T1B

i guess thats why forrestal swan dived into the pavement

no mention about the aircraft carriers
that would be needed to actually fight a war and
not the aging battleships were not in the harbor
at the time ??

mothster wrote: guess thats why forrestal swan dived into the pavement

He was pushed/thrown. It's all a conspiracy. He was killed because he not only knew the truth about PH but also about UFO's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Forrestal

Zionist space aliens, implanted in the earth since it's existence, caused it all so a Zionist state .... which Forrestal opposed ... could be created.

It's all here, in black and white on the internets and in some books and probably in some tracts that some fucker at rock concerts hands out. So it must all be true.

ALL of IT.

oh look, another political thread.

Cicero wrote:oh look, another political thread.

We know the title of this thread had you thinking it was about you and like a moth to a light, you come flutering in with another useless post.

Props shithead.

Sudden Sam wrote:

Wolfman wrote:no mention about the aircraft carriers
that would be needed to actually fight a war and
not the aging battleships were not in the harbor
at the time ??

Roosevelt needed an excuse to get the American public behind a declaration of war against Japan. Why would he have allowed the total destruction of our navy? That would have made no sense at all.

Assuming this is true, then why did Roosevelt allow the Philippines to be so weakly defended? Was it also a part of his strategy to allow the Japanese to take all of the Eastern Pacific before allowing Hulkamania to run wild all over the Japanese?

BSmack wrote:Assuming this is true, then why did Roosevelt allow the Philippines to be so weakly defended?

The ASPCA implored them to "do it for the dogs."

mvscal,

What if they did know ? Would it matter ?

mvscal wrote:Yeah, I think treason matters. Ask Benedict Arnold.

Not what I meant

I thought this thread was going to be about the Southern Baptist Convention.

Hell for that matter we gave Hitler all kinds of heads up about D-Day. It's called misinformation.

Bizzarofelice wrote:I thought this thread was going to be about the Southern Baptist Convention.

No, no, no...the word "inbred" was left out.

If it was in the title, THEN, it'd be about the Southern Baptists.

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

mvscal wrote:Yeah, I think treason matters. Ask Benedict Arnold.

Not what I meant

What do you mean? FDR certainly would have been impeached and possibly subjected to criminal prosecution along with much of his administration.

I think that probably "would have mattered". Don't you?

Look I don't purport to know half of what you or Sam does. But I do know that there's been some shady dealings in the past as it goes along the lines of "Eminent Domain", "National Security", and the execution of a President's Oath of Office. People get dead one way or another based on decisions these guys make or don't make. That, is a fact.

While I don't believe for a second that FDR sat back and did his best "Dr. Evil" saying "Yes, let them come, muhahahahahaha", I do find it plausible that such strategic decisions are made.


Here's the important part. Personally, I believe that the data collected and honed in on an event that transpired is what we're looking at. I believe there was data available but it was damn near impossible to say "It's Pearl, it's on 12-7-1941, get ready".

JN-25 was not broken before Pearl Harbor, because the Japs had changed the code right before it. It was broken in May of '42 which was what allowed us to know that Midway was the next objective of the Jap Navy.

^^^^^

Another guy who knows his shit when it comes to history.

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:

Cicero wrote:oh look, another political thread.

We know the title of this thread had you thinking it was about you and like a moth to a light, you come flutering in with another useless post.

Props shithead.

Nothing you've ever typed makes me believe that you are smarter than me. Just seems that there is a forum for threads like this.

Tom In VA wrote:^^^^^

Another guy who knows his shit when it comes to history.

I also just finished reading this book on Sunday.





Goes heavily into this very subject.

Sudden Sam wrote:... Ann Coulter.

Under-education is not one of Miss Coulter's flaws...cum laude at Cornell and Michigan Law.

Cicero wrote: Nothing you've ever typed makes me believe that you are smarter than me.

I disagree.

Why, just today, when it came time to log in, you typed "Cicero," and he typed "The Whistle Is Screaming."

Case closed.

Hilarious how some of you middle age, know-it-all message board He-Man's think you're so much smarter than me.

JCT wrote:JN-25 was not broken before Pearl Harbor, because the Japs had changed the code right before it. It was broken in May of '42 which was what allowed us to know that Midway was the next objective of the Jap Navy.

rack hal holbrooke

Sam,

Are you going to answer my post? Or would you rather ignore that little inconvienent truth?

mvscal wrote:If you are going to make such a decision, it's probably a good idea not to let the bad guys break the only stick you've got to hit them back with.

Jumping back to the thread that started this... at least the WTC was an ugly pile of crap containing mostly New Yorkers and the 'plane' that hit the pentagon took out little more than a construction site.

