See other History Articles
Title: There Are Too Many Veterans
Source:
Lew Rockwell
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance126.html
Published: Nov 12, 2007
Author: Laurence Vance
Post Date: 2007-11-12 06:41:23 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 2796
Comments: 251
We have too many veterans. We have too many living veterans. We have too many dead veterans. We have too many wounded veterans. We have too many disabled veterans. We have too many veterans who have fought in wars. We have too many veterans who have never fired a shot. Any way you look at it, we have too many veterans. Veterans Day began as Armistice Day – a day to commemorate the signing of the armistice on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month that ended fighting on the Western Front in World War I, "the war to end all wars." A few years after World War II, the holiday was changed to Veterans Day as a tribute to all soldiers who fought for their country. Veterans Day has now become a day to honor, not just those who have served in the military during wartime, but those who have served during peacetime or are serving now. It has also become a day – even though we have Armed Forces Day – to recognize all things military. Why? Why do most Americans hold veterans and current members of the U.S. military in such high esteem? Why is there such a military mindset in the United States? One reason people feel this way is because they falsely believe that those who serve in the military are somehow defending our freedoms. They are convinced that it is the military that stands between a free society and subjugation by some foreign power. They think that it is because of the military that we still have our First Amendment rights. It is inevitable that whenever I write about the military I receive an e-mail or two from a current or former member of the military who closes his rebuke (which usually argues that I have the freedom to write the "trash" that I write because of the U.S. military) with this simplistic cliché: "If you can read this e-mail, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a Marine." Has anyone ever thought this through? Are we are supposed to believe that the German army that couldn’t cross the English Channel to invade Great Britain and make its population speak German was going to cross the Atlantic Ocean to invade the United States and make us all speak German if it wasn’t for the Marines? Or was it Japanese that the Marines kept us from speaking? Or perhaps it was Spanish because of the tremendous threat we faced from Spain during the Spanish-American War? Were we in danger of having to speak Russian during the Cold War? Looking at the history of U.S. military interventions, there is one thing we can thank the Marines for: We can thank the Marines for helping to carry out an evil, interventionist U.S. foreign policy. Thanks a lot, jarheads. Semper Fi and all that jazz. Our freedoms, our liberties, and our Constitution that all Marines swear to uphold are under attack by our government. The state is a greater enemy than any foreign country or ruler. If the Marines are to really defend our freedoms, then they should be deployed to Washington D.C. After they oversee the closure of most federal agencies and expel the bureaucrats from the city, they can protect the Constitution (with fixed bayonets) from its daily assault by the members of Congress. In that case I would even say with you: "The few, the proud, the Marines." Another reason the military is held in such high esteem is that most Americans wrongfully assume that the military is actually engaged in defending the country. They don’t know about the hundreds of U.S. military bases on foreign soil. They don’t realize that there are thousands of U.S. troops stationed abroad to defend other countries. They have no idea that the United States has troops in 150 different regions of the world. Instead, they think that it is because of the military fighting terrorists "over there" that we don’t have to fight them "over here." The threat of a conquest of America by foreign invasion is nonexistent. And if we were attacked with nuclear weapons, even the Marines would be helpless to defend us. Although the purpose of the U.S. military should only be to defend the United States from genuine attacks and credible enemies, it has primarily been used to intervene in the affairs of other countries. When all of the troops come home and start guarding our borders and patrolling our coasts then, and only then, can we say that the military is defending the country. Even the Coast Guard, which actually patrols our coasts, is tainted – thanks to another unconstitutional, unwinnable war that the government is engaged in that is more destructive than the "enemy" we are fighting: the war on drugs. Still another reason for the military mindset is that members of the military are viewed as "public servants." Members of Congress like to brag about how they have been in public service their whole life. Some policemen and firemen have jumped on the "public service" bandwagon as well. But if you want to be a policeman or a fireman, fine, just don’t expect us get excited about the fact that you have a job. And plenty of jobs are just as dangerous. Veterans are looked upon as special because they "served" in the military. It didn’t take any special education, experience, or accomplishments to land a job in the military – they just signed on the dotted line. We don’t bestow any special honors on bricklayers, mechanics, and accountants; yet, we see plenty of bumper stickers that say things like: "My son is in the Air Force." We never see "My son is a plumber" or "My son is a garbage collector" or "My son is a waiter"? And why not? The people in those occupations don’t drop bombs on anyone. They "serve" some important needs of society. Shouldn’t we honor them as least as much as soldiers? It is unfortunate that some of the most vocal defenders of today’s military are Christians. It is even worse that churches fawn over current and former members of the military on Veterans Day. In response to my recent article "Should Anyone Join the Military," I was chastised by two detractors. The first asked if I could read the Old Testament and still say that no one should serve in the military. I was also told that God instructed the Jews and others to destroy people. It is not hard for me to read the Old Testament and still say that no one should serve in the military. America is not Israel, and the U.S. military is not God’s army. And telling me that God instructed the Jews and others to destroy people is like telling George Bush that he is the decider. There is no denying that God instructed the Jews and others to destroy people. But George Bush is not God, America is not the nation of Israel, and God didn’t command the U.S. military to kill anyone. My other detractor appealed to Alphonsus Liguori and maintained that as the sword maker has no control over the product, so "the soldier does not commit an actual sin unless he chooses to break a moral law while in the military." It is "the leaders or military officers who sin when they issue immoral orders." Military service is "morally neutral." But what kind of morality is this? It certainly isn’t Christian. What kind of morality says that it would be okay to kill someone in an unjust war in his own country who was no threat to you or your country because you are wearing a military uniform? Oh, I forgot: Just don’t break a moral law while you are killing him. It is high time that Americans stop elevating members of the military to a position of honor. It is long past the time when veterans have done anything honorable. We should abolish Veterans Day. And because of our shameful foreign policy and militarism during the twentieth century, we should abolish any Armistice Day celebration as well.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-34) not displayed.
