Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pearl Harbor: A Successful War Lie

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 09:34 AM
Original message
Pearl Harbor: A Successful War Lie
An excerpt from "War Is A Lie" http://warisalie.org

One type of "defensive" war is one that follows a successful provocation of aggression from the desired enemy. This method was used to begin, and repeatedly to escalate, the Vietnam War, as recorded in the Pentagon Papers. Setting aside the question of whether the United States should have entered World War II, in either Europe or the Pacific or both, the fact is that our country was unlikely to enter unless attacked. In 1928 the U.S. Senate had voted 85 to 1 to ratify the Kellogg-Briand Pact, a treaty that bound and still binds our nation and many others never again to engage in war.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's fervent hope for years was that Japan would attack the United States. This would permit the United States (not legally, but politically) to fully enter the war in Europe, as its president wanted to do, as opposed to merely providing weaponry, as it had been doing. On April 28, 1941, Churchill wrote a secret directive to his war cabinet:

"It may be taken as almost certain that the entry of Japan into the war would be followed by the immediate entry of the United States on our side."

On May 11, 1941, Robert Menzies, the prime minister of Australia, met with Roosevelt and found him " a little jealous" of Churchill's place in the center of the war. While Roosevelt's cabinet all wanted the United States to enter the war, Menzies found that Roosevelt,

" . . . trained under Woodrow Wilson in the last war, waits for an incident, which would in one blow get the USA into war and get R. out of his foolish election pledges that 'I will keep you out of war.'"

On August 18, 1941, Churchill met with his cabinet at 10 Downing Street. The meeting had some similarity to the July 23, 2002, meeting at the same address, the minutes of which became known as the Downing Street Minutes. Both meetings revealed secret U.S. intentions to go to war. In the 1941 meeting, Churchill told his cabinet, according to the minutes: " The President had said he would wage war but not declare it." In addition, "Everything was to be done to force an incident."

Japan was certainly not averse to attacking others and had been busy creating an Asian empire. And the United States and Japan were certainly not living in harmonious friendship. But what could bring the Japanese to attack?

When President Franklin Roosevelt visited Pearl Harbor on July 28, 1934, seven years before the Japanese attack, the Japanese military expressed apprehension. General Kunishiga Tanaka wrote in the Japan Advertiser, objecting to the build-up of the American fleet and the creation of additional bases in Alaska and the Aleutian Islands:

"Such insolent behavior makes us most suspicious. It makes us think a major disturbance is purposely being encouraged in the Pacific. This is greatly regretted."

Whether it was actually regretted or not is a separate question from whether this was a typical and predictable response to military expansionism, even when done in the name of "defense." The great unembedded (as we would today call him) journalist George Seldes was suspicious as well. In October 1934 he wrote in Harper's Magazine: " It is an axiom that nations do not arm for war but for a war." Seldes asked an official at the Navy League:

"Do you accept the naval axiom that you prepare to fight a specific navy?"
The man replied "Yes."
"Do you contemplate a fight with the British navy?"
"Absolutely, no."
"Do you contemplate war with Japan?"
"Yes."

In 1935 the most decorated U.S. Marine in history at the time, Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, published to enormous success a short book called "War Is a Racket." He saw perfectly well what was coming and warned the nation:

"At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admiralsdon't shout that 'We need lots of battleships to war on this nation or that nation.' Oh, no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate our 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only. Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

"The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline in the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

"The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern, through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."

In March 1935, Roosevelt bestowed Wake Island on the U.S. Navy and gave Pan Am Airways a permit to build runways on Wake Island, Midway Island, and Guam. Japanese military commanders announced that they were disturbed and viewed these runways as a threat. So did peace activists in the United States. By the next month, Roosevelt had planned war games and maneuvers near the Aleutian Islands and Midway Island. By the following month, peace activists were marching in New York advocating friendship with Japan. Norman Thomas wrote in 1935:

"The Man from Mars who saw how men suffered in the last war and how frantically they are preparing for the next war, which they know will be worse, would come to the conclusion that he was looking at the denizens of a lunatic asylum."

The U.S. Navy spent the next few years working up plans for war with Japan, the March 8, 1939, version of which described "an offensive war of long duration" that would destroy the military and disrupt the economic life of Japan. In January 1941, eleven months before the attack, the Japan Advertiser expressed its outrage over Pearl Harbor in an editorial, and the U.S. ambassador to Japan wrote in his diary:

"There is a lot of talk around town to the effect that the Japanese, in case of a break with the United States, are planning to go all out in a surprise mass attack on Pearl Harbor. Of course I informed my government."

On February 5, 1941, Rear Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner wrote to Secretary of War Henry Stimson to warn of the possibility of a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor.

As early as 1932 the United States had been talking with China about providing airplanes, pilots, and training for its war with Japan. In November 1940, Roosevelt loaned China one hundred million dollars for war with Japan, and after consulting with the British, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau made plans to send the Chinese bombers with U.S. crews to use in bombing Tokyo and other Japanese cities. On December 21, 1940, two weeks shy of a year before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, China's Minister of Finance T.V. Soong and Colonel Claire Chennault, a retired U.S. Army flier who was working for the Chinese and had been urging them to use American pilots to bomb Tokyo since at least 1937, met in Henry Morgenthau's dining room to plan the firebombing of Japan. Morgenthau said he could get men released from duty in the U.S. Army Air Corps if the Chinese could pay them $1,000 per month. Soong agreed.