Sudden Sam wrote:Howver, a quality education obviously does not always overcome born-in stupidity.

I don't care for the bitch myself, but that is nothing more than a backpedal.
You should have stopped at "I stand corrected."

Sudden Sam wrote: Jumping back to the thread that started this... at least (A)the WTC was an ugly pile of crap (B)containing mostly New Yorkers and the 'plane' that hit (C)the pentagon took out little more than a construction site.

WTF?!?!
Mmmmm... Which one? A, B or C? Or do I have to defend all three?

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:While I don't believe for a second that FDR sat back and did his best "Dr. Evil" saying "Yes, let them come, muhahahahahaha", I do find it plausible that such strategic decisions are made.

If you are going to make such a decision, it's probably a good idea not to let the bad guys break the only stick you've got to hit them back with.

We weren't exactly a military powerhouse in 1941. The idea that the President of the United States allowed the Japanese to attack the home port of the Pacific Fleet doesn't even make bad sense.

Crap, even that can be turned to the conspiracy theorists favor as could BSmack's query about why would we "give up" the Philipines.

I don't know if you've read any about Coventry England, but I find it intriguing. To this day there appears to be two camps on that. Did Conventry get sacrificed to protect Engima ?

In the end it all comes down to evidence and without a "smoking gun" it all just lines to what one believes.

Sudden Sam wrote:

BSmack wrote:Sam,

Are you going to answer my post? Or would you rather ignore that little inconvienent truth?

My bad. i got carried away elsewhere.

Re-reading wolf, me and you, I'm not certain what you're asking, but...

My point to wolfie was that Roosevelt most assuredly didn't want to risk our entire fleet. Thus, the carriers, etc. weren't at Pearl.

I'm asking simply for you to explain the catastrophic military defeats suffered by the Allies in the eastern Pacific. If your scenario were true, they would certainly have known that their possessions in said area would be under imminent attack. Why did they not defend these possessions more adequately? Specifically, why did Roosevelt have a mere two armored battalions assigned to defend all of the Philippines if he knew the Japanese were going to be attacking?

Simply put, your theory has too many holes in it.

BSmack wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:

BSmack wrote:Sam,

Are you going to answer my post? Or would you rather ignore that little inconvienent truth?

My bad. i got carried away elsewhere.

Re-reading wolf, me and you, I'm not certain what you're asking, but...

My point to wolfie was that Roosevelt most assuredly didn't want to risk our entire fleet. Thus, the carriers, etc. weren't at Pearl.

I'm asking simply for you to explain the catastrophic military defeats suffered by the Allies in the eastern Pacific. If your scenario were true, they would certainly have known that their possessions in said area would be under imminent attack. Why did they not defend these possessions more adequately? Specifically, why did Roosevelt have a mere two armored battalions assigned to defend all of the Philippines if he knew the Japanese were going to be attacking?

Simply put, your theory has too many holes in it.

how's about we didn't have that much fleet for starters

Sudden Sam wrote:You got me there. There's no doubt that we knew Japan was going to hit us. Doesn't make a lick of sense to have been so ill-prepared elsewhere in the region. But we weren't much of a military power at that point either.

We may not have been the greatest power in the world at that time. But we damn sure had more at our disposal to defend the Philippines than 22,000 regular army infantry and 8,500 National Guard troops.

Simply put, if the battle plan was to lure the Japanese into attacking Pearl, then the next logical measure would have been to beef up the defense of the Philippines as a platform to launch the inevitable counterattack. That did not happen.

JCT wrote:the Japs

I believe they prefer to be called "Nips."

Moorese wrote:

JCT wrote:the Japs

I believe they prefer to be called "Nips."

If they weren't so good at building ships, the yards would still be open on the Clyde.

Oh, and it also turns out that FDR could walk.

That bastard!

Moorese wrote:

JCT wrote:the Japs

I believe they prefer to be called "Nips."

And they're very tasty when coated in chocolate:

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Crap, even that can be turned to the conspiracy theorists favor as could BSmack's query about why would we "give up" the Philipines.

We didn't "give up" the Philippines. We fought the Japs tooth and nail for it.

Relax Mr.Hand, the quotes were there for a reason. I'm fully aware of how hard our boys and philipino boys fought for that island.

Tom In VA wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Crap, even that can be turned to the conspiracy theorists favor as could BSmack's query about why would we "give up" the Philipines.

We didn't "give up" the Philippines. We fought the Japs tooth and nail for it.

Relax Mr.Hand, the quotes were there for a reason. I'm fully aware of how hard our boys and philipino boys fought for that island.

Yeah, All 7,100 of it. ;)

Thanks Bushice, I think I'm done now.