.
.
.
#35. To: FormerLurker (#32)
You are right, professional murderers are always going to have an edge over novices. But the sheer volume of novices would overwhelm the professionals easily.
God is always good!
It's the wars that DIDN'T happen that I was referring to. In other words, I was speaking of the DETERRENCE against wars, rather than actual recent conflicts. And I would disagree with your assessment of WWII, where Hitler DID want to spread the Third Reich across the entire globe. He may very well have pulled it off if we didn't join the war when we did. If he had been able to take over all of Europe, Africa, and Russia, and if Japan had been able to take over China and the rest of Asia, building up reinforcements on both fronts, the Axis powers could have launched invasions of South America. From there, they could have pushed northwards up through Mexico, and carried out an invasion of the US from both coasts and from the south.
How many elderly gentlemen could successfully stand up to jet fighter/bombers, or nuclear tipped missiles?
LOL! Would you care to give me a run down about how your imagined military takeover of the United States would supposedly happen? This ought to be entertaining. we should really be concerned about our military strength, and support those that ARE there as a deterent against outright Chinese aggression. Never mind. You were writing a parody. I get it now. A parody about how China spends 1/30th on their military and have 0 aircraft carriers and fly spy planes right up to US airspace (oh wait that was the US doing that to China, never mind) and have 30,000 soldiers in a nation bordering the US ( oh wait, that's Uncle Scam in Korea, never mind), and yet the goobers still wet the bed in fear of the "Red Chineeee". Shwoo, I thought you were serious for a second there.
Do you make your own cool-aid or do the send it FedX?
The best one could hope for would be a strong insurgancy against an occupation force. However, I'm not sure many in this country could wage such an insurgancy, EXCEPT for the VETERANS.
Hitler couldn't even scrape up enough boats to launch an invasion across the damn English Channel. The RAF put down the Luftwaffe all by their little selves. The History Channel has warped your brain.
Are you trying to say that Hitler would have left us alone if we had just stayed out of WWII? I'm not the one drinking "cool-aid" pal.
If we hadn't joined Britain in her fight against Germany, Britain would have exhausted her resources and would have been unable to repel an invasion. It was BECAUSE of our help Britain was not invaded. The war was not going well for Britain until we came to their assistance. I don't watch the History Channel.
Thats a fairy tale I deal in the real world
In the real world, the US fought against the Axis powers in WWII. In your world, we shouldn't have. Looking at the possibilities and probabilities of your world takes more than just a glancing utiopian afterthought, it requires a serious look at various factors. I doubt you've seriously thought it through.
