HBO : Rape in the Congo

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: ed21x

In fact, as JS80 pointed out Asia has been reaping the benefits of it in a serious way. South Korea and Japan are where they are today because of Western technology, not to mention social conventions. Before Western influence Japan was an isolated feudal society. Today they are one of the most prosperous countries in the world with one of the highest standards of living.

Before Western Influence, China was one of the largest, most prosperous kingdoms in the world.

As for Japan, before Western Influence, this 'isolated feudal society' dominated Russia during the Russo-Japanese war, and we'd probably all be speaking Japanese if they decided not to take over all of Asia and blitzed us since the very beginning of WW2.

Did you eat lead paintchips as a child?

go back and read the stats on the Japanese military at the start of ww2. They had 10 aircraft carriers... like what we have now. except at that time, we only had three. Good thing they had an entire continent to keep them occupied.

Japan was nearly entirely dependent on the U.S. for scrap metal & oil in the lead up to WWII.
In 1939, Japan got 75% of their scrap metal from the U.S.
In 1940, Japan got nearly 80% of their oil from the U.S.

Tell me again how they were going to beat the U.S.?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: ed21x

In fact, as JS80 pointed out Asia has been reaping the benefits of it in a serious way. South Korea and Japan are where they are today because of Western technology, not to mention social conventions. Before Western influence Japan was an isolated feudal society. Today they are one of the most prosperous countries in the world with one of the highest standards of living.

Before Western Influence, China was one of the largest, most prosperous kingdoms in the world.

As for Japan, before Western Influence, this 'isolated feudal society' dominated Russia during the Russo-Japanese war, and we'd probably all be speaking Japanese if they decided not to take over all of Asia and blitzed us since the very beginning of WW2.

Did you eat lead paintchips as a child?

go back and read the stats on the Japanese military at the start of ww2. They had 10 aircraft carriers... like what we have now. except at that time, we only had three. Good thing they had an entire continent to keep them occupied.

Because you can take over a country with aircraft carriers, right? You don't need soldiers at all!

Go read up on the relative military sizes, and the population size of the US versus Japan in World War 2. Once you're done crying and realizing how unbelievably stupid you are, come back in here and admit you are completely utterly clueless.

Is he implying if Japan was not occupied with the Asian continent they could have taken over America?

 

[Agentbolt]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: ed21x

In fact, as JS80 pointed out Asia has been reaping the benefits of it in a serious way. South Korea and Japan are where they are today because of Western technology, not to mention social conventions. Before Western influence Japan was an isolated feudal society. Today they are one of the most prosperous countries in the world with one of the highest standards of living.

Before Western Influence, China was one of the largest, most prosperous kingdoms in the world.

As for Japan, before Western Influence, this 'isolated feudal society' dominated Russia during the Russo-Japanese war, and we'd probably all be speaking Japanese if they decided not to take over all of Asia and blitzed us since the very beginning of WW2.

Did you eat lead paintchips as a child?

go back and read the stats on the Japanese military at the start of ww2. They had 10 aircraft carriers... like what we have now. except at that time, we only had three. Good thing they had an entire continent to keep them occupied.

Because you can take over a country with aircraft carriers, right? You don't need soldiers at all!

Go read up on the relative military sizes, and the population size of the US versus Japan in World War 2. Once you're done crying and realizing how unbelievably stupid you are, come back in here and admit you are completely utterly clueless.

Is he implying if Japan was not occupied with the Asian continent they could have taken over America?

You tell me

and we'd probably all be speaking Japanese if they decided not to take over all of Asia and blitzed us since the very beginning of WW2.

I realize this thread's gotten off topic and I'm not helping, but statements as false, stupid, and clueless as that one need to be addressed.

 

[ed21x]

Are you kidding me? Up to Western intervention Qing China was in constant political and social strife and on an economic downturn. Not to mention the Qing were in fact a foreign power who had come in and conquered China. Out of all the foreign interlopers through China's history Western Europe has brought the most beneficial advancements. By far.

The Qing Dynasty took over China in the early 1600s and ruled till the early 1900s or so... so if you still consider that a 'foreign' rule, than I guess America is still ruled by Europeans 'foreigners.' You can't generalize 300 years of rule as an 'economic downturn' when so much can happen in such a long period of time. Many wars were fought in that period, but also many things in China were established as well.

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: Svnla
Wrong. Vietnam suffered after the war because of stupid communist leadership (knows how to fight wars but doesn't know how to run a civil country), wars with China and Cambodia, stupid internal policies (similar to Iraq now--eliminated/pushed out all the former government employees with all the knowledge/know how), closed to all other countries except USSR, just to name a few. Not because of the US pulled out.

