Is This Where Godless Philosophy Natural Leads?

[ZackMartin]

To be clear, The US has much of which it can rightly be proud, but like any country it has its dark patches too. A real friend knows your dark bits but still likes you anyway.

For the record, I like the US, I've been there several times and looking forward to visiting again in the near future.

Contrary to seer, I don't believe pointing out what I see to be real problems with the US constitutes "slamming". I can point to real problems with several other countries too, including my own. By contrast, he calls Europeans "slaves" - how is that not a slam?

For example, one thing the US does better than Australia is R&D spending as a percentage of GDP. OECD Data. The latest year for which Australian data is available, Australia spent 2.24% of GDP on R&D, compared to 2.84% of GDP sent on R&D for the US. The US is above the OECD average and ranks 8th, while Australia is back at 13th and just below the OECD average. Both Australia and the US are improving, albeit both are still a fair way behind global leader Israel. Some other countries by contrast are going backwards, e.g. Canada. Canada used to beat Australia in these stakes, but Canada has been falling behind while Australia has been catching up, and now Australia has overtaken Canada.

[seer]

At this point they don't, and the Russians have completely lost interest in invading Western Europe. Some of their immediate neighbours (like Georgia) sure, but the odds of a Russian invasion of Germany today are so close to zero they can be ignored completely. Regardless of how justified Cold War military spending was, the excessive level of US military spending is not justified today.

That wasn't the point Zack! The point was - how about a little gratitude from the Europeans, and others instead of always slamming us. And perhaps we could spend less on the Military but first we have to get out of this God awful war...

OK. But just remember, Debt = Spending - Taxes. There are two ways to solve debt, lower spending is one, increase taxes is another. Maybe if the US has a bigger debt problem than other countries, it is due to their unusually low taxation levels?

Remember Zack, we generally hate taxes - we broke from Britain because of taxes. And like I said - for every dollar the government takes out of my pocket it decreases my freedom to do what I like with my own property that much. Yes, we need to cut social programs.

Did the US think Philippines independence was the right thing to do in 1946? If they thought it was the right thing to do in 1946, why not in 1898? Maybe, the US' evaluation of how to best further its own self-interest had changed.

Self-interest is mixed with just about everything humans do it doesn't mean that the idea of doing the right thing wasn't also there.

Was the Mexican-American War a case of imperialism? Is the US going to give California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, half of New Mexico, part of Colorado, parts of Wyoming, parts of Kansas, parts of Oklahoma, back to Mexico? I doubt it. Nothing to do with "the right thing to do", it's about self-interest.

Are you this clueless? The Spanish took this land from the native Americans, we took it from the Spanish. Yeah, we will give that land back to the natives when you give all your land and cities back to your natives. Remember you would not even be a western country today if it wasn't for British empire.

Unproven and unprovable speculation on your part. Historians who have studied the internal military planning of the Japan have found that (1) there was never even the vaguest Japanese plan to invade southern Australia; (2) a minority in the Japanese government and military advocated an invasion of northern Australia, but their proposal was rejected as too much risk and effort for too little gain. There is zero historical evidence of any plan or proposal by the Japanese military or government to invade southern Australia, and the proposals to invade northern Australia were rejected because the Japanese themselves knew how stupid they were.

Nonsense, we know that the Japanese navy did want to invade, the army balked because they were spread to thin. What if we never entered the Pacific? Their power and supply lines would have been consolidated. And remember you were already fighting their ally. If you don't think Germany and Japan would eventually turn their gaze to you, you are naive. You would have been a thorn in their side. Really, you guys are so bias and envious you will not even throw us a crumb of gratitude. Anyways Zack, you may have the last word on this subject.

[seer]

The invention of God is evidence that humans are moral creatures. There is no risk of our species becoming immoral – this is a Christian myth. Immoral behavior is unnatural and requires training. Abortion is a very difficult ethical problem. It is a decision we all hope never to be faced with.

Really? Have you ever raised kids? You don't have to "train" them to lie, or torment the cat or their siblings, or to be selfish - they do all that quite naturally. So do you think it is ok to kill disabled babies after they are born? Even if they only have mild disabilities?

[seer]

I think he's lost his temper and stomped off after delivering personal insults. To be clear, The US has much of which it can rightly be proud, but like any country it has its dark patches too. A real friend knows your dark bits but still likes you anyway.

Thank you!

