SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Hawkmoon who wrote (176244)11/30/2005 8:27:23 AM
From: Noel de Leon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Again we were talking about how the UNSC works as far as going to war. Not about which nation supported which aggressor.

Don't assume that because I use the Korea example that I am some what critical of that UNSC decision.

"Why? Japan didn't represent a threat to the US, except with regard to shipping and Asian trade. Why did we launch crippling economic sanctions against them that provoked a military response by Tokyo to attack our Pacific Fleet so we would be unable to oppose their invasions of the Philipines, Sumatra, and Burma? I believe FDR essentially warned the Japanese that there would be "serious consequences" as a response to such an action."

Japan wanted to extend its sphere of influence to the whole of Asia. The US oil blockade was a severe hindrance to these ambitions.
Japan attacked the US and the US declared war on Japan. Then Germany declared war on the US, by some historians considered to be an enormous error. By that time the majority in the US was for WWII. What the US public would have said if death tolls were published is speculation. One could easily argue that the American will to win was much stronger then. Or that the differences between WWII and Iraq are far greater which would change the results if death tolls were published. I don't speculate about that sort of thing because it is fruitless and it detracts from the subject at hand.