they push you and push you, and then when you push back, it's suddenly "a surprise attack". Granted, it was a surprise attack, but it should not have come as such.
Bitch, please. Tell us all about the reasons the US had sanctions. And I love your complete justification for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The big bad bullies in 'murica simply forced them to. We essentially attacked ourselves.
Sigh.. it's not quite that simple. I do agree that Japan was waging a war on China that was brutal and the sanctions imposed clearly were meant to curb japanese agresssion. But they also put Japan's back to the wall, effectively saying "fight, or surrender" and the Japanese just weren't that good on surrender. The diplomatic core should have made that point so clear that Pearl Harbor would not have come as a surprise.
And yes, sometimes America tends to be a bully whose own dogs bite him back. Remember those guys called the Taliban? Or Saddam Hussein? Remember who armed and supported those people? Yep, America.
I really do not care if there was revisionist history or not. Japan had shown themselves to be pretty ruthless, and as I recall, they started the whole mess.
Though only after US inflicted crippling economic sanctions on them. I'm not a US basher, but large powers (US, Russia) tend to act like school bullies.. they push you and push you, and then when you push back, it's suddenly "a surprise attack". Granted, it was a surprise attack, but it should not have come as such.
By the way, is consensus truth? The Japanese thought they would demoralize the US by attacking Pearl Harbor. An attack on a possession galvanized us As I recall, there was a certain party that thought that Russia was going to fall quickly, and how did that work out for them?
Japanese military planning wasn't thinking so much about demoralizing the US, they were thinking about defanging the US. If the carriers had been at port, the war in the pacific would have been different. No amount of battleships could have won the ocean for the allies, you needed carriers for that.
No carriers = Midway taken easily No carriers = Hawaii vulnerable (easily) No carriers = mainland US vulnerable (to a degree, mainly coastal areas) Yamamoto knew Japan could not win a war of attrition against the US industry, but had he been lucky with the carriers, he could have won years to conquer areas and build up the japanese navy, and perhaps negotiate a peace (which is where the demoralization would have come to effect).
1. Get paid to lobby
2. Invent supporters
In other words, you are saying that we should be judged in comparison to the worst countries out there rather than how well we live up to our own expectations for ourselves.
That does not mean we should accept it. The people to which we entrust the reigns of power must be held to the highest possible standard. Abuse under the cloak of authority has been with us since the first human civilization -- the great thing about modern civilizations is that we have laws to punish that abuse. Now is not the time to go roll back modern life to a pre-magna carta standing..
I love it when Americans think their country is the most free and hot shit country on the planet. And then find out it isn't.
Maybe if you didn't harbor illusions about the "highest possible standard" in your leadership, you'd be able to elect people who weren't total douches in the employ of corporations. It's so easy to reject a good candidate just because he once cheated on his wife, or shoplifted when he was 8. But that just leads to some rich douchebag who can afford to hide his mistakes to get elected with the full intention of fucking you over.
Oh yes, didn't you know? Between gigs, she flies her pink six-wheeled Ford to some island in the Pacific, where she sips Pernod by the pool, and launches rocket planes with tiny puppet vigilantes in them who terrorise world governments and bring Freedom to their asses.
Not to mention the occasional cameos as a robotic destroyer of small Colorado towns.
A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg.