A date that shall live in infamy !

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I see where you're coming from there Skybird, and agree that the United States and indeed the world completely underestimated the Japanese way of the warrior, and the Bushido spirit which presented itself in the kamikaze attacks, Banzai charges and holdouts. Heck, I, as a westerner, find it very hard to get my head around the mentality of that.

What you describe is a very basic view of war and fighting and at the end of the day it is what it boils down to, however over the years there have been rules and codes of conduct, even to some extent the Bushido, drawn up around conflict as an attempt by humanity to elevate ourselves above animals, but when it boils down to single one on one hand to hand conflict in a foxhole, you don't wait for the other guy to draw his weapon first, you maximise your potential to survive the battle and you strike first whilst he is unprepared, he dies and you survive.

But, this sociological discussion is far from the point of the opening post which is not to discuss the political ramifications of the attack of December the 7th, but to remember those on Hawaii who died during the attack, who, due to the modern nature of war and the chain of command, never saw the attack coming until the first torpedo detonated against the hull of the first target.

I said somewhere above that remembering the dead is okay, and has my sympathy. Just the "infamous Japanese" thing is what got my attention, and raises my opposition.

On the rules and codes you said that have been invited over the times, we shall not forget that especially the socalled asymmetrical war with for example enemies hiding in civilian crowds puts the practability (right word?) of the Hague Landwarfare Convention or the Geneva Convention into doubt, for the faction following their principles - while the other does not - accepts immense, and as we have learned: decisive handicaps to it's chances to crush the enemy and avoid getting defeated. In this context I again remind of this reading: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=158490

Ways to elevate ourselves over animals. Well, animals don't wage wars over political or religious claims, and they do not show that monumental ammount of self-aware cruelty like mankind does, so ethically one could argue that they are superior to and more innocent than us . However, war is the absence of a status of peace, it is it's opposite, by it's mere existence if means the absence of order and civilised values, and while your desire is perfectly understandable in a state of peace, entering the state of war means we leave all that behind, and enter a new working mode, a new world, if you want, where other values and priorities rule. So, if we want to elevate ourselves over animals, as you put it, a precondition to do so is finding ways of not needing to enter the state of war. Once we are at war, that idealism is misplaced, and the ambition already has failed.

What it comes down to, is this: War is not civilised, and all claims how to make it more civilised are just self-deceptions, imo. And that'S why there are so many wars, and often fought so half-heartedly. Follow my argument, and you will have far more brutal wars - but not many of them. People would be too afraid to launch them like they were afraid to start a global nuclear war.

[Oberon]

I meant more in the mind of society rather than my own thinking, as I wholeheartedly agree with you in that in a manner of speaking, animals are elevated over us. We, as a society, generally have it drilled into our heads from birth that killing someone is wrong, thus it makes it that much harder to move from a condiction where you shall not kill, to a condiction where you should kill. It's one of the many reasons I dare say that professional army training takes the time it does, that and the teaching of learnt self-preservation instincts plus the acceptable western rules of combat, however some people seem to have less of that restraint than others, perhaps through the negative influence of society or their upbringing, hence we find murderers and such forth.
But, at the basic core of every human being, there is a murderer, it reminds me of a quote from my favourite Star Trek series, Deep Space Nine:

Originally Posted by Quark

"Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people – as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces, look at their eyes..."

Alas, I am wondering off the conversation here and into another topic which is the effect of society on the human psyche, however, getting back to the subject at hand, yes, the rules of war are all well and good so long as both sides play by them, but you get a situation where you are fighting guerrilla fighters and these people are basic warriors, and they use any tactic they can to survive and to kill, rules of war be damned. This is the problem we are facing in Afghanistan, the problems we faced in Malaysia and the problems that have been faced by many other nations over the globe whenever they have gone up against guerrilla fighters and tried to fight using the codes of war...and the word I think you were looking for was 'practicality' but I think I got what you meant
You make a very good point about Basic war, which in a way I guess is a more thorough version of Total war, there are no rules, no conventions, just destruction and I suspect that one day, perhaps sooner than we think, we may find ourselves staring at that again. By making war that slightly less than Basic, by dressing it up in conventions and such forth, we make it more socially acceptable to wage it. In a way, in the western world, war has been shaped around society, whereas in other sections of the planet, and certainly it could be argued in Japan, society has been shaped around war and is thus easier to wage something closer to Basic war which gives you an initial advantage over an enemy confined by regulations and conventions, and also it gives you a socialogical advantage in that your population are more resiliant to the effects of war and support it longer. It wasn't until the Fall of France and the Battle of Britain that the British public really realised that they had to put their muscle behind the war effort and prepare to fight a Basic war to stop a German advance, Churchill knew this, he was prepared to be the first to use chemical weapons, use the young and the old in the Home Guard, anything to kill the enemy and slow or halt his advance. In a similar vein, the Battle for Berlin, with children manning anti-tank guns, another example of basic war, and of course, children are more easily swayed by the words of men than men themselves and their fear of death is not as sharp as that of elder men, perhaps partly due to their shorter time on this planet where that fear of death is driven into them, I have no doubt that many on those guns soon learnt to fear it, and by god I feel sorry for them. Again, I have rambled, but you raise many good socialogical points on humanities view of warfare and I am in a socialogical mood...perhaps this is something I should have studied at university?
I shall end my long ramble with another quote, from a man who I think understood warfare at a more basic level, as he fought in a more basic time:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

[Skybird]

There is a lot on what we agree, Oberon.

DS9 is also a favourite of mine, btw.

@Skybird
@Oberon

Excellent posts, gentlemen.
A man I've always admired for being much more basic than his contemporaries was the US general, William T Sherman. He made some remarkable achievements.

[Biggles]

December seems to be the months of deaths and sad news. We have the attack of Pearl Harbor, (the 7th), the death of Alfred Nobel on the 10th (whom I greatly admire) and, ofcourse, today:

The murder of one of the greatest musicians in modern times.

(sorry to hijack the thread lads).

[Skybird]

Who's that?

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Who's that?

In case you are serious, that is John Lennon. Easily discovered by right clicking the picture

[Skybird]

And ETR3 just said in another thread I have no humour.

[August]

Remember Pearl Harbor.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Roosevelt was not surprised by the fact that japan started war, because I follow those historians saying that provoking that attack by his stangling oil policy was his only way to bring america into the war, something the congress and the wide public strongly opposed untilm Pearl Harbour.

I would say Roosevelt was most definitely surprised that the attack fell where it did, because American intelligence was convinced that Japan would attack in the southwestern Pacific, which was where the oil and steel they needed were to be found. The Japanese also didn't want an actual war, and there is some evidence that the Pearl Harbor attack was meant as a warning to America to stay out of Japanese business. Yamamoto knew he couldn't beat the United States in a protracted war, and though he planned the attack he did so under protest.

Roosevelt most likely was not surpsied by the Japanese attacking, but probably by the sheer scale of the initial attack. and it always is two different things to just talk about and plan for war, and then being confronted by real war in reality.

The US may have talked, but we never really planned for that war, and were very much taken by surprise.

The american policy left the Japanese only two choices, to either withdraw as a strategic major player from the Pacific and leave it to the US, or to hope defeating america in a war. cinsidering their imperial attitude oif that time and the mindset of their traditional code, it was to be expected that they would strike.

But, as I said, not directly against American soil. We expected an attack, but not that one.

Declaration of wars - when you decided to start killing hundreds of thousands and destroy whole cities, i think these civilised acts of elaborated manners loose in relevance. leave them for times of peace and the dinnerhalls and the party at the embassy. In war, the dead are still as dead as before - with or without such a declaration.

It seems you don't understand the Western approach to war. In pretty much every Western war in history, war was declared months beore the first battles took place. Armies were organized and moved into place, and much maneuvering took place before the armies actually met.

