According to snopes, Isoroku Yamamoto never said this. There is no record of him saying it at all. Even after all the fact checks. People at snopes even emailed professor Donald M. Goldstein. Often called the "Dean of Pearl Harbor Histories." Among his many books are "The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans" (1993) and the best-selling "At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor" (1981). This is his email reply. Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where
This picture is extremely out of context for this thread. Yes the picture shows dictators who took away guns. You mistake gun control with gun confiscation. "Gun control" isn't synonymous with gun confiscation, in some genocide cases gun restriction laws had already been in place for many years prior, and evidence does not demonstrate a causal link between gun control and mass extermination. Soviet union - Gun control regulations, including a requirement to register all weapons with the government, were in force during that period. “Policemen were responsible for gun control,” Germany - Gun ownership was banned outright for all German citizens in 1919. A 1928 revision of the law lifted the ban, while still requiring individuals to obtain permits to own, sell, carry, or manufacture firearms. China - The claim that China “established gun control in 1935” appears to have been plucked from mid-air. According to Lethal Laws, a 1912 law made it illegal to possess or import rifles, cannons, or explosives without a permit. The majority of people who died during the rule of Chairman Mao was during the Great Leap Forward. Cambodia - Although the dictatorship enacted no gun laws itself, there were gun control measures on the books dating from 1920 and 1938 that required the licensing of firearms and limited their ownership to hunters. According to the Small Arms Survey of the Graduate Institute of International Studies, the Khmer Rouge went about disarming the Cambodian public — and arming itself — via a program of gun confiscation: Once again gun control is not synonymous with gun confiscation. Which was what happened in all these cases. I know the argument here would be that it would be different if people had guns. That is not true at all. All these governments had and used biological warfare on all the prisoners. Are you really trying to suggest that people could have stood a chance against a government who made them relocate by force? Those people would have died either way. If they did survive and did kill soldiers, they would have had a bigger target on their back as more soldiers would have come for them
For me "gun control" IS synonymous with gun confiscation. You're the one making the distinction, and that's where the problem lies. I disagree and I believe it's a slippery slope. It's the same category. Strict government control OR flat out banning them - what's the diffidence? Many people are arguing against the second amendment and gun ownership, and they are not cool-headed logicians trying to maximize freedom and gun safety, they just don't want people owning guns. What's the point of banning AR-15s if most shootings are done with pistols? Gun control doesn't work, as seen in places like Chicago which has some of the most gun violence in the nation. Many have their hearts in the right places, even if they're mindless drones, but even IF gun control worked, which it doesn't, that still wouldn't make it acceptable in the United States. We have the freedom to bear arms. Thanks for repeating it. That makes it double-true, right? But I still disagree. I'm against gun control and gun confiscation - which I believe is the end goal of gun control. It's the same thing. Based on what? Why wasn't the United States able to defeat Vietnam? Imagine that times 1,000. Who's to say. You would have admit they would have a better chance, right? Do you believe, if the people of Venezuela still had their guns, they could be protecting themselves right now against their tyrannical government? Here in the United States, we put the individual above the government, and for good reason. It's to prevent tyrannical governments like this from rising up in the first place.
That's interesting. I can't say that Snopes isn't an unbiased source, or that I fully trust them, but I can't say I've met the man and heard him say it. Maybe it's bullshit. I'll have to look into it. Either way, I still believe it's true - as in, a US mainline invasion would be a disaster. Similar to how the US couldn't control the Vietnam war, because of well-armed militias and potential shooters from any building.
Vietnam did not have well armed militias at all. The United States had better firepower but were not used to guerilla warfare. The national liberation front, known as vietcong used guerilla warfare, tunnels and booby traps wherever they could. Vietnam is a country that has been invaded countless times. Chinese, Mongols, Japanese, and French. The national liberation front did not have to win any battles, they just had to outlast the American soldiers. The North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and Viet Cong (Southern communist guerillas) used standard Warsaw Pact weapons, supplied by the Chinese, Soviet Union, and Warsaw Pact allies. Weapons ranges from artillery, aircraft, small arms, infantry support weapons, flamethrowers, vehicles, to hand combat weapons. You also forget the times us soldiers massacred defenseless men women and children during the American war (what you call the Vietnam War)
Yeah, you're right. I knew "militia" wasn't the right word, but I couldn't think of it, and figured no one would notice. Guerrilla is the word I was looking for. My point was, despite the US being far more powerful, the Vietnamese people fought them off, because they knew the land, and the US military didn't know where the shots were coming from. It would work the same way, if they United States were to be invaded, but it'd be even more chaotic. Maybe that quote was wrong, I'm not sure. I think what you told me is likely true, but I'm not convince until I look into it. I was definitely wrong when I said "militia", too. Wrong word. Why did you assume that? I'm definitely not in favor of the Vietnam War, or the Iraq War, for that matter. I'm against needless war. I remember when liberals were upset about Bush, rightfully so, and they screamed "bring the troops home!". But they were happily unconcerned with Mister Niceguy's wars. Rudeman says "we're bringing the troops home" and now liberals are upset about it? The democratic party is now pro-war and wants troops in Syria? Wait, is Hillary Clinton even a "liberal"? You bring up an interesting point that I've never considered. The Vietnamese people don't refer to it as the "Vietnam War". Why would they.
Well only in America have I heard it called the Vietnam War. In Vietnam it is called the resistance war against America. Mostly because America was so set on not letting another country fall to communism that it decided it needed to step in after France was leaving. I understand what you are saying now that a battle on American soil would be advantageous to Americans. I also agree with you that there is no need for needless war.
Yeah no, it makes perfect sense. I had just never really considered it. It just shows us how propaganda influences our perspectives. I think communism is evil, but I don't think we should have been invested in the development of outside nations. I'm also against the McCarthyism in the 1950s, when they labelled anyone who disagreed with US conservatism as commies or pinkos. Some of them differently were, but it's never the case to strip them of their rights or censor them. I like how it is now. You see kids with iPhones, in Che Gueverra T-shirts, saying "down with capitalism! let's try socialism!". I think it's ridiculous, but I am happy we have the freedom of expression, that guarantees their right to say whatever they want. We can walk up to any politician and say, "hey man, FUCK you!" and I like it. Full transparency - I just Googled something like, "socialist leaders ban guns", half-read and saved and posted to add some flair to my argument. I still believe everything else I said, I think, even the "blades of grass" comment - even if it's not real. the concept behind it. You really keep me on my toes and challenge my arguments. Certainly more than anyone else here. I'll have to stop being lazy.
nah, i know how to shoot. I target practiced with my dad many times! I can protect you, venus, LOL!!!!
So what? What you've posted doesn't change the myriads of innocent souls these demonic men murdered in cold blood. What point are you trying to prove? From what I've read you sound confused about your own statements here. You seem to contradict your own reasoning.
