Lessons learned? Pearl Harbor was easier than Sept. 11

Manchester Union Leader ^ | December 7, 2003 | Editorial

[billorites]

THE LESSONS of a quiet Sunday in early December 62 years ago today need revisiting. After the sudden, brutal, deadly attack on our armed forces at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, America went to war. Along the way, the nation vowed to “never again” let its guard down in the face of a cunning, committed enemy. But we did. An even more cunning, more brutal, and more ideologically committed enemy actually gave us repeated examples of their intent to harm America. They were unsuccessful in their first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in New York City. But just two years ago, they succeeded.

The lessons from Pearl Harbor were easier to grasp at the time because the war that ensued was a classic one with standing armies and clear objectives and an America that was on a total war footing from the littlest child collecting tin cans to the oldest senior citizens making bandages.

Today’s war is waged against an often unseen but just as deadly enemy. His goals are not economic hegemony over the Pacific but the defeat of the free world’s philosophy of democracy, a philosophy of which America is the chief exponent.

It is difficult, however, to rouse the country to a war footing when the war has little effect on the majority of Americans’ everyday lives and when our younger generations are taught so little about democracy and religion.

The task is made even tougher when the majority of Democratic presidential candidates act much like the isolationists before Pearl Harbor and oppose President Bush at every turn.

Fortunately, Mr. Bush understands the lessons and is determined to have America do all it can to prevent another Pearl Harbor or another Sept. 11, 2001.

[DefCon]

Lessons learned? Pearl Harbor was easier than Sept. 11
---
"...Democratic presidential candidates act much like the isolationists before Pearl Harbor..."
---
Well, I guess that just goes to show that some people NEVER learn.

[The Great RJ]

Imagine Pearl Harbor happening on December 7, 2001. Howard Dean says the President is wrong in handling the war and that if elected he will go to Tokyo to meet with the Japanese War Cabinet to discuss a withdrawl of US troops from the Pacific. John F. Kerry says while he generally supports the war it is costing too much and that the President has no post war plan. Hillary Clinton visits US troops in Hawaii, while the President makes a dangerous flight to have Thanksgiving with beseiged troops on Midway Island. The New York Times revealed that the US was engaged in a secret atomic research program called the Mahattan Project.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Consider how we would have ever won World War Two if in the middle of the war, CBS, NBC and such would have reported the war as they do today. What if Mrs. Hoover would have visited the troops and said there was grumbling about our involvement? Or if Governor Dewey had offered FRD knew about the Pearl Harbor attack? Or had Wilkie said, "FDR F*$ked up the war!"

This nation has shrunk from the country that fought and won World War Two. We shelter today's cowards and traitors that would have been tried and executed in World War Two.

I am at the age where I awake each and every day wondering where did my nation go? I wish I knew...

[sonofatpatcher2]

I must assume great minds run along the same path...

[weegee]

We'd be looking at why Imperial Japan hates us so! Blackshirts would be demanding "US out of Hawaii NOW!" and blaming us for our own "imperialism".

[weegee]

50 years out Charles Limburgh is still hounded for his take on the might of the German military. He's chastized as being a Nazi sympathizer. Will all of the AntiAmericanWar protestors walk away unscathed for the ages?

"We'll never win, have you seen Saddam's Republican Guard???"

"Quagmire, Quagmire, Quagmire..."

"The American people are being told LIES about this war! There's this Iraqi named Baghdad Bob who's saying all the things that the Right Wing Media won't tell Americans..."

[visualops]

[weegee]

The New York Times revealed that the US was engaged in a secret atomic research program called the Mahattan Project.

A horrible secret really. The US was working on covert plan (at tremendous expense) to make a weapon of mass destruction.

Sure there are rumors that the leader of another "axis" power was persecuting Jews but it was all according to German law and he had the consencous of other nations (including Middle Eastern countries). Even today 50+ years later that are some who doubt the findings in Germany (I am not among the doubters BTW, this whole post was a lob at the hypocritical double standard of the "Blame America First" crowd).

[resistmuch]

On 9/11, we were attacked by a bunch of terrorists, most of whom were Saudis. In retaliation, we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. This is something like retaliating for Pearl Harbor by bombing India.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

'Remember the Lost and Suffering on Septermber 11, 2001'

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33

---

.."IS it SAFE?" = HILLARY on Senate Armed Services Committee..

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=629


.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

'HILLARY & TERRORISM's plan to regain the White House'

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1022571/posts?oage=28

.

[Gumption]

This is something like retaliating for Pearl Harbor by bombing India.

I liken it more to retaliating for Pearl Harbor by bombing Jap aircraft carriers and their task forces.

[justrepublican]

we were attacked by a bunch of terrorists,

Perhaps you only want to be murdered by thugs in pink hats. Don't you understand DIVERSITY

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

...Praise GOD that President BUSH has promised FREEDOM for the Oppressed Peoples & Cultures of the World in Time of War as our own best Self-Defense against future Terrorist Attacks.


'THE NUTS HATE BUSH BUT WE LUVYA DUBYA: Beverly Hills After Action Report'


http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1032739/posts
(Photos - Posts No. 36 & 110)
.

[caspera]

Actually, after Pearl Harbor we declared war on Germany and Italy who had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, but were allied with those who did.

The Taliban were the allies of Al Qaeda. We said hand over the Al Qaeda suspects. They said screw you. We went to war.

Iraq was a loose cannon. It was led by a dictator with alliances with terrorists and a history of suicidally bad decision making and a fondness for weapons of mass destruction and probably had direct involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing. We said, prove you don't have these weapons by letting the inspectors back in. They said, screw you. We went to war.

So it would be like bombing India after Pearl Harbor if India were aligned with the Japanese, and they were sheltering admiral Yamamoto. In other words, your analogy bears no relationship to reality.

[wtc911]

good post. some historical non-parallels but the concept is right.

[resistmuch]

We should prioritize targets. Consider Iraq, which had no provable relationship to the terrorists who attacked us. Now, consider Saudi Arabia. Members of the Saudi ruling family, including the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., were writing checks to the very groups that attacked us. So, once again: why do we attack Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia? Why not march in and depose the Saudi royals, and get a handle on a demographically homogeneous country that actually has a shot at surviving as a single nation?

[peteram]

This is great. This is the perfect thread for me to ask a question of some of you older FReepers that has been rattling around in my head for a while now. I am 46 yrs. old. I was not around for WWII, but I do remember hearing my parents recollections of it as well as seeing all the movies about it that followed when I was a kid. All of it seemed to paint a very patriotic picture of America. We seemed to be a very unified country. I believe that that attitude was a key to helping us win that war. Our enemies saw us as being unified.

My question to those FReepers of the Greatest generation is this: To what degree was the dissention among Americans to getting involved in that war? Certainly there must have been some percentage of dissenters to that war. Were there as many protests as there are today, or is this protest movement thing simply something that came about during the Viet Nam era?

Finally, my point is this: If our show of unity was so key to defeating not one, but TWO enemies of that era, don't you think that maybe the liberals of today would see that lesson and stop undermining our government? They have a right to dissent, but can't they do it quietly?

Thanks for any responses.
FReegards,
Pete

[billorites]

"...don't you think that maybe the liberals of today would see that lesson and stop undermining our government?"

That would depend on which side they were on in the fight, wouldn't it?