Armed to the teeth

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by faded glory
You know, We DO have other enemys besides terrorists!

The question is if you have any other friends.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'm sorry, but there's a difference between an EMBARGO and a decision not to sell oil, steel, whatever to a nation.

According to the historical data I'm looking at, the embargo consisted of nothing more than stoping trade between the US and Japan which you have said was well with in a State's sovereign authority to do. No military action was taken to force the UK and the Netherlands to cease trading with Japan. So what is the problem?

[David Floyd]

We didn't have to take military action against Britain and the Netherlands, we just had to tell them what to do

But I will grant you that if you can adequately show me that what we did to Japan was simply an economic decision based on our own resources rather than an embargo, I'll grant you we didn't commit an act of war against them in that way. Fair enough?

I'll still argue that it was definitely wrong for the US to refuse the principles of free trade, but that in itself is not an act of war, just morally wrong.

[David Floyd]

I also maintain that supporting China - either the Kuomintang or the Communists - was morally wrong as well, because they were just as bad/worse than Japan.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I also maintain that supporting China - either the Kuomintang or the Communists - was morally wrong as well, because they were just as bad/worse than Japan.

So you're a fascist now? I agree that the KMT were certainly not anyone's idea of great leadership, but Japan was sort of Nazi.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
We didn't have to take military action against Britain and the Netherlands, we just had to tell them what to do

I thought you were a big fan of using diplomacy rather than military to get things like that done.

But I will grant you that if you can adequately show me that what we did to Japan was simply an economic decision based on our own resources rather than an embargo,

Here's a list of economic actions we took against Japan:

1) Before the Japanese move into Indochina that touched off the "embargo" Roosevelt had already reduced petroleum and cotton consignments to the Japanese. He also ceased shipments of scrap iron and other vital war materials in an to get them to abandon the war in China.

2) After they moved into Indochina, he froze all of thier American assets and completely cut off American trade with the island.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'm sorry, but there's a difference between an EMBARGO and a decision not to sell oil, steel, whatever to a nation. An embargo says that NO ONE can sell to that nation, and if enforced that is an act of war. Deciding, on your own, not to sell, is a simple economic decision involving no one's resources but your own.

Who was left to trade with Japan by that point in the game? Korea? No. China? No. French Indochina? No. Why is that? Probably because Japan's military had already colonized/occupied and/or were making war on said lands. Anybody willing to trade with Japan by that point had to know it wasn't some quiet, peaceful country going about its business w/o "harming" others.

The United States was trying to take a peaceful approach to ending Japan's aggression, and it backfired. I'm quite sure there were folks in the Pacific at the time who were most appreciative of our embargo effort, even if it didn't mean they got more guns or bullets. Singapore and Australia come to mind.

Your arguments seem to rest on the idea that we shouldn't do anything until we ourselves are under the gun. That's not being responsible, IMHO. That's being irresponsible. Isolationism is partially what got us embroiled in World War II. Why repeat that mistake?

CYBERAmazon

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Goingonit
I agree that the KMT were certainly not anyone's idea of great leadership, but Japan was sort of Nazi.

So, what? Allende was, perhaps, not everybody´s idea of great leadership, but Pinochet was sort of Nazi.

Didn´t keep the US from installing him. (shrug)

[David Floyd]

he froze all of thier American assets

I would call that theft. Morally wrong.

So you're a fascist now? I agree that the KMT were certainly not anyone's idea of great leadership, but Japan was sort of Nazi.

Here's a newsflash for you:
Hypothetically, if I HAD to choose between living in and fighting for Hitler's Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union, I'd choose Nazi Germany every time.
The Communists have ALWAYS been worse than the Nazis in terms of barbarity and brutality - just look at the numbers.

[David Floyd]

Your arguments seem to rest on the idea that we shouldn't do anything until we ourselves are under the gun. That's not being responsible, IMHO. That's being irresponsible. Isolationism is partially what got us embroiled in World War II. Why repeat that mistake?

Today that is unrealistic because we can NEVER be truly "under the gun" due to our arsenal of ICBMs - our ultimate recourse and defense. If we make it known that any significant attack will be responded to with nuclear weapons, I doubt we'll ever get attacked.

[Goingonit]

Well, personally I'd take Stalinist Russia. But I'm biased by ethnicity. As well, the KMT aren't Communist, and even the Communists are homegrown.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I would call that theft. Morally wrong.

I notice that you didn't use the words "act of war." I can accept "morally wrong" as the more appropiate characterization.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Today that is unrealistic because we can NEVER be truly "under the gun" due to our arsenal of ICBMs - our ultimate recourse and defense. If we make it known that any significant attack will be responded to with nuclear weapons, I doubt we'll ever get attacked.

That might have worked with the Soviet Union, but not everyone in the world is (or was) of the same mindset they had. There are people, groups and nations out there who who shrug off such a threat and go about their business.

Case in point: Surely the terrorists who struck on Sept. 11, 2001, knew that al-Qaida, Afghanistan and others linked to them would be hit, and hit hard, by the U.S. military response. They were and are being hit hard, but the point is this — those terrorists were *not* dissuaded by that knowledge. They went ahead anyway and slightly more than 3,000 people died in a matter of hours because of such fanaticism.

Besides, how does one define a "significant" attack? By casualties? By targets hit? Shock value?

CYBERAmazon