You need to read books about history more. Farang gave a few good pointers already.

Way to ignore the more important point of the post so you could hone in on the only petty detail you thought you might be able to contest.

That said the last line of JS80's post is pure religion.

What did I ignore from JS80's post? He stated Vietnam suffered because of US pulled out and lack of western investment/technical know how. I stated my counter points/reasons. I am not saying Vietnam would be strong as Japan/Korea/etc. but wouldn't be in such as a sorry state as it was. The communist leadership finally opened the country <doi moi> and changed the policy <let out siders come in with money -western AND easterners- to invest, stop all wars, let people make profits from their hardwork instead of the government>.

Do you/him or any one even know or experience about the "re-educated" camps and all the bad things (starvation, wars, land grab, no college if your family worked for formergovernment, etc.) the communist Northerners did when they took over the whole country? I thought so.

So much easier to say "of course, western know how and money" are cure for all. And I would not want to brag about "broad" western leadership too much either.

You ignored his main point, which is that Western technology and social advancements have brought prosperity to the successful nations of East Asia.

No sir, he said and I quote "Are you kidding? Asia would be nothing without western capital investments and technical expertise. Case in point - Vietnam, kicked out the US, they suffered post Vietnam War". He didn't say anything about social advancements. I stated in my second post in this thread replied to him about how the USSR's billions and technical know hows could not save the communist regime UNTIL they changed <doi moi> their FAIL COMMUNIST policy.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: ed21x

In fact, as JS80 pointed out Asia has been reaping the benefits of it in a serious way. South Korea and Japan are where they are today because of Western technology, not to mention social conventions. Before Western influence Japan was an isolated feudal society. Today they are one of the most prosperous countries in the world with one of the highest standards of living.

Before Western Influence, China was one of the largest, most prosperous kingdoms in the world.

As for Japan, before Western Influence, this 'isolated feudal society' dominated Russia during the Russo-Japanese war, and we'd probably all be speaking Japanese if they decided not to take over all of Asia and blitzed us since the very beginning of WW2.

Did you eat lead paintchips as a child?

go back and read the stats on the Japanese military at the start of ww2. They had 10 aircraft carriers... like what we have now. except at that time, we only had three. Good thing they had an entire continent to keep them occupied.

Because you can take over a country with aircraft carriers, right? You don't need soldiers at all!

Go read up on the relative military sizes, and the population size of the US versus Japan in World War 2. Once you're done crying and realizing how unbelievably stupid you are, come back in here and admit you are completely utterly clueless.

Alright, I'm trying to engage in friendly debate here, and you come in with inflammatory statements like "Once you're done crying and realizing how unbelievably stupid you are, come back in here and admit you are completely utterly clueless." If you aren't here at least contribute a worthwhile statement, at least keep the insults out of this thread.

Citing carrier numbers is just an indication of their military strength at that time. I highly recommend you read up on relatively military sizes as the data will only prove my point. Once you are done, feel free to tell me how utterly clueless I am. And last I checked, population size means nearly nothing when you have technological superiority.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Alright, I'm trying to engage in friendly debate here, and you come in with inflammatory statements like "Once you're done crying and realizing how unbelievably stupid you are, come back in here and admit you are completely utterly clueless." If you aren't here at least contribute a worthwhile statement, at least keep the insults out of this thread.

Citing carrier numbers is just an indication of their military strength at that time. I highly recommend you read up on relatively military sizes as the data will only prove my point. Once you are done, feel free to tell me how utterly clueless I am. And last I checked, population size means nearly nothing when you have technological superiority.

Again:

From my post a couple of spots up:

Japan was nearly entirely dependent on the U.S. for scrap metal & oil in the lead up to WWII.
In 1939, Japan got 75% of their scrap metal from the U.S.
In 1940, Japan got nearly 80% of their oil from the U.S.

Tell me again how they were going to beat the U.S.?

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: Svnla
Wrong. Vietnam suffered after the war because of stupid communist leadership (knows how to fight wars but doesn't know how to run a civil country), wars with China and Cambodia, stupid internal policies (similar to Iraq now--eliminated/pushed out all the former government employees with all the knowledge/know how), closed to all other countries except USSR, just to name a few. Not because of the US pulled out.

You need to read books about history more. Farang gave a few good pointers already.

Way to ignore the more important point of the post so you could hone in on the only petty detail you thought you might be able to contest.

