Churchill war criminal, says German historian

[Myrddin]

It's your government - if you don't like it, change it

[David Floyd]

You still haven't explained how that constitutes valid cause for war.

Never claimed it did. But war would not have happened without that and a couple of other things (such as forward deploying the US fleet, etc.).

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Fine, but you are missing the point. If we hadn't acted immorally originally, Japan could not have acted immorally against us.

Besides which, it was wrong for the government to restrict free trade with Japan.

Maybe. Still doesn't bother me any. We don't have to feel any wrong here when they attacked us.

[Myrddin]

But war would not have happened without that and a couple of other things

I assume you mean war with the US - Japan had been at war in China for much longer and would have attacked much of SE Asia anyway

[David Floyd]

Although we aren't responsible for the attacks, we could have morally prevented them, by not provoking Japan or not restricting the freedom of Americans - two things that we should have been doing anyway.

[David Floyd]

I assume you mean war with the US - Japan had been at war in China for much longer and would have attacked much of SE Asia anyway

Yes, that's what I meant - what Japan does in Asia is of no real concern to the US, or at least it shouldn't be.

[DinoDoc]

Actually about the only valid part of your arguement from a Japanese POV is the part about the embargo. The rest of it is pure bollocks on your part. Sorry.

[David Floyd]

In what way is it bollocks?

Japan physically could not have attacked if we were not present in the Pacific, and we should not have been present in the Pacific because our major presence their was dependant upon aggressive wars against other nations.

[TCO]

I think Floyd blames Kitty Genovese as well.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
We aren't. But the US government has a moral obligation not to infringe upon the freedom of Americans (including American businesses) to trade with whomever they want.

What moral obligation? One you just made up?

The US Constitution makes clear that the Federal government has the sole power over US foreign policy, and that includes trade with foreign nations.

Businesses, American or otherwise, are not natural entities. They are solely creations of law, and as such, they have no more or no less "rights" than those granted them by law.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
In what way is it bollocks?

Japan physically could not have attacked if we were not present in the Pacific, and we should not have been present in the Pacific because our major presence their was dependant upon aggressive wars against other nations.

Hawaii?

Yep, yer right though, we should have stuck to the original 13 colonies.

[David Floyd]

The US Constitution makes clear that the Federal government has the sole power over US foreign policy, and that includes trade with foreign nations.

Just because the Constitution says something doesn't make it right. People - including people who own businesses - ought to be able to do whatever they want with their property, provided they aren't hurting anyone. And trade, by definition, is not a harmful act - quite the opposite, in fact.

Businesses, American or otherwise, are not natural entities. They are solely creations of law, and as such, they have no more or no less "rights" than those granted them by law.

I'm not talking about businesses - businesses can't do anything without the people who own and operate them. And the rights of those people are what I'm concerned with.

[David Floyd]

Hawaii?

You're saying that our acquisition of Hawaii was NOT imperialistic?

Yep, yer right though, we should have stuck to the original 13 colonies.

I have no problem with buying or trading for land, but if there was no moral way to acquire land outside the 13 colonies, then we should have stayed with those original 13.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Just because the Constitution says something doesn't make it right.

That's something I never thought that I would see a libertarian post!

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd


You're saying that our acquisition of Hawaii was NOT imperialistic?

It's irrelevant.