"Violence is rarely the answer, but when it is... it is the only answer." From "The Paradox of Violence | Tim Larkin | TEDxGrandForks": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HROsq...

By the way my Uncle Jerry, he never spoke of the war. He carried on as if it never happened. His younger brother my Dad told us about it after Jerry passed away.

Extermination of the Middle East is not on the table.
Extermination of ISIS, HAMAS and other jihadi is a different matter. Also, if we completely abandon the area, what happens to Israel? they are powerful, but they cannot stand against the entire Arab world, not to mention the Iranian threat. Not that I'm a confidante in any form, but I can assure you with a certainty that if they are pressed to the point of extinction, they will resort to nuclear retaliation. It is true that our policies to date in that area have been a dreadful mix of poor judgment and stupid moves. Sometimes a show of force and the display of an iron will are just as effective, providing we are not retaliating for another "one-off" attack.

He only instills guilt to the USA.
When General Tojo heard the rhetoric after Pearl Harbor he said, "I fear we have awakened a sleeping tiger." I think the tiger opened its eye on 9-11 and went back to sleep.

Thanks, John.

exactly, Herb! . the new "warfare" technique is the
infiltration of the country and gaining power within it.
our internal vigilance is so far below that which is
required ... that we are bound to fail if we don't change.
this nation will become the u.s.of p.c. -- j
.

Thank you for expressing my own thoughts very well and saving me the trouble.

I do have one more addition. I wonder if the current occupant of the White House bothered to invite the Prime Minister of Japan to come and place a wreath on the deck of the Arizona.

Before we exterminate the Middle East (sounds a lot like genocide), why don't we and our European buddies try getting out and staying out? Whatever one may think of various Islamicist "grievances," one cannot be denied. We (and our buddies) are in their territory, have been for a long time, and the resultant wars there are in large measure responsible for the refugee flows that have made it possible "for thousands to infiltrate and create chaos," in Europe, and threaten to do so in the US. I would regard getting out and staying out as worthy of at least a try before we escalate the policies that have already produced so many failures.

I think that the Japanese just wanted to conquer other lands. It seemed to be in their culture. Why would they want to take over China? Why did they do medical experiments on the chinese?

I think they were bad boys and deserved what they got from us.

They got their butts kicked, and they are into what looks like a permanent recession, so they are quiet. Give them the opportunity and I wonder how long it would take for them to want to take over other countries again. Same comment for the Chinese government and the Russians, and even Germany for that matter. The United States hasn't been free of this desire either, with a very checkered past.

Without a true dedication to freedom brought about by a lot of rational thinking, human nature seems not far from the animal instinct to survive any way possible.

Question: How many "one-off" attacks are you willing to put up with before preventing any further ones? Should the USA become the pincushion for every wicked group that wants to show-off how powerful they are. How long will it be before the USA's lack of retaliation becomes an invitation? With our open borders, is it not possible for thousands to infiltrate and create chaos? A full armored attack of the USA may be difficult, but by creating panic and insecurity within our borders by infiltrators is the new warfare. Fighting the jihadists and others within our borders and defeating them, does not put an end to anything as we saw with the world trade center which was the 2nd attempt that was far more successful than the first. The answer of course is to attack the spider, not just the web. This will require the infamous "boots on the ground" and air and sea power and a determination for extermination. Anything less will mean defeat, starting in increments and winding up in total destruction.

+100

"Those who pay self-serving tribute to their valor--"
Including small town and rural county tin-horn politicians who has done that since the late 1700s,, I bet you could sink another Titanic before you could stack in half all of "those."

I've said it elsewhere in the Gulch, and I'll repeat it here.

There are evil people in the world that you can do little else but fight and kill them. And there are people in the world not capable of fighting them. We shouldn't be morally obligated to help them, but we should choose to help when we can.

The greatest disservice we can do to veterans is to act like there is a second, "more peaceful" path to war. This has lead to the United States losing every war since we've attempted this method.

