Sunday, February 9, 2014

Sunday Faith Blog



“There is no substitute for the spiritual, in war.  Miracles must be wrought if victories are to be won, and to work miracles, men's hearts must…be afire with self-sacrificing love for each other, for their units, for their division, and for their country.  If each man knows that all the officers and men in his division are animated with the same fiery zeal as he himself feels, unquenchable courage and unconquerable determination crush out fear, and death becomes preferable to defeat or dishonor.”

—John A. Lejeune, Major General, USMC (1926)
I loved this quote on so many levels and hope you are touched by it, too.  I never understood true courage until I read it;  never understood people knowing they might die but going ahead anyway.

"Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble."
  1 John 2:10
God bless all who love their brothers to this extent.  With God, all is possible.

z

74 comments:

sue hanes said...

Z - I have never been able to understand true courage. How men can fight in wars and give their lives for their country. It is truly amazing.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Sue - They risk, and give, their lives for their Brothers. Nationalism has played precious little role for those in uniform for my generation....in my experience. After the short-lived revenge aspect after 9/11, we haven't been called to defend our nation.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Sometimes you just do it out of resignation.
You and your brothers are going to die in the next ten minutes unless someone does something.
And that someone is you.
It helps to know what awaits you on the other side.

Ed Bonderenka said...

CI: Did you join the Army of Legos?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Ed - ??

Ed Bonderenka said...

Isn't that a Lego (tm) soldier as your avatar?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Duh. That's what I get for posting something before coffee. Don't be witty this early.....it's annoying to those of us who need to ramp up in the mornings :)

Ed Bonderenka said...

Sorry :)

Impertinent said...

@CI:

"we haven't been called to defend our nation."

I think we have and I think we'll have to..."we've" just ignored it and failed to name it.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Imp: pertinent point.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Imp - I know that you're referring to Islam, but unfortunately, the assertion that a fraction of one of the worlds largest religions is at war with us.....requires a paradigm of a response akin to the failed 'wars' on poverty and drugs. No clear strategy and no clear conclusion. Just money and lives...and more money and more lives....

Impertinent said...

@Ci:

I see your point...but I was referring to the DHS's list of home grown Americans.

( Not really ) I'll say this...any islam follower who kills any more Americans on our soil...ought to have his whole damn congregation and mosque closed down.

Just doing that once to the Next adherent would send a clear message...but It won't happen under Eric the Red, will it?

This isn't jingoism CI...despite your claim that it's a "fraction". See a fraction for them might be 10,000,000 willing nut jobs. Or a fraction of the ones here...over 500,000. More than our services all combined.

Impertinent said...

@CI:

Also I'm not willing to let this country go the way of Europe...especially the spineless Brits.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Again, you have to weigh the theoretical benefit of mass retribution [something you would never stand for were a minority of Christians engaging in violence], against the reaction of the rest of the Islamic world.

Why would you not use the same response when a Christian kills an American, to close down the church?

Z said...

Sue...as I said on my post, this really filled in some holes in my understanding pure courage. I hope it did for you, too.

CI...I'm sorry to hear your generation didn't feel the same nationalism past soldiers have. LeJeune's point is a beautiful one and one I do believe soldiers act upon.

I don't believe the author of the quote or I meant to include all secularist, agnostic, aetheist soldiers in that quote; this is for those with faith. And those who'd lost their faith and are suddenly praying in a foxhole.


Imp and Ed; I agree, that's a crucial point....we're rather not able to call it fighting for our nation because the politically correct crowd thinks that's too patriotic. I believe that's been a terrible part of the last few wars.
We're letting the media paint all soldiers as rapists for the work of a few, and you all know what happened to our soldiers during Vietnam...etc.
After all, if we're teaching that our nation doesn't do much right, that we shouldn't be capitalists but socialists, that all we do is hate and hurt, who'd fight for that? It's not true, but it's the frequent drumbeat, this anti Americanism.

