It takes two governments to start a war - and that's two more than there should be. In absence of governments (all governments, including any would-be warlords or mafia bosses trying to fill the power vacuum),
self-interest would drive individuals to empower themselves, thus causing for the power vacuum to be filled by
property owners who
find it in their best interest to
not initiate aggression against each-other. Natural rights
emerge naturally, with no centralized force being necessary.
It's no wonder that the nation that has suffered the least amount of damage during World War II --
Switzerland -- was also the most decentralized and had the highest rate of individual firearm ownership. If
Hitler couldn't even invade his tiny mountain neighbor, the notion of anyone being able to successfully invade North America is downright laughable! Every war the United States has ever fought in was a premeditated expansionist tactic, and its involvement in WW2 is no exception.
Some might claim that America first initiated aggression against Japan when
its warships entered the Tokyo harbor in 1853 and threatened to come back with a lot more warships unless the Japanese do what they're told. I personally would like to err on the site of the Americans in that dispute - many Japanese people wanted to trade with the Americans, but their tyrannical government stood in their way, so the Americans were merely protecting their business interests. (Too bad we don't do this anymore - the same philosophy would have toppled the likes of Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-il overnight.)
Some might also claim that the West's
aggression against China and its imperialism over the
Philippines,
Hawaii, and many other Asian nations gave Japan a moral right to become a colonial power in Asia, sort of like the "I can steal your dog if I'll treat it better" mentality, and many people in those countries looked favorably on that possibility. I don't see that as an invitation for Japanese imperialism - two wrongs don't make a right. In China, Japan's
crimes against civilians are very well documented, but the same can be said about
the British involvement in India (and many of their crimes have escaped the scrutiny of history, because, well, you know - "history is written by the victors"). Japan was a part of the
Eight-Nation Alliance, and as its economy grew it was able to take a bigger slice - that didn't make it any more or any less moral than any other colonial power. America itself didn't grow from sea to shining sea by respecting human rights ya know!
Japan was very successful in its colonization of its Asian neighbors, in part due to
effective use of soft power (i.e. it was more popular than its European competitors), and
by the mid-1920s America was becoming quite jealous, supporting anti-Japanese resistance whenever and wherever it could, like secretly supplying American planes and
American pilots to help them. The situation continued to intensify, with American assets covertly carrying out terrorist operations against Japanese targets in China / Manchuria. But apparently that doesn't count as an act of war, just more imperial hanky-panky.
America has positioned itself for war, never missing an opportunity to provoke their one Asian competitor for the military dominance of Asia. As
Smedley Butler wrote in his book: "The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."
Then came the American act of war that I cannot rationalize - the oil embargo against Japan. America just reached half-way across the world and prevented one nation from trading with all others! That left Japan with only two options: defend its empire or grind to a screeching halt!
And when America had
dropped its breeches and left itself wide open in Pearl Harbor - how could Japan possibly resist?