Date of infamy: forgetting Pearl Harbor
Sixty-seven years ago today Pearl Harbor was attacked.
That’s long enough ago that only the elderly remember the day and its aftermath with any clarity. Several generations—including my own tiresome one, the baby boomers—have come up since then, and the world has indeed changed.
Prior to 9/11, the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941 was the closest thing America had to 9/11. The differences between the two are profound, however: at Pearl Harbor we knew the culprit. It was clearly and unequivocally an act of war by the nation of Japan, which was already at war in the Pacific.
But it was, like 9/11, a sneak attack that killed roughly the same number of Americans—in the case of Pearl Harbor mostly (although not exclusively) those in the armed forces. And the Pearl Harbor attack, in the reported (but disputed) words of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, awakened the “sleeping giant” of the US and filled it with a “terrible resolve.”
In the case of Pearl Harbor, that resolve lasted the duration of the war, an all-out conflagration that required far more sacrifice of the US (and the world) in money, comfort, and the all-important cost of human lives. The scale of such a loss is not even remotely comparable to that of our present conflict. In addition, the first years of World War II featured many losses and much peril. It was a different world, however, and failure was not an option.
Yes, mistakes were made in both wars—and always will be. But it is impossible to remain politically correct and successfully wage an asymmetrical war against an enemy that uses terrorist tactics. If you’re going to try to do that, you may as well not try, because every single life sacrificed to that cause will have been as though it were wasted.
The tactics and even the strategies of World War II don’t fit today’s wars. But tactics and strategies aren’t the issue—although they are extremely important, as the surge reminds us. The overarching issue is will. And, in that respect as in many others, current generations don’t compare to the one known as “The Greatest Generation.”
For some contrast, go back to FDR’s “Day of Infamy” speech (a misquote, it turns out: he actually said “date which will live in infamy”). If you follow the link and scroll down to the first selection under “Media,” you can listen to an audio of it, as well.
Here are some of the less famous quotes from the speech; I have selected them because they speak to the question of will. FDR was assisted in mustering that will by the relative clarity of the enemy and its intent in World War II. But it still seems to me, on reading these words, that such unequivocal determination could not be summoned today, even if given the exact circumstances of the infamous attack of December 7, 1941:
…No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces””with the unbounding determination of our people””we will gain the inevitable triumph””so help us God.
[NOTE: This is a revised and expanded edition of a post first published in 2006.]
“current generations don’t compare to the one known as ‘The Greatest Generation’.”
I am not as enamored of the “The Greatest Generation” as many seem to be but agree with the point that the generations are different. That generation felt “we” were being attacked. The present generations don’t believe “we” have been attacked but our nationalism, political policies and worldview have. If we would only change, they would love us and we would have nothing to fear.
There’s a reason history keeps repeating.
I suppose though, if Al Gore had been president when 9/11 occurred and he had invaded Iraq (as it was obvious the Democrats were getting psyched up for), I wouldn’t have mattered to the press if he had put red hot irons to the feet of captors nor how long the war would last. What would have mattered is that we were safe because a Democrat was at the helm, just like in WWII.
“The present generations don’t believe “we” have been attacked but our nationalism, political policies and worldview have”…I think it’s worse than that…among substantial subset of the populace, the whole notion of “we” has been lost, and the country is seen merely as a theater for the neo-hobbesian struggle of group against group.
A British general said of the French in 1940: “they were so busy fighting each other they didn’t have time to fight the Germans.” The same kind of thing is now true to a frightening extent in America.
So help us God.
Amen
In 1941, the government had already imposed conscription. Shortly after Dec 7, taxes went up to a punishing 90% on the top bracket, the government introduced rationing and production boards of all types to put the economy on an absolute war footing. If the “greatest generation” committed themselves wholly to war, they did so, at least in part, because their government led the way. The current generation of Americans have had no such leadership. American politicians responded to the attacks of 9/11 with a big tax cut and told people to go shop until they dropped (American shoppers have now officially dropped). To pay for the war, American politicians borrowed huge sums from the rising strategic and industrial rivals of the United States. And the direction war itself involved radically incoherent strategy: Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. If FDR had responded to Pearl Harbour by cutting taxes and then invading Spain, the war, and the US economy, might have ended up in the same muddle the neo-conservatives now badly want to spin their way out of. And the greatest generation might well have never got the opportunity to show what they could do.
