• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Just What The Hell Do You Know About History?

No.

But I have heard of it due to a couple over here. Something about sustainable development on a global scale. No idea other than it is a comprehensive plan about environment...its limits, and what we can do to ensure the future of our species on this planet by not ruining the planet.

Do you think that it is a regional issue that threatens our freedoms? Something along those lines...why did you mention Agenda 21?
 

Because I've been fighting it for years, it touches on every aspect of our lives from caddle to grave.

Its our life time written down for us by the Rich of the Earth, how we will live, were we will live, what we will do, what we will believe etc its horrible and global.

I have 2 free films on my site about it or here is something written up by the original board members in Santa cruz.. Once you understand it, Agenda 21 is the biggests threat America faces today....and its active in the USA and we haven't been told about it.

Understanding Sustainable Development (Agenda 21): A Guide for Public Officials.
http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/site/downloads/sd-guide-web.pdf


And just so you know, the Words "Sustainable Development" aren't as they sound, its not about being "sustainable" or "Development" Its about total control...not making sure things are "sustainable" as we think of it....but as the Richest people in the world think of it.
 

It's not a conspiracy theory it's historical record, FDR wanted in to the war to fight Fascism, it is historical record that the oil embargo was set in place against Japan in order to give them no recourse but to attack if they could not get oil they couldn't continue their war effort against China, the Japanese needed the oil in the western pacific under U.S. control which would not be sent to Japan under the embargo so to get the oil they thought they could force a negotiated surrender from the U.S. through taking out the bulk of the U.S. navy at pearl harbor.
 
Good, lets try another one... :smile:

"FDR wanted in to the war to fight Fascism" - True

"it is historical record that the oil embargo was set in place against Japan " - True

"the oil embargo was set in place against Japan in order to give them no recourse but to attack" - Speculation.

The rest of your post follows this foundation, thus being opinion, although it is logical, if you are operating an an incorrect platform, you are following the incorrect path.

Show the irrefutable proof that FDR intentionally set this oil embargo to give the Japanese no recourse but to attack. I actually know a few things about history, do not assumethat you can offer opinion adn conjecture with this debate as you did int the last debate. Unless you can show the proof, you are operating off of opinion. If you show the proof, I will humbly submit in error.

ADDED:

O.K. Trajan...read your other post response.
When you show that you are able to conduct a reasonable debate, one based off of deeper understanding and not on the obvious, specualtion, and superiority, then we can try it again...
You can try in this post here, otherwise...
Take it easy
 
Last edited:

The whole point of the oil embargo was to cripple the war fighting capacity of Japan in their battle in mainland China, that is an act of war in and of itself.
 
An embargo is not an act of war. It is an action of trade. Economy.
The way that the Japanses choose to react is just that...their choice.
Their choice was to go to war.

em·bar·go ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-bärg)
n. pl. em·bar·goes
A government order prohibiting the movement of merchant ships into or out of its ports.
A prohibition by a government on certain or all trade with a foreign nation.
A prohibition; a ban: an embargo on criticism

This was not the proof that I requested.
 

What do you want a state department file with an FDR quote spelling out in detail his plans to enter the war? The facts stand alone, the Japanese were not interested in attacking the U.S. until we placed an oil embargo which would have cost them the war with China, we would have done the same thing they did. I'm not saying that getting into that war wasn't a good Idea all I'm saying is that Pearl Harbor wasn't a totally unprovoked attack and that the oil embargo was a calculated tactic to get the U.S. people to go along with a war which they wanted no part of.
 
Originally Posted by Trajan -

the Japanese were not interested in attacking the U.S. until we placed an oil embargo
Click to expand...

An embargo is not an act of war...of that we agree.
Once the embargo is in place, they make the choice to proceed with hostile actions..their is another course of action that they could have pursued, they just chose not to.

So this statement......

Originally Posted by Trajan -

"the oil embargo was set in place against Japan in order to give them no recourse but to attack"
Click to expand...

