05-06-2005 20:11									#331
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ned Whatever history this country had in supporting "dictators," I assure you it was bi-partisan.

I don't think anyone disputes this point.

quote: But the real goal of the left is to protect jobs. To the extent they are successful, they doom the companies that cannot stay competitive on costs to extinction. That is what is now happening to GM.

What a terrible thing to do! Damn the labor unions! We'd be super competative if we repealed all our labor, environmental, and minimum wage laws... we'd be a third world country, but our goods would be so cheap!

I admit that the unions have taken too much in some areas. Many unions are taking steps to rectify this, taking pay cuts and cutting some benefits to ensure that the companies stay competative enough to keep their employment. There's no doubt that the US needs to keep flexible to compete, but it's foolish to allow the complete destruction of our industrial base. Not only does that weaken us strategically, it also creates a displaced former working class, a class that now simply becomes low class.

This displaced, hopeless class will be the albatross around our country's neck, because its members will turn to crime, drugs, and welfare for survival. Gone are the days that the majority of people could find a decent job without a college degree. Many people simply aren't academic; with the death of industry, these people are shunted into service fields. Some luck out and get good jobs; most do not. Health insurance provides a good illustration about the degredation of the working class into simply low class. The reason that health insurance coverage is inadequate is because industrial jobs that provided health insurance have been replaced by service jobs without benefits. These low class people then either have to depend on the government for a handout to pay their health costs or go without. Loss of jobs creates more and more government dependents.

You are supposedly conservative. (I'd simply call you Republican. People think that Republicans are far right, but they're really only center-right... anyway, I'm digressing) As a conservative, how can you, in good conscious, support economic policy that increases dependence on government handouts? (I guess you do so in the same way that you enthuisiastically support sinking $500 Billion into Iraq. I find it funny that you support that, yet you'd probably march on Washington if we spent $500 Billion to improve our own country's infrastructure.) You seem to put hatred for unions over love of country. You're the type of "conservative" that I hate, the ones that are patriotic everywhere but the wallet. That sentiment is the primary reason I (and many other right wingers) will never vote for the Republicans. They put the interests of Wall Street over the interests of the common citizen.

	05-06-2005 22:38									#332
	Put an end to popups!

I get the impression Ned that you really don't engage your brain before you open your mouth...

	05-06-2005 23:46									#333
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I'll take the 'fact' of today's working society over some wing nut's wonderland any day of the week.

As if conservatives think that today's society works...

	06-06-2005 01:17									#334
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: The people who want change are not limited to this forum. There's quite a few of them even when things seem to be working well, because it's not working for lots of people.

Maybe they should vote for someone like Nader or Perot, or start their own political parties and actually demonstrating that they 'care' about the governing of the US through investing time and energy researching positions, etc.- instead of b*tching, as notyoueither stated.

	06-06-2005 01:31									#335
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Ned

quote: Second, alone among US presidents, this president is calling for democracy in all the mid East. This has never happened before.

What Bush says is immaterial when the Arab people and government see that statement for what it truly is, as immaterial and senseless as his plan to send man to Mars or his new immigration propoal (which made tons of sense, but would never get past congress- and bush knew that.) Bush is just plying platitudes on the American people, attempting to gain votes and in the process is misleading.

As my examples stated, giving Pakistan, the Saudis, etc. as proof- Bush often says one thing and does another.

He knows, as I think we all do- that a new democratic Saudi gvt. will have no need of american bases in Saudi Arabia- those bases currently provide a lot of support should Saudi arabia have its government toppled by islamists.

And I think it should also be noted that Islamists will win democratic elections should they be voted in. And as far as Bush is concerned, that's against his best interests.

Also- Iran is much more democratic than Saudi Arabia, and Bush constantly berates it. Now, I and I think most people here would never want to live in Iran and because of its Council of Guardians and strict election laws, it cannot be called anywhere near as free as the US or European nations, but it lacks corruption, has 'free' elections and 'works.' Bush's lack of support for a democratically-leaning nation of that sort speaks volumes about his true intentions.

The american people want to hear about democracy, the middle easternern citizens want to hear about democracy, and so he says he's for democracy.

But he's not fooling anyone (outside of americans) that he really is serious about these movements, beacause these movements, as Iran demonstrates, are against american interest.

