On 12/8/2016 7:02 PM, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 06:39 PM, Oren wrote:

The Japanese were brilliant, developed a strategy, implemented the
needed logistics, sailed across the Pacific and hit us on our
sovereign land.

Very brilliant indeed, their country was blown to smithereens. As I've
stated before my father saw it with his own eyes and described it to me
in great detail.


My FIL was there, too. Small world.

--
Maggie

On 12/8/2016 3:43 PM, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 11:59 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 12/8/2016 11:33 AM, trader_4 wrote:

You really are an imbecile. He made two tweets and you totally ignored
the first, which puts it in context. You came here and told us it was
"standalone". That was false. The tweet that immediately preceded it,
shows he was speaking about learning the lessons of Pearl Harbor as they
still apply today.

You're not much of a people person, are you? Philo is obviously not an
imbecile. What he IS is someone who cares about what actually happened
to the people at Pearl Harbor.

If you understood people, you'd understand he's probably not the only
person to "hear" the same thing from the comments Gingrich made. It's
an emotionally charged issue, and you've shown you've no skill to
understand how or why people would respond emotionally to anything.


Thanks. Gingrich's statement was just not the thing to do.

I dunno. I think what he said wasn't wrong...

My issue was not only calling the dastardly attack "brilliant", it was
that he completely ignored America

What he said made me think ... I read his words many times. If it had
been the US who had done that to an enemy of ours, and we destroyed
their ships and planes with a gigantic surprise attack like that, we'd
be calling it "brilliant planning and execution" of epic military
strategy of the day. So, I understand what he was saying.

--
Maggie

On 12/8/2016 12:21 PM, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 11:25 AM, Muggles wrote:

Even Trump never got me that upset.

When I see a traitor in government I find it difficult to hold my
temper.

I'm not so sure what he said makes him a traitor. He may just be one of
those people who doesn't apply a filter to what he's thinking.

Although, what he's saying is technically true, he doesn't take into
account how people will "hear" his comments because timing isn't an
issue when he's making what he believes to be factual statements.

When I told my husband I was getting a bit tired of hearing about Pearl
Harbor on the news and every program he watched, he didn't like me
saying that, either. For me, I was running on information overload, and
continually hearing story after story on the horrors that happened was
getting me really depressed. I'm aware of the horrors of what people
are capable of doing to each other, but there comes a time where I need
to get my mind on other things - you know what I mean, right??


Sure I know what you mean. However...
Anyone who is in the public eye such as Gingrich is totally
irresponsible if they make a post which could be so horribly interpreted
...no matter what his real intent.

Irresponsible? I just think people are human. AND ... people don't
always hear what people are really trying to communicate, too.

--
Maggie

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 18:51:59 -0500, "dadiOH" wrote:

Wrong. Didn't bother to read my link, did you? Second chance...
http://www.pearlharbor.org/ships-and-aircraft.asp


USS Nevada, near the Arizona got under way, sailing for open seas.

It didn't get there. It was badly damaged and grounded. Near Hospital
Point IIRC. Wasn't back in service for a year.

On 12/08/2016 11:05 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 12/8/2016 12:21 PM, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 11:25 AM, Muggles wrote:




snip


Since there have been many branches to this thread, I'll attempt to put
all of my replies he


Going back to Gingrich's Tweets:


Had the US and Japan already been at war and they pulled off a major
surprise attack, that could have been considered a brilliant move.
Since we were not at war, I consider it a despicable sneak attack in no
way different from "911."


I have not heard anyone call that attack brilliant.



Since the fact that Japan was obliterated by the war, the end result of
their "brilliance" was a disaster.

If one wants to assign brilliance for a disgusting deed, . the prize
would go to the "911" attackers. They took us by surprise just like the
Japanese did but the end result was that the US lost that war because we
attacked the wrong country and spawned more of the same.

The attackers were Saudis and that country has remained our good friend.
The US has done nothing to prevent them from funding and being a
breeding ground for terrorists.


So I stand by my statement regarding Gingrich, he's an old gas bag, as
useless as Hubert Humphrey.

On 12/08/2016 10:57 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 12/8/2016 7:02 PM, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 06:39 PM, Oren wrote:

The Japanese were brilliant, developed a strategy, implemented the
needed logistics, sailed across the Pacific and hit us on our
sovereign land.

Very brilliant indeed, their country was blown to smithereens. As I've
stated before my father saw it with his own eyes and described it to me
in great detail.


My FIL was there, too. Small world.




Not only that, one of my friend's father's was in the Marines and at Iwo
Jima when the flag was raised. He was a foot soldier but must really
have kicked himself when he saw how famous that photo became...because
in civilian life he was a professional photographer!


BTW: The photo that is now so famous was staged.


Though the flag really was raised in combat, it was too hectic to get a
shot of it.

On 12/08/2016 10:55 PM, Muggles wrote:

snip


idn't have a brilliant moment in history on that day.

Gingrich wasn't wrong. It just wasn't politically or socially correct to
say because everyone else was talking about the horrors of how our Navy
was attacked. I don't think he dissed the US because he didn't praise
the US. I think he was just making a point about how the Japanese
painstakingly planned and set out to achieve a military victory.

