Are the actions of the U.S. military justified?

[The Republic of Fore]

That wasn't America's problem, concern, or business. China isn't a US state.

Shocking though it may seem, most countries have foreign policies precisely because they care about events occurring outside their own administrative jurisdiction

Good for those countries. Doesn't change that we shouldn't send our sons to die for foreigners' problems. We can have foreign policy without trying to play world police.

[Picairn]

Bruh.

We are literally going in circles. The current conversation boils down to:
TROF: Don't interfere in other countries' business by embargoing them.
Me: US had the right to embargo Japan, it's their sovereign right.
TROF: And they deserved to be bombed when they tried to destroy Japan's economy.
Me: And to respond in kind.
TROF: Then don't interfere in other countries' business in the first place by embargoing them so you won't get bombed.

*repeats the cycle*

[Senkaku]

Japan couldn't have invaded the US, that's a ridiculous fantasy.

They certainly could've invaded Hawaii, though it would've been a slog. If the last US carriers had been destroyed, raids on the West Coast could've become a possibility, though you are correct that the logistics of a full-blown invasion of the lower 48 would've been pretty much out of the question.

...
Do you care about US troops or not?

I do. That's why I believe we should mind our business and not do things to make people attack us.

The Japanese were going to attack us either way at some point to get the Philippines, without which their lines of supply and communication to Indochina and Indonesia wouldn't have been secure. Whether we meekly acquiesced or not wasn't relevant.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Hawaii is a US state, I don’t see why the threat of an invasion there should be treated as any different than the threat of invasion in the Mainland

[Senkaku]

Shocking though it may seem, most countries have foreign policies precisely because they care about events occurring outside their own administrative jurisdiction

Good for those countries. Doesn't change that we shouldn't send our sons to die for foreigners' problems. We can have foreign policy without trying to play world police.

It turns out that "foreigners' problems" often are also our problems. Sometimes in the course of international affairs, you just have to go kill some fools. It's no fun and no one likes it, and there's plenty of examples of us going off half-cocked and overestimating our involvement in foreign conflicts (looking at you, Vietnam), but that doesn't completely negate the principle that we do indeed sometimes need to use force outside our borders.

[The Republic of Fore]

Japan couldn't have invaded the US, that's a ridiculous fantasy.

They certainly could've invaded Hawaii, though it would've been a slog. If the last US carriers had been destroyed, raids on the West Coast could've become a possibility, though you are correct that the logistics of a full-blown invasion of the lower 48 would've been pretty much out of the question.

I do. That's why I believe we should mind our business and not do things to make people attack us.

The Japanese were going to attack us either way at some point to get the Philippines, without which their lines of supply and communication to Indochina and Indonesia wouldn't have been secure. Whether we meekly acquiesced or not wasn't relevant.

1. "Could" and "would have" are two very different things though. Russia "could" nuke Berlin. But they won't.
2. As far as the Philippines I would rather we have given them independence. But, considering that wouldn't have happened Macarthur organizing a more competent defense would have been better.

[Senkaku]

Hawaii is a US state, I don’t see why the threat of an invasion there should be treated as any different than the threat of invasion in the Mainland

At the time it wasn't, but the main reason is because it's convenient for Fore's argument that Pearl Harbor wasn't a big deal.

[Deus Ignis]

America deals with business, the US did not want a war with Japan (which their higher ups also didn't want the US to join WWII calling it a 'Sleeping Giant') and America's imperialism is justified under the basis that that for hundreds of thousands of years stronger nations bulldozed over weaker ones (unless you are talking about Native America which was fulled with some of the richest empires in the world, and some of the strongest militarily before diseases wiped most of the Red Man, which made later Europeans make the false assumption that the Americans were always empty and the tribes and empires were always loosely populated and was barley powerful)


(Sorry about my rant I just hate the myths and illusions modern and past people had about America before 1492 [most was destroyed recently{1995-2004 till today, plus did you know that South America was in its heyday when Mesopotamia and Babylonia was in its early stages?}

[The Republic of Fore]

Good for those countries. Doesn't change that we shouldn't send our sons to die for foreigners' problems. We can have foreign policy without trying to play world police.

