Posted on 07/02/2007 1:43:07 PM PDT by pabianice
Given on Monday, December 8, 1941
Yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in misunderstanding — the United States of America was apparently suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of a people we can’t name without being racially and culturally insensitive.
The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of a country populated by people different from us – although such diversity can be and is often a strength worth celebrating -- was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after this nation’s air squadrons had commenced bombing Oahu, this nation’s Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from this nation suggests to some that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago, although we in no way wish to slander this other nation by suggesting that this other country harbors any ill will towards the United States or military designs upon the rest of the world. During the intervening time, the Government of our misunderstood sister nation seems to have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace. The regrettable attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces, although it is too early to conclude that this action implies any ill will toward us from the peoples of the attacking nation or their allies.
Yesterday this other nation also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night they attacked Hong Kong (but we are in no way suggesting that this other nation is in any way less peace-loving and respectable than any other). Last night they also attacked Guam, the Philippine Islands, and Wake Island. This morning this other country attacked Midway Island. Surely this is an indicator of the degree to which we have not properly respected the other country’s beliefs, religion, and customs. What have we done to make them angry with us and how can we change? It would be unfortunate and a mistake for the people of the United States to have already formed their opinions of the implications of these events.
I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only seek to end this conflict through the use of our Courts but will make very certain that this form of misunderstanding shall never again occur through our actions or inactions, and we will strive to understand how our own failings and religious provincialism could result in such an event. It would be wrong of me to invoke the help of any particular diety in our cause as this would by implication suggest that one set of religious beliefs is superior to another.
With confidence in our legal system and with the unbounding determination of our people we will gain the inevitable court win. We must also ensure that never again will we so provoke another nation into such an understandable if regrettably violent act. We can and will do better in making sure our future actions will not again create such misunderstandings. We will do better in being a good neighbor to the other nations of the world.
I therefore reluctantly ask that the Justice Department declare that since the reaction provoked of this other nation on Sunday, December 7, the United States must reluctantly bring suit against this other nation. As the trial proceeds, may we speedily make amends and see that such an unfortunate event is never repeated.
“I’m simply pointing out that part of what we call “political correctness” is the removal of overt racism as appropriate public discourse.”
No.
Political correctness is the removal of ALL response to any group that might possibly in any fashion be ‘offended’.
Can’t stop illegal immigration, might offend the illegals.
Can’t attack al-queada while they’re hiding in [insert place name here] because it might offend al-queada.
Can’t call terrorists ‘terrorists’ as it might offend them.
Are you understanding what it means?
“Politically correct” was a term used by the communist politburo to describe actions deemed ‘right’ by the partty.
Taken and expanded by the American communists, it is now a by-word for insanity.
I don't think so. As long as commie Russia was our ally, they'd be cool with slamming the fascists. Then, once the commies rivals were thwarted, they could focus on hating America. Which is just what the left did.
The liberal media and all of the rest of the radical left would all be in jail right now.
Semper Fi’
Jarhead
I don't believe for an instant that that's the motive behind the Amnesty-pushers. Their motives are entirely cynical, having to do with votes and money, not public discourse or offending people.
Here's a question. When GWB insists that Islam is a peaceful religion, and that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, is he correct? Or just politically correct?
Ever read the Quran?
You've nailed it!
Sure helped unite America against the enemy. American propaganda in the 40s was filled with dehumanizing racism, and people responded to it. It's possible that if we still tolerated such things, we'd be more united today against the enemy. If the NY Post regularly ran headlines akin to "US scores major victory; 100 Ragheads perish", would you be ok with that? Would it help or hurt us?
No. Can you answer the question? When GWB says Islam is a religion of peace, and that most Muslims are peaceful, is he correct, or politically correct?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/528671/posts?page=7#7
Aquick rundown of quotes from the Quran.
Than you tell me.
Islam is a religion, not a race by the way.
You sure are being awful trollish on this.
He is simply incorrect.
Islam is a political philosophy. It is fascism frocked with the sheepskin of religion.
It didn't work, you're still posting.
Well I’ll just drop it then. The thread is about the contrast of attitudes today vs. the FDR years re: war, political correctness. Everyone of my posts has been on topic. I realize for a lot of people, anything other than total agreement seems like trolling. So just hang out and agree, have a good time, and I won’t bother you. I’m sure there’s engaging dialog going on somewhere. Just not on this thread. Fair enough. Yawn.
Whatever you say, granny. Go eat some prunes.
Well.. yes.
Kinda like Scientology, but with mayhem and murder.
Your longevity here mitigates against your being a troll, but you’re certainly posting like one to this thread.
Back then, war was war.
You could kill the enemy and not have to worry about being portrayed as a reckless shiftless over the top psycho back then.
These days, we’re palying paddy cake with the enemy.
Thought we’d learned the lesson on that back in 1960’s to 1970’s.
“Can’t attack that, might offend..”
“Ari” had been here since 1999 or so, and he was a troll.
JohnGalt had been here for awhile, and he was a troll.
*shrugs*
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.