-PS: Just as a note to all: yes, I do recognize that Turkey possesses a relatively american-friendly Islamist reformist government, but that is an exception in a more westernized and advanced nation in that region. A nation such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Syria would expereince a very different style of governing should Islamists rise to power in those locations.

quote: The people who oppose this policy are the Democrats. One has to conclude that they favor the status quo: dictatorships.

In what way do the democrats oppose this?

As far as I can see, they were against bush intervening in Iraq- and as we can see, intervention was done for illegal reasons- Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and the inspectors were in the nation when war was declared.

Democrats are also for working with other nations. Working with other nations ensures favorable trade policies. Good relations with other nations ensures that foreigners like americans and they buy american goods, and american culture. Good realtions with other nations means that they'll trade with the US in the future. Now, of course, most nations are pragmatic and they will trade as long as there is a market... However, for how long will they purchase american goods when american goods are increasingly becoming culture-only oriented?? If there is a good popular relationship, then yes, they'll purchase, if not- then they won't and the US economy will suffer.

So, the true patriot would seek an international coalition and to play by the rules of the UN instead of setting a terrible precedent for people to disregard the motions of the UN security council.

What is the US going to do in 10 years when China invades Taiwan?

The US has little legal recourse. It already set a precedent of disregarding UN proclamations, and China actually has a claim on the little island.

Bush and the neo-cons have created a terrible foreign policy situation.
-----

quote: Starving? The typical worker working for a foreign company are getting paid very well by local standards. Their wages do indeed drive up labor costs rapidly in any country that allows foreign investment so that over time, their wages tend to be more on the Western scale.

In some markets, yes. But not in all. And manufacturers keep on seeking out the 'outside the law' markets that have subsistence-living workers.

And I see that you agree with me by my statment that as industrialization and production increase in a nation that eventually wages will rise in that nation... Therefore, that will drive up prices... and therefore since exporting something 1000 miles costs more than moving something cross nation 100 miles, the US will end up paying more for goods. This will happen, maybe not today, maybe not tommorrow, but within 30-50 years for certain.

The United States' time at the top of the world is nearing an end, China and India will soon surpass America- and America (to ensure its economic security), needs to do everything it can to ensure that it retains industrial might to meet their challenge for as long as humanly possible.

---

I'll echo wycoff's comments on your other points.

---
agathon- still getting to your response, sorry it's taking so long, but there are only so many hours in the day. And as you can see, I'm busy discussing things with Ned's Right in addition to Your Left.

	06-06-2005 01:32									#336
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Sandman As if conservatives think that today's society works...

Once again, those are reactionaries and republicans- not conservatives.

a 'return to moral values and 4-6 children and 2 married people with a woman who stays at home' would be a reactionary demand.

a 'keep the family at 2.5 children and 2 married people who both work' would be a conservative demand.

	06-06-2005 01:35									#337
	Tired of ads?

Darkcloud gets it.

	06-06-2005 02:14									#338
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud Once again, those are reactionaries and republicans- not conservatives. a 'return to moral values and 4-6 children and 2 married people with a woman who stays at home' would be a reactionary demand. a 'keep the family at 2.5 children and 2 married people who both work' would be a conservative demand.

How are you going to raise the birthrate (America's is 2.08) in a 'traditional' manner? Or stop divorces in a 'traditional' way?

	06-06-2005 07:27									#339
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

..only responding to the 18:30 post, I'll get to the others later, agathon

quote: No. You are getting it wrong again. Liberals do not argue that change may be for the best. If we lived in a society that was consistent with Liberal values (e.g. non-racist, non-sexist, relatively egalitarian) no Liberal would want to change. In fact no conservative as you have defined it should want to change

I think you have set 2 definitions up for liberal.

One seems to consider Liberal Philosophy 'that of change'

another seems to consider policies that liberals have traditionally wanted to change (Ie: Legalize marijuana, etc.)


By stating that they are:

quote: Liberals are determined by their goals, not their attitude towards change.

It quickly becomes apparent why we have had a conflict here.

I have been arguing that in
Society A a conservative may differ from conservatives in Society B. They will each hold different values that are conservative to their particular culture.

You however, seem to belive that there is some univeral Conservative culture that all conservatives must hold to. I completely disagree.

Conservativism is the status quo.
Liberalism is always change.

at least on the philosophical level.

A liberal could support slavery under my definition, because the policy would 'liberate labor from the nasty requirement that it must think for itself and by putting it under overlords could be better managed and productive'

A lot of the definition depends on how you word the terms.

