Reflection on Pearl Harbor Day

[Guest Derek L]

Perhaps we’re wrong though Göring was one of the first animal rights activists, and Hitler one of (if not the first) world leader to impose bans on smoking and was a staunch vegan……Hmmmmm........This clearly demonstrates there are Nazis everywhere today

[Guest Manny]

Well despite all my efforts and evidence you are of course entitled to your opinions.

I know there are a few others here, staunch military historians who would not let me get away with anything if I am wrong. And they have remained silent on this part of the thread. So I believe, I am not wrong. At least not grossly wrong, in as much as anyone can ever be right about complex matters of history.

I could go on about other aspects not purely military, but this is not a thread about nazism. And since Nazism threads tend to be very long, and argumentative, I don't care to.

[Guest Derek L]

Well despite all my efforts and evidence you are of course entitled to your opinions.

I know there are a few others here, staunch military historians who would not let me get away with anything if I am wrong. And they have remained silent on this part of the thread. So I believe, I am not wrong. At least not grossly wrong, in as much as anyone can ever be right about complex matters of history.

I could go on about other aspects not purely military, but this is not a thread about nazism. And since Nazism threads tend to be very long, and argumentative, I don't care to.

Fair enough, but you are the one that suggested "their ideology survives. Thrives, even"....Perhaps another day

[jbg]

Saw this quote on the twitter feed for @RealTimeWWII today:

Made me laugh at jbg's post above.

On December 8, 1939, Americans were more concerned with their "legitimate shipping" to Nazi Germany.

What event happened on December 8, 1939? I said nothing about "1939" in my opening post.

Would have been nice if there was an "agonizing" debate condemning Germany's (and the USSR's - don't forget) attack on Poland a few months earlier etc etc...

And Germany would have behaved itself like a model citizen after such a resolution?

The whole OP is just bunk. Listen to some of this stuff...

There was probably be an agonizing debate about even seeking a U.N. resolution condemning the attack.

The U.S. did literally nothing for about a month after September 11. Is that bunk?

The UN, Nato, and various other ad-hock alliances go to war at the drop of a hat these days. In fact... the hat doesnt even have to drop. All you need is even the vaguest low-quality "intelligence" saying the hat MIGHT drop and we're bombing some random country.

Wars you would scarcely recognize as such.

What I assume hes talking about here is the critism of these mis-adventures from within western countries. But that happens for the reasons i mentioned above. People dont trust the joke that western intelligence agencies have become, and they have a hard time supporting unprovoked wars on aggression, and the mixed signals soldiers get about how to conduct themselves in foreign land, from shitty civilian leadership.

***********

The UN, Nato, and various other ad-hock alliances go to war at the drop of a hat these days. In fact... the hat doesnt even have to drop. All you need is even the vaguest low-quality "intelligence" saying the hat MIGHT drop and we're bombing some random country.

Yes. After Carter's restrictions on intelligence gathering it's not what it could be. Mossad's is a lot better.

In short there would be self-flaggelation rather than defense of national interests.

What I am referring to is the endless blame-game we play on ourselves where we justify what, put simply, is a massacre by Arabs of Westerners.

[Guest Manny]

Fair enough, but you are the one that suggested "their ideology survives. Thrives, even"....Perhaps another day

I don't care much for provocative, unending pissing wars, as some other posters seem to. It does not interest me. But I like to make my claims, argue my case for a bit and then move on. It's not my purpose to convince you, since in a way you are my debating 'opponent' and so likely will never concede to my views. Certainly not publicly. And there is no neutral panel that votes on who is the "winner". Which makes me wonder why any of us even bother around here.

[dre]

The U.S. did literally nothing for about a month after September 11. Is that bunk?

Wars you would scarcely recognize as such.

Yes. After Carter's restrictions on intelligence gathering it's not what it could be. Mossad's is a lot better.

What I am referring to is the endless blame-game we play on ourselves where we justify what, put simply, is a massacre by Arabs of Westerners.

