No I am not getting into a different subject matter as I asked that question and left it alone for my whole response and never refered to it again, unlike what you accuse me of in your most recent reply.
What you said specifically regarding my reply was:

What I am doing here is merely pointing out your inability to thread toghether history and the way it has developed with capitalism and its influence on how events unfold.
Anyone who has spent lots of time arguing on the internet knows the strawman argument is the most flimsy an dthat law is focused exponentially wiht regards to a historical disscussion

Now assuming you exagerations and over reacting are true and that I actually went on a tangent about WW1, well how about I go on one right now to even things a bit to see what it would really be like:
I see, so the Treatty of Versailles had nothing to do with setting the stage for WW2!?!?!
You think that if Germany had been indebted to such a large extent, forced economically to open its doors to the U.S. as its only way of financially supporting itself, but then feeling the WORST effects of the economic collapse because Germany was effectively at the bottom of the capitalist (or in this case the emerging advanced credit system)ladder?
Really this is what I am seeing because if you want to FOCUS in on the facts, well the FACTS extend as far back as the history of the conflict in the world and the political/economic system that enabled it to spread so far.
I probably would have been better served by continuing on a tangent on the russian revolution and WW1 because their intimately connected just as WW2 is as intimately related to WW1.
I mean do I have to teach you how your own government works, how political parties, even on a nation of only 120 million people at the time, with now and still only 2 parties of representation need substantial funding to run a national campaighn for government?
Wouldnt it make sense that if the people these parties get funding from people who profit from supporting a neutrality because they would benefit from selling supplies to both sides?!?
Thus even if the political subjective reality favoured supporting the fight against fascism(in which at least FDR did seem to be) you cannot get around the objective reality that it wasnt until possesions of american imperialism were threatened by another imperialist power trying to expand (in this case Pearl Harbour being bombed by Japan) that they entered the war- to secure the economic dominant position that they had already attained that was now threatened.
Again I repeat, German and American capitalism got along quite well and had advanced far enough that american capitalism was able to make the neccessary changes to appease the political/economic contradictions by continuing such a relationship even during the war in order so that regardless of whether the Fascists or the British won, the American corporations would still be able to operate and extract a profit.
these are facts, rent the documentary the Corporation; highlights the points I made 2 posts ago for more specifics and I am sure their is quite a bit of literature as well to complement this that wasnt written by a partisan website.

1st off I apologise for my mistake, but after reading the response you made to another member, it's not a hard mistake to make as:

"Rather, I believe, she did what she did at the end of WWII to ensure the USSR did not." Is Tantamount to apologetics for the actions of the U.S. government regardless of what your personal position is.
Oh my goodness in this statement you have just made an allusion ot the relationship to the Soviet Union and the U.S., my how could I have made the same mistake............
No more backtracking, back to the original paragraph.
No I wasnt callously dismissing any lives under either regime, one who introverts the violence of the exploitation (Stalinist countries) of their economic system or the ones who extrovert their violence (Capitalism) of their economic system.
The point is though is that leaders on BOTH sides did callously do what you accused me of doing except in reality and was the strategic nature of their alliance to begin with!

I beleive this sentence has something to do with your response to me patronising you, in which which I was qualifying how your repsonse was encouraging a more patronising tone when you cannot qualify your own reasons for debating for so long in that last thread, let alone understanding the arguments that went on.

To get you to answer my question without you having to post

Yes because unless you can site from an american news source that isnt privately owned , you have a media source willing to tamper with %10 of the news for the economic interests of the ones who control that news media.
And unlike the WSWS, The NY post, times, Dailies ect, ect have been around alot longer or are distributed and viewed on huge scales to viewers who more or less atention spans to help distort it even further.
For the political aims of the ruling class no less/

Yes I did, you must have missed it in my post that had part 3 of the 60 years after posted:

The U.S had the war declared on them, their was no bourgeoise middleground to exploit from anymore.

Well if by pointless statement, you mean highlighting the obvious then I guess we are in agreement after all.




[Edited on Aug 15, 2005 by CommunistCanuck]

Here come the flames......
America needed yes I said needed to drop the Bomb . It eneded the war earlier like by 6 months. The Japanese werent beaten at all at least in there mind, the death toll on both sides would have been massive if we had tried a land invasion.

Dont even get me started on japanese war crimes all over Asia and what they did to POW's ( my uncle was one of them ) so what if 30 000 civilians were killed..... it saved millions of lives and guess what Japan, karma is a real bitch.
They now have a free and demogratic society and one of the most industrious and richest nations on Earth. It all worked out in the end for the common good of all.

