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: Raymond Duray who wrote (11154)	11/22/2001 4:00:54 AM
From: axial	Respond to of 281500

Happy Thanksgiving to you, Ray, and to all of my American friends. "What you are doing is looking at this from the Allied point of view." Sorry, no. I was looking at it from the Korean point of view, the Russian point of view, the Chinese point of view: the real and potential "benefactors" of the Japanese hegemonism and militarism. Or, Indonesia. India. And when you look at it that way, the analysis still stands: "It was about Japanese expansionism and militarism. That was the primary issue. It was about a way to stop Japan, short of war, and it was by no means limited to oil. Oil was secondary: a means to a greater end. Without it, and other raw materials, America reasoned that Japan would be unable to continue its expansion. The Japanese correctly perceived the American intent, and reacted in a calculated gamble aimed at preserving inflows of raw materials, and maintaining its expansionist policies." Whether you look at it from China or America, the view, at the time, and now, is the same. That is not to ascribe some morality, a "Japan wrong, America right" description to the matter. Any country, any group, including the Al-Qaidas, Nazis and KKKs of the world, can take a shot at establishing a New World Order. Yes, we can (and should) take into account the views of the protagonist, the prime mover: Japan. In fact, a reading of Japanese literature on the military and diplomatic events of the time only confirms my statement. The world is wise to consider, but not obliged to accept the Japanese view, any more than we are obliged to accept the thinking of the man who the man who seeks our wallet, at gunpoint. If you want to quibble about it from a legalistic standpoint, your argument reminds me of the case of the youth, on trial for killing his parents. He pleads for mercy, based on the fact that he is, after all, an orphan. First things first, bro. Turkey 2U, Jim