Will 11/4/2008 Be US History’s Most Significant Day Since 12/7/1941?

American power is declining. How can we NOT eventually come to blows with China? I'm not convinced that you and I will live to see it, but I do think it will happened some time early next century.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
American power is declining. How can we NOT eventually come to blows with China?

Unless there is a turn around in the global economy China will inherit the crown of being the worlds number one economy be default . It makes sense that the US and its allies would fight proxy wars against China in Africa and the Pacific .This is discussed here . I do not foresee any direct conflict between China and the US taking place . However I do not regard such an event as an impossibility because the US cant afford in economic terms to fight the War on Terror and maintain sufficient conventional forces that would deter Chinese's aggression .

reply to post by xpert11


posted by Justin Oldham
American power is declining. How can we NOT eventually come to blows with China?

Unless there is a turn around in the global economy China will inherit the crown of being the worlds number one economy be default . It makes sense that the US and its allies would fight proxy wars against China in Africa and the Pacific .This is discussed here . I do not foresee any direct conflict between China and the US taking place . However I do not regard such an event as an impossibility because the US cant afford in economic terms to fight the War on Terror and maintain sufficient conventional forces that would deter Chinese's aggression .

The old USSR never had a surface navy worthy of the name. One carrier, one cruiser. A dozen destroyers. Shucks, we have more ocean going refueling tankers than all the Soviet surface fleet. I don’t know how many subs the USSR had but the Kursk was their best and you know what happened to it. We OTOH have lost the Thresher in 1963 and the Scorpion in 1968. Forty years without another loss!

I doubt the Russian Federation has an Armed Forces stronger than Mexico. And China has even less. We would have a 20-30 years warning if either began to build up its armed forces to the size needed for RF to invade eastern Europe or the PRC to first attack Taiwan and Korea, then Japan and then head for the US of A. No way! The PRC could not “whip” Vietnam when it had a border dispute. Well, the US of A could not whip Vietnam either. I think we better make Vietnam our No. 1 ally in the Asian region?

Proxy wars? That’s a stretch. China owes its current level of influence ONLY to the myopic foreign policy practiced by a capitalistic driven US of A. If we were more humanitarian and less dollar oriented, there would not be a place in Africa where force and violence would be welcome. But that seems to be impossible for us to do more than - talk the talk.

[edit on 7/15/2008 by donwhite]

Let's try for another twist. If Pearl Harbor is not comparable to 9-11, let's ask a new question. What evetns are comparable to 9-11, in your opinion?

reply to post by Justin Oldham

Let's try for another twist. If Pearl Harbor is not comparable to 9-11, let's ask a new question. What events are comparable to 9-11, in your opinion?

Well J/O, I Googled “recent terrorist attacks” and got the tally of 553,000 items. A bit more than I want to review for this very brief (for me) reply.

Which puts me back to the best known acts of terrorism such as Madrid train station, the London subway and the Bali night club attacks as inflicting the most casualties (Bali) or bringing on the most significant consequences (Madrid).

I saved the two following items because of the explanation in the case of the WTC and in the dire consequences being played out today in Pakistan. IE, Pakistan is in a slow fall to the overthrow of the long series of PRO Western governments we have had the good fortune to finance since 1947. Like Vietnam, we backed the 10% West types against the 90% Native types and that is coming home to roost. And WE, the US, allowed Pakistan to make about 10 nuclear bombs. Not smart. Let's hope Osama bin Laden has mercy on us!

February 27, 2007. Pakistani presidential candidate Bhutto was assassinated, and 20 others die in melee. The central media office of the Pakistan Peoples Party has circulated a January 1, 2008 investigative story by Russia’s only English language news service, WhatDoesItMean.com, and titled “Sniper teams kill Pakistan’s Bhutto prior to meeting US lawmakers.”

