Libertarian Party sign up

[Len Budney]

OK. Then please explain what is Walmart's incentive to drop a supplier based on a few complaints from some poor people (a few of Walmart's customers) until it becomes an epidemic affecting thousands...

Um, Riley, Walmart did pull Topps meat from the shelves, 25 days before the recall. You're trying to argue theoretically that they won't do that, and they already did. You're not making sense.

--Len.

[K Frame]

"For example, we wouldn't have provoked the Japanese looking for an excuse to enter the war, so Pearl Harbor would probably not have happened."

You really have no clue about the history of the war in the Pacific, do you?

The Pacific war is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, the war that Roosevelt and other members of the Government wanted to enter.

Provoking a war with the Japanese was absolutely NO guarantee that it would result in war with Germany as well.

Anyone who claims that the United States provoked the war with Japan as a guaranteed means of getting into the European war doesn't know squat about World War II history.

The claim is blatantly FALSE, as is the claim that the United States was the aggressor in the Pacific in the first place. Just another apologist for nearly 40 years of naked Japanese terror and aggression, it would seem.

[Manedwolf]

"For example, we wouldn't have provoked the Japanese looking for an excuse to enter the war, so Pearl Harbor would probably not have happened."

You really have no clue about the history of the war in the Pacific, do you?

The Pacific war is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, the war that Roosevelt and other members of the Government wanted to enter.

Provoking a war with the Japanese was absolutely NO guarantee that it would result in war with Germany as well.

Anyone who claims that the United States provoked the war with Japan as a guaranteed means of getting into the European war doesn't know squat about World War II history.

The claim is blatantly FALSE, as is the claim that the United States was the aggressor in the Pacific in the first place. Just another apologist for nearly 40 years of naked Japanese terror and aggression, it would seem.

The only "conspiracy" that actually happened was within Japan itself, a long history of a powergrab that began with forbidding the Samurai from carrying weapons and basically causing the whole tradition of local rule to die out, and then developed into the perversion of the peaceful Shinto religion into a literal cult of emperor-worship. That was used as a tool to whip the soldiers into a nationalistic fervor to pursue an expansionist policy...divine right and all. The Emperor and military planners also used allusions to ancient myths to drive their pilots to the later desperation strategy of suicide "for the Emperor and Japan".  Kamikaze, or "divine wind", was an allusion to an old story of typhoons that had scattered Mongolian invasion fleets, saving Japan. It made the impressionable young pilots feel like they were part of the old legends.

Of course, it also backfired when the sense of "divine invincibility" caused war planners to suffer a terrible case of hubris in their strategies. That was most seen at Midway, when participants in the war game planning for it refused to take any of their carriers off the table for contingency planning, arguing that it was impossible that any could be destroyed.

The fact that "emperor worship" hadn't been around too long let us knock it down quickly once the war was over.

[Len Budney]

The claim is blatantly FALSE, as is the claim that the United States was the aggressor in the Pacific in the first place.

False, arguably. Blatantly, no. See here for one decent starting place.

[You are j]ust another apologist for nearly 40 years of naked Japanese terror and aggression, it would seem.

Is it necessary to get personal?

--Len.

[K Frame]

Blatantly YES.

Japan was engaged in aggressive expansionism in the Pacific region for nearly 20 years before the United States even began to act in a manner that could be considered overtly hostile.

Japanese whining about "we were goaded into war" not withstanding, the only reason there was a Pacific war is because of Japanese actions.

[K Frame]

The Japanese Emperor had been considered divine for nearly 2,500 years and was seen, and worshiped, as a living descendant of the Sun God.

The right of rule of the divine emperor had been codified under the Constitution of 1889(?), but the divinity of the Emperor had been an important part of the power hold of the various shogunates that ruled Japan from the 1100s on up through the Meiji Restoration.

Here's a little known fact...

In the 1970s, with the return of Okinawa to Japanese control, the Japanese Diet REAFFIRMED the divine status of the Emperor.

[Len Budney]

Japan was engaged in aggressive expansionism in the Pacific region for nearly 20 years before the United States even began to act in a manner that could be considered overtly hostile.

They posed no threat to the United States. You appear to be speaking as a citizen of China.

--Len.

[Paddy]

OK. Then please explain what is Walmart's incentive to drop a supplier based on a few complaints from some poor people (a few of Walmart's customers) until it becomes an epidemic affecting thousands...

Um, Riley, Walmart did pull Topps meat from the shelves, 25 days before the recall. You're trying to argue theoretically that they won't do that, and they already did. You're not making sense.

--Len.

OK.  For the sake of argument let's say that's true-Walmart voluntarily removed the product from their shelves as soon as they became aware of a problem.  What about the dozens of other retailers?  Why didn't they do the same?  Why was the recall necessary?  And why didn't Topps recall the product before the USDA forced them to stop production?

[Len Budney]

What about the dozens of other retailers?  Why didn't they do the same?

You're begging the question: how do you know they didn't do the same? I personally have no idea whether they did or didn't, and I suspect you don't either.

Why was the recall necessary?

Because this ain't heaven, and it ain't the garden of Eden. Bad stuff happens. Often by accident; sometimes not.

And why didn't Topps recall the product before the USDA forced them to stop production?

I have no idea what Topps did or didn't do, let alone why. But lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that the management at Topps is both greedy and malevolent, and purposely tainted the meat, and refused to recall it because they wanted to kill as many people as possible before they were stopped. Supposing all that, the free market acted more swiftly and effectively than the FDA. If it were up to the FDA, people would have been eating tainted meat for an extra 25 days.

--Len.

[K Frame]

Japan was engaged in aggressive expansionism in the Pacific region for nearly 20 years before the United States even began to act in a manner that could be considered overtly hostile.

They posed no threat to the United States. You appear to be speaking as a citizen of China.

--Len.

Wrong.

The increasing pace of Japanese expansion through the 1920s and 1930s DIRECTLY threatened US interests in the Pacific. Japanese policies made it very clear that they considered the whole of the Asian sphere, including Australia, the Philippines, and very possibly even the Hawaiian Islands, part of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere and as such were subject to Japanese annexation.

I'm not sure which is more frightening, your apparent willful ignorance of history, or your apparent apologism for Japanese aggression.

[Len Budney]

Japan was engaged in aggressive expansionism in the Pacific region for nearly 20 years before the United States even began to act in a manner that could be considered overtly hostile.

They posed no threat to the United States. You appear to be speaking as a citizen of China.

The increasing pace of Japanese expansion through the 1920s and 1930s DIRECTLY threatened US interests in the Pacific.

I said no threat to the United States. When you sneak in the word "interests," you convert a non-threat into a threat, by pretending that our interventionism constitutes a legitimate matter of self-defense. Sorta like when a guy started dating a girl I was interested in. He was a threat to my interests, so I assaulted him with a pipe. That kind of thing.

Japanese policies made it very clear that they considered the whole of the Asian sphere, including Australia, the Philippines, and very possibly even the Hawaiian Islands, part of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere and as such were subject to Japanese annexation.

Yeah, they were going to annex Australia and Hawaii. Now pull the other finger. 

I'm not sure which is more frightening, your apparent willful ignorance of history, or your apparent apologism for Japanese aggression.

Please don't misrepresent me like that. The Chinese had legitimate self-defense rights, and were free to slaughter Japanese soldiers with gleeful abandon. Likewise the filipinos, and anyone else suffering their immoral aggression. None of that constitutes a threat to the United States, however, and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

--Len.

[Sergeant Bob]

 

You are the poster child for why so few people take the Libertarian Party seriously. I mean just......Wow.

[Len Budney]

You are the poster child for why so few people take the Libertarian Party seriously. I mean just......Wow.

I have no affiliation with the Libertarian party.

But aside from the personal remarks, can you clarify which bit you disagree with? Do you deny that the Chinese and Filipinos had a right to self-defense? Do you claim that Japan was going to annex Australia and Hawaii? I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say.

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

The libertarians are currently getting their ass handed to them from the NH general public over the Brown affair. A lot of their looniest types came out in support of the Browns, and even supplied them with weapons. Several members of the "free state project" were arrested for supplying them with weapons as well, getting the latter group now labeled as a "militia" by local media. Others have made veiled threats of violence about "what it will take to make NH free". They see nothing abnormal about a former convicted felon and his wife ringing their property with IEDs and making ranting podcasts about zionist conspiracies and freemason plots, as well as a list of LEOs who would be killed if anything happened to him...but the general populace does.

This all has gone over less than charmingly with a population that enjoys a quiet state, and does not care for carpetbaggers wanting to make it into a Waco-style battlefield.

Basically, libertarians are incapable of getting themselves elected to office if they're that stupid.

[K Frame]

A threat to US interests, as in US territories and US citizens in those territories, is the same as a threat to the United States. A threat to the economic interests of a nation can also be as significant as a physical threat.

Most people understand that concept.

A few apparently don't.


"Yeah, they were going to annex Australia and Hawaii. Now pull the other finger."

Jesus, you really don't have any clue as to what Japanese aims in the Pacific were, do you?