That said the last line of JS80's post is pure religion.

What did I ignore from JS80's post? He stated Vietnam suffered because of US pulled out and lack of western investment/technical know how. I stated my counter points/reasons. I am not saying Vietnam would be strong as Japan/Korea/etc. but wouldn't be in such as a sorry state as it was. The communist leadership finally opened the country <doi moi> and changed the policy <let out siders come in with money -western AND easterners- to invest, stop all wars, let people make profits from their hardwork instead of the government>.

Do you/him or any one even know or experience about the "re-educated" camps and all the bad things (starvation, wars, land grab, no college if your family worked for formergovernment, etc.) the communist Northerners did when they took over the whole country? I thought so.

So much easier to say "of course, western know how and money" are cure for all. And I would not want to brag about "broad" western leadership too much either.

Doesn't that prove my point? In an alternate Universe where Vietnam was capitalistic but barred foreign (western) capital investment, they would still be a poor country (albeit not as poor).

It is still a poor country (compare to developed countries). It was in wars since 1940's until 1980's, of course it would need financial help. Look at West Germany (a western country) after WWI and WW2, it was devasted after the wars and it took them a while to recover with all the help from outsiders. Look at East Germany, same country but followed the path of communist and look how poor they were compared with W. Germany.

You said "Are you kidding? Asia would be nothing without western capital investments and technical expertise. Case in point - Vietnam, kicked out the US, they suffered post Vietnam War"...ie. if you said Vietnam suffered because of without western capital investments and technical expertise.... I say it is because they followed a FAIL idealogy of communism, not because the lack of money or know how <USSR pumped billions into Vietnam since 1975 to the mid 1980's and sent technical advisers and it didn't work>.

Right, but even with the right ideology (capitalism), you need the capital to implement it (foreign investment), that is of course if you want to rise like a tiger. We may not even be disagreeing.

Of course you have to have money to make money/invest/rebuilt but the point I was trying to make was Vietnam suffered tremendously from 1975 to the late 1980s-early 1990s due to a fail communist policy, NOT because of money <western or eastern> or know how.

I don't know any wealthy/high standard of living communist countries (be it is in Asia, Europe, Africa, America), do you?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: Svnla
Wrong. Vietnam suffered after the war because of stupid communist leadership (knows how to fight wars but doesn't know how to run a civil country), wars with China and Cambodia, stupid internal policies (similar to Iraq now--eliminated/pushed out all the former government employees with all the knowledge/know how), closed to all other countries except USSR, just to name a few. Not because of the US pulled out.

You need to read books about history more. Farang gave a few good pointers already.

Way to ignore the more important point of the post so you could hone in on the only petty detail you thought you might be able to contest.

That said the last line of JS80's post is pure religion.

What did I ignore from JS80's post? He stated Vietnam suffered because of US pulled out and lack of western investment/technical know how. I stated my counter points/reasons. I am not saying Vietnam would be strong as Japan/Korea/etc. but wouldn't be in such as a sorry state as it was. The communist leadership finally opened the country <doi moi> and changed the policy <let out siders come in with money -western AND easterners- to invest, stop all wars, let people make profits from their hardwork instead of the government>.

Do you/him or any one even know or experience about the "re-educated" camps and all the bad things (starvation, wars, land grab, no college if your family worked for formergovernment, etc.) the communist Northerners did when they took over the whole country? I thought so.

So much easier to say "of course, western know how and money" are cure for all. And I would not want to brag about "broad" western leadership too much either.

Doesn't that prove my point? In an alternate Universe where Vietnam was capitalistic but barred foreign (western) capital investment, they would still be a poor country (albeit not as poor).

It is still a poor country (compare to developed countries). It was in wars since 1940's until 1980's, of course it would need financial help. Look at West Germany (a western country) after WWI and WW2, it was devasted after the wars and it took them a while to recover with all the help from outsiders. Look at East Germany, same country but followed the path of communist and look how poor they were compared with W. Germany.

You said "Are you kidding? Asia would be nothing without western capital investments and technical expertise. Case in point - Vietnam, kicked out the US, they suffered post Vietnam War"...ie. if you said Vietnam suffered because of without western capital investments and technical expertise.... I say it is because they followed a FAIL idealogy of communism, not because the lack of money or know how <USSR pumped billions into Vietnam since 1975 to the mid 1980's and sent technical advisers and it didn't work>.

Right, but even with the right ideology (capitalism), you need the capital to implement it (foreign investment), that is of course if you want to rise like a tiger. We may not even be disagreeing.