Johnh G said
If FDR had responded to Pearl Harbour by cutting taxes and then invading Spain, the war, and the US economy, might have ended up in the same muddle the neo-conservatives now badly want to spin their way out of.
And again he misses the point(s) (not the greatest of which is that FDR didn’t invade anyone. It was congress that declared the war. Just as it was congress that gave George W Bush the authority to use force against Iraq). Also in 1941 the economy was still in shambles and the population was a lot smaller – there wasn’t that much money in circulation to generate revenue for the government’s coffers. The only real source of money was the rich – so cutting taxes wasn’t an option. The perpetrators of 9/11 were pretty smart and knew the major devastation from their attack would not be the toppling of the towers but the undermining of the economy – so cutting taxes to keep the economy stimulated was the right thing to do. In the case of WW II the enemy was obvious and it was known there would be a definitive conclusion to the war one way or another within a time frame. Not so with the current conflict and enemy.
The sad thing is that these days too many think “sacrifice” is going out to eat a couple of times less each month. They have no idea. As long as they have their computers, play-stations, and other toys they pretty much don’t want to be bothered. They are unwilling to sacrifice for their neighbors because most of them probably don’t know their neighbors (and don’t care to). Funny thing is – the enemy we face now are the ones who absolutely want to take away their toys and return them to the dark ages (or near enough). Too bad they don’t understand that if there is nothing worth dying for then there is nothing of value worth living for.
John is so smart !
We haven’t heard these arguments already. And now that I did. I’m CONVINCED !
Of what?
Liberalism is the way to go !!! Woo Hoo !
Tax increases equals a greater economy! Iraq equalled was our friend like Spain was!
I’m so glad I didn’t ever do drugs……
I wonder if ever again this nation will be truly united in a common cause against a deadly enemy. I’m beginning to think not. It’s a depressing thought.
Given that GDP spending in WWII exceeded 10%, they had no taxes they could cut. Most of the post-depression recovery was coming from the war industry, not the private sector. Cutting taxes on the private sector wasn’t going to create more jobs, since most of the jobs were coming out of the industries working to supply the war, which is a government type employment or contract.
GDP spending for American for Iraq and Afghanistan does not exceed 5%. Big difference seen with small shuttered eyes on the part of John here.
If FDR had responded to Pearl Harbour by cutting taxes and then invading Spain
Certainly FDR invaded Africa and started fighting the French there. Certainly that made a lot of sense given that the Japanese attacked an island in the Pacific.
Ymar,
GDP spending for Iraq and Afghanistan does not exceed 1 percent not 5 percent.
More bad news: Oxford University has issued a children’s dictionary that has gutted entries referring to Christianity and Britain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3569045/Words-associated-with-Christianity-and-British-history-taken-out-of-childrens-dictionary.html
Out: words like elf, coronation, abbey, willow.
In: words like MP3 player, blog, tolerant.
“There are times in every man’s life when he is tempted to hoist the black flag, spit on his hands, and commence slitting throats.” (Mencken, God bless him.)
True enough, times have changed in the past half-century.
We’ve moved on and, mostly, up. Way up.
All this whining about how terrible America fails to even begin to acknowledge the stunning wealth, and not all of it at the top, the nation has generated.
Nor does it acknowledge the leadership role America now plays in education, the sciences, the news media.
None of that was true in 1941.
Back then, a guy with brown skin sat in the back of the bus and nowhere at all at the lunch counter. All that’s gone. Sure, we’ve still got a few holdout bigots, but racism was the norm in 1941.
True enough, we have the brave Russian and American soldiers to thank for crushing Fascism, setting the path for liberal democracy. Still whatever willingness to fight in wars we have lost, we have surrendered it for the very best reasons.
Yeah, we’re real soft. But that’s not because the hobgoblins of the left practiced their political witchcraft on our young. The truth is, the vast majority of the left-wing ideas never caught on in America. This idea that we’re all a bunch of brainwashed pinkos is a real hoot. Really. Paranoia on parade.
Americans want nothing to do with real socialism. Sure, they want free health care, free education, free roads, and so on, but that’s not really socialism, is it? It’s welfare state capitalism and it’s what accounts for the fabulous wealth that’s made us so “soft.”
For all the griping about liberal hobgoblins taking over education, we’ve still got the best system in the world — overall. Sure, our average math and science scores suck, but what those scores don’t tell you is that most of the students below the 50th percentile are culled out of the academic program in most of Asia and Europe.
America sets the bar a lot higher for the kids who fall below the 50th percentile and, yes, far too many of them fail, but we can at least be proud that we don’t just tell them to forget about math and learning to lay bricks instead.
Maybe the Euros and Asians have the right idea. At 15, decide for kids — based on their test scores — whether they’ll be using brains or brawn to make their way in the world. I happen to think that’s wrong.
America is well rich enough in resources — both human and natural — to be a bit bolder than that. We’ve always been willing to see EVERY kid through to roughly 18 years old, before letting them figure out on their own whether they’re better off thinking or using their hands for a living — or any combination, as their desires dictate, of course.
Lighten up guys, this generation is a lot better and a lot better off than you seem to think.
Le Trebucet nailed it. There was never anything GWB could have said or done after 9/11 that would have satisfied liberals and their hatred of all those without similar afflictions to themselves. The fact that he had faith in God assured his every move was going to be portrayed as a display of wrongness at every possible turn.
A good little test of this psychotic dynamic would have been GWB giving 15 billion dollars to stop Aids in Africa….Oh wait….
And so the great Oxford, endowed by the plunder of the religous houses, abandons more of its patrimony in the midden and discards what precious small value it retains.
It’s time for someone to step up, step in, and offer their services to replace Oxford. And then lay us wreaths upon the grave of Tolkien and the doorstep of the Bird and the Baby.
John, Ymar notes correctly that we first invaded Africa in WWII. I think your linear economic predictions of “what would have happened” after both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 if the tax situations were reversed is unsupported; they certainly leave out the rather important items of what had happened economically in the decade preceding each.
It sounds like you had the theory all worked out, just waiting for the facts to back you up. Next time start from the data.
we are also forgetting “attacking in a different direction” Chosin few…
sigh…
We are also going to forget the following this month…
[Except some history buffs who remember]
The Battle of Chosin Reservoir
The Battle of Trenton (1776)
The Battle of Austerlitz (the Battle of the Three Emperors)
The Battle of the Bulge
The Battle of Stalingrad
The Battles of “Suomussalmi” and “Raate Road”
The Battle of Givenchy
The Battle of Quebec
The Battle of Fredericksburg
And many more…
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget
And during this time, from nov 23, through the winter, the Holodomer massacre happened..
This year marks the 75th anniversary of one of the most horrific chapters in the history of the Soviet Union: the great famine the Ukrainians call Holodomor, “murder by starvation.” This catastrophe, which killed an estimated 6 to 10 million people in 1932-33, was largely the product of deliberate Soviet policies. Inevitably, then, its history is fodder for acrimonious disputes.
in January 1988, the Village Voice ran a lengthy essay by Jeff Coplon (now a contributing editor at New York magazine) titled “In Search of a Soviet Holocaust: A 55-Year-Old Famine Feeds the Right.” Coplon sneered at “the prevailing vogue of anti-Stalinism” and dismissed as absurd the idea that the famine had been created by the Communist regime. Such talk, he asserted, was meant to justify U.S. imperialism and whitewash Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis.