Be hesitent to launch war, but when you do, let nothing, really nothing come between you and the ultimate destruction of your enemy. and that is what the Japanese followed. When they decided for war, they planned, prepared, hid as best as they could, and deceived the americans as best as they could, and then struck with all force like a lightning out of the blue sky. They acted with maximum determination and without hesitation form the moment on they decided for war. No time for romantising the bloody business that lied ahead! If it would have gone as the embassy planned, Washington would have gotten the war declaration just minutes ahead of the attck - an you want to tell me that it would have made or would have meant a difference...? You would complain about that they did not give oyu the warning time oyu needed to ready your forces in a better way. In other words: you expect the Japanese to act stupid, and then complain about them not complying with your intention. that is absurd!

As I said before, Roosevelt's speech was part propaganda. The purpose of any war speech is to convince the people of the necessity to fight, and that usually requires whipping up at least a little hatred.

I have another famous story, that is attributed to a heroic figure in Japan, Musashi.... That'S how it is done, Steve. All that rules of honour and politeness and the parade and paying respect - once the war, the fight is decided, all that does not change a thing, it does not mean anything, it only is BIG TIME BULLSH!T. When you have decided for the fight - be a raging bull with mean eyes: strike, shatter, kill. Simply that.

Thanks for the lecture. I'm surprised you don't believe in some God, given the sermon you just preached.

You fight, or you don't. Let there be no in-between. And if God himself steps in your way hindering you to kill your enemy - kill God first, and then kill your enemy.

Another pretty speech, which leads me to the question: Have you ever fought in a war? Have you ever killed anyone? If not, then I have to lump you with the so-called Chickenhawks, who talk big about war but don't really know what they're talking about. The politicians who've never seen the elephant, but are more than willing to tell others how it's done.

Your opinions on Japan's intentions, and what they would have done if they had known the American reaction in advance, are certainly valid, and I agree. But Japan was led by a ruling class who were certain they were invincible, undefeatable, and the rightful rulers of the Earth. They were terribly mistaken about all three, and about what would happen. Even if they could have seen the future and the exact outcome they still wouldn't have believed it. That's what no one anywhere in the West understood about Japan, and what the Japanese didn't understand about the West.

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by August

Remember Pearl Harbor.

I remember.



(that salute looks way to cheerfull, but I'm sure it's intention is clear)

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

It seems you don't understand the Western approach to war. In pretty much every Western war in history, war was declared months beore the first battles took place. Armies were organized and moved into place, and much maneuvering took place before the armies actually met.

Oh I know that. I just do not agree with that view. where time for preparation is needed, that cannot be helped, but to think it is mandatory to be given that time or to give it to the other side - that is - well, I stay polite and say i don't agree with that. Playing by rules is for peace, not for war.

Thanks for the lecture. I'm surprised you don't believe in some God, given the sermon you just preached.

After just having told me that I did not understand the Western tradition of war declarations, it seems you do not understand the nature of war yourself. could it be that there is a link between both statements of yours?

Another pretty speech, which leads me to the question: Have you ever fought in a war? Have you ever killed anyone? If not, then I have to lump you with the so-called Chickenhawks, who talk big about war but don't really know what they're talking about. The politicians who've never seen the elephant, but are more than willing to tell others how it's done.

No I never fought in a war, but I saw places of war, and the rubble still smoking and the meat still smelling, in Kurdish/Eastern Turkey and in Algeria. And I must tell you that most wars since WWII, if not earlier, have been launched by people expecting them to be short and humane and civilised, and not knowing what that means: war. Maybe you do not like the grim cruelty in what I say, but you must live with the fact that it is not my view, but the opinion that wars could be civilised and tamed, that increased their number beyond the inevitable wars, and what made them being fought half-heartedly so that they would last long, and - that is my conviciton - in the end leads to more suffering and higher death tolls and more innocents suffering, then if you would go at the enemy'S throat at all cost from the beginning on. This was not done in Vietnam (give Paris a chance) , not in Korea (beware the Chinese), not in Iraq (Bush'S illusions), not in Afghnaistan (shift forces fromt here to Iraq) - insteasd one foolishly played around, politically controlled and limited the war fighting, took diplomatic care, hesitated because of third parties or innocent getting affected, was scared of using the ultimate weapons. All these wars put high death tolls on the civilians, but still count as defeats, the mission objectives postulated before were not achieved, the enemy after the war sometime was stronger than before. In several other limited military operations against weak, small-sized enemies of no equal capability, mission objectives were acchieved, but still saw the military struggling at times due to ROEs and civilised concerns.