According to the story, Benazir Bhutto, the slain chairperson of the Pakistan Peoples Party, was fired upon by no less than three separate sniper teams of the Special Services Group of the Pakistan Army. This story claims a secret report presented to Russian President Vladimir Putin by top Russian military analysts on the assassination of Benazir reveals that the attack was carried out by a sophisticated sniper team. They fired more than six times, which was followed by two rocket-propelled grenades designed to destroy the scene of the assassination. End.

February 26,1993. A bombing in the parking garage of the World Trade Center kills six and injured 1,000. The bomb left a crater 200 by 100 feet wide and five stories deep. The World Trade Center is the second largest building in the world and houses 100,000 workers and visitors each day. If the 110-story building had fallen as the terrorists had planned, as many 250,000 could have been killed. (Edit. Whoever wrote this article fails to know the WTC has 7 buildings. The crater is exaggerated. The number of persons in the North and South Towers was closer to 10,000 than 100 thousand but they included “visitors”“). The date is correct and the number of fatalities also. I happen to think the “1,000 injured” was 90% insurance frauds.

I found this website map of the world with terror events in flashing lights. See www.globalincidentmap.com... Note: It costs $99 to see a full report on each incident. Oddly enough, Bali is not on the blinking map? Maybe for $99 they will add it?

I think it is a dead-end street to ponder what disaster was greater. How can we compare the Hindenberg with the Titanic? Or the Johnstown flood to 2005's Katrina. All had great consequences and all had loss of life. But as I remind, the Boxing Day '04 tsunami was NOT a greater physical event than many earlier tsunamis, but because the earth’s population is maybe 8 X or 10 X the size of the 1883 Krakatoa event that created a series of tsunami. The 2004 event is credited with killing 250,000 while the 1883 was credited with killing 30,000.
en.wikipedia.org...

I admit the Nine Eleven Event Is unique. That is, it caused more casualties and precipitated a greater response than any other attack afterwards. And as I mentioned earlier, as great a response as any before back to the December 7 attack on Pearl Harbor.

But regardless, I contend the Nine Eleven Event was HIJACKED by the Bush Junior administration, probably on advice of Bush Senior that WAR trumps ECONOMY which was already looking bad for the younger Bush. We now know that within days of the Nine Eleven Event the Oval Office had ordered the beginning of the Iraq invasion plans.

[edit on 7/17/2008 by donwhite]

I understand yourp oint, but I think I'm gonna stand on my previous comparison. According to your logic, an event's exploitation can render it historically non-paralell. There are those among us today would still maintain that FDR exploited Pearl Harbor for his own agenda.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

There are those among us today would still maintain that FDR exploited Pearl Harbor for his own agenda.

I guess it is the world EXPLOIT that carries the bad connotations. I just disagree with those who argue that Roosevelt and Tojo panned the attack together.

It's your thesis that Bush43 jumped in and used 9-11 to further his own ambitions towards Iraq. Some have said that the Bush administration capitolized or exploited the Clinton administrations lack of action on the Bin Laden matter. Their conspiracy theory states that Bush43 hoped for an event that he could exploit.

There are those on ATS today who claim that FDR continued the slack policies of previous Presidents in the hopes that Japan might attack the U.S. This paralell to 9-11 is not entirely unreasonable.

These two evetns are on par with each other. It's true that each has a different outcome. FDR never made claims against Germany or Japan that turned out to be false. Bus43 made a number of false claims, leaving no doubt that history will judge him for that.

Disclaimer the following is just my opinion.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
It's your thesis that Bush43 jumped in and used 9-11 to further his own ambitions towards Iraq.

Now that is one conspiracy that actually has the weight of logic on its side because the core of Bush foreign policy advisor's were members of the Project for the New American Century .

There are those on ATS today who claim that FDR continued the slack policies of previous Presidents in the hopes that Japan might attack the U.S.

I don't wish to claim to be an expert on Pearl Harbour but I have found that the Pearl Harbour conspiracy's that I have heard of don't add historically. If there is any hint of a conspiracy it would be found in the book entitled At Dawn we Slept . At Dawn we Slept by Gordon W Prange is consider the authoritarian work on Pearl Harbour and is on my list of books to read .

