"rick etter" wrote in message
link.net...
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...
"rick etter" wrote in message
link.net...
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in
message news:BDD4050D.12D50%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
in article et, rick
etter
at wrote on 12/1/04 10:10 PM:
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...
"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.
=======================
No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts.
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.
========================
Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the
case.
Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If
Canada
had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion
BUT WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERFERING
=================================
You shouldn't be imposing bloakades, embargos, confiscating assets,
delivering arms/supplies to their foes. All those actions are
considered to be non-neutral, and morally and legally war-like actions.
Ohhhh, now it is called "war-like actions."
====================
Always has been fool. I'm trying to get you into words you might
understand, for a change...
So what is the argument about?
You acknowledge that there is a difference between "war" and your
self-described "war-like actions."
When you are at war, you are at war. Everyone knows what this means - you
are shooting at them and they are shooting at you.
That is not the same as "war-like actions" the differences being obvious.