Thread: Name a War The Sitting President Opposed

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Also there is the matter of the oil embargo and freezing Japanese assets. When FDR said the attack on Pearl Harbor was unprovoked it was for theater. America did everything they could to provoke Japan. America was already at war with Japan for all intents and purposes.

Since when is an embargo an act of war? Remember, this was not a blockade, but an internal embargo. We simply stopped selling oil and steel to Japan. This is as much an act of war as when OPEC several times decided to stop selling oil to the US. Following this reasoning, we should have declared war against OPEC and the Middle East in 1973.


Freezing assets is another thing often done diplomatically to show disfavor for the action of another country. And are you aware of the action that Japan did to earn such disfavor?

Well, in case you or others forgot, let me help you out a bit. This decision was made after the Empire of Japan invaded French Indo-China. France was an ally of the US, and this was the strongest statement the country could do short of war. It was also a direct threat against both Singapore and the Philippines, both within striking distance of the new Japanese bases in what later became known as Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Since when is an embargo an act of war? We simply stopped selling oil and steel to Japan. ... Freezing assets is another thing ... the strongest statement the country could do short of war.

France was our ally and we were not acting like an ally to the Empire of Japan. I am simply stating the fact of our actions Japan considered provoking war. You can debate your opinion with the fact but to what end I am not sure.

I think we were right to provoke Japan. Being morally right about our provocation is not the same thing as us not provoking Japan.
1. We provoked Japan.
2. Provoking Japan was the right thing to do.
3. FDR lied when he said the attack was unprovoked.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

France was our ally and we were not acting like an ally to the Empire of Japan. I am simply stating the fact of our actions Japan considered provoking war. You can debate your opinion with the fact but to what end I am not sure.

I think we were right to provoke Japan. Being morally right about our provocation is not the same thing as us not provoking Japan.
1. We provoked Japan.
2. Provoking Japan was the right thing to do.
3. FDR lied when he said the attack was unprovoked.

Thats revisionist history. You purposely left out the reason for the embargo. Why dont you tell all of us the reason huh?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

France was our ally and we were not acting like an ally to the Empire of Japan.

But we were no longer an ally of Japan. They had pulled out of the Washington Naval Treaty, attacked US forces, and commited atrocitites such as the Rape of Nanking.

How about I put this in modern terms, maybe then you can understand. The country of Myopia leaves the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They then attack a province of another country, then enter the city of a country that they are on a UN peacekeeping operation in and then proceed to purposefully slaughter between 250-350,000 people.

In response to these and other actions, the US stops selling them oil and freezes their assets.

And this is your claim that the oil embargo and freezing assets is a casus belli?

No, that is not the case. That is a lame excuse, and a total sham. And proof of this is so simple to find.

The oil embargo to Japan started in July 1941. The active preperations for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor began in March 1941. So Japan was already preparing for the upcoming war, Embargo or no Embargo. To US military planners, the war became obvious once Japan conquered Indo-China.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I am simply stating the fact of our actions Japan considered provoking war. You can debate your opinion with the fact but to what end I am not sure.

And in reality it was the reverse. You have to look at this as cause and effect. And which was the first nation to take offensive action in the theatre, and which continued to take actions even after a string of protests that grew more and more harsh? This certainly was not the US. Japan had been in persuit of this war for years, had actively planned for it, and nothing was going to stop it from getting it's Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.

I mean, just look at that concept all in itself. Japan, controlling an empire that was 2/3 made of up other nations and their protectorates and colonies. Of critical importance to the US was that one of the key components was the Philippines.

So I guess this is a new definition of provocation. The US provoked Japan because we controlled land that they coveted. Yea, that is an accepted cause for war, but not a justification.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I think we were right to provoke Japan. Being morally right about our provocation is not the same thing as us not provoking Japan.
1. We provoked Japan.
2. Provoking Japan was the right thing to do.
3. FDR lied when he said the attack was unprovoked.

No, we did not provoke Japan, they provoked us. They provoked us with increasing agression and attacks so we responded with increasing sanctions. They then used those sanctions as an excuse.

Here, a few more flips. Would the US have been justified in attacking OPEC in 1973? Would Iraq have been justified in attacking the US in 1990? Would the Soviet Union been justified in attacking the US in 1980? Because for your claims to be correct, then all other situations would also effectively also have been correct. And recognizeable by other nations as being fully justified.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Thats revisionist history. You purposely left out the reason for the embargo. Why dont you tell all of us the reason huh?

This is his style, not the first time he and I went in circles.

He left out the Rape of Nanking, the attack on Indo-China, and even the attack of the USS Panay, and 3 US oil tankers by Japanese aircraft. In short, he wants the US to be the cause, and will do anything he can to attempt to justify that, factual and accurate or not.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

And they are one and the same. To draw a parallel to individuals, when person acts with hostility he is, thereby, declaring his hostile intent. His hostile intent does not have to be mailed certified letter by some sacrosanct specific verbiage.