It's important, I think, to understand the sort of resolve it takes for
countries to invade other countries. We need to have an even greater
resolve so we can plan ahead to stop such things from happening, imo,
and if we can't recognize how the Japanese achieved what they saw as a
successful plan of attack, how will we be able to learn from it?

[...]




I do not care much for political correctness or all the "special
snowflakes" we have now...but Gingrich just plain picked the wrong day
to make such an asinine statement.

Per Ed Pawlowski:
I don't think he was praising, but made an accurate statement. Perhaps
the delivery could have been better, but he was correct.

And the timing..... -)
--
Pete Cresswell

Per dadiOH:
There were about a half dozen radar sites on Oahu at the time, none at
Wheeler AFB (there was one at adjacent Schofield buy I don't know if it was
operational); both are in the center of Oahu. The one that picked up planes
was Opana Radar Site which was near Kahuku which is at the NE tip of Oahu.

Than I got the location wrong.... This guy was not BS-ing.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per philo:
Truth is I think that may not be a bad move as they know the
consequences of war. It's the civilians such as Newt who would have
washed out of basic training who are all too eager to send other
people's kids off to war.

Pretty much the definition of "Chicken Hawk".


Tangentially I think that, if it had not been for Colin Powell's wife,
Powell would have run for president, been elected, and history would
have been a *lot* different.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 2:06:35 PM UTC-5, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 12:08:56 -0600, philo wrote:

On 12/08/2016 11:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 11:53:36 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:48 AM, trader_4 wrote:


snip

More rewriting of history.




Obviously you have done no reading on WW-II

I've read-up extensively especially Churchill.

Maybe you need to do some reading too?



Let's review, shall we? You came here and made a post about
Newt's tweet:

"75 years ago the Japanese displayed professional brilliance and
technological power launching surprises from Hawaii to the Philippines.."

You told us with that post:

The above quote was a "stand alone" quote and was not been taken out of context. Had the statement been part of of a broader analysis it might have been a different issue but it's false no matter how one looks at it.

In fact, the quote was preceded immediately before by this tweet:

€œDecember 7 is a good day to remember that the world is dangerous and shattering surprise is possible even when we have been warned,€�


So, let's put it together in context:

€œDecember 7 is a good day to remember that the world is dangerous and shattering surprise is possible even when we have been warned,€�

"75 years ago the Japanese displayed professional brilliance and
technological power launching surprises from Hawaii to the Philippines.."


And you think I'm the one that can't read or get things right?
And note this isn't the first time you've done this, it's happened
many times before, where you don't have the basic facts, or have
them wrong.




Moot point .

There is no good day to praise Japanese brilliance for the attack, but
Pearl Harbor day is certainly the worst possible day to do so.

Since the war did not end so well for Japan, the attack was hardly
brilliant...it was a fatal blunder. Japan never thought the US had the
guts or capability to fight back.


Do you not understand the difference between tactical and strategic?
The Japanese attack was a spectacular tactical success. The Japanese
political strategy was ill advised.


+1

Or even the broader military strategy, was ill advised. But the attack on
Pearl Harbor was a stunning success, well executed, inflicting
significant losses on the US
while sustaining very limited losses to the Japanese.

That we should remember that, be vigilant today was the essence of Newt's
comments, taken in *context*.

On 12/9/2016 7:35 AM, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:57 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 12/8/2016 7:02 PM, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 06:39 PM, Oren wrote:

The Japanese were brilliant, developed a strategy, implemented the
needed logistics, sailed across the Pacific and hit us on our
sovereign land.

Very brilliant indeed, their country was blown to smithereens. As I've
stated before my father saw it with his own eyes and described it to me
in great detail.


My FIL was there, too. Small world.




Not only that, one of my friend's father's was in the Marines and at Iwo
Jima when the flag was raised. He was a foot soldier but must really
have kicked himself when he saw how famous that photo became...because
in civilian life he was a professional photographer!


BTW: The photo that is now so famous was staged.


Though the flag really was raised in combat, it was too hectic to get a
shot of it.

That makes sense to me!

--
Maggie

On 12/9/2016 7:37 AM, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:55 PM, Muggles wrote:

snip

idn't have a brilliant moment in history on that day.

Gingrich wasn't wrong. It just wasn't politically or socially correct to
say because everyone else was talking about the horrors of how our Navy
was attacked. I don't think he dissed the US because he didn't praise
the US. I think he was just making a point about how the Japanese
painstakingly planned and set out to achieve a military victory.

It's important, I think, to understand the sort of resolve it takes for
countries to invade other countries. We need to have an even greater
resolve so we can plan ahead to stop such things from happening, imo,
and if we can't recognize how the Japanese achieved what they saw as a
successful plan of attack, how will we be able to learn from it?

[...]

I do not care much for political correctness or all the "special
snowflakes" we have now...but Gingrich just plain picked the wrong day
to make such an asinine statement.

I get it ... some people are even LESS politically correct than you or I
might be!

--
Maggie

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 12:59:01 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 12/8/2016 11:33 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:17 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 9:55:29 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
Though I've been keeping my political remarks to a minimum ...here is
the exact quote from Gingrich. He made this yesterday on the 75th
anniversary of Pearl Harbor:


snip

Had the statement been part of of a broader analysis it might have been
a different issue

Apparently it was part of a somewhat broader analysis.


