> After the US et. al. cut off fuel and oil trade. They don't teach you that part in school.
And do you know why we did that? Was that mentioned? Did they talk about Japan's war of conquest in China or the Rape of Nanking, among a thousand other atrocities?
> Don't think the US didn't do everything it could to antagonize the enemy. Japan was repeatedly slapped in the face until it had no choice but to respond to protect its honour.
Is that what it's called when we objected to Japan's war of conquest against China? Antagonism? Fine, let it be so. Japan brought doom on themselves.
Japan didn't care about words. Japan cared about things like the US selling Japan fuel even when they were doing all these things, preferring to stay "neutral", then abuptly cutting that off and leaving them scrambling to keep their military running.
Japan did bring doom on themselves, but America kept poking the tiger with a stick until America itself got attacked, which was the goal.
Does it not matter that we were running those maneuvers largely in response to Japanese aggression in China and the Pacific? Does it matter that the reason we were in tension with Japan was their murder and conquest spree in China?
Does any of it excuse the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor?
I think the answer is no, despite my great respect for General Butler.
It appears that if that was the real reason, then the government of the time wasn't prepared to tell anyone that was the case, going by the General's account anyway.
Many of the things he suggest merely re-align incentives. So if the Senators and Corporate CEOs really think that Japan is a menace to be dealt with, then they should be putting their money where their mouth is, rather than having the moral hazard of benefiting selfishly from unnecessary wars.
I don't think so. Benjamin Franklin is probably the prototypical self-made man. And you would never claim that "he did it all himself." He wouldn't have claimed that either. It's clear from his Autobiography that there were many people who helped him along his path to success, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a self-made man.
What I like about Conan is to see how the character evolves through the movie. In the beginning through his upbringing he believes in violence as a means to solve all problems, however he slowly realizes that power lies elsewhere - Thulsa Doom reveals to him that strength is not about one's abilities, but about the ability to control and influence others. And there's the whole myth about the father and its role in one's life (and ultimately Conan's father's sword is broken at the end of one fight, while his father told him right at the beginning "you cannot trust men or beasts... but this (steel), you can trust".)
Most people see Conan the Barbarian as a barbaric movie with blood and sex but it goes much, much deeper than that. There are multiple interpretations and ongoing symbolism everywhere in this flick.
And the music... the music! It's almost like an opera.
If you're asking if I think the death penalty is appropriate for a system of criminal justice, then no. I do not think there is ever a situation where that is appropriate. It is immoral.
There are other situations where I think using deadly force is justified. Defending a country under military attack is one of these situations.
The reason I posted that is that I don't think belief in the greater good is enough. Believing in the greater good brought us the holocaust, for example. It is simply not enough of a reason to kill people.
> Believing in the greater good brought us the holocaust, for example.
Please do more historical research. The Holocaust was not caused by seeking the greater good, but instead the greater evil. It was caused when massive numbers of people decided that rule by terror was not worth resisting as long as it did not touch them.
It's like something out of Mad Max. I had the misfortune of popping into one on the way to the airport for a vacation, after I realized I hadn't brought a watch. I swear there were tumbleweeds blowing down the aisles. While I was waiting to check out, I watched a toothless young lady harangue the cashier into selling her several sets of Boston Bruins towels that were clearly marked as $19.99 for $5 apiece. The cashier brought her manager over to doublecheck, shoulders were shrugged, and zero fucks were given. As I was leaving, a befuddled elderly lady was trying to return items she'd bought at a TJ Maxx. There was no TJ Maxx in this strip mall, nor within five miles. I got the hell out of there with my cheap wristwatch and resolved never to return.
KMart was always udown market, which is why they took the Sears name (which historically had some associations with quality) for the merged entity when KMart bought Sears.
And slavery required less violence, per capita, to maintain? I don't think so. Innumerable slave revolts. Wars of conquest to capture slaves. Slave raiding. The daily violence needed to enforce slavery. Sexual violence perpetrated on slaves.
Capitalism is a rock of stability, from a civil society perspective, in contrast. When was the last time a developed capitalist nation had a civil war, or even a major violent revolt?
>the notion of striving for equal individual ownership of goods as a spark to action is nonsense.
Well he didn't say that. But you would do well to remember that during the Russian Revolution and subsequent years, those who were somewhat prosperous among the peasantry were purged, punished, sent to Siberia because of their prosperity. Their prosperity meant they were capitalist oppressors, you see.
And do you know why we did that? Was that mentioned? Did they talk about Japan's war of conquest in China or the Rape of Nanking, among a thousand other atrocities?