The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was a "limited surgical strike"...

[bvar22]

... of "short duration" that targeted ONLY Military assets in order to "degrade military capability".

Today in the Senate, John Kerry argued that a limited attack on military assets like the one on Pearl Harbor
does NOT constitute an Act of WAR.

I believe that the World disagrees.

[sarisataka]

1. It was accompanied with a Declaration of War

although there were some problems with timing...

[emsimon33]

2. Exactly what I thought when I heard this and

we now know that Roosevelt knew of the attack but didn't do anything because he wanted the US in the war in the Pacific.

[avaistheone1]

18. I believe that is one man's view

who wrote a book about Roosevelt. I don't believe that view is widely held except for neocons.

[emsimon33]

21. Thank you for correction.

[LongTomH]

29. That rumor was largely fed by Thomas Dewey, Roosevelt's opponent in the 1944 election

The Straight Dope website took this on:

I have just heard the disturbing rumor for the umpteenth time that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was about to be bombed, and said nothing, because he wanted America to be drawn into the war. Is this the truth?

— Jeremy Uppington, Reno, NV

One is tempted at this point to decry the legacy of Richard M. Nixon, whose actions as President (and, some allege, as a presidential candidate) made generations of Americans unwilling to put any trust whatever in their leaders. In this view, Nixon helped besmirch the character of one of the most capable and beloved Presidents by making it possible to believe that Roosevelt would allow thousands of Americans be killed or wounded in order to further his own political goals.

That temptation evaporates when one discovers that such rumors started almost immediately after the bombing itself. In fact, Thomas Dewey (Republican candidate for President in 1944) tried to turn it into a campaign issue; he and several Republican senators claimed that "certain Japanese codes before Pearl Harbor" had been cracked, and that FDR "knew what was happening before Pearl Harbor, and instead of being re-elected he ought to be impeached." In the end, Dewey dropped the issue; partially because Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall provided evidence to the contrary, and partially because Dewey knew if he were to make such accusations in public, the Japanese government would realize that their codes had been compromised, which would prompt them to change their codes and cause serious hardship to future American operations.

[Wait Wut]

5. Yep.

We weren't being slaughtered by our own government, either.

The comparisons between Syria and WWII need to stop. There is no comparison, Assad is a different kind of monster than Hitler. Japan is not the United States. The Unites States is not Syria. Etc., etc., etc.

I'm not on anyone's side in this. All I want is for Assad to die. I don't care how. I'd prefer he go alone, actually...he can take his minions with him. Other than that, there is no simple solution.

[bvar22]

7. All you want is for Assad to DIE, but claim you're not on anyone's side?

You share the same goal as Al Qaeda in Syria.
Congratulations.
You just chose sides.

[Wait Wut]

8. Yes.

I chose the side of the citizens that are being slaughtered by the government that they should be able to trust. Good for you. You caught me.

[blazeKing]

16. The citizens of Syria support Assad

Not sure where you're getting that lie from but there have been so much lately from the warpushers.

[Wait Wut]

24. I'm sure all of them do.

Even though that's not true.

Not sure where you get your information from, either. My search turned up limited results with the same 'take this poll with a grain of salt'. I got mine over a year ago from several sources. No one liked Assad back then. Now, we have people here defending him.

[Heather MC]

55. What does this have to do with protecting our freedom?

No matter what they may or may not be doing to their people. Why is our business to get envolved?

What makes the Leaders of our. country think tthey will not strike back?

And if they do then what?

[Scootaloo]

32. Then put on your ninja suit and catch a flight, buckaroo n/t

[Wait Wut]

33. I'll get right on that...

...tiger.

[Scootaloo]

35. Good to see someone putting their footie jammies where thier mouth is

I'm sure that Assad will be dead within two days. Way to go!

[Wait Wut]

37. You're so adorable.

Really. Footie jammies. Your debate skills are flawless.

[Scootaloo]

39. I wasn't debating, I was mocking. There's a difference.

You just want Assad dead? Well, fucking get to it!