No, not in this sense.

We're talking about legally declared wars as they're spearate from conflicts or hostile actions or acts of war.

To draw a parallel, you can claim you're going to sue me, and you can gather a bunch of paperwork and other evidence that you'd like to use in the prosecution of your law suit, but until you file suit with a cout of law, mailed certified letter by some sacrosanct specific verbiage, or otherwise, you're not actually suing me.

When the Empire of Japan bombed Hawaii that was how they declared war on us.

No, the Japanese declared war on us on December 8, 1941.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes...British_Empire

The act of Congress a couple days later than FDR famously uttered the phrase will live in infamy was merely theater to rally the troops and ensure civilian support.

No, that was a legal declaration of war, as opposed to the Soldiers at Hickam Field and aboard Pearl Harbor retaliating against the Japanese who were attacking American military installations, thus engaging in acts of war without a war having been legally declared.

Originally Posted by soot

No, the Japanese declared war on us on December 8, 1941.

Japanese declaration of war on the United States and the British Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this is something that most people tend to forget about.

Even if all of those claims are true, how does that justify the decision to declare war against the United Kingdom? Yea, yea, yea, yadda-yadda-yadda. The interesting thing if you read the Japanese Declaration of War is the refusal of the US and UK to allow them to control East Asia.

It is all in their own declaration of war.

We, by grace of heaven, Emperor of Japan, seated on the Throne of a line unbroken for ages eternal, enjoin upon ye, Our loyal and brave subjects:

We hereby declare war on the United States of America and the British Empire. The men and officers of Our army and navy shall do their utmost in prosecuting the war, Our public servants of various departments shall perform faithfully and diligently their appointed tasks, and all other subjects of Ours shall pursue their respective duties; the entire nation with a united will shall mobilize their total strength so that nothing will miscarry in the attainment of our war aims.

To insure the stability of East Asia and to contribute to world peace is the far-sighted policy which was formulated by Our Great Illustrious Imperial Grandsire and our Great Imperial Sire succeeding Him, and which We lay constantly to heart. To cultivate friendship among nation and to enjoy prosperity in common with all nations has always been the guiding principle of Our Empire's foreign policy. It has been truly unavoidable and far from Our wishes that Our Empire has now been brought to cross swords with America and Britain. More than four years have passed since China, failing to comprehend the true intentions of Our Empire, and recklessly courting trouble, disturbed the peace of East Asia and compelled Our Empire to take up arms. Although there has been re-established the National Government of China, with which Japan has effected neighbourly intercourse and cooperation, the regime which has survived at Chungking, relying upon American and British protection, still continues its fratricidal opposition. Eager for the realization of their inordinate ambition to dominate the Orient, both America and Britain, giving support to the Chungking regime in the name of peace, have aggravated the disturbances in East Asia. Moreover, these two Powers, inducing other countries to follow suit, increased military preparations on all sides of Our Empire to challenge us. They have obstructed by every means our peaceful commerce, and finally resorted to a direct severance of economic relations, menacing gravely the existence of Our Empire. Patiently have We waited and long have We endured, in the hope that Our Government might retrieve the situation in peace. But our adversaries, showing not the least spirit of conciliation, have unduly delayed a settlement; and in the meantime, they have intensified economic and military pressure to compel thereby Our Empire to submission. This trend of affairs would, if left unchecked, not only nullify Our Empire's efforts of many years for the sake of the stabilization of East Asia, but also endanger the very existence of Our nation. The situation being such as it is, Our Empire for its existence and self-defense has no other recourse but to appeal to arms and to crush every obstacle in its path.

The hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors guarding Us from above, We rely upon the loyalty and courage of Our Subjects in Our confident expectation that the task bequeathed by Our Forefathers will be carried forward, and that the sources of evil will be speedily eradicated and an enduring peace immutably established in East Asia, preserving thereby the glory of Our Empire.

The 8th day of the 12th month of the 16th year of Showa.

This is the full text of the Declaration of War., the only thing omitted is the names at the bottom. Now for the parts that are in bold, the Japanese put that in themselves. For the parts in red, I highlighted those parts. And as you can see, a lot of the emphasis is on China. Japan wanted to control all of China, and we were not willing to give it to them.

For the roots of this issue, you have to go all the way back to the Boxer Rebellion. But in the aftermath of that event, the Multinational Powers that were involved (Britan, US, Japan, Russia, Germany) all agreed to control parts of China until they were able to develop a stable government. This is what a lot of the Russo-Japanese War was all about. Russia controlled several sea ports, and Japan wanted them. So the two nations went to war over who got to control them, and Japan won.

And for decades prior, they had been trying to expand their role in China. This started way back in 1915 with the 21 Demands, the assassination of Zhang Zuolin, the Invasion of Manchuria (an action that Japan was condemned for in the League of Nations, the forced evacuation and attack on the city of Shanghai (which was in the Western Zone, not the Japanese Zone), then by 1937 full-scale war between China and the Empire of Japan.