This is a basic, a most fundamental difference in thinking, Steve, what you point at and what I say. and if you look at the aerial mass bombing of cities in WWII with the declared intention to break public moral by terrorising the civil population, you see that the US has once fought by my rules, too, and even more obvious that is in the drop of the two atomic bombs. Whether the air terror doctirne was acchieving its desired result or not, can be argued, obviously it did not, but that is not the point. the point is that the determination to do what is needed to break the enemy, was there. I do not call for the intentional targetting of civilians - but the presence of civilians cannot be an escuse of not targetting your enemy and kill him, at all cost. That is determination to win the war and to kill the enemy. Today you do not see that that uncompromised anymore. Not in Vietnam. Not in Korea, not in Afghanistan. Not in Pakistan. Not in Iraq. Not in Lebanon. the result: failure over failure. we have the superior weapons and armour, like the Western knights had during the crusades. But the other side - has superior fighting spirit and superior morale, even the willingness for self-sacrifice and to slaughter innocents to help it's cause seeing victory. Also our warriors are so highly trained and armed that they are incredibly expensive, a precious ressource that ha sbecome rare and that we simply cannot even afford to lose in too high numbers. You think I am cynical, or big-mouthed. I am not. I am just realistic. We have better weapons, but we lack in numbers, and fighting spirit. And that seats us on the looser's side of the street.

I am the first to admit what I call for is inhumane and brutal. It is. War is like that. War never is civilised. So I say: be slow to start wars, be sure that the issue you fight over is worth it for you, so tht you can justify it before your conscience, because if you wage war, you better do it by unleashing all hell there is. The lie that war can be given a humane face is what made it more probable, and has triggered several stupid wars that would not have been started with less illusions about their possibilities, or would have been fought with more determination and uncompromised basic attitude. And always the troops will be home again before christmas, and Traraaa and Tiriliiih and Tadareda and fanfares. Pah!

I was against the Iraq war, if you remember, and I still am. I also called for a massive major correction Afghanistan very very early on - or to pull out completely, if you remember. I u-turned on my support for the Israelis in 2006 when I realised how ill-prepared they were and that their politicians lacked the needed determination. So don't call me an easy mind or a boaster when it comes to deciding on war. Maybe I just have far lesser illusions than those civilised crusaders they think they can tame the beast and still win the battle...?! and if I am so wrong and the civilised war supporters are so right, I wonder why since WWII all major conflicts have been lost by the US or have been given up by prematurely ending the conflict (1991)? Not to mention the UN with all it's bigmouthed good intentions. In war, good intentions and a civilised posture - means nothing.

[nikimcbee]

I'll just add, the Japanese had been planning to fight the US Navy ever since the 1900's when we started building bases in the Pacific. It was just a matter of time. The problem with the Japanese strategy was, they were too married to their Mahanian naval doctrine. Yamamoto was able to change part of it. (AC vs BB)

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Oh I know that. I just do not agree with that view. where time for preparation is needed, that cannot be helped, but to think it is mandatory to be given that time or to give it to the other side - that is - well, I stay polite and say i don't agree with that. Playing by rules is for peace, not for war.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant to the discussion that started with you calling Roosevelt's choice of words "laughable". I merely explained why I think he used the wording he did. You insist on pushing your opinion that the Japanese view of war is the correct one.

After just having told me that I did not understand the Western tradition of war declarations, it seems you do not understand the nature of war yourself. could it be that there is a link between both statements of yours?

Is the wink to convince me that I should listen to your superior wisdom?

And I must tell you that most wars since WWII, if not earlier, have been launched by people expecting them to be short and humane and civilised, and not knowing what that means: war.

I agree, to a point. Long before the Second World War people told themselves that their war would be a short one. But you keep condescending to people in an apparent attempt to convince them that you're the only one who knows what's right. And I tell you that if you haven't actually experienced it then everything you say is all talk. You may actually be right about some of what you say, but you don't know.

What follows was one heck of a run-on sentence. I had to divide it up to make any sense with my replies.

