From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 17:43:04 MDT
On Wednesday, August 28, 2002 6:09 PM Mike Lorrey mlorrey@yahoo.com
wrote:
>>>From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>>
>>>Unless you fought in either the War of Independence
>>>or the War of
>>>1812, you claim is exaggerated. I don't recall the last time US
>>>territory was invaded in the last fifty years... (I was going to
>>>write 150, but Japanese Imperial Forces took the American
>>>territory of the Phillipines. Even this only happened after a long
>>>period of provocation from the Roosevelt Administration. See
>>>Thomas Fleming's _The New Dealers' War_ and Robert B. Stinnett's
>>>_Day of Deceit_. This does not absolve the Japanese government of
>>>that time for its crimes, though it shows it was a dance between
>>>two partners with one heavily choreographing the other.)
>>
>> You don't wait for things to reach your shores if you're smart.
>
> Nor is he correct, Brian. I suppose the attack on Pearl Harbor was
> nothing but a 'minor misunderstanding'
Not at all. I make no such claim, nor do I whitewash the Japanese
government here.
> and the months long Japanese
> occupation of a couple of Alaskan Islands,
This is true. My mistake. My other claim still stands. That is "I
don't recall the last time US territory was invaded in the last fifty
years..." To claim it would have been invaded but for the US government
having forces all over the planet does not necessarily follow. In fact,
some would argue -- and I would agree with them for the most part --
that being involved in so many hot spots -- e.g., the Korean Peninsula,
the Middle East, Latin America, the Balkans -- increases the likelihood
of attacks on Americans here and abroad. So, such an interventionist
and adventurist foreign policy is less secure than one that is less so.
> the attempted invasion of
> Midway Island, to be used as a staging area
> for an invasion of Hawaii (according to
> Yamomoto's own plan) was 'not an invasion'
> only because a) we are somehow wrong to
> own Alaska, and b) we had the misfortune to
> have successfully turned back the Midway
> invasion force.
Neither of these claims have I made. You must speaking about another
thread here.
> Furthermore, his characterization of Roosevelt as
> 'provoking' Japan is rather ludicrous. I suppose that
> our economic sanctions against China after
> Tianenmen Square was a 'provocation' by his
> definition. The US imposed economic sanctions
> against Japan specifically because it was committing
> a holocaust in China in its attempt to establish it's
> "Coprosperity Sphere". I suppose events like The
> Rape of Nangking, the Rape of Intramuros, among
> others, are non-events on Dan's mental radar.
Again, unlike the position you want me to take, I do not make that claim
at all. I've made no attempt to make the Japanese government or its
military appear as hapless victims here. Nor do I paint them as nice
guys who meant well. They were vicious and murderous -- at least the
"War Party" faction of the government.
However, there is ample evidence that the US government, at that time,
manipulated the Japanese government into making an attack on the US.
I've cited my sources on this -- the Fleming and Stinnett books.
> We who have served know that the gratitude of
> such as Dan is really not worth asking for.
I was not attacking people for serving in the military, but merely the
policies that animate that military. (These criticisms, by the way,
apply to most if not all governments of the world. I'm not singling out
the US government for special treatment here. Recall how this thread
started: I sent a URL about how the EU is basically financially
corrupt.)
> Many
> of us have been 'on the line' in one way or the
> other, many in events that never saw the light of
> day or front page of a newspaper.
Someone could come back and mention all the bad stuff that happens, too,
and never sees "saw the light of day or front page of a newspaper." I'm
sure there are good things that happen too. However, many of these are
more like the broken window fallacy of economics -- except here applied
to foreign policy. (Also, I'm not sure if the Okinowans who were raped
or killed by US forces in _peacetime_ -- from 1945 until today -- would
agree with your view. Imagine if foreign troops were stationed on
American soil to, say, help in the war on terrorism and some of them
went out and raped a 14 year old girl. Granted, this is not equal to
the Rape of Nanking, but it's still not right. See _Blowback: The Costs
and Consequences of American Empire_ by Chalmers Johnson.)
> We know what
> we've done and are self satisfied.
Then what do you care a whit what I believe or think or say?
> The lies and
> bullshit of ignoramuses like Dan, who have
> absolutely no idea what they are talking about
> and seem to only enjoy hearing themselves talk,
> have no impact on our service and what we
> know to be true.
Take a deep breath, Mike.
Why not just convince me that you are right by presenting your facts and
arguments -- as opposed to namecalling, building strawmen, and blind
assertions?
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:29 MST