[ZackMartin]

That wasn't the point Zack! The point was - how about a little gratitude from the Europeans, and others instead of always slamming us.

You have this obsession with people "slamming" America - any criticism of America seems to be in your view "slamming" - yet you seem to have no problem with criticising other countries, you even called Europeans "slaves"! How is that not slamming Europe?

Remember Zack, we generally hate taxes - we broke from Britain because of taxes. And like I said - for every dollar the government takes out of my pocket it decreases my freedom to do what I like with my own property that much. Yes, we need to cut social programs.

Why all this irrational hatred of taxes? They serve a useful social purpose.

Self-interest is mixed with just about everything humans do it doesn't mean that the idea of doing the right thing wasn't also there.

Who doesn't think they are doing the right thing? The Japanese thought they were liberating South East Asia from European colonialism. The Soviets thought that through Communism the world would become a better place.

Are you this clueless? The Spanish took this land from the native Americans, we took it from the Spanish.

You are so clueless, you don't even realise that Mexico became independent from Spain in 1821, i.e. over 20 years before the annexation of Texas or the Mexican-American War. The US didn't take the land from Spain, it took it from Mexico.

Yeah, we will give that land back to the natives when you give all your land and cities back to your natives.

I have no objection with the Australian government entering into negotiations with representatives of Australia's indigenous people to try to come to a mutually satisfactory agreement on remedying past wrongs. To some extent, the native title process (legal transfer of government-owned land to indigenous ownership) is already doing this, but it is too much of a patchwork. So I endorse the calls for a new, comprehensive treaty to be negotiated. Do you support the same things for the US?

Remember you would not even be a western country today if it wasn't for British empire.

The real problem with British Empire was not settling throughout the world, but the fact that they did it with so little respect and so much racism for the local populations. I think if the British had treated the native populations with more equality, the British Empire would have been remembered with much more fondness, and may well still have existed today. I think especially this is true of India - if the British had been genuinely willing to treat the Indians as equals, then India quite possibly would still be part of the British Empire today. Gandhi himself, became an advocate of independence because he'd experienced firsthand the racism of the British - despite being qualified as a barrister after legal study in England, the white British would never accept him as an equal; this became especially clear while spending two decades in South Africa, where despite the supposed equality of all British subjects, the British Empire had no problem with proto-apartheid legislation which treated Indians as second-class citizens (albeit still better treated than the native African population). If the British had treated Gandhi and many other Indians decently, would they have felt the same fervour for independence? Quite possibly not.

Nonsense, we know that the Japanese navy did want to invade, the army balked because they were spread to thin. What if we never entered the Pacific? Their power and supply lines would have been consolidated. And remember you were already fighting their ally. If you don't think Germany and Japan would eventually turn their gaze to you, you are naive. You would have been a thorn in their side. Really, you guys are so bias and envious you will not even throw us a crumb of gratitude. Anyways Zack, you may have the last word on this subject.

I will let Dr. Peter Stanley, Head of the Centre for Historical Research at the National Museum of Australia, and former Principal Historian at the Australian War Memorial have the last word instead. He's far better qualified to opine on this matter than either of us. "No historian of standing believes the Japanese had a plan to invade Australia, there is not a skerrick of evidence" (source)

[seer]

I will let Dr. Peter Stanley, Head of the Centre for Historical Research at the National Museum of Australia, and former Principal Historian at the Australian War Memorial have the last word instead. He's far better qualified to opine on this matter than either of us. "No historian of standing believes the Japanese had a plan to invade Australia, there is not a skerrick of evidence" (source)

One point, like I said, without the US in the mix it could have been very different:

The dispute between the Army and Navy was settled in late February with a decision to isolate rather than invade Australia. The Army continued to maintain its view that invading Australia was impractical, but agreed to extend Japan's strategic perimeter and cut Australia off from the US by invading Fiji, Samoa and New Caledonia in the so-called Operation FS.[13] The question of whether to invade Australia was discussed by Imperial Headquarters for the last time on 27 February and in this meeting the Army stated that it believed that Australia was defended by a 600,000-strong military force. During a further meeting held on 4 March the Imperial Headquarters formally agreed to a "Fundamental Outline of Recommendations for Future War Leadership" which relegated the option of invading Australia as a "future option" only if all other plans went well. This plan was presented to the Emperor by Prime Minister Hideki Tōjō and in effect ended discussion of invading Australia.[14] The FS Operation was not implemented, however, due to Japan's defeats in the Battle of the Coral Sea and Battle of Midway and was canceled on 11 July 1942.[15]

There certainly was not a active "plan" in place, but it certainly was talked about and if Japan had free reign in the Pacific how long would it have been before The FS Operation was acted on?

