Even more stuff from another dude on YouTube:
Me: "I agree with Dan, with a huge exception.
We didn't need to go into WWII or WWI for that matter."
Him: "'We didn't need to go into WWII'
if you had been president, you would have just forgiven japan for pearl harbor?"
Me: If you were president, would you have used an interventionist foreign policy that led to WWI, and that helped Hitler rise to power, while arming the allies, giving the Japanese reason to attack us?
All of which could have been avoided, and saved countless lives?
Him: "- US policy did not lead to WWI, i can't think why you would say this
- many factors helped hitlers rise, however i would put the US govt's contribution lower than many other factors (clemenceau at versailles and german cultural obedience to authority spring to mind)
- the Japanese attacked pearl harbor to ensure their oil grab in SE asia wouldn't be hindered by the US fleet"
(I don't know about the Japanese said of this story, but I think given the information Shane gave me to deal with that conservative friend of mine, (which I posted as a reply to this latest dude's comments), the Japanese stuff should be irrelavent, maybe.)
Him: - none of that explains how US policy led to WWI
- i mentioned versailles already, and clemenceau, not wilson, was the key mover behind vengeful repayments
"Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany"
- versailles was a significant factor, but there were many other factors, the causation for this and other events, such as the russian revolution, is not as straightforward as your comments seem to convey.
So I guess our blockade of Japan and our sinking a Japanese sub had nothing whatsoever to do with it...
heh what a coincidence
I wanted to make a topic on whether or not the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified
It wasn't. Japan was already offering to surrender, and their only condition was that Emperor Hirohito remain on the throne. The reason why was that, although he didn't really wield much in the way of power (and didn't really have much to do with the war), the Emperor is also the religious leader, kind of like the Pope.
The Allies got too much testosterone in their systems and decided they wanted unconditional surrender. So they nuked two Japanese cities. The Japanese then issued an unconditional surrender, of course.
And Emperor Hirohito was allowed to remain on the throne.
Thanks again for your assistance, Shane. :D
Holy crap...So we nuked the Japanese for nothing. :-[
I didn't know that...
So much we're not told in US History.
Shane, do you remember when I asked you about where I could find information about economics to really hand it to the socialists?
Well, do you know where I can find objective, unbiased information about our country's foreign policy?
^^;
I feel kinda awkward throwing these arguments, for which I don't know where to find the information, at you.
I imagine there will be some overlap between the economics books from the Mises Institute and other sources listed and the other books and source available on the topic.
Quote from: MrBogosity on June 02, 2009, 01:48:40 PM
So I guess our blockade of Japan and our sinking a Japanese sub had nothing whatsoever to do with it...
My conservative friend: "Yes, which if I remember correctly conveniently ignores that the US blockade of Japan at that time was enacted in response to early phases of Japanese militarism in the South Pacific."
He leaving something out Shane?
No, he's just hand-waving to distract from the fact that we were already very much involved by the time the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
A bit unrelated to the topic, but why were some of my posts moved into the forbidden zone?
They were not moved there by me. The only thing I've done to any of your posts is to move your thread on Global Warming into the existing thread for that topic.
Gotta love dogma...I think I finally settled this:
Me: Also, your point about: "So basically, until there is a 'clear and present danger', we sit and twiddle our thumbs. Pretend there's nothing wrong." Is wrong; it's also a complete misrepresentation of what non-interventionism is all about.
Harry Browne addresses this issue in his book Why Government Doesn't Work (2003).
I'm not going to ask you to read the book, but rather, take a look at this except regarding national defense: http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Why_Government_Defense.htm
Him: You say non-interventionism, I see a slightly re-hashed isolationism.
The lack of closing borders to foreign trade seems to be the only thing different between this 'non-interventionism' and 'isolationism'
Me:*Gives you a gold star* Because that IS the difference (at least according to Wikipedia).
Him: Ah. I don't honestly see why this becomes any more of a workable solution to disentangling from foreign affairs than true isolationism.
Me: Explain what "true isolationism" is.
Him: "True" isolationism = leaving all alliances and multinational organizations and shutting off trade with the outside world.
It's what we tried doing between the World Wars.
Me: From what I understand, during WWII we were still meddling around in the other countries (selling arms, and messing around in areas we didn't belong). How was what we had "Isolationism"? And didn't I already explain how it was this meddling that got us into the WW's in the first place?