It turns out that "foreigners' problems" often are also our problems. Sometimes in the course of international affairs, you just have to go kill some fools. It's no fun and no one likes it, and there's plenty of examples of us going off half-cocked and overestimating our involvement in foreign conflicts (looking at you, Vietnam), but that doesn't completely negate the principle that we do indeed sometimes need to use force outside our borders.

We don't ever need to use force outside our borders. If no US citizens have been harmed, then the US military shouldn't get involved. Ever.

[Senkaku]

They certainly could've invaded Hawaii, though it would've been a slog. If the last US carriers had been destroyed, raids on the West Coast could've become a possibility, though you are correct that the logistics of a full-blown invasion of the lower 48 would've been pretty much out of the question.


The Japanese were going to attack us either way at some point to get the Philippines, without which their lines of supply and communication to Indochina and Indonesia wouldn't have been secure. Whether we meekly acquiesced or not wasn't relevant.

1. "Could" and "would have" are two very different things though. Russia "could" nuke Berlin. But they won't.

And you said, and I quote directly, "Japan couldn't have invaded the US," so we were clearly talking about capability rather than documented military plans.

2. As far as the Philippines I would rather we have given them independence. But, considering that wouldn't have happened Macarthur organizing a more competent defense would have been better.

And how, pray tell, was he supposed to do that, when most of our air forces there were surprised on the ground and our naval forces were totally cut off from reinforcements, leaving our ground forces stranded on the far side of the world? You're full of this sort of 20/20 hindsight and wishful thinking, but you have no actual historical insights to offer.

[The Republic of Fore]

Hawaii is a US state, I don’t see why the threat of an invasion there should be treated as any different than the threat of invasion in the Mainland

At the time it wasn't, but the main reason is because it's convenient for Fore's argument that Pearl Harbor wasn't a big deal.

I didn't say it wasn't a big deal. I said don't expect someone to not respond to you crippling their economy.

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

At the time it wasn't, but the main reason is because it's convenient for Fore's argument that Pearl Harbor wasn't a big deal.

I didn't say it wasn't a big deal. I said don't expect someone to not respond to you crippling their economy.

...and if they respond, do we have a right to respond back?

[The Republic of Fore]

1. "Could" and "would have" are two very different things though. Russia "could" nuke Berlin. But they won't.

And you said, and I quote directly, "Japan couldn't have invaded the US," so we were clearly talking about capability rather than documented military plans.

2. As far as the Philippines I would rather we have given them independence. But, considering that wouldn't have happened Macarthur organizing a more competent defense would have been better.

And how, pray tell, was he supposed to do that, when most of our air forces there were surprised on the ground and our naval forces were totally cut off from reinforcements, leaving our ground forces stranded on the far side of the world? You're full of this sort of 20/20 hindsight and wishful thinking, but you have no actual historical insights to offer.

1. Saying couldn't was a mistake on my part, wouldn't is a better word.
2. Macarthur was warned weeks in advance and did nothing to prepare, it was an embarrassing disaster. But the better option would have been to just leave.

[Picairn]

To sum up, the US had the sovereign right to embargo Japan for their genocides and war crimes, and to retaliate when they were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Therefore US intervention in WW2 was justified.

Thank you and good night!

[Senkaku]

It turns out that "foreigners' problems" often are also our problems. Sometimes in the course of international affairs, you just have to go kill some fools. It's no fun and no one likes it, and there's plenty of examples of us going off half-cocked and overestimating our involvement in foreign conflicts (looking at you, Vietnam), but that doesn't completely negate the principle that we do indeed sometimes need to use force outside our borders.

We don't ever need to use force outside our borders.

Even the Japanese, having forever renounced war as the sovereign right of a people, realize this is naive horseshit.

If no US citizens have been harmed,

See, you're against military intervention, but here and elsewhere you're implying you'd support a policy of extraterritoriality for US citizens abroad. Hard to square that circle.

then the US military shouldn't get involved. Ever.

News flash: US citizens were harmed during Japan's war in China. Ever heard of the Panay?

[The Republic of Fore]

I didn't say it wasn't a big deal. I said don't expect someone to not respond to you crippling their economy.

...and if they respond, do we have a right to respond back?

I've repeatedly said we do. But not doing something to provoke them is preferable.

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

...and if they respond, do we have a right to respond back?

