[u-89]

I didn't overlook Japan's military expansionism in Korea or elsewhere. My point was by acquiring overseas territories (aggressively I might add) the US increased its chances of conflict and got it. You seem to suggest that even if we had no holdings in Asia it was still in our interest to check Japanese expansion. I can't see how that fits into a definition of national defense and why it would be our concern and not the Europeans and Chinese but I guess you think the US's role as a global policeman is proper.

By the way Japan was a hermit nation minding its own business till we "enlightened" them to the benefits of dealing with the west by sending in our gunboats to Tokyo harbor. Realizing their own weakness they started a catch up game with the Western powers and finally decided that they, not the west was the rightful lords of Asia. I do not excuse their attitude but objectively see where they were coming from.

In summation overseas possessions and meddling in other's affairs costs heavily in blood and treasure. A process which is ongoing to this day.

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

My point was by acquiring overseas territories (aggressively I might add) the US increased its chances of conflict and got it.

I understand your point & disagree with it.

Ever since the Meiji Restoration, Japan was heading toward an inevitable conflict with the US. Even if we hadn't owned a single rock in the Pacific, Japan's relentless expansion would have eventually brought them into direct conflict with our shipping & commercial interests. So it never would have reached the point where we were fighting them off the coast of California. The war in the Pacific was going to happen.

In any case, my original point was that Pat Buchanan continues to distort history with ridiculous, unsupportable statements. He's getting sillier all the time.