the biggest arseholes I've ever run across!!

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
nah mate, we'd be claiming it was KARMA!

karma? tripping over a foot stool? karma for what? pushing timmy off a swing in grade three? If that's the way karma works, hell, why worry about it? Declare a war on false pretexts and you might trip over a foot stool? Sheesh!
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,587
8,165
113
B.C.
EagleSmack good name.
I like your reply to Barney especially the part about the Canadian Regime.
Yes our leaders let the troops down when they sacrificed our men.
The sad part of the whole excercise was that we acctually gained a foothold ,
and there was no plan in place to provide support.
To many brave Canadians were needlessly lost to the war effort that day.

As to your remark about our men in Hong Kong.
We were neither slaughtered or captured ,we were once again let down by our
leaders .We held every position but were ordered to retreat and eventually
SURRENDER by order of British high command.
Canadian soldiers showed their metal in both those theaters.

Keep up the good work.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
Americans (and Canadians) think that for some reason they are important and necessary part of government. Fact is, other than being mindless consumers, their government(s) couldn't care less. They are run by corporate interests and all they care about is their bottom line.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell Cliff. We matter very little and it shows in voter apathy. I would have to add to corporate interests, the ideologically enraptured. They seem to hold a tremendous sway in the political shifting winds
 

barney

Electoral Member
Aug 1, 2007
336
9
18
Well you speak of evidence so where is your evidence that it was done on purpose. All of the evidnence reflects that it was an accident deep in the bowels of the ship that touched off the powder magazines. However the US used this as an excuse to fight Spain.

There is no concrete evidence that I know of that would prove, without a doubt that the USS Maine was sunk by Americans or people working with or for Americans.

That said, the ‘evidence’ in this case arises from the coincidence of events: the USS Maine blew up and sunk due to a supposed accident at the precise moment that the USA was preparing for war with Spain (in Cuba, this was exemplified by support of anti-Spanish Cubans).

The suspicion arises from the fact that the USA, and only the USA stood to benefit so completely from this coincidence. Add to that the fact that war was blatantly endorsed publicly at that very time and that Spain had absolutely nothing to gain from war with the USA (the Empire was in its final death throws at that time), and you have yourself a legitimate conspiracy theory.

BTW, I don’t want to have to research and then list specific sources because it’s tedious and it shouldn’t be necessary in a public forum (i.e. this isn’t an inquest). Just giving each other the benefit of the doubt that we’re not lying to each other through our teeth should suffice. Personally, I use sources only for general factual reference, not usually as technical evidence. My arguments tend to be based on my own common sense and just putting things together so they follow from my understanding of the way things work. If things don’t gel, then they don’t gel. You want to enlighten me? Give me better motives than the ones I come up with and I’ll accept them.


Calling us a regime sort of shows your cards and that you are biased.

Sorry, no offence intended. I have a tendency to use that term without taking into account its common usage; in North America particularly there is a tendency to use the term ‘regime’ to describe non-democratic governments (i.e. dictatorships). The term, ‘regime’ actually refers to any governmental system (or even just a method of doing things in any circumstances). I sometimes use it synonymously with ‘administration,’ when talking about presidential decisions. So yes, this means that Canada is run by a regime just like every other country that I know of.

We in the western world have a tendency to assume that our institutions, governmental and even military are somehow immune to the kind sleazy behaviour one sees in countries where the military dominates and the oligarchy is god. That is a big mistake on our part, human ambition and greed don’t just stop at the word, ‘democracy’ (in fact sometimes they can even benefit from it).

Just a side note but I don’t know why you take criticism of the US establishment personally. Unless you are a member of the higher levels of the oligarchy, have regular dealings with defence industry moguls and/or have major clout in Washington, then you’re just an average member of the population as in any other country, only you happen to be American. Take it easy, go lie on one of your many fine beaches instead of stressing yourself out thinking you have a moral obligation to defend your people from anti-American establishment comments by some (as in, a pathetically small number of) Canadians.


Your speed at which you would accuse people of murder lends me to believe that you think that leaders of countries are not human and infallible of mistakes. Would you be so quick to convict yourself of murder if you were in charge?

Wait just a minute: I didn’t say ‘murder,’ I said ‘tantamount to murder’ which isn’t the same thing. The question, in the case of Pearl Harbour and 9/11 is one of whether it was negligence (i.e. gross incompetence) or deliberate negligence (i.e. actual conspiracy). Both result in death but only the latter is tantamount to murder (‘tantamount’ meaning ‘equivalent to’ not, ‘give ‘em the goddamn chair!’ as people like Bush would ironically have it). I suggest, based on the reasoning I outlined before that it is the latter in both cases.

People are frequently fallible. Systems, even one as complex as that of the USA, are sometimes fallible. But for both to be fallible in exactly the same instance and for that one instance to result in events that benefit the already known intentions of the regime in question, is too coincidental to be above suspicion.

If I had been in charge on 9/11 or Pearl and there was no conspiracy to fault but rather my own incompetence…I would have shot myself. If I had been in charge and there was a conspiracy, I would’ve at least put a little more effort into denying it.


If you remember the German's were part of the Axis and Germany declared war. It was very much in the benefit of everyone to see the axis destroyed. When the Germans invaded Poland in September of 39' the British and French didn't see $$$ signs. They saw a threat to their existence.

I wasn’t born yet but yes, I’ve read about that somewhere. ;-D Yes of course, I mean that is pretty much cut and dry truth. Although, keep in mind that prior to the war, Nazi Germany was viewed by the Britain and France as a buffer to socialist influence for the USSR, so destroying Germany was just an inevitable and necessary action.

As for the benefits, there were none for Britain and France other than killing the monster they foolishly helped create. The same isn’t so for the USA. See my reasons above.


The leaders of the US at the outset of WWII did not say...

"Great! Now we can make a bundle!"