That's one problem that I think our debate has run into. An essential disconnect on what we are arguing about.

	06-06-2005 07:35									#340
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: You however, seem to belive that there is some univeral Conservative culture that all conservatives must hold to. I completely disagree.

Well, there is, but that doesn't make a difference to my argument against your definition, which so far remains unrefuted.

You say that conservatism means staying the same, and the only intelligible way of making this into a poltical principle is in the way I suggested. Unfortunately, that way quickly reduces it to absurdity as a means of guiding action.

That's the argument. If you want to defend your belief, defend it against that argument. The rest is irrelevant.

Your characterization of Liberalism as merely the opposite principle to conservatism is simply false. Liberalism is a goal based political ideology – not a procedural fetish.

	06-06-2005 07:44									#341
	Remove this text

list of 10 rightists aka a race to the bottom

	06-06-2005 08:11									#342
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Okay agathon,

I guess I'll go to the dictionary now (I hate to do so since it's quite pedantic) but here's their definition of conservativism and liberalism:

conservativism - a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conservativism

(Basically the same definition I was giving you)

OR

Conservatism or political conservatism is any of several historically related political philosophies or political ideologies. There are also a number of Conservative political parties in various countries. All of these are primarily (though not necessarily exclusively) identified with the political right.

(Noting that it's not always identified with the political right- the left can also be conservative as we already discussed with democrats opposing Bush's Doctrine of foreign interventionism)

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/conservativism

---
Liberalism is much thornier and more difficult to define

(in all the definitions I read, it seems as though the two ideas of liberalism and conservativism are hard to define in opposition to each other simply because the two can very well be compatible. A conservative CAN be a liberal, and a liberal CAN be a conservative by the definition given below and by your view about freedoms, etc. and liberties in a society- in a society that already has gay marriage, the conservative would support it- but by the definition below, he would be a liberal)

quote: Beginning in the late 19th century, liberalism started to become the governing ideology in various countries, e.g. in the United Kingdom. At the same time, liberalism became a major ideology in virtually all developed countries. As a result of being so widespread, the term "liberalism" began to evolve rapidly, and took on different meanings in different countries. In some countries, liberalism remained in its late 19th century form: limiting government involvement in private transactions of whatever kind, with government being devoted only to protecting against threats from abroad and enforcing civil order at home, along with maintaining a stable currency, based on a "sound money" policy. However, with the coming of industrialization, a new wave of liberal thinkers began seeing government as a tool to encourage social progress and hence supported government action as a means to this end. This was a departure from the belief that government interventionism restricted liberty and thus inevitably retarded progress. The change led to a fundamental split in "liberalism" as a broad ideology.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.co...word_liberalism

---
I know this isn't a point by point response to your first post in response to my long essay, but is this sufficient for you? I'll respond point by point if You really want me to- but I think that this statement here really renders obsolete a lot of the quarrels that we both had over the definitions.

	06-06-2005 08:15									#343
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Therefore as you defined above, yes, apparently if the defintion of liberal that I gave is the accepted one, they wouldn't necessarily always be for change- but that does not discredit the conservative position. For the conservative, what is working, continues to work. He is for gradual change- not radical change.

I suppose you're arguing that the liberal too is for gradual change, and yes, perhaps many liberals are.

But the reason that we haven't been agreeing is this simple fact:

the scope of the definitions of the twain do not match.
A conservative in that definition looks to find pragmatic policies that may or may not be ideologically determined. Remember, a conservative can either be right wing or not.

A liberal in that definition seeks to find exact policies that may or may not make sense in their implementation but which are ideologically determined.

	06-06-2005 08:21									#344
	Tired of ads?

quote: Therefore as you defined above, yes, apparently if the defintion of liberal that I gave is the accepted one, they wouldn't necessarily always be for change- but that does not discredit the conservative position. For the conservative, what is working, continues to work. He is for gradual change- not radical change.

I don't think you understand my argument. It doesn't depend at all on the meaning of "liberal", it just takes as its start your claim that conservatives wish to preserve tradition.

I've pointed out that if you adopt this as a rule to guide action it is basically the same as adopting a position of voluntary ignorance.

This is a philosophical argument, it doesn't have anything to do with what is in the dictionary or what people do, it is about the concept "conservative" as you defined it, and whether that concept is of any use in guiding political action. I've given reasons why it is useless as a guide to political action – that is the argument.

