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

[andie nachgeborenen]

I expressly said that the Pacific war was an imperialist war. I did not say that it was anything but an imperialist war. I said that the US response was justified in general, is not in all the details, by traditional just war theory. I also said that from the different perspective of internationalism, it was better that US democratic imperialism won than quasi-fascist Japanese imperialism. I am quoting almost verbatim from what I wrote before.  I don't accept your account of what happened at Pearl Harbor, which in fact I regard as demented, but I don't think it matters. The US was justified in defending itself (by proportionate means) against Japanese attack, and socialists should have supported that defense, as indeed most did. That does not involve suspending the judgment that war was imperialist. It means (which is how we got into this) that some imperialist wars may be justified. jks

Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:Justin;
You're right that the colonial status of Hawaii doesn't affectthe "just war" nature of an international attack againsta nation's armed forces.  But you're wrong that "Pearl Harbor"made WW II in the Pacific anything but an imperialistslaughter on both sides.  "Pearl Harbor" was the resultof a deliberate, long-planned provocation:  the JapaneseEmpire was directly told that responding to the US oilembargo by invading the Dutch colonies would be met witha US attack,  and the Pearl Harbor base was deliberately leftopen to attack.  It was a "preemptive" attack in the mostprecise and "justified" sense.  But it was a deadly trapbecause you're also wrong that it didn't come close to"destroy the US Pacific fleet" there.  The only importantpart of the US Pacific Fleet, the Aircraft Carriers, werecarefully sent away from Pearl Harbor.  Only obsoletebattleships were lost and a priceless atmosphere of nationalracialist hysteria was gained.
Shane Mage

"Thunderbolt steers all things."                                                         
Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20030413/568f7aef/attachment.htm>