As for closing down mosques or churches; I'm thinking it COULD help if we were allowed to investigate mosques or the jihad training camps in the NE or NW.

I haven't seen too many churches full of America haters, or muslim haters, planning another 9/11.

And, oh yes, we CAN investigate churches; and we do.


Impertinent said...

@CI:

Because Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Wiccans haven't declared "holy jihad" from their scriptures to justify killing others belonging to any other religion?

We do condemn, imprison and even execute lot's of Christians ( and others ) who have committed crimes. Islam declares them holy warriors, soldiers of allah and martyrs.

Catholic "martyrs" usually get saint hood along the way...jihadist get 72 dirty hags for their reward.

Bob said...

I can't speak to the idea of people fighting and dying for their country since I have never been there, although two of my brothers died in some of these wars.

Also, two of my great grandfathers lost brothers in Civil War battles. Their minds were not on fighting for slavery, nor for anything except their communities and each other. In both cases those brothers were in the same infantry units as each other, and my g-grandfathers may have seen their brothers die. That was something to fight for.

As far as the rural derived southern soldier was concerned, the yankees were there to burn their farms and kill their livestock. Which the yankees did.

Sorry I went off topic.

I can understand the good general's meaning, and the men and women who serve and fight or our country have my sincere respect.

Ed Bonderenka said...

When I was young, the nuns pointed to dying for others as a way in to heaven.
Greater love has no man than to give up his life for his friends.
So the guy jumping on the grenade got a "get out of hell free card".
They never, that I recall, pointed out that the verse referred to Jesus dying on the cross for us.

Ed Bonderenka said...

@CI: I took Imps comment to refer to socialists.
You appear to have more correctly ascertained his meaning.

From my POV, there is a spiritual battle against all of Islam and its attendant darkness.
But I can be polite and respectful of its adherents.
It does not involve guns or jail.
The other battle against a violent faction of Islam does.

Impertinent said...

@ED:

How do you tell the difference ED? Because they say so? And we believe them even though it's an accepted practice called...taquia ... to lie if it advances the cause?

The 911 murderers were all off the radar, green carded , nice quiet guys too. The loud mouths are already marked by their acts...it's the quiet ones that have to be watched.

Z said...

Bob, what a beautiful comment and, you know, every time I think of you losing two brothers, it brings tears to my eyes. Bad enough for you...then I think of your mother and father. What they gave up. What those sons gave up. I believe they were fighting for our nation and bootcamp had taught them to trust in and love their comrades in arms. Does that make it any easier? Not for their survivors.

I don't think so, anyway.

Ed...Yes, I don't believe any human being has ever had nearly the 'greater love' that Jesus had/has...the greatest love.

And I don't believe dying for someone else is a ticket to heaven, either.

Imp has a point about the liars......it's part of the koran, by the way, sadly. Anything to protect Mohammed and his teachings.

We are fighting the very, very worst enemy this country has EVER known and millions of this enemy's same religion live in our country.

Somehow, islam's been overcome in past generations....here's hoping. Let them LIVE as Muslims...who amongst us would ever EVER want them dead if they hadn't started this awful jihad?

Mr Z and I were in Vienna in a fiacre with a driver...he was taking us all around that beautiful city and we passed a statue of Prince Eugin,...the guy turned around and, in German, said "He's the one who kicked the Turks out of Austria............." he turned back to the street, then turned around again ".........it didn't work, they're back."

that was probably in Spring 2001.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - Although Soldiers use a variety of methods to cope with the horrors for war, I didn't find love of country to be the motivating force in my career. I might surmise however, that the measure of horror endured plays a role as well. The more bombastic of Soldiers I was in contact with, were generally those who didn't have the enemy arrayed against him.

Spirituality and a belief in a divine creator is a way many use to get through the tribulations of war, and I don't begrudge anyone who finds solace there. My comment on patriotic/nationalism was more of a response to Sue's question.

Though I would proffer that patriotism is politically correct as well.