It seems that the youth of today want to rebel againts anything the last generation acheived because its cool to diss anything our fathers all grandfathers did as its the new revolution or something. No its not we have what we are today because of them. in short shit happends build a bridge if you dont like the past, i dont ....so i did build a bridge.

RaaF you are Da Bomb! you brought up some good points on Japan's status now! If we didn't drop the bomb and Japan didn't surrender, and a major land battle raged with a million more deaths on both sides, would I be typing this post on my Sony Vaio computer now? Or i might not even be here.. as my father fought in the pacific theater in WW2.

Pardon the hell out of me, but I'm not the one who keeps bringing out-of-context material that has nothing to do with the sole statement of your article I called tripe. So far, you have delved into the October Revolution, the degeneration of Stalinist bureuacracy, the Russian Civil War, and more, but have yet to post anything of substance regarding America's reasons for entering WWII. I'm unable to thread together history? I think it'd be more accurate to say that you want to argue a different subject altogether!

This is the height of irony.

Not so much when you're talking about the US and Japan going to war...
Assumptions and exagerrations? Do you read what you post? I can't make this stuff up!

I'm editing the next paragraph out for arrogance, btw.

OK, now you're making a great case for a possible alternate reality where the US didn't go to war, but we're getting warmer.

Wait, did you just say that America was attacked and went to war with Japan over it? I have to admit I'm a bit disappointed here. You were setting me up with so much juicy information regarding the advantages of maintaining commercial interests within a state that would eventually declare war with the US (Germany), that I was convinced you'd have a veritable feast of facts relating to the ruling elite of the US luring Japan into attacking Hawaii with the sort of dastardly cunning the world has come to expect of us.

No, it's not. Stating that something happened doesn't mean condoning it. I wish to God that the people in charge of the great powers of the time had found it in themselves to come together and end conflict on such a scale following WWII. But, clearly, neither Stalin nor Truman felt they could trust one another. Both took actions that shaped humanity for the rest of the century--actions that fucked a lot of people over. The atomic bomb was one of those actions; the iron courtain was another.

I am left almost speechless. But at least this paragraph didn't have a +/- 20 year error margin where the subject matter is concerned.

No, no I didn't.

I ended my reply here because very little of what was left had much to do with the subject at hand. You certain beliefs regarding popular media and the information that I'm not going to bother arguing about.

[Edited on Aug 15, 2005 by Phoebus]

Well sometimes I just gotta fullfill the expectations of rediculous accusations, at least I can vent this way and have fun too.

You havent proven what the article said was a load of tripe, so keep making those witty observations about my choice of words and and dates rather then the context you so like to avoid.

OK here are the facts for Luring Japan into a war with the United Sates,

U.S.Annexation of Hawaii/cession of the Philippines 1898

Guam by treaty with spain 1899

American Samoa by treay with Great britain and Germany 1900

Please go on another tangent about the amount of time beetween the imperialistic horse trading of 1890, 1910's, 1930's ect,ect you wont be any closer to explain why the same violent methods are utilised time and time again; the changing variable is only the evolution of the capitalist system and its ability to extend beyond the hegemony of nation states over other states in order to exploit a regions rescources and populace, the point being that violence was and is used in the interest to defend or expand capitalism and the bourgoise that would utilise this most essential tool at their disposal.
It is ironic to note though that America still clings to all its imperialist possesions except for the Phillipines, kinda like an old blanky that brings back some good memories and of the possibility of some good times ahead........

This argument was supoposed to be about the war between the U.S and Japan please tell me what relevance does Truman and Stalin have anything to do with this war?
So you can observe the point that the U.S government had the USSR on their minds when they took these actions, but a historical analysis of this relationship doesnt make any sense and is not relevant to the very pacific conflict (that these objectives were held as most urgent) in order to determine the cause and effect?
For the emerging transnational corporation of this period, in devestation their is opportunity, esspecially when that devastation doesnt happen on your turf, from this you can see why the U.S did not enter the war until their bases/basis for facilitating that exploitation in that region came under attack with regard to Japan or that they had to serve ancient bourgoise political customs when Germany formally declared war on the U.S.

Time is still relative.

Again a misunderstanding of what was really beign argued here, you want to focus on Japan and the U.S, I will focus on that, if you want to focus on the Soviet union and the U.S I can focus on that, you want to focus on differences time periods that are irrelevant given the similarities in the nature of exploitation in these scenarios or on exagerating the basis for my arguments and we can focus on that as well.

