Pear Harbor, the Tonkin gulf incident, the september 11th attack, this clash have the same common denominator, a U.S. attack leading to a "justified" international intervention to an invasion or war. Many of you will refute the theory but, unfortunately it passed the theory level to being acknowledged as a pattern, or better a strategy.
Give me a break. Go to your superiors and demand better material.
On second thought, never mind, they aren't big on creativity or original thought. The only good ideas they have are ones they stole from us. We support Israel with all of our hearts. Forget about the United States, we are the least of your problems. Those who are arrayed against Israel will experience the full wrath Of God.
I know, I know. Save your breath. I read the book.
For the Pearl Harbor attack, my history teacher taught it to me, years before I read anything about it! We definitively did not read the same books (especially from someone who hides behind religion "the wrath of god") to argument. I don't consider the bible as a book, it carries the same ideology than the red Chinese book. As for Israel which rational person beside the one with Jew origins will support them? Americans and Israelis have interests on Iranian soil. America, its oil and Israel, its military power and dominance in the region.
The Tonkin gulf, who doesn't know about the details of this event? No need for me to extrapolate!
So your teacher taught you that the preemptive sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was a ploy or an unwarranted excuse for American aggression? Who was your teacher, Charles Manson, or Osama Bin Laden?
As far as the book . . . live and learn.
Why can't you just not argue the facts, as you know them to be, rather than launch an attack with no substance?
You should respect those who are more intelligent, well educated and accomplished than you.
such a humble man and somehow we have seen a total lack of actual knowledge from you...
For example let me ask you what do you know about the US forced opening of Japan and the destruction of Tokyo bay by unprovoked American attack long before WWII?
What do you know about the Hull Note which was described by the US secretary of war before Pearl harbor as a means of "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."?
Don't worry I will wait while you go google it.
Exactly the answer we all expect from this so much better educated individual you are hopelessly under informed and don't even have the wherewithal to figure it out and go do your research and learn your history.
Have you been snorting bath salts? Try some reading.
On my bended knees. Your clear, well thought out response leaves me truly humble. I'm just like all those other women in your life.
Man this guy is a treat
By the way I meant to thank you for those links on workfare, interesting and not very pleasant.
Yes, he is mildly entertaining . No problem, anytime. Not pleasant, but we're used to a good old scrap in the UK. Roll on the appeals on workfare. We WILL win.
If two fools agree does that make them wise? Wha't with the smiley faces, are you just school children on a lark?
Well thankfully we aren't all angry hateful souls
Why are you so concerned? The conversation was not about you.
I truly hope so, Scotland seems to be doing encouraging things from what I hear.
This conspiracy theory makes perfect sense. We all know that if the US had not responded to the 911 attack on its people the perpetrators would have felt really, really bad and slunk back into the religious morass they came from. The same holds true for the Japanese in WWII - had we not declared war on them and "intervened" in their country in response to Pearl Harbor they would have left the US strictly alone in that war. The US is such an immoral place to have responded to other peoples killing Americans!
Hang on, the US responded too late to Pearl Harbour. Had they taken note of what others may have stated, a lot of lives may have been saved. The US (and the UK I might add) responded to 9/11 by attacking a nation which was not involved in the attack. Anything but to examine their own foreign policy, and who they had funded.
Have you been snorting "bath salts"? That probably won't translate well through your Martian to English program. Bath salts are illicit drugs that make you lose you mind.
Valid argument, well substantiated, clear perspective. : :rolleyes
I am supposed to have a valid argument when you are talking all out of your head? You may have started the game, but you don't set the rules. I won't respond they way they taught you in training. Welcome to the real world.
The US responded too late to Pearl Harbor? The country declared war the next day! True, they didn't chase down the Japanese fleet and destroy it, but then about all they had after Pearl Harbor was rowboats in the Pacific Fleet.
True, we didn't attack the nation that flew the planes on 911, but then there was no nation. Instead we attacked the nation that funded and supplied the people that flew the planes, the nation that supplied them with a home. I don't have a problem with that.
Well the US intentionally pushed Japan into war, even the secretary of war admitted it.
