How much intervention is too much?

[Victor Grey]

Some would say we gave them reason. I'm not a history expert on WW2, but I think we hit Japan with economic sanctions trying to stop their expansion in the East.

"Some would say." Now that is the focal point there.
Some are wrong.


States aren't individual people, but quite frankly I reject the entire realm of argument, that we provoked the japanese to attack us in any justifiable measure, in ww2.
Key word justifiable.

Not selling people $#@!, is not a viable justification for retaliatory violence. You cannot walk into a store, be refused service, and blow the store-owner's head off as a response.

Again states aren't individuals, nevertheless the general principle remains the same. If the mongolians in asia (anyone) in some hazy, collectivized way (a nation) refuse to sell to U.S. citizens some random good, we as another hazy, collectivized group represented also as a state, can't attack them in response.

In particular, I find this notion deplorable considering that the goods in question toward the ww2 japanese are to be used primarily. in the effort to occupy, enslave, and kill other people.


I have right not to sell a firearm I own to anyone if I thought they were going to use it to unjustly hurt somebody.

I take personal offense to these "some people," these japanese imperialist apologists for whatever reason (maybe they like anime? date japanese ladies? who cares the reason their logic and ethics are weak)

because afaiks, in principle by saying that, they are also roughly saying hypothetically, that me not selling my personal firearm to Jack the Ripper, is somehow a moral justification for violence against me. That pisses me off.

Closing, I do discern between "some people" and those merely stating that the sanctions were probably the main reasoning for the attack. That is neither here or there to me.