After WW2 and during the 'Cold War' you became completely obsessed with the 'Reds Under the Beds' syndrome.

After WW2, America was selling its products to the world and the world loved them, but it was never enough because your military wanted to rule the World.

You are the only Nation to use Nuclear Weapons when the going gets tough.
You are one of 3 Nations to use Chemical Warfare (Germany.WW1. Saddam, America with Agent Orange in Vietnam) and you are the ONLY nation to use Napalm, even though you were a signatory against it at the Geneva Convention.

The world knows you will do ANYTHING, repeat ANYTHING to win.
You are dangerous.
Little boys with big toys.

We loved you for what you were....NOT the monster you have become.

Who is this Kook?

Darcaine

How cute, Alan. Have you been potty trained?

We saved the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** of many people with nukes, and chem weapons, and civvie death. Get off of it.

We are superior to you. Our frontal lobes have more capacity than you mud peoples.

Let's not be insulting...
Besides it's much more interesting to analyze the actual argument
Let's see if I've got this straight...
1. Americans went overboard during the Red Scare
I agree, we all know that (can anyone say Mcarthy?)

2.Americas military wanted to rule the world.
You'll have to explain that a little more to get a rational person to agree.

3. America is the only nation to use nukes.
True, but for a reason it was needed to end the war against Japan and prevent many more deaths, although we could have tried to choose targets with less civilians (If it were possible)

4.America used chemical weapons and napalm.
Yep. I don't see a problem with that, in World War 1 that was state of the art weaponry, brutal but that's war. As for Napalm, though the US should have never gotten involved in Vietnam it stands to reason that the US would use Napalm against a hidden foe in the forest. Brutal? War. On the battfield at that time use of these weapons was justified in my opinion. (If you feel differently I would love to hear why)

5. America is dangerous and will attempt to win at nearly any cost.
Yeah, the US is dangerous that's kind of the point of a military...

So we're monsters, care to explain further?

Turnea- thank you for adding some needed maturity. Calling Alan names and insulting him only fuels his apparant disgust with Americans.

What is happening here is the curse of power. All powerful nations have been hated by those less powerful. Weak nations tend to spend a lot of time trying to tear down greatness rather than build up their own.

It seems there is a misconception by many non-Americans that we are war/power hungry monsters. If that were the case, could someone please explain to me the serious debate we are currently having regarding Iraq? If we are ALL power hungry, would we have so much dissent? If we are so power hungry why did tens of thousands regularly protest our invovlement in Vietnam?

Jaime/Turnea.

I DO NOT HATE AMERICANS.

Having said that let me enlarge on it.

In answer to Jaime.
My apparant disgust of Americans.

America gave a vibrancy to the World during the 60's to 80's when your products and style of life was embraced willingly.
I am well aware that some civillian Americans object to your involvement in external affairs.
I am also aware that you allowed your military to become so powerfull that it now appears to influence policy.
The reasons given for the huge expenditure of money on military, as they always are, throughout history, from the Romans to the British Empire, are explained away as a 'Force of arms nessessary to protect the Nation'.
It has NEVER been the case.
The military has always been used to expand frontiers, occupying by force and introducing their 'superior' way of life to those who had survived long before we were in existance.
The best way to make enemies.


In Answer to Turnea.

Your comment on insulting is accepted, my apologies if it appeared that way.

Point 1&2.

'Reds under the Beds' syndrome.
It was always reasonable to expect the Soviet economy to reach 'meltdown' at some stage.
The importation of foreign recources FAR outweighed their export ability.
Nobody wanted to be paid in roubles.
Concentration on military build-up and their desire to perpetuate Communism through the World helped the decay.

In a different context......may I suggest America is on course to do the same.
America is the worlds largest debtor.
The 'Gnomes of Zurich' and the World are tied into your economy.
You go down...we all do.
At the end of the fiscal year 2000 your balance of payements were $1.2 trillion in the red and increasing of which Approx 1/4 of your GNP was assigned to military.
WHY? do it.
Please feel free to check this, I may be a few million out.

Point 3.

I have to ask this when you talk about lives lost after American Nuclear Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagisaki.
WHO'S LIVES?.
Americans?
Please explain to me how you can EVER justify the tens of thousands Japanese civillians killed, and still dying.
Your civillians were never touched.
War IS brutal, I agree and it appears you changed the rules for ever.

Point 3/4.

You are right in reference to WW1.
The Germans and Allies used mustard gas.
NOT really chemical weapons more like lethal gas.
I cannot find any instance of Napalm being used during WW1 or WW2.
Please advise.

The US introduced the World to Chemical weapons with 'Agent Orange'.
defoliant of which Americans, Allies and Vietnamese are still having health problems.
The US used Napalm extesively during Vietnam despite your being a signatory against the use of it.
Again....you have made new rules.
All through history the'big sticks' bent the rules and you are no different.

Point 5.
In todays World.
You ARE dangerous to world peace.
So were the Germans and their 'big stick'.
So were the Soviets and their 'big stick'.
And now the US and their 'big stick'.

So it goes on and on.
You are in a responsible position to stop it.

Do it, be you, be the Us with it's new things for us.

Regards.........Alan

My comment about being insulting was not directed at you. You explain your points well.

America spends large amounts of money on the military in order to keep it the best in the world. It does receive a lot of money (second only to social programs if I remember correctly) and If that money is being wasted, well then that would be a problem. It stands to reason, however, that each country should have the most advanced military (within reason) possible. In a world were war is a possiblity the American people demand it.

America's defenses spending, howeve,r will not destroy it, it tends to rise and fall depending on the party in control and it is backed by a (usually) strong economy. There are many important differences between the soviet economy and that of the US.

I agree that the US does bend the rules about Chemical Warfare and that they should stop, I'm a big fan of consistency.

I also agree civilian casualties should be avoided, better targets for the atomic bombs should have been found if at all possible.

The US is not a danger to world peace, we have a reluctancy to use military force unless it it UN backed, or (in these unusual times) when the majority of Americans feel there isw a stron threat.(As with Iraq) We certainly do not seek to conquer contries, though our buissness people tend to take advantage of any war situation to grap at resources. This is not the original intention, the US only responds to threats, and not those which are relatively small.

its called peace through strength, worked for bush and it will work for us. after all it is hard for peace to be obtained when there are madman going around trying as hard as they can to destroy it.

and in rebutal to point 5, that was rather extreme. germans and soviets tried taking over the world, thats the difference.

Alan is not inferior. His breed of human is simply not up to par. How's that, Mike?

Come on John.

We've been through this all before.

NO PERSONAL INSULTS.

Again, edit your post to remove personal insults.

Mike

I find foreigners to be inferior. How is it insulting to state so?

JP.

That was a very interesting statement regarding 'Inferior Foreigners'.

I might suggest you care to look at your lineage. It may just be that somewhere along the line it contains 'Inferior Foreigners'.

America is as cosmopolitan as many other Nations of the World.

Alan, I'm not sure this will be very disappointing to you, but we had to ban John. One too many personal attacks and racial slurs. If he returns to us and is willing to tone down his rhetoric, we will conduct a vote among all members to see if he should return. We'll keep you posted, so to speak.

We have never taken over and occupied a country for our own benefit, very much like your British did for over 600 years. We do not conquer a country to reap the benefits.. We install new governments, stabalize the region and when its stable we pack our bags and go on our way. We are not as greedy as most of the world powers before us who saw direct control and conquer as there main agenda. We are the first superpower in history who is content with the resources and land that they currently have.

For the record, The United States or any nation has EVER used Nuclear weapons. I repeat has NEVER used Nuclear weapons. Please get your facts strait then come back and post an opinion. We used Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. BIG BIG BIG difference. Atomic Bombs split atoms and create an extremely large explosion and great heat.

A nuclear weapon when used will do approximatly 10% of its damage on impact, the other 90% will be from Nuclear Fallout over the next 100 years of nuclear winter in which simple plant life would not be restored for 12 years after.

Actually.. false. Great Brittan and France used Mustard Gas in WW I as well. Thats why Adolph Hitler sounded the way he did. He was a Victim of an English Mustard Gas attack. Germany Used Zyklon-B and cyanide(sp) In WW II as well. Terrorist groups have used Chemical weapons in various places as well. Tokyo subway comes to mind.