The US was pretty much broke at the end of the war. Just as we are broke now and the Iraq war is a HUGE drain on our treasury.

How could you possibly know that they didn’t think that? (Obviously not that but give them credit for not being blind to the opportunity—that is assuming that there was no complicity in the creation of the Nazi state, which there is but not necessarily for those reasons.)

Broke? Sorry, no. The booming economy a mere decade after the war would indicate otherwise. The thriving economy of post-war Western Europe under heavy influence (i.e. domination) of the USA would also seem to indicate otherwise.

Wars are very, very good…when you know you can win them. By 1944, the USA could’ve taken on all the combines forces of the Axis without flinching. Today’s American colossally powerful defence industry is the direct result of WW2.

Benefits? ‘Hegemony’ anyone?

I was being facetious and you should have been able to see that. The idea that FDR KNEW an attack on Pearl Harbor was going to happen is heresay and just another conspiracy. Sometimes war plans DO work.

The documentary evidence proves that the US regime almost certainly knew of the impending attack, and that the actual time and even direction of the attack were very likely known. The fact that the Pearl commanders were exempted from wrong-doing much later adds weight to this.


The Japanese set out to catch the US Fleet at Pearl and they were successful. That was their goal. Mission Accomplished. Their intention and their belief was that we would not be able to stomach a long protracted war with them. Their altered Bushido Code led them to believe we were a race of mongols and incapable of fighting them. Their intention was for us to sue for peace very quickly. They believed that their fighting spirit would achieve victory for them and over our industrial capacity.

The Japanese inital attack in the Pacific Theater as a whole was planned and conducted successfully. What you say is that we pretty much let them have their way in December 1941 so we could gain. If we were ready for a carrier attack on December 7 what would we have lost? We would still be at war...we would still have been attacked...we still would have won.

Much of Japanese policy at that time was determined by the military and the military was run by highly impractical people (to put it mildly). Among those in the Japanese forces and regime who were not border-line insane, attacking the US was viewed as almost certain suicide.

The great Japanese Admiral Yamamoto made it quite clear that Pearl Harbour was a necessary evil, whose success rested on ensuring that a) the carriers were destroyed and b) the attack was carried out after the declaration of war in one last attempt to trump the American PR card of creating anti-Japanese sentiment within the American population.

For all it’s “good luck,” Pearl Harbour was a dismal failure: it’s primary targets were not destroyed and the timing of the attack was off thus only serving one purpose: causing anti-Japanese sentiment to bring the USA into the war. This is all documented history. The fact that the forces at Pearl were not informed ensured that the Japanese would cause devastation that, quite frankly looks great on camera. Had the forces on Pearl been ready for the attack, the Japanese would most likely have been intercepted by American fighters and the fleet would’ve naturally been moved out of port. That is assuming the Japanese carriers weren’t torpedoed (or even intercepted by warships) before they even made it to Hawaii. (In other words, having Midway happen at Pearl—or even before it.) ‘Heroic American forces foil Japanese sneak attack – Japanese fleet destroyed’ would’ve had a very different effect on the American population. I’d say that’s a pretty huge difference in outcome.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
There is no concrete evidence that I know of that would prove, without a doubt that the USS Maine was sunk by Americans or people working with or for Americans.

There was a study done on the wreckage of the USS Maine as the wreckage still exists. The final analysis was it was most likely an accident. Was it used as a touch pin for the war...you bet.

The US also MAY have believed that the Spanish DID indeed blow up the Maine as they had no idea what happened. Forensics were not as advanced as they were. There were no death bed confessions of agents saying they planted charges on the Maine that fateful night. So what you have is a conspiracy and nothing more.

That said, the ‘evidence’ in this case arises from the coincidence of events: the USS Maine blew up and sunk due to a supposed accident at the precise moment that the USA was preparing for war with Spain (in Cuba, this was exemplified by support of anti-Spanish Cubans).

A coincidence is not a reason to say "Well it must have been a planted charge".

The suspicion arises from the fact that the USA, and only the USA stood to benefit so completely from this coincidence. Add to that the fact that war was blatantly endorsed publicly at that very time and that Spain had absolutely nothing to gain from war with the USA (the Empire was in its final death throws at that time), and you have yourself a legitimate conspiracy theory.

True. The US wanted war with Spain... Spain did not want a war with the US. With or w/o the loss of the Maine we would have gone to war. The destruction of the Maine gave the US a rallying cry.

BTW, I don’t want to have to research and then list specific sources because it’s tedious and it shouldn’t be necessary in a public forum (i.e. this isn’t an inquest). Just giving each other the benefit of the doubt that we’re not lying to each other through our teeth should suffice. Personally, I use sources only for general factual reference, not usually as technical evidence. My arguments tend to be based on my own common sense and just putting things together so they follow from my understanding of the way things work. If things don’t gel, then they don’t gel. You want to enlighten me? Give me better motives than the ones I come up with and I’ll accept them.

No need for links etc. What you state is only an opinion and a belief. Clearly there are no facts to back up your claim the the US sent CIA like agents to destroy their on ship.


Sorry, no offence intended. I have a tendency to use that term without taking into account its common usage; in North America particularly there is a tendency to use the term ‘regime’ to describe non-democratic governments (i.e. dictatorships). The term, ‘regime’ actually refers to any governmental system (or even just a method of doing things in any circumstances). I sometimes use it synonymously with ‘administration,’ when talking about presidential decisions. So yes, this means that Canada is run by a regime just like every other country that I know of.

Hmmmm. I will take that as you said it but I find it a coincidence that you use the term "regime" when discussing the US as to a lot of folks who are anti-American call us a regime. Perhaps it is just a coincidence as you say.

We in the western world have a tendency to assume that our institutions, governmental and even military are somehow immune to the kind sleazy behaviour one sees in countries where the military dominates and the oligarchy is god. That is a big mistake on our part, human ambition and greed don’t just stop at the word, ‘democracy’ (in fact sometimes they can even benefit from it).

Some do...some don't. All governments are not infallible nor are their institutions and departments. (i.e the military) We are all human.

Just a side note but I don’t know why you take criticism of the US establishment personally. Unless you are a member of the higher levels of the oligarchy, have regular dealings with defence industry moguls and/or have major clout in Washington, then you’re just an average member of the population as in any other country, only you happen to be American. Take it easy, go lie on one of your many fine beaches instead of stressing yourself out thinking you have a moral obligation to defend your people from anti-American establishment comments by some (as in, a pathetically small number of) Canadians.

Well this is a forum and I enjoy it. I do not feel it is a moral obligation but I am a member of the forum and I like to participate.


Wait just a minute: I didn’t say ‘murder,’ I said ‘tantamount to murder’ which isn’t the same thing. The question, in the case of Pearl Harbour and 9/11 is one of whether it was negligence (i.e. gross incompetence) or deliberate negligence (i.e. actual conspiracy). Both result in death but only the latter is tantamount to murder (‘tantamount’ meaning ‘equivalent to’ not, ‘give ‘em the goddamn chair!’ as people like Bush would ironically have it). I suggest, based on the reasoning I outlined before that it is the latter in both cases.

Tantamount to murder carries the same weight. It is a shock value.

The Bush Administration inability to predict 9/11 is tatamount to murder translates that Bush is responsible.

The same with FDR and his inability to foresee the attack on the US base at Pearl Harbor.

People are frequently fallible. Systems, even one as complex as that of the USA, are sometimes fallible. But for both to be fallible in exactly the same instance and for that one instance to result in events that benefit the already known intentions of the regime in question, is too coincidental to be above suspicion.

And it makes a great read in books and on the internet because it is more interesting to believe there was something more than what actually happened.

If I had been in charge on 9/11 or Pearl and there was no conspiracy to fault but rather my own incompetence…I would have shot myself. If I had been in charge and there was a conspiracy, I would’ve at least put a little more effort into denying it.

Sorry to see you have little value of your own life that you would take it for making a mistake.

Why should they deny what is ridiculous...meaning a conspiracy.

I wasn’t born yet but yes, I’ve read about that somewhere. ;-D Yes of course, I mean that is pretty much cut and dry truth. Although, keep in mind that prior to the war, Nazi Germany was viewed by the Britain and France as a buffer to socialist influence for the USSR, so destroying Germany was just an inevitable and necessary action.

The rise of Nazism was just as much of a threat as was communism.

As for the benefits, there were none for Britain and France other than killing the monster they foolishly helped create. The same isn’t so for the USA. See my reasons above.

Benefits were realized after the war. At the outset and during the war there were doubts. The US was broke. That is why bond drives were so vital to the war effort.


How could you possibly know that they didn’t think that? (Obviously not that but give them credit for not being blind to the opportunity—that is assuming that there was no complicity in the creation of the Nazi state, which there is but not necessarily for those reasons.)

Where was the evidence that says they were?

Broke? Sorry, no. The booming economy a mere decade after the war would indicate otherwise. The thriving economy of post-war Western Europe under heavy influence (i.e. domination) of the USA would also seem to indicate otherwise.

Yes...broke. The post-war economy was a by product of the war but during the war the US was basically printing money to pay for it.

Wars are very, very good…when you know you can win them. By 1944, the USA could’ve taken on all the combines forces of the Axis without flinching. Today’s American colossally powerful defence industry is the direct result of WW2.

And we did.

The documentary evidence proves that the US regime almost certainly knew of the impending attack, and that the actual time and even direction of the attack were very likely known.

Not so. The documentary evidence proves that we expected an attack, likely in the Phillipines and Hong Kong but not in the direction of Pearl Harbor.

The fact that the Pearl commanders were exempted from wrong-doing much later adds weight to this.

Are you serious? Both the Army (Gen Short) and Navy (Adm. Kimmel) commanders were demoted and retired in disgrace. Neither have been fully exonerated from responsibility of the attack on Pearl Harbor to this day.


Much of Japanese policy at that time was determined by the military and the military was run by highly impractical people (to put it mildly). Among those in the Japanese forces and regime who were not border-line insane, attacking the US was viewed as almost certain suicide.

Where is the relevance? Border-line-insane to whose standards? That was the way they did things in Japan during that time. That was their belief. We can look at it now and say they were insane but the game has long been decided and in hindsight the Japanese war on the US was insane. But only in hindsight.

The great Japanese Admiral Yamamoto made it quite clear that Pearl Harbour was a necessary evil, whose success rested on ensuring that a) the carriers were destroyed and b) the attack was carried out after the declaration of war in one last attempt to trump the American PR card of creating anti-Japanese sentiment within the American population.

At the time the emphasis was still on strong battleship forces to win the war. As the war progressed it became clear that Naval Air Power would be the Queen of Battle. Both Japanese and US schools thought strong surfaces forces would be the key to winning the Pacific War. Those schools of thought died hard.

For all it’s “good luck,” Pearl Harbour was a dismal failure: it’s primary targets were not destroyed

Not true. The carriers were not the primary targets but were one of the primary targets. The battleships were a primary target as shown by the emphasis in training and succesful attack on Battleship Row. Another primary target was the land based air arm of the US and that was also successfully taken out. The two other major targets were the carriers as they were still capital ships. Probably the most important mistake of the attack was the decision to not launch the 3rd wave which was supposed to attack the facilities, fueling stations, and dry docks of the Navy Base. Because of the missing carriers the Japanese became too cautious and cancelled the attack because of the initial success. They had thought they had done enough and for the time being they thought the US was out of commission. A long protracted war was not in their belief.

and the timing of the attack was off thus only serving one purpose: causing anti-Japanese sentiment to bring the USA into the war. This is all documented history.