As for 9/11 no invading a country that had some Alqaeda in it, we got rid of a government we created and installed then killed hundreds of thousands of innocents there and in Iraq (there too for some reason) to not get particularly many of the people actually responsible and to get a huge amount of people who were just trying to live their lives.
You don't punish terrorists by invading countries... if you want to get rid of them you do so in a targeted way like Obama is doing with the drone strikes and surgical raids.
Stop the presses!
Are you stating that BushCo. attacked Iraq for a reason OTHER than stopping the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11?
Certainly not I, and I'm guessing not you, either.
This thread seems to be suggesting the EXCEPTIONAL U.S. is not above goading other countries into attacks -- even on our own citizens -- to take the "high road" into war.
My little brain hurts too much absorbing this!
I am just way out there you know? Frankly I don't know what comes over me.
Come on mighty mom, with your brain you can't think otherwise!
My point being, that other countries had pointed out that the aggressors were expansionists and scoundrels. The US not wanting to get involved mattered not- they would attack anyway. The US response was late, very late.
"but then there was no nation" Saudi was a nation. It was a poor error of judgement on the part of the US, and I might add, the UK was equally as responsible for that poor judgement.
Don't feel bad, Hollie Thomas.
How could you have known your PM would turn into a lapdog?
Interestingly, said lapdog also engaged in a photo opp with Mitt Romney in London a few days back.
As far as I know the Saudi govt. never authorized the actions of 911. The people may have been Saudi in origin, but people often act outside the interests and guidelines of their nations. It is not a reason to attack that nation.
Sounds like you are promoting the idea of a pre-emptive strike because we think another country will harm us.
In general, I have a problem with that concept - it seems in line with what the OP thinks happened, just without the political "prettying up" and is usually an inexcusable reaction to fear and little more. That was the excuse for Iraq (WMD's) and look what the results have been as well as how the excuse proved out.
So, if the Saudi Govt did not sanction 9/11 and their people acted outside the interests and guidelines of their nation, which, according to you and I'm not disagreeing, does not justify a military strike. How can you justify a military strike on persons who were not responsible for 9/11?
I'm not the one who is justifying a pre-emptive strike.
Right or wrong, the story seems to be that the US carried out military action against the nation most responsible for arming, supplying and providing a home for those that were responsible. It's been a long time, but I seem the remember a declaration from the US that such nations will cease to provide such funding or a home for our enemies or we would come in and get them. They didn't, we did. The strike was not particularly against the country providing that home; the country and its citizens were just in the way and refusing to move.
To many, that is splitting hairs and of no consequence, but I disagree. Any country sheltering our enemies from reprisal and/or aiding them in future attacks against us will bear the consequences of their actions. That aid may be nothing but knowingly and intentionally providing a place to exist but that's enough.
Perhaps I misread your intent with the comments that the US reaction was far too late - that Japan was known to be expansionists and scoundrels that should have been attacked before they attacked us.
The war was not against a nation. It was against a maniacal dictator, his henchmen, and his influene.
In Afghanistan... Tell me who was the leader of Afghanistan before the invasion? let me guess you have no idea and you are off to check google? Not to mention it was a government we installed!
I believe you when you say, "We installed it", because you are not an American (we didn't install anything in Afghanistan, we provided some training and hardware). I suspect you are an enemy of this country.
Quit talking smack, and go for it.
I don't see in what way you are more of an American than Josak. Or better that your source of "information" is more valuable than others. However, the U.S. is not out in the wild to get rid of any dictator, that we support, but rather to implement razzias. Where were the U.S. in the Bosnian-Serbian war, where were they when Hutu and Tutsi killed each others?
You are the one who insists on giving humanitarian credit to the U.S. government, I just underlined its real goals. Neither Europe, nor the U.S. care about people. At least, I'm realistic.
What do you think a nobody can do against criminal organizations? Do you think that I would be on the field in order to get killed. The only time I would fight for my country would be when an army debarked on our beaches!
