If there Is A Draft....

Why bring it up then? Aren't you trying to justify our invasion of Iraq? Okay, "we invaded because he was a dangerous madman" defense is officially debunked. Next!

Was he asking you? Huh, I thought he must have been asking Roxxxane as he/she broached the subject. Obviously you said "if" and therefore no sane person would believe you were trying to make any justifications.

Oh wait, I see that this whole exchange was just your way of flirting with Roxxxanne. I'll leave you to your fun now...

WHAT??? Look, it's obvious that you want to argue with me rather than debate the topic, I am not playing your games any longer, you want to debate the topic, great, I'll offer my opinions, you want to drag me to your level, forget it. It took me awhile to understand what some of you are about, but I did learn, maybe you could learn some debating skills.

You wouldn't know a real debate if it smacked you in the head with it's big flaccid penis.

Which is something kickycan would know about. He is expert and getting hit in the head with big flaccid peni.

I don't think kickykan (I thought he was a she) is enjoying this too much, maybe popcorn....

Actually, I am enjoying it.

As a point of information, the United States did not invade Germany because Hitler was alleged to be a madman. We went to war with Germany because Germany declared war on the United States.

The case with Iraq would not be a corollary in any event, because we did not invade Iraq based on a contention that Hussein was a madman--we invaded on a contention that he possessed weapons of mass destruction. That contention has never been proven, and the evidence is very good that it is a false contention, and there is further, very good evidence that the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad were lying and knew it.

Setanta, I'd first like to thank you for your kind and unexpected words. Second, I guess it is crystal clear that the initial topic has run its course and further breaking from it can do no more harm to this thread than has already occurred.

Now, I do disagree with you (and I suppose, international law as well) that the selling, indeed the giving ("lending") of materials that were to specifically be used by one nation in its efforts to wage war against another is "not an act of war." Much like a person who supplies a gun, ammunition, and transportation to a hold-up person (PC era) would be considered an accomplice to any illegal act arising from his/her actions, I consider the U.S. guilty of acts of war against Japan. So while the "fair-minded" (lol) judicial body that presided over any trial resulting from WWII and yourself may not consider these actions by US acts of war, I do. And in light of your post, I still stand by my initial statement.

The fact that the U.S., a nation that initially claimed neutral status in WWII prior to December 7, 1941, sold fuel, scrap-metal, and munitions (i.e. supplied the weaponry and the means to transport it) to nations that were waring with Japan and not to Japan, belies the claimed rhetoric of the Roosevelt administration and highlights that the U.S. was far from a neutral spectator. Furthermore, the U.S. closed the Panama Canal to Japan, but not Japan's enemies.

How these facts- that the U.S. supplied weaponry and free passage through the Central American isthmus to Japan's enemies and blocked Japan from the same- were not considered acts of war by the U.S. offends my sense of fair play and is beyond my understanding.

Indeed, if I am to take the findings/conclusions of some post World War II court proceedings as the absolute and final authority on whether or not the U.S did commit acts of war against Japan, then I'd hope that you'd extend that line of thought and agree that O.J. Simpson is, in fact, innocent of killing two people and should be thought of as so by the general populace, as a court found him not guilty.

My point, as convoluted as it is, is that simply because a international court exonerated the new economic and military powerhouse (United States) from committing acts of war, doesn't mean that the U.S. didn't actually commit acts of war against Japan.

So, even though the embargo was enacted in 1931, the fact that the U.S supplied Japan's enemies the tools to shoot and kill Japanese people obviously indicates that the U.S. was not a neutral spectator, but was in fact, a biased participator in World War II and was engaging in acts of war against Japan. Indeed, the U.S. would use a similar rationale to attack Afghanistan some 60 years later. After all, did Afghanistan attack the U.S.?

Although this is technically correct, it is a naive point of view. Japan did nothing to aid Germany in the war,

Now, I have to concede my immense ignorance of the affairs about and surrounding the events of WWII. It was not my intention, nor do I think I did, suggest that Japan actually assisted Germany in any practical way. My point was that the U.S. declared war on Germany only after Germany declared war on the U.S. Now, the same cannot be said of Iraq. As far as I know, the U.S. military build up in the Middle East and the subsequent invasion of Iraq wasn't predicated by an Iraqi declaration of war on the U.S. Therefore, LSM's analogy is, at best, a poor one. And I still stand by my post.