	06-06-2005 08:28									#345
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: once again proving that Bush is not a conservative on economic policies. Give me strength. Private social security accounts a liberal plot?

IT's certainly not a conservative position since it's not a gradual change! The democrats want a gradual change. Not the republicans.

I think that the problem here is not that I'm allegedly redefining terms, but that you won't admit to yourself what some terms mean in the first place. The democrats are being CONSERVATIVE. They don't want to overhaul the system. Why does it hurt you so much to admit to that? It's an obvious fact.

quote: quote: and also demonstrating that while he may practice so-called 'moral conservativism' he is very open to disproving your statmeent that one can not be a social conservative/economic liberal since he is indeed an economic liberal in the sense that he seeks change and revision. I've never said that no-one could believe it or try to be one, but only that the integration of social issues with economic policy means that it won't work.

I disagree. I think I've provided enough evidence before, but it should also be noted that some libertarians could be considered economically conservative and socially liberal. Also, if someone supports free trade, then he is being liberal. But he could very easily be against gay marriage. The two don't contradict each other.

quote: quote: The lovable democrats, however, are standing in the way of change, arguing that these accounts will not work- they are being... shall we dare say it? Oh, yes we shall- CONSERVATIVES. OK. Why don't we play a game. Dark Cloud decides that words no longer have their accepted meanings.

See above. You don't seem to think that I'm redefining terms, when in reality you won't admit to yourself the full implications of the true meanings of the words.

quote: quote: Class interest? How so? In any greater degree than the Democrats? The entire American legislature is composed of millionaires. You may have noticed that most on the Left no longer have any confidence in the Democratic Party.

Fair enough. Explains why they're not voting.

quote: quote: However, Tom Delay (3rd most powerful Repblican) was an exterminator before he made it into the house- talk about rags to riches... and he's a republican. One person? Clinton was the son of a handyman IIRC. But DeLay, who is the most corrupt individual in American politics, is a good choice when you want to illustrate the thrift and honest industry of Republican Party members.

Pray Pardon. I don't have the time nor the reason to go search out every senator and representative's past histories. :bow:

And the demonstration was about rags to riches, not whether Tom DeLay is a good person or not.

quote: quote: Meanwhile- John Kerry (rich rich rich.) As for class interests- i would argue that would ONLY happen as an accident of one OBVIOUS thing. 1.) BUsinesses contribute money 2.) Richer people vote. 3.) poorer people dont' contribute money or pay attention to politics becasu they dont think that it concerns them. 4.) poorer people don't vote. Because they know it doesn't make a difference.

And it doesn't make a differnece because they don't vote. Now, what happened in the 60's... people got out and voted- and thats wy things were changed. They agitated, they actually worked for change- and things changed.

Doing nothing accomplishes nothing.

If I didn't post replies, it's not like anyone would get any closer to wisdom. At least by posting there's a chance that someone will learn something.

quote: quote: Why create programs for people who don't vote in the first place? They're the dregs of society, unuseful to anyone. You're the dregs of society for having an attitude like that.

Misquoting and misunderstanding. they're dregs because they don't vote. is the connected idea.

quote: quote: They basically coudl be argued as to have NO OPINION because they certainly aren't voicing it in a democratic way. Well, they have a realistic choice between the pro-business party that pays no attention to them and the other pro-business party that pays no attention to them.

blah. 3rd party. Perot could have and should have won in 1992. He recieved 18-30% of the popular vote, If I remember correclty.

quote: quote: With the rise of Medicare, some argument can be made that the US is moving TOWARD a welfare state, but it most certinaly is NOT A WELFARE STATE. You are changing the meanings of terms to suit yourself. I'll repeat... It is, it just isn't as extreme as Germany. Neither is Canada, but all Western countries are versions of welfare liberalism. All have mixed economies and some form of the welfare state. Even the US.

Okay, I'll agree with that definition there. It has some form of the welfare state, but it's certainly no where near as clearly a welfare state as any of the other examples.

quote: quote: then of course 'disinflation' means nothing to you? the recession of the 70s, the discrediting and revision of many of Keynes theories (with looks back to the old way of doing things) and the rise of the New Economics? This doesn't help your argument much. If both Keynes and the previous theory were wrong, it would be ****ing moronic to go back to either of them.

