Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

You used more words to describe it than he did.

[Reelya]

Even assuming that to be the case: what is going to happen to carbon taxes if we end up stopping fossil fuel/etc emissions?

Uhhh, the amount of the carbon taxes collected will approach zero, because the taxes are applied against fossil fuels. You're probably going to argue "but a zero tax won't have any effect!" which is also a dumb thing to say. The existence of the tax makes it more costly to consider fossil fuel sources, even if you're not using them.

I can only imagine that your argument is that they'll somehow switch the tax onto breathing or something, but that's plainly ludicrous, because that's not how legislation works. Taxes don't magically get applied to similar things because the specified thing the tax is intended to tax drops.

[Loud Whispers]

So this is apparently a thing. Newt Gingrich is praising Imperial Japan for "professional brilliance and technological power" allowing them to carry out a "widest surprise attack in history". Authoritarianism is running strong among the Republicans, I see... I wonder when they'll start revering Stalin, heh.

Japanese planning and trainng let them also carry out surprise attacks in Hong Kong and Malaysia.It was widest surprise attack in history

There is a gap between what he said and what you're saying he said? Where have you read all of that cos now I'm confus

[Reelya]

Personally I don't see the problem in admitting that someone did something well, just because you don't like why they did it. Are we obligated to say "the Japanese sucked at everything" for eternity for political reasons?

Grr, Newt said something nice about wartime Japan. What's the objection to the statement? Logic or emotion? I'd say it's an appeal to emotion: The Japanese were BAD so it's wrong to say anything GOOD about them. Which is just plain "victor's history" style political correctness.

What the Japanese did was a masterstroke of military planning, and coming only mere decades after they industrialized was a huge achievement. The fact that we were the targets doesn't make it any less impressive that they pulled that off.

[PTTG??]

So this is apparently a thing. Newt Gingrich is praising Imperial Japan for "professional brilliance and technological power" allowing them to carry out a "widest surprise attack in history". Authoritarianism is running strong among the Republicans, I see... I wonder when they'll start revering Stalin, heh.

My ability to comprehend things and events has been overwhelmed.

How does an American politician think "I'm going to praise Imperial Japan for stabbing us in the back. That will be popular and have no downsides."

Even abstractly and coldly logically, it was a damned stupid decision. The US was neutral, isolationist, and powerful. It was the strategic equivalent of poking a sleeping bear with a dull stick, and getting us involved in the war was a bad idea from any perspective.

[Shadowlord]

Personally I don't see the problem in admitting that someone did something well, just because you don't like why they did it. Are we obligated to say "the Japanese sucked at everything" for eternity for political reasons?

Grr, Newt said something nice about wartime Japan. What's the objection to the statement? Logic or emotion? I'd say it's an appeal to emotion: The Japanese were BAD so it's wrong to say anything GOOD about them. Which is just plain "victor's history" style political correctness.

What the Japanese did was a masterstroke of military planning, and coming only mere decades after they industrialized was a huge achievement. The fact that we were the targets doesn't make it any less impressive that they pulled that off.

He said it on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor. So, you know. Reasons.

People asking where he said stuff: https://twitter.com/newtgingrich

[Sergarr]

So this is apparently a thing. Newt Gingrich is praising Imperial Japan for "professional brilliance and technological power" allowing them to carry out a "widest surprise attack in history". Authoritarianism is running strong among the Republicans, I see... I wonder when they'll start revering Stalin, heh.

Japanese planning and trainng let them also carry out surprise attacks in Hong Kong and Malaysia.It was widest surprise attack in history

There is a gap between what he said and what you're saying he said? Where have you read all of that cos now I'm confus

First part is from the first tweet, the "Imperial Japan" part is obvious context. He's talking about the fucking Pearl Harbor attack, you know, among other things.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Personally I don't see the problem in admitting that someone did something well, just because you don't like why they did it. Are we obligated to say "the Japanese sucked at everything" for eternity for political reasons?

Grr, Newt said something nice about wartime Japan. What's the objection to the statement? Logic or emotion? I'd say it's an appeal to emotion: The Japanese were BAD so it's wrong to say anything GOOD about them. Which is just plain "victor's history" style political correctness.

What the Japanese did was a masterstroke of military planning, and coming only mere decades after they industrialized was a huge achievement. The fact that we were the targets doesn't make it any less impressive that they pulled that off.

He said it on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor. So, you know. Reasons.

People asking where he said stuff: https://twitter.com/newtgingrich

Not the right time, Gingrich.