Heres a little history lesson they did not teach you in public schools As the war in Europe continued, America's leaders were attempting to get America involved, even though the American people didn't want to become part of it Roosevelt, the presidential candidate, was promising the American people that the Roosevelt administration would remain neutral should he be re-elected. Others knew better. One, for instance, was General Hugh Johnson, who said: "I know of no well informed Washington observer who isn't convinced that, if Mr. Roosevelt is elected (in 1940), he will drag us into war at the first opportunity, and that, if none presents itself, he will make one." Roosevelt had two opportunities to involve America in World War II: Japan was at war with China, and Germany was at war with Great Britain, France and other countries. Both war zones presented plenty of opportunities to involve the American government in the war, and Roosevelt was quick to seize upon the opportunities presented. His first opportunity came from the war in the Pacific. It was in August, 1940, that the United States broke the Japanese "purple" war-time code. This gave the American government the ability to read and understand all of their recoverable war-time messages. Machines were manufactured to de-code Japan's messages, and they were sent all over the world, but none was sent to Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt's public efforts to involve America, while ostensibly remaining neutral, started in August, 1940, when the National Guard was voted into Federal service for one year. This was followed in September by the Selective Service Act, also for one year's duration. But the key to America's early involvement occurred on September 28, 1940, when Japan, Germany and Italy signed the Tripartite Treaty. This treaty required that any of the three nations had to respond by declaring war should any one of the other three be attacked by any of the Allied nations. This meant that should Japan attack the United States, and the United States responded by declaring war against Japan, it would automatically be at war with the other two nations, Germany and Italy. Roosevelt now knew that war with Japan meant war with Germany. His problem was solved. He had made secret commitments to Winston Churchill and the English government to become involved in the war against Germany and he knew that the only way he could fulfill his secret commitments to Churchill to get us into the war, without openly dishonoring his pledges to the American people to keep us out, was by provoking Germany or Japan to attack. Roosevelt moved towards the Pacific theater first, knowing that, if he could provoke Japan to attack America first, America would automatically be at war with Germany as well. He also knew that, should Germany attack America, Japan would have to declare war on America. So Roosevelt attempted to get either nation to attack the United States first. Japan was to get the first opportunity. In October, 1940, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox sent for Admiral J.O. Richardson, Commander-in-Chief of the American fleet in the Pacific. Knox advised him that the President wanted him to establish a patrol of the Pacific—a wall of American naval vessels stretched across the western Pacific in such a way as to make it impossible for Japan to reach any of her sources of supply; a blockade of Japan to prevent by force her use of any part of the Pacific Ocean. Richardson protested vigorously. He said that would be an act of war, and besides, we would lose our navy. Of course Roosevelt had to abandon it. This scene in history poses two rather interesting questions: 1. Why did Roosevelt, the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces, including the Navy, not directly order Admiral Richardson to do as he wished? Why did he choose to use his Secretary of the Navy to almost politely ask him to create the naval patrol? Is it possible that Roosevelt did not choose to use his supreme power because he knew that this was indeed an act of war and that he did not want to be identified as the originator of the plan. If Richardson had agreed to Knox's proposal, and Japan had attacked an American naval vessel, Roosevelt could have directly blamed the admiral for allowing the vessel to get into the position of being fired upon by the Japanese Navy in the first place. Roosevelt wanted a scapegoat and Richardson refused. 2. Why did Roosevelt not replace the admiral with someone who would do exactly as he wished? It is possible that Roosevelt realized that Richardson now knew about the plan, and since he did not approve, he would be in a position to clearly identify Roosevelt as the source of the idea should the second admiral agree to it. Roosevelt did not want to jeopardize his carefully constructed image as a "dove" in the question of whether or not America should become involved in the war. It is important to remember that, in November, 1940, just after this incident, candidate Roosevelt told the American people: "I say to you fathers and mothers, and I will say it again and again and again, your boys will not be sent into foreign wars." Richardson later appraised his situation at Pearl Harbor and felt that his position was extremely precarious. He visited Roosevelt twice during 1940 to recommend that the fleet be withdrawn to the west coast of America, because: 1. His ships were inadequately manned for war; 2. The Hawaiian area was too exposed for Fleet training; and 3. The Fleet defenses against both air and submarine attacks were far below the required standards of strength. That meant that the American government had done nothing to shore up the defenses of Pearl Harbor against an offshore attack since the naval manuevers of 1932 discovered just how vulnerable the island was. Richardson's reluctance to provide Roosevelt's incident for the United States to enter the war, and his concern about the status of the Fleet, led to his being unexpectedly relieved of the Fleet command in January, 1941. The American Ambassador to Tokyo, Joseph C. Grew, was one of the first to officially discover that Pearl Harbor was the intended target of the Japanese attack, as he corresponded with President Roosevelt's State Department on January 27, 1941: "The Peruvian minister has informed a member of my staff that he had heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that, in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor...." In March 1941, President Roosevelt was still hoping for an incident involving the United States and Germany, according to Harold Ickes, Roosevelt's Secretary of the Interior. He reported: "At dinner on March 24, he [Roosevelt] remarked that 'things are coming to a head; Germany will be making a blunder soon.' There could be no doubt of the President's scarcely concealed desire that there might be an incident which would justify our declaring a state of war against Germany...." Roosevelt and Churchill had conspired together to incite an incident to allow America's entry into the war. According to Churchill: The President had said that he would wage war but not declare it, and that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces. The United States Navy was taking over the convoy route to Iceland. The President's orders to these escorts were to attack any U-boat which showed itself, even if it were two or three hundred miles away from the convoy.... Everything was to be done to force "an incident". Hitler would be faced with the dilemma of either attacking the convoys and dashing with the United States Navy or holding off, thus "giving us victory in the Battle of the Atlantic. It might suit us in six or eight weeks to provoke Hider by taunting him with this difficult choice." But Hider was attempting to avoid a confrontation with the United States. He had told his naval commanders at the end of July [1941] to avoid incidents with the United States while the Eastern campaign [the war against Russia] was still in progress .... A month later these orders were still in force. Churchill even wrote to Roosevelt after the German ship the Bismarck sank the British ship the Hood, recommending in April, 1941: "... that an American warship should find the Prinz Eugen (the escort to the Bismarck) then draw her fire, 'thus providing the incident for which the United States would be so thankful,' i.e., bring her into the war." Hitler was not as wise in other matters. He attacked his "ally" Russia on June 22, 1941, even though Germany and Russia had signed a treaty not to declare war on each other. With this action, the pressure to get the United States involved in the war really accelerated. Roosevelt, on June 24, 1941, told the American people: "Of course we are going to give all the aid that we possibly can to Russia." And an American program of Lend-Lease began, supplying Russia enormous quantities of war materials, all on credit. So with Hitler pre-occupied with the war against Russia and refusing to involve himself with the Americans on the open sea, Roosevelt had to turn his attentions back to Japan for the incident he needed. The next step was to assist other countries, the English and the Dutch, to embargo oil shipments to Japan in an attempt to force them into an incident that would enable the United States to enter the war. Japan, as a relatively small island, and with no oil industry to speak of, had to look elsewhere for its oil, and this was the reason for the proposed embargo. It was thought that this action would provoke Japan into an incident. Ex-President Herbert Hoover also saw the manipulations leading to war and he warned the United States in August, 1941: "The American people should insistently demand that Congress put a stop to step-by-step projection of the United States into undeclared war... ." But the Congress wasn't listening.