It could be argued that the pre-keynes theories at least didn't destroy society, therefore they could be gone back to. But I'll admit at this point- that would once again be reactionary, not a conservative policy- to return to older things.

quote: quote: Once again, as already argued- just because Bush misrepresents himself as being a conservative doesn't mean that he is one. But the Republican Party? Give me a break... You'll have to do better than this.

A party can have lost its way. Parties evolve and change all the time. The republican party is fast evolving into a party solely controlled by theocons- not true conservatives.

	06-06-2005 08:31									#346
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: Therefore as you defined above, yes, apparently if the defintion of liberal that I gave is the accepted one, they wouldn't necessarily always be for change- but that does not discredit the conservative position. For the conservative, what is working, continues to work. He is for gradual change- not radical change. I don't think you understand my argument. It doesn't depend at all on the meaning of "liberal", it just takes as its start your claim that conservatives wish to preserve tradition. I've pointed out that if you adopt this as a rule to guide action it is basically the same as adopting a position of voluntary ignorance. This is a philosophical argument, it doesn't have anything to do with what is in the dictionary or what people do, it is about the concept "conservative" as you defined it, and whether that concept is of any use in guiding political action. I've given reasons why it is useless as a guide to political action – that is the argument.

Okay Agathon. I think I understand you now.
I'll answer this later since I have to head off and do something now, but I think that we can pare down our previous arguments to my response to your statement here and any posts that proceed from that.

Do you think that's an appropriate idea... as we seem to have gotten off topic from the pure philosophical objections?

Or would you still like to discuss the other issues?

	06-06-2005 08:34									#347
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Or would you still like to discuss the other issues?

Not really. If the theory itself is deemed useless, then approaches to the other issues based on it are obviously erroneous.

	06-06-2005 08:36									#348
	Get a bigger avatar today!

nice to see Darkcloud coming out of retirement

	06-06-2005 08:40									#349
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud Or would you still like to discuss the other issues?

Here on Apolyton every one of us loons have issues.

Can I be next for an appointment?

	06-06-2005 17:53									#350
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned The problem I have discussing issues with you is that you do not respond to what I say, but to a strawman instead. I said that Britain was a fault for helping to cause WWII in both the East and the West, cause the the Mid East conflicts that we see today, and touch off wars between Hindu and Muslim in the subcontinent. What Britain did in all these events was to take historical antagonists and place them in conflict by one means or another. In this, Britain lit the fuse. You respond with, well Britain didn't create the bomb, then claim victory in your argument with me. So, I give up talking to you until you get reasonable.

I'd rather you gave up talking altogether, until at least you remember what you said, or provided evidence to back up your bizarre assertions beyond that provided by:

a) a film you saw about the Japanese invasion of Manchuria

b) some conversations you had with unnamed unquoted 'Indian' friends

c) whatever oracular visions were provided you by late night indigestion.

Here's what you said:

" Britian is deeply involved in creating the causes for war and to actually starting them. Now I am not the only one who has ever said this, as it appears to be a consensus view among all of Britains victims. But, British propaganda is very good, I agree. It almost has most of the world convinced that Britain is the most disinterested, kindly and munificent nation that ever existed.

*Germany vs. Poland, China vs. Japan, Arab vs. Jew in Palestine, Pakistan vs. India. There are more of course. But these stand out. (Nedaverse history)



Here's what an Indian historian has to say about Muslim-v-Hindu conflict during Partition in India:

" Did those who sponsored the massacre of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children (estimates have been given which vary from 200 000 to 500 000) ever lose any sleep ? There is no evidence, either from India or Pakistan, that they did.

But then who wants to remember the truth about oneself ?


It is so much easier to place a white man's name at the top of the roll-call of hate, and quietly ignore the brown sub-continental villains who were criminals of a worse kind. "

M. J . Akbar, 'India: The Siege Within'

publ. Penguin Books, 1985


It's a useful book, given that it also details Hindu-Muslim conflicts in India prior to the establishment of the British Raj. But you can just rely on your gut instinct that the British Empire was responsible, eh ?

How about Japan and China's enmity? Let's see what a Japanese aristocrat has to say:

" If new warships are considered necessary we must, at any cost, build them: if the organization of the army is inadequate we must start rectifying it from now; if need be, our entire military systemn must be changed...

At present, Japan must keep calm and sit tight, so as to lull suspicions nurtured against her; during this time the foundations of national power must be consolidated; and we must watch and wait for the opportunity in the Orient that will surely come one day. When this day arrives,

JAPAN WILL DECIDE HER OWN FATE .