And don't think that Mosque monitoring doesn't happen here. It's not something various agencies want made public.

Imp - You're engaging in the same tactic that Z references with Soldiers and the media. It is only a fraction of Muslims who have taken part in violent Jihad. Those who have should be untied down and suffer from acute lead poisoning. But applying those actions against the majority is both playing into the enemy propaganda, and engaging in the same actions we decry.

Waylon said...

I have to wonder about this quote by John A. Lejeune, Major General, USMC (1926). The date would place it several years after WWI, a World War which began in 1914, that was opposed by the majority of the American people. It was only after Woodrow Wilson was re-elected for a second term in 1916, and elected on the platform the he was the "President that kept America out of the war. Only after manipulating some events to sway the American people was he able to "get America into the war".

As I recall WWII began in September 1939. The majority of the American people were not supporting entering this war either. Only after a similar type of manipulation, this time by FDR, were the American people persuaded to get involved after December 7, 1941. Even though it was an event involving the Japanese, the main thrust of American involvement was in Europe ... first.

Maybe history really is made up by those that write the textbooks.


Impertinent said...

@CI:

They're totally devoted to and believe in their propaganda....the Quran. It's not only a belief system, it's a political ideology that's unquestioned and not user defined. It's allah's unquestionable word.

Once Obama said when it comes down to choosing...he'd stand with islam. As they all would, less they suffer being apostates and death by their fellow functionaries, soldiers.

My eyes are wide open. They have one goal and it's been clearly stated both here and abroad wherever they are.

Z said...

CI; that's precisely why I say this new 'war', this enemy of jihadists will probably be impossible to beat, even here on our homeland, particularly where Americans have been weakened by so many things in the last 10-20 years, the questioning and even ridicule of patriotism being one of those things which chips away at what used to be our 'can do and WILL do' enthusiasm.

I posted that amazing quote this morning because it does answer what many soldiers have said to me in the past; how boot camp knits them together, how they learn to develop a real kind of love for their comrades, and what probably encourages the soldiers we hear so often about who either died or risked their lives for their company.
I'm not sure about your point of the horrors of war; I can't imagine what I've said, or what the quote says, takes away from the obvious point that being faced with horrible death isn't a big inducement to fight and fight hard.

I can't know, not having fought myself, very much about this but I have always wondered about extreme courage not only in war but other arenas, and this quote does answer that for many of us. Simplistic, but maybe not so much as some of us think?

If mosques are being checked here, it's against the law, from what I've read. I hope you're right.

I do know that there are independent groups checking on church sermons to ensure they're not touting one political party or the other. Which, in my opinion, isn't quite as unbiased as I just made it sound. I've heard some of those people interviewed and actually called into the Medved show to ask questions of one woman...she wants to make sure churches lose their tax exempt status for having mentioned anything political.

...as we see politicians standing on the steps of churches and even on the altars. Very VERY shortly after I was on the radio that day, CNN had Hillary and John Kerry campaigning from a churches in the south...split screened, side by side, on altars.
It was pretty stunning. "Oh, so it's okay if THEY are in churches, but..........."


CI and Imp: We all know that only a 'handful' of muslims want a caliphate (actually probably millions, but ..) and it will (WILL) only take two of them to REALLY ruin our day...probably MUCH worse than 911...yet, our papers are full of our HORRIBLE disregard for collateral damage in Pakistan.
You can't make this stuff up. Do I think we need to carpet bomb Pakistan because we know 2 of their (or 2000) citizens would do it to us yesterday if they could?

That's the question of the century, in my opinion...and why America will PROBABLY not make it alive this time.




Constitutional Insurgent said...

Imp - Can you provide the Obama quote?

If Islam is the enemy, why do we ally with them? Not just currently, but under many successive Administrations

Z said...

Waylon; Are you implying the date of when it was written takes from its truth or impact, or? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

I'm not sure it took much 'manipulation' after Pearl Harbor! Not from the older folks I've spoken to who lived through it, believe me!

