[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You turned it into an attack on everything American.

Quatsch. Simply Quatsch.

I'm not emotional at all. And what you've said is that you understand war better than people who have fought them, and everyone should listen to you.

Quatsch. I did not compare to people having fought in wars. but maybe you want to talk with me about how many soldiers of those being sent into wars return traumatised but with inadequate medical and therpautical treatement at home (something Oabma has not chnaged, he also has not chnaged the pensions cuts introduced by Bush). Although I have known people who have fought in wars, British and Germans - and agreed with me after that experience, while for the most have disagreed with me before they had their share of war, they say.

What exactly have I said that was rhetoric? You said that you spoke truth, not opinion, and indicated that anyone who didn't listen to you was ignoring the truth. I replied that it was just your opinion, pure and simple.

In simplifying and on some occasions having put wrong content in my mouth, you have been rethorical. And are again right here.

I actually agree with your comments on Iraq. But this is a thread about commemorating Pearl Harbor, and once again you're turning your "Day of Infamy" comments into a personal diatribe about current American behaviour. I'm more than willing to discuss that, but this was never the place for it. You're using this thread to run your own agenda. And that's what is bothering me today.

My first and intended only posting i here was this: "I always ask myself 'Why?' when hearing that reference. One could ask whether or not it was a clever decision to go to war. But to hold somebody else responsible for one's own fault to be too sleepy while the other already was executing with determination and had managed to hide the attack, is simply stupid."

Then a discussion started, and everybody starting a thread in GT must expect that this eventually will happen, even more so when posting on controversial issues. first I got PMailed by somebody also posting in here, and I send a long reply, at that time not knowing that the disucssion already had gone on. Else i would have cut that reply shorter, and the PM's content would have gone into the thread. Now I have typed it a second and third time again. A second time becasue what the OPM was about I have been confronted with in the board discussion again, and then you started to mess around with what I said and trying to give it a shift that I did not meant nor expressed. why this disucssion is going on? Becasue I defend myself against some of your - sometimes simply wrong - accusations to me which I do not just accept to happen and having to swallow them, without reaction.

Exactly what words have I put into your mouth? All I've said is that the line of argument you've been taking (and you do it again in this paragraph with the "Deciding for war" and "killing before being killed" comments) is not appropriate for this thread. And the "words I put in your mouth" were based directly on previous "killing before being killed" statements.

No, that simple it is not, but I will not analyse this whole thread again just to find the exact quotes and their context again. Just that you called me a warmonger where in fact I speak out against stupid wars that are easily decided for, like the ones I quoted for example, and then sees a lot of killing and destruction going on for nothing but follish illusions and final defeat becasue one wanted that silly war but was not willing to get one'S hands really dirty and go for what I call the enemies throat, no matter what - that accusation to be a war monger that was a bit too rich.
Tell me, how many people lost theirmloives in Vietnam? Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? All these wars were fought with at least one hand bound on the back. millions got killed, whole countries were messed up.The communists rule in Vietnam. north Korea is a reality. Afghansitan and Iraq are lost, are failed states, and are breeding grounds for more terrorists than there have been before the war. That's the glory of your limited wars, steve. A whole waste of life - for nothing. Enjoy your civilised approach to war. Maybe you think I must have been a soldier myself to talk aboiut this. You know what I think? That I cannot justify to my conscience to send people under my command into fire for causes like this, if I were a military commander, and that I cannot justify to my conscience the suffering of so many civilians for so little valid missions objectives getting acchieved.

and here is a quote by a British soldier who once lived here, in my second year in my current hometown. He said somehting like this: "All those badhges, and ceremonies, they are just meant to deceive us veterans over the fact that we just got wasted for nothing."

Must you really be a soldier to understand the bitterness and anger and desperation in these words? Check some statistics of your veterans organisation, over traumatisation and brain damages. 30.000 additional troops in Afghnaistan - translates into 7000 additionally wounded. and many of them will not get the propper tratement when they return to the US.

If that all is not a waste of hman life for nothing, then I don't know. Optimists estimate the civilian casualties in Iraq to be around 150.000. Pessimists rate them in excess of 750.000. Terror is on the rise once again. the government is corrupt, the relgious are lying in wait to take over. Was it worth it for you?