President Roosevelt wasn't listening either to the charges of Congressman Martin Dies, Chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. By August of 1941, the Dies committee had assembled a large amount of evidence which more than confirmed the suspicions which we had entertained on the basis of surface appearances: It was clear that the Japanese were preparing to invade Pearl Harbor and that they were in possession of vital military information. This information was made available to the Roosevelt administration by Congressman Dies personally. But this was the second time that Dies had appealed to Roosevelt about his knowledge of Japan's intention to attack Pearl Harbor. Early in 1941 the Dies Committee came into possession of a strategic map which gave clear proof of the intentions of the Japanese to make an assault on Pearl Harbor. The strategic map was prepared by the Japanese Imperial Military Intelligence Department. Dies telephoned Secretary of State Cordell Hull who talked to President Roosevelt. Congressman Dies was told not to release the document to the public, and the Roosevelt administration did nothing. (In April, 1964, when Dies told the American public of these revelations, he added this comment: "If anyone questions the veracity and accuracy of these statements, I will be glad to furnish him with conclusive proof.") It was also in August, 1941, when the new product of the I.G. Farben cartel was tested on humans for the first time. The product was called Zyklon B and it was to be used on the Jews and others at the concentration camps. In the Pacific Theater, Japan's war messages, being read in Washington, started asking their spy in Pearl Harbor to report ship movements, and, later, the exact nature and location of the ships in the harbor. Japan's request for more information on what was happening at Pearl Harbor was followed on October 16, 1941, by the resignation of the Prince's cabinet in Japan. These resignations were followed by the military administration of General Tojo and his cabinet. All of this activity was recognized by the American government as a decided step toward war, but still nothing was done to alert Pearl Harbor. It was on this day that Henry Stimson, Roosevelt's Secretary of War, wrote the following in his diary: "... and so we face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure that Japan be put into the wrong and to make the first bad move—overt move." Stimson was to repeat this concern that faced the Roosevelt administration when he testified before one of the Committees investigating Pearl Harbor. There he was quoted as saying: "The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves." The Japanese would still not respond with the incident to provoke the United States into retaliating, but America was convinced that it would happen ultimately. For instance, Secretary of State Cordell Hull told Roosevelt on November 7, 1941, that he foresaw "every possibility of an early war with Japan." Japan continued its efforts towards staying out of a war with the United States and had its Ambassador in Washington continue his efforts towards securing a no-war treaty with the Secretary of State. On November 22, 1941, they wired their Ambassador: "Do your best, spare no efforts and try to bring about the solution we desire." But even though Japan was attempting to avoid war with the United States, the Japanese were being encouraged by an unlikely source to strike out at the United States. On May 17, 1951, the New York Daily News featured an article by its Washington correspondent, John O'Donnell, concerning various old Far Eastern intelligence reports which were being closely guarded in Washington. Among those documents were the 32,000 word confession of Soviet spy Richard Sorge. Mr. Sorge was a Russian spy who had infiltrated the German embassy in Japan and worked hard to convince Japanese officials that Japan should not attack Russia, but move south, at the risk of war with the United States. When Sorge informed the Kremlin [in Russia] in October, 1941, that the Japanese intended to attack Pearl Harbor within 60 days, he received thanks for his report and the notice that Washington — Roosevelt, Marshall, Admiral Stark, et al. — had been advised of the Japanese intentions. On November 25,1941, the day that the Japanese fleet sailed for Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt convened a meeting of the various Cabinet officers: Secretaries Stimson, Knox, Marshall and Admiral Harold R. Stark, Chief of Naval Operations. According to Stimson's testimony: "The President brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps [as soon as] next Monday, for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning. 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 26, 1941, the Japanese Embassy in Washington sent the following message to Tokyo: "Hull said... I am sorry to tell you that we cannot agree to it [Japan's treaty Proposal]." The British Intelligence Service, which had men inside the Japanese diplomatic agencies in the United States, took the November 26th telegram to Tokyo as meaning that the "Japanese negotiations off. Services expect action within two weeks." And Roosevelt and the Department of the Army also knew this, as "... a very important American Army Intelligence officer, in service in the Far East during 1941... had gained knowledge of the Yamamoto plan to send a task force to attack Pearl Harbor and sent three separate messages to Washington revealing this information, and at least two of these reached the Army files well before the attack on Pearl Harbor." Finally, in desperation, the Japanese government sent a message to their Washington embassy on December 6, 1941, in essence breaking off all negotiations with the American government After the message was intercepted by the American government, de-coded and given to Roosevelt, he is quoted as saying: "This means war." Roosevelt now knew that Japan planned on attacking the United States, but still he did nothing about warning the American forces at Pearl Harbor. And on December 7,1941, Japan launched a "surprise attack." The American forces were not prepared for the attack. And the attacking Japanese forces had orders