Baron Hayashi

from: Storry: 'Japan and the Decline of the West in Asia'.


Germany versus Poland ?

Let's see:

" Kovno (present day Kaunas) is a typical Russian town, with low, mean wooden houses... on the further bank of the Niemen there stands the tower of an old German castle of the Teutonic Knights, a symbol of German civilization in the East...

...the population, made up as it is of such a mixtureof races, has never produced a culture of its own, and, left to itself, would succumb to

POLISH DOMINATION ."

Ludendorff, 'My War Memories' publ. London, 1919

What did Herr Hitler have to say in 'Mein Kampf' ?

"We will put an end to the perpetual Germanic march towards the south and west of Europe and turn our eyes towards the land of the East.

...when we speak of new territory in Europe today, we must principally think of Russia and the border states subject to her."

A. Hitler, 'Mein Kampf' p.553

also from 'Mein Kampf':

"To demand that the 1914 frontiers of Germany should be restored is a political absurdity... the confines of the Reich as they existed in 1914 were thoroughly illogical; because they were not really complete in the sense of including
ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE GERMAN NATION...THEY WERE TEMPORARY FRONTIERS. "


In 1891, the Alldeustsche Verband had been formed- its programme was the union of all members of the Germanic 'race' in a Pan-German state.

The core was to be: Greater Germany, incorporating Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, Poland, Rumania and Serbia.

Their motto: " Dem Deutschen gehort die Welt."

which I'm sure you can work out means:

"The world belongs to Germans."

Even Bismarck was willing to settle for Kleindeutschland.

	06-06-2005 18:09									#351
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: "" Kovno (present day Kaunas) is a typical Russian town, with low, mean wooden houses... on the further bank of the Niemen there stands the tower of an old German castle of the Teutonic Knights, a symbol of German civilization in the East... ...the population, made up as it is of such a mixtureof races, has never produced a culture of its own, and, left to itself, would succumb to POLISH DOMINATION ."

Senile moron. The castle was built by Lithuanians SPECIFICALLY to keep the Teutons out of this side of Nemunas.

	06-06-2005 18:23									#352
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Saras quote: "" Kovno (present day Kaunas) is a typical Russian town, with low, mean wooden houses... on the further bank of the Niemen there stands the tower of an old German castle of the Teutonic Knights, a symbol of German civilization in the East... ...the population, made up as it is of such a mixtureof races, has never produced a culture of its own, and, left to itself, would succumb to POLISH DOMINATION ." Senile moron. The castle was built by Lithuanians SPECIFICALLY to keep the Teutons out of this side of Nemunas.

For a moment there I was sure you were referring to Ned.

Yes, but it's interesting isn't it, that Ludendorff should refer to 'the mixture of races' and 'Polish domination' all without British help.

Perhaps Ned will discover information that Ludendorff was a British sleeper, who prosecuted the First World War to wreck Imperial Germany, divide German lands and cause nation states to arise on previously German held territory. In the Nedaverse, anything is possible.

And of course to allow the rise of Hitler.

You can't discount the trickery of Perfidious Albion. After all, Kaiser Wilhelm II's mother was English....

	06-06-2005 18:33									#353
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

On a slightly related not, in R.Barro's research (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...9750512-0944637), being a former Brit colony is a positive dummy variable, explaining superior gdp growth

	06-06-2005 18:35									#354
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Does that include Africa?

	06-06-2005 18:35									#355
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: How about Japan and China's enmity? Let's see what a Japanese aristocrat has to say: " If new warships are considered necessary we must, at any cost, build them: if theorganization of the army is inadequatre we must start rectifying it from now; if need be, our entire military systemn must be changed... At present, Japan must keep calm and sit tight, so as to lull suspicions nurtured against her; during this time the foundations of national power must be consolidated; and we must watch and wait for the opportunity in the Orient that will surely come one day. When this day arrives, JAPAN WILL DECIDE HER OWN FATE . Baron Hayashi from: Storry: 'Japan and the Decline of the West in Asia'.

