the biggest arseholes I've ever run across!!

barney

Electoral Member
Aug 1, 2007
336
9
18
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.

I know this is already really reaching but as I said before, there are ways of bringing about desired action in high-ranking individuals; it can consist of ambiguous intelligence reports, manipulating schedules, and indirect pressures of that nature. Neither Kimmel nor anybody else at Pearl need have been given specific orders.

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.

I was referring to the American side. The influence of dinosaurs in the Japanese forces was immense, and understandably so, given their history.

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 We can say that they were old and outdated ships now because carriers became dominant during the war.

I was just stating the facts as we now know them. The implication was that there are always ambitious, progressive people within the power structure who are perfectly able to identify these facts without being clouded by traditionalism among other biases—I mean for god’s sake, it wasn’t that long ago!

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!

It’s not about wanting to believe anything. As you said, there is plenty of historical documentation concerning what officially happened. This isn’t really being debated that much among academic circles that I know of. Nevertheless, there has still always been some uncertainty surrounding Pearl Harbour as a war-triggering event. I’m merely commenting on that.

Same story with the Maine and 9/11; these are the three main war-triggering events in US history. The circumstantial evidence concerns the general circumstances and how the victim (in this case, the USA) stands to benefit more from the war-triggering event than the attacker.

Although I have my issues with certain historical aspects of some parts of your culture (and I’m not making any reference to that here—and few other places in these forums), most of what I say could be applied to any regime anywhere in the world. Since the topic of this thread is the US regime and it’s possible involvement in crimes mainly against its own people, it’s only logical that we be debating that here. Open a thread on possible conspiracies within the Canadian regime or that of Fiji and I’ll use the same pattern of thought there too.

That said (and don’t take this the wrong way), the USA is the dominant (i.e. only) superpower power in the world today. So quite frankly, who gives a crap about Canada or Fiji? The USA and more specifically, its regime is inevitably the centre of attention (especially for citizens of a not-particularly powerful country with said superpower as a neighbour and all that that implies—nothing sinister implied there btw, just the political/economic/social reality of things).

Suffice to say, I’m not implicating the regime, I’m just thinking about alternate possibilities within what I think is reasonably realistic framework…which happens to also mean that if any of these events were planned for (i.e. with intent to benefit from), then it would obviously make those responsible at least among the top biggest arseholes I’ve ever come across. I assume there’s no debate there…

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.

That doesn’t really contradict the suspicious nature of the coincidence; it just says that this is the way things were at this time. As for what prompted that coincidence, I suggested a possibility above (the part concerning manipulation of behaviour). It’s true, alone the absence of carriers means nothing. When combined with all the other circumstantial and documentary evidence, their not being there (putting aside the official reasons) is at least suspicious. But until proven otherwise, the assumption is that it was merely a coincidence.

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?

Assuming intelligence knew as much as the documentary evidence suggests they knew, then it is likely that an invasion was known to not be in the Japanese plan. This naturally implies that had the Japanese actually had realistic invasion plans, the ‘sneak’ attack would not have been allowed to take place.

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.

I was using the term generically but otherwise thank you for correcting my ignorance of naval ranks… ;-p The comment implied how the orders were carried out. So Pearl gets intel report, that gets passed on to carriers, that heightens fear just prior to attack without overtly stating that it will take place, schedules are altered. From what I know of what happened at the command level, it’s not so far-fetched. The process would merely involve the withholding of certain vital information, while later providing just enough of it at the right time. The behaviour of commanders would reflect that.

Now that I’m actually writing it out, it does seem the most logical way to both bring about a desired action while at the same time making links to higher level decision-makers difficult to establish. Thing is, this only happens to coincide with the facts but really proves little otherwise (i.e. it explains only what cannot be countered due to lack of specific evidence).
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
I know this is already really reaching but as I said before, there are ways of bringing about desired action in high-ranking individuals; it can consist of ambiguous intelligence reports, manipulating schedules, and indirect pressures of that nature. Neither Kimmel nor anybody else at Pearl need have been given specific orders.

I suppose if you look hard enough you can find evidence that MAY look suspicious. Where Kimmel and Short failed was in that upon recieving warnings of an attack somewhere they did not react. Both the Admiral and General were accused of inaction. Neither conducted long range patrols, their was not a heightened sense of alert. They thought the threat was internal and sabotage...not an air attack.


I was referring to the American side. The influence of dinosaurs in the Japanese forces was immense, and understandably so, given their history.

No question. I agree 100%. Not just in the Battleship Doctrine. The Japanese held on to the idea that their fighting spirit would prevail over the U.S's industrial capacity. They also thought that any fleet we would produce they would simply sink as they did at Pearl. They simply thought we would sue for peace quick.


