Page 3 of 4
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:51 pm
by mind_messing
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Question:
What exactly was President Roosevelt supposed to do?
Roosevelt, in my view, did all that he could
considering the situation of US politics at the time. A
stronger American stance is a debatable issue, but.....
warspite1
Hi m_m. Could you just expand on the words in italics please? I don't understand what US politics has to do with it as opposed to the world situation.
Re stronger - stronger than what?
Thanks
The isolationist sentiment in the US severely limited what Roosevelt could do on the international stage in the period prior to 1941. It's worth remembering that Roosevelt pulled a lawyers trick to enable aid to be sent to China; the absence of an official declaration of war between China and Japan allowed Roosevelt to bypass the Neutrality Acts.
By a stronger stance, I mean one which did not rely on passive measures to combat Japanese aggression. If the Americans had a free had to actively provide extensive material aid to the Chinese, the Japanese would have been left in no doubt as to America's position.
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:11 pm
by spence
Average citizens suffer from the excesses of their leaders far more than the leaders do. If anything that basic truth is magnified in a dictatorship. Japan had a dictatorship led by the Army and reinforced by the Navy. THEY sowed the wind. THEY reaped the whirlwind. As always the average citizen paid for the whirlwind. Unfortunately the ones who were mostly responsible could only die once...and that could hardly seem adequate recompense for the suffering they inflicted on their own people and all of their declared enemies.
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:16 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Roosevelt, in my view, did all that he could considering the situation of US politics at the time. A stronger American stance is a debatable issue, but.....
warspite1
Hi m_m. Could you just expand on the words in italics please? I don't understand what US politics has to do with it as opposed to the world situation.
Re stronger - stronger than what?
Thanks
The isolationist sentiment in the US severely limited what Roosevelt could do on the international stage in the period prior to 1941. It's worth remembering that Roosevelt pulled a lawyers trick to enable aid to be sent to China; the absence of an official declaration of war between China and Japan allowed Roosevelt to bypass the Neutrality Acts.
By a stronger stance, I mean one which did not rely on passive measures to combat Japanese aggression. If the Americans had a free had to actively provide extensive material aid to the Chinese, the Japanese would have been left in no doubt as to America's position.
warspite1
Okay thanks. I am glad we are broadly in agreement. This is becoming a habit [;)]
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:45 am
by Lecivius
I am in 100% agreement with T on this thread.
That said, IMHO you guys are WAY to forward in the timeline of your thinking. The war didn't formulate in 1940, or 1939 even. It started WAY earlier.
As for the brutality issue, I can tell from reading this that no one here posting has ever spent serious time in Asia. And one needs to consider the ideology of that region. That ideology carries forward to today, in different regions, perpetuating that same barbarity.
From this point it becomes a political question of will, and I won't go there. And that is all I can politely say here.
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:38 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Orm
Why would you be mad because Mind_messing agrees with you? [&:]
[:)]
warspite1
Most humans like certainty, we like things we know we can rely on - things that give us certainty in a sea of uncertainty; focal points if you will on which we can chart our way through life. We are born. We pay taxes. Then we die. To that list there is 'w1 and m_m will never agree on jack'.
But now, with that comment, he has put my equalibrium right out of er... equal...erm ibrium or whatever.
[:D]
Well, warspite1, fear not. I think you're as much a ponce git today as I ever have. Does that help your world view?
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:58 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Orm
Why would you be mad because Mind_messing agrees with you? [&:]
[:)]
warspite1
Most humans like certainty, we like things we know we can rely on - things that give us certainty in a sea of uncertainty; focal points if you will on which we can chart our way through life. We are born. We pay taxes. Then we die. To that list there is 'w1 and m_m will never agree on jack'.
But now, with that comment, he has put my equalibrium right out of er... equal...erm ibrium or whatever.
[:D]
Well, warspite1, fear not. I think you're as much a ponce git today as I ever have. Does that help your world view?
warspite1
Phew! Yes it does, Birth - check, taxes - check, ponce git - check, will never get it on with Alison Brie - check, death - check.
Alles in ordnung [:D] Thank-you CB [:)]
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:01 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Phew! Yes it does, Birth - check, taxes - check, ponce git - check, will never get it on with Alison Brie - check death - check.