It is just as well as you seem to have a hard time discerning between observations and idealogy, or at least you make very little effort to do so.


[Edited on Aug 16, 2005 by CommunistCanuck]

So I guess in a sense we can all lay part of the blame on Hirohito. If he had surrendered unconditionally, peace would have been at hand.

jp

I said that a specific statement in your article was tripe. When pressed for an explanation, I stated that the otherwise thorough article lacked any supporting evidence for that closing sentence. You attempted to say I was wrong for saying that by arguing any number of unrelated subjects. Finally, you reiterated my basic position (America going to war because of a pre-emptive attack by Japanese forces) without adding anything of any real substance (aside from a heavy use of the worlds "imperialist" and "imperialistic".

That's a very nice list you have there, CC. What interest did Japan have in any of the above?

As late as WWII, Japan's focus was on the eastern Asian seaboard--Korean, Chinese, and Russian holdings specifically, not counting former German holdings lost during WWI. Japan's involvement with the US at the time of WWII had to do with the embargo imposed on it by America more than anything else--not with territorial holdings that Japan felt either belonged to her or posed a threat to her.

I went ahead and addressed it (above), seeing as how you at least stuck to one of the two countries the statement we were arguing over was about.

You just described Japan's motivations for attacking America.

Again, are you reading what you're posting? By your own words, I made the comment you took umbrage to to another poster. Hence, not even the same argument. You brought another conversation into your argument, and this one specifically dealt with the US and the USSR. Our argument, on the other hand, was specifically about the US' motivations in entering WWII--you're comparing apples and rocket ships.

America declared an embargo on Japan a year before Japan ever attacked her. Like other nations, the US did so because of Japan's actions in China. Like the Russians, the US also provided volunteer fighter squadrons in defense of China (the Flying Tigers).

Just as long as you focus on the subject at hand...

Sure I do.

My point exactly, well about the politician against politician thing, other than that, you're creeping me out.

Sorry about the lenght of time to respond to this post, things came up and I had to limit my extensive posts, like this discusion has become.

Now you are trying to change what actually happened, ikjoy was ALSO pointing out the contradictions beetween what was the government line for entering the war VS what the U.S's actual motives/actions were on the world stage: thus he was as well questioning what you defined as tripe in the article, I was well within my right to point out the contradiction's in your reply to him, this is a commmunity forum, if I had jutted into a conversation in your friggen user page diary, then you might have some claim for umbrage of differing disscussion context;

But you do not .

You attacked a statement in the article in question and ikjoy and I have defended the articles statement of the actual interests of the American ruling class in entering the war.
Not only that but your paragraph dealing with the USSR has nothing to do with with your response to ikjoy(you were in fact elaborating on what was actually tripe), your response to Ikjoy was basically trying to say that the great depression has some how made the american ruling class question the exploitive nature of American imperialism, when in fact that I showed that capitalism had actually become more refined and flexible in its ability to retain its economic/social relations, with at least the European Fascist nations during the great depression.
Perhaps I thought ikjoy deserved a more forthcoming response than "this period is to complex of an issue to discuss on an internet forum", "things are not as black and white as they seem " ECt,ect.
Especially considering that the article never claimed it wasnt a complex issue, or made statements about the existance of political absolutes.
To add a touch of context to where our conversation has come to, we have boiled down the contention of tripe to being;
A:confusion between historical cause and effect in the reason america went to war
Sub article A: The reason America entered the war in the pacific
But in going back to your original elaboration of tripe
the whole of your argument of contention sits on:

Considering your end sentence agrees with the WSWS article entirely, we are then lead to beleive that this wasnt the case at the start of the pacific conflict and that we also have to ASSUME then in the years previous to this that america WASNT trying to establish itself as a world power, or at least going by how your unsatisfying response to ikjoy try's to paint, not after the stock market crash of 1929.
But where is the evidence that the U.S was relinquishing it's imperialist victories

