Pearl Harbor and the Deceptions of War.

Superfreak said:
Actually, it did change YOUR fact that it was FDR.

That is all.... class dismissed.

:D
Click to expand...

<hand raised>

Excuse me Mr. Teacher .. but that wasn't the argument I was talking about ..

Churchill is the guy who bombed Dresden for no other reason than pure spite. 200,000 were killed that day from incineration and suffocation.
Click to expand...

True, but it doesn't change a single fact in this issue .. nor does the fact that FDR is the guy who nuked Japan .. twice .. didn't have to either time.

Plug in "Truman" where I said "FDR" and it still does not change the fact that Churchill knew what he was talking about.

<slowly placing apple on desk>

:)

It changed the my fact about FDR, but it doesn't change the argument.
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
<hand raised>

Excuse me Mr. Teacher .. but that wasn't the argument I was talking about ..



True, but it doesn't change a single fact in this issue .. nor does the fact that FDR is the guy who nuked Japan .. twice .. didn't have to either time.

Plug in "Truman" where I said "FDR" and it still does not change the fact that Churchill knew what he was talking about.

<slowly placing apple on desk>

:)

It changed the my fact about FDR, but it doesn't change the argument.
Click to expand...

you are correct that it does not change your argument on the justification or lack thereof of the use of nukes on Japan... but in your previous post, you proclaimed that it didn't change the "FACTS"... which was clearly incorrect.

seriously though... I do plan to hit my library to find those books by Churchill as I was previously unaware of those comments you mentioned. Sounds like a very interesting read. (all 6 books worth)
 
Superfreak said:
you are correct that it does not change your argument on the justification or lack thereof of the use of nukes on Japan... but in your previous post, you proclaimed that it didn't change the "FACTS"... which was clearly incorrect.

seriously though... I do plan to hit my library to find those books by Churchill as I was previously unaware of those comments you mentioned. Sounds like a very interesting read. (all 6 books worth)
Click to expand...

OK .. I give .. I was bad. :)

Seriously though, Churchill's thoughts on the war are fascinating, as is the study of the relationship betweem him and FDR. They indeed changed the world.

To them, Hitler was a gift and an opportunity.
 
blackascoal said:
OK .. I give .. I was bad. :)

Seriously though, Churchill's thoughts on the war are fascinating, as is the study of the relationship betweem him and FDR. They indeed changed the world.

To them, Hitler was a gift and an opportunity.
Click to expand...
They weren't the leaders who appeased and set him into power.
 
blackascoal said:
"Belief" doesn't have shit to do with it.

At 9:40 on the evening of 15 February, a terrible explosion on board Maine shattered the stillness in Havana Harbor. Later investigations revealed that more than five tons of powder charges for the vessel's six and ten-inch guns ignited, virtually obliterating the forward third of the ship. The remaining wreckage rapidly settled to the bottom of the harbor. Most of Maine's crew were sleeping or resting in the enlisted quarters in the forward part of the ship when the explosion occurred. Two hundred and sixty-six men lost their lives as a result of the disaster: 260 died in the explosion or shortly thereafter, and six more died later from injuries. Captain Sigsbee and most of the officers survived because their quarters were in the aft portion of the ship.

There is conclusive proof of what sunk the Maine.

The "mine" theory was bullshit used to start a war ... Even the Captain of the Maine said the explosion was caused internally, not by a mine.

As with most deceptions, truth can usually be found in examining the events that led up to the event .. and this one includes a very familiar player.

Several forces within the United States were pushing for a war with Spain. Their tactics were wide ranging and their goal was to engage the opinion of the American people any way possible. Men such as William Randolph Hearst, the owner of The New York Journal was involved in a circulation war with Joseph Pulitzer of the New York World and saw the conflict as a way to sell papers. Many newspapers ran articles of a sensationalist nature and sent correspondents to Cuba to cover the war. Correspondents had to evade Spanish Authorities, usually they were unable to get reliable news and relied heavily on informants for their stories. Many stories were derived from second or third hand accounts and were either elaborated, misrepresented or completely fabricated by journalists to enhance their dramatic effect. Theodore Roosevelt who was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy at this time wanted to use the conflict to help heal the wounds still fresh from the American Civil War, and also to increase the strength of the US Navy, while simultaneously establishing America as a presence on the world stage. Roosevelt put pressure on the United States Congress to come to the aid of the Cuban people. He emphasized Cuban weakness and femininity to justify America's military intervention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish_American_War
Click to expand...

Both the Spanish and American governments investigated the explosion. Neither could produce reasonably conclusive evidence, and each blamed the other. The Spanish said it was an accident, and while the US didn't rule this out, they said the Spanish somehow caused it.

Assuming the explosion was not an accident, there are three main suspects: Cuban rebels, an American agent, or the Spanish. Little or no evidence has ever been found to link any particular individuals to the actual act of destroying the ship, but many had motives.

http://library.thinkquest.org/18355/the_sinking_of_the_uss_maine.html

You are again inserting your conspiracy bullshit into historical data. Teddy was a warmonger who leaped at the opportunity to drag the US into a war, but neither he nor anyone else conspired to make it happen. They merely used the incident to their advantage.

Much like the skirmish between Mexican and American troops in the West that prompted war (and Lincoln's famous Spot Resolution), or the reports of attack in the Gulf of Tonkin that LBJ spun to his advantage (he didn't make them up - he simply prevented them from being shown to spawn from an operator error), or the way Bush has used 9/11 to do everything he's done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top