On May 24, 1941, the New York Times reported on U.S. training of the Chinese air force, and the provision of "numerous fighting and bombing planes" to China by the United States. "Bombing of Japanese Cities is Expected" read the subheadline. By July, the Joint Army-Navy Board had approved a plan called JB 355 to firebomb Japan. A front corporation would buy American planes to be flown by American volunteers trained by Chennault and paid by another front group. Roosevelt approved, and his China expert Lauchlin Currie, in the words of Nicholson Baker, "wired Madame Chaing Kai-Shek and Claire Chennault a letter that fairly begged for interception by Japanese spies." Whether or not that was the entire point, this was the letter:

"I am very happy to be able to report today the President directed that sixty-six bombers be made available to China this year with twenty-four to be delivered immediately. He also approved a Chinese pilot training program here. Details through normal channels. Warm regards."

Our ambassador had said "in case of a break with the United States" the Japanese would bomb Pearl Harbor. I wonder if this qualified!

The 1st American Volunteer Group (AVG) of the Chinese Air Force, also known as the Flying Tigers, moved ahead with recruitment and training immediately and first saw combat on December 20, 1941, twelve days (local time) after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

On May 31, 1941, at the Keep America Out of War Congress, William Henry Chamberlin gave a dire warning: "A total economic boycott of Japan, the stoppage of oil shipments for instance, would push Japan into the arms of the Axis. Economic war would be a prelude to naval and military war." The worst thing about peace advocates is how many times they turn out to be right.

On July 24, 1941, President Roosevelt remarked, "If we cut the oil off , probably would have gone down to the Dutch East Indies a year ago, and you would have had a war. It was very essential from our own selfish point of view of defense to prevent a war from starting in the South Pacific. So our foreign policy was trying to stop a war from breaking out there."

Reporters noticed that Roosevelt said "was" rather than "is." The next day, Roosevelt issued an executive order freezing Japanese assets. The United States and Britain cut off oil and scrap metal to Japan. Radhabinod Pal, an Indian jurist who served on the war crimes tribunal after the war, called the embargoes a "clear and potent threat to Japan's very existence," and concluded the United States had provoked Japan.

On August 7th four months before the attack the Japan Times Advertiser wrote: "First there was the creation of a superbase at Singapore, heavily reinforced by British and Empire troops. From this hub a great wheel was built up and linked with American bases to form a great ring sweeping in a great area southwards and westwards from the Philippines through Malaya and Burma, with the link broken only in the Thailand peninsula. Now it is proposed to include the narrows in the encirclement, which proceeds to Rangoon."

By September the Japanese press was outraged that the United States had begun shipping oil right past Japan to reach Russia. Japan, its newspapers said, was dying a slow death from "economic war."

What might the United States have been hoping to gain by shipping oil past a nation in desperate need of it?

In late October, U.S. spy Edgar Mower was doing work for Colonel William Donovan who spied for Roosevelt. Mower spoke with a man in Manila named Ernest Johnson, a member of the Maritime Commission, who said he expected "The Japs will take Manila before I can get out." When Mower expressed surprise, Johnson replied "Didn't you know the Jap fleet has moved eastward, presumably to attack our fleet at Pearl Harbor?"

On November 3, 1941, our ambassador tried again to get something through his government's thick skull, sending a lengthy telegram to the State Department warning that the economic sanctions might force Japan to commit " national hara-kiri." He wrote: " An armed conflict with the United States may come with dangerous and dramatic suddenness."

Why do I keep recalling the headline of the memo given to President George W. Bush prior to the September 11, 2001, attacks? "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."

Apparently nobody in Washington wanted to hear it in 1941 either. On November 15th, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall briefed the media on something we do not remember as "the Marshall Plan." In fact we don't remember it at all." We are preparing an offensive war against Japan," Marshall said, asking the journalists to keep it a secret, which as far as I know they dutifully did.

Ten days later Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary that he'd met in the Oval Office with Marshall, President Roosevelt, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, Admiral Harold Stark, and Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Roosevelt had told them the Japanese were likely to attack soon, possibly next Monday. That would have been December 1st, six days before the attack actually came. "The question," Stimson wrote, " was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition." Was it? One obvious answer was to keep the fleet in Pearl Harbor and keep the sailors stationed there in the dark while fretting about them from comfortable offices in Washington, D.C. In fact, that was the solution our suit-and-tied heroes went with.

