[lbo-talk] "Knee-Jerk Anti-Imperialism" Re: Two Takes

[andie nachgeborenen]

Hawaii wasn't a state then, but I don't grasp your point. That made it OK for the Japanese to attack and destroy the US Pacific fleet there? I laos dpon't get the "only 43 years" rule. How long does a natioon have to administer a territory to have a claim on it for just war purposes in your book? Do new nations have no such claims for J.W. purposes? The fact is, attacking somebody's fleet on their territory (or indeed, off it) is universally acknowledged to be an act of war. jks
LouPaulsen <LouPaulsen at attbi.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "andie nachgeborenen" 
> The war against Japan was an imperialist war plain and simple, between two
imperiali powers; although the US was justified in defending itself on the
usual just war grounds, [...]

What, because of Pearl Harbor? That wasn't an attack on 'the US itself'.
It was an attack on a US base in occupied Hawaii, which the US had conquered
only 43 years earlier.

lp

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20030413/2c8d0176/attachment.htm>