"Persecution Complex? SantaClausowitz? No way!!! "

Just another silly minority thinking that he should know what offends him more than some white Christian guys. Must have a "persecution complex."

I assume this further reveals the complex, after all anything I saw now on the subject has automatically been invalidated by equating my personal opinions with a mental deficiency.

Oh lord Tolstoy. I was actually going to preempt that post by writing exactly what you wrote and explaining how it was incredibly stupid and completely contradictory to your entire stance in this thread and worldview, but I thought I was overreaching by attributing such an illogical argument on you, so I deleted it.

The Battle of New Orleans, of course, was over the control over the city that controlled nearly the entire Louisiana purchase because it was the port at which produce from the region was taken off the river and shipped to the sugar islands to feed the masters and slaves of those lucrative pieces of property. The Spanish had used the city to stifle American trade in the west. The Jewel of the purchase was in fact New Orleans. Thus, The battle WAS over control of Louisiana, tactical control. But I didn't say that in my original post...

I stated tactical control, because contrary to your assertions, the Battle of New Orleans was not the extension of some war to defend liberty. After all, just like you say of the Japanese, the British had no desire to rob Americans of their liberties. DC was not burned to recapture territories, it was a retaliation for the burning of York, the Chesapeake campaign was to harass, attain leverage for peace negotiations and free slaves. The war in fact was one of aggression to capture Canada. However, If you want to appeal to the American cassus belli, that a few (mostly British) kidnapped sailors count as "defending American liberties" I am at a loss to understand how that counts, yet the Americans captured in the Philippines by Japanese aggression does not...

So to claim that the defenders of New Orleans and the territory of Louisiana were defending American liberties and the defenders of Pearl Harbor, Dutch Harbor, and subsequent battles were not is rather perplexing and shows the usual ignorance of history that I have come to expect from you.

"the Battle of New Orleans was not the extension of some war to defend liberty. After all, just like you say of the Japanese, the British had no desire to rob Americans of their liberties."

So the tavern owner in Washington who is beaten and robbed, his home and business burned to the ground by an invading army did not have his freedoms impinged upon? And the Americans kidnapped by the royal navy had no cause to complain because most so impressed were British subjects? That is a bizarrely cavalier attitude towards life, liberty, and property you have there.

"If you want to appeal to the American cassus belli, that a few (mostly British) kidnapped sailors count as "defending American liberties" I am at a loss to understand how that counts, yet the Americans captured in the Philippines by Japanese aggression does not..."

Perhaps because the impressed sailors weren't occupying a colony that wanted independence from American rule (and had waged a very bloody but unsuccessful rebellion to get it), and weren't captured until months after the war had started. The Japanese occupation of the Philippines was simply one colonial power replacing another, and no more of an existential threat to American freedom than America's occupation of it was to Spain.

Apparently occupying other peoples' lands is a fundamental right that all Americans should be able to enjoy (if this is what we were really 'celebrating' yesterday, we certainly had cause for celebration!), but sailing the high seas without getting kidnapped and not having your home burned to the ground by an invading army is not.

So because a tavern owner in Washington got knocked on the head because an earlier American army had done the same to British subjects, the (few) individuals who died in the frontier "were defending American citizens." Yet the anti aircraft gunners who were killed as they stayed at their posts firing at Japanese dive bombers were not?

"Perhaps because the impressed sailors weren't occupying a colony that wanted independence from American rule (and had waged a very bloody but unsuccessful rebellion to get it), and weren't captured until months after the war had started. The Japanese occupation of the Philippines was simply one colonial power replacing another, and no more of an existential threat to American freedom than America's occupation of it was to Spain."

No they were just mostly British citizens that deserted and joined the American Navy for better pay.

A hardened British maritime deserter who was rightfully pressed back into British service are liberties worth defending, but the 19000 civilian American citizens captured by a Japanese assault THAT STARTED ON THE DAY OF PEARL HARBOR (not months later as you suggest they were captured months later because Americans defended themselves *GASP*) are not. Lets not even talk about the Americans sailors killed in U-Boat attacks on the other side of the Atlantic.

Hell, I think they all are defenders of Americans, I just think the distinctions that you make are absurd.

I also love that in one breathe says that Japanese control over the Pacific was no threat to US liberties and he makes an appeal based the freedom of the high seas. Oh so bizarre.