A date that shall live in infamy !

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

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

Striker was the squadron leader. He brought us in real low. But he couldn't handle it.

Buddy couldn't handle it? Was Buddy one of your crew?

Right. Buddy was the bombardier. But it was Striker who couldn't handle it, and he went to pieces.

*Andy* went to pieces?

No. Andy was the navigator. He was all right. Buddy went to pieces. It was awful how he came unglued.

*Howie* came unglued?

Oh, no. Howie was a rock, the best tailgunner in the outfit. Buddy came unglued.

And he bailed out?

No. Andy hung tough. Buddy bailed out. How he survived, it was a miracle.

Then Howie survived?

No, 'fraid not. We lost Howie the next day.

Excellent movie.

Now we return back to the argument already in progress.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird - therein lies the rub. To the US frame of mind - and you saw it again on 9/11 - that "declaration" - or its absence - has a substantial meaning.

Many recall the 1776 Declaration of Independance - where we notified the king of England that we were no longer his subjects. However - how many here remember the 1775 Declaration of Arms? In that document - sent a year in advance of its better known sibling, we listed our grievances and gave the king the opportunity to work with us to address them. In that Declaration, we laid out a rationale that gave us a moral ground from which to stand should we have to declare independance. To the US - from our inception to the present day, we feel that our presence in a conflict should be from a higher moral position than our enemies.

Every conflict, from the Revolution, through the Spanish - American war, both World Wars, Korea and Vietnam, to the actions today in the middle east, have all tried to be presented to the people of America as not only necessary, but morally justifiable. Many of the arguements interal to the US are about that morality of the current conflicts.

Understanding this will make it clear that to the American mind - Japan committed a dishonorable, treacherous act by launching that attack without the declaration first. Hours would have made no difference to the American psyche - because it was clear the attack was begun not on that morning - but weeks before when the forces were massed and then launched. It was not a matter of hours - but a matter of WEEKS in which a nation attacked us without our knowledge. That, to the American mind, constituted the most contemptable, dishonorable conduct, and enabled an astute politician to unite the country by GIVING it the moral high ground to enter the war and see it through.

Had we gotten the declaration BEFORE Nov 26th, the actual sailing date of Operation Z forces, then there would have been no "day of infamy" had the attack still succeeded. It should be noted that the "14 part message" is noted as follows (from wikipedia):

The final part of the "14-Part Message", is sometimes described as a declaration of war, but in fact "neither declared war nor severed diplomatic relations".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

Even after, there was no clear declaration in the diplomatic message that was delivered.

[Skybird]

Well, you said it yourself: "to the american mind", you write. Neither the Japanese nor Bushido is american mind, so why do you think they must obey to it? they did not care so much for YOUR cultural rules. and on the detail discussed here, I also don't read so much importance into it. If you read so much culturally influenced meaning into it, fine, maybe that is part of your identity. But they did not, and I don't either. as I see it you allowed to get kicked big time in your lower bottom, althoiugh you could have avoided it. If you think your cultural identity is worth that, okay. I can only say that I do not tick that way, and even do not really understand it. As I realist I only can realise that you claim you are like that. Why you are like that, can be historically explained, like you tried. But that does not mean that it is useful to be like that. On that day in decembre, it obviously was not.

"Gentlemen, protect yourself at all times", boxing referees say. Bck then america failed to follow that, and trusted in that mishaps or ignoring of rules by the other could and would not happen. Big mistake.

"Readiness is all."

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by 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.

I know. It was meant as a jab.

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.

But as I see it you want to bring it to a "peaceful end" on your own terms; i.e. "I win, now don't bother me anymore". That's unfair.

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".

A great point. But the US was not at war with Japan, so the 'Infamy' charge is justified.

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.

And so did the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor.

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?

You're right, it was unfair of me, doubly so because you apparently missed my meaning. As I said above, it was meant as an underhanded slam on Germany, and nothing to do with Poland itself.

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.

Again you seem to be missing the point that I AGREE WITH YOU! All I ever tried to do was put some context into the 'Infamy' phrase. The whole rest of the argument was one-sided - you trying to prove your points and me not really caring about that. You are the only one fighting here.

I understand you are against war in general. So am I,...and blah blah blah.

And there you go again, of on your personal agenda.

I really do not like to be locked in a fight with you here

You're the only one fighting here. You seem to be so wrapped up in yourself that you didn't even seem to notice my "personal experience" reference. For the last time, I never even took part in your 'limited war' rant. That was all you.

You're right, we're done. But I don't mean that the same way you do.

[Skybird]

Bye, Steve. My patience just found it's limit.

[August]

Ha ha Well done Steve!

That was highly entertaining, a position that went full circle and contradicted itself in just about every way possible.
And all because of an objection to the use of the word infamy which has gone down in history.

[breadcatcher101]

LOL

Sailor Steve and Skybird-- "A Conversation That Will Live In Infamy!"

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Bye, Steve. My patience just found it's limit.

Shirly you jest

[Catfish]

Hello,

ahem Skybird, reading your more Samurai-like take on the outbreak of hostilities towards the USA in WW2, i would really like to hear your take on this "scrap of paper", how chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg described it, about the violation of belgian neutrality in 1914, and England's declaration of war thereon ?

Greetings,
Catfish

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Bye, Steve. My patience just found it's limit.

I love doing this to Skybird!

[August]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I love doing this to Skybird!

