DROPPING THE BOMB

[ethurst2]

ethurst, did I ever say you DIDN'T know any racists/supremicists? No I didn't. I said I was going to guess you didn't. There is a difference. Did I ever say the US had NO military presence in the Pacific? No I didn't. I said the 7th fleet didn't exist during Pearl Harbor (although I do see differing dates of formation, they are all still after the attack).

If you worried more about factual information and less about how your argument sounded you could be taken with a bit more credibility in my book. Leave the conspiracy Hurricane Andrew shit out of a discussion like this. We all know there are things we don't know, but the date the 7th fleet being formed is such a government secret that they still lie about it to this day. Please forgive my while I chuckle.

I also see you left out this quote since the information you pulled was directly from Wikipedia

Midway's importance to the U.S. was brought into focus on December 7, 1941 with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Six months later, on June 4, 1942, a naval battle near Midway resulted in the U.S. Navy exacting a devastating defeat of the Japanese Navy. This Battle of Midway was, by most accounts, the beginning of the end of the Japanese Navy's control of the Pacific Ocean.

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

You know what they say about guessing. If ya ain't sure, don't guess. If I said "fish" I'm going to guess that you don't know Michael Vick, then I would be taking a chance. I don't know who you know. I wouldn't make that guess because I just don't know at all.

I had a German professor that taught me a valuable lesson about history. he said to me to never pick up history from a standpoint of an ultimate conflict because that's just the climax of the situation. Go back years and years before the event happened and that's what I did. If you want a correct assessment on Vietnam, you don't go to the 60's or the 40's when the US sent the first advisors in but back at least to the 12th century and you'll find out that the same thing has been going on for centuries, countries make treaties and they break them, countries fall out with each other, countries bear secrets from their own citizens and countries create enemies to justify stuff.

It's some of the stuff that we mastered on the playground as children.

I never mentioned conspiracy in anything. I was making a statement on how there is military stuff in peoples backyards and they don't even know about it and it's been there for years. Same here in Denver... You have people that don't even have a clue that if this nation gets attacked that Denver, Colorado is number 1 on the hit list. That's the point I was coming from as far as Homestead Air Force Base and why Congress decided to close it. It was because they had a base outside of Doral Country Club that they ran Carribean operations from. Not many people from Miami (or is it Miami-Dade County) even know it exists and it's been there for over 40 years.

So there's no conspiracy to what I said, it's public record. I did not say that the government created a hurricane in the Atlantic and geared the Hurricane towards Homestead.

A conspiracy is a slice of pizza disappearing out of my refrigerator in the middle of the night. That's a conspiracy.

I was focusing on what was in the Pacific BEFORE World War I and II. We all know about Midway during the war but what was there BEFORE the war. You told me that there wasn't a US "Presence" in the Pacific and I said yes, there was and I went to the 1903 reference on Roosevelt "establishing" a presence by putting in a communications system at Midway and not only at Midway but at other atolls and territories.

And as far as the Japanese control of the Pacific, that's propaganda. If several sources confirm that there was a US Presence in the Pacific before WWI (including military history books), then it's viable. Remember, it was Commodore Peary that forced the opening of Japan in the mid 1800's. The US, British and the Germans had more of a presence in the Pacific than the Japanese did.

Look, this is military strategy. If I want to justify a conflict or war, then I have to make my adversary look like the biggest, baddest, meanest dude on the planet. So I have to market it as such to get it to be believable to the common guy so that they will throw support behind it. I was just looking at some Warner Brothers cartoons in which the Department of Defense commission them to do cartoons in support of the war and maybe I will post one of those here because some are really blatant and in your face.

In the military, command numbers (if you're technical about it) change all the time but the command stays the same. You can commission a fleet and give it a classified name and decommission a fleet, squadron or platoon.

So if you want me to use some military sources to prove that the military had stuff in the Pacific since the late 1800's then, I can do that, no problem.

Now the one thing about your post that I did take consideration to was the changing of view on how many casualties it could have been if we didn't drop the bomb. I'm trying to see that in a different light.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The VP part of your argument shows how badly your grabbing at straws to make your argument. 


