Believing in a fact doesn't make it a fact...

[Sircnay]

Okie dokie here's the rant of the day by me.

So in english class today we were comparing and contrasting two speeches. One by FDR and one by Bush. Both the day after two massive assaults on the USA. So our teacher asked us what the differences in the speeches were. Some numbnut sissy pants nancy boy rose his hand and said:

"Well they are completely different because they're two different circumstances. One was an attack on sea and one was in air. Japan attacked us because they wanted to provoke us into the War with Germany."

After he was done spewing his crap I raised my hand and said, "I'd like to disagree completely based on the fact that everything he said is mis-information. First off they aren't completely different. Two foreign nations attacked us using aircrafts. A technicality, yes but nonetheless it was the same. Secondly, Japan didn't attack us because they wanted to provoke us. They attacked us because we were starving them of oil. They needed it just like any other country. And lastly, Japan attacked us out of necessity, it's not like they wanted to. Al Qaeda attacked us because they're religious fanatics who don't like the way we think. The circumstances were the same, the intentions were polar opposites."

After class some whore came up to me and said, "You know why do you always have to correct everyone?" "Because when they're wrong, you're supposed to correct them." "Yeah, but he believed that what he thought was the truth."Me: *blank stare* "Wait. So are you saying that I should respect him because he believed in a lie?""Well... you don't always have to be right all the time." "I'm not right all the time." "Well you act like it." "No, I spent tons more time than either you or him learning things you'll never understand or know." "Yeah well I learned things too." (me slightly pissed at this point) "Well apparently not enough." "You shouldn't have been so mean to him though.""I wasn't...""You were pretty mean about it, you could've let him be and not argue.""Okay... so you're mad because I was basing my argument on fact while he was basing his on mis-information? And I shouldn't try to teach him otherwise? What the crap?"

So in conclusion. If you believe in something that is historically wrong you should stop it because you'll be living a lie. Idiots.

[Cyberkreig]

Thank you, Thank you so much.

I love that if you correct someone who is just flat out wrong, then you are being a know-it-all

[[Zero-S]]

Know it all...

Good job of trying to cure the disease that seems to be plaguing our schools...stupidity.

[Cold_Zero]

Good stuff Sircnay,Just two points:1. Pearl Harbor. I had been of the impression from school that the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor in order to conduct on decisive blow against the American Fleet in the Pacific. With the American Fleet destroyed (oops the Carriers were away), nothing would stand in the way of Japan's occupation of most of the Pacific. You are correct; the attack on Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with the War in Europe. The United States used it as an excuse for entering into the War in Europe. I had never heard the oil aspect of the war in the Pacific. 2. 9-11. The official reason why Al Qaeda conducted an attack on World Trade Center was to strike a blow against the United States of America for “Occupying” the Holy sites of Mecca and Medina. With the United States Military using bases in Saudi Arabia, this was viewed as blasphemy to Fundamentalist Islamists. The bombing of the Kobar Towers, the bombing of the USS Cole, the failed bombing of the World Trade Center and the Embassy Bombings in Africa were conducted for this reason. I personally do not believe that if the United States pulled its troops out of Saudi Arabia, that Al Qaeda would have gone away. I personally think that Usama Bin Laden hated the fact that the United States was meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries and the region after Desert Storm. I am sure he is now pissed about the fact that the US invaded Afghanistan, deposed the Taliban and sent him on the run.

Regardless of the technical aspects of the attack, these two attacks on the United States are not different. The two attackers hit the United States for political purposes. They wanted the United States out of the picture in the Geo-Political roll of both regions.

bud

[rydwhite]

Damn it Bud, you're mean, why do you have to be such a know-it-all? :pface

[Nismo_Freak]

Good stuff Sircnay,Just two points:1. Pearl Harbor. I had been of the impression from school that the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor in order to conduct on decisive blow against the American Fleet in the Pacific. With the American Fleet destroyed (oops the Carriers were away), nothing would stand in the way of Japan's occupation of most of the Pacific. You are correct; the attack on Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with the War in Europe. The United States used it as an excuse for entering into the War in Europe. I had never heard the oil aspect of the war in the Pacific.

