| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 10/21/2001; 6:48 PM As opposed to popular belief, the bombing of Pearl Harbor was the result of the careful planning of the international community to force Japans declaration of war. The fact that Pearl Harbor, a base of one of the strongest nations of that time, was attacked because Japan had no better choice, is more than obvious, as shown by the words of the people involved. The total lack of warning by Washington to the people of Hawaii, and statements by the President himself, show how much US political leaders welcomed the attack. These all point to the fact that Franklin D. Roosevelt, along with his cabinet and other close advisors, using the wants and needs of Japan and China, trapped Japan into declaring war against America. There is much more to the story than Japan vs. China. Japan, an almost completely mountainous country, had few raw materials with which to feed its rapidly growing population and supply its expanding industry (Feis 3). Japan looked to expansion in Asia, along with trade, as a solution. The people viewed their position of invasion justified as mainly dictates of self-preservation, (Kawakami). China had a weak and corrupt government, and was regarded as a happy hunting ground by concession seekers of [. . .] especially European [. . .] countries (Kawakami). She was highly disorganized, giving in easily to the West, but very nationalistic (Dupuy 12). Japan, not only wanting China as its own colony, also could not allow the West to settle completely in Asia for reasons of defense. The Japanese feeling according to Kiyoshi Kari Kawakami, in 1919, was that, [if] a nation [China] proves so wayward in the management of its own affairs as to jeopardize the welfare and safety of its neighbors, it becomes the right and duty of the neighbors to urge upon that nation such measures as will remove the cause of such embarrassment. The people of Japan viewed their expansion as the equivalent of US actions in the secession of Panama from Columbia, the control of Haiti, and the dealings with Mexico. They felt it unfair that, [. . .] the United States may remain calm with regard to Mexico, while Japan, enjoying no such advantage, is extremely restive with regard to China, (Kawakami). The Japanese basically felt the US to be hypocritical since they, in many instances had done exactly what Japan considered itself to be now doing. On the other side of the world, America wanted free trade in China. She needed Japans attack to justify entrance into the German wars, which was currently opposed. This was the perfect circumstance to get what she wanted. After ending a long period of isolation with the beginning of the Meiji rule, Japan realized the necessity of the modernization and industrialization of the country (Dupuy 1). Because of this, she needed a steady supply of materials. To trade with the US (the other big countries were at war) and to expand into China were the two choices made to fulfill that need. The international community was shocked when Japan rapidly modernized her military and weaponry, and then defeated China, a highly populated country, in battle after battle. But a takeover was not what the US nor Russia wanted, and they attempted to stop Japan. After the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese war, America began limiting Japanese resources. Freezing Japans assets, barring her passage through the Panama Canal, and then ceasing export of vital oil, steel, and other machinery, the US demanded that Japan annul the Tripartite treaty made between her, Germany, and Italy by removing her troops from China and Indochina (Perloff). But instead of stopping the Japanese, these embargoes only, intensified Japans national desire [. . .] for independence of her steel industry from foreign mills, (Kawakami). According to Frank Beatty, aide to the US Naval Secretary, this was the intended purpose. Prior to December 7 [1941], it was evident even to me that we were pushing Japan into a corner. The conditions we imposed upon Japan to get out of China, for example were so severe that we knew that nation could not accept. We did not want her to accept them, (Perloff). By making the demands so impossible, America was forcing Japan into war. When the opposition drew to its climax, Japan had little choice of what to do. Backed into a corner, she could either remove her troops, and allow Western colonization in China, exposing herself to eventual attack, or she could fight one of the greatest powers of that time, at a great risk of defeat. If she did take it upon herself to assault the US, Germany was obligated by treaty to also declare war. For the US, this was the way to get the public support of war with Germany. Until Pearl, 94% of people were against going to war (Perloff). If Roosevelt had made the first move, and attacked, he would have lost a great majority of the support he was receiving from the general population, (The U.S. Entering World War II). Some have even put forth the theory that this was for the promotion of Socialism in Asia. Yet whatever the other reasons, it worked. Stimson, Secretary of War, noted in his diary, We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move overt move. After a conference with FDR, Stimson also wrote, The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot, (Perloff). During the Atlantic Conference held a few months before Japans attack, FDR said, Everything was to be done to force an incident to justify hostilities, (Willey). All they needed was an incident. The 30th of November, Japan radioed this message, Japan, under the necessity of her self-defense, has reached a position to declare war on the United States of America, (Willey). On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Around 