No one else posted about this, that's all I want to say. I'd link to my blog, but that would start a political debate and I don't want that here, please, for once (I know, I'm one to talk).

Is there something specific about Pearl Harbour you're suggesting we remember? Or just the event in general?

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana, The Life of Reason.

As it happens, no, I don't remember pearl harbor, because like everyone else in this thread I wasn't alive at the time. Oops.

I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.

-Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto


We, uh . . . we didn't mean it?

-Hiroshima and Nagasaki

_________________________________________________________________

We remember. Our enemies would do well to remember, too.

So dramatic.

Yes, pretty dramatic.

Are you implying the World Trade Centre was done in by Japanese Kamikaze fighters?

Go back and read the Santayana quote.

And since this is going to get political anyway, and Dr. Lecter posted cool pictures:

Remember Pearl Harbor

Well in that case:

We remember. Our enemies would do well to remember, too.

Seems the only ones who did remember were your enemies.

Interestingly enough, Pearl Harbour was almost a legitimate act of war. If only the photocopier hadn't jammed at the Japanese Embassy! Was probably a Xerox.

Yeah, well, I suppose Imperial Japan and its citizens got theirs.
The incendiary bombings which led to massive firestorms, the nuclear attacks, the sense of impending doom that must have pervaded the population knowing that "The Americans Are About To Invade."

Not to say that the Japanese didn't have it coming. If you read a little bit about the "Rape of Nanking," it's hard to feel sympathy for them for any action which the U.S. took to end the war.

Remembering Pearl Harbor, however, is more about remembering that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and less about the particular actions of the day.

Amen, LeberMac.

And what is a "legitimate" act of war? Who decides what "legal" war is? It amazes me we can win anything with so many rules to follow. Pearl Harbor was an act of war, legitimacy is irrelevant.

You referred to it as an act of terrorism in your blog, which is what I was referring to:

67 years ago today, on December 7th, 1941, the United States was attacked by terrorists.

Another one of these pointless threads.

Don't you ever get tired or have other things to do but spout US IMC propaganda? There are other, more pressing problems than that right now.

Yes, like learning from the past.

And yes, Snax, Pearl Harbor was an act of terrorism. The fact that it was part of the official war strategy of Japan doesn't make it not terrorism. The whole point was to rattle us and ruin our navy so we wouldn't interfere in the Pacific. There's plenty different between WWII and the current war, but I wanted to point out the similarities specifically.

EDIT: I think we're actually agreeing, Snax, I think I see what you meant. Still, I think it's funny when people say things like "illegal war." Not that you did.

PC, you need to watch your labeling. Pearl Harbor was a sneaky, underhanded attack by a nation's military. It was barbaric, and the nation responsible deserved every horror inflicted upon it in response to its aggression. Though, as ususal, Snax thinks there's some additional moral legitimacy conveyed by faxing your intended target's governement a few minutes before the bombs hit the ground. Only an idiot would believe that to comport with the general rule that one declare war before commencing hostilities.

But the Japanese were not terrorists. Terrorists do not wear uniforms, they do not belong to a national military, and--absent evidence of aid/comfort/support--are not national actors. A pilot flying a Zero into a battleship should never be compared to an animal crashing a 747 into the WTC, for multiple reasons. Just off the top of my head: if I find a surviving Japanese pilot in the water, he's a POW. But if I find a 9/11 terrorist who didn't catch his plane, I can legally torture him for information and execute him without a criminal trial.

Terrorists, like pirates, are not soldiers or even criminals--such actors, since Roman times, have been properly classed as "enemies of civilization" and are subject to being hunted and killed by any interested party without any form of permission.

Though, as ususal, Snax thinks there's some additional moral legitimacy conveyed by faxing your intended target's governement a few minutes before the bombs hit the ground.

Sorry? Perhaps you could dredge up a thread where I made a similar statement? And I do sincerely apologize for utilizing convention instead of realpolitik in making light of the situation.

You imperialists have no sense of humour.

Edit: And for the record, it's "government", not "governement".

Haha. P.S., Gav - I think the Japanese were the imperialists.

What gives anyone the right to decide the fate of thousands of people who live their own lives and have their own opinions, many of which you don't know, because they live in a certain area?
Any kind of war is stupid, terrorism or no terrorism. The only real advantage is that it curbs our exponential population growth by a very small percent.