[Wait Wut]

41. Mocking? Really?

Wow. I didn't catch that.

[RetroLounge]

57. Really?

Because the rest of the world did.

Now you better get packing, syria awaits...

RL

[SidDithers]

49. Bronies know all about foot jammies...nt

Sid

[treestar]

3. No, does not work

The Japanese had intent to fully make war. Pearl Harbor, the US, had done nothing wrong. The Japanese had no intent to stop any wars or use of any weapons outside the pale at that time. Their actions in Asia show what their intent was. They intended to take over other countries and were pretty brutal toward civilians about it, too.

[bvar22]

9. I don't believe that people killed by the bombs...

...care about intent.

Try this:
Try real hard to put yourself in the shoes of a Syrian civilian who has his family killed in the "limited surgical strike", and then argue with HIM about "intent".

[treestar]

28. This is a larger question than that

I mean you should advocate gun control for Syria as well as everywhere else.

The idea is that chemical weapons are not to be used not even in war. That's what the UN Convention is for. International society objects.

You can argue the method, but the idea is to let them know in no uncertain terms that it's not accepted. War is accepted, unfortunately, but shooting and bombing in wars is accepted.

You're going with "all's fair in war" unconditionally.

[Scootaloo]

44. So again, it's to make ourselves feel good and look tough

'Cause Bvarr has a point - Syrians getting killed are probably calling out to god and their mother in shock-induced delirium, instead of reflecting that, "gosh, I'm glad I was killed by American shrapnel and fire, rather than VX agent - lucky me! I'll have my survivors write a thank-you note to Obama!" Seeing shit and blood mix together from a hole in your abdomen tends to cause preoccupation of thought, you know. Maybe you were too preoccupied to think about it yourself, what with how busy you are walling off your little swamp.

You want to help Syrians? Take all that money you so desperately want to spend on peeling the flesh from their bones with American explosives, and use it to help the hundreds of thousands of refugees.

[leftyohiolib]

13. the us did nothing wrong? the blockade the us put up around japan was a wrong to them in their eyes

wrong in theirs

[NutmegYankee]

20. I think embargo was the word you wanted to use

My God, how horrible that we refused to do business with them because they were raping and slaughtering Chinese and Korean people! Bad USA! Bad USA!

[treestar]

26. It wasn't using chemical weapons against others

What was the blockade for? To keep them from getting war supplies so they could attack more countries? Are you saying the US deserved Pearl Harbor?

[leftyohiolib]

54. you said the us did nothing wrong and got attacked i'm saying it wasnt that simplistic

you go to anyone's house and prevent needed things from going in and coming out they are gonna come after you. the u.s. knew they were coming after us and kept it quiet and let the attack happen just like 9-11.
you make it sound as if pearl harbor was an unprovoked attack

as for us deserving p.h. well (if) they knew it was coming and did nothing ....

[David__77]

31. Actually, it does work.

Japan intended it as a "shot across the bow" to prevent FDR from continuing to obstruct Japan's "greater Asia co-prosperity sphere." I'm not saying Japan was right; obviously, it was not.

[woo me with science]

4. The theater is beyond insulting.

We are now hearing absurd, patronizing, and utterly unsupportable promises that boots on the ground will never be needed. As though anyone could predict with certainty, even if motives were assumed to be pure as snow, what will come of lobbing cruise missiles into another sovereign country.

The fact that we are hearing such utter horseshit (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023589314)

shows how casually the lies are flowing now.



What unconscionable neocon/neolib bullshit. Deja bullshit.

Rumsfeld: "I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
--Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002

[Baitball Blogger]

14. I heard that Bush II spread the word that noone on our side was going to get killed and that it

would be a quick strike. Shock and Awe?

I think they were expecting to get Sadaam in the first hour of the strike. And when it didn't play out that way, we were stuck.

[LanternWaste]

43. As said Pres. Clinton too in regard to the Bosnian conflict.

As said Pres. Clinton too in regard to the Bosnian conflict.

It would be silly of anyone to engage in prophecies predicated merely on the most recent conflicts available... as the European powers did after the Franco-German wars of the late ninetieth century well into the first months of the summer of 1914.

[backscatter712]

45. In a few weeks, we'll be told...

That the WMDs are somewhere north, south, east and west of Damascus.

[pinboy3niner]

6. Reports are now coming in from Syria...

Because of a post on something called democraticunderground, the entire Syrian Navy came down today with a sudden bout of heart palpitations accompanied by profuse sweating...

[bvar22]

12. LOL... It took me a minute,

but that is funny.

[NutmegYankee]

10. It was not limited. The Japanese moved on American holdings throughout the Pacific.

They Destroyed the U.S. Far East Air Force in Manila and began to invade the Philippines within just hours of Pearl Harbor. Other bases and location were also attacked.

[bvar22]

19. The attack on Pearl harbor WAS "limited" in duration, resources, and targeting.

I'm NOT claiming an equivalence in all respects,
but there are enough points of sameness to for a valid comparison.

Dropping BOMBS on another country that has NOT attacked you,
can't attack you,
and hasn't threatened to attack you
[font size=3]is an Act of WAR[/font],
no matter how "limited".



Most International Treaties define it as an Act of "Aggressive War"
and a "War Crime".

[NutmegYankee]

22. No. The attack on PH was one of many attacks on the same day.

Just like the planned attack on Jutland by the German Army, while a single event, was part of a coordinated campaign that conquered all of Denmark in just 6 hours.

Japan was hitting us all over at the same time. But the main hit was the destroy our Navy so we couldn't do anything about it and they believed we'd just give in and accept peace.

[Baitball Blogger]

11. Technically speaking, military strategist call Pearl Harbor the most successful strike of WWII.

At least, that is what I was taught back in my JROTC days.

The problem, as I see it, is that we never, and I mean never seem to get these things right. (Okay, maybe bin Laden was the exception.) Each time we get sloppy and kill civilians, like journalists for instance, it just escalate the opposition to any military strike.

[oneshooter]

38. Pearl Harbor was a failure.

The Japanese failed to launch the third wave. Their targets were to be the workshops on Ford Island along with the fuel depots, submarine base and dry docks. Not destroying those allowed the lessor damaged ships to be repaired, the AAC to patrol and mainly the subs at their base to deploy as soon a the next day.

Yea, they sank a few ships, but only destroyed 3, USS Arizona (BB39),USS Oklahoma(BB37), and USS Utah(AG 16) Arizona and Utah remain on the bottom at Pearl Harbor.

Most of the damaged ships were combat ready by July of 1942.

[Baitball Blogger]

47. they caught us by surprise.

They hit us strategically and that gave them time to establish themselves in the Pacific.

Just relaying what I was told.

Of course, it did become a rallying point for our side, which is something they may not have anticipated.

[sarisataka]

50. Tactically it was a tremendous success,

strategically it doomed Japan's fate in a war it could never win.

[jimlup]

15. Interesting observation

I find this all more than a little ironic. I've heard Hiroshima apologists say that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were "justified" because of this military strike.

If I recall correctly only 3 civilians died. So actually it was pretty close to the advertised "surgiical."

[NutmegYankee]

25. The latest figure is 68 civilians killed. nt

[jimlup]

51. Do you have a reference for that?

I have a more than casual historical interest.

If you don't I can look it up too but if you happen to have it handy that would be really helpful.

Geez I'll be honest - I'm sort of on the edge with the Syria thing. I'm opposed to unilateral US action without a UN security council resolution but I'm revolted by the use of chemical weapons and I do believe the administration's evidence on chemical weapons. I also don't see how a surgical strike will actually help anything. If it doesn't literally turn the tide in the civil war then what's the point????

