[marden]

In Remembrance of the Attack on Pearl Harbor

I was thinking about what myths have grown out of the Pearl Harbor attack and if they reach the same levels of lunacy as those that have grown out of the 9/11 attacks.

Here is a site that addresses some of the Pearl Harbor attack myths.

The Myths of Pearl Harbor.

Here is one particularly puzzling aspect of that morning, IMO.

MYTH : The Opana Point Radar reported the Japanese attack 1 hour before the planes arrived over the harbor, but Adm. Kimmel refused to do anything about it.

FACT: Pvts. Eliot and Lockard were manning the radar at Opana Point. They noticed a large blip on the scope and call in to the as-yet not fully functional Fighter Information Center. Pvt. McDonald took the call and located the sole officer at the Center and asked him to call the operators back. Lt. Kermit Tyler, having ending his first tour of training at the newly established Fighter Control Center, received the report and, thinking it was a flight of B-17s due in from the mainland, told the operators to "forget it." The report went no higher than that. Interestingly enough, the new radars tracked the planes coming and going, but the Army did not tell the Navy about this pointer to the Japanese carriers until the 8th, a fact which quite possibly saved our carriers.

There are only a few people who were actually involved in either the sighting or the establishment of the Figher Information Center. Privates Lockard and Elliot were at Opana Point, Pvt. McDonald and Lt. Tyler were in the FIC. Other "interested parties" were Col. Bergquist, who with Col. Tindal established the FIC, and Cmdr. Taylor, USN, who was in Hawaii to teach the Navy how to use radar (and was on "loan" to the Army for the same purpose on Dec. 7th.) All of their testimonies are now vailable. See the documents.

And it would seem to me Lt. Tyler's military career would have been sunk due to his failure that day. But apparently not. Here in the following transcript of his testimony of what really happened we find Tyler being cited as a Lt. Col. some time after Dec. 7th.

Lt. Tyler's Statement regarding radar contacts.

I find it all very interesting.

And it seems to me that many of us still use WWII as a template for how a war should be waged...with the US winning.

Others, probably younger Americans, use Vietnam as their model for how America should be and how war should be waged, with America's critics gaining prominence and actually contributing to our losing. And with that the template has been pulled out again for Iraq and the critics have contributed to recreating the only war experience they ever knew...a war that America lost with the help of it's home grown critics.

[macintologist]

It's been proven that FDR had a hand in provoking the Japanese attacks, and preemptively limiting our defenses there.

Here's a starting point for your education

Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by marden 

And it seems to me that many of us still use WWII as a template for how a war should be waged...with the US winning.

Others, probably younger Americans, use Vietnam as their model for how America should be and how war should be waged, with America's critics gaining prominence and actually contributing to our losing. And with that the template has been pulled out again for Iraq and the critics have contributed to recreating the only war experience they ever knew...a war that America lost with the help of it's home grown critics.

WWII was discussed as a war to end wars (not necessarily a war to end all wars, but the goal was still to prevent future hostilities). Even so, America was very reluctant to enter; it took being attacked on our own soil. Now you have Afghanistan (yeah, remember that thing?), where we charged right in, justified, and there was no criticism. Then you have Iraq, where we started the war (when has the US ever started a war before?) and the goal? Not to end hostilities, but to maintain a simmering hotbed indefinitely, "so we can fight them there instead of over here." It's completely different from WWII; the two main reasons being that we started it, and we have no intention of it ever being finished. A lot of people don't want us to commit to perpetual warfare, nor should they. I get the feeling though that you do want that.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

WWII was discussed as a war to end wars (not necessarily a war to end all wars, but the goal was still to prevent future hostilities). Even so, America was very reluctant to enter; it took being attacked on our own soil. Now you have Afghanistan (yeah, remember that thing?), where we charged right in, justified, and there was no criticism. Then you have Iraq, where we started the war (when has the US ever started a war before?) and the goal? Not to end hostilities, but to maintain a simmering hotbed indefinitely, "so we can fight them there instead of over here." It's completely different from WWII; the two main reasons being that we started it, and we have no intention of it ever being finished. A lot of people don't want us to commit to perpetual warfare, nor should they. I get the feeling though that you do want that.

No, I'd rather we go back to the days before 9/11 where everything was quiet and relatively calm.

On the surface, anyway.

I'm sure we'd all rather go back to not knowing or having more than a casual interest in Islam or the M.E. or the millions of people there who regularly chant, "Death to America."

Which reminds me, here's something from the MEMRI website.

