Reply With Quote
So you can't find a quote and resort to smarm?
Thought so.
Moonbat gonna moonbat.
There's no solid evidence that we let Pearl Harbor happen. None. That is a conspiracy theory. Not surprised you believe it, though, since you're a 9-11 truther.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_Truth (leftist site, by the way).
So now that you can't provide statistical evidence that the US has more blood on its hands out of any country in human history, you shift to speculating about what is going to happen in the future?
Here's a fun fact for you.
Just be intellectually honest and walkback your claim that no historian, social critic (Chomsky and Zinn, included), or anthropologist would agree with.“In a century that began with 9/11, Iraq, and Darfur, the claim that we are living in an unusually peaceful time may strike you as somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene.” Pinker points out, wars make headlines, but there are fewer conflicts today, and wars don’t kill as many people as they did in the Middle Ages, for instance. Also, global rates of violent crime have plummeted in the last few decades. Pinker notes that the reason for these advances are complex but certainly the rise of education, and a growing willingness to put ourselves in the shoes of others has played its part.
As for our foreign policy over the past 50 years, did me telling you in the last debate that I'm non-interventionist not stick in your brain?
So you can't find a quote and resort to smarm?
Thought so.
Moonbat gonna moonbat.
No need to find a quote of you defending American violence. Your focus on how "bad" other countries are is an implicit thumbs-up for your country exporting mass violence to the world without a single condemnation.
What you should be asking is for your quote of renouncing American imperialism in the 21st century. But we all know, that doesn't exist.
What does me saying, "I want the US to be non-interventionist, close all bases around the world, and end aid to Israel" mean to you?
What you want me to do is act like a flag burning anti-American. I won't because I stopped being a teenager nearly 20 years ago.
But if you want a direct quote, I'm not too prideful to admit I renounce the foreign policy of the 21st century American government right here and now. I didn't vote nor support any of it. So I don't see the issue you have here?
The issue I have is that you only say/post those things when pressed. Your primary focus is on how evil "other" governments behave/have behaved whenever this argument arises. You have 0 sway over those other nations. You're abdicating the value of your citizenship by spending all of your time defending the murder and torture of your own government.
And the proof is in your own posts, which means whomever you're having these same conversations with IRL is going the same way. Hence, your support of nationalism is more than just 1 guy on a message board. You have influence, yet you choose to use it to promote American nationalism instead of pushing back on the World's only superpower using mass violence against the downtrodden and defenseless.
Your telling me the most sophisticated military at the time, didn't have the intelligence to know there was 6 Carriers and 408 and airplanes on their way to blow up one of our military bases and it went unnoticed? Only a full re would believe that. Media took care of that as always. As for my statement I should of said since World War 2. I have provided plenty of numbers to support that so don't start the back pedal by trying and hanging on to the one thing i said. Classic losing an argument rhetoric. I understand you don't agree with foreign policy thats a start, but your old ass needs to understand that the reason the world is a hole today, is because of US. As for 9/11 , if the ing families of the victims don't believe the story, and they want a new investigation into the 9/11 Cmmissi
Follow the debate in this thread and the other thread. When I focus on what other countries have done, it's in response to claims that the US "has the most blood on its hands in human history" or the US was main supplier of Saddam. I'm merely debunking unfactual claims in this case, not discussing US foreign policy in the 21st century, because that's what the debate wasn't initially about.
Now if whitemamba, who triggered the debate in both instances would've said, "I disagree with post-9/11 US foreign policy and think it causes more harm than good," then I would be there agreeing with him. But he veers off into conspiracy theory territory and blind anti-Americanism all too often, spouting literal bull that even Chomsky and Zinn would shake their heads at.
