of oil and the global price of goods that involve oil in their production, and brought and end to any attempt by Middle Eastern forces to undermine the petrodollar, which would have been very bad for the US economy. The US and UK didn't invade Iraq for their oil. That'd be unnecessary. But the US and UK invaded Iraq because of their oil.

Econ 101: supply goes up, price goes down.


Japan literally had no choice: it was attack, or put their dreams about a pan-Asian community on hold indefinitely. And the latter was never going to happen. Though, I don't blame the US for Pearl Harbour or the Pacific Conflict, really. It was Japan who first decided that aggressive expansionism in East Asia and the pacific was a feasible objective, and that was never going to end well.


Yes.

As long as you realise that Japan had a legitimate Casus Belli against the US as a result of actions taken by the US against Japan because the US felt threatened, but weren't actually being physically threatened by the Japanese.


Japan weren't attacking the US.

On a side note Britain and France traded with Germany up until the eve of WWII so it wouldn't have been that strange to continue trading oil. Germany and Britain also did trade during the course of WWI on more than one occasion, though that was an unusual.


That was the prevailing opinion in the US at the time, yes.


No, the US wasn't. The US had largely recovered from the Great Depression at this stage.

Our allies and our territories were attacked. Guam is ours. That's britains fault. You shouldn't trade with an enemy.

So it's ok for them to attack us because we wouldn't fund their war machine against our allies

[Harry Smith]

Even if this theory was fact it wouldn't support claims that human beings are inherently aggressive/belligerent/war-like.

Which is what I thought you were claiming.



“The future shape of the Iraqi industry will affect oil markets, and the functioning of OPEC, in both of which we have a vital interest.” Minutes of a meeting of government officials held on May 12, 2003.

It should be stressed that this was secret until a Freedom Of Information Act was lodged and then they had to reveal this information.

The British cabinet have every right to keep this information secret, I'm not a big fan of handing out details of a war cabinet. All the quote reveals is that the British had an interest in oil markets and Opec. That's pretty common knowledge.

Our allies and our territories were attacked. Guam is ours. That's britains fault. You shouldn't trade with an enemy.

So it's ok for them to attack us because we wouldn't fund their war machine against our allies

We didn't trade with our enemy, we traded until the dawn of war. Poor point about allies as well since the US govt in the 1930's didn't really have any formal alliances only very vague promises and agreements

[thatcountrykid]

The British cabinet have every right to keep this information secret, I'm not a big fan of handing out details of a war cabinet. All the quote reveals is that the British had an interest in oil markets and Opec. That's pretty common knowledge.



We didn't trade with our enemy, we traded until the dawn of war. Poor point about allies as well since the US govt in the 1930's didn't really have any formal alliances only very vague promises and agreements

Allies and our interests none the less.

[Harry Smith]

Allies and our interests none the less.

Not even your allies-America did fuck all when the Chinese got invaded, it was more a case of the US interests

[thatcountrykid]

Not even your allies-America did fuck all when the Chinese got invaded, it was more a case of the US interests

That's why I said our interests.

[Vlerchan]

All the quote reveals is that the British had an interest in oil markets and Opec. That's pretty common knowledge.

Yes. You're right.

Tearing the quote out of the context that gives it any semblance of meaning does make it seem quite innocent.

[Gamma Male]

All wars are manufactured by the Ruling class for their own benefits. They just use stupid jingoistic hype and "Support our troops!" bumper stickers and shit like that to make the public think they're for defending freedom. And they falsely define Patriot as someone who shows unconditional supportfor their country and doesn't question the government, when in reality the opposite is true. The US military hasn't been a force for good since WW2 and even then we were really just in it for our own gain. No offense to people with family members in the forces, but most people who join the military because they think they're doing their countries a service are complete idiots. I'm not against having a military, as long as its actually used for defense and not to earn money and exploit the natural resources of third world countries. But nobody listens when I tell them this.
"DER US MILITARY IS FIGHTIN FER YUR FREEDOM DEEEERRR!!! DEY GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO STAND UP AND SAY WHAT YOUR SAYING DUUUR!!!"
No, vocal cords and legs give me the right to stand up and say what I'm saying. The US military hasn't done shit to protect my freedom in over 60 years.

[Miserabilia]

All wars are manufactured by the Ruling class for their own benefits. They just use stupid jingoistic hype and "Support our troops!" bumper stickers and shit like that to make the public think they're for defending freedom. And they falsely define Patriot as someone who shows unconditional supportfor their country and doesn't question the government, when in reality the opposite is true. The US military hasn't been a force for good since WW2 and even then we were really just in it for our own gain. No offense to people with family members in the forces, but most people who join the military because they think they're doing their countries a service are complete idiots. I'm not against having a military, as long as its actually used for defense and not to earn money and exploit the natural resources of third world countries. But nobody listens when I tell them this.
"DER US MILITARY IS FIGHTIN FER YUR FREEDOM DEEEERRR!!! DEY GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO STAND UP AND SAY WHAT YOUR SAYING DUUUR!!!"
No, vocal cords and legs give me the right to stand up and say what I'm saying. The US military hasn't done shit to protect my freedom in over 60 years.

this x1000 ! :D

[Capto]

We operate in a zero-sum society.

We operate for our own benefit.

Thus, we operate for someone else's loss.

So we kill them.

With Japan it's correct that no oil would of stopped their pan-asian dream, hence the point of a boycott. I mean they were forced into attacking, the same way that Germany were forced into attacking Poland after they refused to hand over the corridor of land-they had no right to attack even if they were forced into doing it

I'd be inclined to disagree. In no way was Germany forced to attack Poland. It's merely that German aspirations were higher than merely the Danzig Corridor. As seen by their related expansion regarding Memel/Klaipeda, the complete annexation of Poland was to be expected from the beginning, it was just that the Polish refusal to cede the Danzig Corridor [funny thing happened with the Free City too] provided a perfect context and pretext for the Germans to invade Poland.

Similarly, the Japanese were not forced to attack the United States. Theoretically, upon the successful conquest of China, there would have been, with proper draconian rule instituted, coal and iron in abundance for the Japanese. Oil would be no problem with the attack on British Malaya, and that was imminent regarding Japanese policy. Meanwhile, the USA would not give two shits.