In 1995, the Republik of Vietnam relased number ssaying that the war costed 4 million civilions and 1 million troops their lives. The US won every groudn engagement, they say, but it lost the war, fled the country, pulled out from Saigon uner fire. The communists took over. Due to the Paris talks and cuation regarding china, the enemy was not attacked at his heart and thoat, was allowed to rest and resupply, and his ammo stores and SAM sites around Hanoi stayed untouched. that was very diplomatic, very reasonable. And it lost the war. 5 million dead - was the outcome wortzh it for you?

Afghanistan is again the gratest supplier of poppy on the global market, and in our hometown streets young people mess up their lives over drugs, and ome suffer and others die. the ****ry is a failed state, the central government - as always - powerless beyond the Kabul city wall - corruption blossoms everywhere, the enemy moves around at will and can hold out as long as he wants, always evading into pakistan. we can only imagine how many people got killed since 2001. The opportunity to fight there already is very much reduced due to the specific characteriszics of the place and cultural situation, it gets further dmaged by years being wasted with headless military experiments and lacking support for really enage thgere in full strength and maximum detemnrination, doing the fighting that needs to be done and inclduing that of palistan that must be included. It's a ridiculous eggdance of help organisation, politicians, and militaries. Since 2005 I say on this board that I consider Afghanistan to be a stratgeic loss. Once again, it is only about face saving, but the ultimate truth is that the obekective have not been achievd and will not be acchieved, there will be no lasting results in conformity with the intentions anniucned before the war. A defeat, therefor. Another one. Was it worth it, in your opinion?

the Israelis launched the Lebanon war, and soon we learned they were ill prepared, their intel was bad, and they stalled, and even more the politicians lacked the longtime breath to stick to the effort, but collapsed under international pressure to not shoot at enemies if they hide in civiial grouops - which was the norm. Thousands of houses got destroyed, the ifnrastructure seriously damaged, the nimbus of the Israeli armky to be amost invncible got lost, and 2000 civilians got killed. Was it worth it?

And you call me a warmonger!

You say I don't understand you, and then you start into the same rant again! What is wrong with me? How many times do I have to say it? What's wrong with me today is you using a commemorative thread as a springboard for your personal agenda about how you think war should be conducted.

If you would not have accused me with wrong allegations, some of which are simply offensive, all our long talking would notn have taken place. And I was not the only one shifting this thread. BTW. that a topic chnages it's content, is a regular phenomenon in GT. everybody launching a thread has to expect that this could happen.

And you say I'm misunderstanding you? I seem to be very proud of the intention to limit wars etc? Where have I said anything like that?

It is a conclusion done on the basis of the content you said.

Again, you don't know what I think about war. That isn't why I responded in the first place. All I wanted to do is give my opinion on why Roosevelt may have said what he said. You turned it into a fight and a soapbox.

You already admitted early above that you adressed the wrong person for that. As long as I have not missed something, or a compete post, I even did not had it on my mind to deal with Roosevelt's words. I wonder why you are so focussed on that. I have not adressed his words, and did not comment on them.

I would rather label that as sarcasm, and yes I agree that Roosevelt was no more nor less than most politicians in that area. In fact I suggested that that was exactly what he was trying to do in his speech. And I agree that he was indeed trying to get us into the war; there's altogether too much evidence to suggest otherwise. But after I did that you went off on a tirade (actually it started before I came along) insisting on American blindness and Japanese integrity and pretty much derailing the whole purpose of the thread in the first place.

Also a way to give a twist to what I actually said. but however. If you still have not gotten what I am after, another explanation attempt more would not chnage that, I assume.

And that's what got me going, you making the thread about your personal opinion of war and all the rest.

