Dec 7: A day that will live in infamy

[Paulie]

Agreed and he bought it seriously, just as much as you do today. The writing was on the wall where the US was going and it was nation building. 9/11 happened and that changed everything, but you are living proof that it escaped some. Now there are those that disagreed regarding Iraq from the beginning, that doesn't change the WOT, just a disagreement of where it should be fought.

No kathianne, the PEOPLE bought it seriously. The intention to nation-build was part of the Bush team's plan all along. How has that not become obvious? You even admitted it:

The writing was on the wall where the US was going and it was nation building

9/11 was just an unbelievably convenient opportunity to instate the intended policy.

War and nation-building are some of the most profitable affairs for much of corporate America, and corporate America has it's dirty hands all over the US government. When are you going to realize this?

 

[Annie]

No kathianne, the PEOPLE bought it seriously. The intention to nation-build was part of the Bush team's plan all along. How has that not become obvious? You even admitted it:

9/11 was just an unbelievably convenient opportunity to instate the intended policy.

War and nation-building are some of the most profitable affairs for much of corporate America, and corporate America has it's dirty hands all over the US government. When are you going to realize this?

All I can respond with is that you've read very little of what the first 8 months of the Bush administrations actions were, both here and abroad. One little reminder of where his priorities were, he was to meet with Fox from Mexico on 9/12 I believe, to work on paths to citizenship and such. He was concerned with 'here' in a way that most of us that had worked on his campaign were appalled at.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I understand both points, US also pays Lockheed to build planes and Blackwater to service Iraq, neither company formulates policy in anyway. Now granted they make boatloads of $$, such is the nature of war, even back in WWII before it was declared.

Yes, but from the sounds of it, the company that funded them was simply a front for the US government, in order to keep things hush-hush. Lockheed and so forth are suppliers and do not fit that description, as far as we know.

This is actually the first thing I've run against that puts a poor light on the Flying Tigers.

I don't have a problem with ex-military pilots going over there to help china by any means. Certainly Japan was committing ghastly atrocities at this point, and if private citizens want to help put a stop to it, more power to them. I just wouldn't want our government funding it. There's atrocities all across africa today for example, and we do not intervene (though some on the left would like us to). And if our government does fund something like this, I think it's misleading to say that we were minding our own business, our government didn't want to go to war, etc.

In the case of Chennault and Marshall the article implies Chennault's idea was being considered and Marshall talked him out of it. That doesn't make any sense.

The way I read it is, the basic idea was Chennault's. He shared the idea with the generals, who got on board and shared it with FDR. Then Marshall realized they were unprepared, so it was temporarily postponed. Marshall didn't talk him out of it, he said it had to wait. Then, once they had the planes, ground crew, supplies, etc. in place, the plan was back on. Then Pearl Harbor happened right before they got started.

 

[Annie]

Yes, but from the sounds of it, the company that funded them was simply a front for the US government, in order to keep things hush-hush. Lockheed and so forth are suppliers and do not fit that description, as far as we know.



I don't have a problem with ex-military pilots going over there to help china by any means. Certainly Japan was committing ghastly atrocities at this point, and if private citizens want to help put a stop to it, more power to them. I just wouldn't want our government funding it. There's atrocities all across africa today for example, and we do not intervene (though some on the left would like us to). And if our government does fund something like this, I think it's misleading to say that we were minding our own business, our government didn't want to go to war, etc.



The way I read it is, the basic idea was Chennault's. He shared the idea with the generals, who got on board and shared it with FDR. Then Marshall realized they were unprepared, so it was temporarily postponed. Marshall didn't talk him out of it, he said it had to wait. Then, once they had the planes, ground crew, supplies, etc. in place, the plan was back on. Then Pearl Harbor happened right before they got started.

Nope, you might think that, but nothing from your link would logically lead to your conclusion.

We are not going to agree, it seems you are of a mindset that it's always a conspiracy that leads to war.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Nope, you might think that, but nothing from your link would logically lead to your conclusion.

Huh? The article I provided directly supported nearly everything thing I said, what are you talking about? If you have another source that contradicts mine, or you think this source is unreliable or whatever, by all means let's hear about it. There isn't much left for interpretation, I simply said "the way I read it" as a polite way of saying "this is what the article clearly states; I think you have trouble with reading comprehension".

