Letter of a dying Iraq war veteran to Bush

[IndyDave1776]

"Isolationism" as you call it did not cause Pearl Harbor, but it could have prevented it.

Below is a list of reasons as to how the USA caused Japan to attack pearl harbor, none are isolationist:

1. Wilson treated Japan poorly at the Treaty of Versailles
2. USA pressured Britain to end their alliance with Japan which angered them
3. When a civil war occurred in China, Japan invaded Manchuria as a buffer. The west thought that this was horrible even though they did similar things
4. Japan did exactly what England did, and took over land to colonize. The west was not happy with this.
5. The USA imposed a steel and metal embargo on Japan in 1940
6. The USA imposed an oil embargo on Japan, which forced them to expand their empire in search of oil.

The first two are politics, and not acts of war. Japan may not have gained much from the division of the spoils, but then again, Japan didn't contribute anything but helping itself to a couple of Germany's best colonial possessions. As for the alliance, in the time before, during, and immediately after World War I, alliances tended to be matters of convenience and not of near the longevity of those alliances formed by the onset of the Cold War. Business as usual by the standards of the time. Japan might also whine and cry about the 5:5:3:2:1 apportionment of naval tonnage under the Washington Naval Treaty, but then again, no one put guns to their heads and forced them to sign.

The remainder are refusal to cooperate with Japanese butchery (by and large worse than Nazi butchery) which is not an act of war.

Now, what was the point?

 

[jdmack79]

The first two are politics, and not acts of war. Japan may not have gained much from the division of the spoils, but then again, Japan didn't contribute anything but helping itself to a couple of Germany's best colonial possessions. As for the alliance, in the time before, during, and immediately after World War I, alliances tended to be matters of convenience and not of near the longevity of those alliances formed by the onset of the Cold War. Business as usual by the standards of the time. Japan might also whine and cry about the 5:5:3:2:1 apportionment of naval tonnage under the Washington Naval Treaty, but then again, no one put guns to their heads and forced them to sign.

The remainder are refusal to cooperate with Japanese butchery (by and large worse than Nazi butchery) which is not an act of war.

Now, what was the point?

If you decided to read what I quoted in my post, you would see that the point I was making is that the USA was in no way isolationist in regards to the Japanese. Pearl Harbor is commonly used as an example as to why we can't be "isolationist." We were quite involved with the Japanese. An embargo, which isn't something that an isolationist nation enacts, directly encouraged Japans expansionism.

I'm tired of Pearl Harbor being used as an excuse as to why we should be so active overseas.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you decided to read what I quoted in my post, you would see that the point I was making is that the USA was in no way isolationist in regards to the Japanese. Pearl Harbor is commonly used as an example as to why we can't be "isolationist." We were quite involved with the Japanese. An embargo, which isn't something that an isolationist nation enacts, directly encouraged Japans expansionism.

I'm tired of Pearl Harbor being used as an excuse as to why we should be so active overseas.

You said:

Below is a list of reasons as to how the USA caused Japan to attack pearl harbor, none are isolationist:

That goes well beyond holding up involvement in world affairs as being non-isolationist in nature. It is a clear assignment of responsibility for the Japanese attack on US policies. I refuse to accept responsibility for any disparity between what you claim as your intent and what you actually said.

Pearl Harbor or not, I would argue that the biggest problems with our overseas activities are that our enlightened leaders seem incapable of differentiating between our national interests and some amorphous 'greater world good' and that when the decision is made to act, there seems to be little done toward generating effective and efficient plans rather than wasting unnecessary lives and money with impossible rules of engagement which seem more focused on maximizing contractor profit than actually winning a conflict.

 

[jdmack79]

I stand behind my statement that the USA's policies caused Japan to attack us. Like it or not, actions always have some type of effect. In this case, they caused Japan to attack us.

Pearl Harbor is constantly used as a reason for US interventionism overseas, when in reality it should be used as an argument against it.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

Didn't know he was committing suicide. Tells me that they haven't given this man some needed treatment.

 

[jdmack79]

Didn't know he was committing suicide. Tells me that they haven't given this man some needed treatment.

Yeah, the whole dying soldier thing seems to be by choice.

 

[Hohn]

I stand behind my statement that the USA's policies caused Japan to attack us. Like it or not, actions always have some type of effect. In this case, they caused Japan to attack us.

Pearl Harbor is constantly used as a reason for US interventionism overseas, when in reality it should be used as an argument against it.

Those poor Japanese. No choice but to attack the evil Americans.

 

[Jludo]

Those poor Japanese. No choice but to attack the evil Americans.

Don't think anyone's saying a preemptive strike on Pearl Harbor was justified, however we can find reasonable provocation on the side of the Americans.

 

[Jludo]

Yes.