Do you even know how the Pacific war ACTUALLY played out? As in historically?

With the Japanese invading New Guinea, which, even in the 1940s, was part of Australia (a chunk was also part of the Dutch East Indies holdings)?

March 12, 1942: "Australia and New Zealand are now threatened by the might of the Imperial forces, and both them should know that any resistance is futile. If the Australian government does not modify her present attitude, their continent will suffer the same fate as the Dutch East Indies." Hideki Tojo.

Japanese short-term goals were to completely isolate Australia from Britain and the United States and the long-term goal was to bring Australia either under the Co-Prosperity Sphere or, if necessary, invade Australia and establish a Japanese protectorate government as had been done in numerous other Asian nations.

The Battle of the Coral Sea in 1942 was the Japanese attempt at the seizure of Port Morsby. Establishing air and naval bases at Port Morsby would have given the Japanese effective control over the sea and air lane approaches to Australia, would have given them tactical control over most of the major population centers, and would have provided a very effective stepping off point for eventual invasion of the Western coast.

As it was, it took American and Australian forces nearly until the end of World War II to evict the force Japan did have in New Guinea.

[roo_ster]

Mike, thank you for wielding the cluebat with such aplomb.

I'm still interested in knowing how refusing to sell the Japanese iron & oil was a provocation.

[Sergeant Bob]

You are the poster child for why so few people take the Libertarian Party seriously. I mean just......Wow.

I have no affiliation with the Libertarian party.

But aside from the personal remarks, can you clarify which bit you disagree with? Do you deny that the Chinese and Filipinos had a right to self-defense? Do you claim that Japan was going to annex Australia and Hawaii? I'm not at all sure what you're. trying to say.

--Len.

No, I'm not saying Japan was trying to annex Australia and Hawaii (although that may have been part of their plan) but, they did attack Hawaii along with much of the Pacific rim, which suggests it wasn't beyond the realm of possibility.

The thing that boggles my mind is, how can someone suggest we ignore what they were doing simply because they (other than Hawaii) they hadn't attack the U.S. proper directly? Besides the fact they were fighting a war of conquest for many years before we even got involved.

So we should just sit around and let them (along with Germany, with whom they had the Axis treaty ) attack and take over all of Asia and Europe. Wait till they land in Connecticut and California, then pull our shotguns and hunting rifles out of the closet and fight them on our own soil.

I have to admit it would have saved us a lot of money on that Marshall plan deal because we would have been too occupied trying to rebuild our own country we couldn't have afforded to help anyone else rebuild.

Mike and several others have pointed out to you why we got involved, but you still insist non-aggression (Neville Chamberlain) is the answer.

As for whether I believe the Filipinos and the Chinese did not have a right to self defense, WTH are you talking about? Where did I say anything like that? Now you're just trying to twist the debate around to confuse the issue (misdirection) to keep everyone else on the defensive.

Thats how this thread and just about every other political thread you get involved in gets turned away from the actual topic Re: Libertarian Party sign up into a Libertopia rant by you (who has no affiliation with the Libertarian Party).

I may not be as articulate as some at expressing my views, however, I do know when somebody is blowing smoke up my hiney and so do most of the other people on this board.

[Len Budney]

"Yeah, they were going to annex Australia and Hawaii. Now pull the other finger."

Jesus, you really don't have any clue as to what Japanese aims in the Pacific were, do you?

Are you claiming they were going to annex Australia and Hawaii? Fascinating.

March 12, 1942: "Australia and New Zealand are now threatened by the might of the Imperial forces, and both them should know that any resistance is futile. If the Australian government does not modify her present attitude, their continent will suffer the same fate as the Dutch East Indies." Hideki Tojo.

Fascinating indeed. I had no idea Australia was such a weak little country. Of course Australia's defense is Australia's problem; they are neither US territory nor US citizens.

Japanese short-term goals were to completely isolate Australia from Britain and the United States and the long-term goal was to bring Australia either under the Co-Prosperity Sphere or, if necessary, invade Australia and establish a Japanese protectorate government as had been done in numerous other Asian nations.

I admit to ignorance that Australia was such a weak little country. Interesting.

As it was, it took American and Australian forces nearly until the end of World War II to evict the force Japan did have in New Guinea.

Why was the US fighting over New Guinea? Is that one of those "US interests" you were talking about? I didn't realize New Guinea was American territory, nor its people American citizens.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

The thing that boggles my mind is, how can someone suggest we ignore what they were doing simply because they (other than Hawaii) they hadn't attack the U.S. proper directly? Besides the fact they were fighting a war of conquest for many years before we even got involved.

