Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Why no one invades Switzerland
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1194030" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>Before 12/7/41, what we had was a public who by and large believed in a non-interventionist foreign policy, but an administration that was very interventionist. Also, the New Deal was fizzling... the Depression was still in full swing, despite the vast expansion of governmental power and spending championed by President Roosevelt. Roosevelt needed another cause to get the public behind his agenda again.</p><p></p><p>Japan didn't just one day lose its mind... look up the Japanese Oil Embargo. They were involved in a major land war in China. The Japanese military committed lots of attrocities, the most famous being the "Rape of Nanking." Roosevelt, the interventionist, wanted us to get involved, but the public was pretty bummed about WWI (which was actually an unpopular war back then) and didn't want to become militarily involved with another conflict halfway around the world that had absolutely nothing to do with us. Roosevelt had to figure out another way to get us involved. He got his Democratic Congress to pass an oil embargo against Japan that would continue until they withdrew from Manchuria -- we controlled a lot of the major oil-producing islands in the Pacific, and Japan was buying the vast majority of its oil from American-owned oil companies. </p><p></p><p>The oil embargo had the effect of cutting off 97% of Japan's oil supply overnight, when it was in the middle of a major war. Japan had two choices... either give in to foreign demands, wave the white flag of surrender in Manchuria, and go home; or seize our oil-producing territories in the Pacific and keep the oil flowing. Even back then, it wouldn't have been too hard to predict what their reaction would be. Surrender wasn't an option, especially for the honor-obsessed Japanese culture. However, they knew if they seized our islands, they would soon be facing the wrath of our Pacific Fleet. The fleet would have to be taken out preemptively. The rest is history.</p><p></p><p>I have seen several people referring to isolationism. Guys, there is a big difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Isolationism means no foreign military intervention as well as no foreign trade. What I am advocating is a foreign policy of non-interventionism, meaning that we only use our military to respond to actual military threats, but with a free trade policy. Basically, its a foreign policy that is in keeping with the government's one proper role, which is to protect the liberty of its citizens: nobody's money is taken to finance foreign crusades that have nothing to do with their own liberty (and tend to threaten it, more than anything), and everybody's right to associate freely with others on mutually consensual terms is respected.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1194030, member: 4235"] Before 12/7/41, what we had was a public who by and large believed in a non-interventionist foreign policy, but an administration that was very interventionist. Also, the New Deal was fizzling... the Depression was still in full swing, despite the vast expansion of governmental power and spending championed by President Roosevelt. Roosevelt needed another cause to get the public behind his agenda again. Japan didn't just one day lose its mind... look up the Japanese Oil Embargo. They were involved in a major land war in China. The Japanese military committed lots of attrocities, the most famous being the "Rape of Nanking." Roosevelt, the interventionist, wanted us to get involved, but the public was pretty bummed about WWI (which was actually an unpopular war back then) and didn't want to become militarily involved with another conflict halfway around the world that had absolutely nothing to do with us. Roosevelt had to figure out another way to get us involved. He got his Democratic Congress to pass an oil embargo against Japan that would continue until they withdrew from Manchuria -- we controlled a lot of the major oil-producing islands in the Pacific, and Japan was buying the vast majority of its oil from American-owned oil companies. The oil embargo had the effect of cutting off 97% of Japan's oil supply overnight, when it was in the middle of a major war. Japan had two choices... either give in to foreign demands, wave the white flag of surrender in Manchuria, and go home; or seize our oil-producing territories in the Pacific and keep the oil flowing. Even back then, it wouldn't have been too hard to predict what their reaction would be. Surrender wasn't an option, especially for the honor-obsessed Japanese culture. However, they knew if they seized our islands, they would soon be facing the wrath of our Pacific Fleet. The fleet would have to be taken out preemptively. The rest is history. I have seen several people referring to isolationism. Guys, there is a big difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Isolationism means no foreign military intervention as well as no foreign trade. What I am advocating is a foreign policy of non-interventionism, meaning that we only use our military to respond to actual military threats, but with a free trade policy. Basically, its a foreign policy that is in keeping with the government's one proper role, which is to protect the liberty of its citizens: nobody's money is taken to finance foreign crusades that have nothing to do with their own liberty (and tend to threaten it, more than anything), and everybody's right to associate freely with others on mutually consensual terms is respected. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Why no one invades Switzerland
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom