This weekend in history...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
The Battle of Midway, fought in World War II, took place on June 5, 1942 (June 4-7 in US time zones). The United States Navy defeated a Japanese attack against Midway Atoll, marking a turning point in the war in the Pacific theatre.
Fought just a month after the Battle of the Coral Sea, Midway was the turning point of the Pacific Campaign. Skill, daring, and luck all played a part. The attack on the island of Midway, which also included a feint to Alaska by a smaller fleet, was a ploy by the Japanese to draw the American carrier fleet into a trap. With the remaining American ships destroyed, the Japanese hoped to avenge the bombing of the Japanese home islands two months earlier during the Tokyo Air Raid, plug the hole in their Eastern defensive perimeter formed by U.S. control of Midway, finish off the US Pacific Fleet, and perhaps even invade and take Hawaii.
Samuel Eliot Morison, a 20th century American historian, wrote the following in "The Two-Ocean War":
"Think of them, reader, every Fourth of June. They and their comrades who survived changed the whole course of the Pacific War."
The "official" synopsis of Battle of Midway is as follows:
"The Battle of Midway, fought near the Central Pacific island of Midway, is considered the decisive battle of the war in the Pacific. Before this battle the Japanese were on the offensive, capturing territory throughout Asia and the Pacific. By their attack, the Japanese had planned to capture Midway to use as an advance base, as well as to entrap and destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Because of communication intelligence successes, the U.S. Pacific Fleet surprised the Japanese forces, sinking the four Japanese carriers, that had attacked Pearl Harbor only six months before, while only losing of one carrier. After Midway, the Americans and their Allies took the offensive in the Pacific."
I would encourage everyone who appreciates their freedom to (re?)familiarize themselves with this important chapter in history...clicking on the links would be a good place to begin.
posted by camojack | 04:05
20 Comments:
Well camo... it appears that with thee, history is no mystery.
Hawkeye®:
All too (painfully) true...the better to not repeat it.
Kajun News:
A lot of people seem to forget the Pacific theater of operations. I was stationed in Hawaii decades ago, where there is still visible evidence of the attack at Pearl Harbor and elsewhere.
Barb:
May God bless all who serve, now and in the past...
truth_is_freedom:
Grammar?! I'm not interested in your critiqué of my syntax. I'll delete whatever I find offensive; you can be insulting without using foul language...and by erroneously sniping about grammar, you are. In the post I deleted, that's all you did. It certainly does nothing to add to the discussion, and it's not on topic, therefore superfluous.
Regarding the disabling of comments, after a certain amount of time has passed, I do that on all of the threads.
FWIW, I even left up your asinine comment about "the blind leading the blind".
This is my blog, consequently I can run it howsoever I see fit, without having to explain myself to you or anyone else. Start your own blog and run it any way you choose.
As for limiting freedom of expression, it's certainly not difficult to become a registered blogger, so spare me your straw man arguments. Anyway, if all you plan to do is post spurious copy & paste "news" items, you're really just wasting your time...
truth_is_freedom...
spu·ri·ous (adjective):
1 : of illegitimate birth : BASTARD
2 : outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : FALSE
3 a : of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : FORGED b : of a deceitful nature or quality
As in personal notes/observations (read: opinions) such as:
The "Downing Street Memo"
"When the document was published, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair denied that anything in the memo demonstrated misconduct and said that it added little to what was already known about how British policy on Iraq developed."
(Something I already addressed in a prior thread)
As for comments that represent a "dissenting voice", there are many of them in various threads. I'll respond to them if they are not presented in a condescending or insulting/offensive manner.
Regarding topics discussed elsewhere? They were already addressed...elsewhere. How is that pertinent to the topic here?!
You asked about the copy & paste. You either misrepresent, or simply misunderstand what I've said about it previously. What I said was "if all you plan to do is post spurious copy & paste "news" items, you're really just wasting your time" (note emphasis); if you want to use said references as a catalyst for further discussion, on the other hand, that is perfectly acceptable. Just be advised that I have little or no interest in such spurious sources as Amnesty International, the A.C.L.U., or the "mainstream" media...
Well, since I'm "clearly not capable of dealing with this issue at all"...why are you wasting your valuable time here? You brought up the dreaded "Downing Street Memo", and I responded to same. So then, how am I "refusing to address any of the issues"? I'm not impressed by someone's personal journal entry, which many people such as yourself want to treat as if it were some horrendous "smoking gun". You keep contradicting yourself, yet you say that I'm "not a worthy opponent in any debate". Since you insist on being condescending, please explain why I should even bother with you.
As for deleting your most recent comment, I feel no need to do so; your asinine remarks serve me well. Let's recap. You said, in your most recent comment that I'm...
...clearly not capable of dealing with this issue at all;
...not a worthy opponent in any debate;
...a wuss.