The day after the attack, Congress voted for war. Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin (R., Mont.), the first woman ever elected to Congress, and who had voted against World War I, stood alone in opposing World War II (just as Congresswoman Barbara Lee would stand alone against attacking Afghanistan 60 years later). One year after the vote, on December 8, 1942, Rankin put extended remarks into the Congressional Record explaining her opposition. She cited the work of a British propagandist who had argued in 1938 for using Japan to bring the United States into the war. She cited Henry Luce's reference in Life magazine on July 20, 1942, to "the Chinese for whom the U.S. had delivered the ultimatum that brought on Pearl Harbor." She introduced evidence that at the Atlantic Conference on August 12, 1941, Roosevelt had assured Churchill that the United States would bring economic pressure to bear on Japan. "I cited," Rankin later wrote, " the State Department Bulletin of December 20, 1941, which revealed that on September 3 a communication had been sent to Japan demanding that it accept the principle of 'nondisturbance of the status quo in the Pacific,' which amounted to demanding guarantees of the inviolateness of the white empires in the Orient."

Rankin found that the Economic Defense Board had gotten economic sanctions under way less than a week after the Atlantic Conference. On December 2, 1941, the New York Times had reported, in fact, that Japan had been "cut off from about 75 percent of her normal trade by the Allied blockade." Rankin also cited the statement of Lieutenant Clarence E. Dickinson, U.S.N., in the Saturday Evening Post of October 10, 1942, that on November 28, 1941, nine days before the attack, Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., (he of the slogan "kill Japs, kill Japs!" ) had given instructions to him and others to "shoot down anything we saw in the sky and to bomb anything we saw on the sea."

Whether or not World War II was the "good war" we are so often told it was, the idea that it was a defensive war because our innocent imperial outpost in the middle of the Pacific was attacked out of the clear blue sky is a myth that deserves to be buried.

David Swanson is the author of "War Is A Lie" http://warisalie.org from which this is excerpted.

Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. K & R. Unfortunately, my rec only brought it back up to zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. American Presidents have been lying the US into wars
for at least a century.

After the Manifest Destiny and the Open Door Policy wars, we've been busy invading and killing 'the savages'. :(


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Another K&R brought the count back to zero.
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tnlurker Donating Member (698 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. It was +3 when I opened this post
When I clicked recommend after reading the article it made it back to zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
36. People don't appreciate pro-Imperial Japan propaganda.
FDR did not force Imperial Japan to try to conquer the Pacific and massacre thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ginto Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Pearl Harbor was a military target.
What exactly were Hiroshima and Nagasaki again? The shameful pride taken in that war always amazes me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Pearl Harbor was an act of aggression and a war crime.
Too bad some people are so blinded by hatred of the US that they excuse Imperial Japan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ginto Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Let's say I agree with you.
You still haven't addressed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #47
127. Have you addressed the Rape of Nanking?
I won't try to justify Nagasaki or Hiroshima except to say that a full scale invasion of mainland Japan would have resulted in many more deaths/casualties and destruction on both the civilian population and the Allies. The Japanese were the instigators of this conflict...why not put the onus of their actions where it belongs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #47
128. Delete - Dupe
Edited on Mon Dec-05-11 02:41 PM by Old and In the Way
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ryan_cats Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #40
75. They were military targets
They were both military targets and I believe Nagasaki was a secondary target but bad weather forced them to use the secondary, Nagasaki. You do realize that we killed more people fire bombing Tokyo than either of the cities we nuked.

Shameful pride huh, I'll remember that the next time I'm at a death camp. I went to Mathausen and I felt this shameful pride as I walked through the shower room; now why would a shower room have seals on the door? Hmmmm.

Do you feel shameful pride as the evil Americans were on the Bataan death march with those peaceful Japanese? According to Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March there were 6,000-11,000 shameful Americans who died during the Japanese peace march.

Mazda is based in Hiroshima; it looks like they recovered.

What, are you fifteen?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #75
87. A close friend of my family was a captain of artillery on Corregidor.
He survived the Bataan Death March, and four years of torture, imprisonment, and starvation at the hands of the Japanese. He had to his dying day a steel plate in the side of his skull that replaced the bone in his head shattered from the butt of a Japanese rifle.



He said the only thing that made him angry about the war was the fact that we only had two nuclear weapons to drop on the Empire of Japan, and that we didn't have them sooner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deconstruct911 Donating Member (809 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
69. Don't forget about the drug war
People don't realize that those two wars (terror/drugs) are the American governments investment. Without money laundering alone the western world banks would NOT function and thats just one aspect let alone all the jobs and corporations built around these wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. no but you can pretend that if you like
an aggressive attack is an aggressive attack, even by the japanese, even if provoked and hoped for
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ginto Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. It is probably our most shameful war in just the sheer pride we take in it.
It was a war based on killing civilian targets and putting our own citizens in camps. And in order to win it we had to open pandora's box and unleash a horror that will never end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. true
sums it up
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
24. absurdly simplistic
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
27. sigh, ultra libs
I wonder how you would have looked in a camp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ginto Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #27
38. And what is that supposed to mean? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #38
98. It means that although
the US did not react in the most perfect moral fashion, the Germans and Japanese were much more destructive and evil oriented.

