|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
posted September 20, 2011 10:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Erm bin laden was CIA and he wasn't trained to fight russians, he was trained to train people to fight Russians  . (he was trained to fight russians but not in the way you put it lol and neither was he trained to train people to fight russians, he was ordered to train people to fight the russians.)
Ah, well, same thing more or less. Right?
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 10:24 AM |
|
|
You implied that the embargo against Japan was a bad thing.
Also the isolationists would have eaten the politicians alive if the us went to war over "pitful" issues like China.
____________
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 10:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You implied that the embargo against Japan was a bad thing.
Also the isolationists would have eaten the politicians alive if the us went to war over "pitful" issues like China.
No, I didn't imply the embargo was a bad thing. I'm trying to say that the Americans weren't neutral to the situation with the pacific. They had already taken actions against Japan. This was soliciting an attack against them eventually. But they did not warn their base in Pearl Harbor, to prepare and defend. That was the bad thing.
You see, President Roosevelt wanted USA to enter the war. Dunno what for, though that's a good thing in my book. Isolationists would have ripped him apart for it, like you said. But after the attack on Pearl Harbor, everyone was lining up to get drafted. And it has be proven that USA was provoking Japan to attack them and let Pearl Harbor wide open for them.
All that was just an example to show you how USA would not care to allow a few sacrifices of their own in order to gain the support of the people for what follows next. Like what I believe is the case with 9/11.
Ofcourse, I don't consider USA's efforts against Japan even prior to the Pearl Harbor attacks to be evil. Quite on the contrary, I think they did not do enough. What I consider a bad thing is that USA allowed the Japanese to take Pearl Harbor just to instigate the crowd's support.
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 10:39 AM |
|
|
Drastic steps would have to be taken in this case. Also I doubt anything short of a direct attack would have changed the public opinion, even if you had 1000 clones of goebbels to show propaganda 24/7.
I should probably mention that undermanning the defenses of pearl harbor was a choice made by the guy in charge of the base.
____________
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 10:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Drastic steps would have to be taken in this case. Also I doubt anything short of a direct attack would have changed the public opinion, even if you had 1000 clones of goebbels to show propaganda 24/7.
I should probably mention that undermanning the defenses of pearl harbor was a choice made by the guy in charge of the base.
The commanding officer may be responsible for undermanning the defenses but anyway, they have not been warned that they were going to be attacked. Other bases around the pacific were issued orders to prepare but not Pearl Harbor. I believe that if such orders were given to Pearl Harbor too, then those in charge would have prepared just as well.
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 11:26 AM |
|
|
Warnings may have been given, but the primary concern for the us naval command was an attack against the east coast cities.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 01:50 PM |
|
|
I don't know why you discuss this bollocks. If the US had known - I mean KNOWN, as in the guys are attacking Pearl Harbour, so let's do something -, efforts would have been taken to save the fleet or to make it more costly for the Japanese.
In fact, Pearl Harbour annihilated the US for a very long time as a Pacific Sea Power, and strategically it was a complete success for the Japanese who could concentrate now on the Brits. No leadership in their right mind had handed the Japanese strategical dominance of the Pacific for at least one year on a silver plate.
A knowing leadership had simply done better. There had been warnings, but those had been dismissed by the regional commanders - there had been no preparation whatsoever, and in case of any real "knowledge" this would have had to be very different - after all, the attack was aimed on MILITARY assets, and all civilian casualties were collateral damage only. The main problem of the US would have been the protection of their military assets, especially if they had known.
So this line of argumentation is complete and utterly illogical.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 01:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If the US had known - I mean KNOWN, as in the guys are attacking Pearl Harbour, so let's do something -, efforts would have been taken to save the fleet or to make it more costly for the Japanese.
A conspiracy theorist would point out there were no carriers at Pearl Harbour.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 02:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If the US had known - I mean KNOWN, as in the guys are attacking Pearl Harbour, so let's do something -, efforts would have been taken to save the fleet or to make it more costly for the Japanese.