No it wasn't he made two Tweets. Twitter is not the place to posit a
broad analysis. He made no praise anywhere of American values.

You really are an imbecile. He made two tweets and you totally ignored
the first, which puts it in context. You came here and told us it was
"standalone". That was false. The tweet that immediately preceded it,
shows he was speaking about learning the lessons of Pearl Harbor as they
still apply today.

You're not much of a people person, are you? Philo is obviously not an
imbecile. What he IS is someone who cares about what actually happened
to the people at Pearl Harbor.

If you understood people, you'd understand he's probably not the only
person to "hear" the same thing from the comments Gingrich made. It's
an emotionally charged issue, and you've shown you've no skill to
understand how or why people would respond emotionally to anything.

--
Maggie

And what did Philo actually do? He came in here an totally misrepresented
what Newt said. He claimed that one sentence was the only thing Newt tweeted.
It was not. It was preceded immediately by another tweet that set the context
for what followed. THAT has nothing to do with being a "people person".
It's just being fair, sticking up for the truth. It has nothing to do with
emotion, but I can see how you would think it does. That's how you react,
with emotion and disregard for the facts, the truth.

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 1:01:04 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 12/8/2016 11:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 12:27:23 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 12/8/2016 11:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 11:53:36 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:48 AM, trader_4 wrote:


snip

More rewriting of history.




Obviously you have done no reading on WW-II

I've read-up extensively especially Churchill.

Maybe you need to do some reading too?



Let's review, shall we? You came here and made a post about
Newt's tweet:

"75 years ago the Japanese displayed professional brilliance and
technological power launching surprises from Hawaii to the Philippines."

You told us with that post:

The above quote was a "stand alone" quote and was not been taken out of context. Had the statement been part of of a broader analysis it might have been a different issue but it's false no matter how one looks at it.

In fact, the quote was preceded immediately before by this tweet:

€œDecember 7 is a good day to remember that the world is dangerous and shattering surprise is possible even when we have been warned,€�


So, let's put it together in context:

€œDecember 7 is a good day to remember that the world is dangerous and shattering surprise is possible even when we have been warned,€�

"75 years ago the Japanese displayed professional brilliance and
technological power launching surprises from Hawaii to the Philippines."


And you think I'm the one that can't read or get things right?
And note this isn't the first time you've done this, it's happened
many times before, where you don't have the basic facts, or have
them wrong.


Good grief... Instead of arguing about silly points so you can win, why
don't you just try to have a conversation like normal people?



As usual, the village idiot weighs in. IMO, and in the opinion of at
least one other poster, it's not silly as to whether what Newt tweeted
was standalone, as Philo claims, or immediately preceded by another
tweet about Pearl that sets the context and paints a different picture.

And WTF exactly are you doing, when you engage in 100 posts about
something here?


It takes knowledge on how to "read" an entire scenario and understand
it. You, obviously, don't have that skill set.

--
Maggie

ROFL.

Philo talkes a sentence out of context, claims there is nothing more,
its "standalone", when it was immediately preceded by another tweet
that set the context. And I'm the one that can't read? That's another example why you're the village idiot.

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 1:09:01 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 11:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 11:53:36 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:48 AM, trader_4 wrote:


snip

More rewriting of history.




Obviously you have done no reading on WW-II

I've read-up extensively especially Churchill.

Maybe you need to do some reading too?



Let's review, shall we? You came here and made a post about
Newt's tweet:

"75 years ago the Japanese displayed professional brilliance and
technological power launching surprises from Hawaii to the Philippines."

You told us with that post:

The above quote was a "stand alone" quote and was not been taken out of context. Had the statement been part of of a broader analysis it might have been a different issue but it's false no matter how one looks at it.

In fact, the quote was preceded immediately before by this tweet:

€œDecember 7 is a good day to remember that the world is dangerous and shattering surprise is possible even when we have been warned,€�


So, let's put it together in context:

€œDecember 7 is a good day to remember that the world is dangerous and shattering surprise is possible even when we have been warned,€�

"75 years ago the Japanese displayed professional brilliance and
technological power launching surprises from Hawaii to the Philippines."


And you think I'm the one that can't read or get things right?
And note this isn't the first time you've done this, it's happened
many times before, where you don't have the basic facts, or have
them wrong.




Moot point .

There is no good day to praise Japanese brilliance for the attack, but
Pearl Harbor day is certainly the worst possible day to do so.

Since the war did not end so well for Japan, the attack was hardly
brilliant...it was a fatal blunder. Japan never thought the US had the
guts or capability to fight back.

Had Newt used the word "dastardly" I doubt I would have raised an eyebrow..

I suppose you'd be fine if he described the "911" attack as
"professional brilliance." It was the ultimate act of cowards.

He would be right that the 911 attack was professional brilliance.
It took significant smarts and planning to successfully pull it off.
Everything from understanding the WTC structure, to figuring out how
to fly and hijack the planes.
And I don't think you can call islamic warriors who are willing to
die for their cause, cowards. Just the facts.

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 07:04:44 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


Do you not understand the difference between tactical and strategic?
The Japanese attack was a spectacular tactical success. The Japanese
political strategy was ill advised.


+1

Or even the broader military strategy, was ill advised. But the attack on
Pearl Harbor was a stunning success, well executed, inflicting
significant losses on the US
while sustaining very limited losses to the Japanese.

