Iran Intends to Nuke Israel

[Dr. Shane]

Any nation has a right to decide who they are going to trade with and who they are not. an embargo doesn't justify an attack. The US was attacked and its response was in self-defense.

[bevin]

Shane, read...

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25637

/Bevin

[Neil D]

[:"green"] Now Japan is disarmed and China is an Asian giant whose military boasts of pushing the Americans back across the Pacific. Had FDR met Prince Konoye, there might have been no Pearl Harbor, no Pacific war, no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki, no Korea, no Vietnam. How many of our fathers and uncles, brothers and friends, might still be alive? [/]

[Dr. Shane]

It may have been bad forgien policy but still doesn't justify the attack. And as the US was attacked, the US had a right to defend itself. I think most all of the Treaty of Versailles was flawed and provoked Germany to start WW2. But that doesn't mean Germany was justified in doing so or that France, Brittian and others didn't have the right to defend themselves.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

And as the US was attacked, the US had a right to defend itself.

---

What you fail to recognise is that the economic policys that the US pursued, attacked Japan..to the point that they had no choice but to defend themselves. So, in thier mind, they were defending themselves from the US... And that is what the history books describe...contrary to popular view.

[Dr. Shane]

No, I do not accept the premise that economic policies of a sovergn nation ever justify an attack by another nation.

Follow the logic.

• A sovergn nation has the right to decide who it will trade with.
• If that is not true, economic sanctions would justify war.
• That would mean Cuba would be justified in attacking the US
• South Africa would have been justified in attackong the US in the late 1980s due to the sanctions in place to end apartheid
• Nations that refuse to sell oil to the US would be legitamate targets for war.

A sovergn nation, like Mexico or Cuba, can decide who they want to trade with and just because they may exclude some nations does not mean the excluded nations have a right to go to war with them.

[Neil D]

As I said, Shane, "in thier mind", the US cut off thier oil supplies and economically attacked the nation. It was tanamount to war. I didn't say that I agreed with it, only that I understood it.

I also understand that much could have been avoided if we had given peace a chance....And possibly war with Japan. Instead, we had this war.....

[Dr. Shane]

I will go further than that. We should have never signed onto the Treaty of Versailles. But we shouldn't have gotten involved in WW1 either.

Remember we were nuetral in WW1. President Wilson then agreed to sell arms to Great Brittan without the consent of Congress. He then loaded them unto a passenger ship - The Lusitania. When the German's sunk the ship, killing 1,200 passengers, President Wilson reacted by asking Congress to declare war! He should have been impeached. And he did get into the war so his buddies could make money in the industrial military complex.

President Wilson was guilty of everything the anti-Bush crowd wants to put on Bush. President Wilson even passed laws preventing people from speaking out against the war!

The US made a lot of mistakes during that era. So while I agree they could have avoided war - both with Japan and Germany - they were still justified in defending themselves when attacked. It is like a girl that dresses like a [censored] and gets drunk at a party is guilty of some bad decisions but doesn't deserve to get raped.