from Japan to return to Japan should they detect any evidence that the Americans had been alerted. As their air force attacked Pearl Harbor, they reported that the American planes were having difficulty in getting off the ground. This was because the American planes had been grouped in circles, with their propellers all facing inward as the result of an order by President Roosevelt. It was reported that Roosevelt had ordered the planes grouped in this fashion because he feared "acts of sabotage" against the planes and he was acting to protect them. Since airplanes do not have a "reverse gear" the grouping of the planes in this manner made it extremely difficult for them to rapidly get out of the circle and into the air. One critic of the circling of these airplanes, Harry Elmer Barnes, has written: "Bunching the planes in a circle, wing to wing, would [make them] helpless in the event of a surprise air attack." Another strange circumstance was the make-up of the fleet anchored at Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack. The Pacific Fleet consisted of nine battleships and three aircraft carriers along with a host of smaller ships. During the attack, the Japanese sank or seriously damaged eight battleships but no aircraft carriers. The American government had reasoned that the aircraft carriers would have an extremely important role to play in the type of war they felt would be waged in the Pacific theater. So all of the aircraft carriers were moved out of Pearl Harbor and all of the less valuable battleships were left behind. The battleships were expendable because most of them had been constructed prior to or during World War I, which meant that they were old and obsolete. Along with the aircraft carriers, Roosevelt's government also withdrew the smaller, more mobile ships that they knew could be more efficiently utilized in a sea war. On November 28th, Admiral William F. Halsey was sent to Wake Island with the carrier Enterprise, three heavy destroyers and nine destroyers. On December 5th, Admiral John E. Newton was sent to Midway with the carrier Lexington, three heavy cruisers and five destroyers. The carrier Saratoga had been sent to the Pacific Coast. Admiral Husband Kimmel, the commander of the naval forces at Pearl Harbor, clearly places the blame for Pearl Harbor's unpreparedness on President Roosevelt. He has written: "We were unready at Pearl Harbor because President Roosevelt's plans required that no word be sent to alert the fleet in Hawaii." The Rt Hon. Oliver Lyttleton, a member of Churchill's war cabinet, declared in an address to the American Chamber of Commerce in London on June 24, 1944: "America provoked [the Japanese] to such an extent that the Japanese were forced to attack Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war." The Council on Foreign Relations published an article in its publication called Foreign Affairs in January, 1974, that agreed with Lyttleton. The article stated that "Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor actually thrust the United States into World War II, but the Roosevelt administration decided a year and a half earlier to risk war in order to prevent the totalitarian domination of all Europe." So on December 8, 1941, President Roosevelt asked the Congress to declare war on Japan, stating that December 7, 1941 would go down in history as a "day of infamy." So when Roosevelt addressed the nation through his speech in Congress, he lied when he said: "We don't like it — and we didn't want to get in it — but we are in it and we're going to fight it with everything we've got." So Roosevelt asked for, and received, a Declaration of War against Japan. Germany followed on December 11th with a Declaration of War against the United States. This action was in accordance with the terms of the Tripartite Treaty signed earlier by Germany, Italy and Japan. Roosevelt's activities in the planning of Pearl Harbor had a costly price. The final toll was 2,341 U.S. servicemen dead and 1,143 wounded; eighteen ships including the eight battleships were sunk or heavily damaged; more than two hundred Army Air Corps and Navy planes were destroyed or unusable; and sixty-eight civilians were killed. For his supposed unpreparedness at Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel was relieved of his command, and he retired on January 7, 1942. After the war was over. Congress looked into the reasons for the lack of preparation at Pearl Harbor. Their conclusions are most revealing: 1. The attack was unprovoked by America; 2. There was no evidence that the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of Navy, provoked the attack; 3. The American government made every effort to avoid the war with Japan; 4. The attack was caused by the Army's and Navy's failure to detect hostile forces; and 5. The errors made were errors of judgment and not derelictions of duty. The last conclusion was apparently intended to relieve the commanders of the armed forces from responsibility so that they could not be court-martialed. Admiral Kimmel and General Walter C. Short, the commander of the armed forces at Pearl Harbor, continuously pleaded for a court martial to clear their reputations, but they were never granted. Admiral Robert Theobold, the Commander of all destroyers at Pearl Harbor, wrote a book entitled The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, in which he detailed his conclusions about the "surprise attack." He wrote: 1. President Roosevelt forced Japan to war and enticed them to initiate hostilities by holding the Pacific fleet in Hawaiian waters as an invitation to that attack; 2. The plans to use Pearl Harbor as the bait started in June, 1940; 3. War with Japan meant war with Germany; and 4. Roosevelt, Marshall and Stark knew about Pearl Harbor 21 hours before the attack. But in spite of all of this evidence that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was known by Roosevelt and his top advisors well in advance of that actual event, there are those who still hold to the position that the government, and Roosevelt specifically, knew nothing about it. So America now had a two-front war against Japan in the Pacific and against Germany in Europe. Just as planned!