That we should remember that, be vigilant today was the essence of Newt's
comments, taken in *context*.

Facts are only incidental for those filled with hatred, resentment and
ideological agendas.

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 1:25:42 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 11:33 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:17 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 9:55:29 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
Though I've been keeping my political remarks to a minimum ...here is
the exact quote from Gingrich. He made this yesterday on the 75th
anniversary of Pearl Harbor:



"

snip

Had the statement been part of of a broader analysis it might have been
a different issue

Apparently it was part of a somewhat broader analysis.


No it wasn't he made two Tweets. Twitter is not the place to posit a
broad analysis. He made no praise anywhere of American values.

You really are an imbecile. He made two tweets and you totally ignored
the first, which puts it in context. You came here and told us it was
"standalone". That was false. The tweet that immediately preceded it,
shows he was speaking about learning the lessons of Pearl Harbor as they
still apply today.

€œDecember 7 is a good day to remember that the world is dangerous and shattering surprise is possible even when we have been warned,€�

And since when must an entire thought, an entire discussion have to be
in one tweet? Who made that rule?





but it's false no matter how one looks at it.

How is it false? It was an attack that showed technological power
and professional brilliance. They succeeded in delivering a major
blow to the US Pacific Fleet, the list of ships sunk, aircraft
destroyed, is impressive. And they did it with very minimal losses.




snip


You're never going to have a perfect strike, the US carriers being out
to sea was a lucky thing for the US. But overall, it was a stunning
military engagement. The Japanese inflicted huge damage on us, with
very minimal losses to themselves. That is a major success in any
battle.


It was not a stunning victory by any means. A minute portion of the
fleet was sunk in port. All but one ship was put back in commission a
quick order.


Obviously you didn't look at the link I provided that identifies the
ships and when they were put back in service. Sixteen were hit, many
did not return to service until 1943 or 1944. Three were totally
destroyed as were 188 aircraft. It was a stunning military engagement
by any reasonable metric. The Japanese inflicted significant losses on
the US, while suffering very minimal losses themselves. That is the
standard for a successful military engagement. If the US fleet went
to sea, in one engagment that lasted a couple hours, they hit 16
Japanese ships, including most of their battleships,
sunk 3, put many others out of service for months to 3 years, wiped
out 188 aircraft, killed 2400, while suffering only very minimal
losses, WTF would you call that?





Indeed he did make an additional Tweet that day but it does not change
what he said. He called a dastardly deed a "brilliant" one.


If you stuck a knife in the back of someone who was not looking, I'm not
sure if too many people would call you brilliant.

How about if the stabbing in the back was in the context of the person
who got stabbed saying "I'm gonna kill you MF!", and turning around to
reach for a gun on the table? That is context for you and why you
can't take Newt out of context, which is what you did, while specifically
claiming the tweet was "standalone".

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 3:33:37 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 12:00 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:

And you think I'm the one that can't read or get things right?
And note this isn't the first time you've done this, it's happened
many times before, where you don't have the basic facts, or have
them wrong.

+1 well said.

His facts are clouded by emotion and a general dislike of Gingrich.



Indeed. Gingrich is a traitor and for such reasons I dislike him.

The fact that he made an additional tweet that day does not change what
he said

He didn't just make an "additional" tweet, he made a *previous* tweet
that puts what you quoted in a totally different context.

You can argue all day long as to whether the Japanese tactics were
brilliant or not but you cannot claim that:

1 - What you posted in your OP !!!!...WAS THE FULL ****ING QUOTE!!!!

(Your words, your emphasis.)

2 - That his comment was a standalone comment, unrelated to anything else
he said that day.

Make believe that he said what he said was in an email, unencumbered by a
140 character limit. Would you grab the second sentence and claim it was
a standalone comment because there was a carriage return or two between the
two sentences?

"December 7 is a good day to remember that the world is dangerous and
shattering surprise is possible even when we have been warned.

75 years ago the Japanese displayed professional brilliance and
technological power launching surprises from Hawaii to the Philippines."


+1 x 1000

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 4:30:06 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 12:50 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per philo:
For Newt to have praised the Japanese attack is no different than had he
praised the "911" attackers for a brilliant surprise move.

Right after 9/11, some talk show guy made a statement to the effect of
"Whatever those guys were, they were not cowards. Cowards to not
knowingly go to their deaths in support of their mission."

Needless-to-say he was eviscerated by the media and the public.

My thought was "Know your enemy."




Anyone who stabs someone in the back with a knife is a coward.


We're having an altercation. I yell out "I'm gonna kill you, MF"!
I turn around to reach for a gun on the table. If you stab me,
in the back, you're a coward, right? Another lesson on why what
precedes, context, are so important.




People who commit suicide are the biggest cowards of them all.

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 07:35:26 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

I suppose you'd be fine if he described the "911" attack as
"professional brilliance." It was the ultimate act of cowards.

He would be right that the 911 attack was professional brilliance.
It took significant smarts and planning to successfully pull it off.
Everything from understanding the WTC structure, to figuring out how
to fly and hijack the planes.
And I don't think you can call islamic warriors who are willing to
die for their cause, cowards. Just the facts.

