Unconditional surender - price to high ?

Guys, read this message from Slip again please, the last line in particular....

 

I realize that the secondary issues trace back decades. The Pacific War was essentially a clash of empires and should be seen as that. But that doesn't alter the fact that it was the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor and that it was the Germans who invaded Poland.

Territorial aggrandizement was the goal of both nations. That is an indisputable truth. That the US, England, France, and Russia had also engaged in terrioril expanion pre-war doesn't mitigate the responsibility of the former.

Sorry, A-28, just couldn't resist.

 

OK now that he's fair game again.

While some of the Chinese may have been victims of internal conflicts most appear to have died as a result of the actions of the Japanese. So Yes the axis are responsible.

History lesson. The Communist started that one by attacking the South Vietnamese. So this one's on thier head.

To what purpose. Start a war and your responsible for the consequences. Harboring terrorist and their training camps is an act of war by the way.

That's your opinion but I don't think it's well supported. Kind of hard for a sub attacking at night or when submerged to tell what's on a cargo ship, isn't it?

Not at all. I don't have a problem with you displaying your ignorance.

The rules of warfare say cities may be bombarded under certain circumstances. Those circumstances applied so it was "by the rules". Not my problem if you don't like it or the rules.

I don't claim to be an expert in that field but you haven't displayed any particular depth of knowledge in that respect either.

I understand I just don't agree. That's with either your first or your second sentence.

So was the US in about the same sence. Actually the states within the USSR had less independence than US states. Not sure what your point is however. If you have one.

Only if you choose to evaluate it that way. I don't.

Depending on the time frame it's a fact I'm very familiar with. Not sure how it's relevant however.

What's your point?

Nope.

You have a wiered definition of "improve".

What crime and and criminal am I apologizing for?

A fact well know to most if not all of us here.

I believe that qualifies as a strawman. As for your signature why should your mistaken impressions affect the historical signifigance of anything? As for colonial empires some were, for the most part briefly resotred, most were not however. As for making the world safe for democracy it moved things a long way in that direction and created a world that ultimatly saw the demise of Communism and the USSR without fighting a major war over it. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.