I've repeatedly said we do.

okay then argument over US intervention in WW2 was justified

[Kungsu]

It turns out that "foreigners' problems" often are also our problems. Sometimes in the course of international affairs, you just have to go kill some fools. It's no fun and no one likes it, and there's plenty of examples of us going off half-cocked and overestimating our involvement in foreign conflicts (looking at you, Vietnam), but that doesn't completely negate the principle that we do indeed sometimes need to use force outside our borders.

We don't ever need to use force outside our borders. If no US citizens have been harmed, then the US military shouldn't get involved. Ever.

The problem is every time anybody tries isolationism it gets them attacked or threatened. The only people able to maintain isolationism for an extended period of time was the Japanese, and because it lasted so long they fell behind technologically and became easy to push around. Like it or not, everything that goes on in the world will eventually wind up affecting the US, since it interacts with the outside world for a great number of things outside military intervention. Does this justify a lot of the wars we have involved ourselves in? Probably not. But full on isolationism and America First is a recipe for disaster.

[The Republic of Fore]

We don't ever need to use force outside our borders.

Even the Japanese, having forever renounced war as the sovereign right of a people, realize this is naive horseshit.

If no US citizens have been harmed,

See, you're against military intervention, but here and elsewhere you're implying you'd support a policy of extraterritoriality for US citizens abroad. Hard to square that circle.

then the US military shouldn't get involved. Ever.

News flash: US citizens were harmed during Japan's war in China. Ever heard of the Panay?

1. It's literally not. There's no reason the US need to intervene anywhere. Other countries have militaries.
2. It's not too hard at all, we should advise US citizens in war torn regions to return home.
3. Japan apologized for the panay and paid an indemity. We didn't go to war with Israel when they blew up a technical research ship.

[The Republic of Fore]

I've repeatedly said we do.

okay then argument over US intervention in WW2 was justified

There would've been no need for intervention if the US kept Its nose out of other people's business.

[-Insaanistan-]

Even the Japanese, having forever renounced war as the sovereign right of a people, realize this is naive horseshit.

See, you're against military intervention, but here and elsewhere you're implying you'd support a policy of extraterritoriality for US citizens abroad. Hard to square that circle.

News flash: US citizens were harmed during Japan's war in China. Ever heard of the Panay?

1. It's literally not. There's no reason the US need to intervene anywhere. Other countries have militaries.
2. It's not too hard at all, we should advise US citizens in war torn regions to return home.
3. Japan apologized for the panay and paid an indemity. We didn't go to war with Israel when they blew up a technical research ship.

Yeah, but we already were funding Israel, and they kill way more Muslims than Japan did, so we let it slide.

[Picairn]

There would've been no need for intervention if the US kept Its nose out of other people's business.

The US has the sovereign right to embargo anyone it doesn't like, especially in regard to genocidal dictatorships. Go home, your arguments have been repeatedly deconstructed and debunked.

[The Republic of Fore]

We don't ever need to use force outside our borders. If no US citizens have been harmed, then the US military shouldn't get involved. Ever.

The problem is every time anybody tries isolationism it gets them attacked or threatened. The only people able to maintain isolationism for an extended period of time was the Japanese, and because it lasted so long they fell behind technologically and became easy to push around. Like it or not, everything that goes on in the world will eventually wind up affecting the US, since it interacts with the outside world for a great number of things outside military intervention. Does this justify a lot of the wars we have involved ourselves in? Probably not. But full on isolationism and America First is a recipe for disaster.

We won't get attacked or threatened by anyone, people need to stop pushing that BS narrative. We've got enough nukes to destroy the earth several times over. The world's largest navy. It's first and second largest airforce. Over a million women and men on active duty. I'm not worried. Isolationism and noninterventionism are not the same thing. Nearly every country on earth manages to survive without having It's military spread out across half the planet.

[Cordel One]

1. It's literally not. There's no reason the US need to intervene anywhere. Other countries have militaries.
2. It's not too hard at all, we should advise US citizens in war torn regions to return home.
3. Japan apologized for the panay and paid an indemity. We didn't go to war with Israel when they blew up a technical research ship.

Yeah, but we already were funding Israel, and they kill way more Muslims than Japan did, so we let it slide.

The US loves genocidal rightists so long as they're on their team.

[Adamede]

okay then argument over US intervention in WW2 was justified

There would've been no need for intervention if the US kept Its nose out of other people's business.

Would’ve been no need for US intervention if the Germans and Japanese didn’t go on the war path, and declare war on the US first.