Maybe you do not like the grim cruelty in what I say,

Really? Grim cruelty? What you say is mostly rhetoric.

but you must live with the fact that it is not my view,

But it is your view. Again you talk down to people rather than discuss it.

but the opinion that wars could be civilised and tamed, that increased their number beyond the inevitable wars

It took me a little time to make sense of that phrase, but I think I have it now. Which wars would have been inevitable, and which ones would not, but came about due to the opinion that wars could be civilized and tamed?

, and what made them being fought half-heartedly so that they would last long, and - that is my conviciton - in the end leads to more suffering and higher death tolls and more innocents suffering, then if you would go at the enemy'S throat at all cost from the beginning on.

Robert E. Lee agreed with you in part, when he said "It is well that war is so terrible, or else we should grow too fond of it." But do you mean that if I disagree with someone I should "cut his throat" before he has a chance to cut mine? And countries should do the same?

This was not done in Vietnam (give Paris a chance) , not in Korea (beware the Chinese), not in Iraq (Bush'S illusions), not in Afghnaistan (shift forces fromt here to Iraq) - insteasd one foolishly played around, politically controlled and limited the war fighting, took diplomatic care, hesitated because of third parties or innocent getting affected, was scared of using the ultimate weapons. All these wars put high death tolls on the civilians, but still count as defeats, the mission objectives postulated before were not achieved, the enemy after the war sometime was stronger than before. In several other limited military operations against weak, small-sized enemies of no equal capability, mission objectives were acchieved, but still saw the military struggling at times due to ROEs and civilised concerns.

Now you're turning this into a diatribe against limited wars? I could discuss each of them in detail, including Vietnam and the War of 1812, but you're dragging this a long way from your original statement, and it's making less and less sense.

This is a basic, a most fundamental difference in thinking, Steve, what you point at and what I say.

That's because you keep meandering.

and if you look at the aerial mass bombing of cities in WWII with the declared intention to break public moral by terrorising the civil population, you see that the US has once fought by my rules, too,

Yes, once the war was underway we changed the rules as we went along. But we were trying to end the war (albiet by winning it), and they had a pretty good idea what was coming. I'm not saying that makes it right, but we were already at war in that case, and made decisions based on that fact; not planning to attack a nation with whom we were not at war.

and even more obvious that is in the drop of the two atomic bombs.

A decision that was fraught with doubts and questions.

Whether the air terror doctirne was acchieving its desired result or not, can be argued, obviously it did not, but that is not the point.

Then why bring it up?

the point is that the determination to do what is needed to break the enemy, was there.

Yes, to break the enemy. Not to pre-emptively attack a potential enemy while he wasn't looking. This discussion is about Roosevelt's words, and nothing else.

I do not call for the intentional targetting of civilians - but the presence of civilians cannot be an escuse of not targetting your enemy and kill him, at all cost. That is determination to win the war and to kill the enemy. Today you do not see that that uncompromised anymore. Not in Vietnam. Not in Korea, not in Afghanistan. Not in Pakistan. Not in Iraq. Not in Lebanon. the result: failure over failure. we have the superior weapons and armour, like the Western knights had during the crusades. But the other side - has superior fighting spirit and superior morale, even the willingness for self-sacrifice and to slaughter innocents to help it's cause seeing victory. Also our warriors are so highly trained and armed that they are incredibly expensive, a precious ressource that ha sbecome rare and that we simply cannot even afford to lose in too high numbers. You think I am cynical, or big-mouthed. I am not. I am just realistic. We have better weapons, but we lack in numbers, and fighting spirit. And that seats us on the looser's side of the street.

Now you're off on a tangent about how we have to be prepared for what we're facing now. Cynical? I don't know. Big-mouthed? No, but certainly long-winded. What you are is unable to argue a small point without writing a book. And changing the subject a dozen times.

I am the first to admit what I call for is inhumane and brutal. It is. War is like that. War never is civilised. So I say: be slow to start wars, be sure that the issue you fight over is worth it for you, so tht you can justify it before your conscience, because if you wage war, you better do it by unleashing all hell there is.