And I believe once the horrors of the gas chambers reached the ears of Americans, that motivated us, too...even if FDR did turn back boats of Jews trying to escape to America.

Imp: That might have been a good O'Reilly question for Obama "what did you really MEAN when you said you'd come down on the side of islam? Can you explain why you said that and what frame of reference you refer to?"

hmmmm, Imp? Good one, huh?


Impertinent said...

@CI:

It's not verbatim...and I've seen it several times. Why CI? You don't think he'd say that? First thing he did when he was sworn in was go to the ME, bow, scrape and on his apology tour. If the mans a Christian, so be it. I'm not into arguing what defines a "good" one anyway.

However I take into consideration his early life as a Sotero adopted by an Indonesian father and steeped in Islam and a Madrass.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - Mosque monitoring is only illegal if it is blanket profiling. If there are indicators and warnings that the Imam or parishioners are engaging in criminal activity, then surveillance is warranted just as it would be in any other instance.

Independent groups can survey churches all they like, it's no different than media watchdogs groups. The concern should come if government does so, without valid indicators.

Impertinent said...

@Z:

Yes...I thought the same thing....but his Majesty became indignant and petulant enough for everyone. Look at Geraldo's whining he "tarnished" his "Majesty"? Cheez...majesty?

Z said...

Actual quote from "The Audacity of Hope" [pg. 261]: Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

let's parse this....

Z said...

CI, I'm not sure about that. What INDICATIONS or WARNINGS? And who'd hear them if someone isn't inside? Most mosques are closed to non muslims.

And I'll bet most people think that the National Cathedral is just as checked as a Southern church pushing a conservative politician :-)

As I said, the IRONY that hillary and kerry were speaking in southern churches when I'd just heard a woman admit it was mostly Bush-liking churches she felt compelled to investigate shouldn't be lost on anybody.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - Yes, let's parse, but please provide more context of the passage.

Indications and warnings are intelligence tips and intercepts, typically. Though there's much more detail than that. Don't assume that we don't have our fingers on the pulse. Many of the staged and busted plots during that last ten years, were related to Mosque monitoring.

Imp - Using the verbiage of "bowing, scraping and 'apology tour'" is rhetoric of identity politics. I like to remain in the realm of the factual and provable.

Impertinent said...

@CI:

Of course it's rhetoric on my part.

Am I to assume you missed the tour, the first interview to Al Jazzera and the speeches in Egypt as well as numerous photos of his bowing?

As well as his distinct and articulate arabic pronunciations? When he chooses to speak them...En shalla and all that ...I mean the guy wasn't taught French at Columbia or in Indonesia.

Impertinent said...

I read something interesting yesterday. It was written by a classmate of Obama's when he was in college. He believes that Obama's college records would be marked "Foreign Student," not because he was he was foreign born, but because he created the illusion of himself as an exotic foreigner rather than an average American.

Obama wants to be a Kenyan born African. In his heart and mind, Obama is a foreigner and he thinks that makes him better than us.

As an average student who did not show up for classes, the only way that Obama could have gotten into the Ivy League is by using fraud on an educational institution with more interest in 'diversity' than intelligence.

Just might explain all the years of secrecy and non cooperation too.

The only potus so far where none of his Columbia Class of 83 remember him.

They certainly remembered Bush and his party days. Matter of fact they're so fond of #43 they mention him everyday.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I didn't miss the tour at all. As we know, bowing by a POTUS isn't restricted to the current office holder [or holding hands for that matter]. I equate his words then with many quotes by his predecessor, regarding Islam.

I also don't have problem with proper pronunciation. I do find it ironic that one POTUS is derided for correct pronunciation of words after the previous POTUS was derided for the opposite. Identity politics.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Obama's Columbia roommate certainly remembers him.

Impertinent said...

@CI:

Have a nice day.

Waylon said...