Of course you have to have money to make money/invest/rebuilt but the point I was trying to make was Vietnam suffered tremendously from 1975 to the late 1980s-early 1990s due to a fail communist policy, NOT because of money <western or eastern> or know how.

I don't know any wealthy/high standard of living communist countries (be it is in Asia, Europe, Africa, America), do you?

Dude we're not even disagreeing on anything.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: ed21x

Alright, I'm trying to engage in friendly debate here, and you come in with inflammatory statements like "Once you're done crying and realizing how unbelievably stupid you are, come back in here and admit you are completely utterly clueless." If you aren't here at least contribute a worthwhile statement, at least keep the insults out of this thread.

Citing carrier numbers is just an indication of their military strength at that time. I highly recommend you read up on relatively military sizes as the data will only prove my point. Once you are done, feel free to tell me how utterly clueless I am. And last I checked, population size means nearly nothing when you have technological superiority.

Again:

From my post a couple of spots up:

Japan was nearly entirely dependent on the U.S. for scrap metal & oil in the lead up to WWII.
In 1939, Japan got 75% of their scrap metal from the U.S.
In 1940, Japan got nearly 80% of their oil from the U.S.

Tell me again how they were going to beat the U.S.?

This traces back to the exact reason why Japan attacked Russia first- for natural resources. In addition, we see evidence for a growing needs (even today) to exploit resources in the Spratly Islands, Taiwan, and the islands in the East China Sea which are fairly huge gas reserves. But I highly doubt we would've stopped selling oil and scrap metal to the Japan unless we had known that they were building ships to be used against us. They had accumulated the resources to become the most powerful naval presence in that area. Perhaps in hindsight we shouldn't have sold scrap metal to Japan, but that is simply what happened. The reason the Japanese lost was because it became a war of attrition, which put them at a disadvantage (yes I know, this is a gross simplification, but they definitely had the technological edge). Nobody mention the atomic bomb, because by that time, the war had already been lost.

 

[Agentbolt]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: ed21x

Alright, I'm trying to engage in friendly debate here, and you come in with inflammatory statements like "Once you're done crying and realizing how unbelievably stupid you are, come back in here and admit you are completely utterly clueless." If you aren't here at least contribute a worthwhile statement, at least keep the insults out of this thread.

Citing carrier numbers is just an indication of their military strength at that time. I highly recommend you read up on relatively military sizes as the data will only prove my point. Once you are done, feel free to tell me how utterly clueless I am. And last I checked, population size means nearly nothing when you have technological superiority.

Again:

From my post a couple of spots up:

Japan was nearly entirely dependent on the U.S. for scrap metal & oil in the lead up to WWII.
In 1939, Japan got 75% of their scrap metal from the U.S.
In 1940, Japan got nearly 80% of their oil from the U.S.

Tell me again how they were going to beat the U.S.?

This traces back to the exact reason why Japan attacked Russia first- for natural resources. In addition, we see evidence for a growing needs (even today) to exploit resources in the Spratly Islands, Taiwan, and the islands in the East China Sea which are fairly huge gas reserves. But I highly doubt we would've stopped selling oil and scrap metal to the Japan unless we had known that they were building ships to be used against us. They had accumulated the resources to become the most powerful naval presence in that area. Perhaps in hindsight we shouldn't have sold scrap metal to Japan, but that is simply what happened. The reason the Japanese lost was because it became a war of attrition, which put them at a disadvantage (yes I know, this is a gross simplification, but they definitely had the technological edge). Nobody mention the atomic bomb, because by that time, the war had already been lost.

I'm having difficulty pulling up any numbers one way or the other regarding army sizes in World War 2, so I'll just rest easy in the assumption that the rest of the people in this thread are willing to take it on faith that the American army was MUCH LARGER than the Japanese one. Without ground troops you can't fucking take over another country, never mind one as large as America. It doesn't freaking matter how many aircraft carriers you have. And not to mention, America has air bases on the mainland anyway. Shocking, right?

But now you've opened a whole exciting new avenue to showcase your lack of knowledge. You're going to claim Japan was technologically superior to us? How exactly is that? Japan didn't even have useable radar systems on their warships!! And if you don't think THAT made a huge difference, well...again, you're really just humiliating yourself at this point.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: ed21x

Alright, I'm trying to engage in friendly debate here, and you come in with inflammatory statements like "Once you're done crying and realizing how unbelievably stupid you are, come back in here and admit you are completely utterly clueless." If you aren't here at least contribute a worthwhile statement, at least keep the insults out of this thread.

