I do generally agree, but I think the Washington Naval Conference is too often overlooked.
Joel Send a noteboard - 06/02/2010 02:33:51 AM
It was the actions of the government that gave Japan a reason to attack us. Classical liberal or libertarians would not have incited Japan by freezing their assets or interfering with their commerce.
Classical liberal or libertarians would never have had a navy at Pearl to be attacked.
However you are missing or more likely ignoring, the entire Japanese culture of the time, which was a resurgence of militarism and was being exercised through conquest.
All that asset freezing etc. was an attempt to slow down the Japanese war machine which had already invaded a whole stack of their neighbours (successfully) without going to actual war.
Of course it didn't work.
Hawaii was going to get attacked eventually - it is part of the Pacific and the Japanese plan was to make the Pacific their own personal lake.
I'm sorry - you think Japan was provoked? Maybe, but that provoking happened many many years before in the 1800s when America used gunboat diplomacy to forcibly open the island nation to trade. The militaristic resurgence was in many ways, like the one that happened in Germany as a response to the Treaty of Versailles. "See, we were screwed, let's go get back some of our own now!" The return of a militaristic society was in the offing for a long long time.
Now - if the colonialism of the 1600s to the 1800s hadn't taken place? Well, maybe, but who knows. That's changing an awful lot of history. Probably wouldn't have changed much since Japan always hated the Chinese for repeatedly invading them. Eventually they were going to want some payback for that had they stayed an insular, militaristic society. As in all things eventually contact would have happened.
When was the US supposed to become this classic liberal or libertarian society? At the beginning? During the Depression? When?
Sorry - reality is this. The US REALLY didn't want to get involved in another World War. They tried pretty darned hard to stay out of it militarily - probably longer than they should have.
As long as Japan wanted what they wanted, all the political efforts in the world weren't going to keep Hawaii and the Aleutians from being attacked. Maybe even the West Coast, hard to say. A few sanctions and the like weren't what caused that, they were in response to that. You're putting the cart in front of the horse.
Now, I'm not kidding myself; that was all about NAVAL (i.e. military) tonnages, balance of power, but until that point Japan WAS pursuing superpower status by diplomatic means; afterward diplomacy was no longer an option, and we all know what von Clausewitz said happens then (which is really too bad, 'cos I'm looking at the book and would love to quote it.

But, yes, Hawaii was going to be attacked eventually; Billy Mitchell said under oath at his 1925 court martial that Japan would attack Pearl Harbor, and that's exactly what they did, despite fifteen intervening years of demilitarization.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Why bipartisanship can't work: the expert view
01/02/2010 11:34:58 PM
- 864 Views
And a personal comment
01/02/2010 11:39:28 PM
- 600 Views
Who's to say YOU really know what's happening in Washington, though?
02/02/2010 01:41:20 AM
- 632 Views
not to mention those who mistake knowledge for understanding
02/02/2010 10:41:14 PM
- 445 Views
Even so.
05/02/2010 05:45:54 AM
- 469 Views
Like the NYT?
05/02/2010 02:12:36 PM
- 502 Views
I don't believe the Times has ever conceded bias.
05/02/2010 06:03:02 PM
- 524 Views
and neither does Fox so I am not sure that matters
05/02/2010 06:40:15 PM
- 566 Views
Note that I didn't mention Fox (or anyone, for that matter. )
05/02/2010 07:13:31 PM
- 498 Views
PBS is biased
05/02/2010 07:21:14 PM
- 470 Views
You're entitled to believe that.
05/02/2010 07:31:07 PM
- 600 Views
PBS has an obvious yet undeclared bias so does NPR
09/02/2010 04:47:53 AM
- 433 Views
Even were that true (which I dispute) my statement stands.
09/02/2010 09:50:36 AM
- 546 Views
so they wouldn't be biased becuas it could hurt them but you still argue republicans attack them
09/02/2010 02:19:53 PM
- 508 Views
We have been for some time.
02/02/2010 03:31:10 AM
- 497 Views
I don't think that's the case
03/02/2010 02:59:50 PM
- 477 Views
Universal healthcare was the primary plank in Clintons '92 platform.
04/02/2010 10:02:18 AM
- 461 Views
That does not mean his bare plurality was an endorsement of National Healthcare
04/02/2010 02:09:32 PM
- 590 Views
I don't think he won by default, and that was his primary issue.
05/02/2010 08:09:50 AM
- 602 Views
Re: I don't think he won by default, and that was his primary issue.
05/02/2010 03:52:23 PM
- 558 Views
[insert witty subject line here]
06/02/2010 02:15:21 AM
- 588 Views
Let me break this into multiple replies here
06/02/2010 07:45:36 PM
- 568 Views
'K
08/02/2010 01:22:12 PM
- 552 Views
Probably time to go into 'summary mode'
08/02/2010 07:34:55 PM
- 581 Views
Again, we're back to "how would you prefer to do it?"
09/02/2010 09:42:51 AM
- 605 Views
Any way that works, which currently probably is none
09/02/2010 06:12:41 PM
- 544 Views
I think HDI is more accurate than nothing, though it certainly needs some fine tuning.
10/02/2010 11:03:08 AM
- 595 Views
I'll play a bigger age card since it was my third election to vote in and he won because of Perot
05/02/2010 05:57:04 PM
- 483 Views
Let's put it another way: Why did Dems nominate him instead of, say, Gephardt?
06/02/2010 02:22:04 AM
- 553 Views
you don't get mandates from primaries
08/02/2010 02:12:29 PM
- 452 Views
No, but end of the day more people wanted healthcare than didn't.
08/02/2010 03:09:31 PM
- 464 Views
everyone want health care they just don't want congress runnig it
09/02/2010 04:56:44 AM
- 502 Views
Whom do you prefer?
09/02/2010 10:07:39 AM
- 524 Views
Sorry not a big fan of socialism I hear it big over in Europe though
09/02/2010 02:23:55 PM
- 425 Views
In other words you prefer the system we have; thanks for admitting it.
10/02/2010 10:05:38 AM
- 484 Views