7/16/2006 Clip No. 1194

Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah: We Are Fighting the Battle of the Islamic Nation, Not of Lebanon

Following are excerpts from an address given by Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, which aired on Al-Manar TV on July 16, 2006.

Today, we have a great opportunity of this kind. I am not exaggerating. In 2000, we in Lebanon, with modest capabilities and efforts, and with a small number of mujahideen, with few supplies and little equipment, presented a model of how resistance can overcome an occupation army.

MEMRI TV

Yes, we'd be better off not fighting.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Do you deny the findings that the (current) Iraq war has increased terrorism, rather than decreased it?

[marden]

Here are the words of the great, Chuck Norris!

Lessons learned from Pearl Harbor
Posted: December 4, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

''Yesterday, December 7, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.''
– Franklin D. Roosevelt, addressing Congress the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941.

A noteworthy 65th anniversary

This Thursday commemorates the 65th anniversary of that surprise attack by the 1st Air Fleet of the Imperial Japanese Navy and its midget submarines.

This week also culminates a multiple-day celebration, ''A Nation Remembers'' on the very Hawaiian turf that ushered our nation into World War II.

WorldNetDaily: Lessons learned from Pearl Harbor

[marden]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Do you deny the findings that the (current) Iraq war has increased terrorism, rather than decreased it?

No. Only a fool, a liar or the seriously deluded could deny that.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Then how can you blame anyone for criticizing it?

Those of us who knew in 2003 this would probably happen were just more intuitive than the rest of you. Is your objection just sour grapes?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Then how can you blame anyone for criticizing it?

Those of us who knew in 2003 this would probably happen were just more intuitive than the rest of you. Is your objection just sour grapes?

Big deal, Carnac!

It doesn't take clairvoyance to know that there was LESS violence in the World before the US declared war on the Japanese as a result of the actions on this day in 1941 and the Germans on us a few days later.

By your reasoning we were better off by just sucking up the attack on Pearl Harbor so we could avoid further violence.

[marden]

Pearl Harbor survivors' 'final reunion'
By Kirsten Scharnberg, Chicago Tribune
December 7, 2006

HONOLULU — Donald Robinett came directly to the sign-in area for Pearl Harbor survivors when he arrived here this week.

"I am trying to find my shipmates," the 89-year-old veteran said. "I want to see which ones are here."

A volunteer at the Pearl Harbor Survivors Assn., one of the groups organizing the reunion to mark the 65th anniversary of the Japanese attack on U.S. forces here, flipped through a log book until she came to Robinett's ship, the Tracy, a small mine-laying vessel that was in port that infamous day.

"Sir," she said sadly, patting the old man on his shoulder, "you're the only one here."

Sign Up

[Sky Captain]

The American invovement in WWII has made the world the mess it is today.
We should have let Germany keep France and most of Europe.
Russia may have been able to drive the Germans out.
Japan would be in control of China and most of the Pacific.
And there would be no Israel. Much less Jews for muslims to kill.
Everything would have worked itself out.
Everyone would be happy.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

The American invovement in WWII has made the world the mess it is today.
We should have let Germany keep France and most of Europe.
Russia may have been able to drive the Germans out.
Japan would be in control of China and most of the Pacific.
And there would be no Israel. Much less Jews for muslims to kill.
Everything would have worked itself out.
Everyone would be happy.

Well well, I thought the good old isolationist American conservative was an extinct breed..

Watch out for trophy hunters!

V

[Sky Captain]

Not a trophy hunter though.

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

WWII was discussed as a war to end wars (not necessarily a war to end all wars, but the goal was still to prevent future hostilities). Even so, America was very reluctant to enter; it took being attacked on our own soil. Now you have Afghanistan (yeah, remember that thing?), where we charged right in, justified, and there was no criticism. Then you have Iraq, where we started the war (when has the US ever started a war before?) and the goal? Not to end hostilities, but to maintain a simmering hotbed indefinitely, "so we can fight them there instead of over here." It's completely different from WWII; the two main reasons being that we started it, and we have no intention of it ever being finished. A lot of people don't want us to commit to perpetual warfare, nor should they. I get the feeling though that you do want that.

dang, talk about revisionist history! WWI was the 'war to end all wars'. FDR began 'lending' destroyers to Britian in 1940. He initiated the 'lend-lease' program well before December 7th. He began the national draft even before that (to what purpose do you suppose?). That the populace was considered isolationist is not in dispute, though FDR had different ideas. To bring the US onto the national stage? To recover from the depression? Who knows his thoughts. But we do know his actions.