I was just stating the facts as we now know them. The implication was that there are always ambitious, progressive people within the power structure who are perfectly able to identify these facts without being clouded by traditionalism among other biases—I mean for god’s sake, it wasn’t that long ago!

Well Yamamoto did as well as a few others. As the war progressed the Japanese battleships for the most part stayed close to the home island. The Yamato did not sortie until the end of the war when they knew it was lost...the clearer thinking heads did.


It’s not about wanting to believe anything. As you said, there is plenty of historical documentation concerning what officially happened. This isn’t really being debated that much among academic circles that I know of. Nevertheless, there has still always been some uncertainty surrounding Pearl Harbour as a war-triggering event. I’m merely commenting on that.

Well there are conspiracists that tend to think that. I personally think that the US fell asleep at the wheel. All of the warning signs were there we just did not heed them. We knew there was an impending attack we just looked the wrong way. The Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor was brilliantly planned. Afterwards there were plenty of Monday Morning Quarterbacks saying we should have done this or that.

Same story with the Maine and 9/11; these are the three main war-triggering events in US history. The circumstantial evidence concerns the general circumstances and how the victim (in this case, the USA) stands to benefit more from the war-triggering event than the attacker.

How we benefited from 9/11 I will never know. How we benefitted from Pearl was only known after the war was over. In 1941 Germany and Japan were far from beaten and our military was just not ready.

Although I have my issues with certain historical aspects of some parts of your culture (and I’m not making any reference to that here—and few other places in these forums), most of what I say could be applied to any regime anywhere in the world. Since the topic of this thread is the US regime and it’s possible involvement in crimes mainly against its own people, it’s only logical that we be debating that here. Open a thread on possible conspiracies within the Canadian regime or that of Fiji and I’ll use the same pattern of thought there too.

That being said I don't think the events we are talking about are crimes against the American people.

That said (and don’t take this the wrong way), the USA is the dominant (i.e. only) superpower power in the world today. So quite frankly, who gives a crap about Canada or Fiji? The USA and more specifically, its regime is inevitably the centre of attention (especially for citizens of a not-particularly powerful country with said superpower as a neighbour and all that that implies—nothing sinister implied there btw, just the political/economic/social reality of things).

Suffice to say, I’m not implicating the regime, I’m just thinking about alternate possibilities within what I think is reasonably realistic framework…which happens to also mean that if any of these events were planned for (i.e. with intent to benefit from), then it would obviously make those responsible at least among the top biggest arseholes I’ve ever come across. I assume there’s no debate there…

If indeed all of what you suspect, think, etc. happened to be true then they would be crimes against the American people. However the evidence that points to other forces are also persuasive. i.e Japan and Al-Queda.

As far as the Spanish American war...the Americans were itching for a fight and I think the Maine just suffered a horrible accident that gave us an excuse. Just like the USS New Jersey had a horrible accident in the 90's. Accidents at sea happen. I do not believe an agent of the US government set a charge off in the magazine of the USS Maine.


That doesn’t really contradict the suspicious nature of the coincidence; it just says that this is the way things were at this time. As for what prompted that coincidence, I suggested a possibility above (the part concerning manipulation of behaviour). It’s true, alone the absence of carriers means nothing. When combined with all the other circumstantial and documentary evidence, their not being there (putting aside the official reasons) is at least suspicious. But until proven otherwise, the assumption is that it was merely a coincidence.

I would not even call ship movements coincidence. Ships move ina nd out of the harbor all the time. Ships go to sea for various reasons. Heck if the Japanese planned the attack for Monday December 8 they would have caught the Enterprise at Pearl Harbor.


Assuming intelligence knew as much as the documentary evidence suggests they knew, then it is likely that an invasion was known to not be in the Japanese plan. This naturally implies that had the Japanese actually had realistic invasion plans, the ‘sneak’ attack would not have been allowed to take place.

Agreed to a point. The Japanese did not intend to invade the Hawaiian Islands. it was not in their battle plan. What was known is that the Japanese Fleet did put to sea and was last seen heading east and then contact was lost due to a storm. Actions could have been taken but I just think that we were asleep. I think and evidence points to the US not believing that an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent.


I was using the term generically but otherwise thank you for correcting my ignorance of naval ranks… ;-p The comment implied how the orders were carried out. So Pearl gets intel report, that gets passed on to carriers, that heightens fear just prior to attack without overtly stating that it will take place, schedules are altered. From what I know of what happened at the command level, it’s not so far-fetched. The process would merely involve the withholding of certain vital information, while later providing just enough of it at the right time. The behaviour of commanders would reflect that.

Well i wasn't trying to show you up but I was trying figure out what type of commander you were speaking of. The fleet and ships in the fleet do not move without orders from Fleet Commanders which are Admirals. Captains are in charge of aircraft carriers. They are in charge of how the carrier is run in the course of following orders from Admirals (like Kimmel). Kimmel gives an order to the Enterprise to deliver aircraft to Midway and the Captain of the Enterprise sees to it.

I do not think Kimmel would have knowingly fallen on his sword for the greater good of the up and coming war and become a willing scapegoat.

Now that I’m actually writing it out, it does seem the most logical way to both bring about a desired action while at the same time making links to higher level decision-makers difficult to establish. Thing is, this only happens to coincide with the facts but really proves little otherwise (i.e. it explains only what cannot be countered due to lack of specific evidence).[/quote]
 

barney

Electoral Member
Aug 1, 2007
336
9
18
Hi sorry for the late reply--holidays and all that.

I suppose if you look hard enough you can find evidence that MAY look suspicious. Where Kimmel and Short failed was in that upon recieving warnings of an attack somewhere they did not react. Both the Admiral and General were accused of inaction. Neither conducted long range patrols, their was not a heightened sense of alert. They thought the threat was internal and sabotage...not an air attack.

Yeah they failed but they were not incompetent. I find it ironic that they were accused of inaction when they were merely unable to understand the jumbled information coming from Washington warning them of ambiguous and distant Japanese activity while simultaneously giving them no reason to take defencive precautions. As far as I know Pearl never received data that would support a direct air threat prior to the attack.

If Washington knew about the attack (which much of the evidence suggests they did--the Japanese failed to maintain radio silence en route and the communications were intercepted; that in addition to other intelligence sources) and wanted the Japanese to do plenty of damage (i.e. commit an atrocity that would enrage the American population), then keeping the people at Pearl in the dark and unable to act is probably the way they would have done it.

No question. I agree 100%. Not just in the Battleship Doctrine. The Japanese held on to the idea that their fighting spirit would prevail over the U.S's industrial capacity. They also thought that any fleet we would produce they would simply sink as they did at Pearl. They simply thought we would sue for peace quick.
To be fair there were plenty in the Japanese Navy especially who were wise to that reality but they likely didn't act on it due to an entrenched traditionalism in the armed forces (i.e. peer pressure).

Their belief in their own abilities was so extreme that they invested little in gathering of intelligence as well as counter-intelligence (like more effective cypher). This seems to be a common trait among fascistic regimes (the Germans made similar mistakes and invested but little more in this area).

Well Yamamoto did as well as a few others. As the war progressed the Japanese battleships for the most part stayed close to the home island. The Yamato did not sortie until the end of the war when they knew it was lost...the clearer thinking heads did.

The sinking of the Yamamoto was a testament to madness: they foolishly clung to the idea that she would survive the encounter (even though the war was clearly lost at that point) and kept her out of the thick of it only to lose her later when she had to fight alone...against air power.

Well there are conspiracists that tend to think that. I personally think that the US fell asleep at the wheel. All of the warning signs were there we just did not heed them. We knew there was an impending attack we just looked the wrong way. The Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor was brilliantly planned. Afterwards there were plenty of Monday Morning Quarterbacks saying we should have done this or that.

Yes that's the general consensus (i.e. that a general unwillingness to accept the facts resulted in too little too late from Washington and Pearl and so the Japanese were able to pull it off with higher than expected success--minus the carriers of course).

That said, American intel was excellent (due in great part to help from Britain who was at the forefront of cryptology among other forms of intelliegence gathering) and as you said before, Washington wanted very much to get involved but the American public did not. So, for everybody to just suddenly fall "asleep at the wheel" at the very time when doing so would provide almost total popular support for a war that that administration (and other elements--particularly military--within the regime) desperately wanted, is suspicious to me.

I personally think that although the Japanese plan was innovative, I wouldn't call it brilliant; it was quite predictable because it was one of the few moves available to the Japanese (Pearl represented a strategic threat that could not be ignored so they did what had to be done).

How we benefited from 9/11 I will never know. How we benefitted from Pearl was only known after the war was over. In 1941 Germany and Japan were far from beaten and our military was just not ready.

Well...you didn't at least not the public. The benefits of 9/11 to the regime on the other hand are easy to pinpoint: 1) justified the unleashing the 'anti-terrorism' security beast that hurt mostly--wait for it--the American people (other regimes used the act as justification to place more 'security-related controls on their own populations--namely surveillence that before would have been illegal); 2) justified Afghanistan, which in turn has a bundle of economic and military benefits associated with it (mainly out manuvering Russia and China out of the South Asian oil market through control over the primary Asian crossroads, a second puppet regime on the borders of hated enemy Iran as well as on the borders of Pakistan, for which the US regime apparently has big plans.

That being said I don't think the events we are talking about are crimes against the American people.

If indeed all of what you suspect, think, etc. happened to be true then they would be crimes against the American people. However the evidence that points to other forces are also persuasive. i.e Japan and Al-Queda.

As far as the Spanish American war...the Americans were itching for a fight and I think the Maine just suffered a horrible accident that gave us an excuse. Just like the USS New Jersey had a horrible accident in the 90's. Accidents at sea happen. I do not believe an agent of the US government set a charge off in the magazine of the USS Maine.

I admit, Pearl is a tough case (no pun intended ;-D ). The only argument for the Maine is it's timing (i.e. the accident happened just when it needed to happen). Plenty of motive but no proof.

As for 9/11, the jury is still officially out.

As for the official culprits (Japan and Al-Queda): the first technically can't be called a crime unless you call aggression alone a crime (but even then brought on in great part as a reaction to US provocation--there was little reason to attack the US otherwise).

As for Al-Queda, if it was a crime then those guys were just criminals and thus the thing in Afghanistan cannot be justified as a defensive action (i.e. they acted alone and just happened to do some combat training in Afghanistan). If you condemn the Taliban for that alone then you have to condemn Reagan's administration for allowing Contras to train in the US who later attacked Nicaragua (and that still wouldn't justify Nicaragua in attacking the USA--as laughable an image as that may be).

I don't think Al-Qaeda and Japan had the same justification for the attack (Japan was one state attacking another, not a terrorist act), but then the nature of warfare has changed so much that maybe things like 9/11 are just military strategy on a different level (personally, I think those guys were just cracked). Granted, when your enemy is the USA, a suicide attack may be the only way to make a dent, in moral at least (think: kamikaze).

I would not even call ship movements coincidence. Ships move ina nd out of the harbor all the time. Ships go to sea for various reasons. Heck if the Japanese planned the attack for Monday December 8 they would have caught the Enterprise at Pearl Harbor.

Of course. Again, like the accident on the Maine, it's just the timing of the thing that is supicious. But it is less so in this case because the causes of those ship movements cannot be attributed to anything overtly suspect (not to mention that it is dependent on other aspects of the 'theory' being true).

Agreed to a point. The Japanese did not intend to invade the Hawaiian Islands. it was not in their battle plan. What was known is that the Japanese Fleet did put to sea and was last seen heading east and then contact was lost due to a storm. Actions could have been taken but I just think that we were asleep. I think and evidence points to the US not believing that an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent.

Personally I found that not invading the Hawaiian Islands was foolish beyond measure on the part of the Japanese (par for the course for that regime). The decision to not do so was like losing the war before they even started it--IMO.

Well i wasn't trying to show you up but I was trying figure out what type of commander you were speaking of. The fleet and ships in the fleet do not move without orders from Fleet Commanders which are Admirals. Captains are in charge of aircraft carriers. They are in charge of how the carrier is run in the course of following orders from Admirals (like Kimmel). Kimmel gives an order to the Enterprise to deliver aircraft to Midway and the Captain of the Enterprise sees to it.

I do not think Kimmel would have knowingly fallen on his sword for the greater good of the up and coming war and become a willing scapegoat.

Sorry, I meant that when I say, 'commander' I mean the whole chain from the Admiralty down to Captains (i.e. those with access to the bigger picture, so to speak).

No I don't think so either but one never knows. As I suggested before, it would have been possible for people at the intelligence and administrative levels to manipulate commanders in order to get them to do the right things at the right time. Of course, that would be supremely hard to prove--just thought I'd put it out there.




You know, the thing that pisses me off is that if what the conspiracists say is true, most Americans (i.e. 'common' honest hard-working Americans) won't see the benefits; not even a small slice of the bloody cake. I mean, they intentionally let you get killed, then send you off to war to get killed, reduce your freedoms to protect you from the baddies, cut social spending (to fund the bloody wars) and all you get at the end is a medal at best and off you go back to your miserable 9-5, barely being able to pay your bills and put the bloody kids through bloody college?

The elite (i.e. the people making the big bucks off these wars) will tell you that they're reinvesting the profits into the economy and that will get you more jobs and blah, blah, blah. I say they should cram their paternalistic trickle-down BS and just give Americans a goddamn percentage (in cash please).

...

>cough<
 

Francis2004

Subjective Poster
Nov 18, 2008
2,846
34
48
Lower Mainland, BC
Maybe all of the claims of conspiracy theories are a conspiracy.

If Bush tripped over a foot stool these bloggers would be claiming it to be part of grand plan. If one or two of these stories have any merit, the other million don't. Those sites discredit themselves with the neverending overkill.

Sorry but something happened to Reagan I felt sad and sorry..

George Senior wasn't in long enough..

Clinton did little so no need to feel anything. Or was that the interns job ?

When something happened to George W I just yawned and said to myself again :roll:
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Dubbya couldn't rub together three words to make a sentence, but the puppet master, now he masterminded most of those nasty deeds. I mean, who else could shoot someone and then convince them to take the blame? A puppet master, that's who.