[Baffler]

Maybe it has something to do with this?

[ChairmanPoo]

Personally I don't see the problem in admitting that someone did something well, just because you don't like why they did it. Are we obligated to say "the Japanese sucked at everything" for eternity for political reasons?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Wolfhunter107]

Personally I don't see the problem in admitting that someone did something well, just because you don't like why they did it. Are we obligated to say "the Japanese sucked at everything" for eternity for political reasons?

Grr, Newt said something nice about wartime Japan. What's the objection to the statement? Logic or emotion? I'd say it's an appeal to emotion: The Japanese were BAD so it's wrong to say anything GOOD about them. Which is just plain "victor's history" style political correctness.

What the Japanese did was a masterstroke of military planning, and coming only mere decades after they industrialized was a huge achievement. The fact that we were the targets doesn't make it any less impressive that they pulled that off.

The problem is is that it's just plain wrong. Pearl Harbor was an act of unimaginable stupidity, that got them into a fight they couldn't win, and that they didn't even need to fight in the first place. The United States would not have gone to war with the force it did over Dutch colonies, if it would even go to war with them at all over them. An attack on American soil was a different matter entirely.

[smjjames]

Maybe it has something to do with this?

Not even appropriate for Newt to say that, considering the occasion. If he wanted to flatter the Japanese, okay, fine, but there's better things to flatter them on.

Personally I don't see the problem in admitting that someone did something well, just because you don't like why they did it. Are we obligated to say "the Japanese sucked at everything" for eternity for political reasons?

Grr, Newt said something nice about wartime Japan. What's the objection to the statement? Logic or emotion? I'd say it's an appeal to emotion: The Japanese were BAD so it's wrong to say anything GOOD about them. Which is just plain "victor's history" style political correctness.

What the Japanese did was a masterstroke of military planning, and coming only mere decades after they industrialized was a huge achievement. The fact that we were the targets doesn't make it any less impressive that they pulled that off.

The problem is is that it's just plain wrong. Pearl Harbor was an act of unimaginable stupidity, that got them into a fight they couldn't win, and that they didn't even need to fight in the first place. The United States would not have gone to war with the force it did over Dutch colonies, if it would even go to war with them at all over them. An attack on American soil was a different matter entirely.

It was both a stragetic faliure (didn't even target infrastructure) and a tactical faliure (history, also, they missed the aircraft carriers).

[Lord Shonus]

Personally I don't see the problem in admitting that someone did something well, just because you don't like why they did it. Are we obligated to say "the Japanese sucked at everything" for eternity for political reasons?

Grr, Newt said something nice about wartime Japan. What's the objection to the statement? Logic or emotion? I'd say it's an appeal to emotion: The Japanese were BAD so it's wrong to say anything GOOD about them. Which is just plain "victor's history" style political correctness.

What the Japanese did was a masterstroke of military planning, and coming only mere decades after they industrialized was a huge achievement. The fact that we were the targets doesn't make it any less impressive that they pulled that off.

The problem is is that it's just plain wrong. Pearl Harbor was an act of unimaginable stupidity, that got them into a fight they couldn't win, and that they didn't even need to fight in the first place. The United States would not have gone to war with the force it did over Dutch colonies, if it would even go to war with them at all over them. An attack on American soil was a different matter entirely.

That's obvious now, but from the Japanese perspective in 1941 it looks pretty different. They considered the very existence of the US-occupied Philippines to be the equivalent of a gun pointed right at their head, and thought that a few decisive victories would cause the US to stop fighting.

Most importantly, they thought that we'd regard Hawaii and the Philippines as unimportant colonial possessions not worth fighting an expensive war over, especially since they didn't even try to take Hawaii away. The notion that the US would react with the same level of vehemence as if D.C. had been bombed instead never crossed their minds.

@smjjames
All of the military infrastructure at Pearl Harbor was smashed. The entire point of the attack was to keep the US from being able to launch a counterattack until the Empire had built up enough and taken enough forward bases that the US would be unwilling to pay the cost of smashing through.

[Reelya]

Also, this is bay12, and you're denouncing a technical / military coordination achievement based on the fact that it turned out to be impractical in the long run? Yes, it was quite a feat that a nation that had been a feudal agrarian society without even rifles a couple of generations before was going toe-to-toe with the world's largest superpower.

[Wolfhunter107]

Pearl Harbor's port facilities were perfectly fine. That's what smjjames was talking about. We were able to counterattack exactly Because those port facilities were there.