Actually the Japanese hit the US at Pearl Harbor with the intent of causing such a destructive blow that we would not enter the war for several years on the Japanses front. Had our carriers been at Pearl Harbor this may very well have been the case, Midway would have never happened and the Japanese fleet would remain powerful. We would have lost alot of our later allied bases from which we staged the next assaults on our drive towards Tokyo. The timing for Pearl Harbor was simply as stated, because of the US cutting it's supply of oil to Japan because of it's incursions into Manchuria. Japan felt that if it took any longer to stage the attack they would starve their war machine of oil.

Japan's aim was not to invade the Pacific, there is nothing to gain there. The reason they occupied many of the islands was to supply it's fleet's operations.

[Cold_Zero]

Here is an update: I was speaking with a guy at work, a "history buff." Apparently that US was running a clandestine operation in China that outfitted a "Rogue Army" to fight the Japanese. There was a group of fighter pilots trained and equipped by the US call the Flying Tigers. They were responsible for many Mitsubishi Zeros being shot down in the 1930'-1940's. This guy also mentioned that Minerals and Oil were a big source of contention between Japan and the US. In order for Japan to continue the expansion of its Empire in the Pacific, they would need mineral and oil from places like the Philippines. Obviously, the US would protest and intervene if places like the Philippines were invaded.

This guy stop short of implying that the US egged on Japan in the Pacific, but believes it helped the Japanese make up their mind to hit the US fleet at Pearl Harbor.

[Nismo_Freak]

Yep, which is why the US started it's estabolishment of economic sanctions on Japan in the 30's.

And as we all know we had pilots fightin the Germans in the Battle for Britain at the time as well.

[Cold_Zero]

Actually the Japanese hit the US at Pearl Harbor with the intent of causing such a destructive blow that we would not enter the war for several years on the Japanses front. Had our carriers been at Pearl Harbor this may very well have been the case, Midway would have never happened and the Japanese fleet would remain powerful. We would have lost alot of our later allied bases from which we staged the next assaults on our drive towards Tokyo. The timing for Pearl Harbor was simply as stated, because of the US cutting it's supply of oil to Japan because of it's incursions into Manchuria. Japan felt that if it took any longer to stage the attack they would starve their war machine of oil.

Japan's aim was not to invade the Pacific, there is nothing to gain there. The reason they occupied many of the islands was to supply it's fleet's operations.

So you are implying that the Japanese had no intentions of controlling the Pacific and just wanted oil? I realize that most Atolls were used as outposts, communications relays and air strips which would have been strategic to the Japanese Military. But the occupation of places like the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia, and French Southeast Asia affected shipping in the whole region. This would have been an Economic Strategic value to the Japanese Empire.

[Nismo_Freak]

So you are implying that the Japanese had no intentions of controlling the Pacific and just wanted oil? I realize that most Atolls were used as outposts, communications relays and air strips which would have been strategic to the Japanese Military. But the occupation of places like the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia, and French Southeast Asia affected shipping in the whole region. This would have been an Economic Strategic value to the Japanese Empire.

The US had little to stand in the way of a Japanse invasion of the Phillipines and the area. They already controlled a large area in this region.

They wanted control over the Pacific but it wasn't the main factor for the attack. Keep in mind the Japanese fleet wasn't small, they didn't fear the US at the time. What they feared was time, given that the US had more industrial power than any nation in that era and a safe haven from attack. They wanted to deliver such a devistating blow to the US Pacific Fleet so that they would spend years rebuilding it and by the time it was rebuilt, the Japanese would have gained a foothold in China, and built their own response to the US.

[Cold_Zero]

Yes, the US didn’t an overwhelming fleet that would stand in the way of the Japanese invasion of the Philippines and the rest of the Pacific (Australia), but they were the only thing standing in the way of Japanese dominance in the war. And it did pose a threat. With the British fleet (military) detained in the Atlantic fighting the Germans, the French occupied by the Germans and their fleet in disarray, the Russians not maintaining significant fleet in the Pacific and the Dutch occupied by Germany, the US was the only force that stood in the way of Japanese dominance in the Pacific.

And yes, as I implied in my first response. If the Japanese could destroy the American Fleet in the Pacific, they thought it would take the US years to rebuild their fleet. I guess they counted wrong. When the American “War Machine” and Industry when into full production, we produced ships at a rate that outpaced the Japanese.

My point was (yes) oil was a contributing factor with the attack on Pearl Harbor. But it was not the only reason. The reason why Japan needed oil and minerals was to feed their war machine in order to expand the Empire. Their government (the military) had an Imperialistic outlook for the country. Japan had and still has little domestic resources. I think we agree in general and are arguing over semantics.

