Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (8225)	10/30/2001 2:34:35 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Japan was right in attacking the US at Pearl Harbor. They were only trying to secure their oil supplies. Yes... that logic came to my mind as well... And I doubt we'd be so resentful towards Japan, had it not been for the sneak attack... But, of course, who could blame them for attempting to take out its only rival in the Pacific as quickly as possible. And of course, there was the original reason the US placed those sanctions in the first place, namely Japan's brutal invasion of China. But this is the inherent conflicting logic of international law I noted in a previous post. Does the US have any obligation to acknowledge the hegemonic claims of ownership of natural resources, if those resources were illegally expropriated from the US corporations that once owned them (and intially discovered and exploited them)?? Should the US be willing, entitled or not, to declare a national emergency that justifies capturing the Saudi oilfields? I truly can't give an answer... But were we threatened in such a way, I would certainly be willing to take the necessary actions to ensure our economy is not damaged, and if that meant seizing the fields, then so be it. And then I would commence a drastic conservation and alternative energy program to wean us off our dependence (which we need to do now). Hawk