These two evetns are on par with each other. It's true that each has a different outcome. FDR never made claims against Germany or Japan that turned out to be false. Bus43 made a number of false claims, leaving no doubt that history will judge him for that.

Now that is a nice summary that I can agree with .

reply to post by Justin Oldham

These two evetns are on par with each other. It's true that each has a different outcome. FDR never made claims against Germany or Japan that turned out to be false. Bus43 made a number of false claims, leaving no doubt that history will judge him for that.

J/O, you are an accomplished writer; you are a great interviewer; and you are a resourceful debater, but I think you must also be a closet comedian to say this with a straight face: "These two evetns are on par with each other."

That is equal to saying day and night are on par with each other. First off, FDR whipped the Nazis and Japanese in 3 years, 9 months and 25 days. We had 13,000,000 men under arms in September, 1945. We made more aircraft carriers than the Japanese could sink! More than 180,000 airplanes.

Bush43 - not the self-touted Decider, but the Bumbler - has engaged Iraq since March 18, 2003, which was 5 years and 4 months ago today. Frankly, the Iraqis are growing weary of the internecine killing and are about to make peace.

Now Bush43's real motive comes to the fore. We don't want to leave Iraq because we don't yet have "bullet-proof" contracts for ExxonMobil and TexacoChevron to TAKE the Iraqi oil. It looks as if the Iraqi will have to EXPEL the Coalition Forces to TAKE BACK THEIR COUNTRY!

Sorry, but this dog won't hunt.

[edit on 7/18/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by Justin Oldham

Their conspiracy theory states that Bush43 hoped for an event that he could exploit. There are those on ATS today who claim that FDR continued the slack policies of previous Presidents in the hopes that Japan might attack the U.S. This parallel to 9-11 is not entirely unreasonable.

For me it is unreasonable. I do not believe Bush43 “hoped” for an event to exploit. Frankly I believe Bush43 was as shocked and surprised as Al Gore was when the Supreme Court made him president. Bush43 had no background and no interest in foreign policy. He was a sportsman and a playboy. And before he became governor of Texas a disappointment to his father.

As a new president, he left the heavy lifting to VP Cheney. He was born lazy and shows no sign of changing. He was always his own secretary of state despite knowing next to nothing about the world. Hey, the US is No. 1! Neo Con thinking gave him 10-20 years to have it his way. He hoodwinked the ambitious Colin Powell to be his wiling “front man“ at State.

The NSC head Ms. Condolezzee Rice’s claim to fame was undeserved we learned after the fact. She was offered to Bush43 as an academic who know all about Russia. But what she knew was all wrong! Rummy and Cheney were drinking buddies from the Reagan era. Neither had ever done anything notable but fate had put both in the catbird seat.

I do not deny that unfortunately these same critical observations or remarks could apply to almost any American government. As you have already guessed Mr J/O, I attribute the Bush43 mantra to Reagan. With both ideology was more important than talent or achievement. And with each man personal oversight was merely an afterthought. Reagan slept through NSC meetings but Bush43 just does not attend.

If you intend and labor strenuously to muck up any institution from 1980 to the present - a whole generation now working on the second - you are really going to destroy it. It will take time and dedication to restore our Federal bureaucracy. So that people will look forward to FEMA on the scene when stuck by disaster. So we can fly planes knowing the inspections have been done and done competently. We can buy food and toys with confidence neither will be harmful. And etc.

On FDR. I aver most of his energy was directed toward resolving the Great Depression, at least until after the second election in 1936. Hitler had made remarkable strides in Germany. Mussolini had made Italy’s trains “run on time” but he did much more that pleased Italians. Stalin had launched the first Five Year Plan. Japan had taken Formosa in 1897. Japan had taken Korea in 1910. Japan had taken Manchuria in 1931. And Japan invaded China in 1937.