Maybe if you were in a Nazi or Japanese concentration camp, perhaps you wouldn't really care what the Allies did in response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #27
56. THIS
is an acceptable message?

gotta wonder what got deleted above
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #27
67. Probably thanking the guards as they got a boot in the face

Wondering at the glory of the "culture"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #12
50. Yes, I'm sure the millions of chinese the japanese killed feel the same way

and so do the jews that hitler killed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ginto Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #50
73. Don't believe the hype that we went in there to "save" people. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #73
77. They both invaded other countries, killed millions

And you think we're the reason the war started. That is self delusion on a magnitude scale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ginto Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. Did I say we're the reason? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. Well, you haven't said it
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 05:17 PM by Confusious
So I have to assume. You left the door open.

Please, enlighten us with your views on why the war started, or why we were in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #73
99. Actually
I think we were there to kill krauts and japs who were trying to dominate the world. Harsh? yep but a reality. I neither glorify the war but nor do I belittle it. It was necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. Well gee,
if the "krauts" wanted to dominate the world, why didn't they bring their war of domination to US soil and kill Americans instead of the other way around? We are the world, after all. Everybody knows that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. once again
posting a reply that makes no sense.
are you now blaming the US for WWII?
hard to tell since your post is nonsensical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. Cui bono?
Who wanted what when? Who ended up dominating the world? Simple questions.

My answer ... a world network of financial institutions and transnational corporations.

What's your answer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. my answer?
is the usual when it comes to you
"what are you talking about?"

here is an easy question to get you started on basic history...
Why didn't Hitler invade the UK?
take your time.
if you find the answer, you actually might be able to extrapolate why Hitler didn't land forces on US soil...or you might not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. I do know
the winners write the stories. Always. That's basic history.

My question to you was, who won what? The US (taxpayers) got to spend millions of dollars rebuilding what they'd already spent millions of dollars and lives to destroy and I hope you don't call taking on all that war debt winning anything we really wanted. So who financed all that destruction and rebuilding of both Japan and Germany ... with interest compounded, probably daily? Now THAT's called winning the pot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. "I do know"
no, it's quite obvious you don't.
I guess will just add that to the long list of "Things Immune doesn't know".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. Maybe you should
rename that list, "questions zap can't answer".

Oh, and I even forgot to point out the millions reaped by the major corporations providing equipment, material, supplies and labor for both the destruction and the rebuilding.

It should be easy as pie to figure out. It always works that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #104
107. Read a history book

it's a good start to learn what you're talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #107
111. Well see,
while you guys are talking about who's the good guy and who's the bad guy, I'm talking about the spoils of war and the profits of war, and when you boil it all down .....

WAR. What is it good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN' (except spoils and profits)

And while y'all are busy fighting over who's the dirtiest dog, guess who'll be stealing the dog house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. so, if I can follow your rambling nonsense...
you believe the US entered WWII for profits?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. How did the US profit?
What did the US gain besides picking up the tab? No one will ever know how much, in interest alone, US taxpayers forked over to the financiers who put up the funds to fight WWII. Or did you think they grabbed the funding for all those tanks and planes and troops out of thin air?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #113
114. why can't you answer a simple question?
is it your belief the US entered WWII to make a profit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #114
115. No, it was never about prosperity for the US.
How much did World War 2 cost for the United States?

an estimated 341 billion

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_did_World_War_2_cost...

Now, answer MY question ... WHO did the US borrow the estimated 341 billion FROM?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. United States Citizens
Edited on Wed Dec-08-10 04:58 PM by Confusious
War bonds. Look it up.

There were also laws against war profiteering at the time. Like I said, read a history book instead of rambling.

One industry leader was hauled out of his office in his chair because he wanted to be a profiteer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. you beat me to it!
:rofl:
rambling nonsensical posting having nothing to do with you answer in 3...2...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #116
118. I am very familiar with the propaganda push
to convince people to sacrifice for the cause, as well as the results.

But:

See: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/Current

The Debt of the U.S. Federal Government. Originally, this debt was incurred to a large degree to fight and win World War II, as the debt soared from under $50 billion to over $250 billion by the war's end. This was fraud, however, because at the time, the U.S. was on a gold standard at $35/oz., and the U.S. never borrowed $250 billion worth of gold in the first place, we only borrowed paper money that was created to excess. The debt is primarily used as a means to hide the fact of the excessive creation of paper money. By the end of Feb, 2004, the debt can be rounded up to $7.1 Trillion, and is as fraudulent today as it ever was.

--------------------

Billions in U.S. Bonds Go Unclaimed
States, Treasury Dept. Battle in Court Over $16B in Lost, Forgotten Bonds Dating Back to WWII

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/19/business/main...

Honey I shrunk the bonds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
5. Reduced to bashing FDR? Unrec and ESAD.
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. did you have some correction to offer
or just a taboo?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
32. Pearl Harbor was an act of military aggression and a war crime
committed by a military dictatorship.

As much as it pains the anti-Americans out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ginto Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. Unlike Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
We can target civilians as long as its in the right war and for the right reasons. sigh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #41
51. Hiroshima was a military target
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 12:54 PM by Confusious
The japanese targeted civilians. We didn't open the door.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #51
58. a city
is a military target?

the japanese were bombing civilians in china long before, as ong as we're trading "Ooh you're MORE evil" comments

but for lying it's hard to top Harry S
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. Any target that houses military factories or the military
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 03:43 PM by Confusious
is a legitimate target under the Geneva conventions ( which the japanese ignored BTW.) and, I believe, those that help creating those munitions.