Z, the year of the quote lies well after WWI and well before WWII. I don't think it was necessarily "nationalism or patriotism" that swayed the American people to get on board with the program of WWI. There were those in the political elite that were so-called early converts to the program, though. That would include Woodrow Wilson and his handlers, I guess. Eventually they succeeded in getting America into this war, that was pretty much stalemated until America came on board.

As for Pearl Harbor it's well documented that the surprise attack was less of surprise to FDR and the political elite than it was for the American people. Of course the media played much the same role back then as it does today.

Z said...

There isn't much more context re that passage; you can check, I'd be glad for you to.

As for pronunciation, if I heard Bush 23rd say "EYE-RACK" another time, I thought I'd go nuts. I remember hearing some say that he mispronounced it so terribly just to tick Saddam off, but I doubt it.

Pakistan is PakisTAHN, EYE RACK is EEROCK (the EE being slightly less hard than our double e's, the 'r' being slightly harder than our 'r')... Not sure where I come down on this "to pronounce correctly or not to pronounce correctly"

Of course, I don't know if the people in IRAQ even USE the name IRAQ for their country...like Germans say DEUTSCHLAND, not GERMANY, if they're not speaking English. But I THINK Iraq is the proper name; in that case, I'd pronounce it, or try to, like the natives do. In that case, I believe Obama is right.
I think it drives conservatives who think he's a muslim nuts because "See? He pronounces those names NOT like an American does!"

man.



Z said...

Waylon, please apply your information to the quote...I'm not sure I'm getting your point.
EXTREME BRAVERY can be fueled by extreme love for one's comrades which can be fueled by God's love for us...........
Why's it matter WHICH bravery?

Some say FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming, but...was it more known than Bush 'knowing' about 911? It always makes me laugh when libs say "They were TOLD it would be airplanes!" To which My typical response is "So, we shut down airports until terrorism is OVER?"

Could FDR have stopped it? (Hawaii, not NYC!)

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I don't think FDR cold have mitigated Pearl Harbor, but 1LT Kermit A. Tyler probably could have.

Waylon said...

I don't see that "extreme bravery" would have been a motivation for America entering WWI or WWII. Those were the two biggest conflagrations of the last century, and likely the only two that mattered much in the overall scheme of things.

The best thing FDR could have done would have been to alert those in harms way at Pearl Harbor. Instead he fired people and pointed the finger at others when he knew what was coming himself (in the way of an attack).

How would it be possible to move a whole convoy of warships from Japan to Hawaii without knowing, given that America was a world power by that time?

Z said...

Waylon, I don't think that quote takes people INTO war, I think it helps DURING war, or makes clear what causes some of the extreme courage we constantly hear about.

"fired and pointed the finger?" yikes..sounds like what Obama's doing, doesn't it. He's let, what, 9 generals go who disagreed with him, when Obama's never fought and never seems to have supported any war except for political purposes. Doesn't have a CLUE. That's what upper-ups in the military are for, I'd have thought, or part of their worth..to fill presidents in on what's really happening and the best way to handle them military? or not?

Impertinent said...

@Waylon:

"How would it be possible to move a whole convoy of warships.."

Surveillance within Japan must have been quite lacking. Joe six pack would have stood out standing at the wharfs. I doubt you could have turned a native japanese to spy for us either. Which may explain why they were rounded up here?

Communications and radar at the time. Lacking in over great distances. Aerial patrols would have to cover enormous distances...and not many aircraft had the range or the ability to do so.

The Pacific...is a very big ocean. So was the Atlantic when it came to U-boats.

The Japanese also landed undetected in Alaska for many months too. And by the time we landed there...POOF....they were gone.

Waylon said...

@IMP

I believe there were Japanese in Hawaii spying for Japan, especially at the intended target, Pearl Harbor.

I have a hard time accepting that there was no fore-knowledge of of the coming attack. And I realize the Pacific Ocean is a vast expanse of water but I doubt that the required number of warships could move from Japan to Hawaii totally undetected. But "plausible deniablity" is the name of the game in these cases.