180 planes, mistaken for US B-17 bombers, had Oahu under full attack by 8 a.m. (Crossland). The force sank or heavily damaged 18 naval vessels (including eight battleships), destroyed 188 planes, and left over 2,000 dead, (Perloff). On December 8, Jonathan Daniels, administrative assistant and press secretary to FDR, said, The blow was heavier than he [FDR] had hoped it would necessarily be But the risks paid off, even the loss was worth the price, (Willey). The US government, expecting Pearl, felt that the destruction of life there was worth whatever ends they were attempting to reach, as if the end justified the means, showing exactly how intentional this was. Although nothing of what Japan did in Asia or Hawaii can be justified by the behavior of the US, the fact still remains that this great loss of life could have been prevented, but wasnt, simply because of the interests of the US leaders. Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, wrote two months before Pearl, For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan. As stated by Oliver Lyttelton, British Minister of Production (1944), Japan was provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into war, (Perloff). Roosevelt himself told the public that In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens you can bet it was planned that way, (Perloff). Pearl Harbor was a pawn of the government, whose bombing was induced to justify the US involvement in the Second World War. Works Cited Crossland, Zoe. Study Guides US History: WWII Pearl Harbor. 10 Feb. 2000. <http:// people2.mw.mediaone.net/eallen/umi/k12/PACKS/SOCIALST/PESSAY.HTM> Dupuy, Trevor Nevitt. Asiatic Land Battles: The Expansion of Japan in Asia, Military history of WWII vol. 8. New York: Franklin Watts Inc., 1963. Feis, Herbert. The Road to Pearl Harbor, The Coming of the War Between the United States and Japan. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1950. Kawakami, Kiyoshi Kari. The Japanese Advance in China. Japan and World Peace. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1919. 26 Jan. 2000. <http://www.shsu.edu /~his_ncp/Kawa2.htm>. Perloff, James. Pearl Harbor. The New American vol. 2 no. 30. 8 Dec. 1986. 10 Feb. 2000. <http://www.thenewamerican.com/departments/feature/070499.htm>. The U.S. Entering World War II. cyberessays.com. 9 Feb. 2000. <http://cyberessays .com/History/134.htm> Willey, Mark. Pearl Harbor Mother of All Conspiracies. 9 Feb. 2000. <http://www. geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html>. Additional background information supplied by: Osborne, Sidney. Japanese Expansion A Chino-Japanese Union The Japanese Peril. New York: MacMillan, 1921. 26 Jan. 2000. <http://www.shsu.edu/ ~his_ncp/Osbor2.html> Encyclopædia Britannica <http://www.eb.com> Encyclopedia.com <http://www.encyclopedia.com>
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Peter on 2/26/2001; 8:28 AM Chie, that is the biggest pile of ridiculous revisionist nonsense I have read, and I am now reading David Irving's account of World War Two! First of all, Japan was not at all removing a corrupt government of China to replace it with another. What they did was mercifully bomb city after city in China, having already conquered other parts of East Asia. A high population can never excuse what they did, particularly as their Chinese victims had a population of half a billion on the thirties and early forties. They bombed civilians in Peking in particular, and took over much territory, but as the people fled, they had no slaves. So when they arrived at Nanking, they massacred at least two hundred thousand civilians, perhaps three hundred thousand. They raped twenty thousand women simultaneously in what became the greatest atrocity in the human history. The world was so shocked by all this, that even the (then) neutral Nazi government offered to mediate to prevent any further bloodshed. That is the truth of Japanese military history. They joined the Germans because their attitude at the time fitted Japan's exactly. Their love for murder was present and strong. During the war, they bombed Pearl Harbour not because of any international pressure, but because they saw it as the only way to fight the US: to destroy the navy before any official war declaration. The Americans knew an attack would come soon, but they knew not where. So the Japanese sent four hundred bombers and did as much damage as they could. Mercifully, the us aircraft carriers were away from Pearl Harbour at the time, and that prevented their destruction, along with the deaths of so many innocents. In the war, the Japanese were so ruthless that the US army details assured them those they fought were not people, but wild animals. It seems a harsh, racist statement now, but it was also one entirely consistent with their conduct. They did well at times, including the tragic victory in Singapore, which then had no land defences, and was only "impregnable" because a sea invasion was so easy to defend against. In Singapore, just as the Japanese were about to withdraw for lack of ammunition, the British were forced to surrender. In the greatest military defeat in British history, 150 000 decent men were handed over to savages, to be tortured and starved and mutilated. The American POW figures are probably higher. The Italians did no such things! The Germans did no such things! The idea that the Japanese can ever be excused for their sickening behaviour is madness. They deserved both nukes that Truman dropped on their country, and many more. They may be different people now, although it is doubtful to me, but certainly you cannot blame the Americans or "international pressure" for any of their sick crimes. They were and are responsible, and no amount of propaganda can excuse them. Peter.