Citing carrier numbers is just an indication of their military strength at that time. I highly recommend you read up on relatively military sizes as the data will only prove my point. Once you are done, feel free to tell me how utterly clueless I am. And last I checked, population size means nearly nothing when you have technological superiority.

Again:

From my post a couple of spots up:

Japan was nearly entirely dependent on the U.S. for scrap metal & oil in the lead up to WWII.
In 1939, Japan got 75% of their scrap metal from the U.S.
In 1940, Japan got nearly 80% of their oil from the U.S.

Tell me again how they were going to beat the U.S.?

This traces back to the exact reason why Japan attacked Russia first- for natural resources. In addition, we see evidence for a growing needs (even today) to exploit resources in the Spratly Islands, Taiwan, and the islands in the East China Sea which are fairly huge gas reserves. But I highly doubt we would've stopped selling oil and scrap metal to the Japan unless we had known that they were building ships to be used against us. They had accumulated the resources to become the most powerful naval presence in that area. Perhaps in hindsight we shouldn't have sold scrap metal to Japan, but that is simply what happened. The reason the Japanese lost was because it became a war of attrition, which put them at a disadvantage (yes I know, this is a gross simplification, but they definitely had the technological edge). Nobody mention the atomic bomb, because by that time, the war had already been lost.

I'm having difficulty pulling up any numbers one way or the other regarding army sizes in World War 2, so I'll just rest easy in the assumption that the rest of the people in this thread are willing to take it on faith that the American army was MUCH LARGER than the Japanese one. Without ground troops you can't fucking take over another country, never mind one as large as America. It doesn't freaking matter how many aircraft carriers you have. And not to mention, America has air bases on the mainland anyway. Shocking, right?

But now you've opened a whole exciting new avenue to showcase your lack of knowledge. You're going to claim Japan was technologically superior to us? How exactly is that? Japan didn't even have useable radar systems on their warships!! And if you don't think THAT made a huge difference, well...again, you're really just humiliating yourself at this point.

Too bad none of this matters, we nuked the hell out of them. Now lets return to thread topic shall we gentlemen?

 

[tiejiba]

animals do that

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Are you kidding me? Up to Western intervention Qing China was in constant political and social strife and on an economic downturn. Not to mention the Qing were in fact a foreign power who had come in and conquered China. Out of all the foreign interlopers through China's history Western Europe has brought the most beneficial advancements. By far.

The Qing Dynasty took over China in the early 1600s and ruled till the early 1900s or so... so if you still consider that a 'foreign' rule, than I guess America is still ruled by Europeans 'foreigners.' You can't generalize 300 years of rule as an 'economic downturn' when so much can happen in such a long period of time. Many wars were fought in that period, but also many things in China were established as well.

I didn't call 300 years an economic downturn, I called the period leading up to the European intervention an economic downturn, among other things. The Qing government was imploding at the time. And I call it a foreign rule because the Chinese themselves viewed it as a foreign rule. The Chinese never forgot who were the true Chinese, and neither did they in any of the previous foreign dynasties. Not to mention that the Qing themselves, although adopting some Chinese customs, clearly maintained a distinction between themselves and the ethnic Chinese. The analogy with America is a bad one, because that assumes that there is still a significant native nation present that is under the control of European rulers. The Europeans are the gigantic majority, hence they are the natives now.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: ed21x

Alright, I'm trying to engage in friendly debate here, and you come in with inflammatory statements like "Once you're done crying and realizing how unbelievably stupid you are, come back in here and admit you are completely utterly clueless." If you aren't here at least contribute a worthwhile statement, at least keep the insults out of this thread.

Citing carrier numbers is just an indication of their military strength at that time. I highly recommend you read up on relatively military sizes as the data will only prove my point. Once you are done, feel free to tell me how utterly clueless I am. And last I checked, population size means nearly nothing when you have technological superiority.

Again:

From my post a couple of spots up:

Japan was nearly entirely dependent on the U.S. for scrap metal & oil in the lead up to WWII.
In 1939, Japan got 75% of their scrap metal from the U.S.
In 1940, Japan got nearly 80% of their oil from the U.S.

Tell me again how they were going to beat the U.S.?

But I highly doubt we would've stopped selling oil and scrap metal to the Japan unless we had known that they were building ships to be used against us. They had accumulated the resources to become the most powerful naval presence in that area. Perhaps in hindsight we shouldn't have sold scrap metal to Japan, but that is simply what happened. The reason the Japanese lost was because it became a war of attrition, which put them at a disadvantage (yes I know, this is a gross simplification, but they definitely had the technological edge). Nobody mention the atomic bomb, because by that time, the war had already been lost.