Signing up for military service means forfeiting control of your life. Do these vets forget the part of that oath about the "obeying the lawful orders of the President of the United States and officers appointed over me"?

Sometimes, you serve for 20 years and never get a scar. Others serve 6 months and die a horrible death. Others suffer injuries both physical and mental that make them ponder death, and perhaps even wish for it. War is not fair. War is never a good thing-- it is at all times a lesser evil.

I've taken the enlisted oath and served that commitment. I've taken the oath of an officer and accepted my commission. Neither is to be taken lightly. (as the oath states, it must be taken "freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion")

Apparently, this guy didn't understand the oath he took or its potentially fatal consequences. Or he simply wants a do-over.

It's hard to watch something like this a not see it as a spit in the face of those who paid the ultimate price and are survived not by anti-war protesters, seekers of fame, or revenge-- but only by those who know firsthand the solemn pride and pain of having offered up such a great sacrifice to the their country. There are many who suffer in silence of their choosing because they feel any other course would bring them dishonor.

The commensurate solemn obligation upon those who order our public servants into battle is that they not abuse the command authority given them. Every President must consider sacrosanct the massive responsibility that accompanies the right to order someone to do something that may kill them.

I believe from President Bush's conduct out of office that he took that obligation very seriously. His regular visits to veterans hospitals and many hours of charity work supporting veteran's causes testify to the weight that must still rest on his shoulders for having ordered what he did order.

I'm grateful that this vet's sad ending was not indicative of our military in general-- in its character or in the undertakings it assumes.

H

Veterans can have pro-peace opinions, joining the military doesn't force you to forever become an obedient weapon. Soldiers sign on to support and defend the Constitution, you can't be mad when a soldier signs up to do just that and then realizes he's been duped into guarding poppy fields in Afghanistan or searching for non existent WMD's in Iraq.
I hate that the military gets away with it's false advertising, that is that it's soldiers are somehow protecting Americans liberties or keeping the country safe. They should advertise the truth, that you're signing up to defend the US hegemony abroad and in support of regional stability of major oil exporting countries. Saying it's about freedom or defending Americans who can't defend themselves is complete BS.

 

[Hohn]

"Isolationism" as you call it did not cause Pearl Harbor, but it could have prevented it.

Below is a list of reasons as to how the USA caused Japan to attack pearl harbor, none are isolationist:

1. Wilson treated Japan poorly at the Treaty of Versailles
2. USA pressured Britain to end their alliance with Japan which angered them
3. When a civil war occurred in China, Japan invaded Manchuria as a buffer. The west thought that this was horrible even though they did similar things
4. Japan did exactly what England did, and took over land to colonize. The west was not happy with this.
5. The USA imposed a steel and metal embargo on Japan in 1940
6. The USA imposed an oil embargo on Japan, which forced them to expand their empire in search of oil.

Don't think anyone's saying a preemptive strike on Pearl Harbor was justified, however we can find reasonable provocation on the side of the Americans.

So you're saying we FORCED them to do it, but there's no justification for it?

 

[Jludo]

So you're saying we FORCED them to do it, but there's no justification for it?

Just hearing what you want? Provoking someone is not the same as forcing.

 

[Hohn]

The word used was "caused" not "provoked."

Cause=Forced much more than Cause=provoked.

 

[Jludo]

The word used was "caused" not "provoked."

Cause=Forced much more than Cause=provoked.

I never used the word 'caused' why quote me into your little spat? America did a lot to provoke the attack is all I'm saying.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I stand behind my statement that the USA's policies caused Japan to attack us. Like it or not, actions always have some type of effect. In this case, they caused Japan to attack us.

Pearl Harbor is constantly used as a reason for US interventionism overseas, when in reality it should be used as an argument against it.

That is just as asinine as saying that you forced a criminal to rob you because you wouldn't give him his fair share of your belongings.

Further, if you honestly believed that our refusal to transfer to Japan things we had that the Japanese wanted justified the Pearl Harbor attack, then why are we not justified attacking anyone who has anything we want? If we were wrong then, I suppose you believe we should have sold gas chambers to the Nazis as well?

 

[rambone]

"Isolationism" as you call it did not cause Pearl Harbor, but it could have prevented it.

Below is a list of reasons as to how the USA caused Japan to attack pearl harbor, none are isolationist:

1. Wilson treated Japan poorly at the Treaty of Versailles
2. USA pressured Britain to end their alliance with Japan which angered them
3. When a civil war occurred in China, Japan invaded Manchuria as a buffer. The west thought that this was horrible even though they did similar things
4. Japan did exactly what England did, and took over land to colonize. The west was not happy with this.
5. The USA imposed a steel and metal embargo on Japan in 1940
6. The USA imposed an oil embargo on Japan, which forced them to expand their empire in search of oil.