You know what got me started? that people deceive themsleves about how noble they are and how wicked the others were, were the simple fact of the matter is that theothers acted strong and detemrined and oneself acted weak and sleepy and lazy and allowed to get surprised although one could have known it better. I do not buy into that american pöathos about Pearl Harbour, Steve. I'm sorry, but the lives lost oin that day to me are not more and not less special than those sailors surprised on the merchant that got sunk by a submarine. the infantry that got killed on Guadalcanal.The families wiped out in Nagasaki. the prisnoer dying in the japanese camps. on the 6th of Decembre, America allowed to get caught on the wrong foot, by its very own mistake. I could have done better. One's own weakness is not the mistake of the others. It's one's own fault.

Talk is cheap

So why overestimate the impornce of rites and manners in the face of war-scaled killing and destruction.

There you're completely wrong. Much of the congress was divided, as were the public.

I never had any history source, wether book nor film, saying that a significant part of the American public or congress was ready to go to europe. the overwheliing majority, I nunderstand, wamnted to stay out oif it, and only wanted to contribute by material assets to it.

I am very much against all war, unless it's truly needed; and I only see that need being when one is attacked first.

then it could be too late. You ant to make sure you strike at least that decisive second earlier than the other that secures your survival and knocks out the enemy. the argument is over what "that second means". bush's concept of preemptive warfare it certainly as not. your concept of not striking before one already got hit, it cannot be either.

basdic principle in fighting, whether it be war or martial arts or swords or chess or self-defence: you do not want to react. You act.

What lament is that? I started off trying to give you my opinion concerning a single comment. You've been fighting a one-sided battle through this entire thread.

Mostly because of you and some undeserved attack of yours. With the others I came out quite clear, and mostly in agreement.

I feel for you. But have you caused it? Have you had people thank you for the death you've caused? Have you had people shun you just because you did your job?

If you mean that trainee, he survived, and even forgave me, he was a pro and knew it was a trainign accident, no intention. He is even back in the business. He fully recovered, although he spend months in hospital. the only death I ever have caused with intention was a dog that strolled around our camp and that I killed with an arrow, because it looked ill and I did not wish to risk that we would get bitten while sleeping. that junkey also survived. What to some degree I regret. He sued me over "use of excessive force". Later he withdraw, but the court/the state attorney initially accepted the case, which really angers me until today.

"Damn hypocritic remarks"? "Your good intentions"? I have not said one single thing in support of limited war, or of war of any kind. You accused me earlier of putting words in your mouth, of being "different" than I usually am, and of not understanding what you're saying. After that last paragraph it seems to me that they one you should be saying these things to is yourself. Not one angry thing you've accused me of has had anything to do with anything I've said - only your own projections.

then you are not aware of how the complete set of what you expressed comes over here. You accuse me of warmongering, you asked at one point wether I want to criticise you over limited wars (your words), and so on.

What have I said that makes you think I don't understand the Japanese thinking behind the attack? No, none of it makes any difference. We were blind, and we were ignorant. I'll say it again: I only responded to one comment you made, and you ran with that and turned it into this huge long tangled fight; for what reason only you know. Nothing I said involved limited war, or Japanese intentions, or the nature of war, or anything other than one simple word: "Infamy". You did all the rest, and it's obvious that what you think of my opinions and attitudes have very little to do with reality, or with anything I've said.

I assume you mean postings 24 and 29. My reply to you back then was not meant, and I think it did not indicate that, as a reference to Roosevelt'S choice of words. I was abiout the general, widepsread, public perception of the Japanese conduction of their attack having anything to do with beign infamour, or whatever other chamring compliments one wants to use to describe it. and so I explained why I think that is not fair, nor true.

I said quite clearly very early on that remembering the dead has my sympathy, just thatn I do not buy into that infamy!-claim.

Maybe we got stuck in this duelling over something that got very early lost in the long string of words we both have produced, me, but you also. I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for that internet figure named Sailor Steve as he present himself on this board, and I have absolutely no desire to let this fight now go on until we do serious damage and poison relations forever. It seems here are so many knots know that it is unlikely we ever will solve them all again. so i leave it to this status quo now, and just ignore the contradictions and disagreements that still exist. No doubt we could continue to accuse each other of what he said or should have said but has not said and so on, but there is no constructive point in continuing the battle anymore.

So I leave it to this. I hope any eventual hard feelings will dissolve again sooner or later.