But this discussion is about one leader's reaction to a war we didn't start. The Japanese, at least some of them, tried to play by the accepted rules by delivering a declaration before the attack. We suddenly found ourselves in a war we didn't necessarily want, and you're defending the attackers by talking like a warmonger yourself. Again I say, go fight, go kill someone, then tell me how you feel.

The lie that war can be given a humane face is what made it more probable, and has triggered several stupid wars that would not have been started with less illusions about their possibilities, or would have been fought with more determination and uncompromised basic attitude. And always the troops will be home again before christmas, and Traraaa and Tiriliiih and Tadareda and fanfares. Pah!

I was against the Iraq war, if you remember, and I still am. I also called for a massive major correction Afghanistan very very early on - or to pull out completely, if you remember. I u-turned on my support for the Israelis in 2006 when I realised how ill-prepared they were and that their politicians lacked the needed determination. So don't call me an easy mind or a boaster when it comes to deciding on war. Maybe I just have far lesser illusions than those civilised crusaders they think they can tame the beast and still win the battle...?! and if I am so wrong and the civilised war supporters are so right, I wonder why since WWII all major conflicts have been lost by the US or have been given up by prematurely ending the conflict (1991)? Not to mention the UN with all it's bigmouthed good intentions. In war, good intentions and a civilised posture - means nothing.

Now you've done a bunch of repeating yourself, and explaining why you feel the way you do. None of which has anything to do with the discussion you started.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant to the discussion that started with you calling Roosevelt's choice of words "laughable".

What? I think you remember someone else there. I did not say something like that.

Is the wink to convince me that I should listen to your superior wisdom?

No, just a hint that you are very aggressive and may want to listen to yourself.

I agree, to a point. Long before the Second World War people told themselves that their war would be a short one. But you keep condescending to people in an apparent attempt to convince them that you're the only one who knows what's right. And I tell you that if you haven't actually experienced it then everything you say is all talk. You may actually be right about some of what you say, but you don't know.

Nonsense. Ypou do not know why you want and should fight me off when I come over to you and start putting my boot in your face with strength? Get your emotions cool again. Don't read something into my words, just take them as what I actually have said.

What follows was one heck of a run-on sentence. I had to divide it up to make any sense with my replies.

Really? Grim cruelty? What you say is mostly rethoric.

No. It is a reality. And youb are the one currently dealing plenty of rethorics. I wonder how your day has been. I almost do not recognise you.

But it is your view. Again you talk down to people rather than discuss it

It took me a little time to make sense of that phrase, but I think I have it now. Which wars would have been inevitable, and which ones would not, but came about due to the opinion that wars could be civilized and tamed?

WWII was a war of need. Iraq was a war of choice, and you allowed to get talked into it, being told that it would be just, and bring freedom and democarcy to them, and would soon be over. All the sweet lies by Wolfowitz, oerls and bush and rumsfield - were bought all too willingly. Come on, Steve, what's the matter with you today.

Robert E. Lee agreed with you in part, when he said "It is well that war is so terrible, or else we should grow too fond of it." But do you mean that if I disagree with someone I should "cut his throat" before he has a chance to cut mine? And countries should do the same?

Again steve, what is wrong with oyu today, you never have put so often words into my mouth like you did today. I mean that you should be very hesitent to decide for war (more hesitent than in 2003, for example), and that you should be very sure that you think your acceptance of war (if having the choice and war is not forced upon you) is over reasons that you can now and forever justify to your conscience, before anything and anyone else. And if then you still decide for war, for the reason to you are important and valid enough, you should indeed kill the enemy before he kills you.

Now you're turning this into a diatribe against limited wars? I could discuss each of them in detail, including Vietnam and the War of 1812, but you're dragging this a long way from your original statement, and it's making less and less sense.

To me, you make no sense in here. You have not understood what I say, not even closely. And you give me the impression you are seeking a rumble - that's all. But I will not comply. Your limited war in Vietnam - has killed how many people, and lasted how many years? Your limited war in Iraq has costed how many more people their lives than Saddam tryranny on averga would have killed in the same time? Your self-limitation in Afghnaistan has turned the operation into - well, into what?