Him:*Sighs* Key phrase: "during WWII..." I'm saying between the wars. Wilson fought for the League of Nations; we flipped it the bird and withdrew. The economy started tanking, and we set off a tarrif war to try and protect our home industries, and instead wound up decimating them as everyone else hiked tarrifs on our exports in retaliation. We wanted no part of European politics or trade with the rest of the world. We've never been as isolationist as, say, Japan was prior to us forcing them to open their harbors at cannon point. But we've tried hard to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. Well, to a degree. And you'll have to forgive me if I'm not as specific as you might like--this is something that I haven't really dealt with since leaving high school...
Me: Hmmm...So before WWII we weren't using the federal reserve's money creation powers to try and bail out England's Government? If memory serves, it was this huge expansion of credit that caused the huge bubble of the 1920's. Then, in 1929, the bubble burst, and instead of being a 1-2 year recession, the Fed slamed the breaks on the money supply, actually reducing its size by 30% between 1929 and 1933. Also, trade barriers (tariffs, quotes, regulation, etc) are part of the problem. If we keep free trade between nations, they have that much less incentive to attack us...
Him: *Shrugs* You're the expert, not me.
Woah. All this about some stupid war?
Wow, that was redundant.
I'm gonna destroy Hitler's secret base, anybody care to join me? Other than nature, of course. Nature is already invited.
This time about the free market in general...The kicker is, he's an agnostic, and feels folks like Dawkins are arrogant pricks even to the point of having atheism as if it were their religion. The psychological projection never ends, eh?
I'm not going to make a separate thread for each of this guy's arguments, so I'll put them here both for your viewing, face palming, critiquing, etc. Unlike the other argument posts, I'll post my after-thoughts in ()'s. I apologize for the length. I can cut this up into multiple posts if it helps. Sorry to bombard you all with these, but this guy really pissed me off.
He seems to think that because no system is perfect, that they're all equal. This is the main deal of his arguments up almost until the very end. It's an absurd proposition. By this idea, if you have two theories accounting for observations, one that explains 99%, while the other explains 0%, both are flawed, and shouldn't be used. Cherry picking for the win. :P
If anyone can get through this, how do you think I did?
Me: "Before I forget:"
Him: "Yes?"
Me: "'Shane answering your concerns (not even asked by me) about welfare in a Q&A video: 'Study after study has shown that people tend to donate a consistent %age of their take home pay to charity. Things get better when you take into account that with government welfare you're lucky if 5% of the money taken in taxes gets to the people on who truely need it, compared to over 80% for private charity. By lowering spending and taxation to their constitutionally legit amounts, this would put well over $2 trillion back into our economy. This is more than enough to buy a job for everyone who can work, and charity for everyone who can't.'"
Him: "He should come up to Fairbanks sometime, then, because we have an awful lot of homeless people around here despite a couple of rescue mission shelter places whose ads brag consistently that $0.90 of every dollar goes directly to services for the homeless people they help. I'm sorry, I do not trust people. I don't really trust the government, either."
(Because personal opinion coupled with a single anecdote that's probably riddled with government crap making it worse means so much in the world of skepticism/evidence/science/etc. What's more, this is a total red herring unless he can provide a control showing how Fairbanks was or would be without the rescue mission shelters.)
Me: "Something rebutted: lower taxes, increase the amount available for the homeless, and lift them out of poverty. I'm not very trusting either, but it really boils down to who you trust more, the government, or individuals acting in their own self interest."
Him: "Heh, I trust neither."
(So according to this guy, a person with the power of force (government) is equally likely to screw people over than without it where said person is liable for his/her own actions with an incentive to NOT be an aggressive forceful douche?)
Me: "The evidence points to individuals being more trustworthy. If you really want a good reference, I'd recommend reading Mary Ruwart's Healing our World. The free version is available online, and is complete with sources showing how this works. I've been reading it. Despite the references to the bible (she's a christian), I still like it: she just makes it work. It's that good."
Him: "yeah, and in a perfect world socialism would work, too. I'm sorry, I'm just not idealistic enough to believe anything of the sort advocated by the true von Mises school of thought could ever happen or work."
(Because the mountain of evidence for it is idealistic dreaming...)
Me: "*facepalm* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAa6dYBwy7M (What is the Free Market by Shane Killian) You said you watched this video."
Him: "Yeah, yeah I did watch the fucking video. It also fucking assumes that the politicos aren't going to fuck everything over in the name of their own god damn power. What it boils down to is this: people are shit, and they will *always* screw someone or something over if it maximizes either their profits or their power."
(Yes, they do that. With government help...)
Me: "Irrelevant.
Shane merely pointed out what the free market is, not how to make it happen.