By the time Coplon wrote, however, the Soviet regime was dying. The partial opening of Soviet archives soon confirmed the extent to which Stalin and his henchmen knowingly used hunger to punish resistance and beat the peasantry into submission. Among the finds was a direct order by Stalin to cordon off starving villages and intercept peasants trying to flee in search of food. The post-Soviet leadership of both Russia and Ukraine was willing to acknowledge the Terror-Famine, though differences soon emerged on whether it should be regarded as a Ukrainian genocide or equal-opportunity mass murder.
we forget a hell of a lof of important things…
even now the left forgets conveniently for what it has always stood for…
on the subject of changing dictionaries..
if its ok to steel to redistribute wealth, then how is it not ok to change language to effect otucomes? or lie to us? or to take our freedomes away?
if we accept that leaders can control outcomes, then we accept leaders can control us.
once we accepted the morals of wealth redistribution, everything that stalin did to effect change, was and now is acceptable.
the only limit was how it would cause the population to behave and if it costs productivity…
like trying to keep cows calm to maximize milk output, our farmers wish not to upset us…
so now, every immoral thing that has a potentially positive outcome, is valid!!!!!
we have already passed the event horizon… and no one is trying to turn it around, they are too busy arguig as to who will bail the water first.
Artfull, thanks for the Holodomor remembrance.
Bogey wrote, “Lighten up guys, this generation is a lot better and a lot better off than you seem to think.”
You were off topic.
Nobody is lamenting America as a failure or talking bad about America like the left does.
We JUST WISH THAT THE LEFT WAS UNIFIED TOWARDS THE GOAL OF VICTORY
HOW MUCH MORE CLEAR CAN WE GET !!!
We have people on the left often saying nothing but the word ‘disaster’ with respect to Iraq.
Perspective is key. Your post was irrelevant.
America is a great nation. Come on board !
Spragge:
And the direction war itself involved radically incoherent strategy: Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11.
I suggest that you read the Iraq War Resolution of October 2002, if you have not already done so.
Just wondering: what in your opinion WOULD have been a “coherent strategy” circa 2002?
Thank You neo-neocon. For all of them that have gone before and will be after. “Never Forget”
“Semper Fi”
I post at Book’s place a few times.
http://mike630.vox.com/
There’s a reason history keeps repeating.
That’s because until you get a person to believe that the events that occurred before their birth is important, most people believe that history began on the day they where born.
They think they’re making those mistakes for the first time.
To quote LGF, “History doesn’t repeat itself. It stutters.”
There is a big difference between Pearl Harbor and 9-11, in the nature of the existential threat the US faced. Back then, it was a Japanese air force gradually covering one American city after another with napalm, on its way to Washington D.C. It would be a mighty enemy, but one the average person could still fight against, through citizen militia attacks on their airbases.
Today’s existential threat against the US involves one of the many anarcho-nihilist organizations in the world getting their hands on nuclear weapons, and setting them off in such a way that the price of fighting back against them is triggering World War III. There’s nothing Joe Citizen can do once things get to the point that nukes are raining down, so we have changed our fighting style to intercept them at earlier stages, before they take over any state-run nuclear weapon factories.
Many people who do remember Pearl Harbor think the War in Iraq is an overreaction, against a foe that could not possibly harm us like the Japanese could. They see things this way because they can no longer understand the modern battlefield, or the unstoppable devastation it can bring them out of the blue, with no chance whatsoever of fighting back.
‘The sad thing is that these days too many think “sacrifice” is going out to eat a couple of times less each month.’
Couldn’t agree more. And the point is valid: the FDR administration demanded more sacrifice and more restrictions on every aspect of American life than possibly any administration in our history – all for the stated goals of protecting us from future attacks and winning the war. We trusted FDR to lead us through WWII, generally assuming that the shortages, prohibitions and militarism that we labored under would be lifted once the war ended.
Today, apparently, Americans are incapable of this level of trust. For many, the Bush administration is guilty of launching “unprecedented attacks on our Constitution and our freedoms.” The Patriot Act is just a prelude to a fascist takeover. Everything is done for the benefit of Bush’s big-business oil company cronies, not for the sake of security or victory. In short, people are more cynical about their country and their government.