Interesting book on this topic: "Day of Deceit" by Robert B. Stinnett. He was there and he shows signed and or initialed copies of memos in the book that show "who knew what and when".

Impertinent said...

@waylon:

Well I'm certain that the Japanese of Hawaii would be involved in that...it was for Japan after all and they were over the top nationalistic as were the Germans.

However....we knew Japan was warning us for the oil / steel embargo we laid on them. And they weren't putting up with it.

Hard to fathom though why any leader would accept an attack on our people if he had prior knowledge. I mean...what's in it for us / them?

Kid said...

I think any civilized person has to be willing to put their life up for some cause. Maybe it's stopping some vermin from grabbing a little girl off the street, maybe fighting for your brothers in arms - as is the obvious conclusion to anyone who has studied past wars and the people involved.

Fighting evil if you will.

Impertinent said...

@Kid:


You nailed it.

Ed Bonderenka said...

There's a guy who had a blog some readers might be familiar with, Hog on Ice, now Tools of Renewal.
I've corresponded with Steve many times.
He and one of his best friends, Aaron, were both classmates of Obama at Columbia.
He has told me that neither they nor anyone else they went to school with remembers Obama being there.
All Law School graduates.
So they're probably lying :)

Ed Bonderenka said...

@Imp: I read a book in the 70's claiming that we knew/encouraged the attack at Pearl.
Why? FDR wanted in the war in Europe and Hitler wouldn't provoke us enough. But he was foolish enough to ally with Japan, and we had provoked Japan in the Pacific enough that she lashed back.
And he quoted a Honolulu paper of Dec 1st, Headline saying "Japan may attack this weekend".
I'm not agreeing with his claims, just answering why it might be.

Z said...

Kid, thanks...I was becoming curious as to why the quote in my post (which Mustang sent me via email a few weeks ago) was bringing up the kinds of conversation we got...though I always like ANy good conversation, which this is.

I think it's FIGHTING EVIL through the miracle of loving even a stranger somehow, and, if people don't see that behind LeJeune's words, well.........I think they're there.

Ed, there are articles by Columbia classmates saying they don't know where this guy WAS.....There are some pix of him at occidental here in California with his roommate who, I believe, was from Pakistan or something? They wear a matching ring. I don't know the details and I really don't want to, but there's a lot of smoke to have no fire. About SOMETHING :-)
I remember when people were asking "Gee, where's this guy's past girlfriends?" and, suddenly, some woman 'wrote' an article about him and how gentle he was, how concerned he was about race, etc.
She's disappeared.......
Funny enough, now that I think of it, she wasn't interviewed, either.

Maybe she's not the type who likes the limelight :-) heh heh!

Z said...

Ed...ODDLY, you wrote "Japan may attack this weekend" and I swear I quickly read it as "Japan may attack this wheelchair!"

is that weird, or what?

Well, of course, there are MANY who feel our going into ANY war is all about MONEY...putting Americans to work in the war machine, Rosie the Riveter, etc.........

And, of course, there are leftwing whackos who SWORE we were going into IRAQ for THE OIL MONEY! "We're only going in for the OIL!"

Please, some leftwing whacko, please tell us how much we got for that? :-)

Kid said...

Thanks IMP and Z.

Regards obama, given the context - a man from nowhere that no one knows anything about elevated to the thite house...

You're not going to find any smoking gun documents in filing cabinets. Those have already been disposed of if they ever existed.

So, you have to use your head, life experience, and observations to come to a reasonable conclusion.

obama HAS enacted many things against Christianty as well as Positive things for muslims in America. Want me to post it again? I will, it'll take 3 comment blocks.

obama-and the democrats for that matter have been going about the business of destroying the America of small government, focused on life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness with one serving only the political class and their circles above the interest of any citizen.
obama and pals are particularly disgusting and not what they are billed to be. he is 100% fantasy and only concentrates on stealing trillions of dollars for he and those he's in debt to by way of political placement. Period. Stealing money, chicago style, and removing personal liberties as fast as humanly possible. They know what they are, it's why they want gun control and a country of morons that they can feed off.