Hiroshima had an entire army group based there.

The reason Japan attacked us was because we embargoed oil, because they were slaughtering Chinese. You defend that?

I also find it a bit racist also, thinking that only the "white man" and his nefarious ways could trick the poor Japanese into invading other countries and slaughtering civilians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ginto Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #62
71. Sounds like something Bush would say. Got to love the DLC types. nt
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 04:06 PM by Ginto
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #71
76. I think you missed the "geneva conventions" part.
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 05:12 PM by Confusious
Not surprising.

What is surprising is that you would think that the "evil" that is the United States was worse, at the time, then a fascist Germany or japan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ginto Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. Which ones? Obviously not the 4th convention. Neither did we. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. We adhered to them more then they did
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 05:22 PM by Confusious
You try to make it out like we're worse then NAZI germany or Imperial Japan.

Tell us how good they were, and how the evil white man tricked them into the war.

And while you're at it, remind yourself that you're defending fascists states that killed millions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #62
88. i see
so a city or a country "houses" something military and now you and john yoo deem it a legal target
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. Wow, another person who gets it wrong
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 10:25 PM by Confusious
THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS SAY THAT THEY ARE LEGITIMATE TARGETS

Big and bold enough to read with your eye problems?

Military Targets

The LOAC governs the conduct of aerial warfare. The principle of military necessity limits aerial attacks to lawful military targets. Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemys military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives.


Please, the comparisons only serve to highlight how really, really out there you are, since you seem to want to defend fascist nations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ryan_cats Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #88
94. I've lived near a target almost all my life and probably, so have you.
I've lived near a target almost all my life and probably, so have you. Ever heard of SAC? Well, I lived less than two miles from Mather AFB. They were a SAC base and they were a prime target and the fact that the state Capital is near didn't stop them from being a target. Same thing for Travis AFB. If you lived near a SAC base or even a regular base, you were a target.

If I remember correctly, the larger of the two nukes we dropped on Japan was equal to around 15,000 tons of TNT. The missiles the Soviets target us with were around 1,000,000 tons of TNT.

In war, there are no safe zones.

I don't see anyone complaining of the fire bombing of Dresden, why? Because the Nazis were evil, because it was payback for Coventry? We leveled Germany, why aren't you complaining about that?

No one is complaining about the fire bombing of Tokyo which killed more than either nuke, why no complaints for that? What was the military reason to bomb Tokyo?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #32
57. that
seems pretty plain

it was also desired and provoked and foreknown
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #57
109. Yes, we tricked Japan
Edited on Wed Dec-08-10 03:28 PM by Confusious
Starting in the 1920's, into having a fascist government that invaded Korea and China and slaughtering millions of people, so we could THEN embargo oil which would THEN force them to attack us in the 1940's.

The evil of the white United States male knows no BOUNDS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BlueJac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. Good Post .....k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ginto Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
7. We are a nation based on war crimes. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
29. Then why do you live here?
I have never been part of the "love it or leave it" crowd, but why don't you move to a more acceptable place that doesn't offend you so much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ginto Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #29
42. So "love it or leave it?"
I've tried to move to various countries, but it's either not economically feasible or the immigration policies make it impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #42
48. I am just wondering
being the morally superior person you are how you could possibly stand it, being so beholden to a country that is so vile? I mean this must be like living in Germany pre WW2.

Obviously sarcasm.

I don't sugarcoat our history but I also do not send it to the level you do. It was a different world, different times, different mindset. I think the monday night quarterbacking that so many liberals do is bereft of any perspective of how things were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ginto Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #48
72. That's the same argument some use to discount racism and slavery.
"different times, different mindset"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #72
82. Really? Haven't heard that

Maybe it's only you.

You're good at the FOX news "some say" or "some use"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #72
97. Not a justification or an agreement
but certainly an understanding of how worldview, cultural/religious mores, and other time bound/cultural perspectives may mean a different view. Not better, worse but it was what it was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #29
83. I stay because I love the country, not some flag, a government, or its lies and crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
8. Revisionist history ftw!...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
25. it certainly is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
35. +1
Not just revisionist, but a bizarre mish-mash of nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
9. Nice ad for your book, but I think I'll pass on this one.
Or, maybe I'll get a copy for my 86-year-old father, who piloted B-17s in WWII. He'd really appreciate your sentiments, I'm sure.

Feh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. thanks please do
and could you please highlight the part of the above post with sentiments in it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WilmywoodNCparalegal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
16. Not this shit again
every December 7, without fail, someone will post some revisionist history. I'm waiting for the version where the aliens caused the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
44. Someone has to jump the shark again, every year. No? -eom-
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
17. Rec'd. David, I've made room for you under the bus. Thanks n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
18. We didn't call them repug talking points back then but they were
the same thing. This is the repug line that I grew up hearing all my life. I still do not believe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
43. Yep--it's an old Republican campaign meme--Dewey used it in 1944.
And there's still people stupid enough to repeat it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
19. This is true.
"Reporters noticed that Roosevelt said "was" rather than "is." The next day, Roosevelt issued an executive order freezing Japanese assets. The United States and Britain cut off oil and scrap metal to Japan. Radhabinod Pal, an Indian jurist who served on the war crimes tribunal after the war, called the embargoes a "clear and potent threat to Japan's very existence," and concluded the United States had provoked Japan."