The extent of mayhem and destruction which can be achieved is
tremendous if, the perpetrators are willing to die for their cause.

If one were to conduct an objective after action assessment of the
9/11 attacks, the perpetrators accomplished virtually all of their
goals. They changed the way of life in the USA and throughout most of
the western world, they were able to draw the west into what amounts
to a holy war and they are well on their way to establishing a
caliphate.

Yes, a lot of Muslims have died, but that is of no import to the
ideologues. Human life is the cheapest of all commodities and the
taking of Muslim lives by the west provides a tremendous return on
investment for our enemies.

On 12/9/2016 9:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 12:59:01 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 12/8/2016 11:33 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:17 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 9:55:29 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
Though I've been keeping my political remarks to a minimum ...here is
the exact quote from Gingrich. He made this yesterday on the 75th
anniversary of Pearl Harbor:


snip

Had the statement been part of of a broader analysis it might have been
a different issue

Apparently it was part of a somewhat broader analysis.


No it wasn't he made two Tweets. Twitter is not the place to posit a
broad analysis. He made no praise anywhere of American values.

You really are an imbecile. He made two tweets and you totally ignored
the first, which puts it in context. You came here and told us it was
"standalone". That was false. The tweet that immediately preceded it,
shows he was speaking about learning the lessons of Pearl Harbor as they
still apply today.

You're not much of a people person, are you? Philo is obviously not an
imbecile. What he IS is someone who cares about what actually happened
to the people at Pearl Harbor.

If you understood people, you'd understand he's probably not the only
person to "hear" the same thing from the comments Gingrich made. It's
an emotionally charged issue, and you've shown you've no skill to
understand how or why people would respond emotionally to anything.


And what did Philo actually do? He came in here an totally misrepresented
what Newt said. He claimed that one sentence was the only thing Newt tweeted.
It was not. It was preceded immediately by another tweet that set the context
for what followed. THAT has nothing to do with being a "people person".
It's just being fair, sticking up for the truth. It has nothing to do with
emotion, but I can see how you would think it does. That's how you react,
with emotion and disregard for the facts, the truth.


He was obviously upset about the comments. I wanted to try to understand
why he was upset. It doesn't hurt or invalidate my position to try to
understand *why* someone else is reacting. We can actually get to a
point that we can agree to disagree.

I understand where he's coming from, but I don't have to agree with his
conclusion in order to understand why he feels the way he does.
--
Maggie

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 6:13:10 PM UTC-5, dadiOH wrote:
"philo" wrote in message
news
China is a Communist county so theoretically our enemy.

Why?

It makes thinking about complex issues simpler and easier to keep score,
I guess. I had that reaction too. I mean we should be for freedom,
human rights, and to the extent these regimes oppress their people,'
we should be against that, but I'm not sure that automatically makes
them our enemies.

On 12/9/2016 9:32 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 1:01:04 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 12/8/2016 11:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 12:27:23 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 12/8/2016 11:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 11:53:36 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:48 AM, trader_4 wrote:


snip

More rewriting of history.




Obviously you have done no reading on WW-II

I've read-up extensively especially Churchill.

Maybe you need to do some reading too?



Let's review, shall we? You came here and made a post about
Newt's tweet:

"75 years ago the Japanese displayed professional brilliance and
technological power launching surprises from Hawaii to the Philippines."

You told us with that post:

The above quote was a "stand alone" quote and was not been taken out of context. Had the statement been part of of a broader analysis it might have been a different issue but it's false no matter how one looks at it.

In fact, the quote was preceded immediately before by this tweet:

€œDecember 7 is a good day to remember that the world is dangerous and shattering surprise is possible even when we have been warned,€�


So, let's put it together in context:

€œDecember 7 is a good day to remember that the world is dangerous and shattering surprise is possible even when we have been warned,€�

"75 years ago the Japanese displayed professional brilliance and
technological power launching surprises from Hawaii to the Philippines."


And you think I'm the one that can't read or get things right?
And note this isn't the first time you've done this, it's happened
many times before, where you don't have the basic facts, or have
them wrong.


Good grief... Instead of arguing about silly points so you can win, why
don't you just try to have a conversation like normal people?



As usual, the village idiot weighs in. IMO, and in the opinion of at
least one other poster, it's not silly as to whether what Newt tweeted
was standalone, as Philo claims, or immediately preceded by another
tweet about Pearl that sets the context and paints a different picture.

And WTF exactly are you doing, when you engage in 100 posts about
something here?


It takes knowledge on how to "read" an entire scenario and understand
it. You, obviously, don't have that skill set.




ROFL.

Philo talkes a sentence out of context, claims there is nothing more,
its "standalone", when it was immediately preceded by another tweet
that set the context.

I'm sure he would have figured that out on his own.

The way you communicate is you have to jump on a particular issue where
you can win a point and you think that makes you superior, but you never
try to understand why people are upset or why they're saying what
they've said. It's always either black or white with you - never
anything in the middle.

Sure, there were 3 tweets, but even you got that wrong, initially,
because you said there were only 2.

How many tweets existed wasn't the issue Philo was bringing up. It was
that one particular statement that bothered him. I found out why it
bothered him, and I understand why it bothered him. It doesn't
invalidate any position I have because he interpreted that statement
differently than I do.