The U.S. did literally nothing for about a month after September 11. Is that bunk?

No, it just does nothing to support your bogus claims.

What I am referring to is the endless blame-game we play on ourselves where we justify what, put simply, is a massacre by Arabs of Westerners.

[Guest Derek L]

I don't care much for provocative, unending pissing wars, as some other posters seem to. It does not interest me. But I like to make my claims, argue my case for a bit and then move on. It's not my purpose to convince you, since in a way you are my debating 'opponent' and so likely will never concede to my views. Certainly not publicly. And there is no neutral panel that votes on who is the "winner". Which makes me wonder why any of us even bother around here.

Entertainment and/or lack of quality TV programming

[Guest Manny]

After Carter's restrictions on intelligence gathering it's not what it could be.

Whatever one president does, another president can undo, in a democracy. So blame all the rest for this line of thinking as well.

But I suspect the problem with quality of intelligence gathering got a lot worse in recent years, not since Carter. It's not unlike the politicization of science. Eventually it becomes a tool of propaganda.

[Guest Manny]

Entertainment and/or lack of quality TV programming

Haha! Thats it.

[msj]

What event happened on December 8, 1939? I said nothing about "1939" in my opening post.

And Germany would have behaved itself like a model citizen after such a resolution?

Whoosh, right over your head.

[jbg]

But I suspect the problem with quality of intelligence gathering got a lot worse in recent years, not since Carter. It's not unlike the politicization of science. Eventually it becomes a tool of propaganda.

Mossad's is still pretty damn good.

[Guest Manny]

Mossad's is still pretty damn good.

Too bad for you the US government did't listen much to Mossad, in August 2001:

The US administration, CIA and FBI received multiple prior warnings from foreign governments and intelligence services, including France, Germany, the UK, Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Morocco and Russia.[3][31] The warnings varied in their level of detail, but all stated that they believed an Al Qaeda attack inside the United States was imminent. British Member of Parliament Michael Meacher cites these warnings, suggesting that some of them must have been deliberately ignored.[32] Some of these warnings include the following:

August 2001 - The Israeli Mossad gives the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate#Israel

Well you can't blame Yimmy Carter for that one.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Manny

[Michael Hardner]

But I like to make my claims, argue my case for a bit and then move on.

I like that. But I also thought that's what Derek was doing.

[Guest Manny]

I like that. But I also thought that's what Derek was doing.

Yes, he behaved himself very well. For now

[jbg]

August 2001 - The Israeli Mossad gives the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.[/i]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate#Israel

Well you can't blame Yimmy Carter for that one.

If true that's criminal negligence. The C.I.A. doesn't enjoy being upstaged, unfortunately. Their patriotism should have, but didn't, take front seat to their vanity apparently.

[GostHacked]

If true that's criminal negligence. The C.I.A. doesn't enjoy being upstaged, unfortunately. Their patriotism should have, but didn't, take front seat to their vanity apparently.

Was not just Israel that warned the USA, Germany did as did the Brits.

[Michael Hardner]

Without context, these points really are meaningless. If you and I received a threat, it would be a significant event in our lives, but the US is constantly under threat so we can't apply a personal paradigm to such things.

How credible was the threat ? How many threats were communicated normally ? How was it handled ?

There are many questions that need to be answered before one assumes prior knowledge was ignored, and indeed the questions can't be answered because it would reveal the inner workings of the security system.

I do know from first hand experience that information travels through large organizations with much difficulty.

[Guest American Woman]

Too bad for you the US government did't listen much to Mossad, in August 2001:

The US administration, CIA and FBI received multiple prior warnings from foreign governments and intelligence services, including France, Germany, the UK, Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Morocco and Russia.[3][31] The warnings varied in their level of detail, but all stated that they believed an Al Qaeda attack inside the United States was imminent. British Member of Parliament Michael Meacher cites these warnings, suggesting that some of them must have been deliberately ignored.[32] Some of these warnings include the following:

August 2001 - The Israeli Mossad gives the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.

