Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tunisia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    well i disagree with the whole concept of national rights (unsurprisingly given my politics). with japan its lack of resources was not a question of defence (under any reasonable definition of the term) but a question of being able to prosecute aggressive wars in china and south east-asia. and that's exactly the problem, the concept of defence is a very elastic one, which can be, and often is, used to mean actions that are anything but defensive.
    "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

    "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

    Comment


    • #62
      Yes.

      Note I wasn't suggesting that in this case Japan could succeed in taking the US to court. I am saying that form a pragmatic perspective it was reasonable (assuming that you agreed with the Japanese wars in Asia which is what caused the embargo).

      It was a legitament Casus Bell. (which is mostly what I mean by 'national right')

      JM
      Jon Miller-
      I AM.CANADIAN
      GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by C0ckney View Post
        of course. oil is a human right after all.
        Right up there with food, considering how bound up it is in creating and transporting it here.
        No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
          The Japanese may have been justified in going to war, given the oil embargo.

          If you assume that the oil embargo threatened Japanese sovereignty (which may have been true), Pearl Harbor had two other issues with it. First it was a surprise attack which has a significant diplomatic cost. Second it was a war Japan seemed likely to lose (There might have been better ways to acquire oil).

          JM
          Id say the much bigger factor in why it couldnt be justified was Japan's need for oil at the time was driven by wars of conquest. If they had been involved in defensive war to protect their own territory then there would be a chance for it to be justifiable. Needing more oil to go build an empire and rape and subjugate just means youre a empire of *******s with poor planning skills.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
            The Japanese may have been justified in going to war, given the oil embargo.

            If you assume that the oil embargo threatened Japanese sovereignty (which may have been true), Pearl Harbor had two other issues with it. First it was a surprise attack which has a significant diplomatic cost. Second it was a war Japan seemed likely to lose (There might have been better ways to acquire oil).

            JM
            They did send the DOW, but it got stuck in the mail...
            Indifference is Bliss

            Comment

            Working...
            X