From: Gene McAloon 

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.

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