"no recourse" ...Again... was Speculation...and false
You just clarified what you did intend initially...
I agree with you about what they did and why, just not that they had no other recourse and that FDR did this on purpose to promote an attack. To me, and to many historians, this is conspiracy driven, this was the point of my inital comment. To that I hold true. And that is that you critiqued one's conspiracy idea by using one of your own, thus..the miscommunication...

Originally Posted by Trajan -

What do you want a state department file
Click to expand...

Yes.

But not a copy or a link.
I want an actual State Dept. file hand delivered to me...
An original. :roll:

Just joking?

Yes. :smile:
Don't be to sensitive now...
 
Last edited:

It's not freaking speculation, prominent historians agree that the oil embargo was a tactical move to get the Japanese to make the first move, it's not a conspiracy theory it's just the way things are. Japan never would have attacked U.S. interests had it not been for the oil embargo, it was a desperation move on their part, they knew they could never match the U.S. militarily they could only hope for a stalemate, but if they did nothing they would have surely lost the war in mainland China, FDR gave them no option but to attack to gain control of the oil in the Western Pacific. To think FDR didn't know what the Japanese reaction would be to the embargo is simply naive.
 
"prominent historians agree "

So what? You simply speculated based off of some historians conjecture. It happens...don't get to riled up there....jeesh.
 
BodiSatva said:
"prominent historians agree "

So what? You simply speculated based off of some historians conjecture. It happens...don't get to riled up there....jeesh.
Click to expand...

Oh ok so now the opinion of historians is equatable to conjecture now? Really I would like to know what constitutes as non-conjecture in your opinion? Oh that's right you want a hand typed state department memo. :roll:
 
Not of, "Historians". Just of the prominent historians that dribble opinionated conjecture that you are so fond of...

Things sure do annoy you, but that seems about right given your apparent inability to understand humor. "Hand typed state department memo" Haha, that stuff is funny! C'mon now you doofy square, get with the rest of us on Planet Earth
 

lmfao this coming from a Buddhist, tell me is it a big vessel or a small one?

Facts speak for themselves, FDR wanted in the war, the American people would not support another foriegn entanglement, Japan was at war with China and not interested in fighting the U.S. because they knew it was a fight they could not win, FDR in an attempt to destroy the war fighting capacity of the Japanese against China, placed an oil embargo which he knew would leave them with no recourse but to take American oil reserves in the Western Pacific. FDR wanted the war and he got it.
 
Now I am Buddhist? NICE! Thanks buddy...

Defend that conspiracy driven dribble all you like, it becomes more real the harder you believe.
 
BodiSatva said:
Now I am Buddhist? NICE! Thanks buddy...

Defend that conspiracy driven dribble all you like, it becomes more real the harder you believe.
Click to expand...

It's not a conspiracy theory, what one part of my argument can, by any stretch of the imagination, be labeled a conspiracy theory? It's a matter of the historical record.
 
"historical record" doesn't mean anything. You say it like it is the Bible.

HISTORICAL RECORD CONFIRMS WHAT I SAY!!!

Guess what, there are aspects of the "historical record" that contradict what you are spouting. Stick that in your pipe... :lol:

Your version of Japans attack is a minority view.
Sorry, it is.

How old are you?
I don't want to continually beat up on an 18 year old, or even a college student.
The reason?
The brain is not as cognitively developed..no shame, it is simply that this is getting old.
If you are 14, you are a stud.
If you are 18, you are doing very good
If you are 24, your learning, but you better kick it into gear, you are about to fall behind.
If you are older than 24, you are a moron.
 

LMFAO this coming from a guy who hasn't said one thing relative to the subject at hand.
 
(He's 23)
If you two were engaged in a battle of Horseshoes, neither one of you would be dead on. To wit:

http://www.theamericancause.org/patwhydidjapan.htm
But why did Japan, with a 10th of our industrial power, launch a sneak attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, an act of state terror that must ignite a war to the death it could not win? Were they insane? No, the Japanese were desperate.

