Pearl Harbor

#1
R

rockydoc

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
5,534
Likes
1,092
#1
Let's not forget that on a Sunday, 67 years ago (12/07/41), that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!!
 
#2
#2
ummm... you might want to check that, unless you are attempting to make a joke, in which case it's a bad one.
 
#10
#10
i was lucky enough to be in the navy and stationed at pearl harbor during the 50th anniversary of the bombing. i went to see bush senior speak at a ceremony and i walked around for hours and just listen to WW2 vets give their stories of bombings. it was amazing, i wish i had recorded the stories. it was the best history lesson i've ever been taught.
 
#11
#11
Anybody watch the PBS special this weeknd on Pearl Harbor? Good documentary, interviewed the guy who "while we slept..." lots of stuff about the Japanese, well done.
 
#12
#12
It is bad form to not remember that the Germans did bomb Pearl Harbor to start a civil war and that we responded by declaring give peace a chance and developing nuclear fissiles that freed the slaves and brought about social security, food stamps and foreign aide, this kind of knowledge is a must for anyone living in an idiocracy such as our own.
 
#13
#13
I was able to visit Pearl Harbor in high school. You could still see oil or gas leaking into the water.
 
#14
#14
well according to the BCS, the Germans won world war II anyway,,,, so whats the debate, we all know that the BCS is all knowing and all powerful...
 
#15
#15
JZVOL said:
I was able to visit Pearl Harbor in high school. You could still see oil or gas leaking into the water.
Click to expand...

if you download google earth, and pull up pearl harbor, you can zoom in enough to see the USS Arizona. ITs great because you can use overlays and i have a great animation using GE for teachign the bombing... if there are any history teachers that want it let me know and i can email it
 
#16
#16
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
if you download google earth, and pull up pearl harbor, you can zoom in enough to see the USS Arizona. ITs great because you can use overlays and i have a great animation using GE for teachign the bombing... if there are any history teachers that want it let me know and i can email it
Click to expand...

Interesting. My wife will be a history teacher next year so that would be great! I'll PM you my email.
 
#18
#18
oklavol said:
Anybody watch the PBS special this weekend on Pearl Harbor? Good documentary, interviewed the guy who "while we slept..." lots of stuff about the Japanese, well done.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet PBS didn't mention Brigadier General Billy Mitchell, Rear Admiral Husband Kimmel, General Walter Short or the Roberts Commission.




Billy Mitchell foretold the Pearl Harbor attack nearly twenty years beforehand.

excerpt: (for OE)

Attack will be launched as follows:
Bombardment, attack to be made on Ford Island (Hawaii) at 7:30 A.M. ... Attack to be made on Clark Field at 10:40 A.M.

On Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor at 7:55 a.m. and later, Clark Field in the Philippines at 12:35 p.m. Mitchell had erred by only 25 minutes for Hawaii and less than two hours for the Philippines.

(He missed the Pearl Harbor time of attack by 25 minutes only because the Japanese ran into difficulties launching their planes from their aircraft carriers (I think he did predict Sunday some morning)and if I'm mistaken the Japanese originally intended the Philippine attack to commence at about 10:30AM.)gs

excerpt:

However, on May 25, 1999, the U.S. Senate approved a resolution that Kimmel and Short had performed their duties "competently and professionally" and that our losses at Pearl Harbor were "not the result of dereliction of duty." "They were denied vital intelligence that was available in Washington," said Senator William V. Roth Jr. (R-Del.). Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) called Kimmel and Short "the two final victims of Pearl Harbor."

(One should study the career of Admiral Thomas Hinman Moorer and his numerous courageous efforts to set the record straight time and time again.)



Of note also is that General Short had been denied planes he had requested and that incidental to the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, our own aircraft carriers had been dispatched on maneuvers away from where the action was to take place. Another point is that an operator of our new (at the time) technology of radar had detected the incoming planes but his warning went unheeded 20 minutes prior to the commencement of the air attack. At least that warning could have resulted in a last ditch "man your battle stations" command for those of our servicemen who were stationed at that scene of "infamy."

But for a true reading on history about this event and others of major historical impact, one must, must, must review the proceedings at the negotiation of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI.

Anyone up for that????

If not then lets go back to 1998:

Testimony (in part) before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Admiral Moorer.

So, regardless of the press reports which sell TV programs, magazines, newspapers, and which fuel the gossip mills throughout the country, we are really missing the point if we don't concentrate on the security aspects of the actions, or inactions, of this administration, and the consequences that will surely follow.

Mr. Chairman, I have been honored to serve as this Nation's Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet; Commander in Chief, Atlantic and Atlantic Fleet; Chief of Naval Operations, and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. I truly can't remember a time when I have been more concerned about the security of our country.