You can't flip flop and say documented history prevails when it suits your argument but specualtive history fills in the missing pieces. The timing of the attack was a failure only because the Japanese Declaration of war was not delivered in time.

The fact that the forces at Pearl were not informed ensured that the Japanese would cause devastation that, quite frankly looks great on camera. Had the forces on Pearl been ready for the attack, the Japanese would most likely have been intercepted by American fighters and the fleet would’ve naturally been moved out of port. That is assuming the Japanese carriers weren’t torpedoed (or even intercepted by warships) before they even made it to Hawaii. (In other words, having Midway happen at Pearl—or even before it.) ‘Heroic American forces foil Japanese sneak attack – Japanese fleet destroyed’ would’ve had a very different effect on the American population. I’d say that’s a pretty huge difference in outcome.

Not really an argument there with me. I agree. If we had sortied to safer waters the fleet may have been safe. However Nimitz said it was a blessing that the Battleships were sunk at Pearl Harbor in shallow waters so they were able to be repaired. He said if the fleet sortied to meet the Japanese they would most likely have been sunk in deep waters and lost forever.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
There was a study done on the wreckage of the USS Maine as the wreckage still exists. The final analysis was it was most likely an accident. Was it used as a touch pin for the war...you bet.

The US also MAY have believed that the Spanish DID indeed blow up the Maine as they had no idea what happened. Forensics were not as advanced as they were. There were no death bed confessions of agents saying they planted charges on the Maine that fateful night. So what you have is a conspiracy and nothing more.



A coincidence is not a reason to say "Well it must have been a planted charge".



True. The US wanted war with Spain... Spain did not want a war with the US. With or w/o the loss of the Maine we would have gone to war. The destruction of the Maine gave the US a rallying cry.



No need for links etc. What you state is only an opinion and a belief. Clearly there are no facts to back up your claim the the US sent CIA like agents to destroy their on ship.




Hmmmm. I will take that as you said it but I find it a coincidence that you use the term "regime" when discussing the US as to a lot of folks who are anti-American call us a regime. Perhaps it is just a coincidence as you say.



Some do...some don't. All governments are not infallible nor are their institutions and departments. (i.e the military) We are all human.



Well this is a forum and I enjoy it. I do not feel it is a moral obligation but I am a member of the forum and I like to participate.




Tantamount to murder carries the same weight. It is a shock value.

The Bush Administration inability to predict 9/11 is tatamount to murder translates that Bush is responsible.

The same with FDR and his inability to foresee the attack on the US base at Pearl Harbor.



And it makes a great read in books and on the internet because it is more interesting to believe there was something more than what actually happened.



Sorry to see you have little value of your own life that you would take it for making a mistake.

Why should they deny what is ridiculous...meaning a conspiracy.



The rise of Nazism was just as much of a threat as was communism.



Benefits were realized after the war. At the outset and during the war there were doubts. The US was broke. That is why bond drives were so vital to the war effort.




Where was the evidence that says they were?



Yes...broke. The post-war economy was a by product of the war but during the war the US was basically printing money to pay for it.



And we did.



Not so. The documentary evidence proves that we expected an attack, likely in the Phillipines and Hong Kong but not in the direction of Pearl Harbor.



Are you serious? Both the Army (Gen Short) and Navy (Adm. Kimmel) commanders were demoted and retired in disgrace. Neither have been fully exonerated from responsibility of the attack on Pearl Harbor to this day.




Where is the relevance? Border-line-insane to whose standards? That was the way they did things in Japan during that time. That was their belief. We can look at it now and say they were insane but the game has long been decided and in hindsight the Japanese war on the US was insane. But only in hindsight.



At the time the emphasis was still on strong battleship forces to win the war. As the war progressed it became clear that Naval Air Power would be the Queen of Battle. Both Japanese and US schools thought strong surfaces forces would be the key to winning the Pacific War. Those schools of thought died hard.



Not true. The carriers were not the primary targets but were one of the primary targets. The battleships were a primary target as shown by the emphasis in training and succesful attack on Battleship Row. Another primary target was the land based air arm of the US and that was also successfully taken out. The two other major targets were the carriers as they were still capital ships. Probably the most important mistake of the attack was the decision to not launch the 3rd wave which was supposed to attack the facilities, fueling stations, and dry docks of the Navy Base. Because of the missing carriers the Japanese became too cautious and cancelled the attack because of the initial success. They had thought they had done enough and for the time being they thought the US was out of commission. A long protracted war was not in their belief.



You can't flip flop and say documented history prevails when it suits your argument but specualtive history fills in the missing pieces. The timing of the attack was a failure only because the Japanese Declaration of war was not delivered in time.



Not really an argument there with me. I agree. If we had sortied to safer waters the fleet may have been safe. However Nimitz said it was a blessing that the Battleships were sunk at Pearl Harbor in shallow waters so they were able to be repaired. He said if the fleet sortied to meet the Japanese they would most likely have been sunk in deep waters and lost forever.

The thing I always found "odd" was that they were no Aircraft Carriers in the harbour at the time of the attack. The Carriers were the "meat and potatoes" of the US Pacific Fleet, yet none were lost or even attacked?



5 battleships sunk,
2 destroyers sunk, 1 damaged
1 other ship sunk, 3 damaged
3 battleships damaged,
3 cruisers damaged
188 aircraft destroyed, 155 aircraft damaged,
2,345 military and 57 civilians killed,
1,247 military and 35 civilians wounded4 midget submarines sunk,
1 midget submarine run aground,
29 aircraft destroyed,
55 airmen, 9 submariners killed and
 

barney

Electoral Member
Aug 1, 2007
336
9
18
There was a study done on the wreckage of the USS Maine as the wreckage still exists. The final analysis was it was most likely an accident. Was it used as a touch pin for the war...you bet.

The US also MAY have believed that the Spanish DID indeed blow up the Maine as they had no idea what happened. Forensics were not as advanced as they were. There were no death bed confessions of agents saying they planted charges on the Maine that fateful night. So what you have is a conspiracy and nothing more.