To understand why Japan lashed out, we must go back to World War I. Japan had been our ally. But when she tried to collect her share of the booty at Versailles, she ran into an obdurate Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson rejected Japan's claim to German concessions in Shantung, home of Confucius, which Japan had captured at a price in blood. Tokyo threatened a walkout if denied what she had been promised by the British. "They are not bluffing," warned Wilson, as he capitulated. "We gave them what they should not have."

In 1921, at the Washington Naval Conference, the United States pressured the British to end their 20-year alliance with Japan. By appeasing the Americans, the British enraged and alienated a proud nation that had been a loyal friend.

Japan was now isolated, with Stalin's brooding empire to the north, a rising China to the east and, to the south, Western imperial powers that detested and distrusted her.

When civil war broke out in China, Japan in 1931 occupied Manchuria as a buffer state. This was the way the Europeans had collected their empires. Yet, the West was "shocked, shocked" that Japan would embark upon a course of "aggression." Said one Japanese diplomat, "Just when we learn how to play poker, they change the game to bridge."

Japan now decided to create in China what the British had in India – a vast colony to exploit that would place her among the world powers. In 1937, after a clash at Marco Polo Bridge near Peking, Japan invaded and, after four years of fighting, including the horrific Rape of Nanking, Japan controlled the coastal cities, but not the interior.

When France capitulated in June 1940, Japan moved into northern French Indochina. And though the United States had no interest there, we imposed an embargo on steel and scrap metal. After Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, Japan moved into southern Indochina. FDR ordered all Japanese assets frozen.

But FDR did not want to cut off oil. As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war, for that would force oil-starved Japan to seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. But a State Department lawyer named Dean Acheson drew up the sanctions in such a way as to block any Japanese purchases of U.S. oil. By the time FDR found out, in September, he could not back down.

Tokyo was now split between a War Party and a Peace Party, with the latter in power. Prime Minister Konoye called in Ambassador Joseph Grew and secretly offered to meet FDR in Juneau or anywhere in the Pacific. According to Grew, Konoye was willing to give up Indochina and China, except a buffer region in the north to protect her from Stalin, in return for the U.S. brokering a peace with China and opening up the oil pipeline. Konoye told Grew that Emperor Hirohito knew of his initiative and was ready to give the order for Japan's retreat.

Fearful of a "second Munich," America spurned the offer. Konoye fell from power and was replaced by Hideki Tojo. Still, war was not inevitable. U.S. diplomats prepared to offer Japan a "modus vivendi." If Japan withdrew from southern Indochina, the United States would partially lift the oil embargo. But Chiang Kai-shek became "hysterical," and his American adviser, one Owen Lattimore, intervened to abort the proposal.

Facing a choice between death of the empire or fighting for its life, Japan decided to seize the oil fields of the Indies. And the only force capable of interfering was the U.S. fleet that FDR had conveniently moved from San Diego out to Honolulu.

And so Japan attacked. And so she was crushed and forced out of Vietnam, out of China, out of Manchuria. And so they fell to Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh. And so it was that American boys, not Japanese boys, would die fighting Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese to try to block the aggressions of a barbaric Asian communism.

Now Japan is disarmed and China is an Asian giant whose military boasts of pushing the Americans back across the Pacific. Had FDR met Prince Konoye, there might have been no Pearl Harbor, no Pacific war, no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki, no Korea, no Vietnam. How many of our fathers and uncles, brothers and friends, might still be alive?

"For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: 'It might have been.'" A few thoughts as the War Party pounds the drum for an all-out American war on Iraq and radical Islam.

Copyright © 2001, The American Cause. All Right Reserved.