?
Did the american bourgoise give all these assets away to the respective nations people that these rescources belonged to? But then unfortunetly by 1942, curse that Japan for attacking the U.S because now we realise we have to continue to exploit the rest of the world for our own interests because if we dont do it -some one else will!!!
Again my reference to Chomsky and his critism of such standpoints being highly dubious and avoiding self government critiscms(in this case american) applies to the crux of your arguement and your uneven analysis of american politics or your response to my point from chomsky, which was mainly slander to avoid the issues I brought up.
It is quite clear now that my points about the way IBM/Coca Cola operated in Germany or how the major media outlets trying to suppress all critisms of Fascism that much more relevant as they did happen during this time frame that YOU STRESSED (not to mention that the general that the corporations tried to get to lead a fascist american coup de'tat
was court martialed for critiscm's of Benito Mussolini actions no less,)in relation to the U.S and europe at the time.
We now come back to whatever is left of your argument against me, which resides in elaborating the relationship of american military war in the pacific and whether the relationship from the beggining was or wasnt one of Imperialist defence of american interests in the pacific....I mean whatever is left to do so now since I have already quoted previous imperialist action in China to show american interests in China and what subsequent american reaction would be to Japans imperialist expansion.

They are only unsubstantial inso much as you dont understand(or perhaps in some of the issues refuse to understand) how they are related and my failing to communicate fully and concisely how they are related, but you have as much share in formenting this problem with your responses as did in my compositon.

Indeed as we have gone over previously, the american capitalism was at the forefront of capitalist modernity since the end of WW1, the U.S did not need a nation to be under government control persay, just the right mixture of laws with despotic regimes was what was needed to be promoted so that capital would be guaranteed to flow and that profits couldbe maximised.
It was American Capital penetration in China and the pacific RESCOURCES that Japan was most interested in or as wikipedia points out.

My goodness the americans were actually supporting Japanese imperialism in the beggining of the 1930's, because of the COMMUNISTS that would fill the vacuum.
We have not only found priori politically for America sending in forces to PRVOKE an attack by Japan, the economic arm as well by instating an OIL and steel embargo, but also the point that even BEFORE THE WAR american foreign policy was doing all it could to prevent communist influence in the pacific as well.

And Americas motivation for attacking Japan, the grande imperialist dance.

Yep the Americans had vested interest in the oil coming from China, they were playing political game of trying to support their faivourites to win in the region a year before the Japanese ever bombed pearl harbor .
I really do like these posts were you answer my points for me.

Class dissmissed

Well I made the effort, you were pretty helpful with your rebuttles though......





[Edited on Aug 27, 2005 by CommunistCanuck]

Good God. Let's establish some chronology here:

1) Prior to any reply from you regarding my "what tripe" post, ikjoy responded to me. In his post, he both offered that we weren't necessarily fighting for freedom due to our delayed entry whilst Europe suffered (point for you), but he also stated that the article's argument that it was a stretch that this extended to Japanese lives (point for me).
2) I replied to ikjoy by alluding that the Great Depression and a sense of isolationism within the US were powerful motivators for the US to stay uninvolved. I went on to state that I didn't defend the use of atomic weapons on Japan. ikjoy never responded to this post. Maybe he agreed with me; maybe he didn't feel like commenting; maybe he never clicked on this thread again. I don't know.
3) You went through 3 lengthy posts arguing with me before even bringing up the conversation I had with ikjoy. When you did, it was after I denied your claim I supported the use of atomic weapons on Japan. You used the part of my post to ikjoy that showed my opposition to the use of atomic weapons to claim I was playing the apologist. Basically, you started a side-argument with me regarding something that had nothing to do with my issues with your article. Once it was obvious that what you claimed wasn't true, you then attempted to twist my words from this irrelevant side-argument in order to claim that now I was going off on a tangent.

Take this for what it's worth--it's stated as an opinion, and not meant as an insult: I think that you're getting a bit confused about the order of our arguments.

Moving on...

No??? It certainly seems that like it's trying to reduce it to a simple issue!

That seems like a pretty simple, direct statement right there.

No it doesn't. Your article doesn't even begin to address the reasons why America entered World War II, save for baseless statements such as the one quoted above.

I apologize for not including the text from the next paragraph you typed. It's out there for the record, and I'm simply trying to save space and time. Here's my counterargument to it:
Your own cited evidence works against your argument. Smedley stood up for Roosevelt when industrialist powers of the sort responsible for aggressive colonialism in C./S. America allegedly tried for a coup against him. Roosevelt and his administration carried out different policies in a different time and under different situations. Once more, apples and oranges.

The fact that the US public may have been supportive of the Japanese prior to events like Nanjing and the Panay Incident isn't remarkable. Sentiment changed following these actions, and Roosevelt took advantage of this while acting in ways that didn't directly conflict with mainstream isolationist ideas. The AVG and the embargo that we both cited are examples of that.