I have two problems with that attitude of yours, and this is what I say all about. your illusions - are dangerous, simply that, and they have caused more wars to happen instead of less, and made them probably much more harmful to more people, than if they would jhave been kept as short and hard as I say. you seem to be very proud of the intention to limit wars and making them more civilised, but that5's why there are more wars, and why the suffering of the people lasts longer. and this self-deceptive illusion has made america so uncritcally go Hooray over the Iraq war in 2003.

That's because you keep meandering.

No, that is becasue your thinking about what war should be and my thinking about what war is are totally different. That is why Pearl Harbour was possible, and why until today you cannot understand the Japanese attack, and the stregnth of it, and for that vreason call them "infamous".

I try to understand why you are so totally different a person today than i ever heave read you before. Do you have family members directly affected by the attack? A father or grandfather having been there? Is this the reason why you react so aggressive to my different assessment of the attack, and the nature of war? At least that I could understand as a motivational factor, then.

Yes, once the war was underway we changed the rules as we went along. But we were trying to end the war (albiet by winning it), and they had a pretty good idea what was coming. I'm not saying that makes it right, but we were already at war in that case, and made decisions based on that fact; not planning to attack a nation with whom we were not at war.

Well,later presidents did right that, didn't they. However, you admit that there was determination invo9lved in WWII, and that is what I am talking about. you were going after the quickest possible, most total defeat of your enemy you could plan for, with he smallest risk to your own troops possible, and not allo9ung third parties, ethical coincerns and civilised sorries coming in your way to distract you from that intention of yours.

A decision that was fraught with doubts and questions.


Then why bring it up?


Yes, to break the enemy. Not to pre-emptively attack a potential enemy while he wasn't looking. This discussion is about Roosevelt's words, and nothing else.

Then I do not know with whom you think to discuss, becasue nowhere I have adressed "roosevelt'S words", they do not interest me at all. To what are you actually replying, then? I am about calling the japanese attack "infamous" , and that I agree with those historians arguing that he pressed the japanese into a position where they would attack - so that he finally could enter the War in europe, and later in the thread i was about fighting a war uncompromised and determined, but to quesiton one's motives for going to war thoroughly. Roosevelts words, nowhere i have referred to them, nor is this thread explicitly about them. I'm sure that Roosevelt, like every politician, always spoke honest and true and never tried to manipulate the public. Hm. I fear your are not in the mood today to smile over an attempt of irony, so just delete the last sentence.

Now you're off on a tangent about how we have to be prepared for what we're facing now. Cynical? I don't know. Big-mouthed? No, but certainly long-winded. What you are is unable to argue a small point without writing a book. And changing the subject a dozen times.

No, just illustrations for wars that failed because the support for them was corrupted, and determination was weakened over "civilised2 concerns. That way they turned into a mess, and defeats. and that'S why I am talking about.

But this discussion is about one leader's reaction to a war we didn't start. The Japanese, at least some of them, tried to play by the accepted rules by delivering a declaration before the attack.

Well, if I ever mean you any harm and want to kick you, i must remember to give you a polite warning just a second ahead, so that you have notnime left to react. that makes a big difference, don't you agree. and it is a real important thing considering that I am about to skin you alive and break every bone in your body - politeness never is wrong, isn'T it?
Ah, not your irony day, sorry, I forgot again. Delete the last paragraph.

We suddenly found ourselves in a war we didn't necessarily want,

The public and congress: yes, they did not want to go to war, not against Japan, not in europe. And that was the porblem, because Roosevelt wanted to enter the war in europe for sure. What the public wnated, and what the leader wnated, was not the same, and the latter thus had to trick the first in ortder to convince them. being attacke from the outside - helped. Like 9/11 helped George Bush to declare war on Iraq, although he had to take an unplanned extra route via Afgzhanistan, and still gave wrong reasons for Iraq. Sometimes outside enemies are your best friends.

and you're defending the attackers by talking like a warmonger yourself.

Hell, for the xth time: I am saying that you should be very very careful whether or not you enter a war, I am more hestient to accept a war than most members in the Gt forum. But those I will - i do will to fioght with much more detmerination and vigour, in an uncompormised effort to make it a short business with decisive results. warmonger? No. with my method you would see far fewer wars a slong as there is no powerful dominant side that is invulnerable to the others.

