If one wanted to be technical, the fight was against Totalitarianism (German, Japanese, and Russian), despite the fact we allied with the USSR to defeat Germany... The Post WWII fight was but a continuation of this ideological fight... And this is true despite the fact that a segment of the WWII Allies and their backers (pro-Russian and the Communist party members and supporters opposed fighting Russia Totalitarianism (Stalinism)...
On Feb 26, 9:31 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > The correct title is Facism... and no the fight was NOT over it. The > US and Britain had mutual protection pacts with France, the Lowland > nations and Poland. That is what made the US and Britain go to war in > Europe. > > As to Japan, the other half of the world war.... They had no Facism > and were in control of the Manchurian mineral and oil fields. They > attacked the US because the US was starving them of raw and recyclable > materials to satisfy (familiar phrase here) "national interests". > > 抄録 > The 1930s started with the Great Depression. The Smoot-Hawley Act, > which was enacted soon after the onset of the depression, brought > about beggar-thy-neighbor nationalism and trade wars, inwhich world > trade drastically shrank. The collapse of the raw silk market that > followed the Wall Street crash hit the Japanese agrarian community > hard. Economic distress in rural Japan gave rise to social unrest and > a radical reformist view. In China, meanwhile, with cooperation among > the powers having broken down, the Washington system seemed to have > lost its effectiveness. The Manchurian Incident of 1931 was a kind of > coup d'etat by the Kwantung Army, but public opinion in Japan rather > supported it as a breakthrough in the difficulties both in China and > Japan. While the Japanese government was unable to control the > situation, the Japanese army escalated its operation in China without > being deterred by any major powers, which were all occupied with their > domestic problems. The Japanese action ran counter to America's > moralistic China policy, but it was not until the war started in > Europe (the war did not include the US at this time) and Japan moved > towards Southeast Asia that the United States finally started economic > sanctions against Japan. Under intense economic pressure, Japan was > told to withdraw not only from Southeast Asia but also from China. On > the other hand, political frictions between the two countries did not > change their basic trade relations, boycott movements against Japanese > consumer goods and higher tariff barriers on some Japanese imports > notwithstanding. The United States remained Japan's biggest export > market and continued to be Japan's biggest supplier throughout the > decade of the 1930s. Japan, on the other hand, remained the U.S.'s > second largest supplier next to Canada and continued to be America's > third biggest buyer surpassed only by Britain and Canada throughout > the decade. In FDI, the United States was the largest investor in > Japan throughout the 1930s, though US investments declined as the > Japanese government's domestication policy became restrictive. When > the war ended and the American troops landed in Japan, they met little > resistance. The peaceful occupation helped usher in the close postwar > U.S.-Japan ties. The cooperativeness of the Japanese after the > surrender was largely attributable to the underlying prewar friendship > between the two countries, which close bilateral business relations > had helped foster. > > "Naziism" was the buzzword (it has a nasty sound in English) they used > to gain popular support for the war in Europe. The previous > declaration against Japan and the high rate of emotions helped quite a > bit as well. > > On Feb 26, 2:42 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> Are you aware that to fight an ideal is ludicrous ?? That to war > > >>> against one simply imbeds it and disperses that ideal to others... have > > >>> you NEVER read a history book ?? > > > Then WWII was not fought against the ideas of Naziism??? That notion > > is new to most historians... > > > On Feb 25, 4:07 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Are you aware that to fight an ideal is ludicrous ?? That to war > > > against one simply imbeds it and disperses that ideal to others... > > > have you NEVER read a history book ?? Told a teenager he/she can not > > > do something ?? There has been no "battle" won. Since Iraq started > > > there has been a huge change. Because of the US methodology in using > > > guns against ideals it is no longer a gender specific fight. The women > > > were holding down a lot of men from joining the Fanatic front, now > > > they are instead backing the men to join and doing so themselves. > > > GREAT WIN !!!! you have DOUBLED the pool from which they draw their > > > backers and fighters. > > > > There are so many facets to this thing that you have NO clue about > > > because you have NO clue as to their culture and traditions. Most of > > > what they are doing and HOW they do it goes way beyond Mohhamed and > > > his (like the bibles) erroneous teachings. > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:21 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> I am NOT the one that used the word "won" when dealing with Iraq > > > > > Yes we won in Iraq, which is but one battlefield in the broader WOT > > > > which