U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-12-2009, 03:29 PM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,341 posts, read 9,988,245 times
Reputation: 9095

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
No, an island 2,000 miles away that the US claimed was attacked. They fought Germany (over there) because they thought they could win (over there), with a great deal to gain. Everybody knew there weren't enough Aryan Germans to gain world domination, and probably not even enough to gain all of Europe west of the Urals.
Your first sentence can be taken in two ways (fault of the English language), so I will respond to both implications... because truly, I have no way of knowing which way you are going with this.

Response #1 (there was a 'claimed' attack that never happened):

Well, obviously something was attacked. I think it was more than a claim. Or perhaps Bush hopped in his time machine, planted bombs in our battleships, and paid some locals to 'claim' they saw Japanese warplanes overhead?

Response #2 (Hawaii is the unfortunate ‘claimee’ of the evil US death star):

No, an island 2000 miles away that the US ‘claimed’ was not attacked. Let's get the facts straight. It had nothing to do with the island. Do you think the Japanese gave a damn about the island? They bombed the US pacific fleet. That was the goal. It wouldn't have mattered to the Japanese where the fleet was, as long as they could get to it and it was in one spot, it would have been bombed. Their goal was to cripple the US Pacific fleet, which had nothing to do with an island that the US 'claimed.' The city you live in and the house in which you’re residing is 'clamed' by the US, too. Who do you want to give it back to? Perhaps to my ancestors, the Vikings? They ‘claimed’ this land long ago. So when can I move into my new home? Please clean the bathroom before you leave.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2009, 03:44 PM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,341 posts, read 9,988,245 times
Reputation: 9095
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The president of every country in Latin America. And Franco and Salazar.
You know, you listing Franco doesn't help your argument very much. Hitler had just finished funding Franco's 'Spanish civil war.' What do you think Franco was going to say? Why didn't you list Mussolini also? Of course birds of a feather are going to claim they are no threat to anyone... then the Blitzkrieg starts. Over and over and over, until someone finally developed gonads enough to do something about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,574,557 times
Reputation: 35869
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post

Response #1 (there was a 'claimed' attack that never happened):

Well, obviously something was attacked. .

Their goal was to cripple the US Pacific fleet, which had nothing to do with an island that the US 'claimed.' The city you live in and the house blah blah blah)
Your first possible interpretation of my meaning would have required that I write a sentence without a verb, which is something I do not do. Don't childishly roll your eyes at me over your own failure to interpret a grammatically and syntactically correct sentence.

Japan is closer to New Guinea than the US is to Hawaii, and we sure raised hell when they claimed that.

Attacking the Pacific Fleet would have been called "pre-emptive"---they were just a bit ahead of their time. The Pacific Fleet would not have been there if the American Empire did not extend for thousands of miles. Los Angeles is closer to Cuba than to Pearl Harbor.

There is a difference between undeveloped areas contiguous to settled territory entering the US, and America forcibly wresting away an island that is thousands of miles out in the ocean, which already had internationally recognized nationhood and democratic processes.

Last edited by jtur88; 04-12-2009 at 04:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,574,557 times
Reputation: 35869
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
You know, you listing Franco doesn't help your argument very much. Hitler had just finished funding Franco's 'Spanish civil war.' What do you think Franco was going to say? Why didn't you list Mussolini also? Of course birds of a feather are going to claim they are no threat to anyone... then the Blitzkrieg starts. Over and over and over, until someone finally developed gonads enough to do something about it.
Who, me? I just made a direct answer to somebody's unambiguous question. OK, just strike Franco, and leave Salazar and 19 independent Latin American republics. 20 leaders, instead of 21. I was only asked to name one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,087,007 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The president of every country in Latin America. And Franco and Salazar. I was going to add ":smack" to the end of this to incontestibly prove that I am right, , but that doesn't seem very grown up.
Link or reference. BS isn't very grown up either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 05:25 PM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,341 posts, read 9,988,245 times
Reputation: 9095
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
...would have required that I write a sentence without a verb, which is something I do not do.
Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The president of every country in Latin America. And Franco and Salazar.
What are these?


Out of respect, I will refrain from rolling my eyes again. But, I trust you can now see why I had questioned that verb dealy-bobber.

--------------------------------------------------

So now allow me to try to pin down a response to a question without the 'Oh yeah... well... well... that may be, but...' rhetorical response. Did the Japanese seek to bomb an island of little consequence to them (Hawaii), or did they seek to incapacitate the US Pacific Fleet?

A) They wanted to bomb Hawaii.

B) They wanted to incapacitate the US Pacific Fleet.

There is nothing else required for the answer other than A or B.

If A is the correct choice, then perhaps all our ships were simply unfortunate victims of unintended collateral damage and the Japanese navigational and/or targeting systems were faulty. You'll pardon me if I have a hard time accepting this choice. If B is the correct choice, then I believe that to be an intentional act of war, from which I'm sure the Japanese fully expected a response--unlike today, no doubt, where any despot could incinerate half the country and we'd all sit on our hands sipping energy drinks (through a straw) and watching reality TV.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 06:49 PM
 
3,277 posts, read 4,494,411 times
Reputation: 1908
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The president of every country in Latin America. And Franco and Salazar. I was going to add ":smack" to the end of this to incontestibly prove that I am right, , but that doesn't seem very grown up.
Franco was a fascist himself, and Salazaar not the most upright dictator around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 07:02 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,574,557 times
Reputation: 35869
Sorry, can't do that. "A" and "B" are not complete sentences, and all answers must be complete sentences. "None of the above" is not a complete sentence, either, so is invalid. If I said that, you would not understand it, because it would be open to multiple interpretations.

Here are some complete sentences that might help you understand.

1. The Japanese, for their national safety, felt compelled to take steps to reduce the risk of an attack by hostile forces that had recently been moved a couple of thousand miles closer to Japan.

2. I doubt if the Japanese cared much whether the fleet was anchored in a US port or not, since their attack was precise enough that there was virtually no civilian collateral damage. If they wanted to attack the United States, there was their big chance. Hence, it was not "an attack on the USA" (so plese stop saying that), it was a military operation in which two opposing forces did what armies and navies are placed there to do. If nobody shot first, there would be no war, and therefore, no profiteering, the life-blood of commerce.

3. If the Japanese had committed the military oversight of leaving the US attack force there unchallenged, America would have had no reason to invade Germany. I do not understand why this is so, but I'm told that it is, so it must be.

Last edited by jtur88; 04-12-2009 at 07:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 07:07 PM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,341 posts, read 9,988,245 times
Reputation: 9095
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Sorry, can't do that. "A" and "B" are not complete sentences, and all answers must be complete sentences.
All right, yeah. Fair enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2009, 07:53 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,087,007 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
1. The Japanese, for their national safety, felt compelled to take steps to reduce the risk of an attack by hostile forces that had recently been moved a couple of thousand miles closer to Japan.
You are such an apologist for Fascists. The Japanese were in the process of conquering all of the Far East. The United States was potentially in the way, so they attacked us. WTF are you? I've never heard such tripe in all my life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
2. I doubt if the Japanese cared much whether the fleet was anchored in a US port or not, since their attack was precise enough that there was virtually no civilian collateral damage. If they wanted to attack the United States, there was their big chance. Hence, it was not "an attack on the USA" (so plese stop saying that), it was a military operation in which two opposing forces did what armies and navies are placed there to do. If nobody shot first, there would be no war, and therefore, no profiteering, the life-blood of commerce.
The point isn't civilian casualties. The point is that they attacked US military forces. An attack on our military forces is a black letter law attack on the US. An act of WAR.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top