Why Nobama

[gagged_Louise]

I'd like to add I also think the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor was tactically brilliant, and you could argue the Japanese were bound to land in a war with the US soon anyway, so from their óbjectives the Emperor and his generals were right to take that route. I'm happy you recognize this. Which is not the same as saying that Pearl Harbor (or earlier Japanese attacks, the massacres in China etc) were morally straight.

[Ragoczy]

I'd like to add I also think the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor was tactically brilliant, and you could argue the Japanese were bound to land in a war with the US soon anyway, so from their óbjectives the Emperor and his generals were right to take that route. I'm happy you recognize this. Which is not the same as saying that Pearl Harbor (or earlier Japanese attacks, the massacres in China etc) were morally straight.

And yet another tangent discussion miles from the original topic -- but what the hell, I'm having fun.

I don't think there's a moral equivalency between Pearl Harbor and massacres in China. And I realize you weren't really implying equality.

So, yes, it should have been clear to the Japanese at the time that the US was eventually going to get into the conflict. Whether it would have been better strategically for them to have waited and consolidated their other positions is arguable, but they may have known or believed that our entry was imminent, in which case their attack made sense. I don't believe in "fair fights", so I don't fault them for not sending us a "Hi, we're going to be at war with you ... Tuesday good to start things off?"-note -- sudden, unexpected, overwhelming force is ideal. Also, their attack was on primarily military targets, to the extent that it was possible with the technology of the time. So I see no moral issue with Pearl Harbor.

Their actions against civilians in China, Korea, etc. -- morally reprehensible.