Things you would undoubtedly NEVER say to me in person.
Such eloquence leaves me at a loss for words. Consequently, I'll repeat the question, since your attention span appears somewhat attenuated:
Why are you wasting your valuable time here?!
Also, I'm certainly not planning to disable comments on the current thread.
Now, unless and until you learn how to be civil, you can spare me the pathetic Psych 101 attempts at reverse psychology. Give it up...
truth_is_freedom said:
"Give it up..."
That would suit you just fine. :)
Six o' one, ½ dozen of t'other.
But I don't run. I walk.
I prefer riding my Harley; it gets me places faster, and it's fun.
If/when I want to.
Listen, you can come or stay, lay or play...it's OK.
FWIW, I suspect we're not as diametrically opposed as you seem to think. If you'll be nice, I'm perfectly willing to reciprocate...it's the adult thing to do.
truth_is_freedom said:
How can you possibly call the memo or reports of it "spurious" when Blair has verified its authenticity??
But that's just it; I'm not calling the memo or reports of it spurious...only the interpretation thereof.
I've already addressed the "Downing Street memo" in a prior thread, but I will attempt to clarify my position on it one last time.
When the document was published, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair denied that anything in the memo demonstrated misconduct and said that it added little to what was already known about how British policy on Iraq developed. So, obviously there is a memo, actually written by a staffer at a meeting. Fine. We can agree on that much.
It isn't the same as the fraudulent memo circulated by Dan Rather and CBS, which purported to be composed on an IBM Selectric™ typewriter, yet used a Times New Roman font and Word® document "superscript". But I digress...
The line in the "Downing Street memo" that has certain parties all worked up is as follows:
"...the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Fixed. Well, the word has a multiplicity of definitions; one of which is synonymous with "rigged"...and it is that one that some people have seized upon as "proof positive" of their assertions. BUT: Another, more commonly used meaning of fixed is "firmly set", and it is this that I choose to believe was the intent.
All the debate in the world won't resolve this difference of opinion, in the absence of the author thereof stating precisely what was intended when it was written. Consequently, until such time as an explanation is forthcoming from "the horse's mouth" as it were, continued bickering about it is quite pointless.
Disingenuous? Hardly. If you look up the various meanings, "to make firm" is in 1ST PLACE, whereas "to influence the actions, outcome, or effect of by improper or illegal methods" comes in a distant 7th. Ergo, yes, more commonly used.
Check for yourself:
Fix
Oh, "and it's the meaning journalists took"? Knock me over with a feather; who'd have thunk it?!
"All the debate in the world won't resolve this difference of opinion, in the absence of the author thereof stating precisely what was intended when it was written."
But since "this place is a complete waste of time", wherefore dost thou return, repeatedly...just to insult me? I'm not impressed by such behavior...
Wow! I was busily crafting my own post for today and commenting on Scrappleface and therefore missed the party.
The memo clearly states that "facts" were "fixed" around a policy. To me, that means that facts which support the policy were arranged in a coherent argument (also consistent with the dictionary definition). The operative word being facts. Remember my prediction a few weeks back that the Democrats and their propaganda are, the MSM, would try to "Watergate" the current administration? They want desperately for the Republican administration to have accomplished nothing. Remember their outrage at Reagan for bringing down the Soviet Union? "Iran/Contra", "Gorby saved the day", "It would have collapsed anyway". That last is particularly telling since the left wants to move our society to where the Soviet Union was before it collapsed.
But what did all that have to do with the Battle of Midway? My dad served in the Pacific durring WWII. Thanks for bringing the history up.
Pat'sRick said:
The memo clearly states that "facts" were "fixed" around a policy. To me, that means that facts which support the policy were arranged in a coherent argument (also consistent with the dictionary definition). The operative word being facts. Remember my prediction a few weeks back that the Democrats and their propaganda are, the MSM, would try to "Watergate" the current administration? They want desperately for the Republican administration to have accomplished nothing. Remember their outrage at Reagan for bringing down the Soviet Union? "Iran/Contra", "Gorby saved the day", "It would have collapsed anyway". That last is particularly telling since the left wants to move our society to where the Soviet Union was before it collapsed.
But what did all that have to do with the Battle of Midway? My dad served in the Pacific durring WWII. Thanks for bringing the history up.
Quite so. Anyway, I'm done talking about the "Downing Street memo", but thanks for a fresh perspective. Maybe the person who keeps saying they're wasting time (mine!) here will stop doing so. Promises, promises. Now back to our regularly scheduled program...
Speaking ON topic, your father and his fellows have my everlasting gratitude...
SGT USMC 1ea:
I think I've had more than one troll, although it could have been the same one, just using different blog "handles".
So, does having one or more trolls mean that I've "arrived"? Hee hee.
