Wyhe Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 you may not know this Prince of Death' date=' but the US was actually to blame as to why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in the first place[/quote']Actually, the real reason behind the Pearl Habour bombing has nothing to do with the Samurais. It is really that Japan don't want American intervention when they invade South-east Asia & (Philippines was part of US at the time) that alone was their biggest mistake ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 hmm. I really need to look up more on the WWII later. I must ind out for myself if tere was anyother cause that I never knew about til now. anyway' date=' I still stick to what I say about the Russians being afraid to attack the U.S. because they dont know if we have any atomic bombs or not along with if the U.S. will use them.[/quote']They knew we had nukes, we knew they had theirs. Both of us knew that if one of us attacked, both of us would fall. no actually it just depends on each sides actions. normally the first to strike wins, like in chess but in war it depends on the decicions made by the comanding authority @ragnarok: this also pertains to your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 hmm. I really need to look up more on the WWII later. I must ind out for myself if tere was anyother cause that I never knew about til now. anyway' date=' I still stick to what I say about the Russians being afraid to attack the U.S. because they dont know if we have any atomic bombs or not along with if the U.S. will use them.[/quote']They knew we had nukes, we knew they had theirs. Both of us knew that if one of us attacked, both of us would fall. no actually it just depends on each sides actions. normally the first to strike wins, like in chess but in war it depends on the decicions made by the comanding authority @ragnarok: this also pertains to your question. yeah well the commanding authority isn't always the brightest, especially when you have people trying to override it. Just look at the Cuban Missile Crisis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 hmm. I really need to look up more on the WWII later. I must ind out for myself if tere was anyother cause that I never knew about til now. anyway' date=' I still stick to what I say about the Russians being afraid to attack the U.S. because they dont know if we have any atomic bombs or not along with if the U.S. will use them.[/quote']They knew we had nukes, we knew they had theirs. Both of us knew that if one of us attacked, both of us would fall. no actually it just depends on each sides actions. normally the first to strike wins, like in chess but in war it depends on the decicions made by the comanding authority @ragnarok: this also pertains to your question. yeah well the commanding authority isn't always the brightest, especially when you have people trying to override it. Just look at the Cuban Missile Crisis yes but it has to do with te leader's actions. Why hire a leader that would get you killed than one that woud bring peace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 hmm. I really need to look up more on the WWII later. I must ind out for myself if tere was anyother cause that I never knew about til now. anyway' date=' I still stick to what I say about the Russians being afraid to attack the U.S. because they dont know if we have any atomic bombs or not along with if the U.S. will use them.[/quote']They knew we had nukes, we knew they had theirs. Both of us knew that if one of us attacked, both of us would fall. no actually it just depends on each sides actions. normally the first to strike wins, like in chess but in war it depends on the decicions made by the comanding authority @ragnarok: this also pertains to your question. yeah well the commanding authority isn't always the brightest, especially when you have people trying to override it. Just look at the Cuban Missile Crisis yes but it has to do with te leader's actions. Why hire a leader that would get you killed than one that woud bring peace? Ever hear of the saying "In order to achieve peace you must prepare for war"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 hmm. I really need to look up more on the WWII later. I must ind out for myself if tere was anyother cause that I never knew about til now. anyway' date=' I still stick to what I say about the Russians being afraid to attack the U.S. because they dont know if we have any atomic bombs or not along with if the U.S. will use them.[/quote']They knew we had nukes, we knew they had theirs. Both of us knew that if one of us attacked, both of us would fall. no actually it just depends on each sides actions. normally the first to strike wins, like in chess but in war it depends on the decicions made by the comanding authority @ragnarok: this also pertains to your question. yeah well the commanding authority isn't always the brightest, especially when you have people trying to override it. Just look at the Cuban Missile Crisis yes but it has to do with te leader's actions. Why hire a leader that would get you killed than one that woud bring peace? Ever hear of the saying "In order to achieve peace you must prepare for war"? yes I have, but why not just have a person who would bring peace without war. this basically comes to the presidential election when it was between Obama and McCaine. McCaine wanted war and Obama didnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 the US's hate for Asian people is also what contributed to their different actions in WWII later on you know It was mostly the Japanese they were angry at. For a lot of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 the US's hate for Asian people is also what contributed to their different actions in WWII later on you know It was mostly the Japanese they were angry at. For a lot of reasons. Yeah well I was referring to before the war even began Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyhe Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 hmm. I really need to look up more on the WWII later. I must ind out for myself if tere was anyother cause that I never knew about til now. anyway' date=' I still stick to what I say about the Russians being afraid to attack the U.S. because they dont know if we have any atomic bombs or not along with if the U.S. will use them.[/quote']They knew we had nukes, we knew they had theirs. Both of us knew that if one of us attacked, both of us would fall. no actually it just depends on each sides actions. normally the first to strike wins, like in chess but in war it depends on the decicions made by the comanding authority @ragnarok: this also pertains to your question. yeah well the commanding authority isn't always the brightest, especially when you have people trying to override it. Just look at the Cuban Missile Crisis yes but it has to do with te leader's actions. Why hire a leader that would get you killed than one that woud bring peace? Ever hear of the saying "In order to achieve peace you must prepare for war"?Now aren't we all such a doublethinker...ever read 1984??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 actually I have not. What are you getting at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyhe Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Just a point that I made when I saw the "war & peace" part.. But seriously, Japan just want to stop American intervention when they invade South-east Asia, but bombing Pearl Habour in a hit-and-run operation was actually their biggest mistake ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 that was the oil embargo problem, since Japan needed it for its war machine to work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 actually I have not. What are you getting at? In 1984, they use the term "Doublethink", which means to simultaneously embrace two conflicting ideals. You should read it, good book. And Japan's attack on the US had to do with the oil embargo, as WYHE said. They severely underestimated the response the US would give to an attack on her shores. The Kamikaze attacks were inspired by Bushido though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyhe Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 As such, it can be concluded that Pearl Habour is because of a mix of the following: -Oil Embargo problem-Prevention of American intervention-Bushidoism ideals of the WWII-era Japanese army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 I'm....kind of surprised this thread isn't locked yet. And I think it should be now, since...everyone agrees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 unless you want to talk more on the war of terror Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyhe Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Ok then, while you guys are talking about Russia & Iran & the Mad East, I think the threat should also be pointed at North Korea where nuclear weapons are continuing their production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 The US is right to want to know about North Korea's nuclear program, but it's not like we have the right to cut it off from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyhe Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 According to North Korean officials, they will only completely disarm their nukes if US also disarm all of theirs. I think that other countries will continue producing nukes if they still know that there is another country with that "edge". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 According to North Korean officials' date=' they will only completely disarm their nukes if US also disarm all of theirs. I think that other countries will continue producing nukes if they still know that there is another country with that "edge".[/quote'] that's not going to happen. During the height of the nuclear weapons race, the US and USSR never agreed to dismantle ALL of their weapons. They still need it in case another country chooses to go to nuclear war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyhe Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 According to North Korean officials' date=' they will only completely disarm their nukes if US also disarm all of theirs. I think that other countries will continue producing nukes if they still know that there is another country with that "edge".[/quote'] that's not going to happen. During the height of the nuclear weapons race, the US and USSR never agreed to dismantle ALL of their weapons. They still need it in case another country chooses to go to nuclear warAnd thus, in our own pride & prestige, the human race will destroy only themselves...what a tragic end for us to be ended by our own creations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 According to North Korean officials' date=' they will only completely disarm their nukes if US also disarm all of theirs. I think that other countries will continue producing nukes if they still know that there is another country with that "edge".[/quote'] that's not going to happen. During the height of the nuclear weapons race, the US and USSR never agreed to dismantle ALL of their weapons. They still need it in case another country chooses to go to nuclear warAnd thus, in our own pride & prestige, the human race will destroy only themselves...what a tragic end for us to be ended by our own creations... Hey, we ARE our greatest enemy, this saying has been true LONG before the time of nuclear weapons. In the nuclear world we may just destroy ourselves faster and nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 According to North Korean officials' date=' they will only completely disarm their nukes if US also disarm all of theirs. I think that other countries will continue producing nukes if they still know that there is another country with that "edge".[/quote'] that's not going to happen. During the height of the nuclear weapons race, the US and USSR never agreed to dismantle ALL of their weapons. They still need it in case another country chooses to go to nuclear warAnd thus, in our own pride & prestige, the human race will destroy only themselves...what a tragic end for us to be ended by our own creations... Hey, we ARE our greatest enemy, this saying has been true LONG before the time of nuclear weapons. In the nuclear world we may just destroy ourselves faster and nothing more. Well the logical answer is for me to take over the world. Then we'd become one big happy empire. :D But seriously, barring global unification, I don't ever see an end to nuclear threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Supreme Gamesmaster Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 The War on Terror. It can't possibly be a World War; only one country is in it. Besides, the new administration can only screw things up so much, and from the looks of progress so far, our foreign policy is going to skyrocket, so a USA war against another country is unlikely ibidem. The UN might intervene against Isræl, but that's all I can see for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 According to North Korean officials' date=' they will only completely disarm their nukes if US also disarm all of theirs. I think that other countries will continue producing nukes if they still know that there is another country with that "edge".[/quote'] that's not going to happen. During the height of the nuclear weapons race, the US and USSR never agreed to dismantle ALL of their weapons. They still need it in case another country chooses to go to nuclear warAnd thus, in our own pride & prestige, the human race will destroy only themselves...what a tragic end for us to be ended by our own creations... Hey, we ARE our greatest enemy, this saying has been true LONG before the time of nuclear weapons. In the nuclear world we may just destroy ourselves faster and nothing more. Well the logical answer is for me to take over the world. Then we'd become one big happy empire. :D But seriously, barring global unification, I don't ever see an end to nuclear threat. All empires crumble in the end, yours would too eventually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.