Shwoo, I thought you were serious for a second there. Read "Sun Tzu" sometime. We have already effectively lost the war. They need not spend trillions of dollars on weaponry, as they don't have the level of corruption that we have in our military industrial complex where but a small fraction of the money actually goes into anything tangible. As far as troops, they have superior numbers, and they could easily send in hundreds of thousands covertly by cargo ship, infiltrating them into the country over time, with their weapons stored at various Chinese shipping facilities along the west coast. They have ICBM's take could take out our major cities, and could possibly disable any counter attack through use of their anti-satellite technology, destroying our GPS satellites causing our missiles to be unable to navigate to their targets. Hell, they could have already disabled the targetting systems onboard our ICBM's through the infiltration of our nuclear labs, putting backdoors into the targetting software that they could pry open whenever they wish in order to render the missle system useless, or worse, targetting them against US targets.
I'm fully aware of what led up to Pearl Harbor and do not disagree with anything you wrote concerning that. But that is simply a red herring that avoids the real question of what would have happened if we DIDN'T enter WWII when we did.
I guess you don't even know the timeline of WWII so this is pointless. The Battle of Britain was won by October of 1940 if that's any hint. Plus the Royal Navy had complete dominance of the Mediterranean throughout and had sunk the Bismarck by May of 1940, driving German sea control all the way to east of the Denmark Strait. And the Germans were going to do what to the US all the way across the Atlantic? Gimme a break. Also, let's not forget who declared war on who. Y'all act like Britain was some saint in 1938 that ruled her Empire around 25% the world with fairy dust and gum drop kisses. It's just that Old Britannia had her corpse piles more evenly spread out geographically so folks were less apt to notice. Plus, last I knew Dunkirk ain't in England. Britain was just pissed the Nazis were able to conquer more of mainland Europe in a year than they had in 800 years of trying.
American pilots volunteered to serve with the RAF prior to our entering the war. Never mind. I'm done and you win. I thought maybe this was a rational discussion, not some Red Dawn wet dream.
It would not have occured in the early part of the 40's, but if they had been able to reach world domination to the exclusion of the Americas, by the 50's they would have been able to stage an attack on both coasts along with an invasion from South America.
Eternal vigilence is what keeps us free. It is idiotic to rely upon the hope that every nation in the world will play nice and not attempt to attack at some future date. I gave one possible scenario, there are many others that could easily play out.
Oh, wow, ten whole American pilots. Well that settles it. Hell's bells, they shouldn't even call it the Battle of Britain. Maybe the Battle of Brooklyn would be more apt. Jeeesh.
That's good.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Just because someone wasn't on the front line, doesn't mean they should not be recognized. No standing army? That's a recipe for disaster.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Let's not forget the others that also helped out... From the site I linked; Do you even have any concept of what it takes to hold together an empire like you describe? It took Britain 500 years to put in their infrastructure for tenuous hold at best (see United States 1776), shaping alliances, backstabbing deals, assassinations, putting in and swapping out thousands of local Quisling princes, kings, governors, etc.over hundreds of years and most of this against backwards people who didn't even know what a rifle was. Shit, some of them hadn't even discovered fire. You're delusional if you think Germany was going much further than the English Channel or Siberia in 10 years.
The Germanys lost WW II as soon as they attacked Russia. From that point on, it was just a later of time. Every time I hear one of the old timers say that if it wasn't for them, we'd all be speaking German, I have to laugh. Talk about an exaggerated sense of self-importance. LOL
And you think that's an odd mix for an empire the size of England's? Most of those were still subjects of George VI at the time. What's next? Are you going to give a breakdown of the nationalities in the French Foreign Legion in 1940? It's Europe for chrissakes. That's how they operate.