It is rather amusing when they say this blog o' mine is a waste of time, and that they won't be back...then keep returning.
SGT USMC 1ea said:
You have arrived!
Maybe you can make it admit when it inevitably returns that WMD has been found in Iraq to the tune of enough to poison twice the number of people killed during 9/11. No telling where the rest of the stuff is hiding.
Quite so. That Sarin is virulent stuff. Certainly lots of sand in which to bury things over there, and there was well over a year to do it. Or ship/truck it elsewhere, like Syria or some such place. The conspiracy whackos abound; I'm not buying into their delusional paranoia. I do like to visit the Blame Bush! site on occasion, where the satire is fast and furious, if a bit "off color" sometimes..it's also one of the links I have posted here. It does a great job of lampooning the loony left.
(I just love alliteration...)
"WMD has been found in Iraq to the tune of enough to poison twice the number of people killed during 9/11."
Do you have a reputable source please?
mk77:
They found mustard gas and sarin; this was over a year ago.
I have no clue as to what you consider a "reputable source", but if you use your search engine of choice, there are numerous places you can read about it...from various perspectives.
This??
On May 18, the Associated Press reported that American experts were not interpreting the discovery of an artillery shell with traces of sarin -- which exploded in Baghdad the previous weekend -- as evidence that deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been hording stockpiles of banned weapons prior to the war in Iraq:
The discovery of an artillery shell apparently filled with a deadly nerve agent has raised fears among U.S. officials that insurgents may have more -- and will learn how to use them to greater effect.
But officials stopped short of claiming the munition was definite evidence of a large weapons stockpile in prewar Iraq or evidence of recent production by Saddam's regime -- the Bush administration's chief stated reason for invasion.
[...]
David Kay, the former top U.S. weapons hunter in Iraq, said it's possible the sarin shell was an old one, overlooked when Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s.
Kay, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press, said he doubted the shell or the nerve agent came from a surviving hidden stockpile, but didn't rule out that possibility.
"It is hard to know if this is one that just was overlooked -- and there were always some that were overlooked, we knew that -- or if this was one that came from a hidden stockpile," Kay said. "I rather doubt that because it appears the insurgents didn't even know they had a chemical round."
The 155-millimeter artillery shell, which was converted into a roadside bomb, bore no special markings indicating it contained a chemical agent, so officials speculate that the bombers may have believed they were using a conventional artillery round.
A similar interpretation of the sarin shells discovered in May is probably what led British Prime Minister Tony Blair to concede on July 6 that coalition forces have yet to uncover WMD in Iraq: "I have to accept that we have not found them [Iraqi WMD], that we may not find them," Blair said before the House of Commons Liaison Committee.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
And I suppose Saddam buried the rest so he couldn't use them against an imminent US attack?
Are you all really bonkers?
mk77 asked:
Are you all really bonkers?
No. Apparently you are, however.
Your copy & paste of some unidentified source's "spin" on the A.P. report is not the least bit impressive; it merely proves that you believe what you wish to.
You asked if I have a reputable source, to which I responded that I have no clue as to what you consider to be such...and your most recent post demonstrates why I said that.
A different source had this to say at the time:
Iraqi Scientist: You Will Find More
Gazi George, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist under Saddam's regime, believes many similar weapons stockpiled by the former regime were either buried underground or transported to Syria. He noted that the airport where the device was detonated is on the way to Baghdad from the Syrian border.
George said the finding likely will be the first in a series of discoveries of such weapons.
"Saddam is the type who will not store those materials in a military warehouse. He's gonna store them either underground, or, as I said, lots of them have gone west to Syria and are being brought back with the insurgencies. It is difficult to look in areas that are not obvious to the military's eyes."
"I'm sure they're going to find more once time passes," he continued, saying one year is not enough for the survey group or the military to find the weapons.
If you merely wish to be insulting, Mr. "Are you all really bonkers?", don't expect much of a response in the future. I have better things to do than educate the unappreciative...
You failed to answer my point about why Saddam would not have used them against the US forces.
And a recent US investigation said there was no indication they had been sent to Syria.
If Bush and Blair thought there was the slightest chance of finding them (and thereby somewhat dispelling the criticism of their invasion) they wouldn't have given up by now.
Since 77% of Americans still thought in November 2004 that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, I'm not a bit surprised at what you believe!!
It's all junk. You live in a dream world.
And I see you've never answered the point that the Downing Street memo refers to July 2002, while the White House claimed Bush hadn't decided to attack Iraq until after Colin Powell went to the UN -- so hold your horses on criticizing others who you percieve not to be answering your points.
Byeeeee.
"George said the finding likely will be the first in a series of discoveries of such weapons."
That's funny. You'd think the rebels would be using them by now.
Sorry, Camo, but I have to go. :(
<< Home