ISIS - Who da f*ck are you?

[shickingbrits]

I was't on a a damn meaningful a quest for the truth to start with all I was doing was commenting about how many times the Japanese rejected surrender in the summer of 1945. I wasn't writing a masters thesis just stating my knowledge of events learned through years of being hobbyist so to speak of WW2.Now u can flap your gums some more about how stupid I am but it don't change the fucking facts about the surrender.

The Japanese said that the condition for surrender would be keeping their emperor. It was rejected by the US twice. After the bombs and the unconditional surrender, the US let them keep their emperor. I think BBS pointed this out.

The point being that Truman wanted to bomb them. He was being advised by the powers that be at the time, the military and he was too much of a nobody to say no. Truman didn't even know there was a bomb until he took office and most people feel that Roosevelt or Wallace wouldn't have dropped it but would have agreed to the surrender and meted out better terms to the Russians, thereby foregoing the cold war and nuclear arms race.

[BigBallinStalin]

Manipulated and exploited on a game site forum where no one knows who I am ?dude I need some of what u r smoking so I can experience being batshit crazy.If I feel like posting I will and I will not be touching up my APA format skills to do so.

Wow... I thought you could make the connection yourself. Judging from your stupidity in this thread, it's safe to assume you're just as stupid out in the real world. Have fun being ignorant and manipulated.

It's also safe to assume your a pompous fucking prick who spends his day calling others stupid and idiotic.I've noticed noticed no one is beneath your contempt on this site(other than your ass sucking Jew hating dweeb friend Saxi)so scroll around here like your the big fucking man on campus if it floats your boat. I don't know how I will sleep tonight knowing I'm not an intellectual giant such as yourself.

You dish out insults when I ask for verification, so I'll serve you your attitude. You don't like it what you get because you don't like yourself.

By the way, instead of spewing all your nonsense, it would've been faster to provide sources for your claims. What does that say about your relative valuation between knowledge and ignorance?

[a6mzero]

Now your a psychologist gd u r one talented sob are't u?

[a6mzero]

No mention of the emperor is made at all in the Potsdam declaration.

[shickingbrits]

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.
Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

[a6mzero]

Yes of course Japan was trying to surrender . It certainly explains why the army had 900,000 men working around the clock fortifying the beaches and island of Kyushu(projected site of US invasion fleet).I guess they just wanted the men to stay in shape.

[shickingbrits]

Yes, that is generally how it works. A country offers surrender and then throws down its arms before the surrender is accepted.

[a6mzero]

In keeping with this threads revisionist history of the Japanese surrender, North Vietnam did fire on a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin,Poland did attack Germany first and there were WMD's in Iraq.

[shickingbrits]

What would it take for you to consider that there was a bombless option to obtain exactly what was obtained from Japan?

[Pirlo]

OK this thread was totally derailed. It moved from discussing ISIS to discussing Japan and WWII.

[notyou2]

OK this thread was totally derailed. It moved from discussing ISIS to discussing Japan and WWII.

Who da f*ck are you?

[mrswdk]

ISIS are what happens when imperialists like America and Japan run amok.

Click image to enlarge.

[muy_thaiguy]

China doesn't have much room calling others imperialists...

[mrswdk]

China doesn't have much room calling others imperialists...

[FoxMists]

They're very likely to be an unintended consequence of US foreign policy's tampering with the region, so I'd rule out the first possible conspiracy theory you mentioned.

Other than that, I'm not sure. They look like a bunch of guys with guns who (1) tell people to follow the extreme rules of some silly book, (2) take other people's resources, and (3) are so far successful in their territorial conquests. (But that sums up what the media has been generally blabbing about for awhile, so I'm sorry, DY).

Did you mean "America"?

[shickingbrits]

They're very likely to be an unintended consequence of US foreign policy's tampering with the region, so I'd rule out the first possible conspiracy theory you mentioned.

Other than that, I'm not sure. They look like a bunch of guys with guns who (1) tell people to follow the extreme rules of some silly book, (2) take other people's resources, and (3) are so far successful in their territorial conquests. (But that sums up what the media has been generally blabbing about for awhile, so I'm sorry, DY).

Did you mean "America"?

+ 1

[GoranZ]

China doesn't have much room calling others imperialists...

China imperialistic
You need more than ape level IQ so you can bring conclusions about other countries.

[BigBallinStalin]

China doesn't have much room calling others imperialists...

China imperialistic
You need more than ape level IQ so you can bring conclusions about other countries.

Imperialism, as it is defined by the Oxford Dictionaries, is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."

Has China never administered foreign lands, used military force and other means (e.g. economic policy) to influence other countries?

The 'rocks and reefs' debate is a good example of China exerting its 'imperialism', but imperialism is an emotionally loaded word. Clearly, China's been using military force to exert greater control over lands which other countries claim.

China has had a lovely history of expanding through military conquest too. It's not like the borders of China today are the same as the borders of 'China' in 1500BC, 100AD, etc. China has also had a lovely history of demanding tribute from Korea, Japan, and neighboring groups.

[tzor]

You locked it and gave the government the key.

My safe doesn't have a key.

[mrswdk]

China doesn't have much room calling others imperialists...

China imperialistic
You need more than ape level IQ so you can bring conclusions about other countries.

Imperialism, as it is defined by the Oxford Dictionaries, is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."

Has China never administered foreign lands, used military force and other means (e.g. economic policy) to influence other countries?

The 'rocks and reefs' debate is a good example of China exerting its 'imperialism', but imperialism is an emotionally loaded word. Clearly, China's been using military force to exert greater control over lands which other countries claim.

