A date that shall live in infamy !

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Biggles

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

Neil Diamond is dead?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

That's always been my understanding, and supports why the attack was such a devasting success--the US really did not expect Japan to sail halfway across the Pacific and launch a massive air attack on PH. Some of the vets I worked with on Cavalla resoration indicated they thought a war was coming with Japan, but when it actually arrived, it was difficult to believe the reality.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

That's always been my understanding, and supports why the attack was such a devasting success--the US really did not expect Japan to sail halfway across the Pacific and launch a massive air attack on PH. Some of the vets I worked with on Cavalla resoration indicated they thought a war was coming with Japan, but when it actually arrived, it was difficult to believe the reality.

The japanese majority saw the pacific fleet as the greatest threat, and yamamoto, having seen America, also saw the industrial potential. It is said he indeed did not wish the war, but the rest of the generals and admirals did not agree. From an American point of view, an element of uncertainty about the when and where of course was existent, but to think the japanese meant Pearl Harbour as a warning only imo is absurd, and completely underestimates them, even more it means to underestimate yamamoto who had collected some experience with the american mentality. I also think that with better cultural understanding on the US side one could have forseen that the Pacific fleet would be the target of their first strike. Unaware of the industrial potential of america, the vast majority of the Japanese military must have seen the American fleet as the greatest immediate threat. And seeing it assembled in just one small place was absolutely irresistable. I never understood why the fleet was so very much amassed even when the diplomatic service had signals that the Japanese would go to war. It would be interesting to know if Roosevelt had any say in that decision. If he ordered it, it would not be the smoking gun proving the theory of him provoking an attack, but it would be a possible hint.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Unaware of the industrial potential of america, the vast majority of the Japanese military must have seen the American fleet as the greatest immediate threat. And seeing it assembled in just one small place was absolutely irresistable. I never understood why the fleet was so very much amassed even when the diplomatic service had signals that the Japanese would go to war. It would be interesting to know if Roosevelt had any say in that decision.

I think Japan did recognize the industrial superiority of the United States, although the full enormity of that disparity could not have been fully anticipated in 1941. She failed to acknowledge, however the capacity for American durability in a struggle lasting a number of years. Japan tried to fight the Pacific War as it had fought previously fought imperial China and Russia. Limiting the conflict by escalating it's material and moral costs beyond what Western Powers, the US in particular, were willing to pay. The strategy was predicated not on American softness or weakness, but American rationality. Americans were businessmen, not samurai. Eventually they would calculate the costs and benefits and come to terms with the realities created by Japanese arms.

Unfortunately for Japan, Admiral Yamamoto engineered the most politically disastrous naval operation in history. Not only did he fail to sink any US carriers, his principal goal, the attack had the effect of uniting and enraging an isolationist America against Japan. Yamamoto was also disappointed to discover the Pearl Harbor attack had been executed before the Japanese declaration of war was issued. The psychological effect on Yamamoto was so great that he became determined to sink the USN carriers thus stumbling into the avoidable disaster at Midway and the catastrophic air war of attrition in the South Pacific afterward from 1942-43. I've never understood why he's so highly regarded by his peers.

There is something else which is very significant about FDR's speech.

It's the last time a USP asked Congress for a Declaration Of War, before sending troops off to their deaths. In that instance, he was the last USP to adhere to the US Constitution.

Had following USPs followed the US Constitution most, if not all, military actions involving USA, in all probability, would not have occurred.

Perhaps it's time for the American People to demand the re-instatement of the US Constitution, without "interpretation", as it was written to be understandable by the common man.

People shouldn't be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

You're right, it was a slight misquote on my part.

My sympathy were people want to remember the dead. But were you call your enemy infamous for having fought as best as he could, all you get is my laughter.

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

Aggressive? I started off trying to explore why Roosevelt used the words he did. You turned it into an attack on everything American.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.

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.

No, my grandfather was too old and my father was too young. So don't try to analyze my motives, because there aren't any. I did have a couple of uncles there, but I don't even remember what they looked like, much less their personalities.

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.

All that you say here is true, but again you're having your own personal argument with me and it's not even what I've been talking about.

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.

Really?

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.

Just the "infamous Japanese" thing is what got my attention, and raises my opposition.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Talk is cheap.

Ah, not your irony day, sorry, I forgot again. Delete the last paragraph.

You should have deleted it yourself. You don't know me nearly as well as you think you do. And Irony doesn't always come through in the printed word.