And I'm the one that can't read? That's another example why you're the village idiot.


Do you realize how immature you come across when you call people "the
village idiot"?

--
Maggie

On 12/9/2016 9:38 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 07:04:44 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


Do you not understand the difference between tactical and strategic?
The Japanese attack was a spectacular tactical success. The Japanese
political strategy was ill advised.

+1

Or even the broader military strategy, was ill advised. But the attack on
Pearl Harbor was a stunning success, well executed, inflicting
significant losses on the US
while sustaining very limited losses to the Japanese.

That we should remember that, be vigilant today was the essence of Newt's
comments, taken in *context*.

Facts are only incidental for those filled with hatred, resentment and
ideological agendas.


The same can be true for anyone who has any kind of vested interest in
their own conclusions.

--
Maggie

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 6:13:10 PM UTC-5, dadiOH wrote:
"philo" wrote in message
news
China is a Communist county so theoretically our enemy.

Why?

It makes thinking about complex issues simpler and easier to keep score,
I guess. I had that reaction too. I mean we should be for freedom,
human rights, and to the extent these regimes oppress their people,'
we should be against that, but I'm not sure that automatically makes
them our enemies.

No reason it should IMO; however, doing so is good for some, namely, the
military and those who profit from war and turbulence. The government too;
an enemy - real or perceived - allows them to implement things that would
not normally be allowed. Just ask Dubya.

We spent close to a half century with the country all riled up over the
godless, communist USSR who never did jack squat to us except - possibly -
enable the allies to win WW2. During that tine the US was directly or
indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people all over the
world, all in the name of making the world safe for democracy, whether they
wanted it or not.

Well, the USSR went away so we needed another enemy. We got it. We got it
largely because of the US actions during the aforementioned half century.

On 12/9/2016 10:13 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:00:25 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 12/9/2016 9:32 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Philo talkes a sentence out of context, claims there is nothing more,
its "standalone", when it was immediately preceded by another tweet
that set the context.

I'm sure he would have figured that out on his own.

ROFL.

Not only couldn't he figure it out on his own, he kept denying it,
claiming that the one tweet, was the whole ****ing thing, to use
his exact words.

He was angry at the time. People get tunnel vision when they're angry.
I stand by what I said.

The way you communicate is you have to jump on a particular issue where
you can win a point and you think that makes you superior, but you never
try to understand why people are upset or why they're saying what
they've said. It's always either black or white with you - never
anything in the middle.

There is no middle when you come in here and claim that what you posted
is the whole quote, it's "standalone", and then it turns out that it
was preceded by something that sets the context, puts it in an entirely
different light. It's not emotion, it's fact and facts matter.

The existence of other tweets doesn't change his anger at the tweet he
quoted. You feel you scored a point because you proved there were more
tweets in the series. It didn't change how he felt about the tweet he
posted.


Sure, there were 3 tweets, but even you got that wrong, initially,
because you said there were only 2.

Wrong again. I never said there were only two. I only said that the
one tweet was immediately preceded by another that set the context,
and I provided that tweet. And the third is largely irrelevant
because it doesn't change anything.

OK ... so I suppose that doesn't add up to you saying there were 2 tweets?

--
Maggie

Time for me to sign off now...

Fun arguing with you all but my wife and I are having 50 guests tomorrow
for our yearly open house .

A week ago she broke her wrist (she'll be fine) and looks like I have a
lot of work to do. ( My step-daughter and her boy friend will pitching
in to help.)

Anyway no more time for this discussion.

Considering I'm the dumbest and most illogical one here, though you
folks did a pretty good job against me...it's nice to know at least that
I am not Hubert Humphrey-II like your good buddy there Newtered Gingrich.

On 12/09/2016 09:48 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 4:30:06 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 12:50 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per philo:
For Newt to have praised the Japanese attack is no different than had he
praised the "911" attackers for a brilliant surprise move.

Right after 9/11, some talk show guy made a statement to the effect of
"Whatever those guys were, they were not cowards. Cowards to not
knowingly go to their deaths in support of their mission."

Needless-to-say he was eviscerated by the media and the public.

My thought was "Know your enemy."




Anyone who stabs someone in the back with a knife is a coward.


We're having an altercation. I yell out "I'm gonna kill you, MF"!
I turn around to reach for a gun on the table. If you stab me,
in the back, you're a coward, right? Another lesson on why what
precedes, context, are so important.





Have to admit that in 3rd grade I kicked the school bully in the butt
when he bent over to tie his shoe. (He came up awfully bloody.)

He never beat me up again and even all through high school no one messed
with me because they knew I'd find a way to get them back.

Agreed, sometimes it is ok to stab someone in the back depending on the
situation

On 12/09/2016 08:10 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per philo:
Truth is I think that may not be a bad move as they know the
consequences of war. It's the civilians such as Newt who would have
washed out of basic training who are all too eager to send other
people's kids off to war.

Pretty much the definition of "Chicken Hawk".


Tangentially I think that, if it had not been for Colin Powell's wife,
Powell would have run for president, been elected, and history would
have been a *lot* different.




"if" is the biggest word in the English language

On 12/09/2016 09:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 12:02:30 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:57 AM, trader_4 wrote:


snip


As to the accuracy of his statement ...that can be debated but it is not
at all true. If you care to read the history of WW-II it was assumed the
Japanese were going to attack ...somewhere....sometime.