China has had a lovely history of expanding through military conquest too. It's not like the borders of China today are the same as the borders of 'China' in 1500BC, 100AD, etc. China has also had a lovely history of demanding tribute from Korea, Japan, and neighboring groups.

If you're going to define 'imperialism' as 'a policy of extending power and influence' then every single country in the world is imperialistic. Argentina, Sudan, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Indian, Uganda, Somalia... all have recently engaged in 'imperialism'. Every country that has ever sought a Security Council seat is imperialistic. Even Scotland's upcoming independence referendum could be classed as imperialism (a vote for independence would increase Scotland's sovereign power). That definition is so vague as to not really mean anything.

China's territorial disputes with some of its maritime neighbors do not qualify it as an 'imperialistic' nation, and neither did the (long dead) tribute system. Tribute was just a vanity project, something outsiders had to give before they could trade with China. China never sought to influence the internal politics of countries such as Korea or Japan during that period.

'China' has historically been fairly uninterested in having much to do with the outside world and remained that way until being repeatedly invaded by the Great Powers. Even since then China has remained focused solely on itself and its immediate borders, so trying to smear it as 'imperialistic' seems a little desperate.

[GoranZ]

China doesn't have much room calling others imperialists...

China imperialistic
You need more than ape level IQ so you can bring conclusions about other countries.

Imperialism, as it is defined by the Oxford Dictionaries, is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."

Has China never administered foreign lands, used military force and other means (e.g. economic policy) to influence other countries?

The 'rocks and reefs' debate is a good example of China exerting its 'imperialism', but imperialism is an emotionally loaded word. Clearly, China's been using military force to exert greater control over lands which other countries claim.

China has had a lovely history of expanding through military conquest too. It's not like the borders of China today are the same as the borders of 'China' in 1500BC, 100AD, etc. China has also had a lovely history of demanding tribute from Korea, Japan, and neighboring groups.

China is by no means using its military might to spread their influence as much as its western competitors or Japan... If China would have acted imperialistic(at western measurements) then the world we know today would have looked much different.

[mrswdk]

Are you counting Russia as part of the West there, GoranZ?

[BigBallinStalin]

China doesn't have much room calling others imperialists...

China imperialistic
You need more than ape level IQ so you can bring conclusions about other countries.

Imperialism, as it is defined by the Oxford Dictionaries, is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."

Has China never administered foreign lands, used military force and other means (e.g. economic policy) to influence other countries?

The 'rocks and reefs' debate is a good example of China exerting its 'imperialism', but imperialism is an emotionally loaded word. Clearly, China's been using military force to exert greater control over lands which other countries claim.

China has had a lovely history of expanding through military conquest too. It's not like the borders of China today are the same as the borders of 'China' in 1500BC, 100AD, etc. China has also had a lovely history of demanding tribute from Korea, Japan, and neighboring groups.

If you're going to define 'imperialism' as 'a policy of extending power and influence' then every single country in the world is imperialistic. Argentina, Sudan, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Indian, Uganda, Somalia... all have recently engaged in 'imperialism'. Every country that has ever sought a Security Council seat is imperialistic. Even Scotland's upcoming independence referendum could be classed as imperialism (a vote for independence would increase Scotland's sovereign power). That definition is so vague as to not really mean anything.


China's territorial disputes with some of its maritime neighbors do not qualify it as an 'imperialistic' nation, and neither did the (long dead) tribute system. Tribute was just a vanity project, something outsiders had to give before they could trade with China. China never sought to influence the internal politics of countries such as Korea or Japan during that period.

'China' has historically been fairly uninterested in having much to do with the outside world and remained that way until being repeatedly invaded by the Great Powers. Even since then China has remained focused solely on itself and its immediate borders, so trying to smear it as 'imperialistic' seems a little desperate.

Scotland's not colonizing lands beyond its borders, is it? It's seceding from G.B. That's like... anti-imperialism. You wouldn't call former colonies, which secede from their masters, imperialistic, would you? That wouldn't make sense.

Generally, imperialism refers to expansion through military conquest, colonization, etc. That's why people don't balk at the saying, "China was an empire" because it was. It leaned on neighboring powers for tribute and has a lovely history of conquering and colonizing lands. To this day, it even manages at least three colonies! (Tibet, Xinjiang, and... Northeast Mongolia--or whatever they call it), and it would love to conquer Taiwan.

Currently, China is building the means to project its power farther, and it's getting pushy about a bunch of rocks and reefs--which isn't as Grand as the Mongolian Empire, but all imperial means start with a first step.

[BigBallinStalin]

China doesn't have much room calling others imperialists...

China imperialistic
You need more than ape level IQ so you can bring conclusions about other countries.

Imperialism, as it is defined by the Oxford Dictionaries, is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."

Has China never administered foreign lands, used military force and other means (e.g. economic policy) to influence other countries?

The 'rocks and reefs' debate is a good example of China exerting its 'imperialism', but imperialism is an emotionally loaded word. Clearly, China's been using military force to exert greater control over lands which other countries claim.

China has had a lovely history of expanding through military conquest too. It's not like the borders of China today are the same as the borders of 'China' in 1500BC, 100AD, etc. China has also had a lovely history of demanding tribute from Korea, Japan, and neighboring groups.

China is by no means using its military might to spread their influence as much as its western competitors or Japan... If China would have acted imperialistic(at western measurements) then the world we know today would have looked much different.

1. China was imperialistic.
2. China is imperialistic--see its three colonies which are cutely called Semi-autonomous regions (yeah, right).
3. China has been pushing for more land, which albeit small, have potential claim to great resources.
4. It doesn't matter if China today is less pushy than Nazi Germany; it's still acting imperialistic--especially with its control over three colonies in 'China Proper'.