Alles in ordnung [:D] Thank-you CB [:)]
Bitte, my main man! Bitte. [8D]
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:08 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
I am in 100% agreement with T on this thread.
That said, IMHO you guys are WAY to forward in the timeline of your thinking. The war didn't formulate in 1940, or 1939 even. It started WAY earlier.
As for the brutality issue, I can tell from reading this that no one here posting has ever spent serious time in Asia. And one needs to consider the ideology of that region. That ideology carries forward to today, in different regions, perpetuating that same barbarity.
From this point it becomes a political question of will, and I won't go there. And that is all I can politely say here.
warspite1
Well Lecivius, you have answered to me and stated 'no one posting here' so I guess that includes me in your response.
I am not going to get into an argument with you, will only say, your post is incredibly disappointing as you have clearly joined the JWE/Symon school of thought whereby actually reading someone's posts before commenting critically on them is an optional extra....[:(] At least
you didn't misquote me by putting my name to someone else's comment....
The fact that I have never spent time in Asia does not preclude me from understanding what a bunch of sadistic thugs the Japanese were in WWII - I have no idea why you would think such geographical limitation automatically equals an historical knowledge gap. As for 1939/40? No idea why that is germaine to the
very specific question being asked?
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:05 pm
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
I am in 100% agreement with T on this thread.
That said, IMHO you guys are WAY to forward in the timeline of your thinking. The war didn't formulate in 1940, or 1939 even. It started WAY earlier.
As for the brutality issue, I can tell from reading this that no one here posting has ever spent serious time in Asia. And one needs to consider the ideology of that region. That ideology carries forward to today, in different regions, perpetuating that same barbarity.
From this point it becomes a political question of will, and I won't go there. And that is all I can politely say here.
warspite1
Well Lecivius, you have answered to me and stated 'no one posting here' so I guess that includes me in your response.
I am not going to get into an argument with you, will only say, your post is incredibly disappointing as you have clearly joined the JWE/Symon school of thought whereby actually reading someone's posts before commenting critically on them is an optional extra....[:(] At least
you didn't misquote me by putting my name to someone else's comment....
The fact that I have never spent time in Asia does not preclude me from understanding what a bunch of sadistic thugs the Japanese were in WWII - I have no idea why you would think such geographical limitation automatically equals an historical knowledge gap. As for 1939/40? No idea why that is germaine to the
very specific question being asked?
Guys? Remember the two commandments of the forum? 1) No politics 2) no personal attacks. [:-]
This thread has dance all around and in a few cases stomped all over the 1st. Warspite, you might want to reconsider your last. It does dangle over the edge on the 2nd.
We all get passionate and excitable. Yets not let us (and that;s ANY of us , not just you) let it get us into trouble. [:)]
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:18 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
I am in 100% agreement with T on this thread.
That said, IMHO you guys are WAY to forward in the timeline of your thinking. The war didn't formulate in 1940, or 1939 even. It started WAY earlier.
As for the brutality issue, I can tell from reading this that no one here posting has ever spent serious time in Asia. And one needs to consider the ideology of that region. That ideology carries forward to today, in different regions, perpetuating that same barbarity.
From this point it becomes a political question of will, and I won't go there. And that is all I can politely say here.
warspite1
Well Lecivius, you have answered to me and stated 'no one posting here' so I guess that includes me in your response.
I am not going to get into an argument with you, will only say, your post is incredibly disappointing as you have clearly joined the JWE/Symon school of thought whereby actually reading someone's posts before commenting critically on them is an optional extra....[:(] At least
you didn't misquote me by putting my name to someone else's comment....
The fact that I have never spent time in Asia does not preclude me from understanding what a bunch of sadistic thugs the Japanese were in WWII - I have no idea why you would think such geographical limitation automatically equals an historical knowledge gap. As for 1939/40? No idea why that is germaine to the
very specific question being asked?
Guys? Remember the two commandments of the forum? 1) No politics 2) no personal attacks. [:-]
This thread has dance all around and in a few cases stomped all over the 1st. Warspite, you might want to reconsider your last. It does dangle over the edge on the 2nd.
We all get passionate and excitable. Yets not let us (and that;s ANY of us , not just you) let it get us into trouble. [:)]
warspite1
Steve, with the greatest of respect, this thread has evolved into historical politics which is completely allowed - Only the last post by Lecivius which presumably is what you refer to has referenced current day. If so you may want to ask him to
reconsider his last post.