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.

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

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.

Quite true, and I won't argue that point at all.

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.

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

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

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.

Well, i can tell you how i felt... Don't lecture me on violence, and suffering and dying, Steve. I've seen it.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

Nothing, really, except perhaps to try taking other people at face value, addressing what they say rather than by what you want them to have said.

[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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

I think Japan did recognize the industrial superiority of the United States, although the full enormity of that disparity could not have been fully anticipated in 1941. She failed to acknowledge, however the capacity for American durability in a struggle lasting a number of years. Japan tried to fight the Pacific War as it had fought previously fought imperial China and Russia. Limiting the conflict by escalating it's material and moral costs beyond what Western Powers, the US in particular, were willing to pay. The strategy was predicated not on American softness or weakness, but American rationality. Americans were businessmen, not samurai. Eventually they would calculate the costs and benefits and come to terms with the realities created by Japanese arms.

Unfortunately for Japan, Admiral Yamamoto engineered the most politically disastrous naval operation in history. Not only did he fail to sink any US carriers, his principal goal, the attack had the effect of uniting and enraging an isolationist America against Japan. Yamamoto was also disappointed to discover the Pearl Harbor attack had been executed before the Japanese declaration of war was issued. The psychological effect on Yamamoto was so great that he became determined to sink the USN carriers thus stumbling into the avoidable disaster at Midway and the catastrophic air war of attrition in the South Pacific afterward from 1942-43. I've never understood why he's so highly regarded by his peers.

Interesting perspective, and some new input for me. I need to let it sink into my mind for some time.

I do not buy into that infamy!-claim.

Well since the date has gone down in history as one of infamy so the fact that you don't buy it speaks volumes about your objectivity.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by August

Remember Pearl Harbor.

However...I just can't get over Macho Grande. Those wounds run...pretty deep.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quatsch. Simply Quatsch.

Possibly.

Quatsch. I did not compare to people having fought in wars.

You insist that you know more than me. That's one.

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

How exactly? Again, specifics.

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."

And that's when I explained what I thought he was doing in saying that. And that's when you started in on "limited wars" and your own agenda. And that's when I protested. Where exactly do we disagree on this?

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.

What accusations? That you're using a thread about WW2 to forward your personal agenda concerning modern wars? Show me where I'm "simply wrong".

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.

You don't have to. I gave you your exact quotes, and you refused to address them.

Just that you called me a warmonger where in fact I speak out against stupid wars that are easily decided for

I don't believe I called you a warmonger, but if I did it would certainly be for your "attack first" philosophy. I keep agreeing with you on "stupid wars", and you keep ignoring that fact.

A defeat, therefor. Another one. Was it worth it, in your opinion?

No, and I've said as much many times. But I see no connection between that and a thread commemorating Pearl Harbor. Again I do accuse you of using the thread for your own personal agenda. And you haven't answered that one yet, even though I've said it many times.

And you call me a warmonger!

When?

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.

What allegations? Again, please try to be specific.

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.

Yes indeed. I've even done it myself more than once, and when called on it I've apologized. And posted something about the original topic. But you haven't really posted anything at all about the original topic, except as a springboard for your diatribe.

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

No, it is a conclusion you jumped to based on nothing I've said. I've tried to stay away from your "limited wars" agenda, and when I have given in I've mostly agreed with you. So again, show exactly where I've tried to justify "limited wars". You can't, because I haven't. Again, you have indeed put words into my mouth.

You already admitted early above that you adressed the wrong person for that.

No, I admitted that my "laughable" comment was a little misplaced. Not much though, since your exact words were "But were you call your enemy infamous for having fought as best as he could, all you get is my laughter."

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.

And that had nothing to do with the topic, but to allow you to vent about your own beliefs. Which is okay, I guess, but you took it a lot further than that.

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.

I agree completely, and I agree you were right to say so. And we could have had that discussion, but you turned into a rant about "limited wars". You keep saying I put words in your mouth, but do you deny that's what happened?

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

My comment was a direct answer to your offer to skin me alive and break every bone in my body. And yes, I know you weren't really addressing that to me personally, but you didn't catch that I wasn't either.

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.

When Charles Lindbergh made an anti-war speech in September 1941 he was booed by the audience. Even the biggest spokesman for isolationism, Wendell Wilkie, backed the lend-lease act, and congress had to ratify it before it could be put into play.
http://www.harwich.edu/depts/history/HHJ/iso.htm

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.