It's impossible to know if any of that is true, and if it is true, what the U.S. did/was doing about it. The U.S. is a large nation both geographically and population-wise, and a vague warning wouldn't mean that the U.S. government should have known about 9-11 and been able to stop it - and the fact that they didn't doesn't mean that nothing was being done about possible terrorist threats. Now the government is more open about it - perhaps to ward of claims that they aren't taking information seriously and/or aren't doing anything about it - and as a result now it's perceived by many critics as "paranoid" and/or "taking away liberties."

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Seems to be so often the case - along with those with 20/20 hindsight who are so quick to criticize people who didn't know at the time.

[olp1fan]

Poor AW always having to defend her backwards nation to us Canucks even when she is wrong

Edited December 10, 2011 by olp1fan

[Guest Manny]

Poor AW always having to defend her backwards nation to us Canucks even when she is wrong

It's a lot of work.

One should not feel personally responsible, or obligated to excuse one's government, or nation. Unless of course you feel it is your personal mission somehow, to right any and all misconceptions people hold. Good luck with that. Your bones will be dust, and the criticisms will continue

[Guest American Woman]

Poor AW always having to defend her backwards nation to us Canucks even when she is wrong

Do tell. Why does one worry so much about whether or not a "backwards nation" is "snubbing" one's Prime Minister?

I've got your number.

It's a lot of work.

Unless of course you feel it is your personal mission somehow, to right any and all misconceptions people hold.

"Misconceptions" being the key word. But no, I feel no "mission" to do so. I realize there will always be misconceptions about the United States and realize that some people actually thrive on believing/perpetuating the misconceptions.

But here's the thing - I'm simply engaging in discussion, same as you all are. You are stating your take on it, I'm responding. No difference. Unless you feel I should simply not respond to anything that's said about the US, and simply accept it?

Good luck with that. Your bones will be dust, and the criticisms will continue

Believe me, I realize that. As I said - damned if you do, damned it you don't - and it says every bit as much about those engaging in the "criticism" as it does about the US. Perhaps, likely in many instances, more.

Edited December 10, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest Manny]

I'm simply engaging in discussion, same as you all are. You are stating your take on it, I'm responding. No difference. Unless you feel I should simply not respond to anything that's said about the US, and simply accept it?

Sometimes the division between views is drawn along liberal/ conservative lines. But there is another type of separation- those who criticize the state, and those who defend it. Or make excuses, etc. I think you are more in the defender/ excuser clique. Of course, no normal person is completely one-sided, so likely you do sometimes criticize your government. (?)

But I know that's what I prefer to do, criticize those in power. And it doesn't matter whether they be the Canadian government, US, or other. Or powerful banks, powerful corporations, any organization that seeks to consolidate its power and use it to take advantage of the private individual.

Because in the end I truly believe that the rights of the individual person must necessarily exceed the rights of the larger collective. That may seem strange and unusual but I believe it is true, in a very specific way. This is the real message of Jesus, and it will be the morality of the future, one day I hope.

[Guest American Woman]

Sometimes the division between views is drawn along liberal/ conservative lines. But there is another type of separation- those who criticize the state, and those who defend it. Or make excuses, etc. I think you are more in the defender/ excuser clique. Of course, no normal person is completely one-sided, so likely you do sometimes criticize your government. (?)

You don't know me at all, so that you already "think" what you do says a whole about you. My post was not "defending" - I brought up legitimate points - which you totally ignored and instead came back with this ludicrous narrative on what "type" of person I am.

But I know that's what I prefer to do, criticize those in power.

Why? Why would you prefer to "criticize" if no criticism is warranted? What's good about that? Critical thought is what's good, and I pointed out the truth of the matter. We don't know if your claims are true. They have been refuted. Furthermore, to insinuate a vague warning should have prevented 9-11 is beyond critical. To insinuate nothing was being done about any threats received is nothing more than your take on it - you have no inside knowledge. To claim that the government should have been able to prevent l9-11 based on the information you think they were given is nothing more than "hindsight vision is 20-20" mentality, just as I pointed out.