[marden]

Originally Posted by medicineman 

dang, talk about revisionist history! WWI was the 'war to end all wars'. FDR began 'lending' destroyers to Britian in 1940. He initiated the 'lend-lease' program well before December 7th. He began the national draft even before that (to what purpose do you suppose?). That the populace was considered isolationist is not in dispute, though FDR had different ideas. To bring the US onto the national stage? To recover from the depression? Who knows his thoughts. But we do know his actions.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

It's been proven that FDR had a hand in provoking the Japanese attacks, and preemptively limiting our defenses there.

Here's a starting point for your education

Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing's been "proven," that's why it's called a debate. Most of the debate is revisionista bullsh&t, but I'll respect people's right to wear tinfoil hats.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by marden 

Big deal, Carnac!

It doesn't take clairvoyance to know that there was LESS violence in the World before the US declared war on the Japanese as a result of the actions on this day in 1941 and the Germans on us a few days later.

So people who suspected that invading Iraq would make our problems worse, not better, were right, at a time when their saying so could actually have prevented us doing the thing that made the problem worse, but you still fault them for criticizing the war? Why?

By your reasoning we were better off by just sucking up the attack on Pearl Harbor so we could avoid further violence.

No. No one in America objected to the invasion of Afghanistan (yeah, remember that thing?). But we were better off in WWII not also opening up a war against China before things were even finished in Japan. And we would have been better off not destroying Iraq, especially before we'd finished in Afghanistan, where our actual enemies were.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by medicineman 

That the populace was considered isolationist is not in dispute, though FDR had different ideas.

That's exactly what I said. The people didn't want to be mired in perpetual warfare on the other side of the world then, and they don't want to now. FDR tried to get us into the war time and again, and the only way he could do it was after Japan did it for him. America was pulled into WWII as a reaction to being attacked, because no other reason could do it. Conversely in Iraq, we started the war, not after being attacked (that's Afghanistan, remember that thing? Remember how no one criticized our war there?), but for some nebulous idealistic shell game, which by all logic would probably go on forever. To say the differences between the two wars were caused by people criticizing one of them is to have your head firmly up amongst your buttocks.

WWII's goal was to defeat an enemy that had attacked us, a clear and achievable goal, with an obvious and identifiable conclusion. The Iraq war's goal is unidentifiable and unachievable. It's to end terrorism, something which has been going on for thousands of years, something which has been battled by people far more devoted than we are, with no success, and something which once ended could flare up at any moment again without warning. It's an impossible goal, and the "war" on it is right to be criticized.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by marden 

No, I'd rather we go back to the days before 9/11 where everything was quiet and relatively calm.

Didn't you get the memo? The jig is up on that one.

"What's the connection between Iraq and 9/11?"
Bush: "Nothing."

On the surface, anyway.

The surface is reality. If your goal in war is to defeat your enemy, that's fine. But if your goal is to fight until no one in the world hates you, you'll be fighting forever because that will never happen (especially if you're doing something as stupid and destructive as fighting wars over other people's thoughts), and you need to be put down.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So people who suspected that invading Iraq would make our problems worse, not better, were right, at a time when their saying so could actually have prevented us doing the thing that made the problem worse, but you still fault them for criticizing the war? Why?

Increased violence in the short term does not relate to "our problems" especially in the long term scheme of things. You didn't see that analogy to WWII; that the increased violence and massive loss of life was neccessary in the short term to ensure the freedom of our Allies and our own nation.

Iraq is not over, and until it is you can't say that we are worse off now, because only the future will be able to show us that. No amount of statistics and articles written today will tell us how they will be when the next generation comes of age.


No. No one in America objected to the invasion of Afghanistan (yeah, remember that thing?). But we were better off in WWII not also opening up a war against China before things were even finished in Japan. And we would have been better off not destroying Iraq, especially before we'd finished in Afghanistan, where our actual enemies were.

Alot of our "Actual enemies" went to Iraq to fight us. I will bring up the argument that I'd rather have em fighting our military over there then blowing up metro stations over here.

Have there been any attacks within the US since 9/11? No, and you, me, my dog, and all those article writers can't say for sure why there haven't been.

And China didn't threaten the annihilation of our ally and regularly chant "death to america" in the streets because of (arguably insane) religious justifications.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Alot of our "Actual enemies" went to Iraq to fight us. I will bring up the argument that I'd rather have em fighting our military over there then blowing up metro stations over here.

Have there been any attacks within the US since 9/11? No, and you, me, my dog, and all those article writers can't say for sure why there haven't been.

And how many attacks were there within the US in the five years before 9/11?

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

And how many attacks were there within the US in the five years before 9/11?

greg

Bottom line, your question seems to be a preparation for a bogus logical assumption.

The spigot of attacks on or in America would have started with the 9/11 attacks, not before.

When you make a date to go out with a woman and you manage to sleep with her on the first date and you continue to see her for the next two years and on average you "enjoy" her every day, how many times did you hit it before the first time?

Zero.

How many times did you hit it after the first time and for the next two years?

730.

If George W. Bush stopped you from "hittin it" after you hit it that first time then you'd go and "do" the floozy around the corner from you or find some other way to get the virgins you crave.



Thank God for George W. Bush!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Didn't you get the memo? The jig is up on that one.

"What's the connection between Iraq and 9/11?"
Bush: "Nothing."

That the exact wording? Don't think so.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

Bottom line, your question seems to be a preparation for a bogus logical assumption.
....

If George W. Bush stopped you from "hittin it" after you hit it that first time then you'd go and "do" the floozy around the corner from you or find some other way to get the virgins you crave.

Thank God for George W. Bush!

...and yet, terrorism in general, and terrorism against the United States in foreign countries occurred on a semi-regular basis in the decades before, and the years after, 9/11. Furthermore, terrorism in the United States did occur on a very rare basis in the decades before 9/11.

Nice try, though. I will repeat, since you didn't seem to want to answer my question: if there have been no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11, how many terrorist attacks occurred in the US in the five years prior to 9/11? 10 years? 20?

greg

[Sky Captain]

Some folks seem to forget that there was an attack on TWC in 1993.
The assassanation of Robert Kennedy was in response to a memo about arming Israel.
I consider this a terrorist attack.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Alot of our "Actual enemies" went to Iraq to fight us. I will bring up the argument that I'd rather have em fighting our military over there then blowing up metro stations over here.

Have there been any attacks within the US since 9/11? No, and you, me, my dog, and all those article writers can't say for sure why there haven't been.

And China didn't threaten the annihilation of our ally and regularly chant "death to america" in the streets because of (arguably insane) religious justifications.

Do you think the number of pre-existing enemies drawn to Iraq is greater than the number of new enemies created by our invasion of Iraq?

"Can't say for sure" is a pretty piss poor justification for a war, IMO. Criminal even. That's one reason I think that the people directly affected by the war are pretty likely to become our enemies now, and there sure are a lot of them.

As for "death to America," people chant a lot of things. You can't stop people around the world from chanting whatever they like, by thought-policing other countries. But you sure can fuel their hatred by running around starting wars against them.

Finally, chanting does not a threat make. Don't get me wrong, 9/11 was a terrible tragedy, on the scale of terrorism. On the scale of warfare, it was not. In terms of lives lost, monetary damage done, and strategic damage done, it's minor. In terms of the national zeitgeist, all the war-hawkish harping on it has done more damage than the attack itself. Terrorism (from outside) is not a threat to the existence of the US. Each terror attack is a one-time-use weapon. There's no way they'll manage to successfully pull the same stunt twice. The only way they can continue to cause damage is through the efforts of fear-mongers like yourself in whom they've managed to instill terror (hence the name, terrorism).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by marden 

The spigot of attacks on or in America would have started with the 9/11 attacks, not before.

When you make a date to go out with a woman and you manage to sleep with her on the first date

Sleeping with marden is like having a pair of airliners crash into you? Wow, someone has a high opinion of himself

Try the analogy again with date rape instead of a loving long-term relationship. You may get a little action up until the incident, but after it you get a charming lojack anklet.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

That the exact wording? Don't think so.

That is so sad. You get nailed on the content so you attack the wording? Why didn't you post the exact quote then?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

That the exact wording? Don't think so.

He's one of the posters who loves to continue to bash Bush and whine about what happened three years ago. I know, whenever someone brings up the issue of how we got into the war I'll just start talking about Bill Clinton.

The only problem with that is that instead of getting the point and dropping the history discussion they will instead just wallow around in the past. The reason? They have no exit strategy which will allow us to avoid the worst case scenario of Iran assuming control of the whole region.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Sleeping with marden is like having a pair of airliners crash into you? Wow, someone has a high opinion of himself

Try the analogy again with date rape instead of a loving long-term relationship. You may get a little action up until the incident, but after it you get a charming lojack anklet.

You get a "D" on your mardenization.

I make it look easy, I guess.