His post also suggests I have taken a position I have not - this is not the first time that has happened on this forum and I do not appreciate it.
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:22 pm
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: warspite1
warspite1
Well Lecivius, you have answered to me and stated 'no one posting here' so I guess that includes me in your response.
I am not going to get into an argument with you, will only say, your post is incredibly disappointing as you have clearly joined the JWE/Symon school of thought whereby actually reading someone's posts before commenting critically on them is an optional extra....[:(] At least you didn't misquote me by putting my name to someone else's comment....
The fact that I have never spent time in Asia does not preclude me from understanding what a bunch of sadistic thugs the Japanese were in WWII - I have no idea why you would think such geographical limitation automatically equals an historical knowledge gap. As for 1939/40? No idea why that is germaine to the very specific question being asked?
Guys? Remember the two commandments of the forum? 1) No politics 2) no personal attacks. [:-]
This thread has dance all around and in a few cases stomped all over the 1st. Warspite, you might want to reconsider your last. It does dangle over the edge on the 2nd.
We all get passionate and excitable. Yets not let us (and that;s ANY of us , not just you) let it get us into trouble. [:)]
warspite1
Steve, with the greatest of respect, this thread has evolved into historical politics which is completely allowed - Only the last post by Lecivius which presumably is what you refer to has referenced current day. If so you may want to ask him to
reconsider his last post.
His post also suggests I have taken a position I have not - this is not the first time that has happened on this forum and I do not appreciate it.
OK, fair enough. ALLRIGHT! ALL YOU KIDS STOP THIS!!!! Don't make me stop this thread![:D]
How was that? [:D]
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:26 pm
by AW1Steve
And in honor of this being the birthday of my country's Navy, let me throw out some trivia. What's the John Paul Jones quote nobody remembers? Not not the "I swear to God I thought she was 16!". [X(] No , it's what he really said when the RN asked if he'd surrendered. (If he'd REALLY said "I've not yet begun to fight!" you KNOW that some old sailor would have said "now would be a good time sir!") No he really said "Up yours you limey jerk!". [:D] I have it on good authority. [:D]
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:29 pm
by warspite1
Happy Birthday to the USN [&o]
And here's my favourite Yank ship in honour of said occasion.
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:36 pm
by AW1Steve
Not this one?
USS Sir Winston Churchill DDG-81.[:)]
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:46 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Not this one?
USS Sir Winston Churchill DDG-81.[:)]
warspite1
Nice name - but.....
SoDak is where its at. She looks like she means business. "You wanna piece of me?"....
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:28 pm
by mind_messing
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
I am in 100% agreement with T on this thread.
That said, IMHO you guys are WAY to forward in the timeline of your thinking. The war didn't formulate in 1940, or 1939 even. It started WAY earlier.
As for the brutality issue, I can tell from reading this that no one here posting has ever spent serious time in Asia. And one needs to consider the ideology of that region. That ideology carries forward to today, in different regions, perpetuating that same barbarity.
From this point it becomes a political question of will, and I won't go there. And that is all I can politely say here.
Insufficient explanation for the radical change in Japanese attitudes. They fought the Russo-Japanese War without any notable brutality.
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:43 pm
by AW1Steve
xxx
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:01 pm
by Lecivius
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
I am in 100% agreement with T on this thread.
That said, IMHO you guys are WAY to forward in the timeline of your thinking. The war didn't formulate in 1940, or 1939 even. It started WAY earlier.
As for the brutality issue, I can tell from reading this that no one here posting has ever spent serious time in Asia. And one needs to consider the ideology of that region. That ideology carries forward to today, in different regions, perpetuating that same barbarity.
From this point it becomes a political question of will, and I won't go there. And that is all I can politely say here.
warspite1
Well Lecivius, you have answered to me and stated 'no one posting here' so I guess that includes me in your response.
I am not going to get into an argument with you, will only say, your post is incredibly disappointing as you have clearly joined the JWE/Symon school of thought whereby actually reading someone's posts before commenting critically on them is an optional extra....[:(] At least
you didn't misquote me by putting my name to someone else's comment....
The fact that I have never spent time in Asia does not preclude me from understanding what a bunch of sadistic thugs the Japanese were in WWII - I have no idea why you would think such geographical limitation automatically equals an historical knowledge gap. As for 1939/40? No idea why that is germaine to the
very specific question being asked?
