Pearl Harbor vs. 9/11

[yesthattom]

Seen on www.the-hamster.com

James Pinkerton: "If you knew that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had received a memo a month before Pearl Harbor entitled, "Japanese Determined to Attack the United States in the Pacific," and that he had done nothing about that information, would that knowledge change your perception of FDR as a wise war leader?"

Indeed.

Comments

[misteropinion.livejournal.com]

Not that I want to be a Bush appologist, but is that a fair analogy? Al Quaida isn't a Pacific superpower wannabe with its own nation-state class military. Then again, I suppose they did pose a credible threat after the first WTC and USS Cole bombings...

[whitebird.livejournal.com]

It's my understanding that FDR did do exactly that, for the purpose of getting the USA into World War II instead of sitting ineffectually on the sidelines like we'd already done for a few years.

This is the same kind of thing as Churchill allowing the bombing of a British city so as to protect the knowledge that we could decode German codes, thereby saving a whole lot more lives in the process.

Of course, the main difference between those situations and what Bush and his administration may or may not have done about the World Trade Center attack, is that World War II was an actual war, which nations can have against nations, versus defending oneself or attacking a terrorist organization. Which isn't in any way related to a war, except that people die in both sorts of actions.

They put the Philipinnes on alert

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

They didn't expect the attack at Pearl Harbor. Maybe they should have. The conspiracy theory that the guard was left down at Pearl in order to get us into war is pretty lame. But FDR's negotiating strategy was going to draw Japan to attack somewhere, and he knew it, and that much was intentional.

[xeger.livejournal.com]

Wasn't Pearl Harbour what brought the US into the war, instead of wringing its hands ineffectually on the sidelines, while the Allies died in their millions?

... but that aside, I judge FDR [and Churchill] on more than one action.

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

A widespread perception in Oz is that the US stayed out of both World Wars until it (meaning entrenched wealthy folks with power) made a lovely profit.

I don't know that I share that view, mind: I doubt the crews running the US at those times were quite so, so, erm, *blatantly* self interested to the point of incompetence in administration.

Seems to me that the actual citizens of the US ought to be getting pretty damned angry not only at the hijacking of their country by selfish rich, but also the resulting poor perception of the US overseas.

[xeger.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that I share that view either - but there's certainly plenty of irritation about US jingoism about "winning the world wars" ... on the grounds that they "won" the world wars by waiting until after the majority of the hard work and dying had been done to enter the war.

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah. I don't know anyone who takes that seriously, here.

But then I don't know many young people (who might).

[arfur]

Seems to me that the actual citizens of the US ought to be getting pretty damned angry not only at the hijacking of their country by selfish rich, but also the resulting poor perception of the US overseas.

I'd be nice. But what with media being owned by capital (and the rich who control it), and everyone thinking they're about to be rich...I'm not holding my breath. Besides, who cares about those annoying illegal aliens and the places they invade from? I mean, except for those places that we go on vacation, which we own anyway, right?

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

All the world's a Theme Park, except the bits where cheap stuff is made and they're icky!

Of course the most troublesome export you've had from us downunder is Rupert Murdoch. Not helpful.