One word of advice, it's better to stay away from using imagery of America's worst enemy attack as a way to get laughs.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That is so sad. You get nailed on the content so you attack the wording? Why didn't you post the exact quote then?

Because wording and context is everything.

A simple different word added can change the meaning of something.

There is no proof Iraq had USABLE WMDs. And there is no proof they did not. Both of which Iraq was supposed to supply the info of.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by marden 

He's one of the posters who loves to continue to bash Bush

Uh huh. I was using Bush as an authority in that post. You might want to get that knee-jerking problem looked at.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by marden 

You get a "D" on your mardenization.

I make it look easy, I guess.

Anyone who uses a smilie is trying to imitate marden. Wow, someone has a high opinion of himself.

One word of advice, it's better to stay away from using imagery of America's worst enemy attack as a way to get laughs.

Yeah, it works a lot better with sexual innuendo

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Because wording and context is everything.

A simple different word added can change the meaning of something.

But in this case, it didn't. That's why you didn't post the exact quote.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Do you think the number of pre-existing enemies drawn to Iraq is greater than the number of new enemies created by our invasion of Iraq?

"Can't say for sure" is a pretty piss poor justification for a war, IMO. Criminal even. That's one reason I think that the people directly affected by the war are pretty likely to become our enemies now, and there sure are a lot of them.

As for "death to America," people chant a lot of things. You can't stop people around the world from chanting whatever they like, by thought-policing other countries. But you sure can fuel their hatred by running around starting wars against them.

Finally, chanting does not a threat make. Don't get me wrong, 9/11 was a terrible tragedy, on the scale of terrorism. On the scale of warfare, it was not. In terms of lives lost, monetary damage done, and strategic damage done, it's minor. In terms of the national zeitgeist, all the war-hawkish harping on it has done more damage than the attack itself. Terrorism (from outside) is not a threat to the existence of the US. Each terror attack is a one-time-use weapon. There's no way they'll manage to successfully pull the same stunt twice. The only way they can continue to cause damage is through the efforts of fear-mongers like yourself in whom they've managed to instill terror (hence the name, terrorism).

"Can't say for sure" is also a piss poor way to make a decision to take no action.

And 9/11 was not a wartime operation by a group the US was at war with. It was a massacre of innocent civilians going about their daily lives. And they'll manage to find new ways the longer we stand by and do nothing, trying to appease these folks who want us dead simply because their psycotic brand of Islam tells them so.

My home is about 10 minutes from the US Naval Academy. Many of my closest friends (and my parents before my arrival) through the years have had mids, some of which have since become Marines. One of them in particular went to fallujah when it was considered (one of) the most dangerous part of Iraq. They all firmly believe from their experience that we made more friends over there then we made enemies. Keep in mind its not in the media's interest to report stories of a warm and fuzzy nature.


So you wouldn't be at all worried if I started chanting "Death to Uncle Skeleton", sent you death threats, told you that I believed it God's will to kill you, and rallied others behind my cause?

You would try to make friends with me?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

"Can't say for sure" is also a piss poor way to make a decision to take no action.

Then we agree: your thesis is a piss poor reason to do anything.

And 9/11 was not a wartime operation by a group the US was at war with.

Exactly. "Death to America" is a fantasy, theirs as well as yours. They are 100% incapable of bringing "death to America." The only force strong enough to do that is our own military, and the only way our enemies can use that is by manipulating you and your ilk into being terrified enough to cast about aimlessly with it, causing more collateral damage with it than they ever could with their own resources.

They all firmly believe from their experience that we made more friends over there then we made enemies.

What exactly do you mean by friends? Peaceful civilians, or people who will take up a crusade to fight for us? I think that "enemies" we make are of more extreme a variety than "friends." Maybe you can explain it to me.

So you wouldn't be at all worried if I started chanting "Death to Uncle Skeleton", sent you death threats, told you that I believed it God's will to kill you, and rallied others behind my cause?

If I was armed like the US is, no I wouldn't. If I spent 100x more than you do on self-defense and munitions, and I had a standing security detail on my (huge) property, and you lived on the other side of the country, no, I wouldn't be the slightest bit worried about you. What I'd be worried about is a traitor from within, a well-meaning but easily spooked tool, who happened to be a friend of mine but was influenced by your doublespeak to take what he thought was action against you, but was really a carefully devised way for you to manipulate his reaction.

You would try to make friends with me?

What's the alternative? Blow up your car? No, I'd send my lawyers to open communication with you and find out what your malfunction was.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Then we agree: your thesis is a piss poor reason to do anything.