I served for 15 years. I've never asked for yours or anyone else's thank you, nor do I or have I ever expected gratitude from anyone. I joined because that's what my maternal and paternal family did, served in the military. It's been that way since I don't know when. My great grandfathers, my grandfathers, my uncles and my brothers have all been career military men, both officer and enlisted. It was expected of me and I was groomed for it. I make no apologies to you nor anyone else.
If America hadn't fought Germany on it's European front, they could have more effectively fought against Russia on the Eastern front. We drew their attention and weakened them, causing them to divert resources and troops away from the war against Russia. Let's not forget that Italy was also involved, and we had a huge role in defeating them as well.
Brave souls responded to a clear threat against an ally due to their convictions and courage. Don't try to take that away from them.
The opposite is almost invariably true. Ask the Costa Ricans why they do so well in one of the most unstable parts of the world without one. You're 1000 times more likely to have your standing army turned on the people in a coup or purge than you are to be conquered by an outside force.
Speaking of... I was chatting with a friend of mine who is a lieutenant in the military. He and I got into an argument about politics because he's one of those true believers who cannot see the future for what it is. When asked what he thought of our troops being used on American Soil for different missions, or against the American People, his words were, "It'll never happen because it's unconstitutional." Imagine his surprise when I posted a link to the new defense bill where it states that American Soldiers will now be charged with carrying out the willful orders of the government for all domestic operations. Meaning, they can and now will be used against the American People, if the need so arises. Funny how the world turns aint it?
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
The war was not going well for Britain until we came to their assistance. With all due respect, this just isn't true. I would respectfully suggest you read up on the Battle of Britain. By the time the United States entered the war, the threat of invasion by Germany was over. This was mostly because of Hitler's own stupidity. After the Battle of Britain Hitler pretty much changed tactics, against the advice of his general staff I might add. If Hitler would have continued putting pressure upon the British Air Force he would have had air superiority which would then have given him an opportunity to invade Britain. He blew it though and that opportunity never came again. The only help the United States was giving at this time was military supplies. I would also disagree with your earlier post that the Nazi's would have taken over Europe had the United States not entered the war. This just isn't the case. It is pretty much acknowleged that even if the United States had not entered into the war, the Russians and the rest of Europe would have defeated Hitler. While it took a long time for the Russian War machine to gear up due to the size of the country and its poor infrastructure, once it was geared up, Hitler didn't stand a chance.
I mean the government of the United States. There were many American pilots who volunteered to fly for both the British and Canadian Air Forces. but they did so as private citizens.
First of all, most you listed were Dominioners who didn't have a choice. Second, you think the Czechoslovaks saw the British as allies? It was the Brits who wouldn't even allow the Czechs at the table to decide their own fate at the Munich Agreement. A good many Czechs were just as satisfied serving in the Wehrmacht shooting Brits. Some were more predisposed to be in the resistance so they could blow up Austrians, and still others were Commies who spent their time laying tracks for the Soviets to roll in with the socialist paradise. I'm sure there were even some Catholic zealots who went down to help the Croat Ustasha dispose of their little Serbian Orthodox problem. You have some fairy tale black and white version of Europe that is about as sophisticated as a 5 year olds.
I expect that's because of our nearby presence. WWII made it clear that a ready military is part of surviving the future. That does not mean license to preemptive invasions or domestic tyranny. For that you need a corrupt Congress and a thoroughly corrupt and treasonous WH.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
You are wrong. There are many that have defended this country from real threats, regardless of what you think. No, I am right. China upped it's military spending to a whopping 46 billion (the usual agencies in the US claim it is 96 billion but who would believe them?) Who could blame them? US flotillas off her coast day and night- fat spy planes over her coast day in night. How many countries on her borders are US aligned and have US bases? China has a reason for needing a military. It is called defense. Defense from a country that has proven itself to be a serial aggressor. Who has China invaded? Does China have even one- one - foreign military base? Bully? Who has "Bullied" the US? I will say this again- of all the countries of the world- this one- has the least reason to have a standing military. Not a living veteran has done anything to "defend" this country from anything. Now- if you want to "honor" some of them- honor the ones who were drafted against their will at the age of 21 and got a german 88 in the gut at some idiotic pointless battle that we don't "celebrate"- that Steven Spielburg doesn't make a movie about- like Hurtgen. Honor them- not for their "service" - but for being victims and having their lives snuffed out for the whimsy of some a-hole politician in a distant city that never gave a shit about him. Unless you consider slaughtering stone age tribesmen to be "defense" and deserving of the term "wars" This country hasn't defended itself from foreign threat since 1815 and even then- most of that defense was by citizen militias.