Let's review:

The way I read it is, the basic idea was Chennault's.

But if we are to believe Duane Schultz’s The Maverick War, the moral clarity of our entry into WWII is undermined even more. In "October 1940, more than a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor," Claire Chennault, who would go on to organize and lead the famous mercenary fighter group, the Flying Tigers, in China, proposed a preemptive strike against Japan "to burn out the industrial centers of the Japanese empire using incendiaries and create terror and chaos among the populace."

He shared the idea with the generals, who got on board and shared it with FDR.

What made the plan all the more bizarre was that the highest officials in the government, including President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, approved of it. On July 23, 1941, some five months before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt formally authorized the strikes. They were to begin the following November."

(So FDR approved it. I'm assuming that Chennault went to the generals or some other intermediary first; that's the only assumption I'm making here. Or maybe an ex-military pilot had a direct line to the President of the United States of America, heh. At any rate, *how* the idea was spread is irrelevant. The point is, it *was* spread, and approved, at the highest levels.)

Then Marshall realized they were unprepared, so it was temporarily postponed.

In December 1940, General George C. Marshall had managed to talk the administration out of this sneak attack on Japan on the grounds that the United States didn’t have the planes or crews to spare, and for fear that it "would provoke a Japanese counterattack on the United States at a time when we were woefully unprepared to go to war.

Marshall didn't talk him out of it, he said it had to wait.

You had said that the article made it sound like Marshall talked Chennault out of it. The article mentions nothing about any conversation between Chennault and Marshall. He did talk FDR out of it, at least temporarily, as per the previous quote.

Then, once they had the planes, ground crew, supplies, etc. in place, the plan was back on.

But the plan was resurrected in the spring of 1941, and the raids would have been carried out in November of that year had not production and shipping bottlenecks delayed the arrival of Chennault’s bombers.

Then Pearl Harbor happened right before they got started.

On November 22, FDR’s special envoy to China informed him that he hoped that the bombers (twin-engine Lockheed Hudsons rather than the four-engine Boeing B-17s that Chennault had wanted) and their flight and ground crews would reach that country by the end of 1941, and 49 ground crewmen were at sea on their way there on December 7.

 

[Annie]

I'm going to have to look at that 2nd link, I do try and be fair.

 

[Annie]

Here's the problem, which has yet to fail when I visit a Lew Rockwell link, there is so much 'thrown' and bit by bit one finds truth and dissemination throughout. While I'd liked to read and react, I find myself fact checking the whole damn thing.

For one thing, while Gary North claims a Phd in economic history, what one finds is a prolific Christian writer of a version of Sharia Law, focusing on 'sexual deviants.' Not the type of person I turn to for discussions on historical writings.

Then there is the intro where he cites Morgenstern saying how he was villified. Not what I found. He was a University of Chicago honors graduate that while in high school was writing for a Chicago newspaper's sports section. When he graduated he went to work at the Tribune. His only break from there, where he was honored for his work on the book mentioned and his writings at the paper, was while serving in WWII. He served as an editor there until his retirement.

His book was revisionist regarding FDR and the idea that he tried to avoid war. That was hardly the case, which nearly all historians agreed, hell even FDR biographers agree with that. He did not however, suggest that Pearl Harbor was something FDR arranged or let happen.

Then there was the supposed cracks about senility regarding Beard. I wondered about that, as I read some of his abstracts while in college. He died I believe prior to the publication of the book sited.

By this time I knew, I couldn't take North seriously.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Here's the problem, which has yet to fail when I visit a Lew Rockwell link, there is so much 'thrown' and bit by bit one finds truth and dissemination throughout. While I'd liked to read and react, I find myself fact checking the whole damn thing.

For one thing, while Gary North claims a Phd in economic history, what one finds is a prolific Christian writer of a version of Sharia Law, focusing on 'sexual deviants.' Not the type of person I turn to for discussions on historical writings.