A coincidence is not a reason to say "Well it must have been a planted charge".

True. The US wanted war with Spain... Spain did not want a war with the US. With or w/o the loss of the Maine we would have gone to war. The destruction of the Maine gave the US a rallying cry.

No need for links etc. What you state is only an opinion and a belief. Clearly there are no facts to back up your claim the the US sent CIA like agents to destroy their on ship.

War without a rival attacking first would have been a clear act of aggression on the part of the USA. That's a no-no, even back then.

The ship could have easily been blown up with almost no trace, given the fact that the threat of an accident already existed.

About the culprits: if it were actual American personnel that did it, it would likely have been one lone agent in this case and considering that the operation--if there was one--was a success (i.e. did what it would have been meant to do for the good of the regime), why would the agent ever make it public? It's not as if this was something contrary to the interests of his (her?) state. BTW, the 'agent,' if American would have probably been a private individual communicating indirectly with someone within the regime (the top would likely only have been aware of the 'possibility' and to plan around it).

Although the only reason why I would give the possibility that it was an American national is if he was part of the crew or at least of the same racial background as the crew, thus facilitating non-suspect movement through the ship.

Otherwise, it is more likely that if it was deliberate, anti-Spanish Cubans pulled it off under the direct or indirect guidance of US agents (or alternatively, an independent group of pro-Spanish Cubans 'helped' to carry it out). If this were to be the case, the US connection must exist simply for timing purposes.

At least that's the way it's worked elsewhere in Latin America (including Cuba).


Hmmmm. I will take that as you said it but I find it a coincidence that you use the term "regime" when discussing the US as to a lot of folks who are anti-American call us a regime. Perhaps it is just a coincidence as you say.

Yeah, people do use it in that way (mainly because they don't know it's exact meaning). That said, Canadians (and much of the world's population) are delusional if they think their system is somehow immune to the kind of elitist and ethically-questionable power structures that exist in the USA.

Some do...some don't. All governments are not infallible nor are their institutions and departments. (i.e the military) We are all human.
I know, that's what I said. My comment was that for both to be *highly* (and unusually) fallible in these instances is suspicious.

Well this is a forum and I enjoy it. I do not feel it is a moral obligation but I am a member of the forum and I like to participate.

All I'm saying is that not every Canadian here has a burning hatred for America and Americans. Personally, I have met Americans that are pure gold compared to most of the Canadians I've met, and I have also met Americans that are total barbarians. It's irrelevant: criticism (which means critical analysis, not biased comments btw people--I remember at university a lot of students didn't understand the difference) of the USA is usually in reference to the regime (i.e. the establishment), and specifically those less-than-democratic elements of it that just happen to exist beyond the influence, or sometimes even knowledge of the population. This happens in every country, only the USA happens to be the most powerful of them, so naturally the effects of that power structure represent more of a threat to anyone who is not part of that regime (most Americans included).

Tantamount to murder carries the same weight. It is a shock value.

The Bush Administration inability to predict 9/11 is tatamount to murder translates that Bush is responsible.

The same with FDR and his inability to foresee the attack on the US base at Pearl Harbor.

Exactly: were the theories to be conclusively proven (i.e. made into fact), they would most certainly be responsibe. They didn't plan the murder but they let it happen. Since it hasn't been proven but there is a reasonable doubt, it means they are suspects.

And it makes a great read in books and on the internet because it is more interesting to believe there was something more than what actually happened.

Of course eveyone has a theory but then there is legitimate suspicion. You have to at least admit that both cases (certainly 9/11) are suspicious to at least some degree.

Sorry to see you have little value of your own life that you would take it for making a mistake.

Why should they deny what is ridiculous...meaning a conspiracy.

To make such a huge mistake that could have been so easily avoided, I would resign. The fact it resulted in the deaths of many people (let alone my own citizens), is definitely bullet-to-the-brain material. (People far better than me have done so for far less justifiable reasons.)

If there is the possibility that it wasn't a mistake...well, there have been commities that have raised that very question. So clearly a possibility of conspiracy is not considered to be ridiculous within the USA itself. The results have been inconclusive and have cast doubt (i.e. legitimate suspicion) on those involved. And all that is based purely on who knew what specifics.

The motives have simply not been addressed. That doesn't mean that to suggest this was anything more than incompetence is ridiculous, it just means that it hasn't been addressed (I would guess that this is due to the fact that merely addressing this as a possibility sets a dangerous precedent).

The rise of Nazism was just as much of a threat as was communism.

Sure but only once it was identified as such. Initially, Nazi Germany served as a buffer against perceived Soviet aggression and socialist influences.

Benefits were realized after the war. At the outset and during the war there were doubts. The US was broke. That is why bond drives were so vital to the war effort.

Yes. The war itself was the cost. I'm suggesting that there weren't doubts at the top (as far as involvement is concerned).

Where was the evidence that says they were?

The evidence lies in the documentary evidence that leads one to see a possible motive. Motive is also known as circumstantial evidence. So that means that the motives outweigh the evidence against (i.e. incompetence). This is why it is suspicious.

Yes...broke. The post-war economy was a by product of the war but during the war the US was basically printing money to pay for it.
If there was deliberate negligence involved, then the post-war economy was an *expected* by product and therefore a legitimate motive for invlovement.

As for during the war, industrial potential in war-time is measured in resource output, not dollars. As it happens, a market economy was able to be maintained even in the face of the war requirements. The pure resource output of the USA practicalloy won the war before it began. US presence in Europe was an intervention, not a war of survival. The war economy was hardly on weak footing. As for the pre-war peace-time economy, well, the war and all its later benefits couldn't have come at a better time.

