Wrong. Didn't bother to read my link, did you? Second chance...
formatting link
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
OT Political
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
One gang "team J", kicks the ass of another gang The other gang, team U", knew they were going to be attacked but decided to sleep in instead and let the members be killed.
Which gang was smarter that day?
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Alright, it is obvious your position is one of emotion, not logic or facts. I reserve my 'dealing with emotional arguments' energy for two of my granddaughters....
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
There was brilliance in the military tactics but delusion in the geopolitical strategy. Yamamoto thought an attack on America was a mistake, but he followed orders.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Down below I reposted all three of his Tweets and commented appropriately,
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
The US always hates Communists, personally I could care less.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Agreed. A few years later it did not work out quite so well for them.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Ok Yes.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
All war is a senseless waste.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Nope. There is no disputing what he wrote. It's plain as day.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
I dunno. I think what he said wasn't wrong...
What he said made me think ... I read his words many times. If it had been the US who had done that to an enemy of ours, and we destroyed their ships and planes with a gigantic surprise attack like that, we'd be calling it "brilliant planning and execution" of epic military strategy of the day. So, I understand what he was saying.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
It didn't get there. It was badly damaged and grounded. Near Hospital Point IIRC. Wasn't back in service for a year.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Per Ed Pawlowski:
And the timing..... -)
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Per dadiOH:
Than I got the location wrong.... This guy was not BS-ing.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Per philo:
Pretty much the definition of "Chicken Hawk".
Tangentially I think that, if it had not been for Colin Powell's wife, Powell would have run for president, been elected, and history would have been a *lot* different.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
f context. Had the statement been part of of a broader analysis it might ha ve been a different issue but it's false no matter how one looks at it.
ous and shattering surprise is possible even when we have been warned,? ??
ous and shattering surprise is possible even when we have been warned,? ??
+1Or even the broader military strategy, was ill advised. But the attack on Pearl Harbor was a stunning success, well executed, inflicting significant losses on the US while sustaining very limited losses to the Japanese.
That we should remember that, be vigilant today was the essence of Newt's comments, taken in *context*.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
IDK why one has to praise American values. I agree Newt should have addressed the survivors, the lives lost, but that isn't addressing "American values"
As for Pearl and American values, while you have your shorts all up in a knot with Newt, who isn't a govt official, what about OBama? Where was he on the 75th anniversary? Did he go to Pearl? Go anywhere? Bush 41 delivered an emotional speech, full of praise and "American values" on the 50th anniversary. The other day, Pence and McCain went to the WWII Memorial and paid their respects. That lazy ass Obama didn't go to Pearl, for the last time that there will be a significant group of survivors, that speaks for itself about his "American values".
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
BTW, Newt isn't even a govt official. Where was Obama on Pearl Harbor Day? Did he go to the 75th? The last time significant numbers of survivors and their families will be there? Bush 41 went to the 50th. Did OBama go anywhere to express "American values"? Why aren't you ranting about THAT?
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
Again, if you;re reading that with the accuracy that you took Newt totally out of context, I can see why you're confused. All the readings I've seen indicate that the US thought an attack was *possible*, not that it was likely.
Where was Obama on Pearl Harbor Day? At Pearl? No. At the WWII Memorial down the street from the WH? No, Pence and McCain were there. Why aren't you ranting about that? We all know why.
- Vote on answer
- posted
7 years ago
And what did Philo actually do? He came in here an totally misrepresented what Newt said. He claimed that one sentence was the only thing Newt tweeted. It was not. It was preceded immediately by another tweet that set the context for what followed. THAT has nothing to do with being a "people person". It's just being fair, sticking up for the truth. It has nothing to do with emotion, but I can see how you would think it does. That's how you react, with emotion and disregard for the facts, the truth.