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.

"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

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 30-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

I don't remember
saying that, eh?

Go back through the thread. You jumped in when I responded to
such a statement.
================
and I made the statement?

But, I notice you dishonestly snipped out the rest of the post that you
apparently found too hard to reply to, eh?



Mike

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.

On 1-Dec-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

and I made the statement?

No, but I'm discussing the topic of the thread, not your
vitriol.

But, I notice you dishonestly snipped out the rest of the post that you
apparently found too hard to reply to, eh?

I'm still waiting for you, Tom and Larry to respond to lots of stuff
I posted but you guys didn't bother to address. Works both ways chum.

Cheers,
Mike

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 1-Dec-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

and I made the statement?

No, but I'm discussing the topic of the thread, not your
vitriol.

But, I notice you dishonestly snipped out the rest of the post that you
apparently found too hard to reply to, eh?

I'm still waiting for you, Tom and Larry to respond to lots of stuff
I posted but you guys didn't bother to address. Works both ways chum.
===========================
Don't snip it out and maybe somebody would,,,, You get what you give,
fool.


Cheers,
Mike

"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. Too bad you
are so ignorant and stupid as to not understand, or are just too full of
hate to want to understand.




That is the question at hand with your bizarre theory.
==================
It's not theory you ignorant dolt. If I were you i'd demand an immediate
refund from whatever scgools you went to. They obviously failed you.


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.
====================
Yes, your idiocy is nonsense. The problem with *your* bogus analogies(you
really have a hard time with them don't you fool) is that the discussion at
hand is the country you are intervering with is already at war, and you are
taking actions that side with their foes, while trying to declare
neutrality. It doesn't work that way, and you are morally and legally at
war with that country when you help the foes, or punish that country. Man,
you really are just too stupid for this, aren't you?

"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."

More weasel-words.

Can I have your full list of exactly which types of actions constitute
"interfering" because I think it's going to reveal that every single nation
in the world is at war. Depressing news!

And, according to you, I guess George W Bush is lying again, because before
he left Canada after his little visit earlier this week, and he said that
our two nations were best of friends. But the US is (according to you)
currently taking war against Canada by restricting trade of softwood lumber
and preventing the sale of Canadian beef.

Either George W is lying, or you have a strange definition of war.

Too bad you are so ignorant and stupid as to not understand, or are just
too full of hate to want to understand.

What have I said that even approximates hate?

That is the question at hand with your bizarre theory.
==================
It's not theory you ignorant dolt. If I were you i'd demand an immediate
refund from whatever scgools you went to. They obviously failed you.

Mm. Well, they certainly never prepare me for illogic of such a grand scale
as you have managed here.


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.
====================
Yes, your idiocy is nonsense. The problem with *your* bogus
analogies(you really have a hard time with them don't you fool) is that
the discussion at hand is the country you are intervering with is already
at war, and you are taking actions that side with their foes, while trying
to declare neutrality. It doesn't work that way, and you are morally and
legally at war with that country when you help the foes, or punish that
country. Man, you really are just too stupid for this, aren't you?

That's one possibility.