Might be top 5 of this whole thread. Holy shit indeed

LF tryouts as Pocket or Roamer in IM

Very competitive and dedicated to team, old gamer
I never bring drama/bullshit, several seasons of exp

-- Ideally looking for High IM team to give me a chance (I'm not part of any circle jerks to get a free pass but I can play with anyone there)

-- LF a serious team that scrims often (trying to avoid HL players that ruin Sunday/Monday scrims if possible)
-- Leaning more towards Pocket over Roamer but can play both interchangeably
-- Would not be opposed to Mid/Low IM team with dedicated players looking to improve

http://steamcommunity.com/id/SpaceCadetHX
https://play.esea.net/users/425780

Currently a playoff backup for Landed in Open. Unless they need me my schedule is completely open.

In 1941, we had no idea of the full capabilities of the Japanese Navy. What was widely known was the Japanese Navy was the strongest Naval Power in the world. Any assumption's made saying they "can't do" things is exactly why we were fucked at Pearl Harbor. Our military was confident the Japanese could not launch an attack over that distance from Japan. The fact that Japan hid the entire strike force from all detection and then crossed half the Pacific Ocean is statement enough that we knew nothing about Japan's capabilities.

Japan did occupy islands in Alaska a mere 6 months after Pearl Harbor. To say there was no threat at all would have been idiotic. That threat is exactly why we kicked their asses off our islands

Enlighten me on what the "entirety of the US Navy" was in the Atlantic in late 1941 and 1942?
Let me save you some time. We were lending Destroyers to the British to protect convoys from German UBoats. The rest of our Atlantic Navy was patrolling our eastern borders from UBoats as well and those ships were not Aircraft Carries. To contest an invasion fleet, you need Carriers and Battleships and there were very few of them in the Atlantic.

Additionally, how fast do you think ships of this size can get from the Atlantic to the Pacific via the canal? It doesn't happen over night and those ships will need to dock and refuel at destination before they are battle ready. This whole process can take months and the very essence of another "sneak attack" means this option is unrealistic unless you know the attack is coming in advance.

This might be the only thing you said that makes any sense. However, the situations you mention in China, Philippines, etc are a direct result of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese knew the attack did not achieve it's goals and was a failed strategic plan. Pearl Harbor was simply a tactical victory as Japan won the battle.

In turn, Japan did not want to devote more military hardware to following-up on that attack so they focused on securing valuable resources in Indonesia instead. Let me indicate again that we know all of this now because of hindsight. In 1942, it would have been beyond dangerous to assume anything you are taking for granted now that you know how history played out.

Also Marxist, Refer to my #89 post question

wtf are you even talking about? What "counterattack"? I know you hate America and blame "white people" for everything that happens in this country because you go out of your way to post about it over and over but for someone who seems intelligent, you literally talk out of your ass sometimes.

It was fear of Japanese sabotage. It was fear of Japanese invasion on the west coast, which was a real and very possible reality if the Pearl Harbor attack had achieved all it was planned to achieve. After Pearl Harbor, the US military options were bleak at best and Japan was a juggernaut.

Ever hear of the Feb 1942 Japanese attack on Ellwood California? That happened 2 months after Pearl Harbor and invasion fears were escalated ever more a few days later when Los Angeles thought it was having an Air Raid.

US Pacific defenses were in no position to stop a full-scale Japanese attack on the west coast and our Army wasn't in much better shape. After this small attack, it was obvious the country was at risk and action need to be taken.

If the Japanese had plans for invasion the very last thing you want is hidden agents or groups that can support that invasion already ashore, just ask the German's before D-Day. France exploded with resistance fighters attacking everything of value and made a significant impact.

In a perfect world, what you suggest would be awesome.
Guess what? Its not a perfect world and it wasn't back in the 40's either.

I am somewhat of a military history buff, from ancient times to present. I have gone to at least a dozen WW2 conventions with both of my grandfathers who served in Europe and the Pacific. I have spoken to so many different Vets that I couldn't count and there is one thing you are missing in your point of view that I have heard over and over again from these heroes.

