Thread: "support the troops"

That's been shown a while ago in another thread:

In the summer of 1940 Roosevelt ordered the Pacific to relocate from the West Coast to Hawaii. When its commander, Admiral Richardson, protested that Pearl Harbor offered inadequate protection from air and torpedo attack he was replaced.

On October 7 1940 Navy IQ analyst McCollum wrote an eight-point memo for Roosevelt on how to force Japan into war with U.S., including an American oil embargo against Japan. All of them were eventually accomplished.

On 23 June 1941—one day after Hitler’s attack on Russia—Secretary of the Interior and FDR’s Advisor Harold Ickes wrote a memo for the President in which he pointed out that “there might develop from the embargoing of oil to Japan such a situation as would make it not only possible but easy to get into this war in an effective way. And if we should thus indirectly be brought in, we would avoid the criticism that we had gone in as an ally of communistic Russia.”

On 18 October Ickes noted in his diary: “For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan.”

The U.S. had cracked key Japanese codes before the attack. FDR received “raw” translations of all key messages. On 24 September 1941 Washington deciphered a message from the Naval Intelligence HQ in Tokyo to Japan’s consul-general in Honolulu, requesting grid of exact locations of U.S. Navy ships in the harbor. Commanders in Hawaii were not warned.
Sixty years later the U.S. Government still refuses to identify or declassify many pre-attack decrypts on the grounds of “national security”!

On November 25 Secretary of War Stimson wrote in his diary that FDR said an attack was likely within days, and asked “how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without too much danger to ourselves. In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors.”

On November 25 FDR received a “positive war warning” from Churchill that the Japanese would strike against America at the end of the first week in December. This warning caused the President to do an abrupt about-face on plans for a time-buying modus vivendi with Japan and it resulted in Secretary of State Hull's deliberately provocative ultimatum of 26 November 1941 that guaranteed war.

On November 26 Washington ordered both US aircraft carriers, the Enterprise and the Lexington, out of Pearl Harbor "as soon as possible". This order included stripping Pearl of 50 planes or 40 percent of its already inadequate fighter protection. On the same day Cordell Hull issued his ultimatum demanding full Japanese withdrawal from Indochina and all China. U.S. Ambassador to Japan called this “The document that touched the button that started the war.”

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Ne...wsST120700.htm

There was also a message decoded just before the attack with in my recollection more details.

^
Dead link, stroller.
404 Error - not found...

Sorry about this, I copied the link from a post which is a few months old, it did work before.

Here another link, not quite the same cred as Trifkovic:
THE PEARL HARBOR DECEPTION

But that's a sidetrack from this topic, should be easy enough to search for more info.

^
Correct - we are geting off-topic.
The bone of contention is MM's assertion that America has not had to defend itself in >100 years which I've shown to be demonstratively false.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

^
Correct - we are geting off-topic.
The bone of contention is MM's assertion that America has not had to defend itself in >100 years which I've shown to be demonstratively false.

IMO,

The American military has not defended America, at any time that we know of, during the 20th Century.

WWI and WWII was not of the US's business.

Except for that oil embargo on Japan....hmm.....

^
One more off-topic...the oil embargo was due to Japan's aggression in other areas before PH. Like, China (rape of Nanking) etc.

It was necessary.

The embargo had nothing to do with any reaction to what happened in Nanking.

It's funny. 1937: Japan invades other nations to get oil = bad. 2003: United States invades other nations to get oil = good.

What's really funnier still is if Japan had acted just a few years later we would have actively encouraged such action due to the rise of Stalin/Mao.

Does that mean the other nations of the world are justified in bombing the U.S. to the stone age because of what we have done?

I think MM is right. When was the last time the United States was directly invaded requiring our military to defend the homeland? WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I & II don't count.

Originally Posted by surasak

When was the last time the United States was directly invaded requiring our military to defend the homeland? WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I & II don't count.

9/11 and countless other 'penetrations' we know and don't know about.
i.e. the LAX bombing attempt that was foiled at the Canadian border. You don't suppose putting jet fighters in the air over Washington D.C. 'defending' the Homeland?

This is about war and soldiers, Boon Mee.

When was the US, not one of its colonies or outposts, last attacked by the army nof an enemy nation?

Originally Posted by stroller

This is about war and soldiers, Boon Mee.

When was the US, not one of its colonies or outposts, last attacked by the army nof an enemy nation?

