Reading isn't your strong point, uh? FDR was a piece of crap who destroyed the U.S. Constitution. But that being said, nothing he did with regards to Japan warranted them dropping bombs on us. Nothing.
Only a butthole would argue that exercising a nation's sovereign freedom to help - or deny help - to anyone they so choose, warrants being bombed.
One, I notice you again avoid the point that we know that FDR wanted the Japanese to attack. Two, I don't think you are aware of everything FDR was doing to provoke Japan to war. In his monograph
Japan’s Decision for War in 1941: Some Enduring Lessons (U.S. Army War College, 2009), Dr. Jeffrey Record, a professor at the Air War College, makes some important points about Japan’s reasons for deciding to wage war on the U.S. and the role that FDR’s draconian sanctions played in that decision. Surprisingly, Dr. Record also notes that FDR’s sanctions and demands would have been viewed as unacceptable to the U.S. if a foreign power had done them to us. Says Dr. Record,
The United States was, in effect, demanding that Japan renounce its status as an aspiring great power and consign itself to permanent strategic dependency on a hostile Washington. Such a choice would have been unacceptable to any great power. Japan’s survival as a major industrial and military power was a stake— far more compelling reasons for war than the United States later advanced for its disastrous wars of choice in Vietnam and Iraq. Would the United States ever have permitted a hostile power to wreck its foreign commerce and strangle its domestic economy without a resort to war? (p. 21,
https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/pub905.pdf).
I will quote this paragraph again as the final paragraph in the following rather long extract from Dr. Record’s monograph:
It is the central conclusion of this monograph that the Japanese decision for war against the United States in 1941 was dictated by Japanese pride and the threatened economic destruction of Japan by the United States. The United States sought to deter Japanese imperial expansion into Southeast Asia by employing its enormous leverage over the Japanese economy; it demanded that Japan withdraw its forces from both Indochina and China—in effect that Japan renounce its empire in exchange for a restoration of trade with the United States and acceptance of American principles of international behavior. Observed Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart in retrospect: “No Government, least of all the Japanese, could be expected to swallow such humiliating conditions, and utter loss of face.”
This conclusion excuses neither the attack on Pearl Harbor nor the stupidity of Tokyo’s statecraft in the 1930s. . . .
Nor does this monograph’s thesis excuse the savagery of Japanese behavior in East Asia during the 1930s and 1940s. . . .
All that said, however, it is necessary to observe that the United States was also guilty of grievous miscalculation in the Pacific in 1941. It takes at least two parties to transform a political dispute into war. Racism was hardly unique to the Japanese, and Americans were, if anything, even more culturally ignorant of Japan than the Japanese were of the United States. The conviction, widespread within the Roosevelt administration until the last months of 1941, that no sensible Japanese leader could rationally contemplate war with the United States, blinded key policymakers to the likely consequences of such reckless decisions as the imposition of what amounted to a complete trade embargo of Japan in the summer of 1941. The embargo abruptly deprived Japan of 80 percent of its oil requirements, confronting Tokyo with the choice of either submitting to U.S. demands that it give up its empire in China and resume its economic dependency on the United States or, alternatively, advancing into resource-rich Southeast Asia and placing its expanded empire on an economically independent foundation. The embargo thus provoked rather than cowed Japan. David Kahn has observed that:
American racism and rationalism kept the United States from thinking that Japan would attack it. . . . Japan was not only more distant [than Germany]; since she had no more than half America’s population and only one-ninth of America’s industrial output, rationality seemed to preclude her attacking the United States. And disbelief in a Japanese attack was reinforced by belief in the superiority of the white race. Americans looked upon Japanese as bucktoothed, bespectacled little yellow men, forever photographing things with their omnipresent cameras so they could copy them. Such opinions were held not only by common bigots but by opinion makers as well.
The issue of “rationality” is a false one. Cultures as disparate as those of the United States and Japan in the 1930s defy a common standard of rationality. Rationality lies in the eyes of the beholder, and “rational” leaders can make horribly mistaken decisions. American examples include the Truman administration’s decision to cross the 38th Parallel in Korea in 1950, which witlessly provoked an unnecessary war with China; the Johnson administration’s decision to commit U.S. ground combat forces to South Vietnam’s defense in 1965; and the George W. Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. . . .
Japan’s decision for war was made after months of agonizing internal debate by leaders who recognized America’s vast industrial superiority and who, in the more sober moments, suffered few illusions about Japan’s chances in a protracted war against America. Japan’s leaders did not want war with the United States, but by the fall of 1941 few saw any acceptable alternative to war. They believed that Japan’s invasion of British- and Dutch-controlled Southeast Asia would mean war with the United States, and they resigned themselves to it. . . .