How did our "nearby presence" work out for Panama, Grenada, Honduras, Nicaragua, Chile, and El Salvador? Think about it.
I never said it was a friendly nearby presence.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
There's two types of countries on that list. Ones that the US invaded or ones that the US used the country's own military in either a coup or civil war for its own purposes. By getting rid of their standing army, Costa Rica has eliminated half of the possible threats (the one used most often).
Comments (75 - 251) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestEven in a conventional conflict, not many would be ready to stand up against well trained troops armed with automatic weapons, artillery, and air support.
#36. To: RickyJ (#33)
OK, in which war?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#37. To: RickyJ (#35)
But the sheer volume of novices would overwhelm the professionals easily.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#38. To: FormerLurker (#30)
It is those that you disparage as "jack offs" that gave this Nation her strength, and kept the bullies at bay.
#39. To: FormerLurker (#36)
#40. To: RickyJ (#35)
You are right, professional murderers are always going to have an edge over novices. But the sheer volume of novices would overwhelm the professionals easily.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#41. To: FormerLurker (#36)
If he had been able to take over all of Europe, Africa, and Russia, and if Japan had been able to take over China
#42. To: robnoel (#39)
Do you make your own cool-aid or do the send it FedX?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#43. To: SmokinOPs (#41)
(Edited)
Hitler couldn't even scrape up enough boats to launch an invasion across the damn English Channel. The RAF put down the Luftwaffe all by their little selves.
The History Channel has warped your brain
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#44. To: FormerLurker (#42)
#45. To: robnoel (#44)
(Edited)
Thats a fairy tale I deal in the real world
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#46. To: FormerLurker (#45)
#47. To: FormerLurker (#45)
Part Two
#48. To: SmokinOPs (#38)
(Edited)
A parody about how China spends 1/30th on their military and have 0 aircraft carriers and fly spy planes right up to US airspace (oh wait that was the US doing that to China, never mind) and have 30,000 soldiers in a nation bordering the US ( oh wait, that's Uncle Scam in Korea, never mind), and yet the goobers still wet the bed in fear of the "Red Chineeee".
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#49. To: robnoel (#47)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#50. To: FormerLurker (#43)
The war was not going well for Britain until we came to their assistance.
#51. To: SmokinOPs (#50)
The Battle of Britain was won by October of 1940 if that's any hint.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#52. To: FormerLurker (#48)
As far as troops, they have superior numbers, and they could easily send in hundreds of thousands coverty by cargo ship, infiltrating them into the country over time, with their weapons stored at various Chinese shipping facilities along the west coast.
#53. To: SmokinOPs (#50)
And the Germans were going to do what to the US all the way across the Atlantic?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#54. To: SmokinOPs (#52)
Never mind. I'm done and you win. I thought maybe this was a rational discussion, not some Red Dawn wet dream.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#55. To: FormerLurker (#51)
#56. To: christine, Ferret Mike, Cynicom, robnoel, MUDDOG, boonie rat (#24)
"Your service is not lessened by the fraud."
#57. To: Burkeman1 (#2)
#58. To: SmokinOPs (#55)
"There were 10 Irish, 13 French, 20 south Africans, 21 Australians, 29 Belgians, 84 Czechoslovakians, 86 Canadians, 98 new Zealanders, and 139 Poles that fought in the Battle of Britain."
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#59. To: FormerLurker (#53)
It would not have occured in the early part of the 40's, but if they had been able to reach world domination to the exclusion of the Americas, by the 50's
#60. To: FormerLurker (#53)
but if they had been able to reach world domination
#61. To: FormerLurker (#58)
"There were 10 Irish, 13 French, 20 south Africans, 21 Australians, 29 Belgians, 84 Czechoslovakians, 86 Canadians, 98 new Zealanders, and 139 Poles that fought in the Battle of Britain."
#62. To: Burkeman1 (#2)
#63. To: Arete (#60)
The Germanys lost WW II as soon as they attacked Russia.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#64. To: SmokinOPs (#61)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#65. To: robin (#57)
No standing army? That's a recipe for disaster.
#66. To: SmokinOPs (#65)
#67. To: FormerLurker (#43)
If we hadn't joined Britain in her fight against Germany, Britain would have exhausted her resources and would have been unable to repel an invasion. It was BECAUSE of our help Britain was not invaded.
#68. To: FormerLurker (#67)
The only help the United States was giving at this time was military supplies.
#69. To: FormerLurker (#64)
(Edited)
Brave souls responded to a clear threat against an ally due to their convictions and courage.
#70. To: SmokinOPs (#65)
Ask the Costa Ricans why they do so well in one of the most unstable parts of the world without one.
#71. To: FormerLurker (#30)
(Edited)
#72. To: robin (#70)
I expect that's because of our nearby presence.
#73. To: SmokinOPs (#72)
#74. To: robin (#73)
(Edited)
I never said it was a friendly nearby presence.
.
.
.