And that is why Japan did attack us.

Since when have our history books not given us revisionist history as conventional wisdom?
Not since some time before Columbus...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Then why was the Empire of Japan planning for a Pacific war with the U.S.
back in the thirties?


Revisionist bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Why are we planning a war with Russia in the Baltics?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Russia isn't currently building up its fleet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #21
66. Because every country plans for war with every other country

It's what the military does.

Britain planned for war with the United States in the 1920's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. instead of chanting slogans
find a mistake in what i've written

of course japan wanted wars, but so did the united states which did everything it could to get them and was already aiding china and russia
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. uh, that poster didn't chant a slogan- good revisionism there-
he asked a reasonable question, that you, Mr. S., didn't like being asked.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. But we didn't bomb Tokyo Harbor.
But, you've changed my mind.

We should never have confronted Fascism, and left the Soviets fall before the onslaught.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #28
59. you know
the soviets fought 80% of the German army, even if that hasn't made it into 8% of the movies
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #59
65. You know, the russian army would have had a much tougher time

If it weren't for our flyboys destroying their war factories, night and day, for 4 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #59
85. I guess I needed the sarcasm smiley.
No kidding.

The Soviet Army won the land war in Europe.



We helped...at the end.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #23
68. Because china and russia were invaded
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 03:59 PM by Confusious
And civilians were being slaughtered. Did you miss that part in history class?

Or do you suppose the Chinese were happy with the flowers the Japanese gave them to put on the graves of the millions killed, or the Jews with Germany for making the trains run on time?

Defending fascists on a lib board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #23
70. I found to many mistakes to count

Try post #63. You seem to like to ignore the reasons for United States reactions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
37. Why did Japan invade China?
And why are you continuing to pimp for Hitler's allies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #37
64. Because the poor Japanese were tricked into the war
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 03:45 PM by Confusious
I find that theory racist, thinking that the "white man" and his nefarious ways could trick the poor Japanese into invading other countries and slaughtering civilians, as if they weren't smart enough to do it all by themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
30. So now the extreme left thinks Imperial Japan were the victims of the evil FDR.
Self-repudiating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. And they want Obama to be more like FDR.
Confusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #30
49. Oh, this is nothing
you should check out what gets posted here on the anniversaries of D-Day & V-J Day.

dg

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
33. K & (believe it or not ) an R
Still at zero!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidthegnome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
34. I doubt we'll ever know
the full truth of what exactly transpired leading to the bombing of Pearl Harbor - and the terrible consequences it had for both Nations. Politicians playing games and pulling strings - military leaders lying to their troops to inspire them to attack without mercy. The Japanese believed that an American Marine had to kill his parents to become a marine. Terrible things were done on both sides, many lives were lost. The ultimate conclusion - our use of nuclear weapons, set the stage for us to become the most feared Nation on earth.

Germany had to fall, that much has always been clear. What will never be clear to me is why we didn't simply throw our lot in with England in the first place. Were there truly so many sympathizers for the Nazi regime in the US?

I didn't live in that time, I'll never really understand. My Grandfather was a Marine who fought the Japanese during his service, he had nightmares until the end of his days about what happened back then. He never spoke of it, but some times there was a haunted, faraway look in his eyes that gave away his suffering.

War is almost always based on lies, I doubt this one was truly any different in that regard. It was very different though - we faced an enemy who had the ability to defend themselves. Now we bomb small, already suffering Nations and take command of their governments in the supposed name of freedom and war on terror. I don't doubt that our government during the second world war was despicable, but it cannot be compared to the government of our time, or the ignorance of the people.

Frankly, I believe America has now become the most thoroughly oppressive regime that the world has ever known. What really disturbs me is that so few people have any clue.

No, our leaders aren't like Hitler or Stalin or the Chinese Emperor who slaughtered so many. They are far more subtle, convincing us that all they do is done in the name of protection for ourselves and freedom for the oppressed. In truth, it is we who oppress them, it is the US that has launched two pre-emptive wars - and the first time our leaders even managed to convince the world it was just. How far will we go for oil? For an empire that is crumbling from within? It is not truly so different from the Romans, and we know what happened to them.

How many millions must die before we see the light? There is one thing that the US still manufactures far above and beyond any other Nation - weapons. We must sell them somehow, we must put them to use - and what better use than to procure more oil to continue the whole ridiculous charade of pseudo democracy?

I used to believe in my Nation, I used to be proud to be an American. I still take pride in the kindness and strength of many of our people, but I see things now I think, for what they are. The events that followed 9/11 have opened my eyes and the eyes of many others. To continue on in this manner will lead to our downfall - but as long as the rich keep getting richer, the powers that be will do nothing to change.