I prefer Thomas Woods Jr's description of bipartisanship
02/02/2010 02:49:06 AM
- 486 Views
If only someone had stood up on 8 December, 1941 and said, "hey, you're not supposed to do stuff!"
02/02/2010 03:28:38 AM
- 634 Views
you're making a good job taking things out of context, Joel
03/02/2010 12:47:57 PM
- 453 Views
Don't speak in absolutes and I won't read absolutes.
04/02/2010 10:08:43 AM
- 470 Views
Some qualifiers can be left unsaid for a clearer message. Or better delivery
04/02/2010 10:26:56 AM
- 453 Views

Qualifiers are clarifying by nature.
04/02/2010 10:49:06 AM
- 586 Views
huh. That does make sense. I know malpractice is a big weight on the the system in the US.
04/02/2010 11:58:37 AM
- 422 Views
Perhaps, but it's hardly the greatest weight, or even in the top three, IMHO.
05/02/2010 05:44:49 AM
- 574 Views
Pearl Harbor would never have happened to a classically liberal nation
05/02/2010 01:33:56 AM
- 477 Views
Wow - that was a dumb statement even for you!
05/02/2010 04:22:59 PM
- 657 Views
I do generally agree, but I think the Washington Naval Conference is too often overlooked.
06/02/2010 02:33:51 AM
- 595 Views
Politicians and pundits should stop calling things that happened in the last decade "unprecedented"
02/02/2010 03:23:27 AM
- 647 Views
Or the democratic party has shifted so far to to the left they can't even get all of the dems
02/02/2010 02:39:14 PM
- 455 Views
You didn't hear all the whining when Bush was in charge with a Republican Congress?
02/02/2010 08:50:05 PM
- 473 Views
I there was plenty of whining going on
02/02/2010 10:36:56 PM
- 399 Views
Is this you conceding that the GOP is being obstructionist?
08/02/2010 01:43:04 PM
- 430 Views
I agree they are obstructing the libs from doing whatever they want
08/02/2010 02:19:13 PM
- 359 Views
They've tried including Republicans in drafting bills.
08/02/2010 03:08:17 PM
- 517 Views
tyring to pcik off one republican is not including republicans
09/02/2010 05:03:44 AM
- 465 Views
So we've gone from "stop being secretive" to "no public meetings" eh?
09/02/2010 11:59:50 AM
- 474 Views
well it was your guy who was up in arms about private meetings
09/02/2010 02:29:34 PM
- 452 Views
Was it? I don't recall any Dem complaining about private meeting on healthcare.
10/02/2010 09:44:56 AM
- 605 Views
most liberals seem to foretting the "rhetoric" that Obama used to get elected
13/02/2010 06:54:34 AM
- 444 Views