Roosevelt viewed the Soviet Union as an indispensable belligerent against Hitler and took the threat of a Japanese invasion of Siberia from Manchuria quite seriously; there is even evidence that he deliberately stiffened U.S. policy toward Japan in the wake of Germany’s invasion of Russia for the purpose of encouraging the Japanese to look south rather than north. . . .
The Roosevelt administration was well aware that Japan imported 90 percent of its oil, of which 75-80 percent was from the United States (which in 1940 accounted for an astounding 63 percent of the world’s output of petroleum). Roosevelt also knew that the Dutch East Indies, which produced 3 percent of the world’s output, was the only other convenient oil producer that could meet Japan’s import needs.
The freeze order was the culmination of a program of sanctioning Japan for its aggression in China that began in January 1940 with the U.S. withdrawal from its 1911 commercial treaty with Japan (notice of abrogation was given in July 1939). Sanctioning escalated in July 1940 with the passage of the National Defense Act, which granted the administration authority to ban or restrict the export of items declared vital to national defense. On July 25 Roosevelt announced a ban on Japanese acquisition of U.S. high-octane aviation gasoline, certain grades of steel and scrap iron, and some lubricants. In September the White House imposed a ban on all scrap iron exports to Japan. Because the Japanese steel industry was highly dependent on imported scrap iron from the United States, the ban compelled Japan to draw down its stockpiles and operate its steel industry well below capacity; indeed, the ban blocked any significant expansion of Japanese steel production during the war.33 In December the embargo was expanded to include iron ore, steel, and steel products, and the following month expanded to include copper (of which the United States supplied 80 percent of Japan’s requirements), brass, bronze, zinc, nickel, and potash. “Almost every week thereafter other items were added to the list, each of which was much needed for Japanese industrial production”. . . .
But, as Roosevelt understood, it was Japan’s oil dependency on the United States, a dependency, ironically, that had deepened with Japan’s expanding military operations in China, that constituted the real hangman’s noose around Japan’s neck. . . .
The result, in conjunction with the seizure of Japanese assets by Great Britain and the Netherlands, was a complete suspension of Japanese economic access to the United States and the destruction of between 50 and 75 percent of Japan’s foreign trade.41 In early November 1941, Joseph Grew, the U.S. ambassador to Japan, cabled Secretary of State Hull that “the greater part of Japanese commerce has been lost, Japanese industrial production has been drastically curtailed, and Japan’s national resources have been depleted.” Grew went on to warn of “an all-out, do-or-die attempt, actually risking national hara kiri, to make Japan impervious to economic embargoes abroad rather than to yield to foreign pressure”. . . .
The culmination of U.S. economic warfare against Japan by late summer of 1941 confronted Tokyo with essentially two choices: seizure of Southeast Asia, or submission to the United States. Economic destitution and attendant military paralysis would soon become a reality if Japan did nothing. The embargo was already beginning to strangle Japanese industry, and Japan’s stockpiled oil amounted to no more than 18- 24 months of normal consumption—and substantially less should Japan mount major military operations in Southeast Asia. . . .
Yet the price the Americans demanded for lifting the embargo and restoring U.S.-Japanese trade to some semblance of normality was no more acceptable: abandonment of empire. The Roosevelt administration demanded that Japan not only terminate its membership in the Tripartite Alliance, but also withdraw its military forces from both China and Indochina, and by extension, the Japanese feared, Manchuria (after all, the United States had refused to recognize the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo). Abandonment of China and Indochina would have compelled Japan to write off its hard-won gains on the Asian mainland since 1937 and drop any hope of becoming the dominant power in East Asia. For Japan, a major reason for establishing an empire in East Asia was to free itself of the very kind of humiliating economic dependency on the United States that the embargo represented. And what was to stop the Americans from coercing further territorial concessions from the Japanese, including withdrawal from Manchuria and even Korea and Formosa? Japan “could not accept any interim solution that left it dependent on American largesse” or any deal that left it in a position of “continued reliance on the whims of Washington. The possibility that the Americans might supply Japan with just enough oil, steel, and other materials to maintain a starveling existence was intolerable to any Japanese statesman”. . . .
The United States was, in effect, demanding that Japan renounce its status as an aspiring great power and consign itself to permanent strategic dependency on a hostile Washington. Such a choice would have been unacceptable to any great power. Japan’s survival as a major industrial and military power was a stake— far more compelling reasons for war than the United States later advanced for its disastrous wars of choice in Vietnam and Iraq. Would the United States ever have permitted a hostile power to wreck its foreign commerce and strangle its domestic economy without a resort to war? (pp. 6-21,
https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/pub905.pdf)
And this is not to mention FDR's military provocations: moving the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor (which made training, strategic, or logistical sense), basing B-17 bombers in Philippines, and sending small ships on useless alleged "recon" missions within range of Japanese naval forces (the Japanese did not take the bait).
