| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "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. ============================= Keep telling yourself that fool. Try to get an education someday... That is not the same as "war-like actions" the differences being obvious. ================ No, there still put a country morally and legally at war.... |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
in article et, rick etter
at wrote on 12/2/04 10:50 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "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. ============================= Keep telling yourself that fool. Try to get an education someday... Can you please rephrase that in simple terms? I'm having a hard time keeping up. I'm sure you are used to people being in awe of your brilliance. Frankly, I don't know how (or if) you have remained sane, given your elevated self-image. That is not the same as "war-like actions" the differences being obvious. ================ No, there still put a country morally and legally at war.... You've really outdone yourself this time. Traducción, por favor? The difference quite simply, is being "at war" is not the same as being "morally at war" or "legally at war" and everyone knows the difference because in the case of the former, people get shot. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD551A5.1305D%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... snippage... 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. ============================= Keep telling yourself that fool. Try to get an education someday... Can you please rephrase that in simple terms? I'm having a hard time keeping up. I'm sure you are used to people being in awe of your brilliance. Frankly, I don't know how (or if) you have remained sane, given your elevated self-image. ================= I have no elevated self image, I just know the ignorance that you are spewing.... Try again little boy... That is not the same as "war-like actions" the differences being obvious. ================ No, there still put a country morally and legally at war.... You've really outdone yourself this time. Traducción, por favor? The difference quite simply, is being "at war" is not the same as being "morally at war" or "legally at war" and everyone knows the difference because in the case of the former, people get shot. ======================= And people die for those others reason and actions too you ignorant dolt. Are you really this stupid, or just this big a troll? Again, you don't have to shoot people to kill them, or to be at war.... |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| More bad news for Bush, good news for Americans | General | |||
| ) OT ) Bush's "needless war" | General | |||
| Mystery Beach Photo Contest | ASA | |||
| Another Boat show | ASA | |||
Hybrid Mode