Re: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Mark Morgan on 2/26/2001; 9:27 AM In article <Conversant-46514@dns2.macrobyteresources.com> , Peter <augustuscaeser@hotmail.com> wrote: This is not a comment on the topic, something I have not studied so I won't pretend I know anything about. Instead, this is fair warning to all: >Chie, that is the biggest pile of ridiculous revisionist nonsense I have read, and I am now reading David Irving's account of World War Two! (emphasis mine) >They were and are responsible, and no amount of propaganda can excuse them. (emphasis mine) >Peter. I'm going to let this post sit, as it's really about the argument Chie made, not about her personally (although Chie and Aradia are both of Japanese descent, so it is a comment about their immediate families). But any namecalling or insults by anybody will get the post to the Bleachers so fast it'll make your head spin. What constitutes "namecalling" is at my discretion, but if I move a post you are free to try and convince me I'm wrong. I might even be wrong. But I intend to follow a policy of overreacting, not underreacting. I can always move the post back if I'm wrong. Play nice. --------------------------- Mark Morgan: mark_morgan@yahoo.com http://www.VoicesOfUnreason.com "obeisances before the written word" CS Lewis: "We read to know we're not alone."
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Brian Carnell on 2/26/2001; 11:17 AM Like Mark I haven't really read much of the revisionist history that claims that FDR knew about and/or desired a Japanese attack on the United States. That being said, Peter's problem with the claim seems to be the assumption that if Allied forces goaded Japan into attacking the U.S. that this implies some sort of moral equivalence between Japanese and U.S. actions. I certainly didn't get that out of Chie's post and it is certainly not necessarily implied by the claim that FDR wanted war with Japan.
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Peter on 2/26/2001; 11:43 AM Brian, my problem with the claim is that it is totally false! It was made up by a few revisionist historians and I believe the truth should be revealed. History is not some debate on which painting or book is better. It is about what actually happened. Chie is wrong, and real history is right. Peter.
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 2/26/2001; 4:01 PM Peter Are you Japanese? Are you all knowing? Are you an expert? How many books have you read on this subject? How many sources and quotes do you have to back up your statements? Are you absolutely sure you have not subjected yourself to any propaganda? Are you afraid of being wrong? Do you believe that America is a utopia? Have you had first-hand description and explanation of the Japanese view-point during and after WWII? Have you looked up and read my sources? Are you willing to? Are you willing to admit every country has committed their own atrocities? Has America murdered millions? Are you the recipient of information that would specifically show outside of opinion and speculation that what I have said is wrong? If you had no such information, would you research the topic? Not saying the answers to this are no, but I want to know your proof. Give me proof. Then give me opinion. Be scientific. Seems to me every country has their own propaganda, and motives aren't usually pure. Don't be afraid of finding truth, all that is hurt is pride. On another happier less annoying note, Happy Bun Day (Iceland) -VW
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 2/26/2001; 4:22 PM "The world was so shocked by all this, that even the (then) neutral Nazi government offered to mediate to prevent any further bloodshed" - Give me a quote "They joined the Germans because their attitude at the time fitted Japan's exactly. Their love for murder was present and strong." - Is that fact or opinion? "along with the deaths of so many innocents" - no soldier is innocent in war "It seems a harsh, racist statement now, but it was also one entirely consistent with their conduct" - seems or is? "handed over to savages, to be tortured and starved and mutilated. The American POW figures are probably higher. The Italians did no such things! The Germans did no such things! The idea that the Japanese can ever be excused for their sickening behaviour is madness. They deserved both nukes that Truman dropped on their country, and many more." - savages? What was the holocaust? how many people did stalin starve? How many people died in the nukes? How many people slowly melted away with radiation poisoning? How many children died painful deaths? Even if they deserved it, where is the "innocence" in bombing non-military cities? Probably? What kind of fact is that? I never said that they should be excuse, justified, etc. I AM saying that America should not be justified or sugar-coated either. "They may be different people now, although it is doubtful to me," - How many japanese people have you met and spoken to? What is doubtful to me is that your experience goes any further than books, stereotypes, and propaganda. Prove me I'm wrong. You are too kind. Did you know that if kitaktushu did not have overcast skies that day, I would not be alive? Point made. By the way, hate to add fuel to this fire, but do you know about the soldiers raping Japanese citizens? Excuse me for finding your comment a biased opinion, with no basis, no background, no proof, and some kind of unchristian incivility.
