It seems reasonable for a thread on Pearl Harbor to talk about WW2. The OP also says that we were forced into war. I suggest that we should not have gone to war other than on the Japanese.
It seems reasonable for a thread on Pearl Harbor to talk about WW2. The OP also says that we were forced into war. I suggest that we should not have gone to war other than on the Japanese.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
The OP is about Pearl Harbor. There is no debate that this country was forced into a war with Japan.
Why can't you find another thread to try and demonstrate your intellectual superiority and leave this one for Pearl Harbor?
What aspects of Pearl Harbor shall we discuss? What happened in the even itself? What led to it? What happened afterwards?
Please provide your guidance.
we should provide remembrance, anger at the surprise attack, the overall loss of life incurred at pearl harbor, the day that will live in infamy...
not some stupid ass shit your troll ass likes to post in remembrance threads...
Not even the OP follows that.
I also suggest that we should express anger at our reaction. That's what I originally posted about.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Seriously, nobody is impressed.
December 7th is the anniversary of an attack which killed nearly 3,000 Americans. That's what we should be talking about, not whether Stalin was worse than Hitler or whether the Wehrmacht could have indeed won the war at Kursk, or whether the US should have gotten involved in Europe.
I'm truly sorry you can't see the difference and, like I said, if you want to have a debate about US policy following the attacks, about Churchill vs Hitler, or about whether Japan would have surrendered without the atomic bomb, be my guest and create a thread. I'll happily engage in an intelligent conversation, just not here.
what ever, ill gtfo since this thread has been fully derailed by worthless trolls posting complete bullshit attempting to turn the thread in a flamefest... its fucking pathetic that this is allowed, even in p&n that a remembrance thread can be turned into a trolling example of how to derail threads, and have nothing done about them.
The OP says that it forced the US into the worst war humanity has ever seen. That type of statements seems to elicit responses.
I don't expect holocaust deniers to be impressed. I expect them to be outraged that I call out their revisionist history and try to silence me.
Is it really a remembrance thread? It seems more like an ordinary P&N thread about Pearl Harbor to me. It's not stickied. There is no official declaration or anything about it. The OP didn't request anything in his OP. He made remarks that should be open to discussion.
The OP also posted about the Nanking Massacre and responded saying that he agrees with me wrt the focus of the USA following the attack.
Doesn't seem like anything other than a standard P&N post. It seems that you're just trying to silence those you disagree with. It seems like you're the worthless troll. At least all the other posts are on topic. Your posts are 100% personal. You have no post other than that type here.
Last edited:
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Like I said before, get off your high-horse. You did nothing more than bait this thread into something you wanted to talk about which has zero relevance to the topic at hand and only serves to fight your little crusade. If you want to discuss the merits of Churchill as a man and a leader, go make a thread about it, but Churchill had nothing to do with 12/7/41, which just so happens to be the topic of this thread.
There are multiple lines of discussion in this thread. People choose which ones they wish to engage in.
At least all the others are at least reasonably related to the thread topic. Your personal issues are not.
The USA was involved in various capacities before Pearl Harbor.
Seems extremely relevant when discussing Pearl Harbor. It seems reasonable to discuss what led to it, how the nation coped with it, how we responded, etc. Even the OP mentions what happened afterwards. Your own post does, too.
Linflas
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2001
- 15,395
- 78
- 91
That is pretty much exactly what we did. Congress issued a declaration of war against the Empire of Japan after the attack and on December 11 Germany issued a Declaration of War against the United States. You believe we just should have ignored that and concentrated on Japan?
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
I don't believe that the United States should have simply ignored Hitler and the Nazis, but it isn't an unreasonable stance to take and, without Hitler's declaration of war against the United States, I think it is unlikely Roosevelt could have garnered enough support for a declaration against Germany.
As CanOfWorms said, though, the declarations didn't really mean much, seeing as the United States was already knees deep in the European war before they were officially participants.
You've been around long enough to realize that a majority of posters here are Anti-American and for some reason are ashamed to live in the greatest nation on earth. They have the ability to freely express their thoughts and outright BS lies, but they won't recognize the sacrifices people braver than they made, so they can be idiots.
To many people want to find any reason they can for an action that occured. So much so that they latch on to anything they find and use it to try and gain traction in their arguement.
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. You can't deny that. The US made no military attacks on the Japanese to provoke a sneak attack.
Since this topic has spread to the European war, fighting the Axis was a no brainer.
America has stood for freedom, And the French were defeated, The English were holding on by a string. Honestly, we owed it to the French since they helped us against the Brittish to ain our independence. Not to mention the attrocities carried out by the Nazi's.
To denegrate the people that fought or lead us in that war is sickening and you deserved to get punched in the face by a vet.
feralkid
Lifer
- Jan 28, 2002
- 16,916
- 5,018
- 136
Linflas
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2001
- 15,395
- 78
- 91
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Well said. I wouldn't say most are anti-American, but far too many are.
LOL I had to Google. Well done.
If we stood for freedom, why did we support the side that had the largest slave empires? If the USA wanted to enter the European war, we should have done it as an independent force rather than allying with existing parties.
The defeat of the French and the British would have liberated hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, of people around the world. By joining their side and helping them, we supported the continued enslavement.
No American lives should be at risk because of sentimental feelings.
The French and the British were also carrying out atrocities on par, or even surpassing, the Nazis. That reason doesn't seem to work.
The vets should be punching the people who led us into the European war. Their lives were put at risk for sentimental purposes.
Depends on what your definition of anti-European is. You seem the type that would rail against non-profit groups. My views aren't lone wolf except among those practicing Eurocentrism.
No your views are extremely uncommon and fringe.
Non-profits are fine. A lot of them are based in Europe. Amnesty International was founded in and headquartered in your favorite, the UK.
feralkid
Lifer
- Jan 28, 2002
- 16,916
- 5,018
- 136
Mmmmmmmm.K.
I think we can pretty much decide for ourselves which bird pops out of the clock
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter