[tw]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
Personally, I think Japan's collective guilt ... is compounded by the fact that most of the Japanese government KNEW they couldn't win a war with the United States, but they chose to start one anyway. What kind of government deliberately leads their nation into destruction?

Above posts demonstrate the number of pre-WWII actors fully involved in forcing a final event - war. Each actor (ie FDR) is the dog's head that forces action by the dog's body (ie. political, economic and social initiatives, speeches, encouragement, subtrifuge, etc) to wag a tail (war is declared). IOW we assume that FDR wagged the tail as he wanted. Reality is that fast moving events became the tail that wagged the dog.

All those WWII historical disucssions assume a leader acted to create an event and got that event to happen (ie FDR got the US into WWII). Reality is that events happened so quick as to drag everyone into war. Actors were almost powerless to avoid the resulting Pearl Harbor; out of ignorance, due to surprise, or just because what they tried to accomplish backfired.

Hitler knew up front that he could not wage war on two fronts simultaneously. But he did so anyway. It was not his intent. Again, the tail wagged the dog. Events of WWII dragged Hilter to start war on a second front. Yes, FDR knew that the US would have to enter WWII (as even Boeing and the Kennedy boys understood in the 1930s). But it was not FDRs actions that got the US into war. It was events, that caused FDR to respond that got the US into war. FDR responded to a tail that would not stop wagging.

Properly noted in so much detail are how so many tails wagged so many dogs. The final 'tail shake' was the US oil embargo of Japan. Was that the reason for WWII. By itself - no. The oil embargo was also created by other WWII events. US was already suffering domestic oil rationing because of so much WWII activity. Therefore it was the perfect response to Japan's invasion of China.


How does this correspond to the original post? The tail most wags nations led by lower intelligent leaders. Historically, these are people driven by their personal biases and political rhetoric rather than by historical experience and long term projection thinking.

Previously posted were examples of low intelligent US leadership. This 'Axis of Evil' simply is another step in undoing decades of work that was slowly creating peaceful solutions. Destruction of so much work was accomplished by the same kneejerk reactions that declared, for example, arsenic in drinking water as safe.

A decade of careful work and compromise brought all parties to a common water standard. But the White House choose to trash everything in a week - instead blaming environmental fanatics for the conclusions. No long term perspective. No appreciation for history. Just an assumption it must be wrong because it goes against White House political rhetoric. Same kneejerk thinking is displayed internationally.

This president views Iran as a monolithic entity. Everyone in Iran must think the same and must have anti-American attitudes. Wrong. Big time wrong. But the president has simply alienated potential American / Iranian friendship. This is but another case where the tail did not have to wag the dog. But the dog does not have sufficient long term perspective to understand why the tail will now be wagging the dog. This 'Axis of Evil' will probably have dangerous consequences for everyone here.

In another post, I will quote an The Economist interesting incite into jihad. Jihad also is not monolithic. However, our leader is aligning the US to go to war against Islam. Not because he intends to; but because he is setting America up to be wagged by its tail.

Yesterday's news only makes that scary. Sec of State Powell outrightly warning every Cellar dweller that the US may unilaterally declare war on Iraq. He is warning you that extremists may totally subvert US foreign policy:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...P-US-Iraq.html

Secretary of State Colin Powell says the United States might have to act alone to bring about a ``regime change'' in Iraq.
Powell told House members Wednesday that President Bush is considering ``the most serious set of options one might imagine'' for dealing with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
``Regime change is something the United States might have to do alone,'' ...

If this was any other President, except Nixon, I would say 'bull'. But this is George Jr who in one year subverted, soured or destroyed every international relationship we have. Do we really need all those 9+ new military bases in the Middle East from Bulgaria to Kazakistan? Why do we need them? To be dragged into war against a jihad we don't understand and may not need to fear? Yes, that last sentence is correct. Jihad also is not a monolithic concept to those who first learn the facts before declaring 'Axies of Evil'.