Or: http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2timeline/Prelude21.html
May 6 - Francis Sayre sent to Tokyo for talks with Foreign Minister Arita - FDR declared Sayre initiative for nonaggression pact was "unauthorized"


Burma map from
ILN 1942/04/25
May 16 - Sayre advised FDR that Japan willing to negotiate and wanted to "retire gracefully" from burdensome China war
June 22 - Petain closed Indochina route to Chiang


Churchill closes Burma road to avoid war with Japan
July 6 - FDR proposed concept of 3 Monroe Doctrines - for Americas, Europe, Asia
July 22 - Konoye leads his 2nd Cabinet - policy of "opportunism" to create "new order" with Manchukuo and Wang Ching-wei
July 25 - FDR orders partial trade embargo on aviation fuel, lubricants, high-grade scrap
August 16 - death of Hector Bywater, author of 1925 "Great Pacific War"

19 days after Reuter's Melville Cox "fell" 3 stories to death in Tokyo

Methinks Trajan gets some if not all his information from Robert Stinnett.
 
There you go again, I don't even think that you realize how often you avoid flaws of yours being pointed out. It is eerie, the way that you simply redirect. Does this work on your high school debate team?

And yes I have, you just don't want to accept it. I have felt that some of what you said is accurate actually...But that is now beside the point, for you are unable to listen and you refuse to accept anothers point of view...yours is right and that is it. It is a shame. LMFAO? Nice.

BUT! It helps define your level of understanding.

Stop hiding. I haven't witnessed behavior this obvious in a while...
Why do I persist?

Can you answer one question?

The question is this: Are there aspects of the "historical record" that contradict what you agree with?

Yes or no with reasoning please. Wait, that is to much, jsut answer ONE question...yes or no. That is it. Yes or no is not to hard.
 

In what history book was there not an oil embargo placed against Japan?

Answer the question if FDR didn't want the war then why the oil embargo?

Now I expect yet another dodge and a post with absolutely no substance except your own opinion and conjecture.
 
Your last post asked…
“In what history book was there not an oil embargo placed against Japan? Answer the question if FDR didn't want the war then why the oil embargo?”

Answers…None, and I never ever once said that there was one. And, at the very least, FDR wanted to hinder Japanese military actions...

But, is that how a person answers a question? Well, you might answer questions with questions. I asked…

“Can you answer one question? The question is this: Are there aspects of the "historical record" that contradict what you agree with?”

I answered your question; answer this one...
 
Trajan –
“Now I expect yet another dodge and a post with absolutely no substance except your own opinion and conjecture.”

Oh man, that is so pathetic...
Trying to use my own tactic against me? Creative! Good job. Did you really just do that? Haha, holy cow…

FDR may have wanted a war; I never ever once said that he did not. Never. I said that it is speculation at best that he did and that, “The rest of your post follows this foundation (of speculation), thus being opinion, although it is logical, if you are operating an incorrect platform, you are following the incorrect path.” Non-threatening and accurate; just logical. A point? Yes, one of those things that you repeated I never made.

Just because I say it is speculation does not mean that FDR did not want to purposely set a course for war…I don’t think that he did, regardless, I feel that many historians (not all) have made a conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture, by making an inference on inconclusive evidence and you agree with these historians.

There may be documents, yet you provided none that make the case for FDR wanting war. I have not seen them and I have researched this a bit and others that I know have researched it, (those within the actual profession), and they state that they think the evidence is inconclusive. That people can only speculate about FDR’s true motive. I agree with them. I do not agree with you. All this means is that you could be right. Absolutely. But I stated it in such a manner that indicates that you could very well be incorrect as well. And this is accurate too. There is a possibility, no matter how remote, that you could be incorrect. This is reasonable doubt. You never talked with FDR personally and you have offered no evidence written, video, or audio to support your claim. This is what you have been fighting. Why? I have no idea. I doubt any person has an idea. This is all I have been saying. That you could be wrong, but you are fighting this, twisting points and creating tangents all over the place, and of this, I am not the only one who notices it. It is transparent. It is boring. It is ridiculous, and after this post, after conclusively addressing this first point, I am done. I was correct. This should all be unnecessary, but I guess I will have to spell it out to you. I am surprised at your lack of recognition skills, you must have had some crappy teachers. I remain correct.