A conspiracy theorist would point out there were no carriers at Pearl Harbour.
And he'd also point out that those carriers would be the deciding factor in the later battles.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 02:30 PM |
|
|
In this regard it actually makes some sense as they could finally get the old guard to shut up about their battleships
____________
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 02:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't know why you discuss this bollocks. If the US had known - I mean KNOWN, as in the guys are attacking Pearl Harbour, so let's do something -, efforts would have been taken to save the fleet or to make it more costly for the Japanese.
In fact, Pearl Harbour annihilated the US for a very long time as a Pacific Sea Power, and strategically it was a complete success for the Japanese who could concentrate now on the Brits. No leadership in their right mind had handed the Japanese strategical dominance of the Pacific for at least one year on a silver plate.
A knowing leadership had simply done better. There had been warnings, but those had been dismissed by the regional commanders - there had been no preparation whatsoever, and in case of any real "knowledge" this would have had to be very different - after all, the attack was aimed on MILITARY assets, and all civilian casualties were collateral damage only. The main problem of the US would have been the protection of their military assets, especially if they had known.
So this line of argumentation is complete and utterly illogical.
You know, it never occured to me to see how did the Americans respond after the attacks of Pearl Harbor. Knowing that eventually they responded and won over the Japanese in the pacific was more or less satisfactory.
So now that you posted, it sent me flying over to wikipedia, to see how long did it take the Americans to mount a counter-attack against Japan after Pearl Harbor. What I got instead is this:
November 17, 1941: Joseph Grew, the United States ambassador to Japan, cables the State Department that Japan had plans to launch an attack against Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (his cable was ignored).
Intersting, isn't it? So they knew. No need for further research about it. But chose to ignore it. Equivalent of letting it happen. Either out of stupidity or just to instigate the support of the crowds, which is what I believe. Just like 9/11...
And as for the response of USA to Japanese hostilities. Well, they happened in less than half a year away since Pearl Harbor with the Dolittle Raid and then the famous Battle of Midway a couple months ahead. And from there and on it was one victory after another, the Japanese did not actually win a single naval battle.
So the result out of this, is that pretty much USA suffered little to no damage in Pearl Harbor when compared to whole power of its fleet. Cause as it looks like, they were able to and did respond in a matter of months, not just that but they took the Pacific Theatre by storm.
All they needed was to make the isolationists want to go to war...
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 03:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In fact, Pearl Harbour annihilated the US for a very long time as a Pacific Sea Power, and strategically it was a complete success for the Japanese who could concentrate now on the Brits. No leadership in their right mind had handed the Japanese strategical dominance of the Pacific for at least one year on a silver plate.
Roosevelt: Gosh darn, I really wish we had an excuse to enter this giant war, but those pesky peaceniks won't go for it.
Warhawk General: I know! What if we coax the Japanese to bomb our Pacific fleet when it's in harbor, kill a whole lot of Americans? That'll put the spurs to the American people!
Roosevelt: Great idea! Hmmm... wait, if the Japanese attack our fleet at Pearl Harbor when it's unprepared, and they destroy most of our ships, won't that make it pretty hard to actually win the war once we're in it?
Warhawk General: Details, details... what matters right now is that we get in the war. We'll figure out how to win it later.
Roosevelt: Brilliant plan, sir! Brilliant!
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 03:45 PM |
|
|
Corribus, as a troll you fail miserably.
Anyway, my point's been proven in my post above. Apparently not "most of the fleet" was in Pearl Harbor. Cause wether Americans allowed it or not, the Japanese did attack and destroyed the fleet there, and in a matter of months ahead of that, Americans dominated over them in the Pacific.
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 03:48 PM |
|
|
Proven? The only think you've proven is that you think wikipedia is a completely credible source of information.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 03:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Proven? The only think you've proven is that you think wikipedia is a completely credible source of information.