FDR ignored Europe. FDR tried to contain Japan. He embargoed scrap metal sales to Japan. Finally, he shut off Japan’s primary source of oil. This action is usually given today as the triggering event for December 7. Japan had but 6 months supply of oil on hand. The Japanese calculated they could capture the Dutch East Indies and the Indonesian oil fields within that 6 months time frame PROVIDED the US Navy was prevented from intervening. Which meant a do or die attack on Pearl Harbor. Surprise was essential. Luck was on the side of the Japanese on December 7.

I don’t think there was anything more FDR could have done to prevent this scenario from running its course. Looking back, we could lay blame on Theodore Roosevelt for the way he ended the Russo-Japanese War of 1905-06. OK, that’s a real stretch but it ignores the Japanese own ambitions. I find it hard to be critical of American foreign policy in the Pacific during the 1930s. If we have no alternative scenario to offer, then we’re stuck with what we have.

[edit on 7/18/2008 by donwhite]

I have no ambitions to be a comedian. I do still think that Pearl harbor and 9-11 are on par with each otehr. In the modern context, 9-11 is the clostest we will ever come to those dark days of 1941.

My own speculation is that Bush43 watned war with Iraq. I think that he saw it as inevitable. I think that FDR had his suspicions about japan. I think he knew that war was coming. In hidsight, FDR's Pacfic policy before the war was at best, questonable.

IN his case, FDR chose correctly. Bush43 chose wrongly, and we're paying for it. Suppose that FDR had not been so successful with his "Europe first" policy? A more successful Japan wouldhave meant an end to his career in the elections of 1944.

The magnititude of Pearl Harbor and 9-11 is certainly very great. It takes less in today's world to generate a generational event of that size. Everyone of that generation can still recall where they wre and what they were doing when they got the news of Pearl Habor. Nobody had to guess at the implciations. There was gonna be war, and they knew it. The same thing can be said for 9-11.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

I think that FDR had his suspicions about japan. I think he knew that war was coming. In hindsight, FDR's Pacific policy before the war was at best, questionable.

I agree. By the 1930s the Japanese Empire was flexing its expansionist muscle. The few and very timid democrats in Japan’s Government had been murdered by the gangs allied with the Military. By no later than the mid 1930s Japan was under the rule of the military with the full compliance of the Emperor.

OTOH, Japan had some legitimate or moral claim on sharing regional natural resources as a johnny-come-late to industrialization. I think the momentum of history propelled everyone towards violence rather than accommodation. I’d say we - the western world - had to get it out of our system. And only war can expunge such deeply held beliefs of superiority.

Preemptive actions were not even on the table in that era. Only totalitarian states did that. No democracy could do that. Self respect. For Bush43 preemption would prove easy against Iraq. Do you think he would have launched a war on Russia?

Once we’ve unleashed that wild animal it may prove impossible to recapture it. Bush43 gave away our innocence. We gave up a huge amount of our “security” for an excess of hubris. And we got nothing in return. I think we ceased to be a GREAT power on March 18, 2003. Strong, yes, large, sure, but great? Not any more.

IN his case, FDR chose correctly. Bush43 chose wrongly, and we're paying for it. Suppose that FDR had not been so successful with his "Europe first" policy? A more successful Japan would have meant an end to his career in the elections of 1944. The magnitude of Pearl Harbor and 9-11 is certainly very great. Nobody had to guess at the implications. There was gonna be war, and they knew it. The same thing can be said for 9-11.

Suppose an old Nicaraguan Sandinista goes off the deep end. Say a Syrian operative pays him to carry a suitcase sized nuclear bomb obtained from Pakistan across the Rio Grande and take it into downtown Houston. The old guy is told to get it sight of the Space Flight Center then to flip the switch! Either Bush43 or John McCain is president. Do you think either would have the AF and Navy atom bomb Damascus and Islamabad? Do you think they would nuke Managua too? All at the same time for effect?

