Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Scout26 on June 26, 2012, 02:41:25 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/jimmy-carter-accuses-u-widespread-abuse-human-rights-154057442--abc-news-politics.html
Dammit, I'm not supposed to agree with Jimmy Carter. =|
-
He's just a racist Southern racist peanut farmer, of course.
And he's a racist.
-
Jimmy has a point when he mentions things like domestic warrantless wiretapping, but the core of his criticism is that he doesn't like drone strikes against Al Qaeda, Taliban, and other enemy targets in Pakistan and elsewhere, and wants Gitmo closed.
Cry me a river - drone strikes and keeping Gitmo open are two of the very, very few things Obama is mostly getting right.
In the eyes of Jimmy Carter, it would seem that the Constitution is a suicide pact.
-
he and ramsey clark are bookends
-
Jimmy never runs out of good intentions.
-
Yea, I remember Carter and 21% interest rates.
I saw an interview with him a year or so ago, hawking his new book.
He seemed to have a very high opinion of himself when commenting on current politics.
He failed miserably with the Iran hostage rescue, and Reagan won that battle for the US.
I do not care for him at all.
-
Jimmy has a point when he mentions things like domestic warrantless wiretapping, but the core of his criticism is that he doesn't like drone strikes against Al Qaeda, Taliban, and other enemy targets in Pakistan and elsewhere, and wants Gitmo closed.
Cry me a river - drone strikes and keeping Gitmo open are two of the very, very few things Obama is mostly getting right.
In the eyes of Jimmy Carter, it would seem that the Constitution is a suicide pact.
So you want a guy who gets everything else wrong to have the power to kill you without trial?
You realize Obama has that power don't you?
-
So you want a guy who gets everything else wrong to have the power to kill you without trial?
You realize Obama has that power don't you?
Solid point, regardless of who is in office.
-
So you want a guy who gets everything else wrong to have the power to kill you without trial?
You realize Obama has that power don't you?
Should Anwar Al Awlaki have been dealt with as if he were John Gotti?
-
So, let's return to the main issue:
1. Terrorists exist.
2. Terrorists are waging de-facto war against us and our allies. They are organzied enough and well-armed enough that it is difficult to use law enforcement tactics against them - you can hardly go into North Waziristan or whatnot and read Mahmood Abu-Jihad his Miranda Rights, because Mahmood is escorted by a bunch of buddies, and they've all got AKs and PKMs.
3. Some argue that Mahmood should be treated like an enemy general. We hardly put those on trial. We fire rockets at them.
4. But, others argue, also correctly, that it's hard to sort out the bad guys from the good guys in this.
There doesn't seem to be a good answer.
-
Should Anwar Al Awlaki have been dealt with as if he were John Gotti?
Yes, it worked fine for Gotti. Why not for awlaki?
Micro, the big difference here is that these people are only alleged to be the equivalent of generals in a war - there's no public evidence that they are in fact combatants.
We have not previously considered it ok to shoot suspected war criminals, like irregular leaders, without a trial.
-
The main problem is that mobsters live within our society. While they do use violence, they try at least to pretend to be upstanding members of society, and do not (typically) have their armed gangs fight police in long drawn-out gun fights (excepting countries where law and order has already collapsed).
People like Shamil Basaev or Osama Bin-Ladin, on the other hand, live typically in areas where the rule of law doesn't function well even in the best of times and are usually escorted by groups of armed followers. This makes the use of police tactics highly difficult.
-
So you want a guy who gets everything else wrong to have the power to kill you without trial?
You realize Obama has that power don't you?
Anyone with a 12 gauge has that power too, to put it from a different perspective.....
Killing AQ terrorists .... with drones, or with 5.56mm. from an M4 carbine is an act of war.
I don't like Obama but I won't fault him for TKOing AQ enemies.
-
Carter is almost 88 years old. I'm of the opinion he was already getting senile when he was President.
Being one of Rickover's hand picked chosen few doesn't win him any points from either.
-
Yes, it worked fine for Gotti. Why not for awlaki?
So we should fight a war against violent terrorists - and their leaders! - in foreign lands with barely functioning governments not with military force, but with process servers, eh? :facepalm:
-
He failed miserably with the Iran hostage rescue, and Reagan won that battle for the US.
???
Reagan cut a deal rewarding Iran with weapons in exchange for hostages. I'm not sure providing several thousand TOW missiles, among other things, to a known enemy of the US is a "won that battle".
In the eyes of Jimmy Carter, it would seem that the Constitution is a suicide pact.
...
Anytime I hear someone saying that, I usually then immediately hear about how "2A is a collective right", "free speech ain't free", "the 4th amendment doesn't really require warrants", etc. In other words, something completely a really bad idea. Let me guess, the Constitution is also "a living document", "outdated", "needs to be interpreted in a modern sense"..?
If you don't like the Constitution, change it. Otherwise, it means what it says, m'kay? It's not pick and choose, and that is the source of probably about half of today's problems at a federal level.
-
Anytime I hear someone saying that, I usually then immediately hear about how "2A is a collective right", "free speech ain't free", "the 4th amendment doesn't really require warrants", etc. In other words, something completely a really bad idea. Let me guess, the Constitution is also "a living document", "outdated", "needs to be interpreted in a modern sense"..?
Hmmm . . . do you hear the same when someone who was active in the founding of this nation says it?
" . . . strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means . . ."
IMNSHO, war is not a law enforcement activity.
-
Hmmm . . . do you hear the same when someone who was active in the founding of this nation says it?
IMNSHO, war is not a law enforcement activity.
I'm fairly Thomas Jefferson would probably not buy the "we must gut the Constitution for the feeling or illusion of security" argument. If the country was actually in danger, yes, he probably would say that we need to do something about it. But Wahabi terrorism is about as able to destroy America as Lady Gaga. MicroBalrog is right that LE tactics are not ideal against terrorists, because in DurkaDurkaStan, they do tend to be the law. They are annoying, small scale dangerous (less dangerous than say, the Russian mafia or Mexican cartels) and tend not to be overly bright.
On the flip side, a large percentage of antiterrorism laws are not aimed at terrorists. They're aimed at the US citizenry. This is not a conspiracy. It's because catching terrorists is hard, writing more laws is easy and politicians/bureaucrats are lazy. I suspect Thomas Jefferson would be of the opinion that said quote would be more applicable to the TSA than terrorists.
There is no good answer when it comes to terrorism. Only way to fix it is the underlaying problems that generate the terrorists. Good luck sorting out the governmental problems of the Middle East, North Africa and southern Asia. Best you can do is hammer down the nails when they stick up and try not to piss off too many countries or peoples if you don't have a reason.
-
But Wahabi terrorism is about as able to destroy America as Lady Gaga.
"Them thar is friendly injuns."~~ Lt. Col George Armstrong Custer, 25 June 1876.
Well, seriously, I wonder just what the wahabiists are capable of. Do they consider the "war" over? What if they get some "suitcase" nukes -- or control of Pakistan's nukes.
Their movement extends way beyond A'stan & Pakistan.
One of the most deadly mistakes one can make is to underestimate the ability(ies) and resolve of an enemy.
.....even Lady Gaga. [tinfoil]
On the flip side, a large percentage of antiterrorism laws are not aimed at terrorists. They're aimed at the US citizenry. This is not a conspiracy. It's because catching terrorists is hard, writing more laws is easy and politicians/bureaucrats are lazy.
Actually, while this may surprise you, I agree with this. Seems to contradict my position as stated above? No it really doesn't. I never said what we're doing to fight the terrs is the right thing, or that we're doing enough to eliminate them. IF we were doing enough of the right thing, I wouldn't worry.
So, I worry.
-
. . . On the flip side, a large percentage of antiterrorism laws are not aimed at terrorists. They're aimed at the US citizenry. . . .
This is actually a good point - things like putting people - American citizens - on the "no fly list" and not telling them why truly is odious to the Constitution, along with warrantless wiretaps, "administrative" warrants, fishing expeditions through library records, etc.
But I don't have a problem with dropping something that goes bang on Taliban, Al-Quaeda, and other genuine terrorists hiding out (with local "government" connivance) in some turd world dungheap who are actively and deliberately orchestrating anti-US violence.
And as far as these terrorists not being able to destroy America . . . that's right, they can't do that any more than one mound of fire ants in my back yard can kill my family. But it doesn't mean I'm going to relocate them gently to the woods; I'm going to douse the mound with Orthene and kill the little b@$t@rd$ ASAP.
-
Reagan cut a deal rewarding Iran with weapons in exchange for hostages. I'm not sure providing several thousand TOW missiles, among other things, to a known enemy of the US is a "won that battle".
The hostages were released during Reagan's Inauguration. Howzat work again?
-
The hostages were released during Reagan's Inauguration. Howzat work again?
He negotiated with the hostage-takers, successfully.
-
He negotiated with the hostage-takers, successfully.
When did he do that? As President-elect? Like those conspiracy theories, do you?
-
"Them thar is friendly injuns."~~ Lt. Col George Armstrong Custer, 25 June 1876.
Well, seriously, I wonder just what the wahabiists are capable of. Do they consider the "war" over? What if they get some "suitcase" nukes -- or control of Pakistan's nukes.
Their movement extends way beyond A'stan & Pakistan.
One of the most deadly mistakes one can make is to underestimate the ability(ies) and resolve of an enemy.
.....even Lady Gaga. [tinfoil]
Actually, while this may surprise you, I agree with this. Seems to contradict my position as stated above? No it really doesn't. I never said what we're doing to fight the terrs is the right thing, or that we're doing enough to eliminate them. IF we were doing enough of the right thing, I wouldn't worry.
So, I worry.
Overestimating your enemy can be just as dangerous. Wahabis need to be stomped on, but we've dumped several trillion dollars into unrelated activities. Plus sharply reduced our own freedom. Making us less in a position to combat terrorism.
An example of overestimation. Suitcase nukes are basically an urban legend. The correct name is a linear implosion type weapons, and commonly referred as atomic demolitions. The most advanced linear implosion nuclear munitions are a 100 lbs and have a fraction of a kiloton yield. The more common ones were 150 lbs plus, had minimal shielding, and a <2kt yield. Radiation detectors can pick them up with ease, because they emit like no tomorrow. If you had your own AF and short duration operational, not so much of a problem. Plus nuclear weapons do have shelf lives, it varies depending on type and maintenance. Russian surplus warheads would not be very useful unless refurbished, which takes a fairly advanced technological base. Linear implosion weapons would be basically more useful as radiological weapons rather than proper nuclear weapons, because a tractor trailer filled with any RDX explosive would be a lot more dangerous.
Pakistan does not have the technical ability to make compact linear implosion nuclear weapons, and won't for a few decades of advanced research.
This is sorta the example I have used in the past when government officials were trying to BS people. They did not like me mentioning this information at a disaster management symposium. Again, dangers of propaganda and overestimation used as invalid excuses.
The hostages were released during Reagan's Inauguration. Howzat work again?
Ah. The Iran Contra incident?
-
Overestimating your enemy can be just as dangerous. Wahabis need to be stomped on, but we've dumped several trillion dollars into unrelated activities. Plus sharply reduced our own freedom. Making us less in a position to combat terrorism.
An example of overestimation. Suitcase nukes are basically an urban legend. The correct name is a linear implosion type weapons, and commonly referred as atomic demolitions. The most advanced linear implosion nuclear munitions are a 100 lbs and have a fraction of a kiloton yield. The more common ones were 150 lbs plus, had minimal shielding, and a <2kt yield. Radiation detectors can pick them up with ease, because they emit like no tomorrow. If you had your own AF and short duration operational, not so much of a problem. Plus nuclear weapons do have shelf lives, it varies depending on type and maintenance. Russian surplus warheads would not be very useful unless refurbished, which takes a fairly advanced technological base. Linear implosion weapons would be basically more useful as radiological weapons rather than proper nuclear weapons, because a tractor trailer filled with any RDX explosive would be a lot more dangerous.
Pakistan does not have the technical ability to make compact linear implosion nuclear weapons, and won't for a few decades of advanced research.
This is sorta the example I have used in the past when government officials were trying to BS people. They did not like me mentioning this information at a disaster management symposium. Again, dangers of propaganda and overestimation used as invalid excuses.
..........
The most difficult part of making a nuke is to get the fissile material in a state ready to be used as a weapon.
The barrel of a howitzer is sufficient to make the rest.
A simple fission device is easy (aside from procuring the fissile stuff). The bomb used on Hiroshima may be puny by today's standards but it blew up Hiroshima just fine.
There is controversy surrounding the SADM (suitcase nukes) because some Soviet ones may (or may not) have gone missing. Apparantly there are controversies surrounding inventory ##s and no one really knows. Prior to Al Qaeda's rise to pop culture status [tinfoil] there were ....mysterious stories (usually on late night radio) about SADMs being covertly planted in America.