So you do advocating starting a war because you think your enemy might start if first.

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.

Sounds like Poland.

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

Lament makes it sound like I was whining, or crying. Where exactly did I do that. And again, what attack are you talking about.

If you mean that trainee, he survived...

I have absolutely no idea who or what you are talking about. I thought it would be obvious I was referring to my own experiences.

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

Your privilege. That's strictly a matter of opinion, and I welcome that. I disagree, but I welcome it.

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

I haven't had any hard feelings over this. I just stated my case and made my arguments. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to dissolve.

[Skybird]

And more unprecise interpretaiton of yours of what I said or meant, in your opinion. Especially the Poland thing this time is a true highlight, nevertheless totally wrong and not representative for what I said.

Steve, this has become a very complex situation, and adressing all the points one by one, and their implications and crossreferences, would cost me one or two hours or more, and that it simply is not worth it for me. I have made sure that where I said you misinterpret me or misquote me, that was for sure what I really have read in your replies. And that is why I stick to everything I answered to you - and refuse to spend half an hour to find every single paragraph, line and word number becaue you ask for the dot above the i . And honestly said: I start to lose oversight here. Not losing it earlier, but now, with your latest reply.

As my second attempt to bring this to a peaceful end now, once again what is the decisive thing for me in all this wordfighting. You may see it different, but that is not what I got from your replies, then. A case of miscommunication, then.

If you are not at war, you have not really enemies, but rivals at best. If you call them already enemies, then why do you do that if you are not at war with them, and they with you.

If you are in the situation of having enemies, you are at war, therefore, and in war it is wise to avoid getting hit by his bomb, but to bomb him before he can hit you. That is called an "active strategy", if you want. it separates the dead from the surviving. My trainer just called it: "always readiness and action: just one".

To bomb somebody who is not at war with you, just because eventually later he may launch a war of surprise against you, is not "active war strategy", but a war of aggression. Bush's preemptive war doctrine qualifies as that.

Your reference to Poland in the context you did, is invalid, because Poland never threatened germany, and thus the german attack was no active war strategy, but a war of aggression. But I was talking not in defence of wars of aggression, but the difference between acting and reacting, as you can easily see in the context. To indicate that I mean to attack a peaceful neighbouring country is an exmaple illustrating what in that context I said about acting and reacting in war, is - misleading, and unpolite, to put it that way. Germany was not threatened by Poland, and I have no reason to propagate a war against them as just a war action that can be defended, or a war that was ustified. Do you see the difference?

Now compare to Iran, a possible military strike or war against them. You maybe are tempted to think that we are at peace with them, and if we initially strike them, that would be a war of aggression. But fact is that the Iranians already are engaged in war against the West and israel and already are engaged in killing our people, by money, by assiatnce, and by their own commandos. The word to watch out for here is "terrorism" and the funding of it. the situation compares to the moral argument to why the war against afghanistan assisting Bin Laden is said to have been justified. As I see it, we already are at war with Iran, becasue they have stzarted to wage war on us longer time ago, wether we like it or not. and that is why I do not rate a sudden military strike against them as a war of aggression in the way germany attacked Poland. - If I currently think a military strike is justified or can achieve what it hopes to achieve, is something totally different, and I leave it out of the discussion, so do not refer to it. It has nothing to do with the point I am about.

and the point is, true for ancient wars, modern wars, personal fights and conflicts in general: either you are in a state of conflict, or you are not. Both are two totally different states, especially in case of war and peace, and needs to be seen by different rules, priorities and values. If you are not in a conflict, do not touch your enemy, for you have no enemy. If you have decided that you are in a state of war, strike first, strike hard, strike by suroprise, stay focussed on the enemy's killing, don't get distracted, don't allow scruples to hinder you. KILL HIM as fast as you can, with as little risk for yourself as you can, don't wave flags and don't hold speeches, don't pray and don't accept anybody cming between him and you, even accept the chance you get killed yourself (if you don't , then the war is not worth it for you) - KILL HIM.

That is all I am about. And what I say obviously is situation dependant, something that you atv least sometimes have not realised as I conclude from several comments.

the Japanese' imperial policies are one thing, and can be questioned. I did not touch them much. but the way they fought once they decided they were in a conflict that has been enforced on them by the situation around the oil, they fought - and very much like I outlined you should fight once you are in a fight.