Interesting choice of people to quote...

quote: Variously described as a great, brilliant Diplomat and Statesman, an Anglophile

quote: In 1866—thirteen years after Commodore Matthew C. Perry (a member of Holland Lodge No. 8 in New York City) had made his first visit to Japan—Hayashi was among the fourteen youths selected by the Tokugawa Shogunate to study the English language, manners and customs in London. At first the students lived in a lodging house, but Hayashi disliked this arrangement (recalling his experience with the Hepburns) since all of them tended to speak only Japanese except when they were attending the University College School. He petitioned to have the group separated and live with private families which was granted.

quote: In 1871 Hayashi was selected to be an interpreter with the rank of Second Secretary with the Iwakura Mission (considered as "One of the most remarkable journeys in world history") that visited the United States and Europe to study their political systems and material culture.

quote: Significant in Hayashi's career was the signing of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1902 and being elevated to the rank of Viscount. He was also responsible for the expansion and renewal of the Alliance in 1905. When the Japanese Legation in London was raised to Embassy status in 1905, Hayashi became the first Japanese Ambassador to the Court of St. James. He was the recipient of honorary degrees from Oxford and Cambridge, translated several English and European classical works on politics and political economy into Japanese, and wrote "For His People" in English.

http://www2.gol.com/users/lodge1/hi...johnston01.html

He was also apparently a hell of a Mason...

Not really sure what that quote had to do with enmity between China and Japan, anyway. Given Hayashi's background, the Japanese strategic concerns of the time and the title of the book you obtained the quote from, it seems far more likely he was talking about strengthening the Japanese military so they could stand up to the Western imperialist powers in the Orient.

	06-06-2005 18:40									#356
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Does that include Africa?

Surprisingly, yes.

	06-06-2005 19:00									#357
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse nice to see Darkcloud coming out of retirement

Thanks for the welcome back, though, as you can see by the excessive amounts of time it takes for me to prosecute any debate- you can easily see why I don't venture out here as often

any debate I get in here has a way of turning into an epic.

	06-06-2005 19:12									#358
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Dark Cloud,

The meaning of words depends on how people use them. No one uses your definition of conservative. Conservatives are the antiliberals, but the liberals don't just want change for the sake of change. Sometimes they want things the way that they are. How can you say that something like welfare reform is reactionary? It's not. It's conservative because everyone says it is but you.

Last edited by Kidicious on 06-06-2005 at 19:21

	06-06-2005 19:29									#359
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: How about Japan and China's enmity? Let's see what a Japanese aristocrat has to say: When this day arrives, JAPAN WILL DECIDE HER OWN FATE . Baron Hayashi from: Storry: 'Japan and the Decline of the West in Asia'. Interesting choice of people to quote... Not really sure what that quote had to do with enmity between China and Japan, anyway. Given Hayashi's background, the Japanese strategic concerns of the time and the title of the book you obtained the quote from, it seems far more likely he was talking about strengthening the Japanese military so they could stand up to the Western imperialist powers in the Orient.

Oh, perhaps the bit about Japan deciding her own fate, perhaps ?

Ned seems to be under the misapprehension that Japan either had no foreign policy of its own, or its foreign policy was decided for it by the British Empire.

He hasn't provided any evidence for this viewpoint, and none of your marginal interjections have either.

I was aware of the provisions of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, one of which was:

" Article II

If, by reason of an unprovoked attack or aggressive action, whenever arising, on the part of any other Power or Powers, either Contracting Party should be involved in war in defence of its territorial rights or special interests mentioned in the preamble of this Agreement, the other Contracting Party will at once come to the assistance of its ally, and will conduct war in common, and make peace in mutual agreement with it. "


Two powers, Austria-Hungary and Imperial Germany had declared war on the British Empire; a week before declaring war on Imperial Germany Japan is already preparing for an invasion of the German colonies in China and the siege of Tsingtao.

Japan, honouring the military agreement with Britain, declared war on Germany on 23 August 1914. Two days later Austria-Hungary responds by declaring war on Japan.


The Japanese Foreign Minister:

' Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs Baron Kato's Explanation of Japan's Decision to go to War with Germany

" Early in August the British Government asked the Imperial Government for assistance under the terms of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. German men-of-war and armed vessels were prowling around the seas of Eastern Asia, menacing our commerce and that of our ally, while Kiao-Chau was carrying out operations apparently for the purpose of constituting abase for warlike operations in Eastern Asia. Grave anxiety was thus felt for the maintenance of peace in the Far East.

As all are aware, the agreement and alliance between Japan and Great Britain has for its object the consolidation and maintenance of general peace in Eastern Asia and the maintenance of the independence and integrity of China as well as the principle of equal opportunities for commerce and industry for all nations in that country, and the maintenance and defence respectively of territorial rights and special interests of contracting parties in Eastern Asia.