What happened on 9/11 was terrible, but it pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands who have marked down as casualties. It pales in comparison to the trillions of dollars spent for these so called wars. That money should be soaked in the blood of the fallen. It is the innocent, the poor and the ignorant who suffer the most, all over the world.

The war with Japan may have been based on a lie or a series of lies. I can't say. Our war in Iraq, however, has been proven to have been based on lies. Over and over again. It has been clearly demonstrated that we have slaughtered (or allowed to be slaughtered) hundreds of thousands without need. What will future generations believe? What will they read in their history books and how much of it will they see for the lie it is?

I guess that's just the way of the world. Sorry for ranting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
46. Does your book come with illustrations?







Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #46
60. no but
it does discuss japanese war propaganda
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
smiley Donating Member (602 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
52. Thanks for this post!
never mind the naysayers and US military apologists.

recommended :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
creon Donating Member (723 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
53. Bad form
Epic fail
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
54. It's an interesting take.
But the fact that you posted this TODAY while people are still grieving their lost loved one is very bad form, and leads me to not want to read this any further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #54
61. so war lies must last
until anyone alive for the war is dead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
55. Hahaha, thank god this stupid shit got exiled to the 9/11 dungeon
Yes, poor Imperial Japan. If the mean US hadn't intervened, they might still be raping and enslaving Chinese people today!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #55
74. lol. and the dungeon is where this turd deserves to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
63. A bunch of bullshit
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 03:41 PM by Confusious
Our buildup in the pacific was because of the Japanese buildup and the fact that they were INVADING other countries and SLAUGHTERING civilians.

I also find it a bit racist also, thinking that only the "white man" and his nefarious ways could trick the poor Japanese into invading other countries and slaughtering civilians.

"As early as 1932 the United States had been talking with China about providing airplanes, pilots, and training for its war with Japan. In November 1940, Roosevelt loaned China one hundred million dollars for war with Japan, and after consulting with the British, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau made plans to send the Chinese bombers with U.S. crews to use in bombing Tokyo and other Japanese cities. On December 21, 1940, two weeks shy of a year before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, China's Minister of Finance T.V. Soong and Colonel Claire Chennault, a retired U.S. Army flier who was working for the Chinese and had been urging them to use American pilots to bomb Tokyo since at least 1937, met in Henry Morgenthau's dining room to plan the firebombing of Japan. Morgenthau said he could get men released from duty in the U.S. Army Air Corps if the Chinese could pay them $1,000 per month. Soong agreed. "

You have a problem helping a country that was invaded and where millions where slaughtered?

"By September the Japanese press was outraged that the United States had begun shipping oil right past Japan to reach Russia. Japan, its newspapers said, was dying a slow death from "economic war.""

Oil we embargoed because the Japanese were slaughtering millions of Chinese in china.

"Whether or not World War II was the "good war" we are so often told it was, the idea that it was a defensive war because our innocent imperial outpost in the middle of the Pacific was attacked out of the clear blue sky is a myth that deserves to be buried."

You're defending fascists. You know that don't you? The japan of today is not the japan of then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
84. Yes and no, David.
Japan, a fascist military dictatorship, invaded several Asian nations and waged genocidal war. The US was right (unusually) to refuse to sell oil and to subject an aggressor nation to economic boycott. Even if this was only out of calculation of national interest.

I have no problems with the thesis that FDR knew an attack was coming on Pearl Harbor and that the USG may have figured out the plans in detail. But in this one, out of all cases, I can actually see it from the USG perspective and say the deception of allowing a surprise would have been regrettable (especially given the sacrifice of US people in Hawaii) but justified. What were they supposed to do? An attack was coming. If they met the Japanese fleet at sea, the Japanese could have claimed that the US started the war, and revisionists today would still be agreeing with them.

Japan was an independent, major military power that took the decision to launch the attack. This in no way justifies Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or for that matter the fire-bombing of Tokyo and any other attack on civilians, in any war. But it's the most important fact in evaluating Pearl Harbor.

And it's a reality that puts the lie to the "good war" theory used to justify all other wars since, and still being used as the excuse for insane levels of military spending. The US didn't choose the war because it was the right thing to do, or to save the world from Hitler or Japan. The war came to the US. In this one case, regardless of what the government or power elite wanted, the US was attacked, saw war declared by Germany a few days later, and fought in justifiable self-defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #84
89. admitting the lies
and claiming they were justified is to concede every point I made here and change the subject

I disagree on the new subject but haven't laid out any case for doing so here

It is remarkable to note how acceptable your position seems to be to the warmonger crowd even as they spend so much time denying the lies -- that isn't really the point, is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #89
92. David: Why is it remarkable?
Edited on Tue Dec-07-10 11:57 PM by JackRiddler
To be truthful, the only post I've read in this thread is your OP, and I am only responding to you. (Nowadays I just skip a lot of the usual suspects who frequent the Dungeon.) No one else has replied to me (though someone replied to your reply). So I'm not sure who is agreeing with me.

Life is complicated. I suspect you and I would agree on almost every other episode in US history, and I very much respect your work both in print and in the real world.

