| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
a preemptive strike.
|
A preemptive strike is indeed the rub. The Japanese did it at Pearl Harbor and it was labelled 'a day that will live in infamy'. They had a certain amount of justification for doing it--we'd embargoed iron and oil shipments to them.
I think the whole thing about preemptive strikes is suspect. With our satellite technology and all, I don't think it's necessary to declare a policy of preemptive strikes. If an enemy military is mobilizing to attack us, we will know about it beforehand and can act. Every country in the history of the world has always had the right of self-defense. What is the purpose of the US declaring that we have a right to attack anyone anywhere when we're in the mood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
The Japanese did it at Pearl Harbor and it was labelled 'a day that will live in infamy'. They had a certain amount of justification for doing it--we'd embargoed iron and oil shipments to them.
|
They had no amount of justification. Who's writing your history books? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| They had a certain amount of justification for doing it |
Absolutely not. Don't forget that they had already abrogated their committment to the naval limitations talks...and that particular Japanese government was aiming to aggressively establish an overseas colonial empire when the age of those kinds of empires was already in decline. It was an underhanded thing to do.
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
They had a certain amount of justification for doing it
|
Sorry. I wasn't as clear as I thought I was being. I meant that in the Japanese government's eyes, they were justified. As they saw it, they had been at war since '37 and then in '41 the US cut off their supplies of iron and oil, vital materials for the war effort.
And this is the reason why I think pre-emptive strikes are always suspect. The one who does it can always come up with some excuse, valid or not. In my opinion, 'pre-emptive strike' is usually just another word for aggressive war of choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
turtlepi1
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Location: Abu Dhabi, UAE
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| turtlepi1 wrote: |
Isreal doesn't need to fabricate evidence to justify a preemptive strike.
"Palestine" doesn't need to fabricate evidence to justify a preemptive strike.
India doesn't need to fabricate evidence to justify a preemptive strike.
Pakistan doesn't need to fabricate evidence to justify a preemptive strike.
Taiwan doesn't need to fabricate evidence to justify a preemptive strike.
Etc...etc... |
Maybe they don't "need" to, in your view, but EVERYBODY is in or has been in the fabrication business. It's called black propaganda, and it's older than Sun Tzu. Anyone or any nation claiming moral superiority on this issue views the world through simplistic eyes, is terribly misinformed, or is just cynically lying. Just because most governments are not open with their information like the U.S., that doesn't mean that they have not been in the black propaganda business for all sort of things and in all sorts of forums.
Here's an excerpt from a memo that a very disturbed Undersecretary of State Chester Bowles wrote after meeting with Robert Kennedy, McNamara, and several other ranking Kennedy Administration officials in the aftermath of Rafael Trujillo's assassination in the summer of 1961, when it seemed apparent that Castro's guerrillas would fill the void and create another yanquiphobic Caribbean island...
"Bob Kennedy was clearly looking for an excuse to move in on the island. At one point he suggested, apparently seriously, that we might have to blow up the Consulate to provide the rationale.
His general approach, vigorously supported by *beep* [Richard] Goodwin, was that this was a bad government, that there was a strong chance that it might team up with Castro, and that it should be destroyed -- with an excuse if possible, without one if necessary."
Chester Bowles, "Notes on Crisis Involving Domincan Republic," 3 June 1961. |
My point was that they could walk into other countries tomorrow with far more legitimate claims than the US had in Iraq. The key was the word fabricate. Basically they have said we decide what preemptive actions are legitimate in the world. We are the only superpower.
If that is the case one of the only methods of resistance of a tyrannical dictator is guerrilla warfare. (maybe terrorists/maybe "freedom fighters") It is a slippery slope in this day of highspeed communication and blogsters. In the past keeping things quiet & spinning the media was a simple task. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