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Brian Carnell on 2/26/2001; 7:55 PM Peter, Japan of that period was clearly one of the worst nation-states of the 20th century. Had it not been for the twin pillars of fascism and communism killing civilians at a record pace, it otherwise would have been at the top in that dubious category. On the other hand there is nothing in that statement which precludes a) the Chinese government prior to the Japanese invasion being corrupt (in fact it was exceedingly corrupt) and b) the United States opposing Japan largely out of self-interested imperial designs on the region rather than any humanitarian goals. One can, for example, answer Chie's question, "Are you willing to admit every country has committed their own atrocities?" in the affirmative, but at the same time note that American war time atrocities in the 20th century pale in comparison to what Japan accomplished in only a couple decades. This reminds me a lot of the current debate in the United States over the Confederate States of America. Despite what one reads in the newspaper, it is possible to consistently detest both slavery and Abraham Lincoln. Similarly, just because the United States was on the right side in World War II does not necessarily mean that its motives were as high minded.
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Peter on 2/26/2001; 8:05 PM "The world was so shocked by all this, that even the (then) neutral Nazi government offered to mediate to prevent any further bloodshed" - Give me a quote If you want a quote from the Nazis I cannot offer one now. Most of the information for my writings was based on yesterday's episode of "A World At War". My sentence is almost exactly the one used by the narrator. "They joined the Germans because their attitude at the time fitted Japan's exactly. Their love for murder was present and strong." - Is that fact or opinion? Fact. After the invasion of Poland and France the common phrase in Japan was "Don't miss the bus" - a reference to the stream of military victories. "along with the deaths of so many innocents" - no soldier is innocent in war Preposterous, left wing nonsense. Therse men in particular were doing nothing but working in a ship docked at Pearl Harbour. They were ruthlessly slaughtered by those with whom they weren't even at war. They died innocent men. "handed over to savages, to be tortured and starved and mutilated. The American POW figures are probably higher. The Italians did no such things! The Germans did no such things! The idea that the Japanese can ever be excused for their sickening behaviour is madness. They deserved both nukes that Truman dropped on their country, and many more." - savages? What was the holocaust? how many people did stalin starve? How many people died in the nukes? How many people slowly melted away with radiation poisoning? How many children died painful deaths? Even if they deserved it, where is the "innocence" in bombing non-military cities? Probably? What kind of fact is that? I never said that they should be excuse, justified, etc. I AM saying that America should not be justified or sugar-coated either. America was entirely innocent, and bombed by an aggressive people determined to inflict any suffering that would bring them victory. Any response that they suffered was purely a matter of American self-defence. I do not like this nasty branch of history that says all war is evil, and all sides are equally to blame. It is dangerous and wrong. By the way, hate to add fuel to this fire, but do you know about the soldiers raping Japanese citizens? The same has been suggested to me on Vietnam, and I consider it to be entirely false. It is the easiest charge in the world to make, but I do not think it is an activity the Americans are capable of. Yes, the Serbs, the Japanese, the French, the Africans etc. etc. might rape innocent women during a war, but Americans are directly descended from the British, so I know that this cannot be the case. Peter.