Doing nothing is a form of "anything." i believe we made the right choice, but went about it in the wrong way.

Exactly. "Death to America" is a fantasy, theirs as well as yours. They are 100% incapable of bringing "death to America." The only force strong enough to do that is our own military, and the only way our enemies can use that is by manipulating you and your ilk into being terrified enough to cast about aimlessly with it, causing more collateral damage with it than they ever could with their own resources.

see 9/11. That brought death to alot of americans...and they didn't even use guns.

What exactly do you mean by friends? Peaceful civilians, or people who will take up a crusade to fight for us? I think that "enemies" we make are of more extreme a variety than "friends." Maybe you can explain it to me.

To clarify, people who were glad we were there. If we want to keep them as our friends, we will need to finish the job there, and not pull out because things are getting icky.

If I was armed like the US is, no I wouldn't. If I spent 100x more than you do on self-defense and munitions, and I had a standing security detail on my (huge) property, and you lived on the other side of the country, no, I wouldn't be the slightest bit worried about you. What I'd be worried about is a traitor from within, a well-meaning but easily spooked tool, who happened to be a friend of mine but was influenced by your doublespeak to take what he thought was action against you, but was really a carefully devised way for you to manipulate his reaction.

All the money in the world spent on guns and military ain't gonna stop one of them from strapping a bomb to himself and taking 30 of my closest friends with him at the metro station.

Also, your opinion is one thing but please don't state it as fact what my intentions are. That equates to putting words in my mouth. I will continue to extend you the courtesy of allowing you to have an opinion without (inaccurately) extrapolating your intentions, and i would assume it reasonable to ask the same of you.

What's the alternative? Blow up your car? No, I'd send my lawyers to open communication with you and find out what your malfunction was.

And when i said "God told me to kill you, and i'm gonna do it" would you be worried then?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But in this case, it didn't.

Oh I think it did.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Doing nothing is a form of "anything." i believe we made the right choice, but went about it in the wrong way.

I can't tell if you understand what I'm saying, so on the safe side I'll rephrase it; I object to your original use of "can't say for sure" as an argument for anything. I agree that "doing nothing" is a choice, but no one advocated it on the grounds of "can't say for sure," the argument was more like "inspectors have told us categorically that there are no WMDs there."

see 9/11. That brought death to alot of americans...and they didn't even use guns.

Eh, I thought you understood this. 9/11 was nothing, compared with the damage and loss of life caused regularly by firearms, motor vehicles, severe weather (climate change), cigarettes, being struck by lightening, oil spills, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or a dozen other hazards of simply being alive. It was a tragedy, no question of that, but it is not even on the radar of things that would qualify as "death to America." You pointed out that 9/11 was not a wartime operation. This is only true on our side. For them, it was their Trojan Horse, the pinnacle of military cunning, and a feat so ingenious that, like the Trojan Horse, it will never succeed again in the eternal future history of warfare. The fact that it was grand only on the scale of terrorism is very important. Terrorism is the enemy's only tool, and it would take 500 more 9/11s for them to triumph militarily. But it only worked due to surprise, and as such they won't even be able to achieve one more attack of that magnitude. They are not a threat to our way of life.

Of course they can kill Americans, but not even at 1% of the rate we already kill each other in street crime, or ourselves through accidents. They can't kill the country, that's just absurd.

To clarify, people who were glad we were there. If we want to keep them as our friends, we will need to finish the job there, and not pull out because things are getting icky.

I will also clarify, as clarification is good. We started this exchange when I pointed out that many of us knew before the war started that it would do the US more harm than good. Your hypothesis that we decreased our net enemy count because of the war led me to ask if you think we created fewer enemies than we exterminated. I renew my quesion (since we've been sidetracked).

All the money in the world spent on guns and military ain't gonna stop one of them from strapping a bomb to himself and taking 30 of my closest friends with him at the metro station.

But they don't do that here. They do it in Israel. There are a million times more of them in Israel. That's not really a practical method in the US.

Also, your opinion is one thing but please don't state it as fact what my intentions are.

I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to.

And when i said "God told me to kill you, and i'm gonna do it" would you be worried then?

No. You still don't have the strength. If you can't be reasoned with, you can't be reasoned with, but that's no excuse not to try whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Oh I think it did.

You think? That's all you have to go on, your thoughts? Well I think you don't really believe that, you're just playing the coy zealot. Otherwise, it would be a simple matter for you to demonstrate it with the actual quote.