Day of Infamy Options

[cupcake]

65 years ago, on this day, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

When the Dec. 7, 1941, onslaught was over, there were 2,403 dead and thousands others wounded.

Besides the mass causalities in the two waves of attacks that lasted less than two hours, the Japanese also had sunk or damaged 18 ships and destroyed more than 180 aircraft.

It was, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt would declare, "a day of infamy."

The next day, America was at war.

Although it was a day of great tragedy, it was also a day that revived our national pride and strengthened our determination as a nation.

This spirit of unity and reborn patriotism had "awakened the sleeping giant" and ultimately led us to victory and the end of World War II.

I have a really hard time believing that if that happened today, America would have the mettle to carry out an all-out offensive on two geographic fronts, be able to accept the mass casualties (ours and collateral), indiscriminate carpet bombing, and eventual use of atomic bombs. The media would have none of that. The politicians would be talking out both sides of their mouths. The "call to arms" would fall on deaf ears.

We would have lost WWII had it been fought in the 21st century. No doubt in my mind.

[cupcake]

live in your utopian 'americans are the end-all badasses' dreamworld...and I'll live in reality. I'm sure yours is much more palatable and cozy. I bet you sleep well.

modern-day americans* are pampered snots who would rather pick apart every little flaw a leader, decision, action makes, be interested in conspiracy theories, etc... than actually pull their boots up and endure the hardships to do what needs to be done.

this isn't a political party thing. this is an american thing. the reps talk out both sides of their mouths, led us into an ill-advised situation, and never fully committed to stomping a mudhole in anyone; whereas the dems just whined and poked at the policy, thus weakening us further, and now they have the motherloving GALL to suggest diplomacy AFTER we already created our enemies. and rest assured, the guys we are fighting right now are not the same guys who wanted us dead in 2001.

Diplomacy...FUCK YEAH!

americans today do not have the patience to wait for their hotpocket to finish nuking, nor do they have the stomach or fortitude to endure a battle of attrition. If we cannot deal with it in Iraq (where we've lost 3000 men over 3 years), HOW IN THE HELL can you justify that we'd be cool with the slaughterous nature of the big WWII battles? We couldn't...

there's no way in hell we could deal with the threat of the (equivalent of) axis powers today. like say if china, russia and NK decided fuck it, let's get it on! heaven help us.

*disclaimer...as with all things there are anomalies. there are still americans who are of the 'hardman' mindset and will, but definately not the popular majority...nor in the political corps.

[impala454]

live in your utopian 'americans are the end-all badasses' dreamworld...and I'll live in reality. I'm sure yours is much more palatable and cozy. I bet you sleep well.

modern-day americans* are pampered snots who would rather pick apart every little flaw a leader, decision, action makes, be interested in conspiracy theories, etc... than actually pull their boots up and endure the hardships to do what needs to be done.

this isn't a political party thing. this is an american thing. the reps talk out both sides of their mouths, led us into an ill-advised situation, and never fully committed to stomping a mudhole in anyone; whereas the dems just whined and poked at the policy, thus weakening us further, and now they have the motherloving GALL to suggest diplomacy AFTER we already created our enemies. and rest assured, the guys we are fighting right now are not the same guys who wanted us dead in 2001.

Diplomacy...FUCK YEAH!

americans today do not have the patience to wait for their hotpocket to finish nuking, nor do they have the stomach or fortitude to endure a battle of attrition. If we cannot deal with it in Iraq (where we've lost 3000 men over 3 years), HOW IN THE HELL can you justify that we'd be cool with the slaughterous nature of the big WWII battles? We couldn't...

there's no way in hell we could deal with the threat of the (equivalent of) axis powers today. like say if china, russia and NK decided fuck it, let's get it on! heaven help us.

*disclaimer...as with all things there are anomalies. there are still americans who are of the 'hardman' mindset and will, but definately not the popular majority...nor in the political corps.

you and hartmann don't get it here... you're calling the american population fat & lazy and unwilling to do hard work. what you don't seem to understand here is hard work of the past is obsolete. whereas my great grandfather may have had to do some physically difficult task on his WWII navy ship, now a computer and a machine do it. and you know where that computer & machine came from? the fat lazy americans sitting at computers all day.

wars aren't about who has the most men anymore, they're all about technology. and when it comes to technology our military forces are un-matched. i dunno how anyone would think otherwise. sure it'd be a tough war to invade NK or china, but I'm not talking about that I'm saying our mainland is essentially untouchable by conventional warfare.

[Hartmann]

you and hartmann don't get it here... you're calling the american population fat & lazy and unwilling to do hard work. what you don't seem to understand here is hard work of the past is obsolete. whereas my great grandfather may have had to do some physically difficult task on his WWII navy ship, now a computer and a machine do it. and you know where that computer & machine came from? the fat lazy americans sitting at computers all day.

wars aren't about who has the most men anymore, they're all about technology. and when it comes to technology our military forces are un-matched. i dunno how anyone would think otherwise. sure it'd be a tough war to invade NK or china, but I'm not talking about that I'm saying our mainland is essentially untouchable by conventional warfare.

Yes, technology wins it all, yet our troops turn to silly string to make sure it's safe to enter a room.

[GOB]

Yes, technology wins it all, yet our troops turn to silly string to make sure it's safe to enter a room.

which points out the problem of who the decision makers are. technology is key, yes, but when you've got morons in charge (or smart people making the wrong decisions, or both), you're no better than the other guy.

[Hartmann]

which points out the problem of who the decision makers are. technology is key, yes, but when you've got morons in charge (or smart people making the wrong decisions, or both), you're no better than the other guy.

I am not really sure it's about decision making, it's about U.S. troops seeing a problem that has no technological solution (or easy solution) and they innovated.