You seem to think your view is the only valid view - that mine is somehow 'wrongly defensive' - as you failed to refute anything I said.

And it doesn't matter whether they be the Canadian government, US, or other. Or powerful banks, powerful corporations, any organization that seeks to consolidate its power and use it to take advantage of the private individual.

I don't recall seeing you criticize your government for lying about your involvement in Iraq; I'll have to go back and check, but even if you did - and you should - your automatically criticizing any country, any corporation, amounts to "mindless" criticism to my way of thinking. Again. "Criticism" isn't necessarily the wonderful thing that you seem to think it is.

Because in the end I truly believe that the rights of the individual person must necessarily exceed the rights of the larger collective. That may seem strange and unusual but I believe it is true, in a very specific way. This is the real message of Jesus, and it will be the morality of the future, one day I hope.

That's all well and fine that you "believe" that, but you haven't refuted one thing I've said. You haven't addressed one thing I've said. You've totally ignored everything I said, everything I brought up. There was not even an attempt at discussion on your part.

Why is that? Care to do so now?

[Guest Manny]

You don't know me at all, so that you already "think" what you do says a whole about you. My post was not "defending" - I brought up legitimate points - which you totally ignored and instead came back with this ludicrous narrative on what "type" of person I am.

Not person, poster. The posts you make are not indicative of your person as a whole. At least that's the way I think. I am not criticizing your person, because that would be personal. No need to get personal!

Why? Why would you prefer to "criticize" if no criticism is warranted? What's good about that? Critical thought is what's good, and I pointed out the truth of the matter.

It's my thing. Because power corrupts, so there needs to be critical voices to keep it in check. I know they sometimes do good things, and that's fine. That's their job, it's what they're supposed to do. There are many forms of protest against abuse of power, some like marching and holding up signs. Posting criticisms on a public board is also a form of protest.

You seem to think your view is the only valid view - that mine is somehow 'wrongly defensive' - as you failed to refute anything I said.

No, no no. Not true. Think about what you're saying very carefully here- I didn't refute what you said. I say my part, you say yours, we might disagree. No problem, move on. Yes I think I'm right, most people do. But, some of what you say is right too, and I don't much like pissing matches, because I know there is some truth in your arguments. Social issues are too vast and complex for anyone to be completely right about them.

I think you perceive I am attacking you somehow, but no. I am different style of poster than you, that is all. To me what we post here sometimes should not be taken so seriously, it is not my lifes work. Wining or losing a debate is not a reflection of who I am, or a failure of my duty to my country.

That's all well and fine that you "believe" that, but you haven't refuted one thing I've said. You haven't addressed one thing I've said. You've totally ignored everything I said, everything I brought up. There was not even an attempt at discussion on your part.

Why is that? Care to do so now?

Because I don't disagree with what you said. To recap, in regards to the 911 intelligence from other countries, you casted doubt on its validity, "it's impossible to know if that's true, or what the US government did about it". I agree it's impossible for you and me to know. No argument there. That's why.

But the criticism remains that, if true this intelligence was given beforehand, whatever they did was not good enough to stop the 19 terrorists. They failed, for whatever reason it's impossible for you and me to know. My criticism then is, if they failed because the system is too slow to respond, or too complicate, or it was lost in the entanglement of to much information, that is still failure, and those issues should be corrected. If they failed because they ignored the information, well.. I would not make excuses for them in either case.

[Guest American Woman]

Because I don't disagree with what you said.

So you didn't refute what I said because you don't disagree with what I said. So instead you said this:

"It's a lot of work. [defending my backwards nation]

One should not feel personally responsible, or obligated to excuse one's government, or nation. Unless of course you feel it is your personal mission somehow, to right any and all misconceptions people hold. Good luck with that. Your bones will be dust, and the criticisms will continue"

So even though you don't disagree with what I said, apparently you see what I said as my feeling the need to defend my nation, obligated to excuse my government.......

Weird.