Therefore, inasmuch as we were asked by our ally for assistance at a time when commerce in Eastern Asia, which Japan and Great Britain regard alike as one of their special interests, is subjected to a constant menace, Japan, who regards that alliance as a guiding principle of her foreign policy, could not but comply to the request to do her part. " '

Source Records of the Great War, Vol. III, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

The German view:

" A disdainful rejection was the answer of Germania and then Meyer-Waldeck drew his sword! "War! War!" was re-echoed in the region of Tsing-tau, "war against a fine pair of brothers! So let it be: we shall fight to the last drop of blood."

And how they did fight! Nothing came of the desire to present the fall of Tsing-tau as a birthday present to the Mikado on October 31st, as the Japanese had planned. There was bitter fighting. The enemy often sustained bloody repulses.

The warships, including the Kaiserin Elizabeth, of the Austro-Hungarian navy, valiantly assisted. The Kaiserin Elizabeth wanted at all events to fight with us, to conquer, or to sink.

But we here at home, we will continually repeat it to our children: Do not forget November 7, 1914: do not forget to pay back those yellow Asiatics, who had learned so much from us, for the great wrong they have done to us, stirred up though they were by the petty English mercenary spirit! "

Rear-Admiral Schlieper, 8th November 1914

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. III, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni

http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm


Answers again your irrelevant point about what Japanese ships were doing in the Mediterranean- they were at war with Austria-Hungary.



In 1835, Annam, Laos, Siam, Burma, Nepal, Korea, the Ryukyu Islands and Sulu and various Mongol, Turkic and Manchurian tribespeoples were all still paying tribute and sending envoys to the Son of Heaven.

Korea, the Ryukyu Islands and Annam and Burma still paid tribute in T'ung-chih's reign.

The initial Japanese demands for reparations over the deaths of the Ryukyuan sailors was answered with:

" We can't be responsible for the actions of savages beyond the pale of civilization."

the Tsungli Yamen.

So: Japan goes to war with China and invades Formosa/Taiwan in 1875. In 1877, the traditional envoy from the Ryuku Islands still tried to pay tribute to the Son of Heaven, but a shamefaced Yamen has to send him home.

In 1879, Japan formally annexes the Ryukyu Islands.

I'm missing the part that the British Empire played in controlling Japan's foreign policy in this quarrel with China over official suzerainty.

Which power was it that decided Japan had the better claim to the Ryukyu Islands, by the way ?

Japan invades Korea, goes to war with China, goes to war with Imperial Russia and somehow the poor benighted Japanese can't think up any of this for themselves, they have to be guided by the wily clever British.

Pull the other one, it has temple bells attached.

	06-06-2005 20:24									#360
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten To say the Japanese joined WWI solely on their own initiative is silly. Yes, they were eager to take the opportunity to expand empire at Germany's expense. Britain was equally eager to have Japan defend its empire, however, and did its best to get Japan involved in the war.

Odd, then that neither Barbara Tuchman nor Paul Kennedy nor A. J. P. Taylor nor John Keegan seem to think so.

Of course you may have information that noted historians of the First World War were not privy to, and documents that have eluded them.

However, so far the evidence I have provided shows that Japan was able to go to war with China in the 1870s and 1890s and Imperial Russia in 1904 all without needing to be instructed to do so by the British.

So a few Japanese ships in WWI provide escort duty in the Pacific, and manage to get to the Mediterranean. Big deal.

I notice it was Australia and New Zealand that managed to capture German colonies in Papua and Western Samoa without Japanese aid. How remiss of them not to rely on that all-important Japanese aid...

What would Wilson say:

" I must not turn away from this great subject without adverting to one particular in the treaty itself, and that is the provision with regard to the transfer of certain German rights in the province of Shantung, China, to Japan. I have frankly said to my Japanese colleagues in the conference, and therefore I can without impropriety say it here, that I was very deeply dissatisfied with that part of the treaty. But, my fellow citizens, Japan agreed at that very time, and as part of the understanding upon which those clauses were put into the treaty, that she would relinquish every item of sovereignty that Germany had enjoyed to China, and that she would retain only what other nations have elsewhere in China, certain economic concessions with regard to the railway and the mines, which she was to operate under a corporation and subject to the laws of China. As I say, I wish she could have done more. "