The Italians and Germans did not attack this country, we declared war on them after we were forced into WW2.
The Japanese directly attacked our country, by surprise, in a well thought out plan of attack.
Obviously there is a clear difference between the two that I hope you can see.

Far be it for me to speak for that whole generation of Americans but you may need to accept the fact that, by and large, the country viewed this attack as personal and that is the main reasoning behind the different handling of German/Italian Americans and Japanese Americans. I am not even asking you take my word for it, go speak to the people who fought in that war and lived during that time. Shake their hand, thank them and then ask them for an opinion. You can still find them at sporting events, grocery stores or simply walking down the street. A lot of them wear hats and/or jackets that say WW2 Veteran or what unit/ship they served on.

This is incorrect, what is your source for this?

Perhaps you meant the US dropped more bombs on North Korea than they had dropped in the entire Pacific Theatre of operations in WW2?

Fact #11 unless you want to read them all.
or
Near the top of this article

I am not saying in any way it is not wrong or was not wrong. In this instance, we have the luxury of hindsight into these events so we can cast our judgement. If you view this in black and white, then that is all you are ever going to see.

In the 40's, the situation we are talking about was way more complex than how you are portraying it. There was a lot more on the line at the time and way more pressing issues.

This was war, and the greatest war this planet has yet seen. All bets were off and IMO they did the best thing possible at the time with the choices available.

A decision needed to be made right then. I can underline shit too.
You tell me what other options there were at the time?

I'll tell you one option that wasn't on the table. The US Military was not going to sit back and wait for someone to hit us from behind again and for damn sure it wasn't going to be on our own soil.

Its not "weird" at all. I knew all about this commission and its findings in the 80's. Once again, it needs to be taken into context. The findings shelled out reparations and that is all fine and dandy. My point is that at the time this situation happened, there was nothing wrong with taking proactive measures during a war situation when we were just sneak attacked.

There is a clear difference between looking at this on paper or in a textbook and trying to view the situation as it was unfolding back in the 40's. If you want to call it "racism" against the Japanese now that we looked at and know all the facts involved some 40 years later, I am not disputing that. I am saying that in the 1940's, after we were attacked, there was no reason at all not to suspect more from the people we were fighting.

The country was literally at risk, we could not take the chance of sitting back and waiting to see who would be loyal and who would not be loyal. Our military in the Pacific wasn't going to take a chance on sabotage at home when we needed every single resource we could find after Pearl Harbor.

I disagree but I understand where you are coming from.
IMO you need look at the context of the situation instead of just viewing it as "black and white" on paper. This wasn't like the US Government decided out of thin air to put people in camps. There was proof and 2403 reasons to push this plan ahead.

I'm not saying our government doesn't do shady shit but this wasn't one of them.

I don't think you can label the internment of Japanese Americans as being "political dissidents".
They weren't protesting or saying anything negative about the US government, they were just straight up imprisoned because it was war and we couldn't trust them for fear of another back stab (Pearl Harbor) on our home soil.

Maybe Ben is a perfectionist. Every detail counts

Waiting for the big post from Benroads pointing out all the things that need fixing. I really like those posts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UinpG2htgfs

Agreed, it was the best

Discord blows

Jagr is awesome and hopefully has several more seasons in him but 900 more points is not happening.

Jagr could possibly catch him in goals scored, and I stress "possibly". Getting another 130 goals at Jagr's current rate might take him 5-8 seasons. I don't know if he has that long and it is getting harder and harder to score lots of goals in the NHL these days. The odds are way against him but cheering for him none the less.

Jagr and everyone else until the end of time can forget about catching The Great One in Assists

The main stat that ends all comparisons to Gretzky is "Games Played". Few analysts or anyone else talk about it very often.

1705 Games Played -- Jagr -- (He will likely have the most All-Time when he is done)
1487 Games Played -- Gretzky -- (Tied for 20th All-Time, fucking amazing to have his stats compared to other players who have played more games.)