Honestly Warspite, I was not even thinking of your posts when I typed this out. If I have offended, let me publicly apologize. I do seriously believe that the issues that started WWII were a long, long time before the late '30's. And I do believe it is impossible to know a regions mindset unless you have 'been there'. I can provide examples in private if requested, as I fear they may border on the political. Also, I have great respect for the many and varied people on these forums, so I did not wish to point out any one particular thought that I might find incredibly naive, so as not to offend. It appears I may have done the exact opposite.
But fer chrissakes, don't go accusing me of symonizing. Them's fighting words!! [;)]
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:09 pm
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
I am in 100% agreement with T on this thread.
That said, IMHO you guys are WAY to forward in the timeline of your thinking. The war didn't formulate in 1940, or 1939 even. It started WAY earlier.
As for the brutality issue, I can tell from reading this that no one here posting has ever spent serious time in Asia. And one needs to consider the ideology of that region. That ideology carries forward to today, in different regions, perpetuating that same barbarity.
From this point it becomes a political question of will, and I won't go there. And that is all I can politely say here.
warspite1
Well Lecivius, you have answered to me and stated 'no one posting here' so I guess that includes me in your response.
I am not going to get into an argument with you, will only say, your post is incredibly disappointing as you have clearly joined the JWE/Symon school of thought whereby actually reading someone's posts before commenting critically on them is an optional extra....[:(] At least
you didn't misquote me by putting my name to someone else's comment....
The fact that I have never spent time in Asia does not preclude me from understanding what a bunch of sadistic thugs the Japanese were in WWII - I have no idea why you would think such geographical limitation automatically equals an historical knowledge gap. As for 1939/40? No idea why that is germaine to the
very specific question being asked?
Honestly Warspite, I was not even thinking of your posts when I typed this out. If I have offended, let me publicly apologize. I do seriously believe that the issues that started WWII were a long, long time before the late '30's. And I do believe it is impossible to know a regions mindset unless you have 'been there'. I can provide examples in private if requested, as I fear they may border on the political. Also, I have great respect for the many and varied people on these forums, so I did not wish to point out any one particular thought that I might find incredibly naive, so as not to offend. It appears I may have done the exact opposite.
But fer chrissakes, don't go accusing me of symonizing. Them's fighting words!! [;)]
[X(]OWE! OUCH! OUCH! [X(][8|][:-][:D]
RE: OT: War in the Pacific
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:09 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
I am in 100% agreement with T on this thread.
That said, IMHO you guys are WAY to forward in the timeline of your thinking. The war didn't formulate in 1940, or 1939 even. It started WAY earlier.
As for the brutality issue, I can tell from reading this that no one here posting has ever spent serious time in Asia. And one needs to consider the ideology of that region. That ideology carries forward to today, in different regions, perpetuating that same barbarity.
From this point it becomes a political question of will, and I won't go there. And that is all I can politely say here.
warspite1
Well Lecivius, you have answered to me and stated 'no one posting here' so I guess that includes me in your response.
I am not going to get into an argument with you, will only say, your post is incredibly disappointing as you have clearly joined the JWE/Symon school of thought whereby actually reading someone's posts before commenting critically on them is an optional extra....[:(] At least
you didn't misquote me by putting my name to someone else's comment....
The fact that I have never spent time in Asia does not preclude me from understanding what a bunch of sadistic thugs the Japanese were in WWII - I have no idea why you would think such geographical limitation automatically equals an historical knowledge gap. As for 1939/40? No idea why that is germaine to the
very specific question being asked?
Honestly Warspite, I was not even thinking of your posts when I typed this out. If I have offended, let me publicly apologize. I do seriously believe that the issues that started WWII were a long, long time before the late '30's. And I do believe it is impossible to know a regions mindset unless you have 'been there'. I can provide examples in private if requested, as I fear they may border on the political. Also, I have great respect for the many and varied people on these forums, so I did not wish to point out any one particular thought that I might find incredibly naive, so as not to offend. It appears I may have done the exact opposite.
But fer chrissakes, don't go accusing me of symonizing. Them's fighting words!! [;)]
warspite1
Okay mate, good to hear it [:)]
I think we should stick to less controversial subjects in future.
Hey, how 'bout them A-bombs? [:D]