When did I ever say to "ignore" what they were doing? I don't remember saying any such thing.

Mike and several others have pointed out to you why we got involved, but you still insist non-aggression (Neville Chamberlain) is the answer.

I'm all for brutal slaughter in defensive force. I'm not advocating pacifism, nor peace, love and granola bars. Nonaggression is about not starting the fight. When the aggressor has started it, I advocate utter brutality in self-defense. Please don't confuse nonaggression with pacifism.

As for whether I believe the Filipinos and the Chinese did not have a right to self defense, WTH are you talking about? Where did I say anything like that?

You have it backwards: I affirm their right to self-defense to clarify that I'm in no way supporting Japan, as Mike improperly alleged. I'm all for the Nip aggressors getting their asses handed to them by their victims.

--Len.

[Paddy]

The thing that boggles my mind is, how can someone suggest we ignore what they were doing simply because they (other than Hawaii) they hadn't attack the U.S. proper directly? Besides the fact they were fighting a war of conquest for many years before we even got involved.

When did I ever say to "ignore" what they were doing? I don't remember saying any such thing.

Mike and several others have pointed out to you why we got involved, but you still insist non-aggression (Neville Chamberlain) is the answer.

I'm all for brutal slaughter in defensive force. I'm not advocating pacifism, nor peace, love and granola bars. Nonaggression is about not starting the fight. When the aggressor has started it, I advocate utter brutality in self-defense. Please don't confuse nonaggression with pacifism.

As for whether I believe the Filipinos and the Chinese did not have a right to self defense, WTH are you talking about? Where did I say anything like that?

You have it backwards: I affirm their right to self-defense to clarify that I'm in no way supporting Japan, as Mike improperly alleged. I'm all for the Nip aggressors getting their asses handed to them by their victims.

--Len.

So you think that an island of peace, tranquility and bliss (Libertopia, USA) can exist surrounded by a world of violence, brutality and evil?

How naive.

Go back.  Go back to Eisenhower, a great and successful warrior.  A champion of liberation and freedom for millions.  Read what he said on the subject.  Learn.

[Len Budney]

So you think that an island of peace, tranquility and bliss (Libertopia, USA) can exist surrounded by a world of violence, brutality and evil?

You're not even bothering to read what I write, so I don't see why you bother replying. Utter brutality in self defense is miles away from what you describe as "an island of peace, tranquility and bliss."

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

So you think that an island of peace, tranquility and bliss (Libertopia, USA) can exist surrounded by a world of violence, brutality and evil?  How naive.

He agrees with you, Riley.  "Re-deploy all our troops to the border," and what-not. 

[Sergeant Bob]

So you think that an island of peace, tranquility and bliss (Libertopia, USA) can exist surrounded by a world of violence, brutality and evil?

You're not even bothering to read what I write, so I don't see why you bother replying. Utter brutality in self defense is miles away from what you describe as "an island of peace, tranquility and bliss."

--Len.

Are you bothering to read what you write? How do you reconcile your response to Riley with this?

Fascinating indeed. I had no idea Australia was such a weak little country. Of course Australia's defense is Australia's problem; they are neither US territory nor US citizens.

So, utter brutality in self defense is OK, while watching the rest of the world fall apart around us?

When did I ever say to "ignore" what they were doing? I don't remember saying any such thing.

Well, maybe you didn't actually say ignore but, in effect thats what you want to do. You got me there. I guess watching it all happen on TV qualifies as not ignoring all your allies being conquered.

[Len Budney]

Are you bothering to read what you write? How do you reconcile your response to Riley with this?

Fascinating indeed. I had no idea Australia was such a weak little country. Of course Australia's defense is Australia's problem; they are neither US territory nor US citizens.

So, utter brutality in self defense is OK, while watching the rest of the world fall apart around us?

What contradiction do you think you see here? Self-defense is moral. Enslaving others to defend you is not. Australia has a duty to defend herself, but has no right to enslave Americans for that purpose, either directly or by proxy.

Well, maybe you didn't actually say ignore but, in effect thats what you want to do. You got me there. I guess watching it all happen on TV qualifies as not ignoring all your allies being conquered.

If Americans want to volunteer as mercenaries for the defense of Australia, more power to them. That doesn't justify enslaving people for the "defense" of Australia (or any other nation). But you're presenting a false choice here: either wage aggressive war, or "ignore" the threat. There's a third choice, and it requires neither aggressive war nor enslavement.

--Len.

[Sergeant Bob]

So I guess all of us here who volunteered part of our lives (20 years myself) to the service of our country are just mercenaries?

When did Australia own Americans slaves?