Again I say, go fight, go kill someone, then tell me how you feel.

such pathetic stuff really makes me angry now, after all your lament.

Well, i can tell you how i felt when they started to carry out the wounded at the LaBelle, a bombing attack in Berlin that I witnessed from outside when I was 19, just out of school. I can try to describe how it feels when for the first time you have the smell of burned flesh in the nose, and see almost all huts in that poor village your are being in, turned to rubble or being black with ashes and smoke and the people sitting aphatic, many children looking at you with eyes like long tunnels , making you feel like a martian in the wrong place. I can tell you how I felt when all of a sudden I was attacked by a junkey who put his knife into my side three year ago for no reason, just so, and only years of training and reflexes enabled me to survive and take him out in an action you probably would also consider to be uncivilised and excessive in force, taking him out and hurting him seriously - but made sure he could not strike a second time, and could not escape. Or maybe you want to know how i felt when two years ago I almost killed a trainee by accident, because I had that new job and was running the instruction and overestimated his blocking skills, thus shattering his skull and neck and almost ending his life: I quit after just one week and for months felt in a hole, and worked on in my old job instead. Or during my university time when I voluntarily engaged in a project that saw doctors bringing torture victims from the Balkans to cities in northern Germany and trying to give therapeutic assistance for their traumas. Maybe you want to know how you feel when you sit in a room with a girl aged 17 and you have been told she has not spoken for three months, and you sit with her for one day and half the night and don't dare to move or speak because that could make her panic, so that she just can experience that a human can be around without wanting to hurt her again, and when you leave her, all of a sudden you hear a silent whisper, just one word, like an apology: "Thanks", and you know it is a huge win for her and the first time since long that she had spoken at all, and yu leave the room and break in tears yourself. Do you want to know how it is if you come through a village where the night before the turkish artillery has not left one stone on the other, or a village in Algeria where also over night most adults did not wake up in the morning because they had cut throats - and your boss with just business-as-usual voice gives the command to start shooting with the camera? If that is not to your taste, I could tell you about a former buddy of mine, maybe? He returned from Afghnaistan in 2005, traumatised. You want to help, but he is unavailable to you.you see him loosing his wife, his kid, his job, his future, and you see him becoming tikcing more and more dangerously, and you just canot do anything. I lost him, he dissapeared, nobody knows where he turned to, and most even felt lucky that he bis gone, since they felt threatened, intimidated.

Don't lecture me on violence, and suffering and dying, Steve. I've seen it.

On the japanese thinking, and the way of fighting with determination, or not to fight at all, I also add this, briefly. My mentor and first fighting trainer was Japanese, and quite proud of his family's tradition. From him I learned many of these things, and meditation, and Bushido. Not because he lectured me, but because I saw his example that he lived himself, and found it convincing. He was a colleauge of my father, and became my second father.

One thing you have to understand, Steve, and I mean that serious: you must no necessarily be a soldier and having fought in war in order to understand it's basic nature, or to understand the nature of elemental, physical violence. War is no complicated thing, you see, it is very simple: war is evil, is chaos. People kill, and people die, and those who are left, are changed, will never be the same persons again that they have been before. Violence means to damage and to take life. Not complicated at all. Very simple. nEither you do it, or you dont. No inbetween. No inbetween. So just save me your damn hypocritic remarks on limited wars and the worth of civilised behavior in war. I see every day in the TV news how wonderfull at humane it works. Your good intentions may be meant idealistically, but they only help to make it worse, by making youbweak, making the ar longer, and letting more and more people beign affected by it.

I don't think you understand all this. Like you also do not understand the Japanese "Why" behind the Pearl Harbour attack. Lost in cultural difference, maybe. that does not chnage the fact that America allowed to get caught on the wrong foot. and a declaration, a different tune in the radio, or Roosevelt having tea instead of coffee on that morning, would not have changed anything. america still would have gotten caught off guard.

Now you've done a bunch of repeating yourself, and explaining why you feel the way you do. None of which has anything to do with the discussion you started.

honestly said, i do not even understand what you want from me.