I don't know if those stories are true or not. I really don't care.
"Over" estimating or "under" estimating the enemy. IMNSHO many people "over" estimated our enemies in WW2. Neither the Germans or the Japanese were going to invade America, despite the fears of many who lived in that era. But after the war was over and we were privy to what the Germans & Japs had in store should the war have lasted longer, and the story changes.
The Germans had no weapons that could reach from Germany to America, let alone a return trip. But they had them on the drawing board -- and they had nukes on the drawing board.
The Japanese as well. They had a nuclear program and a better atomic fuse than anything we had, but no fissile material. That deficit was almost rectified by the Nazis, who sent them some via U-boot during the war. Thankfully we managed to intercept that particular sub and thus thwart the Japanese. Had the Japs develop the means to build and deliver a atomic bomb they had plans (it's part of the historical record) to hit San Francisco.
And I think the Nazis would have loved to hit New York and/or Washington DC.
Are you privy to what AQ intends to do ten, twenty years from now? Are you in a position to provide a guesstimate about what their abilities will be by then?
I am not trying to say it's a rock-solid cinch AQ is going to win this war, obliterate America, nuke Washington (that would actually be more of a favor than a act of war these days anyway) or anything. I don't know what the future will be any more than anyone else. I just don't like it that we seem to be taking it for granted that wahabiists are no longer a big threat to America, that we're winding down in A'stan and peace is at hand. We HAVEN'T won the war.
There are a lot of good questions about how to do that....whatever. I'm not up to getting into all that right now anyway as other events are distracting me.....let's just say I "get" the problems, I haven't any ultra-brilliant solutions for them right now....and leave it at that. For now atleast.
-
I just don't like it that we seem to be taking it for granted that wahabiists are no longer a big threat to America, that we're winding down in A'stan and peace is at hand. We HAVEN'T won the war.
1. The Wahhabis are not now, nor were ever, a big threat to America. Even on 9/11, when the actual planes were diving in on the towers, the Wahhabis were not a big threat to America.
2. Please provide a concrete, realistic, definition of victory.
-
The hostages were released during Reagan's Inauguration. Howzat work again?
Iranian snatchings in Lebanon - you know, when reagan sold the Iranians arms and used the money to pay for a campaign of terrorism in central America, which included the orchestrated rape of nuns, shootings of priests, and in particular the use of acid in people's faces as a means of "protecting liberty."
Yep, that Reagan sure showed them terrorists! He showed even more of them how to conduct a successful guerrilla war in Afghanistan...outstanding foresight there.
-
Iranian snatchings in Lebanon - you know, when reagan sold the Iranians arms and used the money to pay for a campaign of terrorism in central America, which included the orchestrated rape of nuns, shootings of priests, and in particular the use of acid in people's faces as a means of "protecting liberty."
Yep, that Reagan sure showed them terrorists! He showed even more of them how to conduct a successful guerrilla war in Afghanistan...outstanding foresight there.
If he was able to keep Iran in the running with Iraq during the Iran/Iraq War with expendable munitions, more power to him.
The more the mad mohammedians keep their attention on killing each other, the less time they have to get into trouble in civilized parts of the globe.
Overestimating your enemy can be just as dangerous. Wahabis need to be stomped on, but we've dumped several trillion dollars into unrelated activities. Plus sharply reduced our own freedom. Making us less in a position to combat terrorism.
This. Why do we let the "invade the world / invite the world" goobers set up shop in places where only rubble ought to be left?
-
I just don't like it that we seem to be taking it for granted that wahabiists are no longer a big threat to America, that we're winding down in A'stan and peace is at hand. We HAVEN'T won the war.
1. The Wahhabis are not now, nor were ever, a big threat to America. Even on 9/11, when the actual planes were diving in on the towers, the Wahhabis were not a big threat to America.
I am soooooooooo relieved to hear this. You don't know HOW relieved I am. I don't know why I thought a terrorist group who could slaughter 2,973 human beings and cause billions of dollars in damage would ever be a "big threat" to America. I guess the fact even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor didn't kill so many or cost so much probably prejudiced my opinion, huh?
2. Please provide a concrete, realistic, definition of victory.
That will happen when the Wahabiists are incapable of giving us a dirty look.
[tinfoil]
-
I am soooooooooo relieved to hear this. You don't know HOW relieved I am. I don't know why I thought a terrorist group who could slaughter 2,973 human beings and cause billions of dollars in damage would ever be a "big threat" to America. I guess the fact even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor didn't kill so many or cost so much probably prejudiced my opinion, huh?
Yes. It did, because the threat posed by the Japanese was not limited to what they did in Pearl Harbor, but also extended to a massive range of conventional military attacks throughout the region. On the day after the attack, Japan outgunned the US Navy in the Pacific 10-1 in battleships, and 3-1 in Carriers. They had a full-blown industrialized empire, combined with a fanatical religion (Shinto was in this respect as awful as Wahhabism, except the Japanese were far less technologically incompetent).
Of course, this resulted in America completely destroying the Japanese air force, 90%+ of Japanese industry, and then nuking Japan twice. Then, after the atomic strikes, America carried out the largest strategic bombing of the entire war, to make sure.
That will happen when the Wahabiists are incapable of giving us a dirty look.
Given the fact the Wahhabists have no centralized command, and given any damn fool Mullah with five followers can apply for an Al-Quaeda franchise, how do you even conceive that as being possible?
-
Yes. It did, because the threat posed by the Japanese was not limited to what they did in Pearl Harbor, but also extended to a massive range of conventional military attacks throughout the region. On the day after the attack, Japan outgunned the US Navy in the Pacific 10-1 in battleships, and 3-1 in Carriers. They had a full-blown industrialized empire, combined with a fanatical religion (Shinto was in this respect as awful as Wahhabism, except the Japanese were far less technologically incompetent).
Of course, this resulted in America completely destroying the Japanese air force, 90%+ of Japanese industry, and then nuking Japan twice. Then, after the atomic strikes, America carried out the largest strategic bombing of the entire war, to make sure.
Given the fact the Wahhabists have no centralized command, and given any damn fool Mullah with five followers can apply for an Al-Quaeda franchise, how do you even conceive that as being possible?
I don't know Micro....I think we're doomed. I think we're going to let them win.
Like the Japanese extending their influence throughout the Pacific the Wahabiists are also spreading their influence. They're in no position to rape NanKing yet but they aren't the type of threat that marches in, shoots all the men, rapes all the women and drinks all the rice wine. The wahabiists are slightly more subtle than that.
-
I don't know Micro....I think we're doomed. I think we're going to let them win.
Like the Japanese extending their influence throughout the Pacific the Wahabiists are also spreading their influence. They're in no position to rape NanKing yet but they aren't the type of threat that marches in, shoots all the men, rapes all the women and drinks all the rice wine. The wahabiists are slightly more subtle than that.
Uh, where is there a danger of Wahhabi takeover? They only barely maintain power in Saudi Arabia, and that's through extreme violence against their own and US military support.
-
Uh, where is there a danger of Wahhabi takeover? They only barely maintain power in Saudi Arabia, and that's through extreme violence against their own and US military support.
They're in Indonesia as well. And other areas around there.
It's nice to think they're not a real danger but they may not agree with the idea that the ... "jihad" is anywhere near over, let alone just in its early decades.
-
They're in Indonesia as well. And other areas around there.
It's nice to think they're not a real danger but they may not agree with the idea that the ... "jihad" is anywhere near over, let alone just in its early decades.
Wahhabis have about as much chance of taking Indonesia as the Westboro baptists do of taking America.
-
1. The Wahhabis are not now, nor were ever, a big threat to America. Even on 9/11, when the actual planes were diving in on the towers, the Wahhabis were not a big threat to America.
I am soooooooooo relieved to hear this. You don't know HOW relieved I am. I don't know why I thought a terrorist group who could slaughter 2,973 human beings and cause billions of dollars in damage would ever be a "big threat" to America. I guess the fact even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor didn't kill so many or cost so much probably prejudiced my opinion, huh?
The Wahhabi have no industrial base. They have no military infrastructure. They do not have nation states. They have some turf, but no thorough tax base. Their economic "power" is limited to contributions from other folks, ergo they are parasitic. That's never as steady or comprehensive as having an actual economy to back you up. Those contributions are near entirely linked to oil production, which is not a very diverse economy either.
They're dangerous, don't get me wrong. But until they have even a single nation under their control and an actual industrial base... Pfft.
They're cockroaches. They do damage, they're a pain to hunt down and step on. But they'll never be able to kill or destroy us.
Did you wonder why we haven't had a real terrorist strike since then? It's surely not because of our wonderful security agencies, such as the TSA. As far as anyone knows, the TSA has not caught any terrorists. Air Marshals are ten times as effective as the TSA... And more air marshals have been arrested than people arrested by air marshals. Each person arrested, not convicted, comes with a $200 million dollar price tag.
Economically, it'd be intelligent to scrap the overwhelming majority of domestic security programs and toss one fifth of the cash to our Special Operations folks and intelligence agencies. It'd have the additional benefit of actually probably improving our security.
That will happen when the Wahabiists are incapable of giving us a dirty look.
[tinfoil]
So, in other words, forever war? That does seem to be the wish of way too many folks.
Wahhabis have about as much chance of taking Indonesia as the Westboro baptists do of taking America.
De Selby is correct. A better example would be the ability of the Mexican Cartels do of taking America. They're dangerous and a real problem. But odds of them seizing power? Uhm. Zip?
-
Thank you, RevDisk, Deselby, for telling me so much of what I already know.
They don't have an industrial base?
Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......
They have no nation-states/tax base. Blah blah. Well, that's true. But look at europe. They've made huge inroads in european culture. Some countries like France have just begun to fight back. Draw a cartoon of Mohammed and publish it there and you'd better be superman.
So, in other words, forever war? That does seem to be the wish of way too many folks.
:facepalm:
No. NOT a ****** "foooorrrrrrevvvver war." Jeeeeeesh. :facepalm:
If we'd been fighting a real war in A'Stan and had the cojones to deal with Pakistan I think we'd be through by now. We did the same ****** in Vietnam. McNamara called it "limited warfare" and the idea was to use only enough force to deal with the enemy -- no more.
Thus we got a decade of war and 58,000 dead.
Whatever success the Muslim hordes enjoy in europe -- dicey though it may be -- was done sans industrial base, sans nation state.
Wahhabis have about as much chance of taking Indonesia as the Westboro baptists do of taking America.
Oh THANKS DeSelby ..... now I have to worry about the Westboro Baptist nuts...... :rofl: [tinfoil]
You guys weren't advisers to G. A. Custer in an earlier lifetime, were you? [tinfoil] [popcorn]
A "appreciate" your confidence(s).
Now I guess you will reply with incredulous posts of just how IMPOSSIBLE it really IS for the wahabiists to win. And that they can't without the above montioned nation state industrial stuff.
Look, I'm HOPING you're right. I'm just not so sanguin about it.
I joke about Custer and the Plains Indian Wars. And while RevDisk would point out that the whiteman had the industrial base, the "nation state" (notwithstanding the "Indian Nation(s)" concept, a slightly different thing altogether) and so forth....
Custer did lose at the Little Bighorn. The Sioux Nation had the numbers and .... atleast that one moment .... the cajones, the spirit, to take a circumstance in which the Indians would normally be at a huge disadvantage and turn it into a great victory under Chiefs Crazy Horse & Gall. Thank you Chief Sitting Bull, for the vision. The spiritual vision of bluecoats falling into camp.
Like the spiritual stuff? Hey, send it in to George Noory.
It's bunk.
It gave the Indian warriors encouragement to believe they could (would) win. That, combined with other facts such as Custer's bad situation awareness, a subordinate screwing up initial contact with the enemy, another subordinate's failure to follow orders to bring up more ammo packs & supplies, another cavalry general botching a river crossing and delaying his cavalry's arrival at the L.Bighorn, plus the terrain favoring Crazy Horse & Gall, led the Indian Nations to a victory over a more technically advanced enemy.
But it was also the Indian Nations' last stand......
Years later Crazy Horse was dead, and Wounded Knee (AKA "Custer's Revenge) sapped the last of the Indian spirit for fighting the white man.
In my opinion we did not so much win the Plains Indian Wars as the Indians lost it. They lost the spirit to fight. And the Indian Nations have been in lousy conditions ever since.... for a lot of reasons I won't go into.
I don't know how the war against the Wahabiists will turn out. However, I fear it is we who are losing our spirit, our will to fight. I read snide remarks about "forever war" on internet posts and wonder how many people really have the will for what may prove to be a long term battle. The "Plains Indian" War went on nearly four decades. In skirmishes on the field the "civilized" high-tech U.S. Cavalry often found themselves out guessed, outflanked, outfought and dead. Names like Grattan and Fetterman and .... George Armstrong Custer.... echo down across the abyss of time to remind us that while we may have "superior" weapons that doesn't mean we always have superior minds, an underdog can, too, win. Atleast in the "short term."
Yeah, we have fought a less than perfect war. We thought there were WMDs in Iraq and allowed that to distract us, a billions of dollars worth of bungle. A modern "Market Garden" or "Kasserine Pass" times 1000.
Victory? You want a definition?
Loss is far easier to define. Time will answer the question far better than I can ....atleast right now.
I am having my crystal ball repaired .... it really ****-ed me over on the Obamacare thing ..... [barf] :facepalm: :'(
-
They have no nation-states/tax base. Blah blah. Well, that's true. But look at europe. They've made huge inroads in european culture. Some countries like France have just begun to fight back. Draw a cartoon of Mohammed and publish it there and you'd better be superman.
Why? Not a single one of the people behind the Muslim Cartoon Crisis has ever been even injured by a Muslim. If anything that story has gotten hundreds of Jihadis killed (in riots in places like Pakistan, failed attacks on Europeans, etc.).
All we need to do is draw a picture of their leader and they start killing themselves.
Put it this way.
The Basque have carried out more terrorist attacks than the Muslims (http://euobserver.com/22/29968).
The only (ONLY!) Muslim Terrorist Attack in Europe that year was:
One Libyan national tried to detonate a home-made explosive device when entering a military compound in Milan. He slightly wounded one of the guards and suffered severe burns himself.
I'm sorry if I am unimpressed by this man's epic military prowess.
-
Why? Not a single one of the people behind the Muslim Cartoon Crisis has ever been even injured by a Muslim. If anything that story has gotten hundreds of Jihadis killed (in riots in places like Pakistan, failed attacks on Europeans, etc.).
All we need to do is draw a picture of their leader and they start killing themselves.
??? ??? Really?Wasn't a relative/offspring of Van Gogh murdered by islamists after drawing a cartoon or some supposedly "bad" representation of Mohamed? I'm pretty sure something similar happened a few years ago.
-
You guys weren't advisers to G. A. Custer in an earlier
lifetime, were you?
ROFL, thank ye. I needed that.
Ps, just curious, how much direct contact have you had with Islamic terrorists? Ditto time in Islamic countries? Speak any languages Islamic folks tend to use?
-
??? ??? Really?Wasn't a relative/offspring of Van Gogh murdered by islamists after drawing a cartoon or some supposedly "bad" representation of Mohamed? I'm pretty sure something similar happened a few years ago.
Theo Van Gogh, over an anti-Islamic documentary. But as I said - nothing to do with the cartoon crisis.
-
ROFL, thank ye. I needed that.
Ps, just curious, how much direct contact have you had with Islamic terrorists? Ditto time in Islamic countries? Speak any languages Islamic folks tend to use?
[tinfoil]
If I had ... "contact" with Islamic terrorists I would probably be dead.
I don't understand the purpose of these questions. Have YOU been to any Islamic countries? Does going to an Islamic country make you an expert in Islamic terrorists? Do I have to go to these countries or learn a language to express an opinion -- even one which you may disagree??? ???
Theo Van Gogh, over an anti-Islamic documentary. But as I said - nothing to do with the cartoon crisis.
Oh well, friggin' OOOOOOOOOOPS it was a documentary, not a "cartoon."
Still an artist being killed for portrayals of Islam. =| =|
-
If I had ... "contact" with Islamic terrorists I would probably be dead.
I have met a "former" Fatah fighter IRL. I am still alive, isn't that marvelous?
(I believe I have told this story before on this forum).
Oh well, friggin' OOOOOOOOOOPS it was a documentary, not a "cartoon."
Still an artist being killed for portrayals of Islam.
The point is it was you - not me - that referenced the "cartoon crisis".
The evidence is clear: Islamic terrorists are thoroughly incompetent, and they fail far more often than they succeed.
-
I have met a "former" Fatah fighter IRL. I am still alive, isn't that marvelous?
Goodie for you. I suspect it might be remotely possible that the key word there is "former." [tinfoil]
The point is it was you - not me - that referenced the "cartoon crisis".
The evidence is clear: Islamic terrorists are thoroughly incompetent, and they fail far more often than they succeed.
Well I am soooorrrrrrry that I don't have an eidetic memory and cannot perfectly recall every last detail of newstories I have read maybe three or five years ago or whatever.
It's fine that they're incompetent. The ones that attacked us on 9/11/01 were far from US Navy Seal quality but they managed to get lucky (due partially to the fact that WE'RE sometimes lacking in competence-- like the FBI not following through when flight instructors tell them some A-rab guys wanna learn to fly but don't care how to take off or land. BTW that "incompetence" cut both ways; any espionage agents worth their salt would NEVER raise questions about their intent by stating they "don't care about landing & takeoff:" BUT they still cost us nearly 3000 dead and billions in dollars).
From what I've read from servicemen in A'stan the thugs they're fighting are hardly overwhelmingly competent by a long shot but most people seem to agree they are pretty grimly determined to kill us.
But I'm not worried any more. ;) They're "thoroughly incompetent." :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Ah. The Iran Contra incident?
Got it. Thought you meant the embassy hostages.
-
He negotiated with the hostage-takers, successfully.
My apologies, Micro. I thought Rev was referring to the embassy hostages. Sorry for the snark.
-
Then, after the atomic strikes, America carried out the largest strategic bombing of the entire war, to make sure.
Incorrect. While the B-29 raid on 8/14 was the single largest RAID of the war, it was small compared to the amount of bombing BEFORE 8/6 and 8/9. There were 700 sorties in that raid, compared to over 31000 (just b-29's) previously. As for "to make sure" that raid occurred after the Japanese rejected the allied offering as they did not agree with the governmental changes required.
So, if you mean the largest singe raid, and you mean to reinforce the surrender terms of the allies, then correct.
I'm just nit-picking :)
Or to quote Denis miller about pearl harbor "you just pissed off the wrong most powerful nation on earth"
-
The main issue, Tommygunn, and you are continuing to avoid it, is that a great threat is measured not only in how undesireable the event that is threatening us is, but also how likely it is to occur. Then we must estimate whether the expenses, in terms of money and discomfort to our lifestyle and freedom, are worth it.
I have used this example before: there exists a chance I might get shot tomorrow. If I get a loan, buy a bullet-resistant vest, and wear it daily, I would reduce that risk (although not completely to zero, I might still get shot in the head, or by a bullet that penetrates the vest). But I do not buy such a vest, not because I don't value my life, but because the discomfort from wearing the vest in hot Israeli weather, as well as the cost of the vest, is very high, while the actual likelihood I'd be shot (say, 0.000000000001%) is very low. As such, reducing the chance I'd get shot and killed from 0.000000000001% to 0.0000000000001% is not worth the investment in money and comfort.
We as a civilization made a vast investment in money, freedom, and political capital (which might have been applied to much-needed domestic reforms) to forestall a very low-likelihood event - that is, series of 'mega-attacks' like 9/11 disrupting our civilization. Yet the chance of these attacks happening again can never be reduced to zero (there will always be some Muslim terrorist group somewhere).
Our culture in the West has become entirely incapable of properly estimating the rate of risk from various events. You might see this in the annual whinefests about the latest spree shooting, the collapse of the space program (due in part to fears of accident and astronaut deaths), bans on items that are 0.0000000001% more likely to kill you (think about Yarts, or bans on airsoft guns in some countries).
Yes, I am not a maniac Rothbardian - surely if there was, for example, a North Korean invasion of CONUS, the President would likely declare martial law, confiscate all the trucks for military use,, and start drafting sixteen-year-olds to run at the North Korean tanks with fixed bayonets.
But this doesn't mean that every threat against America is an EMERGENCY EMERGENCY EMERGENCY.
Thereofre the question of what threat level is acceptable arises in all of its cold-hearted, steely nakedness. Since the threat level is never going to be zero, we must ask ourselves as a civilization - what threat level are we willing to accept. This question is not seriously discussed in public, in part because the media thrives on the aura of emergency as much as the politicians.
-
[tinfoil]
If I had ... "contact" with Islamic terrorists I would probably be dead.
I don't understand the purpose of these questions. Have YOU been to any Islamic countries? Does going to an Islamic country make you an expert in Islamic terrorists? Do I have to go to these countries or learn a language to express an opinion -- even one which you may disagree??? ???
Oh well, friggin' OOOOOOOOOOPS it was a documentary, not a "cartoon."
Still an artist being killed for portrayals of Islam. =| =|
Yea, I have hung out with folks on and off the State Department terrorist list. Mostly Albanian and Kurdish separatist groups, both mostly arm's length interaction with Wahabi groups. It was fairly educational. They explained quite a bit. Shiites are typically territorial, and by their notion of territory. They tend to being dirt poor. Stay out of their turf, and they'll stick to killing each other and their neighbours. Sunni tend to have the big money, and are big into expansion. They are big on sponsoring conversion around the globe. They also are willing to travel to blow things up. Staying out of their turf is not enough. They are our primary ally and enemy. Ally, because they buy off US politicians and upper echelon desk jockeys. State is filled with their cronies. Everyone else is a mixed bag of random ethnic groups that get screwed over by the big two. They don't matter outside their small patches of turf. The Kurds, Albanians, Chetchens, et al conceded they were no ones compared to the Sunni and Shiites. So they ratchet up violence in their neighbourhoods. Much more likely to have genocide. Either giving or taking, depending on the century.
You are entitled to an option. Does not mean it is automatically entitled weight. More direct experience and knowledge hopefully should be accorded weight.
Respectfully, alleging I am some kind of idiot or defeatist because I have a different opinion and experience is downright hysterical. For your own example, the Indians also lacked all of the same things as the Wahabi. And we crushed them. In spite of taking their turf, which is a hundred times more difficult than just killing extremists. Folks with their back against a wall to defend their land and family fight with a hundred times the motivation of mere ideology.
-
They also sold me some rugs. Pretty rugs, and I am quite sure they thought they took me for a ride. They would have been very offended if I offered them cash for info. But couple hours and haggling, they handed over all the Intel I wanted. Stole that trick from a Sherlock Holmes book. Good trick, btw.
-
The main issue, Tommygunn, and you are continuing to avoid it, is that a great threat is measured not only in how undesireable the event that is threatening us is, but also how likely it is to occur. Then we must estimate whether the expenses, in terms of money and discomfort to our lifestyle and freedom, are worth it.
I have used this example before: there exists a chance I might get shot tomorrow. If I get a loan, buy a bullet-resistant vest, and wear it daily, I would reduce that risk (although not completely to zero, I might still get shot in the head, or by a bullet that penetrates the vest). But I do not buy such a vest, not because I don't value my life, but because the discomfort from wearing the vest in hot Israeli weather, as well as the cost of the vest, is very high, while the actual likelihood I'd be shot (say, 0.000000000001%) is very low. As such, reducing the chance I'd get shot and killed from 0.000000000001% to 0.0000000000001% is not worth the investment in money and comfort.
We as a civilization made a vast investment in money, freedom, and political capital (which might have been applied to much-needed domestic reforms) to forestall a very low-likelihood event - that is, series of 'mega-attacks' like 9/11 disrupting our civilization. Yet the chance of these attacks happening again can never be reduced to zero (there will always be some Muslim terrorist group somewhere).
Our culture in the West has become entirely incapable of properly estimating the rate of risk from various events. You might see this in the annual whinefests about the latest spree shooting, the collapse of the space program (due in part to fears of accident and astronaut deaths), bans on items that are 0.0000000001% more likely to kill you (think about Yarts, or bans on airsoft guns in some countries).
Yes, I am not a maniac Rothbardian - surely if there was, for example, a North Korean invasion of CONUS, the President would likely declare martial law, confiscate all the trucks for military use,, and start drafting sixteen-year-olds to run at the North Korean tanks with fixed bayonets.
But this doesn't mean that every threat against America is an EMERGENCY EMERGENCY EMERGENCY.
Thereofre the question of what threat level is acceptable arises in all of its cold-hearted, steely nakedness. Since the threat level is never going to be zero, we must ask ourselves as a civilization - what threat level are we willing to accept. This question is not seriously discussed in public, in part because the media thrives on the aura of emergency as much as the politicians.
True, I have NO IDEA HOW to estimate how likely any particular threat is. I have no way of doing that.
I do know that we ARE in a war with what I consider to be a determined & ruthless enemy.
I find some of your post a bit specious.
During WW2 we had no idea what the real abilities or the real end goal of our enemies were. We prepared dor possible invasions -- blacked out lights around port cities and established air raid patrols and such.
It was really only after the war we learned that the Japanese never really intended to take over the U.S. Hit us with a nuke in San Francisco? If they could.
In fact they never possessed the ability to stage a real invasion .... unless they gave up their SE. Asia CoProsperity sphere idea and redeployed on an incredibly massive scale....probably something that they just couldn't do, logistically.