If Skybird keeps this up eventually the entire board will be on his ignore list and he'll see the apparent lack of responses as quiet acceptance of his radical views.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Hello,

ahem Skybird, reading your more Samurai-like take on the outbreak of hostilities towards the USA in WW2, i would really like to hear your take on this "scrap of paper", how chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg described it, about the violation of belgian neutrality in 1914, and England's declaration of war thereon ?

Greetings,
Catfish

There is a differenbce between Japan WWII, and Germany WWI. the Japanese were much more pressed for the war, than germany in WWI. I can understand their view of things much better, than I understand Germany's reason to got o war in 1914.

However, der Schlieffen-Plan. It was prepared to counter the enemy in case of a two-front-war. It wanted to deal with the french army first by passing it on the flank via the Blegium and Dutch country, and then from that position pushing the French towards the Alps and the South. When this was acchieved, the german army should bo shifted to the eastern front. Have i rcalled this right, allm in all? guess so.

So you could argue the germans, once they had decided for war, did what they had to do to carry out their attempt to defeat the enemy. They willed the war, and did what they think they had to do in order to win it.

But as I just said, I question the german mtoive for that war, and the mtoives of the others as well. Germany was not under life-threatening economic pressure by France. The shortness of oil however was threatening for the japanese.

As I see it, you want to discuss etehr or not the German were right to ignore the Blgians and just roll over them. Thy did that again in WWII, didn't they. It is called Blitzkireg, and passing the Maginot line through the Netherlands was part of the Blitz. But in both cases, and in the case of the blitz against Poland as well, what we really have to discuss is the morivation for the war, it's reasons. Once there as war, both the Japanese and the Germqany in WWI and WWII did what they did to assure victory, which for example also included the shelling of Warsaw. to me, all ths comes and goes as a consequence of war. The question that I find more important is how one assesses the nation's motives to go to war and attack this or that country.

In WWI, there were strong national sentiments present in europe, in all nations. And glory and pride and lings and emperors and arsitoicrats and all this stuff. All this blinded people and made them easy call for war over reasons that from our perspective today maybe appears as just this: foolish.

The german attack in WWII, the motivation, no doubt must be labelled as criminal and unexcusable. It can be explained by hitler's megalomania and the economic crisis of which he made use, but that is an explanation only, no excuse.

The Japanese attack, as I said imo was wanted and provoked by Roosevelt whco tialired the oil policy that it was a real threat to the Japanese economy. Some people may say the Japanese could be understood that they struck. Others may want to point out that they have had the choice to give up imperial attitudes, leaving the playfield to the US as a dominant player in the pacific, and by that avoiding the need to wage war. As I saee it, it only makes ssense to see it nbot by ideals of the present time'S moral, but by seeing it from the perspwective of the actors back then, and for the Japanese, simply giving up was unimaginable for cultural reaosons that at that time were even more boosted by the nationalism that was strong back then.

But you see, the motives for war are one thing, and as I said: questions yourself often, and check your motives time and again and do not go to war easily. But the motives for going to war - are not the ways in which a war is fought once it is there. that are two different things.

that is probably not the kind of answer you hoped for, but it is the only answer I can give you. If you ask whether or not I find the german motive for going to war in 1914 acceptable: no, I don't think it was. WWI costed the lives of 17 million, and imo it was a very, very stupid and completely unnecessary war from A to Z. But if you ask whether or not I have a problem with the Schlieffenplan: no, I have no problem with it. If the only way to victory in war is to set the whole continent ablaze, I would do it once i am in war and accept to fight it. My motives of going to that war - that is a completely different issue.

check your motives of why you accept to fight a war, be slow to accept war. But if you accept to fight it, let nothing, really nothing hinder you to destroy your enemy - not even Belgium in 1914. Or chinese diplomqatic immunity in Hanoi. Or Hamas setting up battle positions on the roof of civilian houses to provo0ke civilian casualties. go for the enemy, always.

For the same reason, since that may be the next question on your mind, i fully support the german order to the american bomber to drop that 500 pound bomb on those two hijacked fueltrucks in Afghanistan without giving the Taliban a warning first - so that they could escape and on another day fight back and shoot german soldiers. The trucks got neutralised, and as many enemies got killed as was possible. That is positive. maybe they called in villagers to catch some fuel to make the trucks lighter so that they could move on from where they got stuck. Maybe they called the villagers in to provoke civilian casualties and win a propaganda score by that. Civilians got killed, too, we must base on that as fact. That'S war, and that'S what makes war so evil. Nowhere i said to intentionally target civilians (or neutrals nations) for the purpose of targetting and killing civilians . What I say is don't allow the presence of civilians (or neutral states) to go after your enemy'S throat as viciously as you can. that is not the same. Taliban, hezbollah and hamas, on the other hand, intentionally try to provoke the killing of civilians of their own people so that they can boast into the microphones over that, and Hamas and hezbollah intentionally do aim at Israeli civilians for terror purposes, although they do not gain a military benefit from that. the japanese showed great cruelty in the treatmeent of civlians in conqeured cities, and in prisoner camps - for no military gain. All that - is NOT the warrior's way.

[SteamWake]

See I knew he couldent stand it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

If Skybird keeps this up eventually the entire board will be on his ignore list and he'll see the apparent lack of responses as quiet acceptance of his radical views.

I do not ignore Skybird. I do like talking with him. It's all good!