[Sircnay]

Screw you guys, that wasn't the point of this post.

Anyway yeah I could've gone into much more major details as to why Japan attacked. But it's like when you ask someone what the civil war was about, general answer: slavery. Anyway stupid people are dumb and when you correct them other idiots will swarm in and try to make you seem like the bad guy for correcting the wrongs. People suck.

[Nismo_Freak]

Screw you guys, that wasn't the point of this post.

Anyway yeah I could've gone into much more major details as to why Japan attacked. But it's like when you ask someone what the civil war was about, general answer: slavery. Anyway stupid people are dumb and when you correct them other idiots will swarm in and try to make you seem like the bad guy for correcting the wrongs. People suck.

The Civil War was not over slavery... textbooks will say that, but it's politically correctness crap.

The Civil War used to be known as the "War of Nothern Aggression" years and years before someone coined it the Civil War.

[Nismo_Freak]

"Japan attacked us because they wanted to provoke us into the War with Germany."

This kid sucks at life... Germany declared war on the US.

[nametakennow]

AGH! Why did I read all this? I'm at home, school is almost out, and my brain has officially shut off to all knowledge except that of cars and women, why did you guys hit my weakness (car board) with historical knowledge? GARR!

edit: Oh, and I have the same problem. Anytime I correct someone I'm suddenly more of a jack*** than I already was...

[90Q45blue]

The Civil War was not over slavery... textbooks will say that, but it's politically correctness crap.

The Civil War used to be known as the "War of Nothern Aggression" years and years before someone coined it the Civil War.

Alan,

You are so wrong. Slavery was precisely what the Civil War was about. I just so happen to study the Civil War quite a bit and just so happen to have taken several course on the political thought behind it, including my American Political Thought course....the same final I just got finished taking.

Judah Benjamin, Louisiana Senator said in 1860: "It is a revolution and it can no more be checked by human effort... than a prarie fire by a gardener's watering pot." (It refers to the war and the South's decision to secede)

This is what you are believing is true, but what most people don't know is that, in 1859, Judah Benjamin said the following: "Make no mistake, this is a war about slavery and about preserving that which we hold most dear, our livelihood."

The war was about slavery, the Southern Congressman knew however that slavery was not a justification for succession, so Benjamin wrote the "Rules for Secession", which said that, because the Southern states were not able to sue or receive a redress of grievances, then, under precedent set by Jefferson and Madison's Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions, then they had the right to nullify the law. If they were not given that option, then their only option was to secede. The Union then, makes the choice of whether to let them go peacefully or fight to bring them back.

This in mind, remember that, before Benjamin's writing, the Southerners agreed that the war would be about slavery. Read some Benjamin Fitzhugh if you want the Southern perspective on the importance of slavery to them and why they should fight for it. Fascinating read as he actually says the northern factory workers are slaves and the southern slaves are family.

Nick

[90Q45blue]

P.S. On an interesting sidenote on slavery and civil rights, the United States fought against the United Nations all the way until the late 70s because the United States did not want the UN to value universal suffrage as a basic right. :rolleyes

[Nismo_Freak]

Alan,

You are so wrong. Slavery was precisely what the Civil War was about. I just so happen to study the Civil War quite a bit and just so happen to have taken several course on the political thought behind it, including my American Political Thought course....the same final I just got finished taking.

Judah Benjamin, Louisiana Senator said in 1860: "It is a revolution and it can no more be checked by human effort... than a prarie fire by a gardener's watering pot." (It refers to the war and the South's decision to secede)

This is what you are believing is true, but what most people don't know is that, in 1859, Judah Benjamin said the following: "Make no mistake, this is a war about slavery and about preserving that which we hold most dear, our livelihood."

The war was about slavery, the Southern Congressman knew however that slavery was not a justification for succession, so Benjamin wrote the "Rules for Secession", which said that, because the Southern states were not able to sue or receive a redress of grievances, then, under precedent set by Jefferson and Madison's Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions, then they had the right to nullify the law. If they were not given that option, then their only option was to secede. The Union then, makes the choice of whether to let them go peacefully or fight to bring them back.