We don't really know so much about the Wahabists now. What we seem to think is they're disjointed, unled, unorgainized, and capable only of pulling together some homegrown attacks that misfire due to either sheer incompetence or being infiltrated by FBI, ATF, or other LEO, or some associate turns them in.
I am not hardly privy to the kind of intelligence that the government would use to better classify, and or determine just what is going on in the plotters inside AQ and other terrorist organisations.
And I don't think very many others are, either; a condition that will IMO persist until the war IS truly over and a lot of classified stuff is declassified, and history books are written about this time.
Yea, I have hung out with folks on and off the State Department terrorist list. Mostly Albanian and Kurdish separatist groups, both mostly arm's length interaction with Wahabi groups. It was fairly educational. They explained quite a bit. Shiites are typically territorial, and by their notion of territory. They tend to being dirt poor. Stay out of their turf, and they'll stick to killing each other and their neighbours. Sunni tend to have the big money, and are big into expansion. They are big on sponsoring conversion around the globe. They also are willing to travel to blow things up. Staying out of their turf is not enough. They are our primary ally and enemy. Ally, because they buy off US politicians and upper echelon desk jockeys. State is filled with their cronies. Everyone else is a mixed bag of random ethnic groups that get screwed over by the big two. They don't matter outside their small patches of turf. The Kurds, Albanians, Chetchens, et al conceded they were no ones compared to the Sunni and Shiites. So they ratchet up violence in their neighbourhoods. Much more likely to have genocide. Either giving or taking, depending on the century.
You are entitled to an option. Does not mean it is automatically entitled weight. More direct experience and knowledge hopefully should be accorded weight.
Respectfully, alleging I am some kind of idiot or defeatist because I have a different opinion and experience is downright hysterical. For your own example, the Indians also lacked all of the same things as the Wahabi. And we crushed them. In spite of taking their turf, which is a hundred times more difficult than just killing extremists. Folks with their back against a wall to defend their land and family fight with a hundred times the motivation of mere ideology.
I was not trying to allege you were a "defeatist." I am surprised that it is not I who is being seen as a "defeatist," in fact, since I am saying that I believe most of America does not seem to have the stomach or patience to bring this war to a resolution.
What I said about the Indians was that we crushed their spirit. In spite of the fact we have far better technology than they (meaning wahabiists in this sentence) do I am beginning to wonder how that will work out.
The Indians fought very, very well when we met them on the open plains. They traveled, moved, maneuvered and fought on lighter, faster ponies and showed a superior grasp of tactics and strategy than many of the commanders who led cavalry units against them.
The one tactic we had that usually worked was hitting them while they were encamped. That seemed to, however, work too well. It made the U.S. Army and the Plains Indian Wars quite unpopular among many eastern cities and hurt the war effort as it led to a number of what were believed (rightly or wrongly) to be outright massacres.
Wiki Sand Creek Massacre as an example.
Do you recall the phrase "paper tiger?"
I don't even know if there is some metric about how the wahabists "spirit" is doing these days. I don't count ours as being in the "good" catagory -- and that does concern me.
Your experience with people on the state dept. "watch lists" does surprise me. Not so much that I am envious of that experience .... I have little desire to have anything to do with Kurdish Rebels or others like that.
I apologize to you if I offended you -- and I did come off awfully snarky in that last post.
You may have some good insights into their culture and abilities, but I have a real hard time believing that we are well prepared to deal with whatever level of threats they do pose when our own FBI won't follow through on reports of alien people wanting to learn to fly, but not land or take off, huge airliners.
And I do not believe the TSA circuses at airports are helpful .... or are anything OTHER than Government "performance Art" to make us feel better. I guess some people must enjoy being wand raped ..... atleast in the opinion of the TSA Security Squads......
Could go on about DHS and other **** too I guess......
I am enough a student of history to be aware of some blatantly idiotic intelligence blunders during WW2 involving "Purple Intelligence" that make me wonder just how it was we did win that war if something called "fate" is only an illusion. So it's not like we've never been there before anyway.
We need to be able win every contact with the BGs....they need only get "lucky" once....as has been pointed out.
Again, my apologies if my previous post offended you. It was not my intention.
I just wish I could be as confident in this country's future with regards to the external threats it faces. It is not so much from a point of view of someone who believes he has all the answers (I sure don't) or has a terrific insight into the minds and beliefs of our enemies (probably not, I admit) but someone who is severely disaffected with and distrustful of our own government's ability and willingness to deal realistically and effectively with not only this situation, but a number of other serious domestic problems as well.
-
True, I have NO IDEA HOW to estimate how likely any particular threat is. I have no way of doing that.
I do know that we ARE in a war with what I consider to be a determined & ruthless enemy.
I find some of your post a bit specious.
During WW2 we had no idea what the real abilities or the real end goal of our enemies were. We prepared dor possible invasions -- blacked out lights around port cities and established air raid patrols and such.
It was really only after the war we learned that the Japanese never really intended to take over the U.S. Hit us with a nuke in San Francisco? If they could.
In fact they never possessed the ability to stage a real invasion .... unless they gave up their SE. Asia CoProsperity sphere idea and redeployed on an incredibly massive scale....probably something that they just couldn't do, logistically.
The Civil Defense preparations in the US during WWII were propaganda projects, mostly. Say 80%. Being prepared against foreign invasion is always a good idea, don't get me wrong. Main idea was to remind folks on a regular basis of "Yes, we're at war. This excrement is real." I'm not saying this is bad either.
Aside from Hawaii and Alaskan islands... Zero chance of a successful invasion of the US by Japan. Or Germany. Supply lines. It would have been a turkey shoot. Japan is REAL far away. And not exactly a basket of natural resources. Granted, they could (and did) do quite a bit of damage. Until we converted our industrial base onto a war footing, they could have REALLY done a number on us. They had a lead time on converting their economy to a war footing. Once we did convert? *snort*
We don't really know so much about the Wahabists now. What we seem to think is they're disjointed, unled, unorgainized, and capable only of pulling together some homegrown attacks that misfire due to either sheer incompetence or being infiltrated by FBI, ATF, or other LEO, or some associate turns them in.
I am not hardly privy to the kind of intelligence that the government would use to better classify, and or determine just what is going on in the plotters inside AQ and other terrorist organisations.
And I don't think very many others are, either; a condition that will IMO persist until the war IS truly over and a lot of classified stuff is declassified, and history books are written about this time.