I am an American and the installation and support of the Taliban by the US is a matter of public record, we replaced a moderate group with the Taliban because we thought they would hate the soviets more... unfortunately when you install hate groups in power the consequences are rarely positive.
whatever you reckon man but your knowledge of history is abysmally, horrifyingly bad.
On which basis are you not an American? Because when we trace your bloodline it belongs to another country? Which American born doesn't fit to my statement? In what way Lemuel Martin is more of an American? If I stick to your name I would call for an European heritage and if I observe your physical features, the doubt doesn't exist anymore if I pinpoint Africa. Then, once more in what way Lemuel Martin is more American than Josak?
If not knowing about publicly recorded history makes you an American.... he is better off not being one.
Seriously, dude, Everyone including the US government is open about how they helped the Taliban in years gone by. Denying this is like denying that water is wet. it starts making the conspiracy theorists sound rational by comparison.
I am a conspiracy believer since conspiracy theorist doesn't mean anything to me and I am quite rational. The debate between you and I, if ever it existed, would have to prove who is more rational since I presume that you consider yourself as a rational thinker. On which basis?
Here is the epitome of the average American way of thinking justifying the invasion, the killing in Iraq. They did not attack but they bla, bla,bla... By the way America accepted the "pilots" does it mean that we have to blow our own nation?
The US wanted an excuse to get into world war II both the European and pacific theaters. It has been documents that they knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen and they let it happen. The Tonkin gulf incident documented fake. There is Panama, Grenada, Libya, Syria all faked.
They don't bother with war resolutions any more. They don't need to.
I really wish that I could that that was not true. But it is.
Oh my gosh, you mean, Muslims were responsible for Pearl harbour, too?
How would you know? You don't even know basic American history in Japan or the lead up to WWII... you are not really in a position to be judging.
Oh a link! Quick, follow it and get a bug that will rob your clicks. I don't follow links on this computer. My mama didn't raise no fool.
Go back to sleep.
Absolutely she didn't. I bet she could honestly say that HER boy would never be fooled by logic, reason and evidence.
There is this thing called anti virus... you may have heard of it... I have never got a single infection off hub pages in all the time I have been here and all the links I have followed btw.
Is it too late to blame 9/11 on Iran?
I mean, is there a statute of limitations on such things?
Who needs a new excuse for striking against Iran when we can dust off one that worked oh so well the first time!
ah mighty mom, you are right, since the populace doesn't think let's tell them that in fact we found a device belonging to Iran in the aisle of the pentagon attacked by the "airplane". Here is a direct evidence likng the Iranian government to September 11!
by Sid Kemp 6 years ago
Is it valuable to remember Pearl Harbor? If so, why? If not, why not?Today is the anniversary of Pearl Harbor. When I was growing up in the 1960s and 70s, it was an important day. My parents remembered the horrible surprise of the attack. It was "a day that will live in infamy." Now, the...
by Credence2 2 years ago
Another reason that I distrust conservatives, (GOP) domestic spending is pinch penny, while they turn a blind eye to DOD wasting money like it grows on trees. Add this to their cover up and subsequent embarrassment, and I ask what makes THEM the sacred cow? As a progressive type, I consider THIS...
by Jay S 7 years ago
After 70 years, why do we still call the attack on Pearl Harbor a sneak attack? It was a time of war and we knew that the entire Japanese navy was sitting 100 miles west of Pearl Harbor. Admiral Nimitz warned of an attack but Washington, with their infinite wisdom said the Japanese wouldn't dare...
by sushant143 8 years ago
what if japan not attack on pearl harbor?the main reason to enter in WW-II for USA is pearl harbor . what if japan not attack on pearl harbor? can USA enter in War ?
by Deforest 7 years ago
Today, Iranian warships just reached the Mediterranean sea through the Suez canal! As they cruise, in our minds gallop fearful questions as for their intentions! Not mine. It is clear that Iran displays to the world its military confidence! Any thoughts?
by Writer Fox 6 years ago
I know that everyone in the US is focused on the presidential elections and the hurricane, but there is a storm brewing in the Middle East that could potentially effect every nation on the planet. Wherever you live, what do people in your country say about the possibility of an Israeli or...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|