Be hestitent to accept a state of conflict if it is not enforced upon you. Test your conscience, check your motives over and over again. Don't be easy to accept fight/war/conflict. Try to influence situations so much in advance that conflict is not needed. that is meant by saying: winning without fighting.

Now do not take something out of context again, or make assumptions on what it eventually could mean when I say this or that - just take my very word in its context, not more, not less.

And then prove me wrong, if you can.

I understand you are against war in general. So am I, but i also know that sometimes war is enforced on us, and leaves us no choice, refusing it then does greater damage then to fight it. many confloicts we find ourselves in, in politics and the ME, we have created ourselves, they are just echoes of old policies of ours. Some conflicts we cannot avoid. I see such occasions to be much rarer than politicians claim. But to quote from the Lord of the Rings: those refusing to take up a sword - still can get killed by a sword. Weakness is no virtue. Weakness is: weakness. It leaves you no choice. Choices you only have when you are strong. Be strong, therefore, and be ready - but be hesitent to use your strength if you can avoid it, do not use it for no other reason that you have it. Because being strong also means: to have the choice not to use it.

Either you agree with this fighting attitude, or you don't. Either you understand the fighting-related part of Bushido, or you don't. Fighting is part of bushido, but bushido is not only about fighting.

But to continue this insanely pinpoint-focussed communication in writing, imo is wasting time, and plenty of it. what I said about quotes of yours, is true, I said those replies carefully every time I did, becasue I really do not like to be locked in a fight with you here, with some people on this board I simply do not wish to fight. If you really are interested in finding all the examples, then analyse this thread yourself again, which already is a very time.-consuming thing. I just don't spend another hour in here.

Sky

[Skybird]

Neal, can I somehow turn on "quotes in quotes", when quoting other people's posts? In such a complex situation like here, quoting Steve's reply and adress it point by point, but his quotes of me to which his paragraphs refer not being visible in the reply I write, doe snot help and makes it incredibly difficult. I spend more time with scrolling up and down and reading to what he was refering, than with writing.

This communication here with Steve easily qualifies as the most complex dead end I have ever been confronted with in ten years. That'S why i think it is impossible to solve it adequately. there is too much quotes regarding reference to a reference to a reference that before was referenced to.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird - in your discussion - you have now answered your original question.

"Why is a day of infamy?"

Allow me to quote you on your above quote to Sailor Steve:

To bomb somebody who is not at war with you, just because eventually later he may launch a war of surprise against you, is not "active war strategy", but a war of aggression.

By that statement - you recognize that Japan - not being in a state of war with the US on or prior to December 7th, launched a war of aggression against the US. That is why it is a day of infamy to America.

[Skybird]

You are about buraucratic formalities of war. And I think I have said in all clearness, that leaves nothing to be desired, what I think of formalities like that in the face of war-like destruction. You also misunderstand the meaning of "killing the enemy once you have decided to fight."

the Japanese decided for war before they planned the attack. From that moment on - they were at war. what you refer to, is for peanut counters. And they lost their head.

BTW, the officers with the fleet mujst have assumed that the note was given and even formally they were at war indeed. that it was delayed they learned - afterwards. Not that I care. As I see it, if the note would have reached the WH ten minutes or so in advance, it still would have not made any difference, and would have meant nothing.

What does it mean? Nothing. You wave a piece of paper, considering it to be precious. You have a parade at the beach, and considering the rules of politeness - Musashi jumps out of the boat and cracks open your skull. Who is the winner here? What does your paper and your parade change in that? it reminds me a bit of Chamberlain leaving the plane, waving his prcious paper, too. The dice already had fallen differently, and he should have known that his paper meant nothing.

That'S what I mean when I said: even if God comes between you and your enemy - kill God first, and then kill your enemy.

Japan has committed acts of great cruelty in China, and throughout asia. much of that was not covered by what I describe as fighting determination. they targetted civilians for no other purpose than targetting civilians without having a military gain from that, and no enemy around, and no enemy infrastructure effected. That is no fighting spirit, but a useless massacre. All war is a massacre, but if the massacre brings a military gain, it is called a war, if it does not have that gain it is called a massacre. Word games - like the war declaration. the dead are still as dead. in the end they only tried to bring the war declaration in time so that these formal, though hollow, accusation could not be brought up against them once they had won the war: that their strike was infamous. That is not good for later diplomatic relations.

does it tell you anything that they planned to deliver the note just minutes in advance, and not hours or days?