From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 19:13:09 MDT
Mike writes
> I suppose the attack on Pearl Harbor was
> nothing but a 'minor misunderstanding' and the months long Japanese
> occupation of a couple of Alaskan Islands, 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.
There is no doubt that the Japanese militarists wanted as
big an empire as they thought they could get away with.
> 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.
Dan does have a point, here, so that this is *not* ludicrous.
Roosevelt and his pals should have known how much they were
provoking Japan if they didn't. Japan was running out of oil
with the US's embargo, and it didn't take (or it shouldn't
have taken) a Clauswitz to figure that out.
The year was 1941 and Roosevelt did want the English to defeat
the Germans, and had no particular incentive to keep the US
out of the whole war. This could have caused him to be more
provocative than would have been the case in peacetime.
But I don't think that Roosevelt believed that a Japanese
attack was imminent.
> 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.
Oh come now. The US never has and never should react to
atrocities like it was the world's policeman or something.
The Nanking holocaust was a good pretext for action against
the US's enemy. (Saddam Hussein can tell you about that.)
The US should always act in its own best interests. I think
that the US was indeed acting in its own best interests at
the time, though, if the US really wanted piece, they should
not have cut Japan off completely.
> We who have served know that the gratitude of such as Dan is really not
> worth asking for. 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. We know what we've done and are self satisfied. 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.
Why the name calling? Isn't that supposed to be against the
rules here? There are extremely well-informed people from
all parts of the political spectrum.
No lies here, Mike. No bullshit, either. There is a sincere
difference of opinion. I do appreciate the motives of people
like you and Brian to do what you can for the country you
believe in, but most people on this list (alas) don't have
countries that they believe in.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:29 MST