[edit on 7/18/2008 by donwhite]

no. definately not.

it will just be the day that the next round of planted figureheads is formalized and will have no effect whatsoever on our country's future or our futures....barely a ripple in what was long ago set in motion.

to compare it to 12/7/1941 is almost...well laughable. no offense intended.

I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

Don's quesiton about the Syria-Nicuragua thing is taking this conversaton in another direction.

The anatomy of the "event" you conjure is a sneak attack. It's motive are different than those of related to Pear Harbor, or 9-11. The national trauma would still be there, but in all three cases the Presidential outcomes will vary.

FDR's agenda could've been something else. Bush43's agenda could have been different. The factors which can affect the generational parity of your fictional event are important, but everyting hinges on the hypotehtical motivations of your future President.

FDR's case was farly cut and dried. Bush43's case could have been more solid than it was, but he didn't choose to go that way. Suppose that a future John McCain does not opt for a pre-emptive strike? Your prejudices might assime that he'd want to nuke everthing in sight, but; what if he...didn't?

It might take U.S .intelligence services many months to unravel the plot you've described. Then again, they might never make the Damascus connection.

It's possible that...with 9-11 in the back of his mind...that a future President decides to do "nothing" until they've got proof that they regard as "actionable." Based on your likes and dislikes, you'll be inclined to call this future Prez Brilliant or Brainless.

that's why I think the metric of generational parity matters.

Today's peole are soft. We couldn't weather another 1930's Depression. You may even be able to make that case that its just not possible for an event of that magnitude to happen ever again.

We could, however, experience a depression that's a lot like what the people of the Dust Bowl went through. 9-11 is the closest thing to Pearl Harbor that contemporary Americans are like to ever see. For a long list of reasons, the specific equivelent of that event cann't happen today. If it did....we would be boned in ways much worse than our forefathers suffered in 1941.

Don to help my understanding of your position on the importance or scale of 9-11 I have a question for you .

Do you regard 9-11 as akin to the sinking of the Lusitania in terms of inflaming public opinion and an event that had useful political expenditure ?

Cheers xpert11.

reply to post by xpert11

Do you regard 9-11 as akin to the sinking of the Lusitania in terms of inflaming public opinion and an event that had useful political expenditure ? Cheers xpert11.

Exactly! Thank You Mr X11. You have done for me what I could not do for myself. The German sinking of the commercial ocean liner - albeit misused by the British for secretly transporting munitions - would be on the same scale as the Nine Eleven Event if losses were adjusted for population!

Thanks again for pulling my iron out of the fire!

Ah, but....NOW you're talking about generational equivelents... I kid, but I'm still gonna stand on what I said before.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

Ah, but....NOW you're talking about generational equivelents... I kid, but I'm still gonna stand on what I said before

And so you could say we have TWO tweaks and ONE Twang!?

Actually, J/O, I think I may have misunderstood one of you earlier posts and based my reply on that incorrect reading. I made the leap by replying that the response to the War on Terror was not equivalent to the response to the Second World War. That fact is a constant source of irritation to me. Any war worth fighting is worth wining. Woe unto the nation when its leaders give them an unwinnable war and from hubris urge them on to victory at all costs and for all time! But I hear it is more difficult to stop lying than it is to start it.

We have made no sacrifice since the Nine Eleven Event. We have not paid for the war. The public could not be more indifferent to the future of our economics. WE're nearing the 5000 KIA mark and will surpass it handily before January 20, 2009. But you already know how many men Bush43 had executed and how callous indifferent he is to the death of others. The media have been oh so content NOT to sue for the 1st Amendment right to take pictures of the returning flag draped coffins. We have done it all wrong. That's why I grow livid when I compare Bush43 to anyone.

But I misdirected towards you.

[edit on 7/21/2008 by donwhite]

that's why these discussions are so useful. We've all got things to learn. Some times, the best way is to just talk 'em through.

Now, then. Let's take a new look at something Xpert11 said. I'd have to think about.

What is the generational equivelent to the Lusitania?