Perhaps you think that remark strange, with the history of World Wars I and II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. But it is a statement I'll stand behind for the following reasons:

Since 1812, no war has been fought against a foreign enemy on American soil. That was a very long time ago. I'm an old sailor now. But I know trouble when I see it, and Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this committee, I see big trouble in Panama--trouble that could evolve quickly into a conflict in our own hemisphere with world-wide implications.

Mr. Chairman, I speak of the transfer of the Panama Canal to the Panamanian government under the circumstances which now exist. Perhaps some of you will say, "that's old news. We know how you feel about that, Admiral." But there's far more going on there than meets the eye.

A company called Panama Ports Company, S.A., affiliated with Hutchison Whampoa, Ltd. through its owner, Mr. Li Ka-Shing, currently maintains control of four of the Panama Canal's major ports.

Now, Panama Ports Company is 10 percent owned by China Resources Enterprises, the commercial arm of China's Ministry of Trade and Economic Cooperation.

On July 16, 1997, Senator Fred Thompson was quoted by the South China Morning Post as stating that China Resources was, quote, "an agent of espionage--economic, military and political--for China." unquote.

Further, this same newspaper article said ihat China Resources, quote, "has solid relations with the Lippo Group. In 1992, it acquired 50 percent of the Hong Kong Chinese Bank, which is also 50 percent owned by Lippo, and sold its stake to its listed arm, China Resources Enterprise, last month." unquote.

True, Hutchison-Whampoa Ltd. is listed on the London Stock Exchange. What does that mean? Not a thing; many companies in the United States, in the past, were perfectly legitimate companies, although funded by the Mafia. A stock exchange listing is inconsequential and no a reliable reference.

Hutchison-Whampoa controls countless ports around the world. My specific concern is that this company is controlled by the Communist Chinese. And they have virtually accomplished, without a single shot being fired, a stronghold on the Panama Canal, something which took our country so many years to accomplish--the building and control of the Panama Canal, along with military and commercial access in our own hemisphere.

This stronghold of power has been almost completely accomplished through something called "Law No. 5" which provides inter alia, the following:

1. Responsibility for hiring new pilots for the Canal. (Pilots have complete control of all ships passing through the Canal);

2. Assumes control over critical Atlantic/Pacific 6 anchorages, including a monopoly on the Pacific side when Rodman Naval Base is vacated next year. (Note: According to "Law No. 5," effective March 1, 1997, Hutchison has the right to demand possession of Rodman);

3. Authority to control the order of ships utilizing the entrance to the Canal on the Pacific side, and also the right to deny ships access to the ports and entrances of the Canal if they are deemed to be interfering with Hutchison's business--in direct violation of the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty which guarantees passage for the United States Navy;

4. The right to unilaterally transfer its rights to a third party--any company or nation of their choosing;

5. Certain public roads become private, cutting off strategic areas of the Canal;

6. Included in the deal with Hutchison is U.S. Naval Station Rodman; a portion of U.S. Air Station Albrook; Diablo; Balboa, a Pacific U.S.-built port; Cristobal, an Atlantic U.S. built port; the island of Telfers, which is strategically located adjacent to Galeta island, a critical communications center. I am told that Telfers island is the future home of the Chinese-planned export zone called, "The Great Wall of China project."

7. A clause was inserted at the end of "Law No. 5" which states that if a conflict between provisions of the law and provisions of the Canal treaty occur, the canal treaty prevails. Of course, point number 7's clause is meaningless if the U.S. Government doesn't act now.

In my testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1978, I stated:

(continued)
 
#19
#19
(continued, part 2)

... the defense and use of the Panama Canal is wrapped inextricably with the overall global strategy of the United States and the security of the free world. I submit that if the United States opts to turn over full responsibility for the maintenance and operation of such an important waterway to a very small, resource-poor and unstable country as Panama and then withdraws all U.S. presence, a vacuum will be created which will quickly be filled by proxy or directly by the Soviet Union, as is their practice at every opportunity. Also noteworthy is the fact that in July of last year, a Soviet Commission visited Panama, seeking port and airport concessions and offering economic assistance.

The Soviet Union's thinking and conclusions about the Canal, and their approach to gain control of this important, strategically situated waterway, was not lost on the Chinese Communists. They have replicated the Soviet Union's intent to the letter-quickly, silently, and successfully.

In the first place, Mr. Chairman, Law No. 5 is illegal. It runs counter to the so-called treaty entered into by this country with Panama, calling for a neutrality provision. I say "so-called treaty," because the treaty was never signed by Panama. I have been acquainted with President Lacas, who held office at the time, and seen him several times and he assured me that he was never asked to sign the treaty and he never did sign the treaty. It was signed by Torrijos, who was one of the renegades of the Panamanian operation.

Under Panamanian law, a treaty cannot be simply entered into by its governing body; a plebiscite must be held so that the Panamanian people can voice their approval or disapproval with a vote. No such plebiscite has ever been held.