The rest is clearly subjective and proves nothing. We can all assume a million different other scenarios but The Facts are the bombs were dropped and the war ended shortly thereafter. End of story.

No, it was not grasping at straws.  It was pointing out how little the poster knows of history. 

The facts are also the Japs surrendered upon the Russians entering the war giving the Japs an additional front.  This is not proof that the Russians entering the war was the only reason the Japs surrendered. But the fact that the Japs were begging the Russians to ignore the agreement they made with UK and USA to enter the war 3 months after the fall of Germany shows that the Japs were worried about the consequences of needing to fight the Russians too. 

To say that bombing civilian cities saved civilian lives is BS.     

But I am not trying to prove anything.  I am simply refuting the two wrongs make a right argument.   

[ethurst2]

Hey Phishfan,

I want to know what you think about this.

During the Gulf War, you had Gen. Schwarztkoff on CNN telling the nation where troops were located and where they were moving.

Did you believe anything that he said? Just give me your take on that.

[JVides]

Hey Phishfan,

I want to know what you think about this.

During the Gulf War, you had Gen. Schwarztkoff on CNN telling the nation where troops were located and where they were moving.

Did you believe anything that he said? Just give me your take on that.

I'll take this one!  I think telling us where the 1st Armored was hanging out and going was OK, because he wasn't telling you what the 75th Ranger Regiment was up to...know what I mean?

To say that bombing civilian cities saved civilian lives is BS.

That's not necessarily BS, given that the alternative would have been to systematically invade and lay siege to city after city after city in order to occupy the country.  The casualties from fighting a dug in enemy on its soil, with civilians in the way, could have easily exceeded the estimated 105,000 dead Hiroshima / Nagasaki civvies (through fighting, starvation, illness from bad conditions, displacement, walking into a mine, etc...).  Also, remember, no President is going to say "on one hand, I invade and lose 1 Million soldiers" (the estimate for which I provided a link in an earlier post)..."on the other, I drop this here bomb and lose no soldiers, and overall casualties on both sides are less than the casualties I'm expecting on MY side alone...Hmmm....let's invade".  I mean, who would do that?

[Phishfan]

 You told me that there wasn't a US "Presence" in the Pacific and I said yes, there was and I went to the 1903 reference on Roosevelt "establishing" a presence by putting in a communications system at Midway and not only at Midway but at other atolls and territories.





Now the one thing about your post that I did take consideration to was the changing of view on how many casualties it could have been if we didn't drop the bomb. I'm trying to see that in a different light.

Again revisionism at its finest. You are missing the meat and potatoes of my argument. I never said any of these things. Again you are more concerned with the way you post reads and sounds rather than factual information. I said the 7th fleet did not exist at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. I never said there was no US presence in the Pacific prior to that time. I also never said anything about casualties dropping the bomb versus not dropping the bomb.

[Phishfan]

Hey Phishfan,

I want to know what you think about this.

During the Gulf War, you had Gen. Schwarztkoff on CNN telling the nation where troops were located and where they were moving.

Did you believe anything that he said? Just give me your take on that.

Do I believe anything? That is a tough question. Do I beleive they were giving us current information or forward looking statements that could cause harm to our troops or their mission, probably not. Do I believe that some information was accurate if it was not classified or not in danger of releasing information that would not have been already knowledgeable to the enemy or anyone who could physically see it, probably so.

[ethurst2]

Again revisionism at its finest. You are missing the meat and potatoes of my argument. I never said any of these things. Again you are more concerned with the way you post reads and sounds rather than factual information. I said the 7th fleet did not exist at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. I never said there was no US presence in the Pacific prior to that time. I also never said anything about casualties dropping the bomb versus not dropping the bomb.

Okay, my mistake, I got the bomb drop deal from someone else. i realized that after I wrote it but I didn't have a chance to get back to it. My apologies to you Fish.

