"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar
wrote:
in article et, rick
etter
at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM:
Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific.
Actions
that are taken by agressors, not neutrals.
That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked
by
another nation was at war with them prior to the attack?
Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other
trade
with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and
the
US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific
Fleet
to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted
to
secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum
about
protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats
and the
embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl
Harbour and Clarke.
Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war
circumstances. I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks
another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is thereby
deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were attacked.
Someone in one of these threads recently suggested that in the future,
America
would be justified in engaging in war in the Middle East to defend their
sources
of oil. Sounds like they support the idea that lead to the Japanese
attacking
the US in WWII. Wrong then but right today. Interesting how attitudes
depend
on which side of the fence you're on.
Mike
Intreresting, and also a bit scary.