Heh, man, even if Franklin Roosevelt would rise up from his grave and admitted to it, you would still not believe it. What is so impossible about it? I really don't understand people like you...
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 04:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Proven? The only think you've proven is that you think wikipedia is a completely credible source of information.
Argumentum ad Wiki.
The common logical mistake when, instead of discrediting the piece of information in question, you discredit Wikipedia.
*shakes head*
I thought you were above that, Corribus.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 04:50 PM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 16:50, 20 Sep 2011.
|
Much like in Tora Tora Tora, there is also a belief that the Japanese meant to declare war shortly before the attack but horribly botched the timing, thus making Americans far more enraged. "Awakening the sleeping giant and filling him with a terrible resolve".
Basically the American government did not communicate within itself efficiently and could not get everything together in time. The Japanese government screwed up their timing in declaring war.
It's always easiest to accept the most likely probability that somebody screwed up. Never assume malicious intent when stupidity is a possibility right? =)
That being said, my Dad was alive during world war 2, and he isn't so fond of Japanese. (He's OOOOOOOOOLD)
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 04:51 PM |
|
|
This reminds me a lot about the meet your meat thread.
I think proven is not the wisest word of choice to use. It's somehow beyond any doubt and that should, in my opinion when concerning real world events, obviously never be the case.
I recall only one moment from 09/11-01. I was at home, and my memory tells me I was very comfortable, yet it was so far a day pretty much alike anyone else. Considering how I really disliked school at the time, I think my memory may not be entirely correct, I find it odd I should have all these joyful feelings and I believe them to false and only labelled to that memory, because the memory is in the past.
Checking with my calender it was apparently a tuesday and I'm confident I did not have summer vacation at that time, in other words I must have returned home from school at the time of the attack.
All I recall from the day, despite I felt "safe" (which as stated is probably just some faulty memory due to the events belonging to the past), is that my uncle called us on the phone. My dad answered the call and after they talked shortly, he turned on the news.
There I could see the second tower (I believe) collaps and a lot of dust. I don't know if it was live, though, but I believe I thought it to be live.
To me, it seemed like something far far away, so I didn't really give it much more thought. The media and the schools did, however, so it was something one would be constantly reminded of, despite I did not find it any different than similar events in other places of the world. Incredible tragic, but really out of my hands.
Later on, however, I did get a fear of actual attacks, but I am not convinced if this fear wouldn't have come forward no matter what.
Quote:
That being said, my Dad was alive during world war 2, and he isn't so fond of Japanese. (He's OOOOOOOOOLD)
I'm a little surprised it's the Japanese (which I understand as the Japanese people) he's not fond of. After all, the people who took part of world war II are not the same people you'll meet today. Heck I would guess it's actually only a relative low percentage of any given population who "murders" in wars, and personally, those are the people I think have done something wrong, not everyone of those who happen to be put in the same shoe box [As the example of a Japanese person].
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 04:57 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:17, 20 Sep 2011.
|
Quote:
I think proven is not the wisest word of choice to use. It's somehow beyond any doubt and that should, in my opinion when concerning real world events, obviously never be the case.
Thanks, I'm glad at least someone is smart enough to read and understand my point, rather than spending time trying to lecture me on logic.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted September 20, 2011 05:28 PM |
|
|
My english vocabulary is not very rich but I think I pass along what I'm trying to say. If I had said enhance or validate instead of prove, would it be better?
Anyway, I haven't seen any real counter-argument other than... Wikipedia
not being a credible source, which is rather absolute and well, not so serious...
Though I did say before that no higher arbitrary power records historical events, just humans who could lie; that goes for Wikipedia as well. It's credibility is not entirely beyond doubt either. But if it comes to that, and you can't quote Wikipedia in your argument to prove a point, what then?
I therefore ask Corribus and JollyJoker and whoever else disagrees with me, to say clear and loud "Hitler" and commit a honorable harakiri.
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