Unfortunatly there are no rules to War. There are rules we "chose" to adhere to... but the bottom line is that when all is said and done, who is brushing themselves off...You get into a fight and hes about to beat you with a baseball bat...You kick him in the "male reproductive organ" now.. you won.. but it was a cheap victory... what does it matter considering you won? you are not the one whos all bloody and going to need time to recover.


We, the United States is a product of what the world makes us, NOT what we have become. If the rest of the world could get along im sure we would get along as well. As Americans, we want what is best for our country, our familys and ourselves.

Again, small country asks us for assistance, so we help them out.. this issue breaks out and everyone looks to there big brother the United States for Assistance. We as the lone world superpower are obligated to help out or face criticism for not helping. If we help, we face criticism for using military force.

It's not easy being #1, your damned if you do, your damned if you don't... Had you been alive when Britan was the World Power you would have realized this as well.... Oh nevermind, anyone who had anything to say against Britan in those days were either breeded out, or killed. My mistake, thats not how we conduct our business.

As for your stance on Napalm.. Napalm was not directly used on Enemy's, the same as Agent Orange. Napalm / Agent Orange was used to kill the plant life so we could try and see what we were fighting. The enemy just happend to be in that same growth. It's same as bombing a civilian building. We try to accomplish an objective with a given action, and people are in the wrong area at the wrong time.

I love how people can twist the truth to benefit themselves instead of looking at the intent of what it was.

As for Nagasaki and Hiroshima.... The Numbers posted by the War Department on an Invasion of Japan was 1,000,000 dead Americans. So, in any typical assesment, you have to had 3 to 4 times that of the Enemy. You also have to add in Allied troops.

We killed some 103,000 people in the days / 4 months after the attack on HIroshima / Nagasaki....

HAD we invaded Japan, the body could more than likely be around 4 to 6 million.... Not only did we save American Lives by the action, but we also saved 3 to 4 million Japanese / Allied Lives... So don't even go there about JUST saving American lives.

I'll vote for him to come back even though he has sent me some not-so-nice PMs. Xxein, compare to who we've fought against, I thought it was a damn clean fight. We used atom bombs which were state of the art weapons back then, and we didnt know as much about them as we do now. The japanese captured people and tortured them to death, flew a bunch of planes into pearl harbor. Compare and contrast.

Alan Wood

It was a war!. A war American did not start. We were attacked by the Japanese.
We had a bomb. We used it
to save American lives and end a war we didn't want to get into in the first place.

Don't you think the Japanese would have used that bomb on us if they could have?

Concerning Iraq: There is still hope that war can be avoided. A lot of Americans know this war is morally wrong.
I think we are going to hear from them. Many do not agree with Bush & Company.

The British are still causing misery and death in Ireland, does that upset you?

Madtown.

I do not object to the use of the bomb to shorten the war with Japan.
However, I do object to the choice of civillian targets, Nagisaki and Hiroshima.
Perhaps a better choice could have been made?.
Perhaps the threat would have been sufficient?.
Yes, I feel sure that Japan would have used it if they had had it.

Bush's comment about 'You are either with us or against us' has forever divided the world into two warring nations. Neutrality and peacefull nations are not part of the equasion.
I am fearfull for the world because of what America is becoming.

As a matter of interest there existed a fund held in America called NORAID which was ostensibly a fund of donations by Americans to aid the Irish obtain self-rule.
It had been known for many years that it was in fact a front for the IRA enabling them to continue their terror campaign, including civillian bombings, in both Ireland and England.
England sent troops into N. Ireland to try to quell the sectarian violence taking place and protect the religeous minority.
It was, in retrospect, a VERY bad move.
With funding from NORAID, arms shipments etc the warring religions were still killing each other but now the IRA turned its terrorist acts towards the British Army and the British mainland, civillian bombings etc.
Many thousands have died.

