TIL an abandoned lifeboat was found on the world's most remote island in 1964. Its origin is still a mystery. (excitingearth.com)

{todayilearned}

3336 ups - 1306 downs = 2030 votes

202 comments submitted at 16:44:53 on Jan 5, 2014 by charlieboyok

  • [-]
  • AgentOmega
  • 8 Points
  • 03:07:32, 6 January

Histroically speaking that is exactly what happened, they failed to expand and had to become the US's bitch to avoid becoming china's bitch

And an economic embargo is absolutely "bullying" in the international sense. it is exercising economic control to force a political choice in the direction you want. It is only once step below using violence to force a political choice. it is still used on countries like Iran, north Korea and Cuba as a substitute for using military force

  • [-]
  • Das_Mime
  • -1 Points
  • 05:00:34, 6 January

Holy christ you're beyond help.

An economic embargo in response to atrocities and illegal invasions is not bullying, in any sense of the world. It's a refusal to be directly complicit in the war.

>Histroically speaking that is exactly what happened, they failed to expand and had to become the US's bitch to avoid becoming china's bitch

That's not even close to what happened. Japan in the 30s was not the US's bitch or China's bitch. At all.

  • [-]
  • fkusrnms
  • -1 Points
  • 05:23:55, 6 January

Economic warfare (whether through sanctions or through embargo) are acts of war. So the US shouldn't be surprised the Japanese responded with ... acts of war. This isn't difficult.

  • [-]
  • Das_Mime
  • 0 Points
  • 05:25:50, 6 January

> Economic warfare (whether through sanctions or through embargo) are acts of war.

That is simply untrue. Refusing to sell oil is not an act of war and has never been an act of war. I'd venture to say that no nation in history has ever considered a refusal to trade to be an act of war. But since you seem to be pretty confident in your position, please cite the examples where it has been considered an act of war under international law.

  • [-]
  • fkusrnms
  • 1 Points
  • 05:39:51, 6 January

Why am I going to cite the "international laws" of politicians who are not interested in justice or truth?

Jurisprudence is philosophy and doesn't depend on the sanction or codification of justice by men in power.

Do you need to cite state law to say that murder is wrong? If there were no anti-murder laws on the books would you argue for the systematic elimination of people you didn't like? The question answers itself of course, and it's to illustrate my point: Official state codified law need not be cited for ethical / legal matters.

Oh and an example? If the Japanese embargo isn't convincing for you (an economic act of war which resulted in an actual war seems pretty convincing) then how about the US sanctions on Iraq in the 90s that resulted in the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children. If you want to defend that ... Good luck.

  • [-]
  • Das_Mime
  • 0 Points
  • 05:54:17, 6 January

Gee, that's a long-winded way of saying that you have no evidence that any government anywhere has considered a refusal to sell oil as an act of war. If you can actually find an example of a government using a refusal to sell oil as a casus belli, let me know. Otherwise, just stop embarrassing yourself.

  • [-]
  • fkusrnms
  • 1 Points
  • 05:57:26, 6 January

Gee that's a really long way to admit you lack intellectual honesty, and your moral and philosophical compasses are guided by the meager minds of politicians rather than a pursuit and love of truth.

  • [-]
  • Das_Mime
  • 1 Points
  • 06:00:14, 6 January

Haha, you're so damn insistent about this.

An act of war is politically defined. You claimed that economic sanctions are as much an act of war as bombing Pearl Harbor. Find me one example, anywhere, of any nation stating that economic sanctions are an act of war. Japan certainly never claimed that.

  • [-]
  • fkusrnms
  • 0 Points
  • 06:08:42, 6 January

Or you could use the analogy I provided, but that would require a desire to understand your opponent's argument.

Instead, folks like you would rather stroke their presuppositions than have a rewarding intellectual conversation that challenges their world view.

  • [-]
  • Das_Mime
  • 1 Points
  • 06:15:18, 6 January

"Act of war" has real meaning in international relations. Attacking a military base is an act of war. Sending troops onto foreign soil without permission can count as an act of war. I can provide numerous examples of these being cited as casus belli. Since you are claiming that economic sanctions are, just like those things, an act of war, why are you unable to provide any examples?

Oh, that's right, because you know that you're simply wrong and you want to deflect the conversation onto some silly tangent about my moral compass. My moral compass is doing just fine, thank you, I'm not the one defending the attack on Pearl Harbor.

  • [-]
  • Just_like_my_wife
  • -2 Points
  • 06:03:02, 6 January

Looks like you've beaten out "fat skeleton" for dumbest thing said today.

You're the dimly lit flame of hope of idiots everywhere.

  • [-]
  • Das_Mime
  • 1 Points
  • 06:12:26, 6 January

If you have an actual argument to make (or an example, anywhere, of economic sanctions being used as a casus belli--since /u/fkusrnms is too much of a pansy to back up his arguments, maybe you'll do it for him), let me know.

  • [-]
  • Just_like_my_wife
  • 0 Points
  • 06:17:00, 6 January

What you're asking for, an example where a government states that and economic sanction is an act of war, is completely moot in the topic of whether or not it actually is an act of war.

>Titus [the general of the besieging army] . . . lamented the deaths of so many Jerusalemites, “and, lifting up his hands to heaven . . . called God to witness, that it was not his doing.” Whose doing was it? After Titus himself, there are only two candidates: the political or military leaders of the city, who have refused to surrender on terms and forced the inhabitants to fight; or the inhabitants themselves, who have acquiesced in that refusal and agreed, as it were, to run the risks of war . . . .

http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/LawJournals/JoyGordonYHRDLJ.pdf

  • [-]
  • Das_Mime
  • 1 Points
  • 06:20:45, 6 January

> What you're asking for, an example where a government states that and economic sanction is an act of war, is completely moot in the topic of whether or not it actually is an act of war.

Whether a government considers something an act of war is the only thing that matters here. International relations is carried out between governments.

Whether or not economic sanctions are wrong (and by the way, don't you dare try to equate US refusal to sell oil to Imperial Japan with the sanctions against 1990s Iraq) has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is an act of war. "Act of war" is a term with real meaning in international relations, it's not just whatever you consider reprehensible.

Here, I'll make an absolute statement so that you should have an easy time disproving it if it's wrong: There has never been any circumstance in which a refusal to sell goods is cited as a casus belli. Ever. Anywhere in human history.