WTF? The U.S. stopped metal and oil exports to Japan because of their aggression against China.

In 1937, Japan went to war against China. As the war increased its scale, Japan advocated the construction of new order in East Asia and made its intention clear to establish a new world order in the region, which had Japan on top as a leader. As the US national interest in China was infringed by such attitude of Japan and the Washington government was provoked, and an imposition of economic sanction against Japan started to be discussed to restrain Japan?s aggression...

In 1939, the US notified Japan that it would renounce the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation that was signed by both countries in 1911. President Roosevelt, then, went on to the imposition of partial embargo of gasoline for aircraft and scrap-metal on Japan in July 1940. Japan countered the partial embargo by advancing its troops to the northern Indo-China, and the US matched the Japan?s expansion with the addition of more subjects to the list of partial embargo. This vicious circle of retaliations escalated and reached its peak when Japan moved even into the southern Indo-China in July, 1941 and the US replied to it by freezing the Japanese assets in the US and, furthermore, by the complete oil embargo on Japan. As a result, the Japanese leaders found themselves in an extremely difficult situation in which they had to make their decision out of two options: to bow before the US, or to fight a desperate war against the US.

Text

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: ed21x

Alright, I'm trying to engage in friendly debate here, and you come in with inflammatory statements like "Once you're done crying and realizing how unbelievably stupid you are, come back in here and admit you are completely utterly clueless." If you aren't here at least contribute a worthwhile statement, at least keep the insults out of this thread.

Citing carrier numbers is just an indication of their military strength at that time. I highly recommend you read up on relatively military sizes as the data will only prove my point. Once you are done, feel free to tell me how utterly clueless I am. And last I checked, population size means nearly nothing when you have technological superiority.

Again:

From my post a couple of spots up:

Japan was nearly entirely dependent on the U.S. for scrap metal & oil in the lead up to WWII.
In 1939, Japan got 75% of their scrap metal from the U.S.
In 1940, Japan got nearly 80% of their oil from the U.S.

Tell me again how they were going to beat the U.S.?

This traces back to the exact reason why Japan attacked Russia first- for natural resources. In addition, we see evidence for a growing needs (even today) to exploit resources in the Spratly Islands, Taiwan, and the islands in the East China Sea which are fairly huge gas reserves. But I highly doubt we would've stopped selling oil and scrap metal to the Japan unless we had known that they were building ships to be used against us. They had accumulated the resources to become the most powerful naval presence in that area. Perhaps in hindsight we shouldn't have sold scrap metal to Japan, but that is simply what happened. The reason the Japanese lost was because it became a war of attrition, which put them at a disadvantage (yes I know, this is a gross simplification, but they definitely had the technological edge). Nobody mention the atomic bomb, because by that time, the war had already been lost.

I'm having difficulty pulling up any numbers one way or the other regarding army sizes in World War 2, so I'll just rest easy in the assumption that the rest of the people in this thread are willing to take it on faith that the American army was MUCH LARGER than the Japanese one. Without ground troops you can't fucking take over another country, never mind one as large as America. It doesn't freaking matter how many aircraft carriers you have. And not to mention, America has air bases on the mainland anyway. Shocking, right?

But now you've opened a whole exciting new avenue to showcase your lack of knowledge. You're going to claim Japan was technologically superior to us? How exactly is that? Japan didn't even have useable radar systems on their warships!! And if you don't think THAT made a huge difference, well...again, you're really just humiliating yourself at this point.

Didn't we have some other conversation going? stick to that one please. 30 different types of radar were built by the Japanese during WW II, with a total of 7256+ sets of all types built.

 

[alkemyst]

hmmm sign on the door said ATOT, how'd I get in P&N?

 

[NanoStuff]

It's not rape, it's chocolate cake.

 

[Agentbolt]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: ed21x

Alright, I'm trying to engage in friendly debate here, and you come in with inflammatory statements like "Once you're done crying and realizing how unbelievably stupid you are, come back in here and admit you are completely utterly clueless." If you aren't here at least contribute a worthwhile statement, at least keep the insults out of this thread.

Citing carrier numbers is just an indication of their military strength at that time. I highly recommend you read up on relatively military sizes as the data will only prove my point. Once you are done, feel free to tell me how utterly clueless I am. And last I checked, population size means nearly nothing when you have technological superiority.