Additionally, the bid process for port control in the Canal Zone has been flawed. That's a nice way to put it. Bechtel, for instance, reportedly won the bid on four occasions, but the bids were set aside. We now know why. Bechtel bid $2 million yearly; Hutchison-Whampoa bid $22 million yearly, beating out Bechtel on the last "bid process" by a whopping $20 million yearly.

So the Panamanian authorities receive $22 million each year from Hutchison-Whampoa, a known Communist Chinese-controlled company, in their 25-year agreement, renewable for an additional 25 years, for a total of 50 years. Mr. Chairman, 50 years is a long time. And $22 million a year is a lot of money.

If that's not news enough, the so-called Law No. 5 provides that Panama can assign its rights under this agreement with no further ado. This assignment, Mr. Chairman, could be given to Cuba, the actual Communist Chinese government, Libya, Iraq, Iran, or any other stated opponent of the United States, including rogue states who sponsor terrorism and who have nuclear bombs aimed at this country right now. For instance, I believe the Communist Chinese have 13 such missiles aimed at our country presently.

I don't know who has the most money, but it would probably be difficult to outbid the Red Chinese, with $45 billion in holdings, although Saddam Hussein might attempt to give them a run for their money, literally. One thing is obvious: as in most places in the world, money talks. That is absolutely a fact in Panama, Mr. Chairman.

As an individual who has laid his life on the line for our country for many years, and led numerous others into battle who paid the ultimate price, I, for one, cannot understand why our government has passively permitted this "Law 5" to happen, thereby endangering our security interests in this hemisphere.

In a staff report to your committee in February of last year, Mr. Chairman, it was stated:

"In September 1995, Presidents Clinton and Balladares formally announced that the U.S. and Panamanian Governments would begin exploratory talks on maintaining a U.S. military presence in Panama. Fifteen months passed and no exploratory negotiations transpired.

"Instead, in November 1996, President Balladares announced to a young, left-wing faction of the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) --the political party which was founded by General Omar Torrijos and later backed General Manuel Noriega [of drug and prison fame], that there would be no U.S. forces in Panama beyond the year 2000."

Thus, the provision in the permanent neutrality treaty with the Panama Canal, if agreed upon by both countries, was completely ignored, to the detriment of the security of this Nation.

I find this truly unbelievable.

Apologies (insincere at best) to any who may be concerned with copyright violations, I'm pretty sure such testimony is under copyright laws although one would certainly think so if one got all their information from the NY Slimes, the Communist News Network (aka CNN) and the other usual suspects such as AP,ABC,NBC,CBS and the most important news outlet in the world, ESPN.gs
 
#20
#20
gsvol said:
I'm willing to bet PBS didn't mention Brigadier General Billy Mitchell, Rear Admiral Husband Kimmel, General Walter Short or the Roberts Commission.




Billy Mitchell foretold the Pearl Harbor attack nearly twenty years beforehand.

excerpt: (for OE)

Attack will be launched as follows:
Bombardment, attack to be made on Ford Island (Hawaii) at 7:30 A.M. ... Attack to be made on Clark Field at 10:40 A.M.

On Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor at 7:55 a.m. and later, Clark Field in the Philippines at 12:35 p.m. Mitchell had erred by only 25 minutes for Hawaii and less than two hours for the Philippines.

(He missed the Pearl Harbor time of attack by 25 minutes only because the Japanese ran into difficulties launching their planes from their aircraft carriers (I think he did predict Sunday some morning)and if I'm mistaken the Japanese originally intended the Philippine attack to commence at about 10:30AM.)gs

excerpt:

However, on May 25, 1999, the U.S. Senate approved a resolution that Kimmel and Short had performed their duties "competently and professionally" and that our losses at Pearl Harbor were "not the result of dereliction of duty." "They were denied vital intelligence that was available in Washington," said Senator William V. Roth Jr. (R-Del.). Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) called Kimmel and Short "the two final victims of Pearl Harbor."

(One should study the career of Admiral Thomas Hinman Moorer and his numerous courageous efforts to set the record straight time and time again.)



Of note also is that General Short had been denied planes he had requested and that incidental to the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, our own aircraft carriers had been dispatched on maneuvers away from where the action was to take place. Another point is that an operator of our new (at the time) technology of radar had detected the incoming planes but his warning went unheeded 20 minutes prior to the commencement of the air attack. At least that warning could have resulted in a last ditch "man your battle stations" command for those of our servicemen who were stationed at that scene of "infamy."

But for a true reading on history about this event and others of major historical impact, one must, must, must review the proceedings at the negotiation of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI.

Anyone up for that????

If not then lets go back to 1998:

Testimony (in part) before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Admiral Moorer.

