War in Ukraine

#39,054
#39,054
Rasputin_Vol said:
You just made my point. It was planned and intended to provoke a response. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Of course it was planned. What the eff do you think, FDR just rolled up one day and was like "yeah no more oil for Japan cause I feel petty today".

And yeah the response could have been less war. You know, the typical outcome desired in diplomacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#39,063
#39,063
Rasputin_Vol said:
When you rob a country of energy imports, especially a country like Japan, you should expect them to respond. The average country would not have had the means to respond the way Japan did.


What reason would they have had to hit the United States before than? We generally had good relations with Japan in the 20-30 years leading up to Pearl Harbor.



#1, Neither of those situations were of our concern.
#2, both Japan and Germany would have had their hands full trying to manage those empires. They would have been too preoccupied with local insurgencies and trying to maintain order in Europe and Asia to be worried about crossing the Atlantic or the Pacific to do anything with us.
Click to expand...
Except Japan did actually cross the pacific.

We had good relations until they invaded China and started killing millions. They had also already attacked other of our allies in the area as well before Pearl Harbor.

And that "rob them of their imports" is laughable. When does it become their imports and not our exports? Is the oil field theirs? That's the Japanese imports right? Maybe just the refinery? They MAY buy stuff we are willing to sell them. There is absolutely zero requirement for us to sell to them ever, or to not stop selling.

If a grocery store bans a customer, does that customer have the right to then rob that store? And right, as in it's not a crime. The store could still sell to that individual, but chooses not to. Your neighbor beats his dog, so you stop selling your moon shine to him. Is he in the right to come over and steal from you, or attack you?

It's the same logic. Trade is two sided. Both sides have to agree. There is no requirement of trade. Once one side says "no" the other has no right to force them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, marcusluvsvols, allvol123 and 4 others
#39,070
#39,070
Rasputin_Vol said:
If it was just the US, that would have been one thing. But when the UK and the Dutch jumped in, now you have a concerted effort to rob them of energy supplies. This is no different than NATO/EU countries trying to gang up on a country and impose sanctions on them.
Click to expand...
Rob them of supplies they dont actually have....how is it robbing if the original owner maintains ownership?

A countries needs dont equate to a right to own said need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, marcusluvsvols, norrislakevol and 3 others
#39,071
#39,071
LouderVol said:
Rob them of supplies they dont actually have....how is it robbing if the original owner maintains ownership?

A countries needs dont equate to a right to own said need.
Click to expand...

"You sold me a car once and now I need another car. You won't sell me a car now, so I'm justified in attacking you."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky_Top_Vol13, InVOLuntary, FLVOL_79 and 6 others
#39,073
#39,073
Rasputin_Vol said:
When you rob a country of energy imports, especially a country like Japan, you should expect them to respond. The average country would not have had the means to respond the way Japan did.

Cool, I guess you would find it acceptable for a European country to attack Russia if the Russians cut off their supply of natural gas or oil. You would be cool with that, right?

What reason would they have had to hit the United States before than? We generally had good relations with Japan in the 20-30 years leading up to Pearl Harbor.

Easy. We were in their way in the Pacific.

#1, Neither of those situations were of our concern.
#2, both Japan and Germany would have had their hands full trying to manage those empires. They would have been too preoccupied with local insurgencies and trying to maintain order in Europe and Asia to be worried about crossing the Atlantic or the Pacific to do anything with us.
Click to expand...

Lol! Ras, I like you man, but I really do think you have a screw lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and Rickyvol77
#39,075
#39,075
LouderVol said:
Except Japan did actually cross the pacific.

We had good relations until they invaded China and started killing millions. They had also already attacked other of our allies in the area as well before Pearl Harbor.

And that "rob them of their imports" is laughable. When does it become their imports and not our exports? Is the oil field theirs? That's the Japanese imports right? Maybe just the refinery? They MAY buy stuff we are willing to sell them. There is absolutely zero requirement for us to sell to them ever, or to not stop selling.

If a grocery store bans a customer, does that customer have the right to then rob that store? And right, as in it's not a crime. The store could still sell to that individual, but chooses not to. Your neighbor beats his dog, so you stop selling your moon shine to him. Is he in the right to come over and steal from you, or attack you?

It's the same logic. Trade is two sided. Both sides have to agree. There is no requirement of trade. Once one side says "no" the other has no right to force them.
Click to expand...

Solid post sir.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top