Again:

From my post a couple of spots up:

Japan was nearly entirely dependent on the U.S. for scrap metal & oil in the lead up to WWII.
In 1939, Japan got 75% of their scrap metal from the U.S.
In 1940, Japan got nearly 80% of their oil from the U.S.

Tell me again how they were going to beat the U.S.?

This traces back to the exact reason why Japan attacked Russia first- for natural resources. In addition, we see evidence for a growing needs (even today) to exploit resources in the Spratly Islands, Taiwan, and the islands in the East China Sea which are fairly huge gas reserves. But I highly doubt we would've stopped selling oil and scrap metal to the Japan unless we had known that they were building ships to be used against us. They had accumulated the resources to become the most powerful naval presence in that area. Perhaps in hindsight we shouldn't have sold scrap metal to Japan, but that is simply what happened. The reason the Japanese lost was because it became a war of attrition, which put them at a disadvantage (yes I know, this is a gross simplification, but they definitely had the technological edge). Nobody mention the atomic bomb, because by that time, the war had already been lost.

I'm having difficulty pulling up any numbers one way or the other regarding army sizes in World War 2, so I'll just rest easy in the assumption that the rest of the people in this thread are willing to take it on faith that the American army was MUCH LARGER than the Japanese one. Without ground troops you can't fucking take over another country, never mind one as large as America. It doesn't freaking matter how many aircraft carriers you have. And not to mention, America has air bases on the mainland anyway. Shocking, right?

But now you've opened a whole exciting new avenue to showcase your lack of knowledge. You're going to claim Japan was technologically superior to us? How exactly is that? Japan didn't even have useable radar systems on their warships!! And if you don't think THAT made a huge difference, well...again, you're really just humiliating yourself at this point.

Didn't we have some other conversation going? stick to that one please. 30 different types of radar were built by the Japanese during WW II, with a total of 7256+ sets of all types built.

Fine, my apologies, they didn't not put radar on their ships, they merely waited until it was too late to realize the importance of it. The guy states in your own link above that a lot of people think Japan never used radar due their not realizing its importance and actually using it on all of their ships. I still don't see how this equates with "technological superiority", considering several vital battles at Manilla and Leyte Gulf were lost by the Japanese in large part due to their lack of radar.

Also, you haven't come up with a sound retort as to how Japan was going to get the metal and oil neccessary to even GET to America, never mind take it over, without attacking Asia and Russia. Your statement was that if Asia had not kept them busy, we'd all be speaking Japanese. If they're not attacking Asia, they're not getting their resources, so where are they coming from, Professor?

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: Svnla
Wrong. Vietnam suffered after the war because of stupid communist leadership (knows how to fight wars but doesn't know how to run a civil country), wars with China and Cambodia, stupid internal policies (similar to Iraq now--eliminated/pushed out all the former government employees with all the knowledge/know how), closed to all other countries except USSR, just to name a few. Not because of the US pulled out.

You need to read books about history more. Farang gave a few good pointers already.

Way to ignore the more important point of the post so you could hone in on the only petty detail you thought you might be able to contest.

That said the last line of JS80's post is pure religion.

What did I ignore from JS80's post? He stated Vietnam suffered because of US pulled out and lack of western investment/technical know how. I stated my counter points/reasons. I am not saying Vietnam would be strong as Japan/Korea/etc. but wouldn't be in such as a sorry state as it was. The communist leadership finally opened the country <doi moi> and changed the policy <let out siders come in with money -western AND easterners- to invest, stop all wars, let people make profits from their hardwork instead of the government>.

Do you/him or any one even know or experience about the "re-educated" camps and all the bad things (starvation, wars, land grab, no college if your family worked for formergovernment, etc.) the communist Northerners did when they took over the whole country? I thought so.

So much easier to say "of course, western know how and money" are cure for all. And I would not want to brag about "broad" western leadership too much either.

Doesn't that prove my point? In an alternate Universe where Vietnam was capitalistic but barred foreign (western) capital investment, they would still be a poor country (albeit not as poor).

It is still a poor country (compare to developed countries). It was in wars since 1940's until 1980's, of course it would need financial help. Look at West Germany (a western country) after WWI and WW2, it was devasted after the wars and it took them a while to recover with all the help from outsiders. Look at East Germany, same country but followed the path of communist and look how poor they were compared with W. Germany.

You said "Are you kidding? Asia would be nothing without western capital investments and technical expertise. Case in point - Vietnam, kicked out the US, they suffered post Vietnam War"...ie. if you said Vietnam suffered because of without western capital investments and technical expertise.... I say it is because they followed a FAIL idealogy of communism, not because the lack of money or know how <USSR pumped billions into Vietnam since 1975 to the mid 1980's and sent technical advisers and it didn't work>.