So yea, we refused to let them occupy and control China. That is the real crime here, according to Japan. In fact, until Germany signed the treaty with Japan in 1938, they were also a large supporter of the Chinese forces. As were the Soviets until the 1941 Neutrality Agreement. So by 1941, the US and UK were the only major powers in the region that refused to accept Japanese control over China.

So we know the crimes of the US, according to Mr. Locke. What are the UK crimes, other then they also refused to give up China (and Burma, and India, and Malaysia, and SIngapore, and Australia, and New Zealand). Andbody that researches the intended "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" knows that it had very far-reaching goals if Japan had won the war. These included the eventual exile or subdjucation of Australians and the importation of millions of Japanese to contol the new "colony", and the same with New Zealand. Control of India to around the current Afghanistan-Pakistan border (West of that would be the eventual German controlled area), as well as Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, the state of Washington, and Central America (for control of the Panama Canal).



This plan had already been drafted in 1941, before war broke out. It broke up control of the "new and expanded Empire", listing areas of control for the "New Japan". And even before the war started, they decided which of the new groups would fall under control of which Governors.

New Zealand Government-General: New Zealand North and South Islands, Macquarie Island, as well as the rest of the Southwest Pacific.

Alaska Government-General: The Alaska Territory, the Yukon Territory, the western portion of the Northwest Territories, Alberta, British Columbia, and Washington. There were also plans to make the American West Coast a semi-autonomous satellite state. This latter plan was not seriously considered; it depended upon a global victory of Axis forces.

Government-General of Central America: Guatemala, San Salvador, Honduras, British Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Maracaibo (western) portion of Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba, Haiti, Dominica, Jamaica, and the Bahamas. In addition, if either Mexico, Peru or Chile were to enter the war against Japan, substantial parts of these states would also be ceded to Japan. The future of Trinidad, British Guiana and Suriname, and British and French possessions in the Leeward Islands were left open for negotiations with Germany after the war.

Nobody goes into a "Defensive War" with the intend of controlling so much territory when it is over. This was all planned years in advance.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

No, we did not provoke Japan, they provoked us.

That is certainly the US propaganda. I guess you want to debate your opinion when the fact of the matter is the Empire of Japan stated with specificity how they were provoked. Live in denial if you want.

Just remember when you experience cognitive dissonance of why the rest of the world does not embrace your US-centric propaganda that I told you something.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Thats revisionist history. You purposely left out the reason for the embargo. Why dont you tell all of us the reason huh?

No, it is not revisionist history. It is history according to the Axis powers.

In other words, I am not defending it; just stating their spin of events. Not surprisingly, it is not the same as the Allied spin.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

B]Even if[/B] all of those claims are true, how does that justify the decision to declare war against the United Kingdom? ... the Japanese Declaration of War is the refusal of the US and UK to allow them to control East Asia.

What the hell justification is their for Anglo-Saxons to control East Asia? The Japanese were, in their view, expunging the territory of the White imperial powers.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Nobody goes into a "Defensive War" with the intend of controlling so much territory when it is over. This was all planned years in advance.

Hence the spin of the Allies and most countries that go to war. The US wages war half way around the world, as Bush put it, "pre-emptive defense."

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Hence the spin of the Allies and most countries that go to war. The US wages war half way around the world, as Bush put it, "pre-emptive defense."

And I have shown you multiple verifications as to the aims and goals of Japan in the Pacific and Asia. Their attacks on multiple other countries even before December 1941.

Got proof as to how peacefull they were, and how they did not want war with us? Can you document any of your claims at all, or are they all simply your opinion?

I can document my claims, often in the words and actions of the Japanese themselves. Can you back up your claims in any way, shape or form?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

No, it is not revisionist history. It is history according to the Axis powers.

In other words, I am not defending it; just stating their spin of events. Not surprisingly, it is not the same as the Allied spin.

But you do consistantly claim this "spin on events" as you say here as your own. The US provoked Japan, Poland provoked Germany, etc, etc, etc.

Now I am long known for playing "Devil's Advocate", but pretty much most that know me know that is exactly what I am doing, and I state that is the viewpoint of others. In reality, I rarely even have much of a "viewpoint". I simply debate from history and other sources. Do I care who started the War of 1812? No, not really, this was over 150 years before I was born. My "belief" is meaningless, I only look at the historical facts and evidence, nothing else.

In you claims of the start of World War II in Asia, you have to go way back, before 1941, beyond 1931, as a minimum back to 1898 if not 1894. Because unless a person has an understanding of what lead up to the war, the actual starting is largely meaningless.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

No, it is not revisionist history. It is history according to the Axis powers.

In other words, I am not defending it; just stating their spin of events. Not surprisingly, it is not the same as the Allied spin.

Bullshit. Japans aggression towards our interests caused us to sanction Japan that's the truth and historical fact. Get it right or dont use it!