jbg Posted September 22, 2006 Report Posted September 22, 2006 The problem was the U.S. underestimated Japan's capabilities. They knew a strike was coming, but hey didn't know where. They had no idea Japan would be able to launch simultaneous offensives against multiple objectives throughout the Pacific. Not totally. I think the impetus towards the US taking a more provocative posture was Japanese pressure on Singapore (a British colony at the time) and their strangulation of the rubber supply coming from the Dutch colony of Indonesia. That pressed the US into perhaps a premature ratcheting up of tensions, before they had mobilized. We had re-instituted the draft, but otherwise were not ready for war. If we were we would have had so many ships in port. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Remiel Posted September 22, 2006 Report Posted September 22, 2006 And that is why I do not believe all of the propaganda about how the Japanese launched a sneaky, cowardly, unprovoked surprise attack on the Americans. The US actions were tantamount to a declaration of war, or at least their intention for war. So, the Japanese decide to strike first. They should of gone back to blow up the oil... big mistake. Quote
geoffrey Posted September 22, 2006 Report Posted September 22, 2006 The US actions were tantamount to a declaration of war, or at least their intention for war. So, the Japanese decide to strike first. They should of gone back to blow up the oil... big mistake. The Japanese losing is a bad thing in your mind? Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
BubberMiley Posted September 23, 2006 Report Posted September 23, 2006 The Japanese losing is a bad thing in your mind? Geez louise. He just said it was a mistake on their part. That doesn't make it a bad thing. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
jbg Posted September 23, 2006 Report Posted September 23, 2006 The US actions were tantamount to a declaration of war, or at least their intention for war. So, the Japanese decide to strike first. They should of gone back to blow up the oil... big mistake. The Japanese losing is a bad thing in your mind? This poster hates all things Western; including the freedom of speech represented by this Board. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
geoffrey Posted September 23, 2006 Report Posted September 23, 2006 The Japanese losing is a bad thing in your mind? Geez louise. He just said it was a mistake on their part. That doesn't make it a bad thing. Generally, someone would use a qualifier in that situation, like a 'fortunate mistake'... Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
Argus Posted September 23, 2006 Author Report Posted September 23, 2006 By far the most justifiable war in recent history is the one we are presently fighting in Afghanistan against the Taliban, the government that hosted and protected al-Qa'eda when it killed nearly 3,000 innocent people – including 67 Britons – on 9/11. Today, that war is principally being fought by 15,000 Americans, 4,500 Britons, 2,200 Canadians, 550 Australians and special forces contingents from New Zealand. Germany has confined its troops to the quiet north, France to guard duty on the Khyber Pass. Once again, therefore, the English-speaking peoples find themselves in the forefront of protecting civilisation. The English Speaking Peoples Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
geoffrey Posted September 24, 2006 Report Posted September 24, 2006 That being said Argus, both of those duties (the German's and the French) are completely neccessary. As well, it ignores many non-English countries that are contributing a far greater proportional share to the mission, take the Dutch. I don't buy this English vs. Old Europe concept. I don't think al-Qaeda proved much a threat to France and Germany at the onset of the Afghanistan action, I think we need to be grateful that they went out of their way to assist us, and made themselves targets in the process. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.