Xbox criticised by former Nintendo head

[Magnum PI]

an unfortunate error ?

it's very different from the deliberate will to murder innocent people shown by terrorists.

 

[Legion]

The whole theme of your argument is basically:

"Might makes right".

What you are saying is tantamount to a gunman being robbed by a man with a knife. The man with the gun pulls it out, forces the robber to surrender... and then robs him.


"Key military locations"? Is that why they moved settlers in to farm the land?

Don't be obtuse. If you want to march tanks into israel the surrounding lands are the best ways to do that. By pushing the palestinians farther back israel believes to be defending itself from heavy infantry. Ozy in some cases defending yourself is requires such actions. Again if the Arabs didn't want their lands taken they could have chosen not to attack Israel. The Israelis were seeking to take these lands from them. All of this happened int he course of a war.

 

[archie4oz]

However, it is fact that the acceptance of a democratic form of government in Japan was expedited as a direct result of their defeat in WWII. I don't see how this can be debated.

It's hard consider it, when your "fact" of acceptance of a democracy due to defeat in WWII, is patently false since it existed well before the war. You could say that the result of the war significantly affected many aspect of it (e.g woman's suffrage which had stalled in the '30's)

If the US was defeated in the Pacific then Japanese occupation of the South East would have continued and Japan would remain in a state of war. While the military regime may have collapsed eventually, it would most certainly have continued for much longer than it did. Millions more would have suffered.

If the US had been defeated, there wouldn't have been much reason to continue much further other than to resolve the conflict in China and perhaps secure the Dutch East Indies...

Actually I'm rather curious how China would've ended and if the European front concluded the way it did, I wonder how the future would've taken shape with the Soviet Union...

I was speaking of the recent (for the time) occupation of sovereign countries through military force.

How recent? And which sovereign nations? Pretty much most of East Asia and the Pacific was European and American colonies (at least until 1894 when Japan become a colonial power). China would be the closest thing to nation, and it was really more of a patchwork of territories torn apart since the Boxer rebellion that were ruled by various warlords and generals. The Kuomintang was the closest thing a national presence there and it spent half of it's time fighting Mao and the communists (at least until the Kwantung Army invaded).

Utter nonsense. The US had no interest in colonizing Asia. The Philipines, by far their most prominent colony, was given to them as a result of their victory in the Spanish American war. Not as a result of any conquest in the region.

What the hell was Commodore Perry doing in Edo bay with warships then? Sightseeing? The Philipines were taken by force by Admiral Dewey during the Spanish-American war (which aside from the Philipines was largely conducted in the Caribbean), at the behest of Teddy Roosevelt (Assistant to Secretary of the Navy at that time) to secure a base in the Pacific that would permit the US greater sphere of inlfuence in the region (TR was heavily influenced by the writings of Alfred Thayer Mahan and how the Royal Navy was instrumental in building the British Empire). The Spanish at Manila were already in a war with Filipino separatists seeking independence. The separatists fought alongside the US, however after the defeat of the Spanish the separatist movement was suppressed by US troops.

Now, if we're talking about post American occupation after the defeat, then this is also ridiculous. MacArthur made it quite clear that the Japanese were to maintain their dignity and sovereignty.

Why are bringing that up? There were some aspects of the Occupation the have resulted in problems that exist today, but that's relatively minor stuff (other than Article 9).

The Japanese were the aggressors in WWII. Plain and simple. Saying anything else is a re-write of what actually happened.

Who's rewriting history? History itself is merely the interpretation of events... Why do you think people have different takes on events? Because people experience the same event from different perspectives. We can all sit here and debate the merits of the issues in Israel. However our perspective is quite different as most of us can sit comfortably in our homes with little worries of car bombs going off day, or getting roughed up by soldiers at checkpoints everyday on your way to work...