Monsieur Quebec- Whether or not FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor is an issue that has been debated since WW2. (It has also been suggested that Churchill knew about it, but kept quiet in order to bring the U.S. into the war.) The military believed that a Japanese attack was imminent, and that the target was Singapore. The Japanese did not bomb Pearl Harbor because they were goaded into it, it was a strategic decision on their part which failed. The Japanese mentality and the U.S. mentality never really penetrated each other. After the Japanese invaded China, the U.S. responded by leveling economic embargoes on them. Steel, rubber, and oil were no longer sold to the Japanese. Needing these things to sustain their navy, the Japanese felt they had little choice but to press on to the oil fields in the Dutch East Indies. In order to do so, the U.S. Pacific fleet had to be dealt with, hence, the attack on Pearl Harbor. (By the way, the sneak attack is a highly regarded tactic in Asian military culture.)
Americans were concerned after the Japanese invasion of China, and not because of losing the “China Market”. They were actually concened about the spheres of influence that they had established there after the Boxer Rebellion. The Japanese had snatched up the German possessions in China after WW1, they just kept expanding them. As for the American response, look into the history of the Flying Tigers. And we did liberate the Chinese, it just took us 15 years to do it. Plus, we were following the first rule of warfare. Never get involved in a land war in Asia. What we were doing in the 1930’s to early 1940s was pursuing the policy of isolationism, staying out of world affairs. If I remember correctly, right now we are being blasted for getting involved in world affairs, but somehow we should have been involved in them prior to WW2? Make up your mind, you can’t have it both ways. By the way, for those of you who don’t realise it, we aren’t a democracy. We are a representational republic. Except for California. They are as close to a democracy as we get.
Thank you for the information on Pal, I will have to look into that. I still remain skeptical that the allied attrocities in the far east overshadowed the Japanese attrocities. Did you look at the URL address I provided? I find it interesting that an Indian national in the 1940s would have had any experience in international law. I take it he was educated in England? The reason I ask is that up until the end of Brittish imperialism, most of the territories under Brittish rule tended to be segregated societies, with very few non-whites able to achieve higher education and top level administrative jobs.
Z-Man-What were you doing in Arabia? My cousins lived there for about three years in the 70s, but the closest I ever got there was Israel and Egypt. Personally, I think that a number of problems stem from our ideas of nation-states being overlaid on a culture based more on tribalism and family blood-ties. Any ideas?
Restless, what is your fascination with the vietnam war? What is up with the insistance that the usa killed civilians by the millions?
If it was so bad, where was your country?
And if we were so bad, please tell me why a very large amount of those same citizens fled those countries and came here in the usa to live? BTW they are commonly referred to as Hmong, and I personally know a few of them.
You do realize their govts made them fight in battle as regular soldiers at age 12-14, depending on size and maturity. One of the guys I met at my former job was 13 and drafted into army. Ker even got a few medals, and to this day he still will get very very mad if he ever sees the communist north vietnamese flag. Good example was during one of those “pc event days” at work, think it was called “nationality day” or something cheesy. Anyway the organizer of it acquired flags from all the countries that were represented by the workers there. Well the organizer wasn’t the brightest bulb, and instead of taking the non communist vietnam flag she put up the communist northern one.
Ker walked into the atrium that morning, looked up and saw it. Immediately yelled, ran upstairs to where it was hung from (over balcony in an atrium), tore it down, ran out back door and burned it right there on the patio. Since he was yelling in his native tongue nobody knew what the heck he was saying, finally he calmed down and told us it was wrong flag.
So yeah, since the usa was so evil and just randomly killed civilians him and probably a million or so of his fellow citizens just decided to move here… yeah right
I think I said before that I don’t accept other’s faults as a justification to your own rotten actions. The vietnam example is just one of the most flagrant examples of the good guys military actions. Laos is probably the most brutal one though.
As a side note, accroding to the UNICEF report just published over one thousand children have entered Iraq’s hospitals either death or injured by undetonated bombs used by the USA, inclusively cluster bombs, which I thought were forbidden by international laws. Not that this would ever stop you but anyway. Obviously the number of infant deaths is a lot higher has most are just buried without even passing the hospital.
Is this enough of a revenge for 9/11? Are you all happy?