Right, but even with the right ideology (capitalism), you need the capital to implement it (foreign investment), that is of course if you want to rise like a tiger. We may not even be disagreeing.

Of course you have to have money to make money/invest/rebuilt but the point I was trying to make was Vietnam suffered tremendously from 1975 to the late 1980s-early 1990s due to a fail communist policy, NOT because of money <western or eastern> or know how.

I don't know any wealthy/high standard of living communist countries (be it is in Asia, Europe, Africa, America), do you?

Dude we're not even disagreeing on anything.

We (at least on my end) disagree on:

You/Saint Michael/the likes = Asian countries = would be nothing without Western money and know how.

Me/others = there are more, much more than that simple mind statement/conclusion. I already stated some of my counter points/reasons. No need to repeat it again. See my posts above. Feel free to rebutt. Cases in point = W. Germany vs. E. Germany, N. Korea vs. S. Korea, China in the Culture Revolution era vs. China today, same countries/people/culture but Capitalism FTW, Communism FTL.

One more thing. Vietnam was on the brink of starvation in the late 1970s-early 1980s when the regime still hung on a fail communist policy. Forward to the present time, when the regime changed that fail communist policy, Vietname is now the 2nd LARGEST exporters of rice in the world, behind only Thailand. By your logic, yeah, must be those billions and techical know how from Western countries to show them Vietnamese of how to grow rice. Them poor folks (with over 10,000 years of history/legacy) would not have a clue of how to grow rice . :disgust:

 

[Homerboy]

/me ignoring all the blabbering going on in this thread....


I heard about this docu on NPR the other day. They interviewed, in depth, the woman who did it. Just listening to her tell stories and numbers I was amazed. Not overly sure I WANT to watch the docu itself, but feel that I SHOULD watch it. I will.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: ed21x
The reason the Japanese lost was because it became a war of attrition, which put them at a disadvantage (yes I know, this is a gross simplification, but they definitely had the technological edge). Nobody mention the atomic bomb, because by that time, the war had already been lost.

The Japanese only had a technological edge early in the war and even that was only in a few areas. We had pretty much erased their lead by the end of 1942 and and began to really sprint ahead in 1943. One extremely notable deficiency was in their cryptography systems which the US and British had compromised. That one cost them four irreplaceable fleet carriers and hundreds of veteran pilots at Midway and let the US turn the tide.

They also had serious organizational, strategic/tactical planning, and coordination problems that no other significant military power had.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It is sad.
I think the thing that angers me the most is that these people could be helped by the USA if we gave a damn.
We could send troops and aid that wouldn't cost anything near what Iraq is costing and have such a huge impact .
These are people that want our help.
I almost cried when I saw the children in the villages calling out to the UN convoy that was passing through their village pleading for help.

The area is rich with resources.
It contains a mineral coaltan that is used to make cell phones and semiconductors.
And 85% of the worlds supply of that mineral comes from there.
They really need someone to go in there and clean it up, these people are pleading for help and no one is listening.
Sending a care package and paying off warlords isn't going to change things.

we are not the police dept for the planet.

just put a "Free Tibet" bumper sticker on you car and be happy.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Homerboy
/me ignoring all the blabbering going on in this thread....


I heard about this docu on NPR the other day. They interviewed, in depth, the woman who did it. Just listening to her tell stories and numbers I was amazed. Not overly sure I WANT to watch the docu itself, but feel that I SHOULD watch it. I will.

I'd also recommend another documentary called the Origins of AIDS.

It is based on Edward Hooper's book "The River" that alleges scientific negligence during an oral polio vaccine program transfered what would become the HIV virus from Chimpanzees to the human population in the Belgian Congo.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ed21x
The reason the Japanese lost was because it became a war of attrition, which put them at a disadvantage (yes I know, this is a gross simplification, but they definitely had the technological edge). Nobody mention the atomic bomb, because by that time, the war had already been lost.

The Japanese only had a technological edge early in the war and even that was only in a few areas. We had pretty much erased their lead by the end of 1942 and and began to really sprint ahead in 1943. One extremely notable deficiency was in their cryptography systems which the US and British had compromised. That one cost them four irreplaceable fleet carriers and hundreds of veteran pilots at Midway and let the US turn the tide.

They also had serious organizational, strategic/tactical planning, and coordination problems that no other significant military power had.

Thanks for the backup.