include the battlefields of Afghanistan/Pakistan... Your straw- > > > > man is demanding the winning/won in Iraq equates to a won in the > > > > WOT... And that assumption is false... > > > > > On Feb 24, 10:53 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:38 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > 1) you claimed "First didn't "Bushs' War" include Afghanistan ?? > > > >> > Robert Gates who was Bushs' SecDef says there is NO way to win.... > > > > >> > My reply "Bush won the then central front in Iraq... The Central > > > >> > front has moved back to the Afghani-Paki border --AS IT HAD TO DO... > > > >> > AQ went to Iraq and made it the central front and LOST... Now it > > > >> > returned back to the tribal areas of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan > > > >> > where government rarely existed for the last 500 years... > > > > >> So let me get this straight a BATTLE has been won, territory gained. > > > >> That does NOT equate to "winning" when speaking of a "war". > > > > >> > 2) you claimed "Third I was under the impression that this was a "war > > > >> > on terror". Your claim is is to insinuate and flat out state that > > > >> > there are no more terrorists... > > > > >> > Again my reply "The Central front has moved back to the Afghani-Paki > > > >> > border --AS IT HAD TO DO." That is to say stateless terrorism is > > > >> > just > > > >> > that, stateless and mobile and that in all wars central fronts change > > > >> > as what happened in this war... > > > > >> again you admit there is no victory. > > > > >> > 3) You claimed "Last if the war was "won" I would like a date/link > > > >> > for > > > >> > that formal expression and an explanation in explicit and coherent > > > >> > terms the need for continued US occupation. > > > > >> I am NOT the one that used the word "won" when dealing with Iraq who > > > >> had absolutely NO terrorist problem to begin with, that would be you. > > > >> How can you "win" a situation you created in its entirety ?? As far as > > > >> partisan battlefields I have been present on several on three > > > >> different continents and involved in the solution of those > > > >> conflicts... just where do you draw YOUR purported expertise > > > >> from??....... > > > > >> especially your claim that Iraq was somehow used to draw AQ out and > > > >> onto a battlefield so they could be defeated by conventional > > > >> forces..... Show me ANY proof of this as a position prior to the > > > >> conflict.... It is PURE revisionism trying to make the outcome meet > > > >> made up stories. > > > > >> Your explanations are as dearly and sorely lacking as your revisionist > > > >> scheme to explain an entirely illegal enterprise that cost more than > > > >> the Serb/Bosnia war that effected far more people, far more territory > > > >> and resulted in absolute and lasting Republics being formed all under > > > >> existing international covenant. The "proof" that these two conflicts > > > >> as far as the vested combatants is as non-existant as your basis for > > > >> your position. > > > > >> > It is clear that you are looking to define war in terms of formalized > > > >> > nation-state to nation-state which have more structured beginnings > > > >> > and > > > >> > endings... This logic is a straw-man when dealing with wars that > > > >> > involve non state actors (even those backed by existing states)... > > > >> > In these war declarations are often attacks as 9/11 and peace > > > >> > treaties > > > >> > are the decline and cessation of abnormal violence, that is to say > > > >> > actions rather than scraps of paper... It is also clear, in how I > > > >> > have written on the WOT, that I am not bound by your prejudice that > > > >> > all wars, including "unconventional wars" must have formal > > > >> > declarations of war and peace... Throughout history unconventional > > > >> > war normal do not have such definative starting and ending points as > > > >> > most historians known... > > > > >> > So yes, I did respond directly to you points... One is entitled to > > > >> > opinion but not facts... > > > > >> > On Feb 23, 5:42 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> >> and not a single point countered... not a single question > > > >> >> answered... > > > > >> >> On 2/23/09, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> > Bush won the then central front in Iraq... The Central front has > > > >> >> > moved back to the Afghani-Paki border --AS IT HAD TO DO... AQ > > > >> >> > went to > > > >> >> > Iraq and made it the central front and LOST... Now it returned > > > >> >> > back > > > >> >> > to the tribal areas of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan where > > > >> >> > government > > > >> >> > rarely existed for the last 500 years... > > > > >> >> > On Feb 22, 1:20 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> > > > >> >> > wrote: > > > >> >> > > Lew, > > > > >> >> > > First didn't "Bushs' War" include Afghanistan ?? Robert Gates > > > >> >> > > who was > > > >> >> > > Bushs' SecDef says there is NO way to win.... > > > > >> >> > > Second I would like a reliable/cerdible source quote to add any > > > >> >> > > credence that Obama or any one else for that matter is in favor > > > >> >> > > of any > > > >> >> > > serviceman or woman being killed or an admission that > > ... > > read more >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