And Americas motivation for attacking Japan, the grande imperialist dance.
Except this line of logic doesn't follow your article's closing argument. It stated that America's motivation was "was to establish itself as the dominant and unchallenged world power"... not to simply reciprocate on attacks.

Roosevelt and his administration clearly weren't of the same ilk as the governments you cite in your evidence--governments operating in different decades and under different foreign policies and ideals. At worst, Roosevelt can be accused of having a cynical political agenda where the Japanese were concerned. Perhaps he could have done more; maybe he shouldn't have gotten involved at all.

As I said, Roosevelt acted in the ways available to him, balancing the drawbacks of American sentiment at the time openings allowed by Japanese atrocities and the like. The interest can't have been so vested; the US was completing the withdrawal of its Pacific fleets from the Chinese/Japanese areas of influence by the time Roosevelt came into office.

OK, nutty professor.

[Edited on Aug 27, 2005 by Phoebus]

[Edited on Aug 27, 2005 by Phoebus]

No their was no confusion about any sort of order, because I well admitted to the mistakes I made in previous articles, but they were not all predicated on the fact that your opinion was against the bombing, I stated facts about inconsistnecies in your arguments in which you responded with lies and slander .
they were all trying to be contructive(unfortunetly I was building towards false pretenses ) except for your last point in which I used the same type of argument you had been using- its called using your own medicine against you, which resulted in specifying what exactly you wanted to actually disscus, considering your original attack on the article and your 1st reply to me were all BUT constructive until I had to resort to the same assinine replies so that you would get fed up with the direction the discussion was going.
Because your whole entery into this thread has been a tangent, better to accept responsibility for it from the beggining.

Simple only because you observe the conclusion of the analysis, not the analysis itself which requires covering huge stretches of history and events that helped create a base to formulate such a conclusion, that which the analysis of the atomic bombings in Japan ADD to that analysis and helps prove this historical consitency of the last statement.
This analysis spans the Trotskiast movement itself in which the SEP/WSWS is only one of many prodigal sons.
So you can either read up on what Trotskies analysis on this subject or try to peice things toghether on this forum as we have been doing.

Why are you talking abut begginings? The end sentence out of the 2 sentences I quoted from you state "Rather, I believe, she did what she did at the END of WWII to ensure the USSR did not."
So you have come to same conclusion as the WSWS by the end of the war of how america prosecuted the war in trying to establish hegemony and the reasons why were because of the threat fo the soviet union, but tottaly refute that it was this way from the beggining.
And I had highlighted this difference between your argument. and the WSWS, I beleive I am trying to show which analysis is correct, the same thing I am doing now.

No these are not apple and orange comparisons and by no way does smedley butler blowing the whistle on the corporate coup de tat contradict what I have already pointed out about the how american capitalism had adapted with the pressures of the 1930's into semi multinational conglomerates, some of which that were brought back ot life by Roosevelts New Deal, while other capitalist ventures like Coca Cola or IBM where brought back to life or at least were in stable condition because of the rise of Fascist economic principles or past imperialist conquests that remained in the ownership of american shareholders.
Smedley came out to preserve the democratic institutions of the american government, though even by Eireann's account

shows that those political institutions were feeling the effects of the previous administration policies and having to deal witt the competing interests of the bourgoise despite how the beneficial effect the new deal would have been for the majority of americans who were SUPPOSE TO BE REPRESENTED by this......representative democracy.
The corporations and their right wing political affiliates that help plot this coup wanted to jump to a higher level then what was attained during the 1920's while the other section of the anti new deal bourgoise deal linked up with the status quo side that was shared by right wing new deal supporters to help formulate the isolationist policy in whic the left new dealers were the closest things the U.S ever had to a social democratic party, in which they wanted the most fair and equitable divison of wealth in america within the boundaries of the capitalist system.
At any rate it was this broad agreement among layers of the bourgoise tha helped define american foreign policy as isolationist or "status quo" along with the advancement of capitlaism, helped protect american interests and profit from selling arms and general goods to both sides of the conflict at the beggining and during the conflict without getting involved(this again reflects the european scenario more in some respects because south east asia at the time was still more of a rescource commodity interest for America and Japan) .