Not so. The documentary evidence proves that we expected an attack, likely in the Phillipines and Hong Kong but not in the direction of Pearl Harbor.
As I said, I don't want to gt into specifics. Suffice to say that don't you think it's a bit odd that US intelligence knew what time a Japanese admiral had his morning Cheerios but had absolutely no idea a fleet was heading for them. There is evidence that it was known. If there was a conspiracy, it is difficult to say whether intelligence would have been complicit in it. Likely not because the goal could've been achieved either way.

Are you serious? Both the Army (Gen Short) and Navy (Adm. Kimmel) commanders were demoted and retired in disgrace. Neither have been fully exonerated from responsibility of the attack on Pearl Harbor to this day.
I heard that they had been. If not, my mistake. I shouldn't have mentioned it because it doesn't really affect the strength of the motive either way.

Where is the relevance? Border-line-insane to whose standards? That was the way they did things in Japan during that time. That was their belief. We can look at it now and say they were insane but the game has long been decided and in hindsight the Japanese war on the US was insane. But only in hindsight.

Fanatical attitudes dominated at the time. Those who would've put a stop to such idiocy lacked sufficient power to do so at that crucial time. Any Japanese who's "success" in China hadn't gone to their heads could easily see the foolishness of war with, let alone attacking the USA.

At the time the emphasis was still on strong battleship forces to win the war. As the war progressed it became clear that Naval Air Power would be the Queen of Battle. Both Japanese and US schools thought strong surfaces forces would be the key to winning the Pacific War. Those schools of thought died hard.

Yeah but those who cling to them are usually too out of touch with reality to be involved in conspiracies. They may still be big names but are nevertheless small players at that point. Otherwise, it doesn't take a military genius to understand the basic physical advantages of air power.

Not true. The carriers were not the primary targets but were one of the primary targets. The battleships were a primary target as shown by the emphasis in training and succesful attack on Battleship Row. Another primary target was the land based air arm of the US and that was also successfully taken out. The two other major targets were the carriers as they were still capital ships. Probably the most important mistake of the attack was the decision to not launch the 3rd wave which was supposed to attack the facilities, fueling stations, and dry docks of the Navy Base. Because of the missing carriers the Japanese became too cautious and cancelled the attack because of the initial success. They had thought they had done enough and for the time being they thought the US was out of commission. A long protracted war was not in their belief.

Of course they were all targets but the carriers represented the highest strategic threat. Many in the navy failed to see this. See my reply concerning fanatical attitudes. As for not completing the mission thinking that any other action would make much of a difference in the end, again, see my reply above. That would be an example of a legitimate case of strategic incompetence. Letting that incompetence become a major war-triggering atrocity on the other hand...

You can't flip flop and say documented history prevails when it suits your argument but specualtive history fills in the missing pieces. The timing of the attack was a failure only because the Japanese Declaration of war was not delivered in time.

Yes, and the circumstances of why that occurred are again suspicious. In that case I would say that considering intelligence was intercepting everything, that interfering in a process that would dramatically reduce the sting of a sneak attack is to be expected if the other aspects of a possible conspiracy were to be proven true. It's when you add it up with everything else that it becomes suspicious.
 

barney

Electoral Member
Aug 1, 2007
336
9
18
Wow these must be among the longest posts ever posted at CCF...we could write a book! ;-D
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
Truthers or conspiracy fanatics are a daily occurance

Another brilliant synopsis brought to you by the mentally challenged in the RNC "bought and paid for" media camp

What if... you woke up one morning and found out that the President of the United States was a USURPER... a FRAUD... a PHONY?

What if... the leader of the free world was constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States, but was simply allowed to take and hold office anyway?

It's happening RIGHT NOW!

The sad truth of the matter is that President-elect Barack Obama has REFUSED to provide proof that he is constitutionally qualified to hold the office!

Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President..."

Now shockingly, I've heard people say that compelling Obama to validate that he is indeed a "natural born Citizen" is a "technicality" that "should not be taken seriously."

But I take the Constitution seriously. I believe that you take the Constitution seriously. I know our Founding Fathers took the Constitution seriously.

And... trust me... Obama is taking the matter seriously!

That's why Obama has continually REFUSED to produce a valid copy of his vaulted birth certificate.

That's why his teams of attorney have continually tried to BLOCK efforts to compel him to produce his vaulted birth certificate.

That's why, w
hen the question of Obama's status was first raised, a "Certification of Live Birth" suddenly appeared on his website and you were told that the issue of his status as a "natural born Citizen" was settled.

But the issue WAS NOT settled... w
hat you weren't told is that a "Certification of Live Birth" and a "Certificate of Live Birth" are TWO DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS!

What you weren't told is that the "Certification of Live Birth" - which still appears on Obama's "Fight the Smears" website - IS TOTALLY INADEQUATE when it comes to validating his status as a "natural born Citizen."

Look at it this way. For years, liberal activist judges have legislated from the bench. They have effectively made-up laws out of thin air... we've been told that there were "penumbras" in the Constitution... that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document."

Over a period of years, activist judges have slowly - almost imperceptibly - been able to chip away at your liberties by warping the meaning of the Constitution.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
The thing I always found "odd" was that they were no Aircraft Carriers in the harbour at the time of the attack. The Carriers were the "meat and potatoes" of the US Pacific Fleet, yet none were lost or even attacked?



5 battleships sunk,
2 destroyers sunk, 1 damaged
1 other ship sunk, 3 damaged
3 battleships damaged,
3 cruisers damaged
188 aircraft destroyed, 155 aircraft damaged,
2,345 military and 57 civilians killed,
1,247 military and 35 civilians wounded4 midget submarines sunk,
1 midget submarine run aground,
29 aircraft destroyed,
55 airmen, 9 submariners killed and

What is odd? The ships were at sea. I am not trying to be a wise guy here but ships do put to sea often. At the time the meat and potatos were the battleships. Only in hindsight do we now know that the Pacific War was to become a carrier war. Both the Japanese and American Navy still clung to the outdated, obsolete idea that Battleships and great surface battles were to be how the war would be fought and won at the time of Pearl Harbor. Only the forward thinking Admirals like Yamamoto knew otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: missile

barney

Electoral Member
Aug 1, 2007
336
9
18
What is odd? The ships were at sea. I am not trying to be a wise guy here but ships do put to sea often. At the time the meat and potatos were the battleships. Only in hindsight do we now know that the Pacific War was to become a carrier war. Both the Japanese and American Navy still clung to the outdated, obsolete idea that Battleships and great surface battles were to be how the war would be fought and won at the time of Pearl Harbor. Only the forward thinking Admirals like Yamamoto knew otherwise.

What is odd is that they just happened to leave shortly before the attack.

I would say that carrier warfare was already well-accepted by all except a few dinosaurs, with which fascist regimes in particular tend to be very well manned.This was hardly unique to people like Yamamoto (his strength lied mainly in being able to anticipate strategic results; he accurately predicted the results of Pearl Harbour--all except for the strange ease with which it was carried out and that the carriers would not be present).
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
What is odd is that they just happened to leave shortly before the attack.

I would say that carrier warfare was already well-accepted by all except a few dinosaurs, with which fascist regimes in particular tend to be very well manned.This was hardly unique to people like Yamamoto (his strength lied mainly in being able to anticipate strategic results; he accurately predicted the results of Pearl Harbour--all except for the strange ease with which it was carried out and that the carriers would not be present).

So that was just good luck. The idea of a conspiracy at Pearl that EVEN stretches to the movement of the carriers is just plain out there.

Think about it... Somebody would have had to say...

"Ok... The Japanese are going to attack on December 7th... lets put the carriers to sea before they get here...but don't tell anyone why."

It is colorful but just "out there".

You are wrong. Carrier warfare was accepted by few and battleship strength was accepted by most. They did not think as we do now. Dinosaur thinking... Yes... I agree...but there were a lot of them. Carrier warfare was new and old ways died hard. Yamamoto got it, Nimitz got it and they were the ones in charge.

Damn Barney it is in every major book about the Pacific War how both sides believed that a massive surface engagement would be the key to the Pacific. I've read countless number of books on the Pacific Campaign from BOTH sides. However carrier and land based aircraft kept putting capital ships to the bottom ruining all their fun. The Japanese were mostly the ones hanging onto that belief whereas the US Navy saw earlier in the war that carrier based aircraft and land based aircraft would be the key. That is why the US started converting cruisers to escort carriers and building true carriers near the beginning of the war.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
What is odd? The ships were at sea. I am not trying to be a wise guy here but ships do put to sea often. At the time the meat and potatos were the battleships. Only in hindsight do we now know that the Pacific War was to become a carrier war. Both the Japanese and American Navy still clung to the outdated, obsolete idea that Battleships and great surface battles were to be how the war would be fought and won at the time of Pearl Harbor. Only the forward thinking Admirals like Yamamoto knew otherwise.

All of them!!! That is almost statistically impossible. Couple that with their support ships (not all of the m) being in port, it's highly unlikely
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
All of them!!! That is almost statistically impossible. Couple that with their support ships (not all of the m) being in port, it's highly unlikely

WHAT makes it statistically impossible! There were 3 fleet carriers in the Pacific. The Saratoga was in San Francisco for repairs. The Enterprise was on it's way back to Pearl Harbor after delivering planes to Midway and the Lexington was enroute to Wake Island.

So you are saying that it is a statistical impossibility that two carriers were at sea? The Battleship New York was at sea and missed it's chance of being sunk too! Coincidence? New York...9/11...huh, huh.

HEAVEN FORBID... SHIPS BEING OUT TO SEA! What an IMPOSSIBILITY! What DASTERDLY DEEDS! What a CONSPIRACY!
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
WHAT makes it statistically impossible! There were 3 fleet carriers in the Pacific. The Saratoga was in San Francisco for repairs. The Enterprise was on it's way back to Pearl Harbor after delivering planes to Midway and the Lexington was enroute to Wake Island.

So you are saying that it is a statistical impossibility that two carriers were at sea? The Battleship New York was at sea and missed it's chance of being sunk too! Coincidence? New York...9/11...huh, huh.

HEAVEN FORBID... SHIPS BEING OUT TO SEA! What an IMPOSSIBILITY! What DASTERDLY DEEDS! What a CONSPIRACY!

I guess USS Hornet and USS Yorktown must have been on shark fishing detail that day??? If I wanted to push the point I'd include USS Wasp and The USS Ranger, but that'd be splitting hairs

I thought you had made a thorough and exhaustive study of the War in the Pacific ? Guess not!!!
 

barney

Electoral Member
Aug 1, 2007
336
9
18
So that was just good luck. The idea of a conspiracy at Pearl that EVEN stretches to the movement of the carriers is just plain out there.

I can't explain it. Were the carrier commanders psychic? No. It's a very convenient coincidence. Fine. Combine that with the reasons for conspiracy and it's suspicious. Just because I can't explain it, doesn't mean it isn't suspicious.


You are wrong. Carrier warfare was accepted by few and battleship strength was accepted by most. They did not think as we do now. Dinosaur thinking... Yes... I agree...but there were a lot of them. Carrier warfare was new and old ways died hard. Yamamoto got it, Nimitz got it and they were the ones in charge.

Damn Barney it is in every major book about the Pacific War how both sides believed that a massive surface engagement would be the key to the Pacific. I've read countless number of books on the Pacific Campaign from BOTH sides. However carrier and land based aircraft kept putting capital ships to the bottom ruining all their fun. The Japanese were mostly the ones hanging onto that belief whereas the US Navy saw earlier in the war that carrier based aircraft and land based aircraft would be the key. That is why the US started converting cruisers to escort carriers and building true carriers near the beginning of the war.

