It is a long shot, but can one ask a question in a civilized tone and receive a civilized answer?

Question

I am alleging nothing, casting no aspersions and nothing is implied.

Conspiracy theorists have weighed in on every monumental event in America's history, from the explosion of the USS Maine that lit the fuse of the Spanish-American war right up to the present day. My question surrounds two of these and an essay answer is required.

The theories: FDR knew Pearl Harbor was to be attacked. GWB knew the WTC was going to be attacked.

Let's assume these particular theories to be true.

What purpose did they serve? Note: We can rule out economics for the first theory, as we were already making blood money from the Lend/Lease act. We can rule out the same for the latter as the economy was strong when GWB took office, an admitted legacy of the Clinton administration.

Question: Would you have launched a pre-emptive strike against Japan?

If so, what is the difference between that action and the argument for the pre-emptive strikes occurring now in the middle east, under GWB?

Answer 1

See, now this is a good question. No malice, just theories to debate. I like it.

My opinions.
1.) We werent actually making money on Lend/Lease. My understanding is that payments were largely deferred.

2.) Although I think its plausible (I too have studied this) I am not 100% convinced the FDR knew about Pearl Harbor. I suspect that he was but theres good points on both sides.

3.) Both Clinton and Bush knew that radical Muslims wanted to fly planes into the WTC. I honestly think America was caught with her pants down. I dont subscribe to the theory that Bush knew when it would happen or even more ridiculous, that he planned it. I watched Loose Change two times. Its claims are junk science and from my research, have been debunked.


So here, we can agree to disagree. But I did like the question.

Answer 2

I don't know if I would have launched a pre-emptive strike against Japan. I would have to be in the position of the leader of the country, privy to all kinds of information and then make a decision based on the information presented to me at the time. Whether that information was true or false and then chose an action that was in the best interest of the country.

The difference between that action and the one in the middle east now? Hmmm... for one it's an unconventional war fought against different bands of militant groups, it's not a war that is being fought against an organized army.

The nature of the war is also different as the militants motive is religious hatred and a cause that is global - they have declared war against the world - and their goal is to make Islam the one religion of the world. Quite ambitious.

The tactics used by the Islamic militants are quite dirty. They use civilians like expendable trash. I read the Jill Carrol story, they would just as soon have put her in a car and have her drive to the U.S. check point and call ahead and tell them a suicide bomber was heading their way. And get her killed. They use a lot of dirty tricks.

So that is some of the differences between those two events.

Answer 3

Knowing what's coming and knowing when and the hour and the day are two different things.

Yes I have heard that there was a sort of warning issued but can you imagine how many threats these associations receive and may still be recieving to this date. Which ones to believe which ones not to reveal, do you want the job of deciding. Beefing up security when the terrorists have lived are living here and in allied countries is of little comfort, media is prone to causes of panic amongst the people, satellite television has made the world smaller therefore more tact is required when addressing threats.

We don't know how hard the American government along with allies worked to try and stop these attacks, we weren't there. How do you stop people from going to work living their daily lives, even in the midst of war torn countries people still strive to achieve some kind of normal life.

You are speaking of two very different times of history, World War II was ended by using weapons of mass destruction, what is in some arsenals now can kill every human being 10 times over. Is that kind of force really necessary. In those days satellites or spootniks was a new and not so advanced compared to today's eye in the sky programs. It's war and war is ugly no matter what form it takes what decade etc.

Answer 4

Pre-emptive strike? No.
Prepared a defense for the coming attack? Yes.

Why didn't we? Answer is the same in both cases: The American people were not going to "get on board" with these wars without these attacks.

What purpose did they serve?

In FDR's case, it was deemed necessary to enter the war in order to further recover from the Great Depression. The Depression's effect on employment did not end until after the United States entered World War II in 1941. Factories needed more workers to produce the airplanes, ships, weapons, and other supplies for the war effort.

In GWB's case, it was in order to put the plans drawn up in the neocon Project for a New American Century in process.

Answer 5

For the WTC, you have to look only as far as the Iraq war.Without 9-11 Bush would have never gotten approval for a war he was after since before he was President.Even Afghanistan being attacked wasnt really for terrorists, America worked with the taliban right up until they refused to let us put an oil pipeline through their country.Then we bombed the hell out of them and installed Karzai as President.His qualifications being former head of Unical no less.We needed the war in Iraq, because we need another oil rich country with a pro US government set up. Saudi Arabia is going through dynasty changes, and the next government may not be so US friendly. Iraq has alot of oil that is still untapped as they have never produced at full capacity.Before we invaded Saddam was going to get his sanctions lifted and would ahve sold that oil to russia france and china.China is well on its way to becoming a super power.That would have ruined our economy. We couldnt have that.
With Japan and Peal Harbor, FDR needed a plausible reason to enter the war, after promising America he wou ldnt intervene. We had just come out of the depression and whatnot. The banking system in America had lent alot of money to England and could not let them be destroyed and taken over by the nazis or they would be out literally billions, so we had to have a reason to intervene and save the day and our own asses.
Pre emptive strikes, should never ever happen. We should all operate under the theory that each country can blow us up too, we should realize we all inhabit one small earth and have to share it no matter our political or religious diffrences.

Answer 6

I would think you need to do your own research. That is what school is about. You come up with the answers your self not get someone else to do you school work for you.

Think about this your self. We were not at war at that time with japain and If we are at war with Japan how would you know that they were going to attack? That was over 50 years ago and we did not have all this spy technogly back then. And what makes you think that bush did not know that something was being planed? I'm sure we knew that Japan was going to do something but we had no idea of what it was or when or we would have had fighters out there looking for them. And our war ships would not have been at dock and if they was all the guns would have been standing ready.

How can you even think that there could be some kind of gain in allowing someone else to attack the USA? Do you really think that Bush (even if I don't like him) would want an attack on his own country?

Really not worth putting much thought into..

Answer 7

Unfortunately, a pre-emptive strike should be motivated by more than George Bush's wishful thinking.

I hope you consider my answer a civil one...?