POINT:
You used a conspiracy inadvertently as an analogy to discount Robodoon’s theory that you thought was conspiratorial rhetoric.

That said, Initially this whole ridiculous circus started when I pointed out the irony that you did not differentiate between your conspiracy theory and the one that Robodoon supplied. He stated this at the beginning…

“COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN B. Carroll Reece warned fellow congressmen of a "diabolical conspiracy," that a certain few foundations were financing the Socialist and Communist overthrow of the United States."

The Reece Committee learned that the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, were, with tax-exempt dollars, funding leftist propaganda operations, aimed at changing America through the brain, not the battlefield. Patriotism, national sovereignty, individual responsibility, and Christian beliefs were belittled while the concepts of a one world government, socialism, collectivism and humanism were deemed essential for peace in the modern age.”

To this you responded…

“Yes FDR was a socialist as is evident in his New Deal policies, yes FDR wanted to enter the war that's why he placed the oil embargo on Japan, yes FDR believed that it was the corrupt institutions under which the people lived that were the problem and to combat this an international community through the U.N. must be established, however, this was never intended to erode American soveriegnty nor was it a conspiratorial plot to bring about Communism in the U.S.. Your theory of history is one sided and steeped in conspiratorial rhetoric.”

He supplied some aspects of “Historical Record” that may or may not be true and you have yet to counter with anything other than conjecture. Just your opinion...that is it, that is all.

I then made my first response that bugged out of you and you have not let go of it since, being unable to comprehend the above and the following chronology. What I said was…

“Trajan Octavian Titus –
‘FDR wanted to enter the war that's why he placed the oil embargo on Japan’

Trajan Octavian Titus - To Robodoon
‘Your theory of history is one sided and steeped in conspiratorial rhetoric’

Bodisatva –
‘Uh huh...there appears to be an issue of non-recognition here’”

This is where I point out the use of conspiracy…

I then explained to Robodoon that…
“I was pointing out the irony that Trajan did not differentiate between your conspiracy theory and the one that he supplied, thus showing either ignorance or hypocrisy. Either way it is all good, just humorous.”

Conspiracy:
con·spir·a·cy P Pronunciation Key (k n-spîr -s )
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
An agreement to perform together a subversive act…

Subversive act is defined as:
sub·ver·sive P Pronunciation Key (s b-vûr s v, -z v)
adj.
Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established government:


Intended to undermine an established government:

Undermine:

un·der·mine P Pronunciation Key ( n d r-m n )
tr.v. un·der·mined, un·der·min·ing, un·der·mines
1. To weaken by wearing away a base or foundation: Water has undermined the stone foundations.
2. To weaken, injure, or impair, often by degrees or imperceptibly; sap: Late hours can undermine one's health.
3. To dig a mine or tunnel beneath.

FDR may well have conspired to set in motion these events, propelling Japan and America into war. THAT WAS NOT THE POINT. The point was that since FDR did not ever nor could he ever state publicly that he was taking actions to lead us directly into war…IT WAS A CONSPIRACY. By every definition of the word, it was a conspiracy. It may or may not have happened, that is not the point, the point is that if it did it was a conspiracy and if it did not, those that think it did think that it was a conspiracy itself or the act of hiding it was a conspiracy.

So when Robodoon asked about what I meant, he simply said…” We can't know everything”. But not you, you say, “It's not a conspiracy theory it's historical record”…and then you supply no proof. “FDR wanted in to the war to fight Fascism” and all the blah blah blah that went with it.

POINT:
You used a conspiracy inadvertently as an analogy to discount his theory that you thought was conspiratorial rhetoric.

That is it. That is all.
You did not think that the FDR/Japan thing was a conspiracy when it was.
I pointed it out.
I laid it all out so that any dipsh/t could follow it.
I was correct.
I am correct.
Acknowledge this simple little fact and move on.
I will check your response and if it is appropriate, we can move on…
No response?
No acknowledgement?
Nothing will change the fact that for this point, this issue…
I was correct.
 
Last edited:

No there isn't everyone agrees the oil embargo was an act of provocation move against the Japanese attempting to draw them into a first strike.
 

I notice you like to use simplistic definitions to prove your points but for you to call me a conspiracy theorist is fallacious, for example the mafia is by the defintion of the word a conspiracy to commit a crime, however, for one to acknowledge this fact doth not make them a conspiracy theorist that is merely an acknowledgement of the truth. Another example, for me to say that Reagan sold weapondry to the Iranians to supply the Contras in Nicaragua does not make me a Conspiracy theorist, because what I claim is actually the truth. The difference between me and Robodoon is that he thinks FDR's actions were evil in nature and intended to bring about the result of a one world socialist government, I on the other hand think FDR did what was necessary in order to stop the evils of Fascism from taking over the world.

This is the definition of a conspiracy theorist I am not one Robodoon is:

From the pages of "Political Ideologies Their Origins and Impact 8th ed.," by Leon P. Baradat:
 
“No there isn't everyone agrees the oil embargo was an act of provocation move against the Japanese attempting to draw them into a first strike.”

That is idiotic and untrue. You are either ignorant or a flat out liar.

Now, to the point:

“for me to say that Reagan sold weapondry to the Iranians to supply the Contras in Nicaragua does not make me a Conspiracy theorist, because what I claim is actually the truth.”

You are right. Finally! You are not a “Conspiracy theorist”.

You are describing what, is in fact, an actual conspiracy. Whether the conspiracy is the truth or a theory is irrelevant. The point is that there was a conspiracy involved…that is all I claimed, and to that point I am correct. FDR conspired secretly so that the oil embargo would force Japan to attack. That WAS a conspiracy. Why a conspiracy? Why secretly? Because he could not openly declare that he was leading the USA towards war. The fact that you used what is a conspiracy is all that matters. That is all that I was pointing out.

“the mafia is by the defintion of the word a conspiracy to commit a crime, however, for one to acknowledge this fact doth not make them a conspiracy theorist “

Correct, it does not make them a “conspiracy theorist”. But if they talk about the mafia, they are talking about a group that involves itself in conspiracy.

Fact and theory can both contain conspiracy.
A conspiracy can be a fact.
A conspiracy can be only a theory.

Is this clear?
Is this understood?
Are you at this point convoluting the issue…again?
Can you comprehend this?
Yes? No?
So what...
Deal with it…you are wrong.

Is this too simple? Haha…nice!

“I notice you like to use simplistic definitions to prove your points “

Simplistic definitions? This is the second time that you have “used that” as if it is an insult…I have not heard anything that stupid in a long, long time.

The simplest answer is usually the correct answer… Occam's Razor

Nothing you can or will say is going to change this simple fact:
I am right and you are wrong.

This is old.
This is boring.
You are unyielding in your insatiable need to be right.
It is pathetic…

I can’t even understand why you would debate this at all. People are wrong about things every day. Who cares? Not many people ever care, but apparently you care a lot. Who cares? You care. You care and it won’t help. You are wrong here and that is that.

Not only are you wrong, but you apparently can’t comprehend even “simplistic definitions” that are laid out in a simplistic manner. It should be so simple for you to understand, to rip up the simplicity of a simpleton such as I…but simplicity is simple…it simply makes what I say simply so beautiful.

What I said is correct and there is not any logical or reasonable way to disprove it. It makes me smile…knowing that I have confounded such an intelligent and dynamic personality as you obviously are.

I will not even bother to address this thread again…
There is no need.
I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that…
On this issue
For this point

The Simpleman won…
I was right and you are wrong.

I was correct
I am correct
I will forever remain correct.

Bye
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…