I see you're being massively re ed again.Your telling me the most sophisticated military at the time, didn't have the intelligence to know there was 6 Carriers and 408 and airplanes on their way to blow up one of our military bases and it went unnoticed? Only a full re would believe that. Media took care of that as always. As for my statement I should of said since World War 2. I have provided plenty of numbers to support that so don't start the back pedal by trying and hanging on to the one thing i said. Classic losing an argument rhetoric. I understand you don't agree with foreign policy thats a start, but your old ass needs to understand that the reason the world is a hole today, is because of US. As for 9/11 , if the ing families of the victims don't believe the story, and they want a new investigation into the 9/11 C
We didn't have the most sophisticated military at the time, you drooling dunce. Once again, you display a profound lack of historical knowledge. The Nazis obviously had the most advanced military at the time, which is why it took basically the whole world to stop them.
I won't buy your conspiracy theory until you cite a peer reviewed paper that proves the government had prior knowledge of the attack and "let it happen." But yeah, they're "all in on it," aren't they? From the media all the way down to university professors
Would also like a peer reviewed study on your 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Sure I can admit we ed places up. I disagreed with the Iraq War and methodology of the War on Terror, and those regions are worse off.
But when you spout conspiracy theories and make hyperbolic claims, I'm going to tell you you're wrong.
Calling me re ed, isnt ging to make you right, in fact it only makes me seem more correct.I see you're being massively re ed again.
We didn't have the most sophisticated military at the time, you drooling dunce. Once again, you display a profound lack of historical knowledge. The Nazis obviously had the most advanced military at the time, which is why it took basically the whole world to stop them.
I won't buy your conspiracy theory until you cite a peer reviewed paper that proves the government had prior knowledge of the attack and "let it happen." But yeah, they're "all in on it," aren't they? From the media all the way down to university professors
Would also like a peer reviewed study on your 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Sure I can admit we ed places up. I disagreed with the Iraq War and methodology of the War on Terror, and those regions are worse off.
But when you spout conspiracy theories and make hyperbolic claims, I'm going to tell you you're wrong.
In September 1944, John T. Flynn,[3] a co-founder of the non-interventionist America First Committee,[4] launched Pearl Harbor revisionism when he published a forty-six page booklet en led The Truth about Pearl Harbor.[3]
Several writers, including journalist Robert Stinnett,[5] retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Robert A Theobald,[6]and Harry Elmer Barnes[7] have argued various parties high in the U.S. and British governments knew of the attack in advance and may even have let it happen or encouraged it in order to force America into theEuropean theatre of World War II via a Japanese–American war started at "the back door".[8][9] Evidence supporting this view is taken from quotations and source do ents from the time[10] and the release of newer materials. However, the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy is considered to be a fringe theory and is rejected by most mainstream historians.
Rejected by most mainstream historians. What is the keyword in that sentence. Figure it out. Here is a picture of a newspaper posting 1 week prior to pearl harbor.
and another
Here is more ...
Although FDR desired to directly involve the United States in the Second World War, his intentions sharply contradicted his public pronouncements. A pre-war Gallup poll showed 88 percent of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the European war. Citizens realized that U.S. participation in World War I had not made a better world, and in a 1940 (election-year) speech, Roosevelt typically stated: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."
But privately, the president planned the opposite. Roosevelt dispatched his closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in January 1941. Hopkins told Churchill: "The President is determined that we [the United States and England] shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him — there is nothing he will not do so far as he has human power." William Stevenson noted in A Man Called Intrepid that American-British military staff talks began that same month under "utmost secrecy," which, he clarified, "meant preventing disclosure to the American public." Even Robert Sherwood, the president's friendly biographer, said: "If the isolationists had known the full extent of the secret alliance between the United States and Britain, their demands for impeachment would have rumbled like thunder throughout the land."
Want me to move on to 9/11 ?
Calling me re ed, isnt ging to make you right, in fact it only makes me seem more correct.
In September 1944, John T. Flynn,[3] a co-founder of the non-interventionist America First Committee,[4] launched Pearl Harbor revisionism when he published a forty-six page booklet en led The Truth about Pearl Harbor.[3]
Several writers, including journalist Robert Stinnett,[5] retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Robert A Theobald,[6]and Harry Elmer Barnes[7] have argued various parties high in the U.S. and British governments knew of the attack in advance and may even have let it happen or encouraged it in order to force America into theEuropean theatre of World War II via a Japanese–American war started at "the back door".[8][9] Evidence supporting this view is taken from quotations and source do ents from the time[10] and the release of newer materials. However, the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy is considered to be a fringe theory and is rejected by most mainstream historians.