Ed Bonderenka said...

Z: The Japs were known to attack wheelchairs also. with wounded GIs in them of course.

Ed Bonderenka said...

@Kid: Levin calls it a coup.
I call it a pusch.

Kid said...

ED :), The Indian definition?

Either way, it isn't going to happen.

Duckys here said...

You can't make this stuff up. Do I think we need to carpet bomb Pakistan because we know 2 of their (or 2000) citizens would do it to us yesterday if they could?

That's the question of the century, in my opinion...and why America will PROBABLY not make it alive this time.
------
Then we can lob a couple hot ones on Iran and hit the Kaaba with a cruise missile.

Am I reading you correctly, z? Please say, no.

Z said...

Obviously not, Ducky. You need to start reading more carefully. it's extremely clear.
And you've been reading me for years; you think that's what I believe we need to do?
I don't know why I bother to respond to you.

WomanHonorThyself said...

so so true Z..and without faith..most feel utterly lost to the winds..........Bless you sweet friend!

Ed Bonderenka said...

I'm watching "The Long Voyage Home".
Read a review in Wiki:
"These same misfits, who don't fit the image of heroes, nevertheless come through as men who do their duty when the chips are down and prove they will fight for their country even though it's not necessarily for patriotic reasons."[8]".

I thought that was appropriate to the topic.

Mustang said...

You can fill a warehouse with what Americans do not know about their own history. Was the United States attacked by Japan on 7 December 1941? Yes. Was it an unprovoked attack? No.

This notion of an unprovoked attack was political rhetoric used by Roosevelt to unite the American people against the Axis powers … something that Roosevelt had been hoping for since Germany invaded Poland. It worked because the public did not know that the administration had expected Japan to respond with war to its anti-Japanese measures that were initiated in July 1941.

Were the Japanese obstinate in the period leading up to their attack? No, but the Roosevelt administration was. Japan decided that war must be the course of action should talks with the United States break down. Roosevelt, upon learning this, immediately broke off talks with the Japanese. According to Francis Biddle, Roosevelt’s Attorney General, Roosevelt told him that he hoped for an incident in the Pacific to bring the United States into the European War.

Source: George Victor, The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable, pp. 179-180, 184, 185. See also, Robert Higgs, “How US Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor.”

Mustang said...

Also --- were there any Japanese in Hawaii spying? I would think so. In fact, anyone passed first grade should assume that would happen. What morons in Washington DC did not know that the Japanese loved sneak attacks? After all, surprise is one of the basics of warfare. Meanwhile, scores of US spies were flooding the Far East to keep any eye on what the Japanese were up to. What is it they say? Oh yes, all is fair in love and war.

Also, whatever happened to Amelia Earhart? Was she simply missing, as claimed, or was she caught spying for the US?

Ed Bonderenka said...

@ Mustang: Why else tie up all your battlewagons in a row?
Who could resist?
My friend Nate was there.
He said all the planes in his wing were lined up nice and pretty for the regular Sunday morning review, too.

Mustang said...

Right, Ed.

I think that anyone at Pearl Harbor on that day, and who cursed at the Japanese, were cursing at the wrong people. Roosevelt wanted a war with Japan, and he got one. Roosevelt’s only real surprise was that the Japanese attacked Hawaii first, rather than the Philippines. That is where Roosevelt thought the first shoot-out would occur, and why Roosevelt brought MacArthur out of retirement and appointed him to command US Forces in the Philippines—in July, 1941. Now the fact that the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor first, was icing on the cake. That attack gave Roosevelt the response he was hoping for from the American people.

The disgrace was that Roosevelt hung Admiral Kimmel and General Short out to dry. The blame for Pearl Harbor belonged to Roosevelt.

Kid said...

Mustang, In one of the TV things on Amelia Earhart, one made a very good case for finding physical evidence that pointed to the Japanese capturing her and her navigator and killing them.

