Sunday, November 12, 2006

911 In Historical Context: Must See

Posted by at

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Weaz, ya seem to be a smart dude (what with your fancy blog and all) so let me try to explain this:

#1. In early 1940s, there was NO CIA, DIA, NSA, or any massive, computerized, centralized US intelligence agency, nor the multi-billion dollar national security apparatus we know today. There was only the Army and Navy and their own respective intel and code-breaking branches. The electronic computer as we know it had not even been invented yet... that would be "EINAC", put together at MIT in later stages of the US participation in the war, developed either to compute firing trajectories or to help decode Germany's Enigma machine.

That is, what intel services the US had before that war were EITHER in the Army or the Navy. Therefore, ANY knowledge that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was aware of the Japanese intentions, plans, and execution of the Pearl Harbor sneak attack would have HAD TO go through the Army and Navy. And here's where your "conspiracy" charge falls apart. Yes, indeed, President Roosevelt (FDR) sought a political solution to rampant aggression in Asia (by Japan) and Europe/Russia (by the Nazis), namely US entry into the war. But your conspiracy theory assumes that the Army and Navy shared that political desire so much, that they would have ALLOWED their core Pacific strategic elements (namely the Pacific fleet and Army Air Corps at Pearl) to be DESTROYED, just to gain entry to that war.

This is simply untrue and impossible.. NO Navy man would have sat on his hands at the pending destruction of the Navy's only large fleet, just to get in the war. In fact, it was sheer luck that the USS Enterprise and her battle group were not caught by the Japanese at Pearl... the Enterprise group was steaming in to port that very morning, and had the Japanese returned with their second wave (as they should have), they might well have caught the unprepared "Big E" either in local waters or trying to make a desperate, suicidal attack on the IJN fleet.

The "provocation" your video speaks of was that President Roosevelt TRANSFERRED the US Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor. He had to fire his Fleet Admiral, who dug his heels in against the transfer. (San Diego was gravy, luxury duty in those days, while Pearl was an undeveloped pit in the middle of nowhere at the time.) Roosevelt also "provoked" the Japanese war machine by condemning their brutal occupations of Manchuria and Korea, and by cutting off US iron shipments to Japan, followed in November of 1941 by a US embargo on oil to that island nation. THAT, my friend, is the sum total of US "provocations" against Japan to which you refer.

So I must ask you: WHERE do you stand on the Japanese "RAPE OF NANKING", invasion of Manchria, and other aggressive atrocities? The Japanese are reliably accused of having killed 300,000 Chinese in one week in Nanking, alone, by every atrocity known to man. Do you think Roosevelt SHOULD have turned a blind eye, and said or done NOTHING...? (As the United States has done thus far re the Khartoum regime's sponsorship of genocide in the South Sudan.)

Besides Admiral ___, whom FDR fired, there have been other military critics of Roosevelt's transfer of US Pacific fleet command (CinCPAC) to Pear.... but notice, it has never been transferred back.

And while we are at it, the reason that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were choosen as targets for the a-bomb is because all larger cities has already been wiped out in 'conventional' firebomb attacks. In bringing the war to a swift end, the a-bomb spared other Japanese cities the Gen. Curtiss LeMay firestorm treatment, which in one raid (Tokyo) killed more people than either a-bomb attack. And even the Japanese must aknowledge, had the a-bomb not swiftly ended the war, Stalin's Red Army would have gobbled up more Japanese territory than it did - (a couple of uninhabited islands that the Japanese still seek back) - a result that all Japanese are happy about.

It is easy to criticize either Roosevelt or Truman for their decisions, but thankfully they rose to the challenge and provided humanity with the measures we needed to maintain the hope of democratic governments. Roosevelt determindly campaigned in an open-top limousine in the cold North West weather in November of 1944... the exposure and resulting illness killed him mere weeks after his 1945 inaugueration. (The war, and his leaderhip, killed him just as surely as any KIA military combatant.) And Truman did NOT WANT the Vice Presidency nomination, Roosevelt thrust it on Truman because Truman had led the Senate investigation into war profiteering, and thus displayed his courageous independence of even his own party machine.

We Americans (and the world) were LUCKY to have Truman and Roosevelt be at the right place at the right time; without Roosevelt's steadfast support for England in 1940 and 1941, that nation would certainly have fallen to the Nazis. As this post tries to explain, claiming that Roosevelt was part of a conspiracy to "ALLOW" the Pearl Harbor attack is a cheap way to demean those efforts that saved the democratic nations.

12:20 AM
Da Weaz said...

Read Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett. And yes, it was naval cryptographers that broke the RADIO codes. We even have the intercepts as well. You seem like a pretty smart dude too, but you need to do a bit more homework.

Weazl got a chance to sit down and talk to Mr. Stinnett himself, if you want to watch him discuss the very issue you raise, you can go here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5869017858507044346&q=trails+of+tears&hl=en

And I could get into a discussion of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, weazl also happened to sit down with author Gar Alperowitz author of The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, who shatters the myths about the need to use the atomic bomb. And if you want answers to those questions you raise, simply keep watching the clip that I just referred you to. Gar Alperowitz appears directly after Stinnett.

Thanks for stopping by, and I'll await your response, if forthcoming.

10:41 AM
Da Weaz said...

And I won't disagree with you about Roosevelt, at all. I'm not so sure about Truman, though, and the assinations and removals of heads of state that he sanctioned, lead to severe blowback, the results of which we have still yet to recover from.

10:46 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)