Rejected by most mainstream historians. What is the keyword in that sentence. Figure it out. Here is a picture of a newspaper posting 1 week prior to pearl harbor.
and another
Here is more ...
Although FDR desired to directly involve the United States in the Second World War, his intentions sharply contradicted his public pronouncements. A pre-war Gallup poll showed 88 percent of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the European war. Citizens realized that U.S. participation in World War I had not made a better world, and in a 1940 (election-year) speech, Roosevelt typically stated: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."
But privately, the president planned the opposite. Roosevelt dispatched his closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in January 1941. Hopkins told Churchill: "The President is determined that we [the United States and England] shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him — there is nothing he will not do so far as he has human power." William Stevenson noted in A Man Called Intrepid that American-British military staff talks began that same month under "utmost secrecy," which, he clarified, "meant preventing disclosure to the American public." Even Robert Sherwood, the president's friendly biographer, said: "If the isolationists had known the full extent of the secret alliance between the United States and Britain, their demands for impeachment would have rumbled like thunder throughout the land."
Want me to move on to 9/11 ?
So yeah, no peer reviewed source backed by credible historians.
However, the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy is considered to be a fringe theory and is rejected by most mainstream historians.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pearl_H...spiracy_theoryThe conspiracy theory originated during WWII among members of the America First Committee, something of an alliance of mostly far-left pacifists and far-right isolationists. The first work to posit the theory was a 1944 pamphlet by John T. Flynn, a paleoconservative journalist and head of the New York Chapter of America First.[5] A surprising number of reputable writers, including historian John Toland[6] and novelist Gore Vidal, have endorsed the theories, but they've never gained acceptance among mainstream historians. It has seen a revival in recent years by Truthers attempting to use the "FDR knew!" canard as precedent for 9/11 being a false flag operation.
"They're all in on it, doe."
And please move onto 9/11. I need a good laugh today other than laughing at the Lakers.
Change the channel from Fox news sometimes. Its good for you.
So yeah, no peer reviewed source backed by credible historians.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pearl_H...spiracy_theory
"They're all in on it, doe."
And please move onto 9/11. I need a good laugh today other than laughing at the Lakers.
Sick burn, especially since I'm linking progressive sources
Go read Rationalwiki's aboutus.
Here's more:
Skeptical inquirer. Left-leaning, pro-science/anti-religious nut:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pearl_..._winds_message
New York times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/07pearl.html?_r=0
Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...k-1173728.html
Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...se-attack.htmlBut Mr Shirley said: "Based on all my research, I believe that neither Roosevelt nor anybody in his government, the Navy or the War Department knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour. There was no conspiracy.
"This memo is further evidence that they believed the Japanese were contemplating a military action of some sort, but they were kind of in denial because they didn't think anybody would be as audacious to move an army thousands of miles across the Pacific, stop to refuel, then move on to Hawaii to make a strike like this."
And here's where your stupid logic breaks down. Say we did know the attack was coming? What happens? JAPAN STILL ATTACKS AND WE STILL GO TO WAR. It doesn't matter if they got to Pearl Harbor or if we intercepted them in the Pacific. They still performed an act of war and we would've declared war no matter what.
Let that sink in. Relax. And when you come back, try to be less re ed.
Smooth pointoing out a bunch of mainstream sources that would never dare say anything otherwise.Sick burn, especially since I'm linking progressive sources
Go read Rationalwiki's aboutus.
Here's more:
Skeptical inquirer. Left-leaning, pro-science/anti-religious nut:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pearl_..._winds_message
New York times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/07pearl.html?_r=0
Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...k-1173728.html
Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...se-attack.html
And here's where your stupid logic breaks down. Say we did know the attack was coming? What happens? JAPAN STILL ATTACKS AND WE STILL GO TO WAR. It doesn't matter if they got to Pearl Harbor or if we intercepted them in the Pacific. They still performed an act of war and we would've declared war no matter what.