The British public has wanted OUT of N Ireland for a long time, it is a political thing they are now locked into.
"Wrong if you do, Wrong if you dont".
After 9/11 the American administration confiscated all funds suspected of terrorist connections including NORAID.
Why did it take so long when illicit arms shipments from America were clamped down on many years ago?.
I find it hard to understand.

Regards....Alan

Alan Wood.

I have no idea why Nagisaki and Hiroshima were the chosen targets for the atomic bomb. I'm sure though,
that President Truman and his advisors didn't pull them out of a hat.

I doubt that a threat would have been sufficient to halt the Japanese. The two bombings took place three days
apart. Japan did not take the opportunity afforded them to surrender after the first hit. America was at a war
which was not of it's making. America had to make decisions. America decided to use the bomb. You'll have to
live with that decision. We did what we had to do. Who are you to sit in judgement of us? Were you there?

It's easy for so called "netural and peaceful" nations to sit back and criticize us. They are not in a position
requiring them to make awsome decisions as is the US.

People like you always insist you don't hate Americans. Really? You cudda fooled me!

Bush's comment....for us or against us.....well, he makes stupid statements like that ever so often.Then his people
have to run all around trying to explain what he really meant to say.

The British public want out of N. Ireland? I'll bet they do, but I'll have to discuss that over on
Luckey Charms. Perhaps tomorrow.

Ireland's greatest export has always been her people....Madtown

Madtown.

I am only exercising my right to ask questions and stating my feelings.
If the perception you have of me is that of anti American, that is your right.
I have the perception you are anti British, and that is my right.

America has been the big boy on the block for many years now and within that time has made both good and bad decisions in retrospect.
How these decisions are viewed very much depends on the individual.
Britain, during it's Empire building likewise made good and bad decisions in retrospect.

Why is it that questioning American World policy and motives causes so many counter accusations?.
Mr Bush is doing the same thing.
It is not condusive to good relations.

Regards.......Alan

Alan,

Here is something for you to think about. Mabe, just mabe, Bush has hit a big ol fat nerve in the world. Mabe he's a man who actually believes in ACTIONS and not words. Interesting for a politician I dare say. In the world BIG desicions are made. Leaders are the ones who we support to make these decisions.

Darcaine

Alan says
I am only exercising my right to ask questions and stating my feelings.
If the perception you have of me is that of anti American, that is your right.
have the perception you are anti British, and that is my right.

Alan, My husband and I were in England a few years ago. I was not prepared to like the
English people, but I did....a lot. We were not part of a tour, so we had to find our own
way around. We traveled from place to place on trains and buses and we got quite good at using the "tube."
A few times we hit a snag and the locals were right there to help us. All of which makes it even
harder to understand their attitude towards the Irish.

You do have a right to ask questions, and state your opinions.
I just don't like what some of those questions imply. For instance, " How you can EVER
justify the tens of thousands Japanese civillians killed..."

The A. bomb killed civillians, yes. I have already explained that I don't know why Nagisaki
and Hiroshima were targated, but I'm sure there was a good reason. You make no mention
of all the American lives taken at Pearl Harbor and in other battles with the Japanese through-out
the war, and even more if the war had not ended when it did.Your question implies (at least to me)
that America just decided one day to dump the
A bomb on a poor defenseless country for no reason.

You stated that Bush's comment " 'You are either with us or against us' has forever divided the world into two
warring nations. Neutrality and peacefull nations are not part of the equasion."
To me, that implies that America is not a peaceful nation. America IS a peaceful nation.
A peaceful nation that has and always will protect itself.

Madtown.

In as much as you find it difficult to understand the English attitude towards the Irish. I find it difficult to understand how recent America can be called a 'peaceful nation'.

The initial problem in Ireland began (NOT with the potatoe famine) but well before that when English AND Irish gentry leased land to the Irish farmers and charged outrageous rentals effectively keeping them poor.
The staple diet at that time was the potatoe.
The blight ruined the only source of food.
England recognised the pitifull situation too late and although some aid was given it was too little too late.
Irish mythology continues to blame the English for the 'Potato Famine".
Many thousands of Irish went to America with the thought that England had left them to rot and carrying their hatred.

Northern Ireland came about for, again, sectarian reasons wherein the Protestant population could live seperatly from the Catholics as there had always been problems with them integrating.
As we know now in hindesight, it only caused MORE problems.

Uprisings and sectarian violence caused the Constabulary to lose control and in their wisdom the English sent in the army ostensibly to protect the protestant minority.
Again, in hindesight, a bad move.
It got even worse.

Ireland, although it declared itself neutral during WW11, actively aided Germany with port facillities and shipping information against the British.

Illegal underground armies were formed, IRA etc, funded by NORAID and Irish Americans and supplies of weapons were sent for the percieved 'Fight for freedom' or Unification.

Terrorism reared it's ugly head with Car bombings both in England and N Ireland, killings, kneecapping etc.
Violence breeds violence so the two sects continued to kill each other with England slap in the middle being accused by one side of aiding the other and the other of not helping them enough.
Dammed if you do and dammed if you dont.
England is stuck with it.

From conversations with my relations in England it is clear that to generalise and say the English don't like the Irish is untrue.
Southern Ireland is a major trading partner and tourist destination of Englands and many companies have moved there because of their tax incentives.
However if you talk about Northern Ireland it is a different matter.
Too many British soldiers have died, too many British residents have died through the terrorism of the IRA and it's affiliates.

My concern is that America is making the same mistakes and will suffer the same outcome.
Dammed if you do, Dammed if you dont.
What the solution is, I dont know, but what I do know is history has proven that 'violence begets violence'.

Regards..Alan.

All I can say is it's peaceful here where I live. We hardly ever lock our doors, except at night
if we don't forget. Our cars sit out in the driveway, with the keys inside because it's easier
that way. I don't know how much more peaceful it could be.

I know shootings and killings occur around the country now & then, but I think the same
must occur in your country, and most every country for that matter.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Vietnam, The Gulf War, Granada and now Iraq when you
accuse us of not being peaceful. If so, I can't argue with you. All I can do is vote for those I
think will do the best job of keeping us out of conflict. That doesn't work because
they just stick anybody in the whitehouse these days, even if he didn't win..

I feel bad that the world hates us, but I can't do anything about it.

Madtown.

Let me say this just as it comes out.

No..the majority of the world does'nt hate America in fact far from it.
It's your choice wether you believe this or not but I dont hate Americans.
I do have problems trying to understand some of the things American administrations have done, and are about to do in the world.

The present administration appears to be hell bent on global conflict.
More deaths, more suffering, more devastation and to what end.
More enemys,more deaths...etc..etc...

Just wish it would stop.

Regards...Alan

Alan,

How in the world do you see the US starting a global conflict? I see the US requiring Iraq to comply to the things we fought a war over..and lost lives doing so. The US is simply telling the UN in no uncertain terms that you have a choice...either you are going to police Iraq and make them comply or the US will assume (rightly so) that the UN is a worthless mouthpiece and take care of business. I don't see the US becoming some monster over this whole issue. Requiring someone to live up to what they said they would do after fighting a war to make it so..isn't really an insane thing to request or require. Wheras the opposite argument smells of ignorance and 11 years of piddling around.

Darcaine

Darcaine.

Dare I say it??.

Bush has gone from attacking Iraq within weeks with or without help.
That was some time ago.
To his latest where he said he did not believe war with Iraq was inevitable.

Piddling around!!!.
What a turnabout.

Regards....Alan

Alan,

I think you need lessons in understanding human beings. If the US had not "threatened" the use of force Iraq wouldn't had even considered thinking about inspections.

BTW, have you even seen the specials on TV lately where they have interviewed the people doing the inspections? They said it would be a waste of time to go back because they were spied on and diverted all the time from his moving mass destruction arsenol.

I don't think Bush is piddling around at all. He gave the world EXCACTLY what they wanted a chance to deal with Saddam peacefully first. Bush went to the UN and basically told them what THEY promised to do and that the UN has been unable or unwilling to enforce it's own mandates. I would hazard a guesse that the weather will determine when and if we go into Iraq. Right now it may still be not them time to do it. I would think they would want cooler weather before they go in.

Darcaine

Darcaine.

Explain to me the Bush change of mind from 'as soon as possible' to 'I do not believe war with Iraq is inevitable'.

Wonder what caused that back flip??.


Regards....Alan.

Very simply...it's a game. A very SERIOUS game of statemanship. Let's see Saddam values his life enough to save himself. And BTW you are mis-quoting what Bush said. What was the "soon as possible" referring too? Please give me the full artuicle so that we all may read it.

Darcaine.

Darcaine.

At least 12months ago your President intimated that 'you are either with us or against us' and if nessasary America would 'go it alone'.

IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH THESE STATEMENTS?????

How come these statements have taken OVER 12months (and continuing ) to put into effect..............

Are you going to do it or are you just waving the American flag around that says.........You know we MIGHT do it.

Either do it or stop messing about, BUT accept the concequences.


Regards....Alan

Why do we have to play Alan's way?

Darcaine

Alan is not saying we have to "play his way." He is merely pointing out that the current administration, with the support of most of Congress, is talking loudly and carrying a big stick. He's pointing out the U.S. has talked a hard game but haven't really done much and we haven't really convinced the world why we want to in the first place.

I would counter that with the US doing everything our allies are asking of us. We are being somewhat patient...especially after 11 years, and trying to get a resolution through the UN. However, at the same time we are building up our forces in the Iraqi theatre. It's not reported but we have as many carriers there now as we had in the Gulf War.

Darcaine

. In looking back through this forum I realize that Alan has been both right and wrong.
yes, we were obsessed with protecting ourselves and the world from Communism. And we were right. The term "Reds under the beds" is pretty insulting to me as an American.
Europe was glad enough to have our help after WWII. Churchill practically begged us to enter the war.
The bombs we dropped in Japan saved many lives, and I think we would do it again. If you have ever visited Hawaii and seen the memorial there you wouldn't doubt that! I have also visited military cemeteries in Europe and elsewhere. It is a terrible sight to see the row upon row of white crosses.
Who cares if you love us? Fear is OK.

Mouse.

Have a look at this WW2 Timeline.

Aug 25 1939
Britain, including the Commonwealth, and Poland sign Mutual Assistance Treaty.

Sept 1 1939
Nazis invade Poland.

Sept 3 1939
Britain and the Commonwealth declare war on Germany.

Sept 5 1939
U.S. proclaims neutrality

March 11 1941
FDR signs 'Lend Lease act' to supply equipment to Britain in exchange for a 99yr lease of strategic British bases.
The equipment given under the terms was that which was deemed 'Out of Date' to American military requirements.
The cost to be repaid at 2% per annum, negotiable.

Aug 11 1941
US announce an 'Oil Embargo' on aggressor states.
One of which was Japan.

Aug 20 1941
Operation 'Barberossa' concludes with the Nazi seige of Leningrad.

By now the Nazis were stretched to the limit and fighting on 3 fronts.
Europe, Russia and Africa.

Dec 7 1941.
Japan attacks Pearl Harbour.
The attack was never a surprise. FDR, and Churchill, knew about its possibilty. America removed the Aircraft Carriers the day prior to it.
American opinion went to war.

Dec 8 1941
U.S. and Britain declaired war on Japan.

Dec 11 1941
Germany declairs war on the U.S.

Aug 17 1942
First American forces deployed against Germany in an air raid.

It is plain from this that America entered the European war over 3 years after it started and when Germany was overstretched due to Hitlers missmanagement.

Britains Billion dollar war debt ( lend lease ) was finally paid off in the mid '90's.
The war debt to Britain from the Commonwealth countries was wiped.
The 99yr leases on British bases has still 38yrs to run.

Regards...Alan

Alan,

And your point would be what?

Darcaine

Darcaine - he was ansewering the post by MOUSE that was immediately before his.

Jaime,

No where does Mouse ask for a historical time table. I would beg to say that there are some important things that Alan put in his time table to mis-lead or out right lie. Remember what Alan said, "ommition is lying."

Darcaine

Darcaine.

Accusations again.

Prove it wrong.
The actual timeline is correct.
The comment about Lend Lease is also correct.
The Comment about Pearl Harbour has been debated for many years.

The point I am making to Mouse is that Churchill may well have 'begged'.
But it took America 3yrs to enter the war in Europe.
AFTER Germany was over-stretched for material and manpower.
AFTER it had negotiated Lend Lease to a desperate British Empire who was by then fighting on three fronts ( including the Italians).
AFTER Germany had declaired war on America.

Now rather than taking the easy way out by simply accusing me of lying.
Go research it yourself.
Find out yourself.

A critic is a person who sits in an armchair and finds fault with others hard labour.

Regards...Alan

The proof is in your post. Debating about whether or not the US knew of the attack of Perl Harbor is not a fact saying we knew and let it happen. Case, point and match to Darcaine.

Darcaine

Alan/Darcaine: In a 2001 column, "Things You Can't Say in America", Alexander Cockburn cited several sources relating to foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. From that article:


If interested, you might want to check out this piece on John Flynn's pamphlets or this article from the Independant Institute.

Knowing they were going to attack...yes. Where NO. Remember, the Phillipines were the likely spot, not Pearl. Too much conjecture and no facts.

Darcaine

P.S. In the future you may want to go to the website that posted that article and read what it's all about.

Darcaine: I have.

Darcaine.

Both articles are well worth reading.

However it does state in the article from the 'Independant Institute' that intercepted messages made it clear that.. "Pearl Harbour would be attacked on Dec 7 1941 by Japanese forces advancing through the Central and North Pacific Ocean".

All very thought provoking.

Regards..Alan

To everyone,

If you haven't figured it out yet you can pretty much find ANYTHING on the net. There are all kinds of whacko's who can get a web page and put up what appears to be legitimate news. The 1st amendment at work..it's a good thing. However, saying something if far diffent than PROVING something. I read both articles and it's all hearsay at best. The first article from the "antiwar" sight is totally off the mark. The second artilcle, while interesting, still has no smoking gun. So, in reference to Alan's original post, no the US did not know the attack was coming at Pearl.

Darcaine

If you don't belive me about the NET part...do a search for alien abduction sometime or any conspiracy.

Darcaine.

You suggested I read those website articles!!!.

Regards..Alan

First, I would not be so quick to blame the Internet. Both articles were based on or referenced works in printed media. The only difference with net sources is that they're cheaper than having to buy a book. Smoking guns have been cited in the referenced works. But, even if they hadn't been, there would be no better case for surmising that "the US did not know the attack was coming" than there would be for surmising that "the US did know the attack was coming".

Either way, I never would've figured you for such a staunch supporter of FDR.

Actually I am a staunch defender of the truth Wertz. If there is a smoking gun..let me see, hey, I will be the FIRST person to change their mind when and IF I see the evidence. There is SOOOOO much crap floating on the internet I am very dubious when I read it.

Darcaine

The point about all of this is that we will never know for sure.

Drawing the American public into the war by sacrificing Pearl Harbour has been a subject of debate since the freedom of information act was passed.
Documents came to light that placed a big question mark on the subject.
Much has been written about it including an oblique reference to it in Winston Churchills memoirs.
Much has also been written defending the subject.

The main hurdle to myself is that I find it immoral that a President would sacrifice his own countrymen for political ends.

However having said that we only need to look further back in history to find other nations have done it before.
Winston Churchill and the Gallipoli disaster.
The sinking of the 'Lusitania' has implications of political meddling.
These are just a couple from memory.

The only thing I know for certain is, no matter what heads of state say in public, the common man is simply a pawn to be used for political objectives.

Regards..........Alan

I think Ameican Governmen always asks others countries to do something which she doesn't do actually. For example, she argue other countries can't have the nuclear and the nuclear is harm to world. But everyone knows that USA own the most nuclear in the world.She never explains this truth and alway avoids this problem when other countries refer it.For aother example,she argues other countries can't cause war in the world and let the world keep peace.But she always cause war in many countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan,Nasilafu.When she fight these countries ,she doesn't consider these countries' pepole feeling.She would like to beat these countries' govermens, but these countries' people are the true sufferers.Please follow the way which you ask other countries to do.