Venezuela Update

[Big_Zucchini]

Sometimes, in the process of someone finding out all sorts of things, others get caught in the process. See Holocaust for reference.

He said that tens of millions had died and that was before the nukes even existed.

Who is he and where did tens of millions die?

The sentence you wrote there is extremely shortsighted, in my opinion, and I would encourage you to give it more thought.

How much more thought is necessary? Japan did something it considered hilarious. The US very much disagreed, and incinerated Japan while being largely untouched in relative, very macro level terms.

 

[KipPotapych]

It seems that people are obtuse on purpose. Oh well.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

It seems that people are obtuse on purpose. Oh well.

Then what's a word for someone who thinks the war in the pacific resulted in "tens of millions of deaths"?

 

[KipPotapych]

This is yet one of those times where we part ways again for the sake of others.

 

[Todjaeger]

Then what's a word for someone who thinks the war in the pacific resulted in "tens of millions of deaths"?

Knowledgeable, definition found here.

Estimates put the number of dead in the Asia/Pacific theatre during WWII somewhere between 25 mil. and 36 mil. with most of the deaths being non-combatants. One source can be found here, another source found here, indicates as many as 20 mil. Chinese died.

There are other sources available as well and easily searched for.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Knowledgeable, definition found here.

Estimates put the number of dead in the Asia/Pacific theatre during WWII somewhere between 25 mil. and 36 mil. with most of the deaths being non-combatants. One source can be found here, another source found here, indicates as many as 20 mil. Chinese died.

There are other sources available as well and easily searched for.

Why are you including Chinese and starting at 1937? How are they related to the US-Japanese war of 1941-1945?

American-inflicted Japanese casualties in 1941-1945 certainly do not reach 10 million, let alone several tens of million.

 

[koxinga]

Frankly, I don't understand what's going on. I presume there is always some exception, counterpoint, some examples somwhere. If the intent of this "debate" is to score one over the other by presenting one example over another, it just strays away from the main topic but debating those references/counterarguments.

 

[KipPotapych]

Follow up to what I was saying yesterday:



Reuters article citing the FT article cited in the tweet attached above:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-oil-companies-say-they-need-guarantees-invest-venezuela-ft-reports-2026-01-08/

The question here is: is that how the US gets troops on the ground and throws taxpayers’ (the tariff) money at the oil or is this where the orange dreams end?

 

[swerve]

Why are you including Chinese and starting at 1937? How are they related to the US-Japanese war of 1941-1945?

You've just proved that you don't know anything about the origins of the US-Japanese war of 1941-1945 - or you're trolling. Which is it? Either way, I think you should stop.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

You've just proved that you don't know anything about the origins of the US-Japanese war of 1941-1945 - or you're trolling. Which is it? Either way, I think you should stop.

The action referenced was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The US retaliated in a campaign that ended with Japanese surrender. I fail to see the logic of including China and preceding periods.

Your argument for why they should be included does not yet exist.

If you are already on a search to blame others, please be aware of your inability to make structured arguments.

 

[rsemmes]

The action referenced was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

No.
That attack didn't happen all by itself. China market and raw materials, US trying to strangle Japan's economy (including frozen assets)... There is a long "before" to that military action, sometimes hundreds of years of score to settle.
Would you consider "The Troubles" as something that happened in 1969, out of the blue? I mean, you can, if you want to read a Disney version of History.

 

[swerve]

No.
That attack didn't happen all by itself. China market and raw materials, US trying to strangle Japan's economy (including frozen assets)... There is a long "before" to that military action, sometimes hundreds of years of score to settle.
Would you consider "The Troubles" as something that happened in 1969, out of the blue? I mean, you can. if you want to read a Disney version of History.

Exactly. Understanding of this is essential to understanding the Japanese attack on the USA & US & European colonies.

 

[rsemmes]

I still think that "Moderators" should be moderate (neutral), neither approving (likes) nor disapproving posts.

 

[swerve]

Or they can refrain from moderating anything they're personally involved in.

 

[rsemmes]

Or they can refrain from moderating anything they're personally involved in.

More like... Providing your opinion, even if you agree. Involved and impartial, at least, not showing partiality. I don't know what rules you impose to yourselves.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

No.
That attack didn't happen all by itself. China market and raw materials, US trying to strangle Japan's economy (including frozen assets)... There is a long "before" to that military action, sometimes hundreds of years of score to settle.
Would you consider "The Troubles" as something that happened in 1969, out of the blue? I mean, you can, if you want to read a Disney version of History.

That's odd. Because I specifically asked if there was any additional context, and was denied and left to wonder by myself the author's intent.
You don't get to claim additional context after the fact.

Besides. Does any of you have any actual point to make and the mental capacity to formulate it as a structured argument with a logical chain of thought?

Or can we conclude that there are ongoing negotiations?

 

[rsemmes]

You don't get to claim additional context after the fact.

Really?
Why not, is it "technically" illegal? What changed, History or reality?

 

[swerve]

More like... Providing your opinion, even if you agree. Involved and impartial, at least, not showing partiality. I don't know what rules you impose to yourselves.

Moderators are mostly members of the forum like any other. They're not outside it, or owners. And they're expected to exercise self-restraint.

 

[swerve]

That's odd. Because I specifically asked if there was any additional context, and was denied and left to wonder by myself the author's intent.
You don't get to claim additional context after the fact.

The point here is that what you call "additional content" is both public information, & fundamental to the issue. Commenting without knowing it is like commenting on WW2 in Europe without having heard of the Nazi party. It cannot be excluded from discussion of WW2 in Asia & the Pacific. It's an integral part of it.

This is not a debating society playing word games with artificial rules. It's supposed to be about exchanging information & perspectives. Well, that's how I see it.