This in mind, remember that, before Benjamin's writing, the Southerners agreed that the war would be about slavery. Read some Benjamin Fitzhugh if you want the Southern perspective on the importance of slavery to them and why they should fight for it. Fascinating read as he actually says the northern factory workers are slaves and the southern slaves are family.

Nick

That wasn't my point really... the war was fought because the Northern states were trying to "ruin the southern way of life".

Slavery just so happened to be one of the topics, and a large one at that but it wasn't the whole reason behind the war. The north failing to recognize the sucession was another factor, note, Texas was ILLEGALLY forced back into the Union. Also as you'll recall the south was facing enourmous taxation legislation with the Northern Republican party gaining political power. They then faced being subverted into meer colonies to support northern industrialization.

There are alot of underlayed facts on why the South struck up arms.

[Cold_Zero]

Screw you guys, that wasn't the point of this post.

True, I did highjack your thread.

[AZhitman]

Spectacular!

BTW, I love Civil War history, having lived for most of my childhood in one of the most important cities of the Civil War - Vicksburg. The story of the Siege of Vicksburg contains horrors that rival that of any modern terrorlst activity...

Spent many a day at the National Military Park, and actually participated in an excavation and restoration project there for my Eagle project.

Technically, Nick and Alan are both right - The catalyst and most emotionally galvanizing factor of the war was slavery, but Alan's statement that there were so many underlying issues has merit. Some of this was just simple "regionalism" which persists in many trailer parks and beer halls to this day.

Don't ever let anyone fool you - The North were NOT the "sophisticated aristocrats" that history represents them as, it's actually more realistic to view the South as more well-bred and refined, with the exception of their participation in the barbarism of slavery.

However, slaves were JUST as prevalent in the North, they just weren't Negro slaves. My Dad can tell stories of his family members forced into "indentured servitude" because of their minority status and limited command of English - At least the Southern slaves were, as Nick said, considered "family" - The northern slaves (multiple ethnic groups) were considered "subhuman".

One more reason I hold to my Southern roots, you'd be surprised how little of the stereotypes are true and how the "intellectual revisionists" have rewritten history to suit their needs.

Anyway, back to Sircnay's issue - Well done, sir - Keep it up!

[Sircnay]

True dat about the northies and the southies peoples. But you can't deny that the southies people are slightly more racist than the rest of America, no? Or did I just visit the wrong parts of the south?

Hmm while we're at it why don't I pull up other major historical events to hijack my thread... jackasses. Hmm how about why Israel and Iran are beating the living crap out of each other all the time? Or how about why the USSR jumped ship. Or how about why Prince Ferdinand didn't give Christopher Colombus the money for the trip. Or where he really ended up? Huh? Anything else you want to hijack my thread with jerks? HUH?! WHAT NOW? BRING IT WHORES! BRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGG IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!

[AZhitman]

LOL @ Sircnay...

How about the genocide of the Armenians by the Turks/Ottoman Empire?

More Armenians were systematically slaughtered than Jews during the Holocaust, yet you NEVER hear anything from us, do ya? Nope, cuz we're TOUGH.

BTW, the racism thing is a stereotype, I could go into a long explanation, but let's just say you at least know where you stand in the South. Northern racists are much more underhanded and sneaky, and their racism is REAL and has an impact - Southern racism is oftentimes just harmless talk, as the interracial proximities are very pronounced in the deep South.

More later.

p.s. Hi, Jack! :wavey

[Jesda]

You guys need to quit hurting each other and agree to disagree and be nice and not be such mean jerks.

Lets hug, okay?

[Sircnay]

Now I know what the "q" stands for in Q45. It stands for Queer 4 li5e.

[Jesda]

Deep down inside, I think you just want to share a pack of fat free gummi bears.

[Sircnay]

Fat free this! ....

I don't have anything to retort with.

[Dattebayo]

hey did you call him a sissy pants when you corrected him in class, or what? I wish you had a tape or some kinda media from that discussion.

[Sircnay]

Check it out. Nobody has the balls to post now that I went all crazy nuts on them. What now whores? Who wants some huh? HUH?!

....jackass, have to ruin my triumph don't you? but no I didn't call him a sissy pants. I've called people nancy boys before in class but that's just to shut them up.

[crzycav86]

here's my 2 cents: In many cases, there's nothing wrong with believing a lie or being ignorant.

[Sircnay]

Being ignorant or wrong is like being a Rice burning loser.