bradd80 said:
You are saying that the United States was obligated to continue selling oil to Japan, who would then use that oil to supply a military machine that was murdering millions of innocent Chinese. And I totally disagree with you.
The US had every right to discontinue selling oil to a country - Japan - that was then using that commodity to supply its military's genocidal invasion of China.
I tought it was clear my opinion on that matter, I gave a precise answer in the above post.
Bottom line: was it a provocative measure designed to force war on Japan? That's like saying Hitler was "provoked" into invading Poland!
Sure not as much as was japan not to open their ports yet that didnt stop many action to force them to do it, I recall an other event even worse but to give you an example.
http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/japan_1750_perry.htm
One thing is for sure: the US was militarily not prepared for the attack on Pearl Harbour, and was totally taken by surprise. So the short answer is that while the US certainly did not sympathize with Germany or Japan, they most certainly were not trying to provoke them into war. The US at that time was still very much isolationist, and this did not change until the Japanese surprise attack at Pearl Harbour. And even if the Japanese were being provoked into a war, then that's a good thing because it was about time someone put an end to their campaign to murder almost 30 million innocent civilians. You did know that the Japanese murdered that many people didn't you? Perhaps now the 80,000 who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki doesn't seem like the incredible injustice you're trying to make it out to be.
Exactly the US was very isolationist, the population didnt want any war unlike the elites on the country which usually benefits out of it...then something bad happened and boom all the public opinion was totally supporting them, reminds me some other event happened much more recently.
Nothing prevented the Japanese from obtaining oil if they were a peace loving country and sought it through trade and normal diplomatic channels. But they were not; Japan was a military dictatorship focused on conquering Asia and taking it through force. And the US was no longer going to sit by and indirectly help them rape and pillage Asia by selling them the oil needed to supply their military machine.
The Us gov doesnt give a fvck about justice or lifes otherwise your military wouldnt have been involved in any conflict/overthrown and revolution all over the world, the Us sits as long as it benefits wealthy elites and attacks when an attacks is necessary or their income is threathned, I wonder why the Us seems to attack only countries full of oil while most of africa is under civil wars and ethnic cleansing, I realize you are a lawyer but lets keep the lies to a minimum since there is no money involved here.
The US didn't not start the war in Asia, they ended it. The US was attacked first.. unless you consider a refusal to sell oil to a country as an attack. Is this what you're saying? Because if you are, you would be the first person I ever met who claimed that a country's refusal to do business or conduct trade would be considered an act of war.
Never said that a refusal to trade is comparable to a bombing, yet its obvious that doesnt help with political relations and is a way of soft war, I dont think I need to remind you that there are trade restriction on Russia now which is considered hostile as much as there were till few years ago on Iran for the same reason, they are tools to weaken an enemy.
This is what you don't seem to understand about the Pacific War: a long and drawn out blockade would have gone on for god knows how many years and killed potentially many many more people that the two atomic bombs that were dropped. That, in fact, was the whole reason the US president backed by his general staff ultimately decided to drop the bombs.
We agreed already that strategically talking was probably the best decision for the attacking part, many historians disagree about it for many reasons, Im not one of them and surely dont work in that field.
Actually, now the terrorists are nothing but rabble occupying mostly desert in Iraq and Syria, whereas before they constituted heads of state with standing armies and entire national economies behind them. While now they control mostly desert in Syria and Iraq, and are conducting relatively small hit and run operations and a few individual beheadings designed to shock and weaken western public opinion, before they were planning and launching coordinated invasions against entire countries.
I respectfully disagree, the amount of killings, carnages, slavery and instability that these "rabble" is bringing in the entire region is beyond control, I guess you are familiar with the fact that millions of refugees are leaving their land and trying to move to Europe, if its no big deal the modern situation how comes that nothing similar was happening at this level during Saddam or Quaddafi? was the fuel to flee too expensive back then maybe?
The United States loaned hundreds of millions of dollars interest free to western Europe to help them rebuild from a devastating war that Europe started. Plus, most of those loans were never even repaid - they were forgiven. America sent millions of soldiers to Europe and Asia, and hundreds of thousands died. Again, for a war that Europeans started. The US sent doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical equipment, trucks, experts to advise on agriculture and industry, and helped builds roads, schools, and infrastructure. Is America perfect? Of course not, The place has its hang ups. But no country on earth has ever tried to help other (mostly ungrateful) foreign countries in history as much as the US has.
The marshal plan made it clear that those economical helps were actually bribery, the condition to receive such money was not to have a communist party ruling your country, pretty much they said the people that they were either voting an approved government or they wouldnt have a coin, lets say they bought their vote?
Regarding the soldiers, the doctors and so on, Im sure those men and women did it for good reasons, pity that those who sent them were at home making esteems of the potential gain out of having a foot in Europe and taking away as much land and people as possible from their future enemiers the russians.
You are free to believe that it was a samaritan spirit to suggest such decisions, I respectfully suggest again strategical interest.
That's because back then, they were located in Yemen, Sudan, and Afghanistan. Now they have just fled to other stomping grounds, which only highlights more the need to liquidate them using whatever means necessary.
Yeah and why they managed to move to greener pasture? cause the big dog checking those pasture has been suppressed, cause that same big dog refused to have someone go eat on his field and instead started barking.
I agree, the US isn't perfect. People who commit economic crimes are often just as guilty criminally as terrorists. Big industry and the bankers have too much power. No system is perfect, and America is no exception. But America's idea of democracy, which is enjoyed by most Europeans west of Russia, is certainly the most favored form of democracy as it has been adopted by most nations in the world - nations who's governments have been elected by their people through majority decision.
I think the most important thing we have to clarify is that I never blamed the Us or the americans, I blamed the Us governments and the local elites, Im surelly not gonna have a problem with harry the californian surfer or Peter the texas farmer, Im sure I have much more in common with them that what I have with the euro parliament or they have with the white house.
I simply believe that just like many system democracy derailed and its rich wealthy corrupt people benefitting, it doesnt get elected the people which does the best for people but the ones that has enough money and power to bullsh1t the voters.
The oligarchs in Russia pose a threat to the government there, and Putin has established a mafia state in which he invades neighbouring countries and occupies their territory at will. He did that with Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Moldova.. the list goes on. Russia has a history of murdering its own people and invading all of the countries around it. Putin is simply continuing that tradition and keeping it very much alive.
Its no different with american corporation pressuring the european parliament to support TTIP despite 90% of europeans are against GMOs and other item yet its monsanto writing the rules instead of the people we voted, russian moved their tanks in georgia? its true so american army have their bases pretty much everywhere in this world, they even said the missiles in poland were necessary to defend Europe from Iran, so you have Russia pumping muscles and moving armies then the us gov bullsh1tting making political pressure, bribing politicians and doing the same thing...except that russian tanks are there to make troubles, the american ones are there to "protect the kids" or "defend democracy".
Since as a lawyer you surely know history better than anyone else, can I ask you from the foundation of the Us how many years of peace without being involved in any war you had till now? I think no more than 20.
Dont get me wrong everyone make its clothes dirty everywehere in the world but at least no one should try to convince his wife that he has oil or grass on his trousers because the car he was working on or the football match he had was not for his interest.
NONE, that's the answer. but then we'd have had no justification for keeping 10 million men working on armament building.