Then there is the intro where he cites Morgenstern saying how he was villified. Not what I found. He was a University of Chicago honors graduate that while in high school was writing for a Chicago newspaper's sports section. When he graduated he went to work at the Tribune. His only break from there, where he was honored for his work on the book mentioned and his writings at the paper, was while serving in WWII. He served as an editor there until his retirement.

His book was revisionist regarding FDR and the idea that he tried to avoid war. That was hardly the case, which nearly all historians agreed, hell even FDR biographers agree with that. He did not however, suggest that Pearl Harbor was something FDR arranged or let happen.

Then there was the supposed cracks about senility regarding Beard. I wondered about that, as I read some of his abstracts while in college. He died I believe prior to the publication of the book sited.

By this time I knew, I couldn't take North seriously.

I would have hated for you to have been on my master's committee considering all the lies I made up. Lol.

 

[Annie]

I would have hated for you to have been on my master's committee considering all the lies I made up. Lol.

Yeah, plagarism isn't big in my classes.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

For one thing, while Gary North claims a Phd in economic history, what one finds is a prolific Christian writer of a version of Sharia Law, focusing on 'sexual deviants.' Not the type of person I turn to for discussions on historical writings.

Really? I must have missed that part. I've read a lot of his columns, and I don't ever recall reading anything like that. I know he wrote a book about how the bible supports economic freedom and sound money, but nothing about sexual deviants. Any links?

Then there is the intro where he cites Morgenstern saying how he was villified. Not what I found. He was a University of Chicago honors graduate that while in high school was writing for a Chicago newspaper's sports section. When he graduated he went to work at the Tribune. His only break from there, where he was honored for his work on the book mentioned and his writings at the paper, was while serving in WWII. He served as an editor there until his retirement.

He simply states that the establishment PhD historians turned up their noses at it, because it was the work of a journalist. The award you speak of, was it from the newspaper, or from academic historians? Any links?

Then there was the supposed cracks about senility regarding Beard. I wondered about that, as I read some of his abstracts while in college. He died I believe prior to the publication of the book sited.

It looks like he died shortly after writing it, yes.

 

[Annie]

Really? I must have missed that part. I've read a lot of his columns, and I don't ever recall reading anything like that. I know he wrote a book about how the bible supports economic freedom and sound money, but nothing about sexual deviants. Any links?

"In winning a nation to the gospel, the sword as well as the pen must be used" (Gary North, Christian Reconstructionism, p. 198).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_North
There's lots more here about his particular brand of Calvanism.

He simply states that the establishment PhD historians turned up their noses at it, because it was the work of a journalist. The award you speak of, was it from the newspaper, or from academic historians? Any links?

THEY were from the Chicago Tribune, however I read about him at a journal of historical review. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p247_Martin.html

It looks like he died shortly after writing it, yes.[/QUOTE]
So that is what I found. If you have more and I have time, I'm willing to look.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, but I don't see it. If Japan was so desperate for oil, how does attacking the US provide it with oil?

That was the point I was attempting to make in rebuttal to those who suggest that 'we forced Japan to attack when we imposed sanctions.' It simply isn't logical. Admittedly my argument was somewhat confusing, but that is what I intended to convey.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That was the point I was attempting to make in rebuttal to those who suggest that 'we forced Japan to attack when we imposed sanctions.' It simply isn't logical. Admittedly my argument was somewhat confusing, but that is what I intended to convey.

Japan attacked us because they believed once they started attacking Britain and the Netherlands and seizing the Southern Resource Area we would us th Philippines as a base to interdict their resource theft and we would fight them.

We were not the target, we were just in the way. Japan just wanted to convince us we should allow them to do as they pleased in the pacific.

 

[Annie]

Japan attacked us because they believed once they started attacking Britain and the Netherlands and seizing the Southern Resource Area we would us th Philippines as a base to interdict their resource theft and we would fight them.

We were not the target, we were just in the way. Japan just wanted to convince us we should allow them to do as they pleased in the pacific.

We supplied them with 80% of their oil, not the Philippines. They hoped that if our navy was decimated, we'd make a peace with them, on their terms. Their theory was wrong, since the oil wasn't from Hawaii, but from US continental.

In any case, they underestimated the production capacity of US, by more than a little.