[ZackMartin]

and if Japan had free reign in the Pacific how long would it have been before The FS Operation was acted on?

The FS Operation was the invasion of Fiji, Samoa, New Caledonia - not Australia.

[seer]

The FS Operation was the invasion of Fiji, Samoa, New Caledonia - not Australia.

Fundamental Outline of Recommendations for Future War Leadership" which relegated the option of invading Australia as a "future option" only if all other plans went well.

It was a "future option" of the over all plan. At least they would have isolated you - stopped all trade, and probably starved you into submission. You would not be the liberal western country you are today. You just hate the idea of giving us any credit don't you...

[ZackMartin]

It was a "future option" of the over all plan. At least they would have isolated you - stopped all trade, and probably starved you into submission. You would not be the liberal western country you are today. You just hate the idea of giving us any credit don't you...

"Starved us into submission"? Australia has vast areas of agricultural land. An Australia successfully embargoed by Japan in the 1940s would have no problem growing enough food to feed itself. Also, Australia has a massive coastline, bordering three oceans (the Southern, the Pacific and the Indian) - to successfully blockade Australia, Japan would have to control three oceans - mere control of the Pacific would not be enough. There would also have been enormous trade opportunities between Japan and Australia, so it would make more sense for Japan to convince Australia to make peace, and then trade with it, then try to conquer it. (As I said, they were smart enough to see how stupid such an idea was.) And what evidence do you have for the claim "You would not be the liberal western country you are today" in the scenario where the Japanese Empire controlled the Pacific? None.

I just hate the idea of your baseless historical speculation with very minimal foundation in fact.

[firstfloor]

Is that why parents have to teach their children to behave?

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. People have to be taught not to do bad stuff, not the other way around. Immoral behaviour comes quite easily to kids.

Kids that young do not have abortions. Do young kids learn by experience or instruction? I would say, Both. They naturally grow out of unconstructive behaviour unless they have been taught that it is beneficial.

[firstfloor]

Really? Have you ever raised kids? You don't have to "train" them to lie, or torment the cat or their siblings, or to be selfish - they do all that quite naturally. So do you think it is ok to kill disabled babies after they are born? Even if they only have mild disabilities?

Yes, Yes, Lying is an important skill - shows intelligence. No. No.
Hope this helps.

[seer]

Yes, Yes, Lying is an important skill - shows intelligence. No. No.
Hope this helps.

No it doesn't help. You said immoral behavior is unnatural and requires training. So if lying, being selfish or cruel to little fuzzy pets is not immoral then what exactly is. And what behavior, in the end, is not simply natural to our nature.

[seer]

"Starved us into submission"? Australia has vast areas of agricultural land. An Australia successfully embargoed by Japan in the 1940s would have no problem growing enough food to feed itself. Also, Australia has a massive coastline, bordering three oceans (the Southern, the Pacific and the Indian) - to successfully blockade Australia, Japan would have to control three oceans - mere control of the Pacific would not be enough. There would also have been enormous trade opportunities between Japan and Australia, so it would make more sense for Japan to convince Australia to make peace, and then trade with it, then try to conquer it. (As I said, they were smart enough to see how stupid such an idea was.) And what evidence do you have for the claim "You would not be the liberal western country you are today" in the scenario where the Japanese Empire controlled the Pacific? None.

I just hate the idea of your baseless historical speculation with very minimal foundation in fact.

Nonsense Zack your own link said invasion was in fact a "future option." Not that they had battle plans ready to go.

Fundamental Outline of Recommendations for Future War Leadership" which relegated the option of invading Australia as a "future option" only if all other plans went well.

So if the "other plans" went well the option would be on the table. And who, in the main, made sure that the "other plans" did not go well?

[Leonhard]

Discussing counterfactuals? I'm out of here.

[ZackMartin]

Nonsense Zack your own link said invasion was in fact a "future option."

A "future option" is not a plan.

The fact that someone calls something "a future option" gives no clear indication that they would ever actually try it, nor that they would succeed if they did. It's bureaucratese for "let's bury this idea, but let's still keep some vague mention of it, so we keep its proponents at least moderately happy".