IDK what history books you're reading, but my take on it was that tensions
had increased, the US thought war with Japan was a possibility, but not
that we knew they were going to attack. Conspiracy theorists of course
claim we knew about the actual attack on Pearl Harbor ahead of time.





From a purely tactical point , it was a blunder on the part of the
Japanese because the US fleet was mostly all out to sea.

When is a world power navy ever all in port? The big miss was the
US carriers, which the Japanese thought were at Pearl, but they were
not sure and a recon mission to find out failed because it could not
be refueled. It was a decisive, stunning, tactical defeat, that's for
sure.




FDR knew that the only way he could justify the US getting into the war
was by such an attack. Since the fleet was not there when the Japanese
arrived, it was almost as if he knew for sure it was going to happen.

Here come the conspiracy theories....



I have no way of knowing if info was purposely withheld but every
historical account assumed the US knew the Japanese were likely to attack.

Again, if you;re reading that with the accuracy that you took Newt
totally out of context, I can see why you're confused. All the readings
I've seen indicate that the US thought an attack was *possible*, not
that it was likely.




Not confused just a bit miffed however

On 12/09/2016 09:09 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 12/9/2016 7:37 AM, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:55 PM, Muggles wrote:

snip

idn't have a brilliant moment in history on that day.

Gingrich wasn't wrong. It just wasn't politically or socially correct to
say because everyone else was talking about the horrors of how our Navy
was attacked. I don't think he dissed the US because he didn't praise
the US. I think he was just making a point about how the Japanese
painstakingly planned and set out to achieve a military victory.

It's important, I think, to understand the sort of resolve it takes for
countries to invade other countries. We need to have an even greater
resolve so we can plan ahead to stop such things from happening, imo,
and if we can't recognize how the Japanese achieved what they saw as a
successful plan of attack, how will we be able to learn from it?

[...]

I do not care much for political correctness or all the "special
snowflakes" we have now...but Gingrich just plain picked the wrong day
to make such an asinine statement.

I get it ... some people are even LESS politically correct than you or I
might be!




I really don't care much for political correctness, level playing fields
or special snowflakes..

On 12/9/2016 11:16 AM, philo wrote:
On 12/09/2016 09:09 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 12/9/2016 7:37 AM, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:55 PM, Muggles wrote:

snip

idn't have a brilliant moment in history on that day.

Gingrich wasn't wrong. It just wasn't politically or socially
correct to
say because everyone else was talking about the horrors of how our Navy
was attacked. I don't think he dissed the US because he didn't praise
the US. I think he was just making a point about how the Japanese
painstakingly planned and set out to achieve a military victory.

It's important, I think, to understand the sort of resolve it takes for
countries to invade other countries. We need to have an even greater
resolve so we can plan ahead to stop such things from happening, imo,
and if we can't recognize how the Japanese achieved what they saw as a
successful plan of attack, how will we be able to learn from it?

[...]

I do not care much for political correctness or all the "special
snowflakes" we have now...but Gingrich just plain picked the wrong day
to make such an asinine statement.

I get it ... some people are even LESS politically correct than you or I
might be!




I really don't care much for political correctness, level playing fields
or special snowflakes..

LOL yeah I hear that!


--
Maggie

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 12/9/2016 10:13 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:00:25 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 12/9/2016 9:32 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Philo talkes a sentence out of context, claims there is nothing more,
its "standalone", when it was immediately preceded by another tweet
that set the context.

I'm sure he would have figured that out on his own.

ROFL.

Not only couldn't he figure it out on his own, he kept denying it,
claiming that the one tweet, was the whole ****ing thing, to use
his exact words.

He was angry at the time. People get tunnel vision when they're angry.
I stand by what I said.

So, it's my problem that other people get angry and have tunnel vision?
I should just role over and accept BS and then doubling down on BS?


The way you communicate is you have to jump on a particular issue where
you can win a point and you think that makes you superior, but you never
try to understand why people are upset or why they're saying what
they've said. It's always either black or white with you - never
anything in the middle.

There is no middle when you come in here and claim that what you posted
is the whole quote, it's "standalone", and then it turns out that it
was preceded by something that sets the context, puts it in an entirely
different light. It's not emotion, it's fact and facts matter.

The existence of other tweets doesn't change his anger at the tweet he
quoted. You feel you scored a point because you proved there were more
tweets in the series. It didn't change how he felt about the tweet he
posted.

I don't give a rat's ass what he "feels" buttercup. But I do care
when he comes in here making false claims, misrepresenting what was
tweeted, "that was the full ****ing quote". He's also wrong about
history, eg that the US *knew* an attack was coming.





Sure, there were 3 tweets, but even you got that wrong, initially,
because you said there were only 2.

Wrong again. I never said there were only two. I only said that the
one tweet was immediately preceded by another that set the context,
and I provided that tweet. And the third is largely irrelevant
because it doesn't change anything.

OK ... so I suppose that doesn't add up to you saying there were 2 tweets?

Bingo! Maybe there is hope for you yet?

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 12:16:29 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/09/2016 09:09 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 12/9/2016 7:37 AM, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:55 PM, Muggles wrote:

snip

idn't have a brilliant moment in history on that day.

