 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.242.116.115
In Reply to: "poor Hitler" Your employment of sarcasm to counter my argument... posted by clarkjohnsen on June 11, 2005 at 07:59:28:
So one word of sarcasm renders my argument specious, eh?I thought I was polite in my response when you wrote: "Many historians now believe Japan was suckered into doing Pearl Harbor. Germany followed their partner, as was to be expected." After all, if your statement is true, aren't the Japanese Imperial Navy suckers and Adolph Hitler a good partner who found himself in a poor situation because of this partnership?
Actually, your original argument (one I have seen you use several times on "Outside") about President Bush being justified in going to war with Iraq because of FDR's naval military orders from February 1941 on is quite interesting, and can be appreciated by students of military history. Thank you for reminding me of these orders. Perhaps one day in "Outside" we shall write at length about them.
But when you call the December 11th declarations of war between the United States and Germany "fanciful," and then introduce a new argument about suckered Japan and good-partner Germany (this is not sarcasm, it is how you characterized these nations), I have to say, "I disagree with this statement and these characterizations."
You say one word of sarcasm, which could just as well be read as a God's-honest-truth adjective given the results of the situation, diminishes my argument to the vanishing point. Oh, well.So, will you answer my question now, Clark? Saying "Many historians now believe..." without qualifying or countering suggests that you agree with these historians. Do you disagree with the statement "many historians now believe..." that you wrote earlier? Or...
Do you think the Japanese were suckers and the Germans were just good partners?
Follow Ups:
It already pretty much was.Like, "If your statement is true, aren't the Japanese Imperial Navy suckers and Adolph Hitler a good partner who found himself in a poor situation because of this partnership?" That doesn't at all follow from what I said.
"Actually, your original argument (one I have seen you use several times on "Outside") about President Bush being justified in going to war with Iraq because of FDR's naval military orders from February 1941 on..." I don't recall having used that argument. All's I ever said was that he acted on a continuity of intelligence info from the previous administration. And by the way, explaining is not justifying.
"You say one word of sarcasm, which could just as well be read as a God's-honest-truth adjective given the results of the situation..." Huh?! "Poor"?
"Do you think the Japanese were suckers and the Germans were just good partners?" No.
clark
First things first:I'm sorry that I am mistaken in writing you had used the "FDR '41 naval orders" argument to justify President Bush's policies re: Iraq in "Outiside." I had seen that argument before, and when you brought it up, well, I thought you had written some of the original
"Outside" posts on the subject. I was wrong. Yes, I should have checked first.
Now, with the housecleaning out of the way, let's take a look at the rest of this:
All I asked originally was what prompted YOUR sarcastic post:
"Quel horreur! In fact it took Germany another three months to match our declaration of war. Those poor innocent people!"
Yeah, no sarcasm there, eh, clark? Then when you write: "Many historians now believe Japan was suckered into doing Pearl Harbor. Germany followed their partner, as was to be expected," you think I am mistaken in my characterization? If the Japanese are suckered into doing something, don't you think they are suckers? If Germany is just following their partner, as was to be expected, didn't being just a good partner place them in a terrible situation? Please tell me what other characterization should follow from what you wrote.
I disagreed with you, but then you decide that "Oh! How dare you use one sarcastic word to me who write entire posts dripping in sarcasm! Your argument is therefore nullified!" Hey, originally, I was just asking a question. While I may have been a little surprised by your post, I wasn't indignant. I was just curious. But when you write these things to explain your sarcastic comments, I just wonder if you actually believe what you wrote. You say you don't. Or, to be more accurate, you say you don't think the Japanese were suckers and the Germans were just being good partners. So I guess now, since you say that characterization doesn't follow from what you wrote, I should ask, do you personally believe the Japanese were suckered into "doing" (what a verb clark!) Pearl Harbor and the Germans were just following their partner?
By such behavior you entirely miss the thrust of what historians who disagree with the consensus reality we are brainwashed with in school are trying to tell us. Your loss."If the Japanese were suckered into doing
something, don't you think they are suckers?"Yes, but no different from the American populace who were led by the nose to believe it was a just and worthy war.
And the Republicans who dissented at the time? Why, toss 'em in jail! That was FDR's solution. He called them something like, "Nazi boot-lickers and Jap ass-kissers". A familiar phraseology...
clark
PS End of the line on this thread.
Here.You know, I probably think differently on some political issues than say, Victor, for example, and several others on this board. But at least when you ask Victor a question he answers it and lets you know what his answer it. You ask him why he thinks what he does and he tells you (Sorry, Victor, for comparing you to clark! I hope you understand). You don't. You hide behind your sarcasm and refuse to give a straight answer. You are still doing it today. Oh wait, this little back-and-forth is your answer. This tells me all I need to know. Fine.
In one of your earlier posts, you did bring up an interesting point of history. And the U.S. Naval Institute has a good post on the subject. Others can see it at the link below. If they don't mind looking at the "consensus reality we are brainwashed with in school."
"And the Republicans who dissented at the time? Why toss 'em in jail! That was FDR's solution." You will have to give me some numbers on this in the future. I can find over 36,000 conscientious objectors who were tossed in jail. The majority of these had non-religious objections to war. Many were Jehovah's Witnesses. More numbers? Over 400 people were convicted in sedition prosecutions. About half were African-Americans, who gave speeches along the line that "the Japanese want help you and give you back your culture." The other half were mainly members of the German-American Bund. And of course thousands were investigated for those 400-plus convictions. And I am not forgetting the worst of our nation's repression: the internment of 110,000 Japanese-Americans. The Institute for Historical Review's website "Not Just Japanese" at http://wwww.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p285_Hummel.html examines U.S. repression of other viewpoints during World War Two.
And the vast majority of Republicans in 1941? Oh wait, they bought the "consensus reality", and proudly served their country with honor. Ronald Reagan, for example, even though his eyesight limited his service to making training films. I know, you could point out that he was a Democrat then. Okay, how about "Tail Gunner Joe" McCarthy? One of the few complimentary things I can be forced to say about him is: he served his country in World War Two. Richard Nixon was compared by those he served with in the Navy to "Mister Roberts"! And I suspect that 99.9% of Republicans you know today, clark, would not have dissented, and would have served.
I have deleted two MUCH stronger drafts of my posts which I accidentally sent. But if you wish to quote from one of these deleted posts, hey, that's okay. You think that means that I miss the thrust of what you and your revisionistic historians believe. I disagree. I think it means I get EXACTLY what you and your historians believe. But don't worry, you aren't alone, there is someone else in Louisiana who thinks the same way you do. And he pens the FDR-bashing Axis mash note much better than you do. Just go to http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=169 and you'll find someone who believes the same historians you do.(I apologize for not putting in more links but I do not know how to put 3 optional link URLs in one post. But if I can only do one, then the link below is the one I choose to put in. A quick copy-and-paste of the URLs into the address bar should allow you to go to the sites I have cited with little problem.)
I agree that this thread has probably gone on too long, especially considering this is "Film/DVD Asylum," and I appreciate the moderators allowing us our say on this topic hijacking. So let us go to our respective corners, clark. We can take this up again another time if we choose to, "Outside."
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