Do consider my point about how understanding that the US entered the war after an aggressive attack by Japan, and a surprising declaration of war by Germany. This renders the "just war" theory moot, since in this rare case, the hostilities did not begin by American decision, even if the US was following a policy designed to provoke an attack.

I won't mind if you disagree or even if you think the question irrelevant: but what would you have done, knowing an attack was underway, in FDR's place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #84
95. The military could have put Pearl Harbor on high alert
so that those soldiers/sailors were not slaughtered before they could even defend themselves.

There is no excuse for what happened on Dec 7, 1941.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #95
108. Why put someone on high alert for no reason?
Edited on Wed Dec-08-10 03:17 PM by Confusious
Why not have them on high alert throughout the 1930's then?

There was no declaration of war, it was a "sneak attack"

I know it's hard for some to believe, but the Japanese got the better of us, all by their lonesome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #108
119. obviously you didn't read the OP
or you don't believe the quotes there.

I cannot fathom why you are defending the military's horrible screwup at Pearl harbor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #119
121. Even if I read them
Edited on Thu Dec-09-10 03:41 PM by Confusious
and even if I believe them, my 30 years of studying everything about world war 2 points me to a different conclusion.

The Japanese got the better of us at pearl harbor. 69 years and no conclusive evidence that Roosevelt knew, just inferences to the meaning of "was" and "is."

On July 24, 1941, President Roosevelt remarked, "If we cut the oil off , probably would have gone down to the Dutch East Indies a year ago, and you would have had a war. It was very essential from our own selfish point of view of defense to prevent a war from starting in the South Pacific. So our foreign policy was trying to stop a war from breaking out there."

Reporters noticed that Roosevelt said "was" rather than "is." The next day, Roosevelt issued an executive order freezing Japanese assets. The United States and Britain cut off oil and scrap metal to Japan. Radhabinod Pal, an Indian jurist who served on the war crimes tribunal after the war, called the embargoes a "clear and potent threat to Japan's very existence," and concluded the United States had provoked Japan.


a) There was already a war going on in Asia. Japan had been in China and Korea for years at that point, killing millions.

b) The embargoes were because of japan's behavior in Asia, specifically the nanking massacre. Provoking someone does not make an excuse for war, nor does it immediately make them innocent of crimes they commit.

Thinking about it further, wouldn't you say they provoked us? They invaded those countries, killed millions and were censured in the the league of nations for their actions. They walked out in protest.

They had been planning for a war with the United States since the 1920's.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was intended to neutralize the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and hence protect Japan's advance into Malaya and the Dutch East Indies, where Japan sought access to natural resources such as oil and rubber. War between Japan and the United States had been a possibility each nation had been aware of (and developed contingency plans for) since the 1920s, though tensions did not begin to grow seriously until Japan's 1931 invasion of Manchuria. Over the next decade, Japan continued to expand into China, leading to all-out war in 1937. Japan spent considerable effort trying to isolate China and achieve sufficient resource independence to attain victory on the mainland; the "Southern Operation" was designed to assist these efforts.<10>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #121
124. I'm not defending or excusing Japan
but there was no excuse for the unreadiness of the military at Pearl Harbor
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #121
129. days before pearl Harbor, the country was 50/50 split on whether to enter the war.
It's unclear whether FDR "knew" that the Japanese would attack the naval base at Pearl Harbor; I doubt he'd have left the battleship group in mooring there had they had specific pre-attack warnings. On the other hand, I have no doubts that FDR was willing to take the 1st blow in order to build a consensus in this country to enter the war. Sadly, some seem to think the US was exactly the same country in 1940 that we are today. That was certainly not the case and, had we stayed out of WW2, it's pretty likely that there would have been a completely different history that none of us should want to contemplate.

To try to equivocate the attack at Pearl harbor with the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 is ridiculous. It distorts the reality of the Pearl Harbor event and elevates the lies of Bush Cheney to invade a country that had neither provoked nor had the capacity to threaten our country. A better analogy would have been to equate the 2003 attack on Iran to Germany's invasion of Poland that hinged on a Germany's fabricated casus belli at Gleiwitz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #95
110. to quote a longtime poster...
Spooked, is there any conspiracy theory so goofy even YOU won't embrace it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #110
120. this is not a conspiracy theory
jesus! did you even read the freaking post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #120
122. It's another version of
"Roosevelt knew"

it's a conspiracy theory
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #122
123. did you read the original post?
I didn't say Roosevelt "knew" but obviously there were many forewarnings...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
obliviously Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
86. Good golly miss Molly this made the moonbat vault!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
96. Reading your book now actually
A lot of good info in there.

Though I wish you'd address the 9/11 lies. And so ironic that your post got moved into the 9/11 forum, when you seem to basically buy the official 9/11 story, hook, line and sinker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
125. Kick...
Same post as this year. Recycling your material, David?

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MarianJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #125
126. Dang,...
...year old crap still stinks!

PEACE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #126
130. Huh, I could have sworn this OP was just published.
Or else the poster started a new thread with the exact same points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deconstruct911 Donating Member (809 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. Correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MarianJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #130
132. You know the old term, SSCDD
Same smelly crap different day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 30th 2014, 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC