galtgulch Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/6rebbyThe Ron Paul admirers have joined www.campaignforliberty.com in growing numbers.The DVDs which were so successful in Alaska are being readied for distribution to virtually every delegate to the nominating convention in Minneapolis. McCain does not have the numbers and will not be the nominee! www.DVDs4Delegates.com Join us! Don't join us! Help enlighten those in the movement who are more than willing to learn!Be a part of the movement or passive bystanders! Join with the optimistic realists or be a pessimistic cynic!The choice is yours! I assure you it is more fun and life affirming to be a part of the movement now!Wm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 McCain does not have the numbers and will not be the nominee!Forgive me, but what reality does this quote come from? I am not a supporter of McCain's or Paul's. But I am certainly not in favor of electing Obama to spite to Republican Party. Rand was no fan of Nixon's, but she saw voting for him as a moral imperative given the alternatives. Is the alternative that the Paulists offer one of the simple denial of reality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Galt; I glad the people who supported Ron Paul aren't giving up but McCain will be the GOP presidential nominee. I am going to vote for Bob Barr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galtgulch Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 McCain does not have the numbers and will not be the nominee!Forgive me, but what reality does this quote come from? I am not a supporter of McCain's or Paul's. But I am certainly not in favor of electing Obama to spite to Republican Party. Rand was no fan of Nixon's, but she saw voting for him as a moral imperative given the alternatives. Is the alternative that the Paulists offer one of the simple denial of reality?Ted, Here is the source of the "reality" quote:http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-HS.phtmlMcCain supposedly, according to this source, has only 1052 hard pledged delegates and needs 1191!I agree that Obama is a nightmare for producers and taxpayers and freedom lovers. Here is a link to one of a series of articles in Investors Business Daily about Obama indicating what he has in mind:http://tinyurl.com/5p3n99Even though McCain is the presumptive nominee and would be the alternative to keep Obama out of power, he is no bargain, to put it mildly. The suggestion that he is the best that the Republicans can offer or the only option at this point is untrue.If McCain were not to get the nomination on the first ballot all bets would be off. The notion that Obama would necessarily be able to beat any other Republican is debatable.Whomever the Republicans end up nominating would have two months to persuade the voters that his policies would be better for the country. It becomes an intriguing situation to contemplate. I do harbor the faint hope that given the state of the country and the fact that the "proper ideological and philosophical foundation has not yet been laid " that it would still be possible for Ron Paul to be able to get his message out is such a way as to appeal to enough people to get elected. There is a reason that he has inspired so many who did learn about him despite the main stream media blackout.Wm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrakusos Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 There is a reason that he has inspired so many who did learn about him despite the main stream media blackout.Ron Paul in the New York TimesThe Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul By CHRISTOPHER CALDWELLPublished: July 22, 2007http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.htmlRon Paul uses new millions for media pushRepublican underdog prepares to spend big bucks on New Hampshire adsBy Julie Bosmanupdated 9:13 a.m. ET, Fri., Oct. 26, 2007http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21484526/The Web Takes Ron Paul for a Ride By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and LESLIE WAYNEPublished: November 11, 2007http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/politics/11paul.htmlRon Paul in the Washington PostRon Paul Has Eyes for Red Headed Stranger (July 1, 2008) What's Next for Ron Paul (and His Money)? (June 13, 2008) Ron Paul Ends His Campaign - for Real This Time (June 12, 2008) The Democratic Race in Eight Minutes (June 8, 2008) Ron Paul's Campaign Is a Family Business, FEC Reports Show (May 27, 2008) http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-pr...dates/ron-paul/Google "Ron Paul [Mainstream Source]" and let us know if you do not get a hit.The complaint that our side is the righteous David in an eschatological struggle with the evil Goliath is part of the mythology of all "true believer" schemes. (See The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. I also just read Michael Crichton's State of Fear. Though nominally "about" the ecological extreme -- and extremely ignorant -- the main thesis is that all power centers rely on fear. That applies to the political money machines of the libertarian right as much as to the tree huggers.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Okay, thanks, William, for the explanation. I suppose that if only 2/3 of McCain's 1563 delegates are "hard delegates" then Paul, with his 29 delegates, (1160/29 of whom are soft?) does still have a "chance"...If we are not to be bound by an acceptance of reality, then I'll take this chance to renew my pledge of support for Grover Cleveland.Talk about true believers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Okay, thanks, William, for the explanation. I suppose that if only 2/3 of McCain's 1563 delegates are "hard delegates" then Paul, with his 29 delegates, (1160/29 of whom are soft?) does still have a "chance"...If we are not to be bound by an acceptance of reality, then I'll take this chance to renew my pledge of support for Grover Cleveland.Talk about true believers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Okay, thanks, William, for the explanation. I suppose that if only 2/3 of McCain's 1563 delegates are "hard delegates" then Paul, with his 29 delegates, (1160/29 of whom are soft?) does still have a "chance"...If we are not to be bound by an acceptance of reality, then I'll take this chance to renew my pledge of support for Grover Cleveland.Talk about true believers!I'm for Grover too! This could snowball if it weren't summer.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galtgulch Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share Posted August 17, 2008 (edited) Okay, thanks, William, for the explanation. I suppose that if only 2/3 of McCain's 1563 delegates are "hard delegates" then Paul, with his 29 delegates, (1160/29 of whom are soft?) does still have a "chance"...If we are not to be bound by an acceptance of reality, then I'll take this chance to renew my pledge of support for Grover Cleveland.Talk about true believers!I'm for Grover too! This could snowball if it weren't summer.--BrantBrant, What you have to understand is that there is a difference between the abstract number of delegates granted as a result of the primaries and the actual individuals literally nominated and elected to go to the nominating convention at the caucuses.Those of us who took the trouble to find out such distinctions about how the actual process works took part by encouraging other Ron Paul supporters who were registered as Republicans to attend those caucuses and to vote for Ron Paul people to become McCain or Romney delegates. That is why we have reason to believe that a significant number of McCain delegates are actually Ron Paul people who will abstain on the first ballot thus preventing McCain from becoming the nominee!Then on the second ballot Ron Paul will have his moment of truth as he just might have enough supporters to get the required number of ballots.Reality will show. Of course the www.DVDs4Delegates.com project will also attempt to persuade the delegates to abstain on the first ballot and then to vote for Ron Paul.IT is a legal tactic. Four times in American History a man entered the convention with few delegates but ended up not only with the nomination but got elected as well. It is on the home page of www.dvds4delegates.comThe first DVD is going to be shipped to volunteer distributors on Monday and then shipped to delegates before the week is over!Wm Edited August 17, 2008 by galtgulch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Galt; Can you tell me the four times somebody entered with few pledged delagates and got the nomination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galtgulch Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share Posted August 17, 2008 (edited) Galt; Can you tell me the four times somebody entered with few pledged delagates and got the nomination?Abraham Lincoln entered the 1860 convention with no delegates bound to him and only his home state delegates pledged to him.Rutherford B. Hayes and Warren G. Harding each entered their conventions with only 60 delegates pledged to each of them.James A. Garfield had no delegates at all and only one voted for him through the first 28 ballots!Each was considered to be a dark horse long shot with no chance of winning the nomination!But each of them not only won the nomination but went on to become president!It is all up to the delegates!Ron Paul is not involved in the www.DVDs4Delegates.com project but he knows about it. The project is the brainchild of one of his supporters from Alaska, Evan Cutler, whose DVD distributed to those Republicans who were to attend the caucus in Alaska led to Ron Paul people becoming chosen to be 48% of the Alaskan Delegates going to the nominating convention in Minneapolis! They are going as McCain or Romney delegates but they are Ron Paul people! It has happened to some extent all over the country. I participated in the process in MA. 8 of the 30 delegates here and 10 of the alternates are Ron Paul people. WE could have done better still if we had understood the process earlier. We called those who donated to Ron Paul in our Congressional District. Very few were registered as Republicans, most were unenrolled or libertarians, a few were Democrats! Those who had registered such as myself a lifelong libertarian, in time, were able to nominate and vote at the caucus. It was close. In some districts all those nominated were Ron Paul people! The Republican party is moribund in MA and they are glad to see an influx of enthusiastic citizens. It is conceivable that the numbers will grow and that the Republican Party will be taken over by the Ron Paul supporters.I have a copy of that DVD and I can see how it persuaded individuals to appreciate that Ron Paul would be a superior president than McCain. 1.1 million voters across the country consider that would be the case as they voted for him in the primaries. Everyone who watched the Cooper Anderson moderated "debate" witnessed how Anderson asked questions of Romney and McCain, again and again, while Ron Paul and Huckabee sat right next to them and waited to be asked questions that almost never came. At one point Ron Paul tried to answer and Anderson cut him off, promising to get right back to him and never did! It was blatant and was observed by millions of viewers. The impression given was that the media had decided the choice would be between McCain and Romney and there was no point in paying any attention to Ron Paul or Huckabee. They were marginalized. One may speculate as to the motivation of the media moguls who pull such strings. One speculation is that the owners of the media are members of the Council on Foreign Relations CFR to which also belong the bankers who profit from the Federal Reserve System which they all know is challenged by Ron Paul who questions Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan before him, as a member of the Congressional Banking Committee. "Chairman Bernanke, please explain how the problems caused by your inflating the currency will be resolved by your inflating the currency even more?" No coherent answer!You can witness the youtube.com interviews by entering Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke. I assure you that many of those of us who advocate for Ron Paul are not smitten by him the way Obama supporters admire Obama because of superficial qualities. Ron Paul's positions are explicit and there are interviews on youtube.com where he is allowed to finish his answers such as the six part interview with John Stossel. You may not take the trouble but his supports have done so. I have attended a rally for Ron Paul in New Hampshire and it was attended by a few thousand people and when he spoke about the Federal Reserve System the audience went wild! It was something to see and hear. There is no doubt that the word is out and that it is being spread. It is no longer just about Ron Paul. He has ignited a movement of people who realize what is going on and intend to continue to pass the torch,enlighten their friends and neighbors until we take our country back from those who pay only lip service to the Constitution.Watch the numbers keep growing each day on www.campaignforliberty.comgalt Edited August 17, 2008 by galtgulch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Okay, thanks, William, for the explanation. I suppose that if only 2/3 of McCain's 1563 delegates are "hard delegates" then Paul, with his 29 delegates, (1160/29 of whom are soft?) does still have a "chance"...If we are not to be bound by an acceptance of reality, then I'll take this chance to renew my pledge of support for Grover Cleveland.Talk about true believers!Only a Dark Horse who lives in a Black Hole could overcome those odds. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galtgulch Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share Posted August 17, 2008 (edited) Okay, thanks, William, for the explanation. I suppose that if only 2/3 of McCain's 1563 delegates are "hard delegates" then Paul, with his 29 delegates, (1160/29 of whom are soft?) does still have a "chance"...If we are not to be bound by an acceptance of reality, then I'll take this chance to renew my pledge of support for Grover Cleveland.Talk about true believers!Only a Dark Horse who lives in a Black Hole could overcome those odds. Ba'al ChatzafYou guys think you are so funny and you would be amusing if the situation were not so dire. I wonder what you would have thought and done if you had lived in Colonial times in response to Samuel Adams ranting for independence! Judging by your comments here which are so righteous and condescending and smug you would probably have thought that those who were willing to fight the troops of the British Empire were foolish and bound to be defeated. Just what is it you are counting on to assure a future of individual freedom in this country? Certainly not the likes of John McCain. Read the column about him in the New York Times today in the News of the Week section.Wm Edited August 17, 2008 by galtgulch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Since my vote (here in California) is almost certain to be only symbolic, anyway, I am going to vote for Bob Barr, and hope he doesn't shoot himself (and us) in the foot during the campaign.Unless....unless lightning strikes, and this "nominate Ron Paul" scenario actually turns the Republican Convention upside down. In which case, I will gladly support and vote for him in November.REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Galt; On my question about nominees with a small number of pledged votes winning the nomination all the individuals you cite were over hundred years ago.If Ron Paul ends up the nomination I will jump in the Potomac River. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 You guys think you are so funny and you would be amusing if the situation were not so dire. I wonder what you would have thought and done if you had lived in Colonial times in response to Samuel Adams ranting for independence! Judging by your comments here which are so righteous and condescending and smug you would probably have thought that those who were willing to fight the troops of the British Empire were foolish and bound to be defeated. Just what is it you are counting on to assure a future of individual freedom in this country? Certainly not the likes of John McCain. Read the column about him in the New York Times today in the News of the Week section.WmAccording to John Adams, one third of the adult men favored independence, one third remained loyal to the crown and one third took a wait and see attitude. In New York, especially New York City the folks were not all that enthusiastic about the Revolution. They were doing just fine commercially. Ben Franklin was luke warm to the idea of independence almost until the end, when he saw that the British were not going to be reasonable about granting the colonists effective voice in the Parliement. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galtgulch Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share Posted August 17, 2008 (edited) You guys think you are so funny and you would be amusing if the situation were not so dire. I wonder what you would have thought and done if you had lived in Colonial times in response to Samuel Adams ranting for independence! Judging by your comments here which are so righteous and condescending and smug you would probably have thought that those who were willing to fight the troops of the British Empire were foolish and bound to be defeated. Just what is it you are counting on to assure a future of individual freedom in this country? Certainly not the likes of John McCain. Read the column about him in the New York Times today in the News of the Week section.WmAccording to John Adams, one third of the adult men favored independence, one third remained loyal to the crown and one third took a wait and see attitude. In New York, especially New York City the folks were not all that enthusiastic about the Revolution. They were doing just fine commercially. Ben Franklin was luke warm to the idea of independence almost until the end, when he saw that the British were not going to be reasonable about granting the colonists effective voice in the Parliement. Ba'al ChatzafOf course you are under no obligation to answer the question I raised above. I agree with your statement which is standard historical fact about the sentiment of the colonists. I imagine there was more unanimity for independence among the villagers whose towns on the coast were set ablaze from British cannon fire from Men of War offshore. Just as those subject to oppression from our government today are more open to hearing a call to abolish the IRS and reduce government. The inflation tax is calculated to be barely noticeable as it silently erodes everyone's savings. But once one learns about it and realizes the extent of it over one's lifetime it does arouse passion in many. It is my intention here to draw attention to the fact that Ron Paul has caused an awakening and a passion in many people who are mature and sensible enough to realize that changing the course of our country will take a monumental effort over a long time. It appears to me that it is a pro individual freedom movement and therefore an opportunity for Objectivists to exert an enlightening influence on many of them if only Objectivists were willing to get involved to some extent. These Ron Paul people are open to listening and to learn about the free market and limited government and to understanding the history and principles enshrined in the Constitution. Where ethical and moral issues exist Objectivist ethics provides a rational perspective.Keep in mind that Ron Paul mentioned over and over the Austrian economic thoughts and recommended books by von Mises as Ayn Rand did in The Objectivist Newsletter for those who remember.Wm Edited August 17, 2008 by galtgulch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Keep in mind that Ron Paul mentioned over and over the Austrian economic thoughts and recommended books by von Mises as Ayn Rand did in The Objectivist Newsletter for those who remember.WmYeah. Yeah. But is he the stone killer we will need to survive the attacks of our enemies? Our ship is in danger of being torpedo and you want to move around economic deck chairs.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galtgulch Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share Posted August 17, 2008 Keep in mind that Ron Paul mentioned over and over the Austrian economic thoughts and recommended books by von Mises as Ayn Rand did in The Objectivist Newsletter for those who remember.WmYeah. Yeah. But is he the stone killer we will need to survive the attacks of our enemies? Our ship is in danger of being torpedo and you want to move around economic deck chairs.Ba'al ChatzafI think that if the government under Ron Paul is reduced to its proper functions that they will be able to do them more effectively. Government is force. Squandering hundreds of billions of dollars and creating extraneous layers of bureaucracy make it worthless and just a burdensome behemoth. Ron Paul has been heard in his stump speeches to say that it will be easier to cut first by bringing home troops stationed overseas. You know, in the 826 military bases in 130 countries, not even counting Iraq! That all costs close to one trillion dollars. He has made it clear that there is a distinction between being an isolationist, which he is not, and a non interventionist, which he is. Here is a little video with quotes from certain presidents about a non interventionist foreign policy:http://tinyurl.com/6a5ejwRon Paul did acknowledge it would be more difficult to cut the domestic programs which account for so much of the domestic budget and are un Constitutional. But he will endeavor to cut them as well.He has made the argument that if our presence overseas were simply reduced there would be less animosity towards us. I agree that the evil meanies still have the intention of establishing a worldwide Caliphate. McCain's idea is to go to war with one country after another. Obama will surrender without a fight.Either McCain or Obama will bankrupt the country and render us weaker to defend ourselves. Ron Paul will do what needs to be done to abolish the Federal REserve and make our currency sound backed by gold and silver.Its not either or but both! Wm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 He has made the argument that if our presence overseas were simply reduced there would be less animosity towards us. I agree that the evil meanies still have the intention of establishing a worldwide Caliphate. McCain's idea is to go to war with one country after another. Obama will surrender without a fight.Say the terrorists blow up a radiological bomb in mid-town Manhattan making the place uninhabitable for the next ten years. What would President Paul do? Would he make excuses for the bastards or would he go to congress and ask for a declaration of all out war on the Umah? Or would he do something else? After Pearl Harbor even that pinko commie Bolshevik FDR asked Congress for all out war on the Japanese. What would Ron Paul have done? Would he have pointed out that our hard nosed attitude toward the Japanese is what caused them to want to destroy our fleet. Or would he have said - let's wipe the bastards out. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galtgulch Posted August 18, 2008 Author Share Posted August 18, 2008 He has made the argument that if our presence overseas were simply reduced there would be less animosity towards us. I agree that the evil meanies still have the intention of establishing a worldwide Caliphate. McCain's idea is to go to war with one country after another. Obama will surrender without a fight.Say the terrorists blow up a radiological bomb in mid-town Manhattan making the place uninhabitable for the next ten years. What would President Paul do? Would he make excuses for the bastards or would he go to congress and ask for a declaration of all out war on the Umah? Or would he do something else? After Pearl Harbor even that pinko commie Bolshevik FDR asked Congress for all out war on the Japanese. What would Ron Paul have done? Would he have pointed out that our hard nosed attitude toward the Japanese is what caused them to want to destroy our fleet. Or would he have said - let's wipe the bastards out. Ba'al ChatzafYou ought to read George Crocker's The Roosevelt Myth in which it become clear that Roosevelt purposely blockaded Japan's shipping lanes and set up the Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor in order to entice the Japanese to attack America. He wanted to appear to be against entry into the war.Notice that now Germany and Japan are allies and not considered a threat but rather are productive countries which trade with us.I cannot answer for Ron Paul but my understanding is that he submitted legislation to try to get the Congress to consider a declaration of war in Iraq. Instead they passed the buck. He is not a pacifist or an isolationist rather a non interventionist. If invaded he would have the Congress debate going to war as the Constitution requires.so are you going to sit this one out or write in for Attila the Hun?Wm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 so are you going to sit this one out or write in for Attila the Hun?WmC'thulu in 2008. Why vote for the lesser of evils? Attila would make a fine vice presidential candidate for a write in. I would also settle for Augustus (Octavian) Ceasar. What our Republic needs, at this juncture, is someone who can clean up the barbarians and make the chariots run on time. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 You ought to read George Crocker's The Roosevelt Myth in which it become clear that Roosevelt purposely blockaded Japan's shipping lanes and set up the Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor in order to entice the Japanese to attack America. He wanted to appear to be against entry into the war.Wait, wait, don't tell me! FDR deliberately provoked the Japs into attacking Pearl Harbor and he -knew- the attack was coming and did nothing to stop it. Right? You do doing the Paulist trick. You are blaming America for the evil intentions and deeds of its enemies. You have illustrated clearly why I will not, ever, ever, ever vote for the likes of Paul. The truth is that the U.S. never fired a shot on Japanese ships prior to Pearl Harbor nor did we ever mine their harbors. That is what a blockade is nowadays. In fact the Japanese sank one of our ships prior to Pearl Harbor.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panay_incidentBut I suppose that was our fault too.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Ex point Ba'al.This is the sad part of paranoia and conspiracy theories.I would suggest anyone read At Dawn We Slept by Gordon W. Prange 198. It is 742 pages long - almost tedious to read because of the extensive documentation, but it approaches the Pearl Harbor attack with "as nearly an open mind as any American could bring to the subject of Pearl Harbor." He looks at it from both sides and its is heavily footnoted.There is no doubt tht we did not have suspicions that we were going to have to probably engage the Japanese somewhere in the Pacific, but I do not believe that FDR, dictator that he was, knew about the attack and did nothing.It was pure luck that our carriers were all out of port that Sunday.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 Ex point Ba'al.This is the sad part of paranoia and conspiracy theories.I would suggest anyone read At Dawn We Slept by Gordon W. Prange 198. It is 742 pages long - almost tedious to read because of the extensive documentation, but it approaches the Pearl Harbor attack with "as nearly an open mind as any American could bring to the subject of Pearl Harbor." He looks at it from both sides and its is heavily footnoted.There is no doubt tht we did not have suspicions that we were going to have to probably engage the Japanese somewhere in the Pacific, but I do not believe that FDR, dictator that he was, knew about the attack and did nothing.It was pure luck that our carriers were all out of port that Sunday.AdamThe commanders and operational persons in charge of P.H. were blinded by anti-Japanese racism. The worst mistake one can make is to underestimate the skill and determination of the enemy (or adversary). It turns out the Japanese made the same sort of mistake about us. They assumed that the loss of the Fleet would so dishearten our leaders that they would come to terms and concede the far Pacific to the Empire of Japan. Yamamoto knew better since he spent time in the U.S. and had some kind of feel for the sort of folks Americans were then. The following is attributed to Yamamoto: The attack has awakened a sleeping giant .... . Yup. That it did. The Japanese thought we were soft and we thought they were all buck-tooth and near-sighted. As the war went on we stopped regarding them as human. America was so pissed off that we came with all we had, once Europe was cleaned up. If we had ten nukes in our inventory we would have dropped all of them on Japan. Lucky for the Japanese, we had only two, which turned out to be enough.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now