Re: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Matthew Patterson, the Paranoid Minister on 2/26/2001; 8:18 PM Preposterous, left wing nonsense. Therse men in particular were doing nothing but working in a ship docked at Pearl Harbour. They were ruthlessly slaughtered by those with whom they weren't even at war. They died innocent men. Boy, did you pick the wrong person to call left-wing. Really, learn about people before you start making assumptions about their politics. America was entirely innocent, and bombed by an aggressive people determined to inflict any suffering that would bring them victory. Any response that they suffered was purely a matter of American self-defence. I do not like this nasty branch of history that says all war is evil, and all sides are equally to blame. It is dangerous and wrong. Why? What is the harm in avoiding war if at all possible? The same has been suggested to me on Vietnam, and I consider it to be entirely false. It is the easiest charge in the world to make, but I do not think it is an activity the Americans are capable of. Yes, the Serbs, the Japanese, the French, the Africans etc. etc. might rape innocent women during a war, but Americans are directly descended from the British, so I know that this cannot be the case. ???? Are you seriously suggesting that behavior in wartime is a direct result of ancestry? (BTW, Africa is a contintent, not a country.) Besides, what makes the British so great? Didn't I hear something about a certain king who created his own church just so he could have a divorce? Didn't that lead to much war and death and suffering all around?
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Brian Carnell on 2/26/2001; 9:29 PM Peter wrote: >The same has been suggested to me on Vietnam, and I consider it to be >entirely false. It is the easiest charge in the world to make, but I do >not think it is an activity the Americans are capable of. Yes, the Serbs, >the Japanese, the French, the Africans etc. etc. might rape innocent women >during a war, but Americans are directly descended from the British, so I >know that this cannot be the case. Restricting myself to events that took place during World War II, exactly how do you square British actions visa vis Bengal with this view? For those unfamiliar, 4 *million* people died of starvation due largely to "strategic" decisions made by Great Britain which controlled Bengal.
Re: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Sean McMains on 2/26/2001; 11:57 PM Yes, the Serbs, the Japanese, the French, the Africans etc. etc. might rape innocent women during a war, but Americans are directly descended from the British, so I know that this cannot be the case. Peter, is this irony? It's pretty funny. I know, of course, that there are both Americans and British men who rape during peacetime. Are you saying that, during a war, their standards of sexual practice will become more restrained, responsible, and respectful? That's a pretty extraordinary claim, don't you think? Best, Sean
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 2/27/2001; 1:17 AM peter, your response was too silly to argue with.
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Mark Morgan on 2/27/2001; 1:57 AM All RIGHT! Some days I think I should just disable posting and go back to having everyone e-mail things to me. Everybody calm down. Peter, I will not tolerate phrases like "preposterous left wing nonsense." <grin> Perhaps you should take it to Brian's Leftwatch.com? Kidding! Kidding, Brian! Kidding! Chie, I know it's frustrating, but please don't let your emotion cloud your posts.
Re: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Matthew Patterson, the Paranoid Minister on 2/27/2001; 2:16 AM > Chie, I know it's frustrating, but please don't let your emotion cloud your > posts. Well, Chie has a point. There's no point in reasonably debating with unreasonable people.