It sounds more likely. And if Julia Childs was a spy why not Amelia.

As far as FDR, I blame him siding with stalin over Churchill for the unnecessary and war prolonging masacre at Normandy.

Kid said...

And leaders of countries or cults(islam) have been artificially motivating their populations for centuries to fight their wars.

Impertinent said...

@Kid:

"And if Julia Childs was a spy why not Amelia."


Heidi Lamar too.

Baysider said...

Since this subject won't die, let me add a couple of details.

The same day that Admiral Yamamoto radioed his order to position his fleet off Hawaii, the US navy dept. ordered all US-trans Pacific traffic to take a southern route that took it out of the pathway of the Japanese fleet. Coincidence?

Admiral Y included this in his message: "advance into Hawaiian waters and upon the very opening of hostilities, shall attack the main force of the United States Fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow. The raid is planned for dawn on X-day -- exact date to be given by later order."

The British decoded it the same day and Churchill sent an urgent message to FDR the next, on Nov. 26th, according to William Casey. Three days later Hull showed a UP reporter a message and told him Pearl would be attacked on Dec. 7.

U.S. carrier pilots conducted bombing raid drills on Sundays for 2 months prior to Dec. 7, with full aerial recon and active artillery batteries. But on that day they were all on stand down.

Mustang: Japan's very effective Pearl Harbor spy was a naval intelligence official, Tadashi Morimura (his cover name). He found it easy to do his job. He blended in well with local population, swam around, hiked around and rented airplanes for recon. From a Japanese restaurant high up the hill he could study movements at both Pearl and Hickam, especially with the telescopes provided by the restaurant. He really didn't have to do anything illegal - it was all on display. With a photographic memory he did not have to rely on tools that would leave incriminating evidence on his person.

Impertinent said...

Well...now we know why they can't get anything done in DC:


These are this year’s top five gayest cities:

1. Washington, D.C.
2. Pasadena, Calif.
3. Seattle, Wash.
4. Cambridge, Mass.
5. Atlanta, Ga.

Our pols are out cruising the bridges and Georgetown? Cambridge? Who knew...those randy college boys..tsk, tsk.



Duckys here said...

Nothing particularly gay about Cambridge, Imp.

Especially compared to the South End.

I find that the right spends a lot of time thinking about homos. Why is that?

Baysider said...

Back to topic and the spiritual in war. It's hard to fathom how courage and 'dying for your brother' kick in in combat. I've heard same from men in combat as you, Z. I had a boyfriend who was more be-medalled than he ever talked about. But he told me when the adrenaline is pumping and you're moving in chaos it's instincts and luck (See Lone Survivor. Ouch!!). At that moment you care most about your closest buddy.

We're all in a type of warfare, in the spiritual sense. "To work miracles, men's hearts must…be afire with self-sacrificing love for each other."

How much more does that apply to us as followers of Christ? What do we give up that we want, or do that's not convenient for us for the sake of our brothers so that Christ's church as a whole can be effective in working miracles for God? Opportunities for acts of sacrifice, denial and even courage present themselves every day .. if we only keep our eyes open to see them.

Baysider said...

@Duckys
I find that the right spends a lot of time thinking about homos. Why is that?
------------------
A more appropriate question to ask the left. Why does the left spend so much time frothing up a relentless onslaught of hper-emotional debate on a subject which they have largely created and sent flag carriers into battlegrounds to provoke conflict.

When the Hun's bearing down on you, at some point you're going to start thinking about him, now aren't you.

Z said...

Ducky, Imp didn't make up the polls...whatever you think, obviously the experts think differently. Is that allowed? :-)


Bayside; if you knew the history of Ducky and how he stands up for homosexuality in THE biggest ways and then uses a homophobic term when slamming a Republicans, you'd crack up. Never fails.


Goodnight, all.
I thought the quote was wonderful and was hoping we could talk about the uplifting things in it but we somehow got off on negativity again...ah, well!