U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-13-2009, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
The men and women on the bases were American citizens. American warships are legally American territory.

An attack on our military is an attack on the nation.

Both did and anybody who can spout Latin phases must surely be able to see that.

No you're an appologist for the Japanese.
The only casualties were Americans who intentionally put themselves in harm's way as conspicuous belligerents. None would have been harmed if they had been snug in their beds in Joplin or Gallup. An attack on regular uniformed and armed military personnel equipped and trained to do battle is not an attack on your country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-13-2009, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,086,025 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The only casualties were Americans who intentionally put themselves in harm's way as conspicuous belligerents. None would have been harmed if they had been snug in their beds in Joplin or Gallup. An attack on regular uniformed and armed military personnel equipped and trained to do battle is not an attack on your country.
You're really great at blaming the victim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,366,957 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
An attack on regular uniformed and armed military personnel equipped and trained to do battle is not an attack on your country.
Under international law, such attacks are classified as an act of War.

As an aside - keep in mind the Japanese attempted an attack on the West Coast of the United States
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864
For the umpteenth time, we are not talking about the fine points of international law. We are talking about why the US went to Europe and squandered a half a million men and a half a decade of our own national productivity. International law did not compel America to enter the European war. What did? That is the question we are addressing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
You're really great at blaming the victim.
Dam tootin'. If an armed man looking through his sights gets shot, has he no culpability for his predicament?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,366,957 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
For the umpteenth time, we are not talking about the fine points of international law. We are talking about why the US went to Europe and squandered a half a million men and a half a decade of our own national productivity. International law did not compel America to enter the European war. What did? That is the question we are addressing.
Because, Nazi Germany DECLARED WAR on the United States. They were attacking our shipping. They were attacking our Allies.

Let me ask you this: If someone is beating you up, are you compelled to fight back? No, you are not.

However, if you don't fight back, they may kill you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,366,957 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Dam tootin'. If an armed man looking through his sights gets shot, has he no culpability for his predicament?
No - if his gun was in his holster, and someone shot him, he has no culpability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,086,025 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Dam tootin'. If an armed man looking through his sights gets shot, has he no culpability for his predicament?
At Pearl Harbor the US force was in a stand down mode. Nobody but the Japanese were pointing guns at anyone. The Japaneses of course were engaged in a war of aggression to dominate the Pacific and decided to make war on the United States. We were just the next in line: China, Korea, Indochina, etc all preceded us.

We went to war with Germany because Japan and Germany had an alliance once we were at war with Japan we were at war with Germany. The Germans promptly started shooting at our unarmed civilian shipping on the East Coast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post

Let me ask you this: If someone is beating you up, are you compelled to fight back? No, you are not.

However, if you don't fight back, they may kill you.
Part one, thank you for your argumentative support in helping me make my point. And there wasn't even anyone beating us up, so much the better. Unless passing a diplomatic note constitutes "beating me up".

Part two, if they have put me on warning, and I have an ocean between us, I'll take my chances behind whatever defense I can create.

Your entire premise winds down to the practical probability that they "might" kill us. It is up to you to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the Germans would have inflicted more harm on our nation here at home than they did in their own back yard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 01:52 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
32,112 posts, read 39,184,670 times
Reputation: 40552
Also, the Japanese wanted to strike a blow that they thought would knock the US out of the western Pacific, they probably misread the isolationist sentiment. Admiral Yamamoto had studied and lived in the US (even had a subscription to National Geographic) and promised his superiors six months to a year of dominance, after that he felt that the US would begin to overwhelm them. I believe, and don't feel like searching for the citation, that after Pearl Harbor he said something to the effect that the attack had "woken a sleeping giant".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
The Japaneses of course were engaged in a war of aggression to dominate the Pacific
Since you want to talk about war of aggression to dominate the Pacific, let's talk about Hawaii and the Northern Marianas. The story of Hawaii is already well know, how US interests overthrew the legitimate government. The Northern Marianas were sold by Spain to Germany, and then after WWI, they were ceded to Japan by international peace agreement. On Pearl Harbor day, they were uncontested Japanese territory. The Americans took them from Japan in WWII and still have them. The USA and France are the only countries that still occupy a Pacific Empire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top