The Treaty of Versailles also put such onerous war reparations on the Germans that it turned that country into a breeding ground of resentment, economic desperation, and eventually fascism.

 

[steveh_131]

That is just as asinine as saying that you forced a criminal to rob you because you wouldn't give him his fair share of your belongings.

Further, if you honestly believed that our refusal to transfer to Japan things we had that the Japanese wanted justified the Pearl Harbor attack, then why are we not justified attacking anyone who has anything we want? If we were wrong then, I suppose you believe we should have sold gas chambers to the Nazis as well?

This isn't about force and it isn't about 'justification'. Pearl Harbor was not provoked by any sort of imagined 'isolationist' policies that we had in place. It was provoked by our usual interference in things that we ought not to interfere in. Those things were already well covered in posts above.

This did not justify an attack on Pearl Harbor. It doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean that we 'forced' Japan to attack us.

Nevertheless, had we minded our own business, a lot of American lives probably wouldn't have been lost that day.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This isn't about force and it isn't about 'justification'. Pearl Harbor was not provoked by any sort of imagined 'isolationist' policies that we had in place. It was provoked by our usual interference in things that we ought not to interfere in. Those things were already well covered in posts above.

This did not justify an attack on Pearl Harbor. It doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean that we 'forced' Japan to attack us.

Nevertheless, had we minded our own business, a lot of American lives probably wouldn't have been lost that day.

Our only material act to contain Japanese police was refusal to sell them materials needed for their attack on China. As far as I am concerned, they are not entitled to such materials and if they don't like that, they can get bent. Likewise, had the Japanese minded their own business and found their own oil and steel, there wouldn't have been a problem as they failed to mind their own business by the invasion and senseless carnage they perpetrated in China and other places they saw fit to invade. Japan gets zero sympathy here.

 

[jdmack79]

Likewise, had the Japanese minded their own business and found their own oil and steel, there wouldn't have been a problem as they failed to mind their own business by the invasion and senseless carnage they perpetrated in China and other places they saw fit to invade. Japan gets zero sympathy here.

Please try to think for just a minute. You think that if the Japanese had found their own steel and oil the war could have been prevented. You then criticize them for attacking China and expanding into the Pacific.

One of the main reasons that they invaded China was for the raw materials. In your world how would the Japanese get raw materials if nations refuse to trade with them and they have few domestic sources?

What we are trying to say is that there are repercussions to US policy decisions. We decided to take a tough stance with the Japanese, and they decided to retaliate.

 

[MTC]

I'm tired of Pearl Harbor being used as an excuse as to why we should be so active overseas.

And some of us are way past being tired of critiques on (more current) foreign policy being merged into an overall blame-America narrative of historical revisionism, particularly in this case.

An embargo, which isn't something that an isolationist nation enacts, directly encouraged Japans expansionism.

Umm, no. The embargos at that time were in response to Japanese military expansionism.
On a couple points:

Japan invaded Manchuria as a buffer.

"A buffer"
Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 when an opportunity presented itself for the conquest of territory, resources, and the expansion of the Empire.

Same followed several years later in other sections of China.
(See Rape of Nanking, also http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm)

I stand behind my statement that the USA's policies caused Japan to attack us. Like it or not, actions always have some type of effect. In this case, they caused Japan to attack us.

Whether a person uses "provoked" or "caused", that person is, at that point, assigning blame (in this case - blaming the U.S.).

The Japanese were engaging in a step-by-step campaign of military conquest to establish what would be the new Japanese Empire. (See Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, also http://www.japanfocus.org/-Janis-Mimura/3657)

They were going to do it with or without appeasement from others.
Having conquered huge areas of southeast asia, their next targets were the Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, and the Dutch East Indies. Japanese military leaders reckoned (correctly) that an invasion of the Philippines would involve war with the United States. The decision was made by the Japanese High Command to attack and cripple the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, with the calculated risk that they could maintain military supremacy long enough to conquer, consolidate, and defend the new empire against any existing or potential enemies.

They lost that gamble.

Our only material act to contain Japanese policy was refusal to sell them materials needed for their attack on China...
... invasion and senseless carnage they perpetrated in China and other places they saw fit to invade. Japan gets zero sympathy here.

Agree.

 

[Jludo]

It's not a 'overall blame-America narrative of historical revisionism' It's realizing that America isn't perfect and recognizing mistakes and atrocities committed by our country as to try to prevent them again in the future. As long as you subscribe the narrative that we are a perfect nation projecting our greatness on the rest of the world you'll be just as brainwashed as any other patriot of any other country. Nationalism is bull and patriotism is brainwashing. You can try to justify the evil that America has done, but you can't outright deny it calling your opponents the 'blame America first' crowd and never accepting an objective view of history.