I see a few problems with what you write, Mexica. The first is that selling the materials of war to a belligerent cannot necessarily be seen as an act of war, nor is it inconsistent with United States policy throughout its history. So, for example, during the era of the Napoleonic wars, the United States held that "neutral bottoms" make for neutral cargo. Napoleon issued the Milan Decree making any such neutral shipping forfeit. England later responded with orders in council making neutral shipping forfeit for carrying contraband, with an extremely broad definition of contraband. Napoleon tripped to the idiocy first, and revoked the Milan Decree--which was disingenuous, because he had no real naval might with which to threaten the seizure of neutral shipping--by 1805, the French Navy, such as it was, even if it could have escaped the English blockade, would not have been able to realistically challenge the United States Navy. However, despite being stretched thin with the European blockade, the Royal Navy could and did seize American shipping. The issue becomes complicated because of the problem of impressment--Royal Naval vessels would stop American ships and seize English-speaking crew members (many, perhaps most, sailors on American merchant ships in that era were in fact Portugese, and crews were drawn from literally dozens of nationalities; in the War of 1812, HMS Shannon capture USS United States in a bitterly fought action, when almost all of the able seamen and ordinary seamen of United States were Portugese who had been signed on at Boston when the ship sailed, a few weeks before the battle). In 1807, HMS Leopard signalled to USS Chesapeak that they wished to "speak" them (i.e., lay along side to confer, and, in normal cases, to exchange news and mail), but when they laid along side, they fired a broadside at the unprepared American ship, boarded and seized three sailors. Although England officially apologized, and returned the three sailors later, this was the point at which the United States was prepared to go to war. Jefferson lacked the courage to do so.

England consistently held that contraband voided the neutrality of any vessel, and that they were entitled, by right of force majeure, to board vessels bound for Europe, or in "approach" waters of Europe, to search for contraband. England maintained this position over the objetions of almost every other nation on earth, and the law of the sea as understood by all other nations held that neutral bottoms make neutral goods, unless and until ships were boarded and shown to have goods of war--and that such boarding could only take place within the sight of land of a belligerent power. This was slowly strangling American trade, which is what eventually lead to Madison securing a declaration of war against England from the Congress in 1812. Ironically, the American ship which bore the declaration of war to England passed at sea the ship coming to inform the Americans that the orders in council had been revoked.

So, it has long been a principle of the laws of the sea--despite the English attitude--that nations could trade with whomever they choose, barring the consequences of entering or leaving the ports of a belligerent in the face of their opponent's navy; and that a nation can without prejudice close its ports to any belligerent in a war. In fact, goods shipped to China were not landed in Chinese ports, and ships didn't challenge the Imperial Navy. They were landed in Burma, and transported overland to China.

The lease of the Panama Canal Zone gave the United States the right to apply that principle and close the canal to any belligerent. Part of the problem you will have is that Japan in 1931 was only fighting China, and China had no merchant service which was attempting to use the canal. The United States was fully within its rights to close the canal to any, some, all or none of the belligerents in any war, and without prejudice as regards the law of the sea. The issue is further muddied by the fact that the Japanese claimed the embargo was an act of war, and not the closing of the canal. In fact, neither Japan nor China used the canal--their shipping, such as it was, was largely coast-wise, and Japan sailed around Africa to trade with Europe. You may be pleased to consider that to have been an act of war, but even the Japanese of that era did not characterize the closing of the canal as an act of war.

As for simply selling scrap metal and petroleum to China, apart from there being no large trade with China in those materials, once again, the embargo was enacted because the United States was reacting to the invasion of Manchuria, which it considered an act of war on the part of Japan without provocation. International law allows a nation to make such a decision, and does not require reciprocity--the United States was not required by any concept of international law to embargo China.

As for O. J. Simpson, i've not ever expressed an opinion as to his guilt or innocence. I would point out, however, that he was held liable in civil court for damages resulting from the death of those two individuals. You really have no business, though, throwing that up in my face, because you have no basis upon which to decide what i do or do not beleive with regard to that matter--a well-known controversy in the United States.

The Afghanistan issue is not equivalent either. The ruling government of Afghanistan were ordered to turn over to the United States the members of al Qaeda, or suffer the consequences of a refusal to cooperate. This is a reasonable ultimatum to issue in international law. The United States invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to comply with the terms of the ultimatum. From a legalistic point of view, at least, the Taliban could have prevented the invasion by complying with the terms of the ultimatum.

I completely agree with you that an attempt to link by analogy the actions of the United States with regard to Germany with the invasion of Iraq is specious. I completely agree that the United States invaded Iraq without legal or moral justification. I find absolutely no fault with your position in that matter.

Setanta, I'll get back to you a li'l later tonight. I have a few errands to run and I want to take the time to think of a way to respond clearly to your post.

Thanks.

