December 07, 2009

Remember…

pearl_harbor

Dec 7, 1941. 

pearl-harbor-uss-virginia

At 06:05 on December 7, six Japanese carriers launched a first wave of 183 planes The Japanese hit American ships and military installations at 07:51. The first wave attacked military airfields of Ford Island. At 08:30, a second wave of 170 Japanese planes, mostly torpedo bombers, attacked the fleet anchored in Pearl Harbor. The battleship Arizona was hit with an armor piercing bomb which penetrated the forward ammunition compartment, blowing the ship apart and sinking it within seconds. Overall, nine ships of the U.S. fleet were sunk and 21 ships were severely damaged. Three of the 21 would be irreparable. The overall death toll reached 2,350, including 68 civilians, and 1,178 injured.

Remember… 68 years ago today.

 

We didn’t read any of the enemy their rights or try any of them in civil court over the next 4 years until we obtained a surrender.  Back then we knew that war was sick and awful, and only to be engaged in if you really had the will to DO, or DO worse, to the enemy than he was willing to do to you to keep him from wanting to impose his will upon you.  Now, we are clearly insane.

Differences between Dec 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001?

At Pearl Harbor we were attacked by a Government.  On 9/11 we were attacked by a quasi political entity, or to put it differently, a bunch of raghead terrorists.

At Pearl Harbor the targets were military, and most of those lost had given an oath and at some level know the risk.  On 9/11 the targets were civilian, and nearly all who died were civilians.

In a real act of war, declared by a recognized government, there are agreed upon rules for the capture of prisoners.  Un-uniformed combatants would have been shot on sight in WWII.  Prisoners taken in uniform would have been (theoretically) treated according to the Geneva convention. 

What we have with the terrorists is Unlawful Combatants, they committed an act of war against the united states, but do not have the legal standing to formally do so since they do not officially represent a Government.  That means they are not covered under the Geneva conventions, and also that they are not eligible for civil trials.  Technically in my understanding, they have no legal standing.

-but clearly we are living in insane times.

-KOOK

Posted by KOOK on 12/07/2009



Labels: , , ,

Comments (3)

Loading... Logging you in...
Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout
  • Logged in as
0 Vote up Vote down
Karen's avatar - Go to profile

Karen · 799 weeks ago

And of course after the attack on Pearl Harbor we were willing to make heavy sacrifices in order to protect our nation. After Sept 11 we had that conviction for about 3 months and then people started screaming about any sacrifice they might be expected to make.
1 reply · active 799 weeks ago
Loading...
+1 Vote up Vote down
KOOK's avatar - Go to profile

KOOK 91p · 799 weeks ago

Amen sister.
Loading...
+1 Vote up Vote down
Andrew33's avatar - Go to profile

Andrew33 103p · 799 weeks ago

In some ways I agree with your comment about the difference between Pearl and 9/11 and government involvement. That is why Bush should have made crystal clear to the world that due to the nature of the attack on 9/11, the Geneva Convention rules do not apply where Al Qaeda is concerned. However, the Taliban was either complicit or more likely supportive of Al qaeda's activities so in that respect, a government was involved, however they did not put on uniforms and attack us using weapons of war marked with their name so again, the Geneva convention should not have applied. I disagreed with Bush even going the UN over Afganistan and felt we should have operated unilaterally. I also felt that Bush gave the U.N. too much latitude over Iraq. We paid for enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq for 12 years plus we finance the U.N. Bush was attacked by the media for using "cowboy" diplomacy, when in actuality, we would have been better served had Bush really used "cowboy" diplomacy and told the U.N. to either shut up or side with Al Qaeda. In WW2, we fought the Japanese in a way that after it was over, they had no desire to ever fight us again. Same with the Germans. Afterwards, we even helped them rebuild and prosper as a close ally. We could have annexed Japan after WW2. Since WW2, we have lost many good Soldiers fighting "pinprick" hands tied due to politics wars and never achieved clear victories. The only reason we didn't lose badly was because our troops are the best Military in recorded history. It is my hope that when this nightmare regime ends, future leadership in America will not tie the hands of our soldiers during Military engagements. If we are attacked and war becomes a necessity, we do as the greatest generation did and teach those responsible, and others who may consider similar action that a better choice would be to bother someone else. It's my belief that the way our politicians conducted Vietnam, Afganistan, and Iraq have invited other more powerful nations to think America is becoming a pushover. While I don't think that to be true, as far as the American People are conserned, we all know it's true with the leadership.
This was a good post and anyone who is not inspired by the way our troops responded to the attack at Pearl Harbor must be lacking in the heartbeat department. It is my hope that "The Greatest Generation" is not our last. If it is, then everything they sacrificed would be in vein and the blame for that would fall on our generation. If we truly appreciate what the heroes of our Nation's past accomplished then we as a nation must choose a vastly different path and soon.

Post a new comment

Comments by

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Widget by LinkWithin