in article et, rick etter
at wrote on 11/29/04 11:16 PM:


"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
news:BDD14171.12B21%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
in article t, rick etter
at wrote on 11/29/04 7:30 PM:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

Just because it had not been
officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and
legally
already at war with Germany long before.

Yer joking, right? Well it's a pretty poor joke and an insult to those
who
lost their lives actually engaged in the war. I'm sure Hilter was
quaking
in his boots at the thought that the US was "morally" engaged in the
war.
==================
Yes, I'm sure he was. Roosevelt declared the US neutral at start of war.
Want to know how long that lasted? 1 month. 1 month before the arms
embargo parts of the act were repealed. Supplying arms to a billegerent
is
not a 'neutral' act.

If your point is that Roosevelt had to in effect lure the country into
armed
involvement one baby step at a time, you are correct.
=====================
It still means that in a legal sense the US was at war.

I think most people would say that you are at war when you say so, and when
you have people with guns shooting at other people with guns. There can be
no question that the majority American sentiment was to stay out of the war.
Roosevelt took actions that brought the US into conflict situations until
sentiments changed to the extent that the desire for war was stronger than
the desire for isolationism.

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
news:BDD1614E.12B4A%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
in article et, rick
etter
at wrote on 11/29/04 11:16 PM:


"Keenan Wellar" wrote in
message
news:BDD14171.12B21%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
in article t, rick
etter
at wrote on 11/29/04 7:30 PM:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

Just because it had not been
officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and
legally
already at war with Germany long before.

Yer joking, right? Well it's a pretty poor joke and an insult to
those
who
lost their lives actually engaged in the war. I'm sure Hilter was
quaking
in his boots at the thought that the US was "morally" engaged in the
war.
==================
Yes, I'm sure he was. Roosevelt declared the US neutral at start of
war.
Want to know how long that lasted? 1 month. 1 month before the arms
embargo parts of the act were repealed. Supplying arms to a
billegerent
is
not a 'neutral' act.

If your point is that Roosevelt had to in effect lure the country into
armed
involvement one baby step at a time, you are correct.
=====================
It still means that in a legal sense the US was at war.

I think most people would say that you are at war when you say so,
======================
Really? The people that you are helping to kill might have a different
idea of when you are at war, wouldn't you think?


and when
you have people with guns shooting at other people with guns.
=======================
People can die from others actions of war than from being shot. But then,
with your limited thinking I'm sure you wouldn't think that, eh?

There can be
no question that the majority American sentiment was to stay out of the
war.
Roosevelt took actions that brought the US into conflict situations until
sentiments changed to the extent that the desire for war was stronger than
the desire for isolationism.
==============================
Spin it any way you like. But morally and in a legal sense, we were at
war. US actions provided that, regardless of how you think the country as a
whole thought.

Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions
that are taken by agressors, not neutrals.

in article et, rick etter
at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM:


"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
news:BDD1614E.12B4A%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
in article et, rick
etter
at wrote on 11/29/04 11:16 PM:


"Keenan Wellar" wrote in
message
news:BDD14171.12B21%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
in article t, rick
etter
at wrote on 11/29/04 7:30 PM:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

Just because it had not been
officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and
legally
already at war with Germany long before.

Yer joking, right? Well it's a pretty poor joke and an insult to
those
who
lost their lives actually engaged in the war. I'm sure Hilter was
quaking
in his boots at the thought that the US was "morally" engaged in the
war.
==================
Yes, I'm sure he was. Roosevelt declared the US neutral at start of
war.
Want to know how long that lasted? 1 month. 1 month before the arms
embargo parts of the act were repealed. Supplying arms to a
billegerent
is
not a 'neutral' act.

If your point is that Roosevelt had to in effect lure the country into
armed
involvement one baby step at a time, you are correct.
=====================
It still means that in a legal sense the US was at war.

I think most people would say that you are at war when you say so,
======================
Really? The people that you are helping to kill might have a different
idea of when you are at war, wouldn't you think?

We're talking about at what point in time the US was at war with Germany.

and when
you have people with guns shooting at other people with guns.
=======================
People can die from others actions of war than from being shot. But then,
with your limited thinking I'm sure you wouldn't think that, eh?

We're talking about at what point in time the US was at war with Germany.

There can be
no question that the majority American sentiment was to stay out of the
war.
Roosevelt took actions that brought the US into conflict situations until
sentiments changed to the extent that the desire for war was stronger than
the desire for isolationism.
==============================
Spin it any way you like.

I'm not "spinning" anything.

But morally and in a legal sense, we were at
war. US actions provided that, regardless of how you think the country as a
whole thought.

The US was at war with Germany the day they declared war and entered into
armed conflict.

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?

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.

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

"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.

"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, then
Canada was not at war before the attack. I know that the 2 braincells you
have left have a hard time wrapping themselves around any real thought
process, so I'll just leave you to stew in your stupidity.



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.

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

That is the question at hand with your bizarre theory.

Does New Zealand simply announce that Canada is interfering, and thus Canada
is deemed to be at war? What constitutes interference...trade
restrictions...refusing to participate in a summit on sheep...?

Canada and the US intefere with each other in a thousand different
ways...the US interferes with just about every nation on the planet. Does
that mean they are all at war?!? This is totally nonsensical.

"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.
======================
Also, more than a year before Pearl, Secretary Hull had opined(paraphrased
from memory) that the US should send a large fleet of planes over Japan, and
if they happen to drop bombs on Tokyo, so much the better.
Besides the embargo, the US froze all Japanese assets within US holdings.

In Nov, 41 he issued the "hull" note. An ULTIMATUM to the Japanese to leave
China. Interestingly, the Pearl attack force left for Hawaii that day.

In reality the US neutrality in the china area was really over by 1938, when
the Panay was bombed. A neutral country would not have a gun boat
protecting oil tankers delivering oil to one side of the conflict.



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