“Whether or not FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor is an issue that has been debated since WW2.”
You can’t deny it anymore because it’s all in the declassified record. Robert Stinnet (US Navy 1942-1946, got 10 battle stars & a Presidential Unit Citation) wrote a book called Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR & Pearl Harbour which quotes the declassified record extensively & it says that FDR knew what he was doing & steered Japan into the war on purpose.
the UNICEF report just published over one thousand children have entered Iraq’s hospitals either death or injured by undetonated bombs used by the USA, inclusively cluster bombs, which I thought were forbidden by international laws. Not that this would ever stop you but anyway.
And to think, we depreived Saddam of killing these kids himself.
Still, as awful as this is, and it truely is distrubing, this nightmare will be over soon in Iraq because the US did something. If we didn’t do soomething, thousands upon thousands of Iraqis would continue to die under Saddam’s rule, and sooner or later he certainly would have developed a nucluer weapon. How many people would die then?
For your fuckin information, President Bush’s dog is black and vicious. It has never been fed alcohol either.
I rest my case.
(Hey, I dont know what im talking about either, but I figured ‘hey why not join in the fun and say something stupid and moronic the way Restless does’)
Monsuier Quebec-I’m aware of the book, but have not read it myself. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that I have, and what you are saying is true, FDR let the Japanses attack Pearl Harbor so that America would be roused to action. (By the way, I’m not doubting the fact that FDR wanted America in WW2. For two years prior to U.S. involvement, he had been steadfastly supporting Churchill, even in violation of U.S. nuetrality laws. It was determined that Nazi Germany was a greater threat, so priority was placed on the Eueopean theater, even though Germany never attacked us.) So America was led into WW2. What of it? Are you arguing that we should not have been involved at all? Or is your argument that by deliberately involving America, FDR is guilty of war crimes? (War crimes, by the way, are always determined by the side that won. I can imagine that Churchill would have been hung by the Nazis had they won.) Incidentally, the Republicans after the war always had a sneaking suspicion that we had been tricked into the whole mess, and were anxious to return to isolationism.
Restless –
Aside from the fact that there is an ongoing debate as to whether the U.S. ordinance falls under the definition of the illegal cluster bombs, which you pointedly ignore (obviously the U.S. is arguing that the bombs are not in fact cluster bombs banned under whatever treaty it is that would ban them), you seem oblivious to the concept that there will always be collateral damage to military actions. There has never been a military campaign that was devoid of civilian casualties.
Whether you think it counts for anything, the U.S. has attempted to minimize casualties, both among the Iraqi military (by accepting surrenders and allowing retreats rather than the mass slaughter that was possible) and among the targeting of strategic infrastructure and military structures in the bombings. Compared to any historical campaign, or compared to any recent military campaign by any other nation or group, the U.S. has taken utmost care to avoid casualties and to minimize damage. If you can cite to me other campaigns of any significant magnitude in which a greater amount of care was taken, especially with civilians, I will begin to take your natterings more seriously.
“Compared to any historical campaign, or compared to any recent military campaign by any other nation or group, the U.S. has taken utmost care to avoid casualties and to minimize damage.”
I think you believe everything you see on TV. In Afghanistan, which hardly had any hard targets anyway, the USA attacked schools, Red Cross facilities, refugee camps, they got Pakistan to stop sending fuel supplies & truck convoys which carried things like food. The border with Pakistan was also sealed under US pressure so the refugees couldn’t escape. The Cheif of British Defence Staff, Admiral Michael Boyce even said: “The squeeze will carry on until the people of the country recognise that this is going to go on until they get the leadership changed.” Turkey has dams on the Tigris & Euphrates, & during the 1st Iraq aggression, the USA pressured Turkey to shut off Iraq’s water supply. Turkey didn’t, but the US intentions there were pretty clear. Instead they attacked water supply stations & water treatment plants, etc, basically biological warfare. Imagine somebody doing the same in Boston. There would be disease, 1000s of people sick, etc.
LOL Lets look at the FBI definition of terrorism:
The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorists:
? Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
? International terrorism involves violent acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which the perpetrations operate or seek asylum.
Now apply that definition to what the USA has been doing around the world for the last ~50yrs or so.