I understand that the history of WWII wasn’t one of unalloyed fellow-feeling and cooperation among Americans. I found The Good War by Studs Terkel a useful corrective to the semi-mythical narrative I grew up on. But it’s obvious that our national behavior following Pearl Harbor and following 9/11 could not have been more different.
People say it’s good to dissent, not to blindly follow the leader just because “there’s a war on.” But I’m wondering if, in our fear of conformity leading to fascism, we’ve forgotten how to cooperate at all.
I’ll take Mark Twain’s word on this:
“History never repeats itself. But it always rhymes.”
Ymarskar:
The US invaded North Africa as part of a coordinated plan to get at the German forces on an exposed flank. They went through French possessions in the hope that the French would not fight them. And they fought the Germans in the first place because… Germany declared war on the United States, and when someone formally declares war on you, it might just make sense to fight them.
Iraq, on the other hand, did not declare war on the United States. But then, I think we both knew that.
Tatterdemalion:
The existential threat you face has to do with the evolving technology, which creates a more interconnected (and therefore vulnerable) society, and at the same time empowers each member to a much greater degree (for good or ill). As a long term solution to this problem, I see no logical alternative to learning to live without war. As a short term solution, I see no way the Iraqi campaign effectively “intercepted” any great number of people who might otherwise have seriously harmed the United States. You certainly did not find any viable nuclear weapons programs.
Bugs:
This begs the question: did the Bush Administration ever deserve the level of trust they asked for? Did they have a coherent and effective strategy for dealing with the terror networks? Does getting bogged down in a war that started with a handful of fanatics somehow strike you as a government worthy of trust? Does the theory of the unitary executive, the Yoo memos, the deportations to “black prisons” and to countries that torture add up to a government that all sane people must trust?
The Bush Administration did not get the level of trust FDR did because:
a) they never asked for it
b) they never earned it.
I don’t see how you can reasonably criticize the current generation of Americans for this.
The US invaded North Africa as part of a coordinated plan to get at the German forces on an exposed flank. They went through French possessions in the hope that the French would not fight them. And they fought the Germans in the first place because… Germany declared war on the United States, and when someone formally declares war on you, it might just make sense to fight them.
And this is different from Iraq, which flanks Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, where pro-Iraq supporters didn’t want to fight with Iraqis or expect them to fight back, how?
Iraq, on the other hand, did not declare war on the United States. But then, I think we both knew that.
We both know that the French didn’t declare war on America, yet they were the first forces America fought.
So in your world, it is okay for you to make excuses for FDR fighting the French and blowing them away cause of expectations that the French would surrender, but suddenly it is a mistake for Bush to do the exact same thing when he was flanking Iran and Al Qaeda on another front.
John, You continue to miss the point.
Where in your last post did you point out your solution for victory?
Assistant Village Idiot ,
no problem, for the west hates itself so much it thinks it actually has incidents in its history (not related to soviets) that compare… and there isnt…
there is not one incident in the history of most countries that can compare… and the fact that russia today can claim genocide in georgia while denying what their own records said that they did with malice and forthought is incredible.
right now we are in a problem precisely because we let the holocaust of 50% of hitlers victims outshine all the other victims of the SAME POLITICAL IDEOLOGY: SOCIALISM
are you ukranian? i am not… but i do try to remember history despite the constant false rewrites deconstructing hell to be heaven but error prone…
After the “day that will live in infamy” FDR’s first land attack took place in Morocco and Algeria, then French colonies, in alliance with the British.
ok… so that is correct…
Turned out that he knew we had to fight the AXIS imnperial alliance (Germany, Japan, Italy, and secretly russia till they tried to screw each other)
but what bothered me was what was missing… Ymarsakar and George, what key point would have made this clearer (and showed that George at least had the right DETAILS, while ymarsakar was kind of right if you didnt distinguish details).
what happened in japan, was not an isolated incident, and as was said in an ariticle on this same subject in 2007, neither was sept 11, which is why this argument has played out left and right already…
ok… the KEY detail for Ymarsakar is VICHY…
from July 1940 to August 1944, france wasnt france anymore.. it was VICHY…
in other words, france became a part of the german empire… Ymarsakar the unusual part is that normally people dont get their country back like it was before… which was something else that america did with england that none else did in history (a true liberation).
so FDR didnt actually go through French territory as France technically no longer existed..
but maybe FDR could give some insight here
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/421117a.html
F. D. ROOSEVELT’S STATEMENT ON NORTH AFRICAN POLICY November 17, 1942
We are opposed to Frenchmen who support Hitler and the Axis. No one in our Army has any authority to discuss the future Government of France and the French Empire.
The future French Government will be established-not by any individual in metropolitan France or overseas-but by the French people themselves after they have been set free by the victory of the United Nations.
The present temporary arrangement in North and West Africa is only a temporary expedient, justified solely by the stress of battle.
The present temporary arrangement has accomplished two military objectives. The first was to save American and British lives on the one hand, and French lives on the other hand.
sounds like one can read and learn the DETAILS that explain a lot and dash away a lot… after all, the whole point that we attacked france first is wrong!! since france ceased to exist when germany took it…
FDR and others have talked about this stuff in DETAIL, but today, people try to make their points betting on ignorance rather than argue from the unassailable place of fact…
read the rest…
The second was the vital factor of time. The temporary arrangement has made it possible to avoid a “mopping up” period in Algiers and Morocco which might have taken a month or two to consummate. Such a period would have delayed the concentration for the attack from the West on Tunis, and we hope on Tripoli.
Every day of delay in the current operation would have enabled the Germans and Italians to build up a strong resistance, to dig in and make a huge operation on our part essential before we could win. Here again, many more lives will be saved under the present speedy offensive, than if we had had to delay it for a month or more.
It will also be noted that French troops, under the command of General Giraud, have already been in action against the enemy in Tunisia, fighting by the side of American and British soldiers for the liberation of their country.
Admiral Darlan’s proclamation assisted in making a “mopping up” period unnecessary. Temporary arrangements made with Admiral Darlan apply, without exception, to the current local situation only.
I have requested the liberation of all persons in Northern Africa who had been imprisoned because they opposed the efforts of the Nazis to dominate the world, and I have asked for the abrogation of all laws and decrees inspired by Nazi Governments or Nazi idealogies. Reports indicate that the French of North Africa are subordinating all political questions to the formation of a common front against the common enemy.
REAL french troops, of the old regime were fighting the traitors who ended up taking up with germany rather than fight to the end…
so in truth, it was united states, england, AND french troops up against german and vichy troops.
now the french are trying to come to terms with the sexual cesspool that france under vichey became!!!!
Book: Paris Under Nazis Was One Big Sex Romp
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358162,00.html
Spragge:
Iraq, on the other hand, did not declare war on the United States. But then, I think we both knew that.
Yes, it was as if the US had attacked Switzerland, wasn’t it? As if Saddam were on good terms with the US and the world? I previously pointed out in this thread, you might benefit by reading the Iraq War Resolution of October 2002.
Hm…stuff that went down during FDR’s administration:
Foreign Agents Registration Act
Dies Committee (nominally anti-FDR, but used by FDR to attack political enemies)
Hatch Act – Restricted political activity of civil service employees, especially communists.
Smith Act – non-citizen aliens to be registered and fingerprinted, penalties for sedition. Previous to this, Georgia and Pennsylvania required aliens to register and prohibited them from owning guns or hunting.
Selective Service Act – the Draft.
Nationality Act – could be used to divest naturalized Americans of their citizenship for being political radicals.
Voorhis Act – registration of people belonging to organizations “under foreign control.”
FBI’s General Intelligence Division – compiled a Custodial Detention list of people to be summarily jailed during wartime.
Extensive surveillance of private citizens, including wiretapping and opening of mail.
USPS – instituted mail censorship.
Covert violation of neutrality laws – gov. cooperating w. foreign intelligence agencies, militaries. Using same laws to harrass U.S. citizens.
Gobitis case – Supreme Court held that school children (specifically Jehovah’s Witnesses) could be expelled for failing to salute the flag. Majority opinion stated “National unity is the basis of national security.”
Sedition laws also used to persecute Witnesses for anti-statist views.
Alien Enemies Act (1798) and EO9066 used to intern Japanese-Americans. Non-internees forced to move away from military and industrial installations, subjected to curfews and travel restrictions, forbidden from possessing firearms or shortwave radios.
Mass sedition trials of communists, fascists, and Black Muslims.
Office of Censorship – banned single “subversive” issues of magazines and newspapers it considered subversive.
Postal Service – denied mailing privileges to Esquire magazine for “subversive” content.
Justice Department sued Chicago Tribune for publishing “too many details” about the Battle of Midway.
Etc…
Personally, I’m glad I live in evil, untrustworthy George Bush’s “fascist police state” rather than FDR’s “progressive” version.
Where in your last post did you point out your solution for victory?
The solution of all reactionists and European conservatives is to say “no, this is going to work, this new thing called ‘change'” John Spragge is no classical liberal, but he is a conservative in the sense that he tries to keep the status quo (which is the Un, Saddam’s regime, etc.)
Artfldgr
The details support my point even better. Replace France with “Iraqis” and French non-Vichy forces with Shia and Kurdish forces and you get the same thing. But not to people like John. They are fine with historical revision, when it suits their purposes, but when other people are freed using the same national security necessities, suddenly it is different. Suddenly it is Bush’s war and not theirs.
Once the allied governments release the news of operation torch, anyone able to read a map could have told you the objective: to take Rommel’s army in the rear. By contrast, the Bush Administration never produced a coherent strategy for Iraq, never mind the remainder of the Middle East.
John doesn’t read….
That’s all I can conclude from what you wrote John.
Strategy papers were released. Your use of the word ‘never’ only shows you didn’t read them.
This post is for political newbies – just in case you were almost persuaded by John’s lie.
John, Disagreement is fine. 100% of the people might’ve had pieces of the strategy that they disagreed with. Lying is another.
…. and you still don’t point out how you could see victory moving forward…
I guess the trick is to just keep saying “Bush didn’t have a coherent strategy,” and “Bush didn’t deserve our trust.” Those articles of faith will carry you through.
From day one, Bush was considered to be from the wrong Tribe. I have read very few whose opposition cannot be easily reduced to that.
Artfull – I am not Ukrainian. I have two sons from Transylvania and have visited there and Hungary many times. I have several friends who have gone on missions to orphanages and villages around Uzhgorod, but I have little other direct knowledge of Ukraine. I have picked up information from other directions by studying the Holocaust, Hasidism, and Roma history.
The details support my point even better. Replace France with “Iraqis” and French non-Vichy forces with Shia and Kurdish forces and you get the same
ah…no you dont…
but maybe in your funky inversion of a world it does..
its bushes war? its clintons war? its harrys war?
here is your problem in a nutshell…
its americas war
every one of us, we agree to live in this country and accept that the rules say sometimes the leader is who i vote for, sometimes the leader is who i dont vote for…
but we are to support that leader… not play sour grapes and interference when we dont get our way.. not implement political terrorism replacing debate and honest inquiry with fear and one party solutions.
the US was always unique in that every citizen could leave if they dont like this social rule. that we stand as one, even if we all dont agree…
thats technically what made the difference between citizen, and traitor.
Assistant Village Idiot Says,
ah… i see… most people who mention things like that have some connections.. nice to see that things that shouldnt be forgotten easily… arent.
🙂
Actually, Saddam did declare war on the U.S. back in ’91. Then he lost and signed a cease-fire agreement. Then he violated the cease-fire agreement. Then The U.S. began firing again, as per the cease-fire agreement, which was never cancelled or annulled.
Bush didn’t need Congress’s re-approval for a war that had been ongoing for 12 years, but did so anyway because of all the liberal crybabies.