Was reading something recently on the events prior to the attack on Pearl Harbour and contemplated how the doctrine of preemptive attack, which Bush fans like to wave about as justification for attacking Iraq. Based on that doctrine, Japan would be fully justified in it's launching of an attack against the US. If you look at the details of justification for Iraq; flimsy evidence of WMD, supposed links to terrorists, bringing freedom to the Iraqi people, etc. If you then look at events prior to Pearl Harbour, the oil embargo, massing of naval assets, etc. The only logical conclusion is that Japan was simply 60 years ahead of it's time when it came to strategy.

Anyway something to think upon.

---

"There are no masses of people, only ways of looking at people as masses."

You do realise this is America you are talking about?

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."

"You do realise this is America you are talking about?"

Yes. But I believe the point still stands, that if, as an American, you support the doctrine of preemptive attack, as has been espoused by the current administration. You must also agree that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was fully justified, as America had demonstrated significant hostile actions toward Japan in the run up to their response on Dec. 7th.

---

"There are no masses of people, only ways of looking at people as masses."

The two situations are not comparable.

The Coalition gave Iraq plenty of warning that they were coming while the Japanese just turned up one morning unannounced.

What I find a much more interesting question is the justification of the atomic bomb.

Judging by the 1945 decision, if someone wanted to invade the US but was concerned by the number of casualties this would cause, would it be acceptable to nuke them into submission?

Don't know about fully justified, then World War 1 was fully justified with Germany randomly invading France when Austria-Hungary and Russia were fighting but no one else intervened.

Americans tend to be massive hypocrites on the world stage, anything is justified by the nation of the Manifest Destiny whilst everything else is not justified by anyone else. It is basically called politics.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."

Probably it is more similar to the British attack on Mars-el-Kebir.

.

"The Coalition gave Iraq plenty of warning that they were coming while the Japanese just turned up one morning unannounced."

That just means they were confident enough in the probability of success to forego the element of surprise.

---

"There are no masses of people, only ways of looking at people as masses."