Not according to the evidence.
Also irrelavent. If people are screwed over in a deal, you have the aggressor make restitution.
As for politicians, Shane and I are aware of that. It's the biggest problem with small government mini archism: Government slowly gets bigger and bigger. Is that an excuse to not even try to limit, or shrink it?
The idea that the free market is based on idealistic fantasy/assumes people won't screw others over is a strawman told by socialists as a scare tactic, and irrelavent as Shane even mentioned that this is taken care of and accounted for in a free market."
Him: "Bull shit." (touchy)
Me: "Which one and why?"
Him: "'The idea that the free market is based on idealistic fantasy/assumes people won't screw others over is a strawman told by socialists as a scare tactic, and irrelavent as Shane even mentioned that this is taken care of and accounted for in a free market.' What is human history but one big long tale of the general principle "Always Look Out for #1"?
(And there is nothing wrong with that, so long as the person does it without hurting others. Yet people only seem to be able to hurt others when trying to get rich, from what I understand, with government help. If History consisted of mostly/all free markets, he might have a point, but because it's not even close he doesn't. Besides, how is "people are evil" this even relavent to whether or not we should have a free market? If anything it's an argument for and not against it.)
Me: "As he stated, the idea that people do that is present in EVERY system and NO reason to throw out any system.
What I don't get is why people think this IS a rebuttal to the free market. If anything it's an even better reason to have one. If people are greedy, it's better to keep them in a free market, where they won't be able to seize the power of government to tax/regulate, etc at gunpoint. Once, again, the point is irrelavent. And taken into account."
Him: "Humans are scum." (When in doubt, repeat the point without anything new to justify your assertion. Just like a creationist.) "The legal system for fixing violations of rights is expensive, clunky, and time-consuming--not to mention corrupt."
(And this is an argument against the free market because??? It sounds more like an argument against our legal system, which is cluttered, corrupt and slow, because of the war on drugs, and laws against other victimless crimes, to say the least.)
Me: "The best thing to do is to shrink to minimize that extortion, to stop people, and keep the special interests out. As Shane pointed out: The free market is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. I've offered you sources, I can even if you evidence of specific cases, if you would like to narrow your argument into something less broad than "Humans are scum".
If anything this argument is for Anarcho-Capitalism, because then those people don't have that monopoly on power present from government.
Shane and I NEVER said it was perfect: Utopia isn't an option."
(I'd have to look for said evidence though. as I'm not nearly as well read as I will be.)
Him: "Look, it boils down to this: yes, your system 'theoretically' accounts for the craptastic nature of most people out there, but who watches the watchers? Who keeps the ones who are supposed to keep the rest of us in line, in line?"
(Again, how is this an argument against a mini-archist free market system? Its a better argument against Government period, and an argument for Anarcho-Capitalism. I like how he assumes that, "Because people are assholes, that all systems will have this problem, therefore, all systems are equally flawed, therefore, it doesn't matter which one you pick because they all suck." My point is that Small/no government is the BEST system(s) there is, therefore it should be picked over the others because it minimizes these problems, as you even said in the video, yet still blathers on about it; just like a creationist. And it isn't JUST theoretically, it does so period. It's a part of the system itself ("A sound policy should be designed to take this into account" - Shane from "What is the Free Market".))
Me: "Irrelevant. The person in question aggression would be would "watched" by the person whom he/she aggressed, evidence would be presented for both cases, and the rest would follow. If we're talking about an institution that lives or dies by its ability to do this, like a private company, then the courts/police, etc have an incentive to not be corrupt, because they'd be pulled from the market.
Again, I never said it would be perfect. But making government small, allows it so that the corruption via special interests and the like is minimized."
Him: " ...privately owned justice system? You are shitting me, yes?"
Me: "You said you wanted a system where in the watchers would be watched."
(He's the one making, what seem to be arguments against ALL forms of coercion/institutions, so the best one I could find was the one where that power exists in the least)
Him: "*Sighs* Forget it..."
Me: "To be fair, I haven't read up on the arguments for them (it's on my to-do list). The Justice system would be one of the trickier ones to be private even in my own mind. I'd prefer a system with both private and public ones, so the government doesn't have a monopoly on them."
(I'll admit I was a bit over my head with that argument, but, well, he's the one making the point about things being too "Expensive, clunky, corrupt, etc". This was the best solution I could come up with.)
He's a misanthrope. In my experience, they're so far gone it's hopeless trying to get them to see sense.