Flying airplanes loaded with civilians into tall buildings is WAR stroll...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Haven't answered the other question. How 'bout any team sports there ray?

you persistence seems a little gay, but ok, i'll answer the question.

of course....i played team sports until my early thirties.

what does that have to do with naitionalism?

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Haven't answered the other question. How 'bout any team sports there ray?

you persistence seems a little gay, but ok, i'll answer the question.

of course....i played team sports until my early thirties.

what does that have to do with naitionalism?

Well, teamwork engenders naitionalism (sic) in terms of one supporting one's flag wouldn't you agree?

Flying airplanes loaded with civilians into tall buildings is WAR stroll..

So, was this the Iraqi army invading the US?

Originally Posted by stroller

Flying airplanes loaded with civilians into tall buildings is WAR stroll..

So, was this the Iraqi army invading the US?

Uh...maybe Islamofascists?

This WOT is not your 'conventional' war with fixed armies, battlefronts etc...if you were not already aware...

Originally Posted by attaboy

Originally Posted by stroller

Thus, a solider's trust is that you and I, as voters, will not put him in uncessary harm's way and will act as guardians to safe-guard their (and our national) interests.

What about those who did not vote for the pres, or did not vote at all, which together constitute the majority of Americans? Any soldier relying on the public for support or 'guarding' is a complete fool.

Look at what's happening to soldiers after the war: there are still psychotic 'nam vets about who never got any attention or treatment when the war was over, for example.

"After a war, a hero is just a man with one leg."
—Anonymous

Not true. The asisstence is there. I know a viet vet who receives $2000 a month for life because of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He also helps his buddies to get through the bureaucratic maze to receive their monthly checks too. I know others who have turned their group therapy sessions into fishing trips instead. They are doing well enough.

Rather than sitting in a circle recounting bad memories, they have chosen to go on fishing trips instead. They're generating new more pleasant memories to draw upon to help them cope with the crap in their lives.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

This WOT is not your 'conventional' war with fixed armies, battlefronts etc...if you were not already aware...

It's not a "war" at all, more an ideological propaganda 'war' for control and expansion.
Which brings us back to the point that the Iraq invasion had as little to do with defending the US as Hitler's 'defending' Germany against Poland.

Originally Posted by attaboy

Rather than sitting in a circle recounting bad memories, they have chosen to go on fishing trips instead. They're generating new more pleasant memories to draw upon to help them cope with the crap in their lives.

Ok, ok, I was biased, help is available, as well as support groups and some 'nam vets are getting over it.
Others don't, still.

Originally Posted by stroller

some 'nam vets are getting over it.
Others don't, still.

Correct, but a lot of 'em were 'marginal' before they enlisted or were drafted.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

This WOT is not your 'conventional' war with fixed armies, battlefronts etc...if you were not already aware...

It's not a "war" at all, more an ideological propaganda 'war' for control and expansion.
Which brings us back to the point that the Iraq invasion had as little to do with defending the US as Hitler's 'defending' Germany against Poland.

And by keeping Iraq unstable it allows the U.S. to use the excuse of that 'instability' to keep the troops there indefinately.

The U.S. military complex needs instability in order to prosper. This is why we also fight the WOD (War on Drugs).

The WOT is a ficticious problem so that the solution is more projection of U.S. power and more sales of military equipment, nothing more. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting Americans (or anyone else for that matter).

The U.S. is to to the 21st century what Japan and Germany were to the 20th. I just wonder, in the end, who's going to invade and bomb us when the fat lady sings?

There is prolly some charity organisation giving them a free hot dog

^
Fok!

There's hundreds of out-of-work commedians in Vegas and we got you guys...

Originally Posted by surasak

And by keeping Iraq unstable it allows the U.S. to use the excuse of that 'instability' to keep the troops there indefinately.

The U.S. military complex needs instability in order to prosper. This is why we also fight the WOD (War on Drugs).

The WOT is a ficticious problem so that the solution is more projection of U.S. power and more sales of military equipment, nothing more. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting Americans (or anyone else for that matter).

The U.S. is to to the 21st century what Japan and Germany were to the 20th. I just wonder, in the end, who's going to invade and bomb us when the fat lady sings?

Hit the nail, square on the head.

Worth a mention again.

Has the general U.S. population figured this out yet?

Of course not: they don't know their own history.

Originally Posted by surasack

The U.S. is to to the 21st century what Japan and Germany were to the 20th.

That ought to get you alot of slaps on the back and free drinks.