“The attack was a strategic military action against the military assets an adversary already engaged in the conflict. In short, it was fair game”.
This was what Allan from Fallbrook said:
“Pri: I found the above comment curious. “…adversary already engaged in the conflict”. Where, exactly, were we engaged in the conflict? Are you speaking of the Lend-Lease Program? Or were there US forces actively participating in the war that I hadn’t heard of?”
My take on this: I think Allan made that “curious” extension from the term “conflict” to automatically be = “war”. Hence: “were there US forces actively participating in the war that I hadn’t heard of?”
In my book, “Conflict” doesn’t equate to be “war”.
And yes, the US assets were actively involved in containing Japan empire before Pearl Harbor happened. (anyway, my opinion is, I am surprised about your guys but I fully support US interests in the world). So, pri_dk’s statement above makes logical sense to me.
No need to be “curious” as a pretext for a beating. If people are curious like that, we better run fast.
