Pearl Harbor

[alphamale]

Today is the 64th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. From Roosevelt's War Speech:

"I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again."

Unfortunately, we didn't.

[godfry n. glad]

Today is the 64th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. From Roosevelt's War Speech:

"I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again."

Unfortunately, we didn't.

Yeah? When was that?

[ms_ann_thrope]

How odd, I was totally craving sashimi today! :hellokit:

Maybe I missed something in my history classes, but I'm pretty sure that being attacked on our soil by Japan (or any other soveriegn nation) hasn't happened since...?

[godfry n. glad]

I think he's trying to draw the connection between 12-7 and 9-11.

[Legs]

So alphabits thinks the Japanese were behind 9/11 :chin:

[alphamale]

How odd, I was totally craving sashimi today! :hellokit:

Maybe I missed something in my history classes, but I'm pretty sure that being attacked on our soil by Japan (or any other soveriegn nation) hasn't happened since...?

What a dunce statement! Were the people any less dead on 9/11 because al qaeda isn't a sovereign nation? Retard. :D

[alphamale]

So alphabits thinks the Japanese were behind 9/11 :chin:

Yeah that's why I think. Dumb pussy! :D

[ms_ann_thrope]

What a dunce statement! Were the people any less dead on 9/11 because al qaeda isn't a sovereign nation? Retard. :DI'm not the one who made the defective OP:

"I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again."

Unfortunately, we didn't.Not my fault that you can't pick out better quotes upon which to attach your insightful political commentary. :asshat: :wave:

[Godless Dave]

Treachery? The 9/11 attacks were horrible in many ways, but they weren't treachery.

[alphamale]

Treachery? The 9/11 attacks were horrible in many ways, but they weren't treachery.

And you think that Roosevelt's statement was intended to say that we would only make sure we weren't treacherously attacked? Other kinds of surprise attacks were OK?

[Paul H.]

Wait a (historically correct) second.

The USA directly provoked the Japanese by attempting to impose international sanctions against anyone who sold them oil. Oil essential for industry.

In effect, the USA, pre-1941, were intentionally destroying Japan’s economic future, in a typical “containment” exercise.

Japan was merely defending itself.

America wanted to cripple Japan, and Japan wouldn’t sit down for it? How “treacherous” of them. Liberty is treachery, I guess. (The USA would be the expert on that, historically).

When will the World ever learn… American trade sanctions first – bombs, next.

[TomJoe]

Wait a (historically correct) second.

The USA directly provoked the Japanese by attempting to impose international sanctions against anyone who sold them oil. Oil essential for industry.

In effect, the USA, pre-1941, were intentionally destroying Japan’s economic future, in a typical “containment” exercise.

Japan was merely defending itself.

America wanted to cripple Japan, and Japan wouldn’t sit down for it? How “treacherous” of them. Liberty is treachery, I guess. (The USA would be the expert on that, historically).

When will the World ever learn… American trade sanctions first – bombs, next.

I'm sure the Chinese will agree with your view on this. :sarclap:

[Paul H.]

I fact not widely known, or taught

[alphamale]

Wait a (historically correct) second.

The USA directly provoked the Japanese by attempting to impose international sanctions against anyone who sold them oil. Oil essential for industry.

Not an act of war.

In effect, the USA, pre-1941, were intentionally destroying Japan’s economic future, in a typical “containment” exercise.

Japan was merely defending itself.

What kind of preposterous historical view is that? Japan had unleashed a murderous war on the chinese years before.

[mountain_hare]

alphamale:

Not an act of war.

Yeah, sure. Attempting to cripple someone economically isn't an act of war, because they don't actually say "We are declaring war!"

And as we all know, an act of war is only justified when the opposition actually drops bombs on you. That's why America attacked Britain for imposing high taxes without representation... oh wait.

Quite simply, the attack on Pearl Harbour was FAR from treacherous. It was the logical response to the oil + scrap metal embargo the U.S placed on Japan.

See if you can follow this.

1. America possessed all the oil in the Phillipines.
2. Japan NEEDED that oil to fuel its economy, and war machine.
3. America refused to sell it to the Japanese.
4. So the only logical course left is to attack and take those oil fields by force.

It's a no brainer that American ports in oil rich areas would be attacked.

In fact, it is reasonable to think that the oil embargo was used by the admin at the time to goad Japan into attacking the U.S, so that the U.S admin had an excuse for entering the World War. Because the president at the time had promised his people "We will never fight in this war, unless we ourselves are attacked."

[California Tanker]

I think the reality lies somewhere in between the two extremes.

Refusing to sell oil is not an act of war. It may be economically crippling, and it may be grounds for a war, but it is not an act of one. A more extreme case would have been the attempt by the Arabs to divert the Jordan river away from Israel. That led to a small military action, for survival with no wars to fuel at all. In 1940, it was simply a case of economic sanctions to show disapproval of a course of action. A technique still much relied upon today, not just by the US. (Indeed, some would say less so by the US than by other countries, Cuba being the exception)

NTM

[Paul H.]

An issue that need to be more openly taught, in schools, IMO.

[California Tanker]

What, use of international economic pressure?

NTM

[mountain_hare]

Refusing to sell oil is not an act of war. It may be economically crippling, and it may be grounds for a war, but it is not an act of one.

I'd be inclined to agree. However, I strongly suspect that America placed the sanctions in place to bait Japan into a war. "We will not participate in this war unless we are attacked!" the president promised his people. Secretly, the American admin wanted nothing more than to join in. They were in their prime, and had a lot to gain in smacking down imperial Japan.

[California Tanker]

I'd be inclined to agree. However, I strongly suspect that America placed the sanctions in place to bait Japan into a war.

Well, given that the whole planet was having a war, it would have been a bit aloofish (Is that a word?) not to join in the fun...

NTM

[TomJoe]

Secretly, the American admin wanted nothing more than to join in. They were in their prime, and had a lot to gain in smacking down imperial Japan.

So, do you think it was wrong for the US to get involved?

[TomJoe]

I fact not widely known, or taught

Which also renders your earlier objections moot. You make it seem as if Japan were the victim in the entire exchange, and it was anything but.

[Paul H.]

>> You make it seem as if Japan were the victim in the entire exchange, and it was
>> anything but.

I seek to make it clear that the "this day will live in infamy" speech by the American President was an embarressing lie.

"We made them do. Now it's their fault they did it."


Wait a sec! That rings a modern bell! Twice.

Japan "pro-actively" attacked a Nation that was in real life choking them.

I don't think that America has (now) that excuse.

[California Tanker]

I'm a little less than convinced that there's a direct parallel here.

NTM

[Paul H.]

That's true because 'the world' would never have sanctioned a direct American invasion of Japan.

At first.

[TomJoe]

That's true because 'the world' would never have sanctioned a direct American invasion of Japan.

At first.

What?

[Paul H.]

That's true because 'the world' would never have sanctioned a direct American invasion of Japan.

At first.

Because the projected American casualites were so enourmous.

[TomJoe]

That's true because 'the world' would never have sanctioned a direct American invasion of Japan.

At first.

Because the projected American casualites were so enourmous.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[California Tanker]

I'm trying to translate that one.

NTM