--- In [email protected], "Llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, in simplifed story cards, a whole bunch of, immoral IMO, > Imperialst Empires had a huge gang fight in WWI, and the victors > "raped and pillaged" the losers. And when the losers later got pissed > off and sought revenge, we puffed out our chests and said "we can't be > appeasers!". > > Why didn't we lower our heads in humility a 100 years earlier and say, > "this imperialst empire thing is horrible, it is what our (the US) > revolution aimed to end, and we are not going to be a part of it. And > to the extent we can, we will work for a fair and equitable resolution > to the conflict of these mad and vicious gangs masquerading as honor- > bound refined glorious gentlemen." > > > > ----Churchil was not a US person. We, the US entered WW2 after Pearl Harbor. For the US, then still on the moral high ground, we fought against moral atrocites.
And why did Peal Harbor "happen"? In June 1941 Roosevelt and then Under-secretary of state effectively (via financial / trade restrictions) cut japan off from external oil shipments. Given that Japan has a 6-month supply of oil, it was clear that this was a provocation of war. Not surprisingly, in precisely 6-months, Japan moved foreably to open its oil lanes. (quite paralell to US justification to keep Middle East oil lanes open, at almost all costs, and have resulted in quite twisted foreign policy, IMO). The only uncertainty was the Japanese tactics and where they would attack. And so what was Roosevelt's response to a (provoked)attack on US (territorial) soil? Focus the war effort in the opposite direction of course -- focus on Europe, and much less on the source of the attacks -- Asia and Japanese aggression. Pearl Harbor created a "reason" to enter the war in Europe, something Roosevelt longed to do -- though he deceitfully campaigned in 1940 against entering the war. Again this is quite parallel to the current era -- the Taliban (primarily) in Afganistan attack the US and the US's most forecful response is an invasion of Iraq who had nothing to do with 911 -- but was a hidden agenda /desire of the Bush admin from the beginning. "[The US fought] against moral atrocites. " What autrocities that were known of in December 1941 are you referring to? Even when the awareness of death camps became more widely known in 1943-44, they were not a major concern of Roosevelts or the US population at large (just as genocide in Africa barely gets our attention today). It is a myth that the US entered and fought WWII "against moral atrocites". Just as it is a myth that Lincoln pursued war with the south to "free the slaves". Linclon was clear, prior to is second administration, that he was open to end the war even if it menat southern slavery would continue. He even declared blacks were "sub-human." Again, a parallel to the current era: After the fact, Bush justified the invasion of Iraq based on the moral autocities of Saddam, yet this was not a primary issue prior to invasion -- nor did wholescale moral autrocities in Asia, the Balkins and Africa prompt much US action in the pst several decades. Why suddently moral out rage "now" with Saddam? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