What information IS NOT factual? Is it the 7th Fleet deal (which is basically a number of a joint operation command that existed anyway). Tell me what's not factual so that I can clear it up and we can move out of this thing and go on to other stuff like talking about the Dolphins Cheerleader Calendar

Now here's what I did and I really don't want to post it here. I went back to at least 1841 to view American activity in the Pacific and I do have the scenarios in which civilians and military where involved in strife. The list in long and I cut it in half but can e-mail it to you.

[ethurst2]

Do I believe anything? That is a tough question. Do I beleive they were giving us current information or forward looking statements that could cause harm to our troops or their mission, probably not. Do I believe that some information was accurate if it was not classified or not in danger of releasing information that would not have been already knowledgeable to the enemy or anyone who could physically see it, probably so.

Now I agree with you there. Total agreement!

[Phishfan]

Okay, my mistake, I got the bomb drop deal from someone else. i realized that after I wrote it but I didn't have a chance to get back to it. My apologies to you Fish.

What information IS NOT factual? Is it the 7th Fleet deal (which is basically a number of a joint operation command that existed anyway). Tell me what's not factual so that I can clear it up and we can move out of this thing and go on to other stuff like talking about the Dolphins Cheerleader Calendar

Now here's what I did and I really don't want to post it here. I went back to at least 1841 to view American activity in the Pacific and I do have the scenarios in which civilians and military where involved in strife. The list in long and I cut it in half but can e-mail it to you.

Here is my point. You mentioned something about the 7th Fleet not detecting the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and how they could miss it. You say you are a military historian (or at least have studied military history). It is impossible for the 7th Fleet to have detected the attack because it did not exist. Prior to the formation of the 7th Fleet it was simply known as the Pacific Fleet I believe and was smaller and responsible for more ground (we also have the 3rd Fleet responsible for the Pacific currently) than the current 7th Fleet. Until Japanese expansion started occurring (roughly WWII) it was based in the West Coast (pointless except to back up my mention of Pacific naval dominance by the Japanese) and then moved to Pearl Harbor.

Long story short, the 7th Fleet did not exist at the time of the attack. It was a smaller Fleet who was responsible for more ground.

[Defense54]

No, it was not grasping at straws.  It was pointing out how little the poster knows of history. 

The facts are also the Japs surrendered upon the Russians entering the war giving the Japs an additional front.  This is not proof that the Russians entering the war was the only reason the Japs surrendered. But the fact that the Japs were begging the Russians to ignore the agreement they made with UK and USA to enter the war 3 months after the fall of Germany shows that the Japs were worried about the consequences of needing to fight the Russians too. 

To say that bombing civilian cities saved civilian lives is BS.     

But I am not trying to prove anything.  I am simply refuting the two wrongs make a right argument.   

How does how the president got into office prove anything?  I don't get your point in pointing that out unless you are just trying desperately to look smarter then you actually are. 

[ethurst2]

Here is my point. You mentioned something about the 7th Fleet not detecting the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and how they could miss it. You say you are a military historian (or at least have studied military history). It is impossible for the 7th Fleet to have detected the attack because it did not exist. Prior to the formation of the 7th Fleet it was simply known as the Pacific Fleet I believe and was smaller and responsible for more ground (we also have the 3rd Fleet responsible for the Pacific currently) than the current 7th Fleet. Until Japanese expansion started occurring (roughly WWII) it was based in the West Coast (pointless except to back up my mention of Pacific naval dominance by the Japanese) and then moved to Pearl Harbor.

Long story short, the 7th Fleet did not exist at the time of the attack. It was a smaller Fleet who was responsible for more ground.

I have a list of US Operations in the Pacific since 1850 and US "interests" in that area as far as fleets but time won't permit me to post it here. I can email it to you.

The most important US Presence that ever occured was in 1989 when the Thurstmeister arrived in Guam at Agana Beach and dropped a DJ set of funk that the Chamarro people had never heard. Everybody was there, Japanese tourists, sailors, airmen, chinese tourists and even a couple of drag queens.

The funk was my weapon of choice. A universal feeling to make up for centuries of tension!