Like Robin Olds said to President Johnson when Johnson told him that we were in Vietnam to prevent the North Vietnamese from interfering with the south, "the way to end this war is to win the damned thing!" I.E. Find your enemy and destroy them. Pretending your enemy is not your enemy just means that you are going to lose.

My uncle was over run in his foxhole in Alaska by the Japs. He was shot 3 times and then a granade was then tossed in his hole". When found he was flown to Seatle and my grandparents were told he was not going to make it. The medics were tremendous and safed his life. He was the father of 4 a grand father to 12 a great grandfather to 8 before he passed in 2010.

Hindsight is 20-20. Back then, what were Americans and the government to think? They reacted, had to react, to the degree dictated by Japans conduct and actions. Had they gotten a toe hold in LA or SF I have no doubt they would have attempted to hold it and perhaps extend it, as fool hardy as it may be, even if it cost every Japanese life.

Yes, somebody reminded me of the Aleutian Islands on SLL. However, I don't think the Japanese ever seriously considered invading the US, notwithstanding what they did in Alaska and California.

Point of FACT...my grandfather was stationed in the Aleutian islands, He was there because the Japanese took and held and Kiska Island and Attu Island near Alaska.

Further, Japan made hostile overtures on the Mainland when they sent war planes over San Francisco in 1941. Also, there is a rumor from 1942 that there was a battle between Japanese forces and US forces near Los Angles.

While they had no chance of conquering the US they were definitely up for taking our territoriality at the expense of our people.

I agree with you about the heart strings. They have got us in trouble many times. Americans were, and many still are, a big hearted people.

Corrected and no offense intended...I understand your objectivism..."in all things good and bad we find those involved to be good and bad". However, my added commentary about Our heart strings puts us in a precarious position...in those instances, it is difficult to be objective.
Note: my praise of your Honesty.

The only point I made in article was that Pearl Harbor was a one-off attack by the Japanese and they had no intention of invading the US. I did not bring up the morality of the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan (not hydrogen bombs; they weren't invented until 1952). I'm from Los Alamos and my father did above ground nuclear tests in Nevada in the 1950s. I can assure you that not all scientists involved with the Manhattan project (I find your use of the term "little creatures" questionable), some of whom he knew, were "dying to try it out." Many of them were quite conflicted about what they had developed, as were many of the US's military leaders.

Honest, Robert...
However, after what it pulled, Japan deserved to get it's butt kicked...Period...Hydrogen bombs...a bit drastic and probably was a show of power and the little creatures that made them were dying to try it out.
Germany?...Hmm...I've always seen it as a fight for humanity...The Dignity of Humanity was then and not so much now...what America was all about.
WW1 was of course...a black swan event.

We Americans, again until late, are a soft touch with easily pulled heart strings...I'm not ashamed of that...but it's something we need to acknowledge and guard it with reason.

Indeed, you did not say that. I suppose that the term "one-off attack" led me to misread it the way that I did. Pearl Harbor really wasn't a "one-off attack". When you examine the attacks on The Phillipines, Midway, and the Aleutians, all such attacks were coordinated toward the goal of eliminating any possible US interference. I just got done watching Midway, the only war movie I like - precisely because it was the codebreaking (i.e. intelligence) that was the key to the battle.

I agree. I don't think I said the Japanese planned to invade the US during WWII.

While I agree with the overarching message, SLL, I have to disagree on one nontrivial point. The Japanese taking out Pearl Harbor was an effort to make it difficult for the US to interfere with their attempt to claim what is now Indonesia and get the oil that the Japanese sought. The Japanese never seriously planned on invading the US mainland. For the Japanese, WW2 truly was a war for oil, as was their war with the Russians forty years prior.

I have only two problems with this post. First, the "s" in the word freedom. You can fill book with all the freedoms you can name. Freedom is not plural. Never put an "s" on that word. It does not belong.

Secondly, pencils do not make mistakes, guns do not kill and power does not corrupt.