Ok. As I said I can't explain it, but the fact remains that this thinking is realistic and delusions of dinosaurs can only be taken so far. The fact is, that the carriers were the most valuable ships at Pearl and the only ships capable of engaging the Japanese attack force. Old ways or not, that was the reality of that particular situation and it is therefore not so far-fetched to question whether this would have been in the minds of the people invoved in a possible conspiracy.

Also there is an assumption here that military commanders were somehow involved. I doubt it (events can be manipulated to make people act in the way you want; e.g. commanders of carriers can be made antsy with fear of possible attack and will use their authority to act accordingly). I have found that non-military folks (e.g intelligence personnel) tend to identify opportunities that arise from military technology advances before the military does, simply because they're viewing it from a different perspective. I think this is practically the norm today so why is it so hard to imagine this being the case in 1941, where the stakes were higher.

Then again, it's possible that if there were a conspiracy the carrier were not even taken into account (due as you said to the old ways dominating strategic thinking at the time), and the carriers moved out just in time because of the intuitiveness of their commanders. That would not exclude the possibility of commander involvement but would not exclude what I said above. Even if that were the case, it owuld be a bitch to prove due to the lack of knowing participation on the part of the commanders.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
I guess USS Hornet and USS Yorktown must have been on shark fishing detail that day??? If I wanted to push the point I'd include USS Wasp and The USS Ranger, but that'd be splitting hairs

I thought you had made a thorough and exhaustive study of the War in the Pacific ? Guess not!!!

The USS Ranger was in Norfolk Va in December of 1941. Coincidence that a carrier is stationed in the Atlantic?

The USS Hornet was in the Atlantic and stationed in Norfolk Va. in December of 1941.

The USS Wasp was also in the Atlantic Fleet and stationed in Norfolk Va. on December 1941

The USS Yorktown was also in the Atlantic fleet and out of Norfolk Va on December 1941

But I guess it is a coincidence that we had carriers stationed in the Atlantic Ocean.

In conclusion... At the time of Pearl Harbor the Pacific Fleet had three carriers assigned.

So I guess you should do your research before you start acting like you have a clue. Who looks like the fool now?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
I can't explain it. Were the carrier commanders psychic? No. It's a very convenient coincidence. Fine. Combine that with the reasons for conspiracy and it's suspicious. Just because I can't explain it, doesn't mean it isn't suspicious.

Carrier commanders answer to CINCPAC. That would have been Adm. Kimmel at the time. Kimmel was given blame to Pearl Harbor as was Gen Short. Why would Kimmel send his carriers out to sea to save them but not do a darned thing about an impending attack for the rest of the fleet? Knowing full right well that a disaster at Pearl would cost him his career. He spent his whole life being the sacrificial lamb because of Pearl Harbor.


Ok. As I said I can't explain it, but the fact remains that this thinking is realistic and delusions of dinosaurs can only be taken so far.

Only in hindsight. The Japanese believed that the battleships were just as important and it was important to wipe them out for the great surface engagements that never happened.

The fact is, that the carriers were the most valuable ships at Pearl and the only ships capable of engaging the Japanese attack force.

We know that now but on December 7, 1941 the surface fleet of the US was wiped out and that was huge. We can say that they were old and outdated ships now because carriers became dominant during the war.

Old ways or not, that was the reality of that particular situation and it is therefore not so far-fetched to question whether this would have been in the minds of the people invoved in a possible conspiracy.

Which is the basis of this debate...true? You do not want to believe the US got caught with it's pants down on December 7th. You want to believe that it was something more sinister because it involves the US.

The USS Maine... Pearl Harbor... 9/11...

See a pattern? I sure do!

Also there is an assumption here that military commanders were somehow involved. I doubt it (events can be manipulated to make people act in the way you want; e.g. commanders of carriers can be made antsy with fear of possible attack and will use their authority to act accordingly).

Was FDR the one that ordered the carriers from Pearl Harbor? Did Congress? There were only two US Carriers in the Central Pacific that day, the third carrier was in drydocks in San Francisco. Two carriers being out to sea is hardly evidence of a conspiracy.

I have found that non-military folks (e.g intelligence personnel) tend to identify opportunities that arise from military technology advances before the military does, simply because they're viewing it from a different perspective. I think this is practically the norm today so why is it so hard to imagine this being the case in 1941, where the stakes were higher.

And it would benefit the US to have our surface fleet destroyed? Japan could have taken the island if they wanted. If they had not become so cautious they could have destroyed the whole base. Where would the gain be if we had to conduct the Pacific War from California?

Then again, it's possible that if there were a conspiracy the carrier were not even taken into account (due as you said to the old ways dominating strategic thinking at the time), and the carriers moved out just in time because of the intuitiveness of their commanders. That would not exclude the possibility of commander involvement but would not exclude what I said above. Even if that were the case, it owuld be a bitch to prove due to the lack of knowing participation on the part of the commanders.

by commanders I assume you mean the Captains of the Lexington and the Enterprise. Commanders of aircraft carriers do not make ship movement decisions. Those decisions come from Admirals. A skipper of the Enterprise could not just say...

"I feel like taking her out to sea for a week... I have a bad feeling."

One carrier was delivering planes to Midway...the other was delivering planes to Wake Island.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
The USS Ranger was in Norfolk Va in December of 1941. Coincidence that a carrier is stationed in the Atlantic?

The USS Hornet was in the Atlantic and stationed in Norfolk Va. in December of 1941.

The USS Wasp was also in the Atlantic Fleet and stationed in Norfolk Va. on December 1941

The USS Yorktown was also in the Atlantic fleet and out of Norfolk Va on December 1941

But I guess it is a coincidence that we had carriers stationed in the Atlantic Ocean.

In conclusion... At the time of Pearl Harbor the Pacific Fleet had three carriers assigned.

So I guess you should do your research before you start acting like you have a clue. Who looks like the fool now?

You're right. I'm wrong. My apologies