We actually do know a far bit. Biggest problem is finding enough folks to speak Arabic and about twenty, thirty other languages. And yes, being disjointed is the primary advantage and disadvantage. There's no central command that can optimally move around resources, do long term recruitment/training, develop doctrine, etc. Flip side, we don't have one happy spot to drop a JDAM.
Terrorism, as a whole, will never go away. Going toe to toe with countries with several thousand times your tech level and military is just plain stupid. It's the ONLY way for minor folks to try to compete with the big dogs. OTOH, it does not tend to have a very high success rate. Even "winning" tends to be a Pyrrhic victory usually.
I was not trying to allege you were a "defeatist." I am surprised that it is not I who is being seen as a "defeatist," in fact, since I am saying that I believe most of America does not seem to have the stomach or patience to bring this war to a resolution.
What I said about the Indians was that we crushed their spirit. In spite of the fact we have far better technology than they (meaning wahabiists in this sentence) do I am beginning to wonder how that will work out.
The Indians fought very, very well when we met them on the open plains. They traveled, moved, maneuvered and fought on lighter, faster ponies and showed a superior grasp of tactics and strategy than many of the commanders who led cavalry units against them.
The one tactic we had that usually worked was hitting them while they were encamped. That seemed to, however, work too well. It made the U.S. Army and the Plains Indian Wars quite unpopular among many eastern cities and hurt the war effort as it led to a number of what were believed (rightly or wrongly) to be outright massacres.
Wiki Sand Creek Massacre as an example.
Do you recall the phrase "paper tiger?"
Uh. I thought we won by decimating their population and forcing them to move to land no one else wanted. Then significantly outbreed/populated them. The Indians fought well because it was "win or everyone you know and love dies". US Army rarely had the same motivation. Plus our tactics, strategy and logistics sucked often enough. Mostly on the job training. Which works well enough on the long term if you keep up retention.
I don't even know if there is some metric about how the wahabists "spirit" is doing these days. I don't count ours as being in the "good" catagory -- and that does concern me.
Your experience with people on the state dept. "watch lists" does surprise me. Not so much that I am envious of that experience .... I have little desire to have anything to do with Kurdish Rebels or others like that.
I apologize to you if I offended you -- and I did come off awfully snarky in that last post.
You may have some good insights into their culture and abilities, but I have a real hard time believing that we are well prepared to deal with whatever level of threats they do pose when our own FBI won't follow through on reports of alien people wanting to learn to fly, but not land or take off, huge airliners.
Meh. They didn't specifically say, "Hey! I was UCK/KLA for a decade" Plus certain ethnic groups tend to go between "terrorist groups" and "strategic allies" depending on either the POTUS or the mood of State Department. Kurds have been shuffled back and forth at least a dozen times, officially and unofficially.
Ah. You do realize that the majority of terrorists caught in the US as of late have been FBI stings? Both Islamic and the stereotypical "white supremist militia" types. By stings, I mean, either creating them from scratch or doing a raid for folks nodding when a government plant mouths off about doing something stupid.
-
You do realize that the majority of terrorists caught in the US as of late have been FBI stings? Both Islamic and the stereotypical "white supremist militia" types. By stings, I mean, either creating them from scratch or doing a raid for folks nodding when a government plant mouths off about doing something stupid.
I have heard that ..... yet I keep hearing about "training camps" and other types of "jihadi" schools hidden behind the facade of synagogs. I hear about Muslim "prayer blankets" found along the paths that Mexicans use as they sneak illegals and drugs into this country from Mexico. And I wonder what that means......
I thought we won (the Plains Indian Wars) by decimating their population and forcing them to move to land no one else wanted. Then significantly outbreed/populated them. The Indians fought well because it was "win or everyone you know and love dies". US Army rarely had the same motivation. Plus our tactics, strategy and logistics sucked often enough. Mostly on the job training. Which works well enough on the long term if you keep up retention.
The Plains Indians fought well because they knew their people, their land and their abilities. Remember they were called the Plains Indian Nations. Many of them fought because they would not be moved to land no one else wanted. Or moved onto rservations. This was one of the primary reasosn for the Little Bighorn Expedition in fact.
There is an element of truth in that we outbred and outpopulated them. That was one of the reasosn the Indians became so dispirited and which contributed to their undoing at the end of the Plains Indians Wars.
But do not underestimate the Indians' military leaders. Chiefs Crazy Horse, Gall, and Sitting Bull were geniuses in fighting tactics. Many Indians had repeating rifles, but let's not neglect an important advantage the upper Paleolithic bow & arrow has; it is not a "line of sight" weapon, necessarily. One theory posed by historians is that at the Little Bighorn, Sioux & Cheyenne warriors massed behind the rough hilly terrain and volley fired masses of arrows in a ballistic arc over the hill, raining them down on helpless bluecoats, who couldn't even see the Indians to shoot.
High tech is sometimes not quite the advantage we'd like to think it is. ;)
The Civil Defense preparations in the US during WWII were propaganda projects, mostly. Say 80%. Being prepared against foreign invasion is always a good idea, don't get me wrong. Main idea was to remind folks on a regular basis of "Yes, we're at war. This excrement is real." I'm not saying this is bad either.
Aside from Hawaii and Alaskan islands... Zero chance of a successful invasion of the US by Japan. Or Germany. Supply lines. It would have been a turkey shoot. Japan is REAL far away. And not exactly a basket of natural resources. Granted, they could (and did) do quite a bit of damage. Until we converted our industrial base onto a war footing, they could have REALLY done a number on us. They had a lead time on converting their economy to a war footing. Once we did convert? *snort*
My parents & grandparents lived through those times; trust me, the civil defense procedures were very real.
One very real concern was the German U-boats. They in fact did cause tremendous damage to shipping and there was reason to worry about major port facilities along the coats. I once saw a photo of New York City harbor at night. It was taken through the periscope of a German U-Boot during WW2. One particularly intrepid U-Boat Commander sailed his U-Boat up Connecticuts' Thames River, up passed Groton Ct. Oh, THAT'S where a major U.S. Navy submarine port is located, BTW.
On the Pacific Coast the Japanese Navy's submarines were even more intrepid, actually shelling port facilities and causing minor damage....which caused many to wonder just what else the enemy might accomplish in the future.
I agree there was zero chance of an invasion. That was never something the Japanese intended to do. The purpose of the war in their eyes was to eliminate our will to stop them from establshing a "prosperity sphere" in their part of the world. But at the time most Americans did not know this, and I don't think anyone would believe that until the war was being written about by historians who had access to the records of the Japanese planners.
Germany: ditto. Hitler basically shot the "wad" when he invaded Russia.