[NutmegYankee]

56. http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/teach/pearl/aftermath/facts.htm

The National Park Service lists 48 on the USS Arizona Memorial. It all depends on if you include those killed by shells on the ground. http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/18arizona/18charts1.htm

[scooter rider]

17. And the Japanese had bad intel too

Most of our valuable naval assets were out to sea at the time of the attack, most notably our aircraft carriers and their flotillas, which allowed the US to quickly recover and destroy their military in about 3 years.

Hope Obama has his intel straight.

[bvar22]

23. His "intel" is coming from the same people who have shown a history...

..of a willingness to LIE to Congress and the American People.
In all their War Mongering arrogance, these guys BELIEVE it is their DUTY to LIE,
because We can't Handle the Truth!

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. And how does that pertain to this situation?

That may be so....but do you think Syria is going to declare war and kick our asses?

[bvar22]

34. WHat Syria's response is doesn't matter.

Dropping BOMBS and Killing People in a country and we are NOT at WAR with,
that has NOT threatened us,
that can not threaten us,
IS and Act of WAR no matter how many times John Kerry and The Democratic Party leadership says it is not.

In fact, IF we are actually At WAR with anybody,
it is Al Qaeda, and THAT is who we will NOW be Allies with in the NEW WAR against Syria.
It is absurd to argue otherwise, no matter HOW much you think you support the Party.

The claim that "limited bombing" in NOT an Act of WAR defies all logic and history.

It will be amusing to see HOW many DUers just follow along without question and parrot this Orwellian DoubleSpeak.

Ignorance is Strength
War is Peace
Limited WAR is NOT WAR
Limited Killings of innocent civilians don't really count

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. BUT YOU are guess that is the plan...

and you don't know that do you?

[Abukhatar]

30. actually this is wrong

The attack on pearl harbor was the first step in a multi pronged attack on the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia. It was designed to prevent the US forces rom providing naval support for those countries. Dec 7 was pearl harbor, Dec 8 was phillipines...

[bvar22]

42. The two attacks are NOT equivalent.

There ARE differences,
but there are also enough similarities for the comparison.

The purpose was exercise YOUR ability to stand in someone else's shoes.
It is called "empathy".
Are you capable of seeing a bombing attack from a far away Super Power through the eyes of a Syrian?

or through the eyes of the rest of the World?


Do you believe that an unprovoked bombing attack from a foreign power
with whom you are NOT at WAR,
that you have never threatened,
that you don't have the capability to threaten,
do you believe this is NOT an Act of WAR?


Most international treaties not only define such an attack as an Act of WAR,
but an Act of Aggressive WAR and a War Crime.

[snagglepuss]

36. I've just been reading about WW2. Yesterday I read that the Midway revealed to the Japanese

that their assumption that Pearl Harbor crippled the US Navy was highly inaccurate.

[phleshdef]

40. Reasons make all the difference. Japan didn't attack us to save us from our government.

You can agree or disagree with the notion of retaliation against Assad for violating international laws regarding the use of chemical weapons. But to compare what we might do in Syria to Pearl Harbor (and everything else Japan did that day) is way off the mark.

I can separate in my mind, the idea of declaring war vs the idea of a humanitarian based intervention.

[SidDithers]

48. FFS...

There not enough facepalm in the world to reflect how stupid this post is.

Sid

[RetroLounge]

60. I agree, The op is okay, his point is easy to see, but your post?

You're correct, it *is* Stupid.



RL

[Jenoch]

52. The whole problem with this civil war in Syria is that

both sides, (if there is a 'both', I think the rebels are made up of many 'sides') are evil. Neither side will ever be friendly to the U.S. whether we flip some cruise missles over there or not.

[Motown_Johnny]

53. No it wasn't

and the fact that you must misrepresent the truth to make your point speaks volumes.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was the first strike in an attempt to defeat our nation in all out war. There was no possibility that anything would be limited about the conflict they choose to enter into.

[dionysus]

58. this is perhaps the dumbest post i have ever read.

[jsr]

59. Yeah, like people who launch cruise missiles are not soldiers

and their bosses are not generals.