Thats right, not remarkeable, it just shows the simple fact that america was trying discourage communist influnce whithin all the political contradictions that the roosevelt era presented to the bourgoise.
The poiint I am again making is that this CLEARLY shows that even before the war the U.S. was trying to inhibit influence of communism around the globe and that they would continue to prosecute like wise during and after the the bombing of pearl harbour.
Yes the indirectness of these actions are exactly the point, to provoke a Japanese response that would make it so that the U.S would have to enter the war in the pacific to defend the still held winings of past imperialist exploitation.
Which supports the WSWS statement on the reasosn for the U.S for entering the war.

Phoebus said:You just described Japan's motivations for attacking America.
And Americas motivation for attacking Japan, the grande imperialist dance.
Phoebus said:Except this line of logic doesn't follow your article's closing argument. It stated that America's motivation was "was to establish itself as the dominant and unchallenged world power"... not to simply reciprocate on attacks.

Who was talking about a line of logic, the article was citing a pattern of behaviour that manifests itself because of the evolution of capitalist economic relationship to american domestic/foreign policy.
The military reciprocation between Japan and the U.S is the result of this historical development, not the roots of the conflict.

Phoebus said:Roosevelt and his administration clearly weren't of the same ilk as the governments you cite in your evidence--governments operating in different decades and under different foreign policies and ideals. At worst, Roosevelt can be accused of having a cynical political agenda where the Japanese were concerned. Perhaps he could have done more; maybe he shouldn't have gotten involved at all.

The Roosevelt administration may be of different ilk then previous american administrations before hand, but he is cut from the same political cloth of a very prevalent type of political thread that I beleive Lenin pinned down as a "reformist oportunistic social democrat" in nature.
Thus he was at the mercy of the capitalist system in implementing any reforms he wanted to get through, and the fracturedness of houses and senates that sat in his time and the judicial battles on top of that reflect this.
Any concessions he rung from the capitalists had to be exchanged for say supporting the fascist "status quo" in europe despite the evident ethical problems that roosevelt may have had with Fascism, but that didnt seem to encourage him to join the war against hitler......

Phoebus said:As I said, Roosevelt acted in the ways available to him, balancing the drawbacks of American sentiment at the time openings allowed by Japanese atrocities and the like. The interest can't have been so vested; the US was completing the withdrawal of its Pacific fleets from the Chinese/Japanese areas of influence by the time Roosevelt came into office.
That is very good evidence for the Roosevelt admin being opportunitic.
Removing the troops was the most strategic thing to do since the oil interests were already secured by 1927, and the advent of the great depression ment a retreat from imperialist adventures to maintaining it possesions and position on the world scale in the face of world wide deflation and capitalist stagnation.

Phoebus said:Just as long as you focus on the subject at hand...
Class dissmissed
OK, nutty professor.

Enter fart joke here>

You better start using the QUOTE function when you throw that kind of shit around, CC.

Do you realize how little sense you're making? Try this: next time you want to discuss something, ask me what you want to ask me--don't go in five different fucking directions and then try to pretend like you had some master plan that involved subterfuge and deception. I've told you what I wanted to talk about from the very beginning. The fact of the matter is that you believe that a number of historical events are interconnected in a way that somehow supports an argument that your article didn't bother to present, but that you feel people who don't share your blind faith in a certain political ideology should grasp intrisically. Sorry--I don't buy it.

Events and stretches of history that the article doesn't bother even ALLUDING to, despite the fact that it offers a wealth of dates and details for EVERY OTHER PORTION OF ITS CONTENT.

Are you reading what you're talking about? When you and I began arguing, MY ENTIRE FUCKING ARGUMENT was over the article's statement regarding America's entry in WWII.

And you still don't get that I was offering an opinion on an unrelated subject to a person BEFORE you and I even got into this discussion.

Correct, to a degree.

I'd like to see some links for all that followed in this paragraph. Specifically, I'd like to see connections between FDR's administration with weapons sales and tacit support to the Japanese.

Let's just say that we'll never agree on this point. On many levels.

Your article didn't cite anything--that was the root of my argument. I would at least respect an attempt to argue with facts, theories, etc. Its most partisan point offered neither date, event, nor person--a stark contrast to the well supported, well-cited points that didn't carry any specific political agenda.

Much more different than both his predecessors and his successors, and the fact that you don't grasp and/or accept this is the reason why you are able to interconnect past, unrelated US policy with the events that brought America to war.

Once more, Roosevelt didn't remove the Pacific Fleets. He was elected after that movement had been made. The Japanese had already compromised the precious resources of China. Were those resources the primary motivator for the US to "trick" Japan into attacking them, why did they wait over 7 years to take any action?