ShaneSaw83: "Are you serious? Your view of Nazi Germany is so mind-bogglingly stupid, I'm stunned. Hitler only lost because tiny little Germany was fighting us, England and Russia simultaneously. And they were such a devastatingly adept military, that they killed 3 men for every 2 they lost. Hitler wouldn't have stopped; you'd be speaking German right now. Actually, I think you're brown-skinned--so you wouldn't even exist if not for the brave men that died fighting--you foolish, ungrateful SOB."
I don't know enough to refute this, but his quote just screams bogosity.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on October 06, 2009, 12:48:16 PM
ShaneSaw83: "Are you serious? Your view of Nazi Germany is so mind-bogglingly stupid, I'm stunned. Hitler only lost because tiny little Germany was fighting us, England and Russia simultaneously. And they were such a devastatingly adept military, that they killed 3 men for every 2 they lost. Hitler wouldn't have stopped; you'd be speaking German right now. Actually, I think you're brown-skinned--so you wouldn't even exist if not for the brave men that died fighting--you foolish, ungrateful SOB."
I don't know enough to refute this, but his quote just screams bogosity.
Yeah, yeah yeah, thread necromancy, blah blah, blah.
I did think of a way this might be wrong: (aside from the bullshit that I should be grateful for his goons stealing my grandparents money) If what he says is true, then why was it so close with it only tipping in the allies favor with the USA's involvement?
Also, why is it people (including Shane) often say that if Hitler hadn't been the one, what if the person in his place was far smarter militarily speaking?
And finally, as Lord T Hawkeye would say: Bald Assertions =/= arguments, the former of which this state bootlicker and jingoist fucktard made.
Even if we buy their "Japan attacked Pearl Harbor unprovoked" claim, all that means is the US destroyed two cities and killed millions solely to preserve their egos which is still psychotic beyond belief...
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on June 18, 2012, 09:42:05 PM
Even if we buy their "Japan attacked Pearl Harbor unprovoked" claim, all that means is the US destroyed two cities and killed millions solely to preserve their egos which is still psychotic beyond belief...
EDIT: NVM, it just occured to me that that was the subject that started this thread. Hawkeye, maybe you should quote the bit your replying to, next time?
Also, wasn't expecting a reply from you on this subject. Very pleasant surprise.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on June 18, 2012, 09:55:14 PMdidn't we go into WWII officially AFTER Hitler committed suicide?
Um, no, where did you get that idea?
When I said I don't know much about the history, I wasn't kidding.
I just thought it could have been the case, given that our gov't didn't 'officially' enter that war until the bombing of Pearl Harbor ('officially' in quotes given that GovCo was still providing weapons and shit to the allies, and hell, probably more than that, doing blockades of Japan, etc).
Really, fucked if I know.
Again, I was just pondering and trying to refute that quote:
ShaneSaw83: "Are you serious? Your view of Nazi Germany is so mind-bogglingly stupid, I'm stunned. Hitler only lost because tiny little Germany was fighting us, England and Russia simultaneously. And they were such a devastatingly adept military, that they killed 3 men for every 2 they lost. Hitler wouldn't have stopped; you'd be speaking German right now. Actually, I think you're brown-skinned--so you wouldn't even exist if not for the brave men that died fighting--you foolish, ungrateful SOB."
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on June 18, 2012, 10:07:29 PM
When I said I don't know much about the history, I wasn't kidding.
I just thought it could have been the case, given that our gov't didn't 'officially' enter that war until the bombing of Pearl Harbor ('officially' in quotes given that GovCo was still providing weapons and shit to the allies, and hell, probably more than that, doing blockades of Japan, etc).
Really, fucked if I know.
Again, I was just pondering and trying to refute that quote:
ShaneSaw83: "Are you serious? Your view of Nazi Germany is so mind-bogglingly stupid, I'm stunned. Hitler only lost because tiny little Germany was fighting us, England and Russia simultaneously. And they were such a devastatingly adept military, that they killed 3 men for every 2 they lost. Hitler wouldn't have stopped; you'd be speaking German right now. Actually, I think you're brown-skinned--so you wouldn't even exist if not for the brave men that died fighting--you foolish, ungrateful SOB."
I have been vindicated: http://www.cracked.com/article_18389_the-5-most-widely-believed-wwii-facts-that-are-bullshit.html
Thanks cracked.com!
QuoteWhich now that I think about it, is pretty absurd...didn't we go into WWII officially AFTER Hitler committed suicide?
no, we had a formal declaration and everything in December 1941. But...the actual peace treaty with Germany wasn't signed until 1990, with the reunification of Germany: VE day is simply the day the German armed forces surrendered, and fighting officially ceased.
Japan's peace treaty was in 1951. again, VJ day and the 2nd of September were just to surrender the armed forces, ending the fighting.
QuoteShaneSaw83: "Are you serious? Your view of Nazi Germany is so mind-bogglingly stupid, I'm stunned. Hitler only lost because tiny little Germany was fighting us, England and Russia simultaneously. And they were such a devastatingly adept military, that they killed 3 men for every 2 they lost. Hitler wouldn't have stopped; you'd be speaking German right now. Actually, I think you're brown-skinned--so you wouldn't even exist if not for the brave men that died fighting--you foolish, ungrateful SOB."
as to Hitler's defeat: hell yeah it was his fault! every single serious mistake was by him, or his fellow NSDAP goons: the halt at Dunkirk, the battle of Britain, the lack of initiative in just invading Britain, the invasion of the soviet Union, the inability to take Moscow before winter set in (which was totally feasible btw), the confused command structure in France in 1944. Every or nearly every major mistake on the German side was his or his party member' fault--the latter btw having been appointed by Hitler, or ordered by him.
The only reason the Germans had the kill ratio, or even the initial success, was either because their enemy was not prepared (Poland), was too timid (the western allies in 1940)*, or had a paranoid Georgian gut their officer corps (the USSR). that and a good doctrine--which was before Hitler's rise. so their achievements were in spite of Hitler, not because of him.
*in fact, the French had invaded the Saar in late '39-early '40. They met next to no real opposition (all the prepared German soldiers--especially tanks--were in Poland), and could possibly have pressed on to Berlin, ending the war before it began.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on June 19, 2012, 06:37:24 PM
no, we had a formal declaration and everything in December 1941. But...the actual peace treaty with Germany wasn't signed until 1990, with the reunification of Germany: VE day is simply the day the German armed forces surrendered, and fighting officially ceased.
Japan's peace treaty was in 1951. again, VJ day and the 2nd of September were just to surrender the armed forces, ending the fighting.
OK, thanks for the clarification.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on June 19, 2012, 06:37:24 PM
as to Hitler's defeat: hell yeah it was his fault! every single serious mistake was by him, or his fellow NSDAP goons: the halt at Dunkirk, the battle of Britain, the lack of initiative in just invading Britain, the invasion of the soviet Union, the inability to take Moscow before winter set in (which was totally feasible btw), the confused command structure in France in 1944. Every or nearly every major mistake on the German side was his or his party member' fault--the latter btw having been appointed by Hitler, or ordered by him.
The only reason the Germans had the kill ratio, or even the initial success, was either because their enemy was not prepared (Poland), was too timid (the western allies in 1940)*, or had a paranoid Georgian gut their officer corps (the USSR). that and a good doctrine--which was before Hitler's rise. so their achievements were in spite of Hitler, not because of him.
*in fact, the French had invaded the Saar in late '39-early '40. They met next to no real opposition (all the prepared German soldiers--especially tanks--were in Poland), and could possibly have pressed on to Berlin, ending the war before it began.
To add to that, I also heard from Fringeelements that had the Western side of Europe done what little was needed to prevent Germany from getting to and raiding the resources of the Rhine River area, Nazi Germany wouldn't have been able to build up and the war would have literally been over before it even began.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on June 19, 2012, 06:48:36 PM
To add to that, I also heard from Fringeelements that had the Western side of Europe done what little was needed to prevent Germany from getting to and raiding the resources of the Rhine River area, Nazi Germany wouldn't have been able to build up and the war would have literally been over before it even began.
and he would be right, though the timidity of the Allies got in the way. it didn't help that the occupation of the Rhineland was not meant to be indefinite--IIRC
of course, none of this would have been necessary if Wilson hadn't sold out on the Germans at Versailles.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on June 19, 2012, 06:57:50 PM
and he would be right, though the timidity of the Allies got in the way. it didn't help that the occupation of the Rhineland was not meant to be indefinite--IIRC
of course, none of this would have been necessary if Wilson hadn't sold out on the Germans at Versailles.
Something that wouldn't have even had a chance to happen had the USA's government gotten involved in WWI, which caused the battle to be won decisively for the allies, and was what made the mistake of the Treaty of Versailles possible--which economically annihilated Germany and allowed the Nazis to rise to power.
Had the USA's Federal Government not been involved, peace would have likely happened by spring of 1917, and with a more equitable result between the opposing sides.