Gingrich wasn't wrong. It just wasn't politically or socially correct to
say because everyone else was talking about the horrors of how our Navy
was attacked. I don't think he dissed the US because he didn't praise
the US. I think he was just making a point about how the Japanese
painstakingly planned and set out to achieve a military victory.

It's important, I think, to understand the sort of resolve it takes for
countries to invade other countries. We need to have an even greater
resolve so we can plan ahead to stop such things from happening, imo,
and if we can't recognize how the Japanese achieved what they saw as a
successful plan of attack, how will we be able to learn from it?

[...]

I do not care much for political correctness or all the "special
snowflakes" we have now...but Gingrich just plain picked the wrong day
to make such an asinine statement.

I get it ... some people are even LESS politically correct than you or I
might be!




I really don't care much for political correctness, level playing fields
or special snowflakes..

Yet you get all upset about what Newt said. What he said wasn't PC
and apparently you're the special snowflake.

On 12/09/2016 09:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:

--
Maggie

And what did Philo actually do? He came in here an totally misrepresented
what Newt said. He claimed that one sentence was the only thing Newt tweeted.
It was not. It was preceded immediately by another tweet that set the context
for what followed. THAT has nothing to do with being a "people person".
It's just being fair, sticking up for the truth. It has nothing to do with
emotion, but I can see how you would think it does. That's how you react,
with emotion and disregard for the facts, the truth.



I said that I quoted his Tweet completely.


Even though he made two other tweets that day, the one I had issue with
was the one I quoted

On 12/09/2016 10:31 AM, dadiOH wrote:
"

It makes thinking about complex issues simpler and easier to keep score,
I guess. I had that reaction too. I mean we should be for freedom,
human rights, and to the extent these regimes oppress their people,'
we should be against that, but I'm not sure that automatically makes
them our enemies.

No reason it should IMO; however, doing so is good for some, namely, the
military and those who profit from war and turbulence. The government too;
an enemy - real or perceived - allows them to implement things that would
not normally be allowed. Just ask Dubya.

We spent close to a half century with the country all riled up over the
godless, communist USSR who never did jack squat to us except - possibly -
enable the allies to win WW2. During that tine the US was directly or
indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people all over the
world, all in the name of making the world safe for democracy, whether they
wanted it or not.

Well, the USSR went away so we needed another enemy. We got it. We got it
largely because of the US actions during the aforementioned half century.





Most of my life I've heard that Communists are evil. Communism is evil
and I've wondered about it.

Though a modified version of it seems to be working for China and
Vietnam, it certainly did not work out so well for USSR/ Russia, Cuba
and N. Korea


As I eventually learned, Communism strictly in theory is not necessarily
evil but in practice the Communist governments are very evil.


So while I was on the Army 1969/71 I was in air defense along the
Czechoslovakian boarder. Out purpose was to show the USSR our presence
and to tell the truth I did not think what we did was very much.

Now looking back at the way USSR and now Russia behaves, had the US not
been there, USSR/ Russia would have marched right in.


For all it's faults, I'd live the American way of life any day that
spend my life in a Communist country.


That said, out of necessity the US had to be friends with USSR to beat
Germany during WWII.


Possibly more than anything else, the Russian Winter is what defeated
Germany

On 12/09/2016 02:08 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 12:16:29 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/09/2016 09:09 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 12/9/2016 7:37 AM, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:55 PM, Muggles wrote:

snip

idn't have a brilliant moment in history on that day.

Gingrich wasn't wrong. It just wasn't politically or socially correct to
say because everyone else was talking about the horrors of how our Navy
was attacked. I don't think he dissed the US because he didn't praise
the US. I think he was just making a point about how the Japanese
painstakingly planned and set out to achieve a military victory.

It's important, I think, to understand the sort of resolve it takes for
countries to invade other countries. We need to have an even greater
resolve so we can plan ahead to stop such things from happening, imo,
and if we can't recognize how the Japanese achieved what they saw as a
successful plan of attack, how will we be able to learn from it?

[...]

I do not care much for political correctness or all the "special
snowflakes" we have now...but Gingrich just plain picked the wrong day
to make such an asinine statement.

I get it ... some people are even LESS politically correct than you or I
might be!




I really don't care much for political correctness, level playing fields
or special snowflakes..

Yet you get all upset about what Newt said. What he said wasn't PC
and apparently you're the special snowflake.




Aw **** I was going to reply but I just melted.

My feelings were sooo hurt. Sure glad our new president is not sensitive
about little remarks.

On 12/09/2016 3:08 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
....

.. ... and another nominated for head of EPA that denies global
warming.

Haven't you heard? They've given up "global warming" for "climate
change"...

About time somebody reigned in EPA before they bankrupt us...as well as
entitlements.

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 14:29:52 -0600, philo wrote:

So while I was on the Army 1969/71 I was in air defense along the
Czechoslovakian boarder. Out purpose was to show the USSR our presence
and to tell the truth I did not think what we did was very much.

Now looking back at the way USSR and now Russia behaves, had the US not
been there, USSR/ Russia would have marched right in.

I was along that border in '71, stationed a distance away but we could
put a battalion of artillery forces there on the ground, easily.
Cold as **** but it was our duty ; )

- M109 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naLdUA7QRNE