Who said that we did invade Iraq because he was a madman?

No answer Sentana? You don't like to answer for your falsehoods?

LSM, meet this man. He'll tell you all you need to know about the war based on the madman thesis.

Well, while I don't find a problem with anything you write, I do find confusion in this dialogue, perhaps the failing is mine. I dunno. But, I fear that as long as this conversation is simply confined to framework of notions and ideas that have been put forth and accepted by certain nations (i.e "America," England, France, etc, etc.) we will continue to talk past one another.

I do not agree that, simply because certain European countries and "America" may have accepted as principle that during times of war "nations could trade with whomever they choose" that any and all other countries were bound--nor, for that matter, were any of the nations you claim to have long accepted these principles forever bound--by these guiding principles of the sea.

Indeed, did Japan sign-off on this principle of the sea during the 19th century military encounters of which you speak? And if so, were they forever bound by it? My answer: no.

Furthermore, I have never disputed that "it has long been a principle of the laws of the sea...that nations could trade with whomever they choose." Indeed, my knowledge of such historical matters is so impoverished that it is beyond my current ability (and desire) to challenge or fact-check anything you have written about the Napoleon, the Royal Navy, or TJ.

What I argued was that the US was not a neutral spectator in the days prior to December 7, 1941; rather, the U.S. was an active and biased participant in WWII prior to December 7, 1941 and aided the ability of Japan's enemies to wage war against Japan. And that in my opinion, those actions were acts of war against Japan, and in fact, Germany.

I do not see what is so confusing about that. Let me again put it in very simple terms. If group 'A' and group 'B' are waring with one another, and another group--say group 'C'-- assists group 'A' in its war efforts against group 'B' over the protests of group 'B'. Would you consider it unreasonable for group 'B' to also war with group 'C'? In my mind and in my opinion, not only is waring with group 'C' the reasonable thing to do for group 'B,' it is also the responsible thing to do.

Now, I think you are suggesting that since it it had long been excepted by certain imperialistic (European and former European colonies) that nations can engage in commerce with any country whenever they choose that the US cannot be viewed as having acted without precedent, and that point I do not contest. What I will say is, I am completely unconcerned with any precedents that the U.S., England, France or any other country you choose to bring up for discussion in regards to commerce during time of war.

What is clear, at least to me, is that in 1941 Japan viewed the selling of war materials by the U.S. to Japan's enemies as acts of war. That is a point of view with which I am in total agreement.


As for the my mentioning of the O.J. criminal trial and its outcome, I apologize for not being more clear in my attempt at making a point. It was not my intention to suggest that you ever offered an opinion on Mr. Simpson's guilt or innocents or to throw anything in your face. My sloppy argument was meant to suggest that simply because a formal judicial process reaches a particular outcome it does not necessarily mean that said outcome is just, moral, and/or correct.

Indeed, if you are suggesting that I accept that Japan's defense of a defensive strike against the U.S. as meritless, based on the findings/rulings of the post WWII Tokyo tribunal, then I ask that you also agree that O.J. Simpson is completely (not just legally) innocent of murdering (I changed "killing" to "murdering" as murder has definite legal meaning) his wife and her friend because of the ruling/finding of a criminal tribunal.


As for the Afghanistan issue, I do think it equivalent.

You failed to answer the simple and direct question I posed. You instead talked about what the reasonable (presumably) military actions carried out by the U.S against Afghanistan. My question was: did Afghanistan attack the U.S.? I did not ask whether or not the ordering "the ruling government of Afghanistan...to turn over to the United States the members of Al Qaeda" was a "reasonable ultimatum to issue in international law."

The answer to my question is no. No, Afghanistan did not attack the U.S. But the U.S. did attack Afghanistan, and without direct provocation. We are told, and I have no reason to doubt, that Afghanistan had aided and was aiding the organization that was supposed to have been behind the attacks on 9/11. So, the U.S. attacked (most say rightfully so) the country that supplied the means to attack the U.S. Certainly, there are differences , but the basic principle and logic are the same as the rationale behind Japan's attack on the U.S.

On a side note, I find it interesting that you assume that the government of Afghanistan was in a position to comply with demand of the U.S. I mean, if the most powerful country in the world cannot find, after years of searching, the leaders of Al Qaeda, how can one seriously expect a backward third world nation to roundup and deliver to the U.S. Al Qaeda's leaders?

Thanks for reading, and I am enjoying this conversation.

At this point, I'd say that it impossible for you to be anymore boring than you have proven to already be.

What man? All I see, for the most part are small minded children.

You want to see something more boring? Read your own trash.

So, even you concede that you are boring.

Classic.