From: "Gary Wiltshire" 

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:14:59 -0500, Gene McAloon
 wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:48:27 -0400, "Mark"
 wrote:
>
>>
>> "Phil Payne"  wrote in message
>> news:41388111.9A8884BB{at}isham-research.com...
>>>> By fight back, I meant had we proceeded with the offensive against
>>>> Germany
>>>> prior to Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor may not have happened, but
>>>> there's no
>>>> way of knowing that for sure.
>>>
>>> Yes there is:
>>>
>>> http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/pre-war/361125a.html#3
>>
>> Interesting, thanks. I'm not sure though, how that tells us that Pearl
>> Harbor still would/would not have happened had we begun our major
>> operations
>> in assistance to the UK and France against Germany prior to the attack?
>>
>
> The attack on Pearl Harbor was not the result of American inaction, in
> the Atlantic or anywhere else. On the contrary, the attack was the
> direct result of American action, the oil embargo against Japan. That
> action almost guaranteed war with Japan as did our help for the Brits
> almost guarantee war with Germany.
>
> The argument you are making now to the affect that had we been more
> pro-active, like Bush in Iraq, we possibly could have avoided all-out
> war is preposterous and is based on utter ignorance of the facts that
> led to WWII.
>
> In light of the silly argument you are making, it is not a little ironic
> that indeed we might have become more involved earlier in opposing Japan
> and Germany except that it was the Republicans of the time who opposed
> any involvement.
>

If we'd attacked Germany when Hitler first violated the terms which ended
WWI, we could indeed have avoided WWII - at least in Europe.

--
Gary Wiltshire

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5