So, regardless of the press reports which sell TV programs, magazines, newspapers, and which fuel the gossip mills throughout the country, we are really missing the point if we don't concentrate on the security aspects of the actions, or inactions, of this administration, and the consequences that will surely follow.

Mr. Chairman, I have been honored to serve as this Nation's Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet; Commander in Chief, Atlantic and Atlantic Fleet; Chief of Naval Operations, and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. I truly can't remember a time when I have been more concerned about the security of our country.

Perhaps you think that remark strange, with the history of World Wars I and II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. But it is a statement I'll stand behind for the following reasons:

Since 1812, no war has been fought against a foreign enemy on American soil. That was a very long time ago. I'm an old sailor now. But I know trouble when I see it, and Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this committee, I see big trouble in Panama--trouble that could evolve quickly into a conflict in our own hemisphere with world-wide implications.

Mr. Chairman, I speak of the transfer of the Panama Canal to the Panamanian government under the circumstances which now exist. Perhaps some of you will say, "that's old news. We know how you feel about that, Admiral." But there's far more going on there than meets the eye.

A company called Panama Ports Company, S.A., affiliated with Hutchison Whampoa, Ltd. through its owner, Mr. Li Ka-Shing, currently maintains control of four of the Panama Canal's major ports.

Now, Panama Ports Company is 10 percent owned by China Resources Enterprises, the commercial arm of China's Ministry of Trade and Economic Cooperation.

On July 16, 1997, Senator Fred Thompson was quoted by the South China Morning Post as stating that China Resources was, quote, "an agent of espionage--economic, military and political--for China." unquote.

Further, this same newspaper article said ihat China Resources, quote, "has solid relations with the Lippo Group. In 1992, it acquired 50 percent of the Hong Kong Chinese Bank, which is also 50 percent owned by Lippo, and sold its stake to its listed arm, China Resources Enterprise, last month." unquote.

True, Hutchison-Whampoa Ltd. is listed on the London Stock Exchange. What does that mean? Not a thing; many companies in the United States, in the past, were perfectly legitimate companies, although funded by the Mafia. A stock exchange listing is inconsequential and no a reliable reference.

Hutchison-Whampoa controls countless ports around the world. My specific concern is that this company is controlled by the Communist Chinese. And they have virtually accomplished, without a single shot being fired, a stronghold on the Panama Canal, something which took our country so many years to accomplish--the building and control of the Panama Canal, along with military and commercial access in our own hemisphere.

This stronghold of power has been almost completely accomplished through something called "Law No. 5" which provides inter alia, the following:

1. Responsibility for hiring new pilots for the Canal. (Pilots have complete control of all ships passing through the Canal);

2. Assumes control over critical Atlantic/Pacific 6 anchorages, including a monopoly on the Pacific side when Rodman Naval Base is vacated next year. (Note: According to "Law No. 5," effective March 1, 1997, Hutchison has the right to demand possession of Rodman);

3. Authority to control the order of ships utilizing the entrance to the Canal on the Pacific side, and also the right to deny ships access to the ports and entrances of the Canal if they are deemed to be interfering with Hutchison's business--in direct violation of the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty which guarantees passage for the United States Navy;

4. The right to unilaterally transfer its rights to a third party--any company or nation of their choosing;

5. Certain public roads become private, cutting off strategic areas of the Canal;

6. Included in the deal with Hutchison is U.S. Naval Station Rodman; a portion of U.S. Air Station Albrook; Diablo; Balboa, a Pacific U.S.-built port; Cristobal, an Atlantic U.S. built port; the island of Telfers, which is strategically located adjacent to Galeta island, a critical communications center. I am told that Telfers island is the future home of the Chinese-planned export zone called, "The Great Wall of China project."

7. A clause was inserted at the end of "Law No. 5" which states that if a conflict between provisions of the law and provisions of the Canal treaty occur, the canal treaty prevails. Of course, point number 7's clause is meaningless if the U.S. Government doesn't act now.

In my testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1978, I stated:

(continued)
Click to expand...

What about the Prince of Wales and Repulse?

What about Churchhill withholding critical information for 5 months?
 
#23
#23
My dad and his best friend were at cracker barrel in Lexington, KY, I grew up there, and japanese tourists were in line also and asked them where the horse park was and my dad's friend replied, you found Pearl Harbor, you can find the horse park!
 
#24
#24
joevol320 said:
i've been there a few times and and it is just crowded with japanese tourists. most are very respectfull, i didn't really talk to them about it.
Click to expand...

I forgot about that until you mentioned it. Yea it was kind of weird how many there were when I went as well.

I didn't talk to them either.
 
#25
#25
OrangeEmpire said:
My dad and his best friend were at cracker barrel in Lexington, KY, I grew up there, and japanese tourists were in line also and asked them where the horse park was and my dad's friend replied, you found Pearl Harbor, you can find the horse park!
Click to expand...

That's pretty funny.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top