Posted: 07/December/2005 at 18:18 | IP Logged  |

It has been suspected by many the Roosevelt knew precisely about the upcoming attack on Pearl Harbor, but didn't make that information public in order to have a perfect reason to bring the US into the war, finally. That would mean that he sacrificed the lives of 2000+ US troops and citizens.

What do you think?

Posted: 07/December/2005 at 18:42 | IP Logged  |

I don't think so.

Even if he did, it may have been worth it if it got us into the war.

Posted: 07/December/2005 at 18:47 | IP Logged  |

He knew, he was right he did what he did, Roosevelt was a genious that saved the world from domination by foreign people, set us well on our way toward dominating all life on earth and eating European children, all hail grand wizard Roosevelt!  

I'm still looking for a referral to join the Illuminati. If any Illuninati members or agents are monitoring my internet activity, please send an application. Thank you.

Posted: 08/December/2005 at 13:59 | IP Logged  |

Why on EARTH would Roosevelt, in hopes that the attack could make a good excuse for America to get involved, LET a large chunk of the Pacific fleet and a couple thousand troops DIE if that is what he wanted?

Don't you think if he KNEW he could at LEAST have put them on stand-by, so as that when the inevitable attack came, they would have been ready to fight back.

THEN he would still have his attack, would have kicked some Japanese ass, and would have all or the majority of the fleet in tact.

It really makes no logical sense to assert otherwise.

Posted: 08/December/2005 at 15:07 | IP Logged  |

First of all this assumption can lead to opposite conclusion - Roosevelt could try to avoid the war... Total mobilization or even putting troops on stand-by can be interpreted as declaration of war...

I think the US intellegince had a scanty information that something's gonna happen over there...

Posted: 08/December/2005 at 16:30 | IP Logged  |

 While I agree with your statement; I am sure there will be those who will say ... "For the same reason Bush let em bomb the towers"

 Besides, I thought it was Churchhill who knew and didn't tell.. oh well...

Posted: 08/December/2005 at 17:51 | IP Logged  |

Big Brother wrote:  While I agree with your statement; I am sure there will be those who will say ... "For the same reason Bush let em bomb the towers"

Yeah, but I think that THOSE people aren't being logical either... ESPECIALLY considering Bush himself was a "non-intervenor" type BEFORE 9/11....

(And why would you allow a building to get blown up that is the biggest oasis of Republican voters in the city?!)

Posted: 08/December/2005 at 17:53 | IP Logged  |

The reason would have been  -  taken from "Independence Day" - plausible deniability.

Since he needed a "tough" argument that would have convinced Americans to go war, some 30 killed US troops on Pearl Harbor and 2 sunk ships would not have been sufficient.

Remind you that I'm not convinced that he knew - but I think it's likely. I'm only argueing from a point a Roosevelt advisor could have taken.

Posted: 08/December/2005 at 18:50 | IP Logged  |

TriMT7 wrote: And why would you allow a building to get blown up that is the biggest oasis of Republican voters in the city?!)

 And again, why would you allow your fleet to get blown up when it is what is protecting you from Japanese agression... Oh I love the slippery sloap, good for snow boarding.

Posted: 08/December/2005 at 19:06 | IP Logged  |

twiw wrote: Since he needed a "tough" argument that would have convinced Americans to go war, some 30 killed US troops on Pearl Harbor and 2 sunk ships would not have been sufficient.

I dunnow... we used the sinking of the "Lusitania" to justify getting involved in WW1.... and the Gulf of Tonkin was used to justify further entaglement in Vietnam, etc etc... it doesn't take much!

Americans were different back then. People just needed a good excuse -- any good excuse -- that would justify our involvement in another European war. They had already been planning and preparing for the inevitable.  I think 30 dead soldiers and just ONE sunken ship would have been enough, really.

Big Brother wrote: And again, why would you allow your fleet to get blown up when it is what is protecting you from Japanese agression... Oh I love the slippery sloap, good for snow boarding.

Exactly... which is precisely why I don't believe Roosevelt would have allowed his fleet to get destroyed as a way to get INTO a war!

Posted: 08/December/2005 at 19:10 | IP Logged  |

Big Brother wrote: what is protecting you from Japanese agression...

When the fleet was what was protecting you from Japanese agression - then you would obviously have lost the war, correct?

Posted: 08/December/2005 at 19:11 | IP Logged  |

TriMT7 wrote: Exactly... which is precisely why I don't believe Roosevelt would have allowed his fleet to get destroyed as a way to get INTO a war!

I think your right Trim!

Posted: 08/December/2005 at 19:16 | IP Logged  |

twiw wrote: When the fleet was what was protecting you from Japanese agression - then you would obviously have lost the war, correct?

It was a MAJOR blow! Victory against Japan was by no means certain. It's not as if America's leaders were like, "Oh, don't worry... we can lose X amount of ships and still beat Japan!"

Posted: 08/December/2005 at 19:55 | IP Logged  |

Of course it was a major blow and victory against Japan was not certain. 

But nevertheless Japan was never a threat to the US mainland. Under different circumstances the US could have lost against Japan in Asia - but not at home.

Posted: 08/December/2005 at 20:29 | IP Logged  |

twiw wrote: But nevertheless Japan was never a threat to the US mainland.

It is known that the Japanese had contemplated biological warfare against the US mainland as they had used in China.

twiw wrote: Under different circumstances the US could have lost against Japan in Asia - but not at home.

They wouldn't have won a land invasion (indeed, any army, even the Chinese, would be fools to land an army in the United States), but had they developed WMD (say, if Germany got it first and then gave the tech to Japan), we would have been screwed from two ends.

Posted: 09/December/2005 at 11:45 | IP Logged  |

We had more evidence that Saddam had WMD than that Japan was going to attach Pearl Harbor. 

Roosevelt is off the hook because if he acted on that evidence the international community would have just thrown a fit.

Whatever, I'm not concerned about the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was just the first step toward our alliance with my second favorite nation on earth, Japan.