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Seth Dillingham on 2/27/2001; 10:55 AM On Tuesday, February 27, 2001 at 1:32 AM, Matthew wrote: >> Chie, I know it's frustrating, but please don't let your emotion cloud your >> posts. > >Well, Chie has a point. There's no point in reasonably debating with >unreasonable people. http://TruerWords.free-conversant.com/452 (That's a little old now, but it's the first thing my mind went to when I read your message, Matt.) Seth
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Peter on 2/27/2001; 1:32 PM Are you seriously suggesting that behavior in wartime is a direct result of ancestry? (BTW, Africa is a contintent, not a country.) Besides, what makes the British so great? Didn't I hear something about a certain king who created his own church just so he could have a divorce? Didn't that lead to much war and death and suffering all around? No, it is not to do with ancestry, but I do not think the English speaking peoples of the world are the sort who would go on a raping spree as soon as the country they defeated was vanquished. That is beneath them. I find it ironic that I have more faith in the Americans than you do, by the way. And Henry VIII certaintly didn't invent the Protestant church. Martin Luther did. Henry VIII introduced it to Britain to stop the constant Roman influence and rule, and also of course, to make divorce easier. It led to bloodshed only because the Catholics have never been able to accept the religious freedom of Britain. The bloodshed is their responsibility, not our's. And I never suggested Africa was a country. It seems easier to type out the name of a continent than a whole list: Egypt, Syria, South Africa, Congo . . . Restricting myself to events that took place during World War II, exactly how do you square British actions visa vis Bengal with this view? For those unfamiliar, 4 *million* people died of starvation due largely to "strategic" decisions made by Great Britain which controlled Bengal. I am genuinely interested here. Please give more details. Where is Bengal? Peter, is this irony? It's pretty funny. I know, of course, that there are both Americans and British men who rape during peacetime. Are you saying that, during a war, their standards of sexual practice will become more restrained, responsible, and respectful? That's a pretty extraordinary claim, don't you think? I am talking about the military practise of gang raping widowed mothers and orphaned girls. That is not something the mass of the British people would do. If you all assure me you Americans are perfectly capable of this, I will change my mind, but so far I see no evidence of that. there is nothing in that statement which precludes a) the Chinese government prior to the Japanese invasion being corrupt If you think a corrupt government is an excuse for invading a country, enslaving its people, murdering hundreds of thousands and raping thousands, you ought to be glad Clinton is no longer in the White House. the United States opposing Japan largely out of self-interested imperial designs on the region rather than any humanitarian goals. The US has never been imperialist in any bad sense of the word, and certainly would not have sought to conquer Japan, considering their considerable part in the inter-war campaigns for some sort of international law. In any case, what sort of weirdos would invade a country that, as Chie says, has zero mineral resources, but has millions willing to fight to the death? Well, Chie has a point. There's no point in reasonably debating with unreasonable people. My statements are always as reasonable as possible, and certainly logical. You just fail to understand how anyone who knows what you do about politics could possibly reach different conclusions about political correctness and liberalism than you do. peter, your response was too silly to argue with. If you post an article making a claim as bold as "The Truth Behind Pearl Harbour", then you should either be willing to defend it or not say such things. Peter.
Re: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Matthew Patterson, the Paranoid Minister on 2/27/2001; 2:01 PM No, it is not to do with ancestry, but I do not think the English speaking peoples of the world are the sort who would go on a raping spree as soon as the country they defeated was vanquished. That is beneath them. I find it ironic that I have more faith in the Americans than you do, by the way. I'm sorry, but... do you watch the news? At all? Lacking any personal knowledge of the subject, I trust the average American about as far as I can throw them. I think you need to open your eyes a bit. Humans are not perfect. In fact, I would go so far as to say that nothing is beneath us. And if the "English-speaking" remark is meant to bring up the thing about how language makes us superior, I suggest you forget it. And Henry VIII certaintly didn't invent the Protestant church. Martin Luther did. Henry VIII introduced it to Britain to stop the constant Roman influence and rule, and also of course, to make divorce easier. It led to bloodshed only because the Catholics have never been able to accept the religious freedom of Britain. The bloodshed is their responsibility, not our's. Again, you don't seem to know the real truth of the subject. Henry VIII did not bring Lutheranism to Britain. Far from it. The church he created was virtually identical to the Catholic Church, except that divorce became legal. Your remarks about constant Roman rule are best left to the conspiracy theorists. And I never suggested Africa was a country. It seems easier to type out the name of a continent than a whole list: Egypt, Syria, South Africa, Congo . . . So instead of recognizing the uniqueness of each nation and person, you're going to lump them all together with the rapists? If you think a corrupt government is an excuse for invading a country, enslaving its people, murdering hundreds of thousands and raping thousands, you ought to be glad Clinton is no longer in the White House. If you think Bush becoming President precludes corruption, you're dead wrong. Remember, Nixon was a Republican. Nixon was also a criminal. The two are not mutually exclusive. Of course, Clinton was pretty bad. Good politician, he just didn't apply those skills in the right way. My statements are always as reasonable as possible, and certainly logical. You just fail to understand how anyone who knows what you do about politics could possibly reach different conclusions about political correctness and liberalism than you do. This is not, and never has been, a debate about political correctness and liberalism. I would appreciate it if you don't turn it into one.