Let that sink in. Relax. And when you come back, try to be less re ed.
Back to the attack, by you saying its still an act of war and an act of aggression, well no sherlock. Could we have saved a few thousand american lives, yes!! Thats what its about you stupid old .Protecting lives in America.If we at least try to prepare for it, maybe we have less casualties, and yes we still go to war and japan up. But you dont care about life, your so goddamn selfish and living in a protective bubble somewhere in California to realize what its like to struggle, or to have loss. Your logic is so god damn funny, that a little piss came out. If its not validated by a reputable historian its not true! its impossible! that is just hilarious. When all those wiki leaks came out, did historians go and validate those?
Do you know why the Japanese attack was so devastating? Because they used Kamikaze tactics, which were really never seen before in modern warfare. We were "prepared." Pearl Harbor was thought to be an impenetrable line of defense. If we did get warning, the commanders would've likely said, "Yeah. Let them try."Smooth pointoing out a bunch of mainstream sources that would never dare say anything otherwise.
Back to the attack, by you saying its still an act of war and an act of aggression, well no sherlock. Could we have saved a few thousand american lives, yes!! Thats what its about you stupid old .Protecting lives in America.If we at least try to prepare for it, maybe we have less casualties, and yes we still go to war and japan up. But you dont care about life, your so goddamn selfish and living in a protective bubble somewhere in California to realize what its like to struggle, or to have loss. Your logic is so god damn funny, that a little piss came out. If its not validated by a reputable historian its not true! its impossible! that is just hilarious. When all those wiki leaks came out, did historians go and validate those?
No one anticipated the Japanese turning their planes into missiles.The Americans saw Pearl Harbor as impenetrable.
And if we would've sent out ships and a squadron into the Pacific to intercept the Japanese (which would've been nearly impossible given how crude radar was at the time. Not to mention it would've left Pearl Harbor defenseless), same result. Japanese dive bombing into those ships killing thousands.
Think things through more carefully before you buy into conspiracy theories.
holy , so your telling me if the US military as prepared, they wouldn't be able to shoot down a plane?lives are machinery what's more important ?
You just won't listen to reason. You're beyond having a rational debate.
Quit watching Hollywood movies about Pearl Harbor. It's not like they were sitting around getting a sun tan and then the Japanese just came out of nowhere. That was the first line of defense we had in the Pacific, and it would've been on alert at all times.
And double
Serious question. Have you graduated high school yet?
You just won't listen to reason. You're beyond having a rational debate.
Quit watching Hollywood movies about Pearl Harbor. It's not like they were sitting around getting a sun tan and then the Japanese just came out of nowhere. That was the first line of defense we had in the Pacific, and it would've been on alert at all times.
And double
Serious question. Have you graduated high school yet?
Can someone summarize this argument for me? tl;dr the whole thing.
Oh and I'm vehemently against US imperialism but regarding who has killed "the most people", Mao put in some ing work:
Having a first line of defense thought to be impenetrable isn't being "prepared?"
It was the Kamikaze that ed us up, and they wouldn't have been prepared for that.
To end this on a positive note, you're still a bro, and I respect your passion to know the truth, but sometimes the "mainstream" truth is the actual truth. Just because it's an "alt" opinion doesn't mean it's automatically a fact.
Durant went to California instead of Texas, and Midst couldn't stand the gaffe.
We dont need to argue over what you say is a conspiracy, and what I say needs more investigation, truth will come out eventually one way or another, it always does. I could be wrong , you could be wrong, it goes both ways, but my passion is not necessarily for the truth, but its to make society live at peace with each other, and focus on bettering what we have, and what we are going to have. Not spend trillions and trillions of dollars trying to kill each other. I don't have any negative feelings towards you Mid, Im just letting you know how I see it, from what I have read, and noticed.
Why do you bring everything back to basketball?
Because you don't start a political debate/conversation on the same morning that Durant chooses State over the Spurs. It's a gd outrage.
You know that though. You ing pussy, you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