Re: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Peter on 2/27/2001; 3:51 PM I'm sorry, but... do you watch the news? At all? Lacking any personal knowledge of the subject, I trust the average American about as far as I can throw them. I think you need to open your eyes a bit. Humans are not perfect. In fact, I would go so far as to say that nothing is beneath us. Well I think you are wrong. The Americans tend to be good people, particularly before the sixties, when they were almost flawless. I would trust the Americans as true allies, unlike almost any other country. If you think Bush becoming President precludes corruption, you're dead wrong. Remember, Nixon was a Republican. Nixon was also a criminal. The two are not mutually exclusive. Nixon was only a criminal in the strictest sense. Clinton was certainly a criminal. It was only the political correctness of the US that prevented his impeachment. Nixon, was by the way, the second greatest President of the Post War years. He was a foreign policy expert, a true intellectual, and a thoroughly kind and decent man. Peter.
Re: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Matthew Patterson, the Paranoid Minister on 2/27/2001; 4:16 PM Well I think you are wrong. The Americans tend to be good people, particularly before the sixties, when they were almost flawless. I would trust the Americans as true allies, unlike almost any other country. Let's see... before the sixties, we were almost flawless. Hm... I know there's something in there... oh, yes, slavery. Knew I was forgetting something. Anyway, take it from someone who lives in the United States. (I refuse to say America, because Guatemalans and Brazilians and Argentinians are also American.) We are not perfect, nor are we posessed of any particular moral character superior to anyone else. We're just people.
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Seth Dillingham on 2/27/2001; 4:51 PM On Tuesday, February 27, 2001 at 3:32 PM, Matthew wrote: >Anyway, take it from someone who lives in the United States. (I refuse to >say America, because Guatemalans and Brazilians and Argentinians are also >American.) We are not perfect, nor are we posessed of any particular moral >character superior to anyone else. We're just people. Speak for yourself, heathen. ;-)
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: PJ Caroon on 2/27/2001; 8:00 PM Im too lazy to argue at the moment...but maybe later. But the discussion group sure is more lively when Peter is around, thats for sure. :P Haapy Mardi Gras Everyone!
Re: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 3/15/2001; 12:53 AM Ahh, nothing like a nice extreme case prooving one's point. Yes, the Serbs, the Japanese, the French, the Africans etc. etc. might rape innocent women during a war, but Americans are directly descended from the British, so I know that this cannot be the case. Peter, is this irony? It's pretty funny. I know, of course, that there are both Americans and British men who rape during peacetime. Are you saying that, during a war, their standards of sexual practice will become more restrained, responsible, and respectful? That's a pretty extraordinary claim, don't you think? I'd like to post an excerpt of a confession made by albert fish, a serial murderer, sado -masochist, cannibal, pediphile, and simply gross 66 yr old man. He lived in New York from 1870 to 1936 when he was electrocuted, a type of death he looked forwards to. For the bio, go to http://www.crimelibrary.com/fish/fish/fishmain.htm I'd include an excerpt except that it is very gross btw he thought he was sent by god, and that if he had been doing wrong, an angel would have stopped him.
Re: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Brian Carnell on 3/15/2001; 9:10 AM If the topic is rape, American soldiers and Japan, there have been number of high profile cases in which American soldiers raped Japanese civilians near American bases in that country. Of course that being said, the United States army has never explicitly or tacitly use rape as a war method which the Japanese army clearly did during the subjugation of China.
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Mark Morgan on 3/15/2001; 2:58 PM Seems the topic is in the air. The Straight Dope Advisory Board tackles the question, Did Roosevelt know about the attack on Pearl Harbor? Interesting logic.
RE: The Truth Behind Pearl Harbor By: Zach on 11/11/2001; 12:46 AM Hello 2 cents: Good job Chie! Couple of points to add: The leader of the isolationist movement was Charles Lindbergh. He was Hilter's advisor in the later 1930's in the build up of the Luftwaffe. He admired the Luftwaffe...and he was down right scared that if the US had to go up against Germany...we would lose. After the attack on Pearl Harbor the isolationist movement quickly died. Pearl Harbor was not the only target. The entire island of Oahu was attacked. Bases at Bellows, Barber's Point, Waihiawa, Dillingham, and Hickam were attacked. From the topic. Washington was supposed to have one hour notice of the declaration of war. Here is the interesting part: the Japanese deligation to Washington was late, and the Western Union Wires were jammed. Notice from Washington did come at 1 pm Hawaiian standard time.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|