5 ms·

At the risk of being argumentative I would point out that many Americans died unnecessarily at the beginning of WWII as well. This is a common pattern in wars.

untog 7y ago
I think you can take this analogy too far. If I were to do so, I'd say that the OP is suggesting that Pearl Harbor was attacked, the President said it was no big deal, just one Japanese plane, and the country collectively twiddled their thumbs while the enemy advanced.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  True. Not sure why everything is always compared to a war in any case? We have a war on this, a war on that. You can compare anything to a war, but that doesn't mean you're going to get useful insights out of the exercise. I mean, yeah, I suppose it's Pearl Harbor is attacked and we twiddled our thumbs, but what insights useful right now in dealing with this virus does that comparison uncover? It's kind of just noise at this point. Save it for the post-mortem and the history books. It's not terribly useful right now. And it's certainly not useful to tell Americans at this point that it's necessary and common that many of them will need to die unnecessarily because, "that's always the way".
  - untog 7y ago
    > It's kind of just noise at this point. Save it for the post-mortem and the history books. It's not terribly useful right now. If we were serving in the White House right now I'd agree with you. But we're just people shooting the shit online, I don't really see what harm it does to discuss the things that are on our minds. Nothing we’re talking about here is really all that useful in terms of tackling the issue in front of us all.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- huonpine 7y ago
  Pearl harbor is a bad example as harm prevention was carried out prior to the attack (2 missing aircraft carriers).
- thejohnconway 7y ago
  Well, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, the US did twiddle its thumbs for at least two years after the outbreak of WW2. Earlier intervention may have virtually stopped it (in Europe at least).
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    Sure, though I believe that during those 2 years the US was also trying to decide which part they should enter the war on. There were influential Nazi supporters in the US, and Russian 'communism' was probably seen as a bigger ideological problem than antisemitism to many.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      While there was a certain amount of bi-directional influence (Hitler taking inspiration from the KKK, the German-American Bund being the local Nazi party) there was never any question of entering the war on the Nazi side, and indeed Lend-Lease started in early 1941, months before Pearl Harbor, including supplying arms to the Soviet Union. The private sector was still supplying Nazi Germany while the US was officially neutral, though.
dogecoinbase 7y ago
We are not at war. We are +T two months since the first confirmed case in the USA and had warning nearly a month prior to that, and the Federal government has done almost nothing of substance other than reject tests and advice from nations who have been fighting this far better than we have, because they have functional health services.
- TrumpMyGuns 7y ago
  keep crying, libturd. adults aren't paying attention.
- wolco 7y ago
  Weren't they the first to limit then ban travel from Wuhan / China. To say they have done nothing sounds political. Good and poor decisions were made.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    In addition to enacting the CDC effort to distribute tests. That some of those tests were contaminated, or that the FDA may have made a hard call in proceeding with redistribution or calling an audible to multi-sourced testing, is a strategic problem. But let's not say nothing was done. I'm sure there were plenty of sleepless nights at the CDC, before we even had confirmed US cases. (Happened to drive by it today. And it's easy to forget that there are people, just like us, who are trying to do their best there. We all make mistakes. And sometimes we don't, but our bosses do, and we get blamed for it anyway.)
    - dillonmckay 7y ago
      The US refused the WHO tests and wanted to create their own.
      - ethbro 7y ago
        https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/us-coronavirus-test/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/us-coronavirus-test/ That's kind of like saying "I've got a motherboard, am missing an Intel CPU, but AMD has CPUs, so I'll just put one of those in there." Rolling out testing on the scale that was obviously needed even then is a non-trivial thing, requiring coordination of multiple parties, all in a climate of dubious information. So, yeah, I think it's understandable (a) to stick to a prearranged plan (to avoid the risk of debilitating testing chaos), (b) to desire a domestic supply of tests, & (c) to avoid drawing on a global resource when there was expected to be no need. As Dr. Fauci says, hindsight is 20/20.
def8cefe 7y ago
American casualties at the beginning of WW2 were actually quite low as the US didn't enter the war until 1942 (WW2 began in 1939).

untog 7y ago

I think you can take this analogy too far. If I were to do so, I'd say that the OP is suggesting that Pearl Harbor was attacked, the President said it was no big deal, just one Japanese plane, and the country collectively twiddled their thumbs while the enemy advanced.

bilbo0s 7y ago
True. Not sure why everything is always compared to a war in any case? We have a war on this, a war on that. You can compare anything to a war, but that doesn't mean you're going to get useful insights out of the exercise. I mean, yeah, I suppose it's Pearl Harbor is attacked and we twiddled our thumbs, but what insights useful right now in dealing with this virus does that comparison uncover? It's kind of just noise at this point. Save it for the post-mortem and the history books. It's not terribly useful right now. And it's certainly not useful to tell Americans at this point that it's necessary and common that many of them will need to die unnecessarily because, "that's always the way".
- untog 7y ago
  > It's kind of just noise at this point. Save it for the post-mortem and the history books. It's not terribly useful right now. If we were serving in the White House right now I'd agree with you. But we're just people shooting the shit online, I don't really see what harm it does to discuss the things that are on our minds. Nothing we’re talking about here is really all that useful in terms of tackling the issue in front of us all.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
huonpine 7y ago
Pearl harbor is a bad example as harm prevention was carried out prior to the attack (2 missing aircraft carriers).
thejohnconway 7y ago
Well, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, the US did twiddle its thumbs for at least two years after the outbreak of WW2. Earlier intervention may have virtually stopped it (in Europe at least).
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  Sure, though I believe that during those 2 years the US was also trying to decide which part they should enter the war on. There were influential Nazi supporters in the US, and Russian 'communism' was probably seen as a bigger ideological problem than antisemitism to many.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    While there was a certain amount of bi-directional influence (Hitler taking inspiration from the KKK, the German-American Bund being the local Nazi party) there was never any question of entering the war on the Nazi side, and indeed Lend-Lease started in early 1941, months before Pearl Harbor, including supplying arms to the Soviet Union. The private sector was still supplying Nazi Germany while the US was officially neutral, though.

dogecoinbase 7y ago

We are not at war. We are +T two months since the first confirmed case in the USA and had warning nearly a month prior to that, and the Federal government has done almost nothing of substance other than reject tests and advice from nations who have been fighting this far better than we have, because they have functional health services.

TrumpMyGuns 7y ago
keep crying, libturd. adults aren't paying attention.
wolco 7y ago
Weren't they the first to limit then ban travel from Wuhan / China. To say they have done nothing sounds political. Good and poor decisions were made.
- ethbro 7y ago
  In addition to enacting the CDC effort to distribute tests. That some of those tests were contaminated, or that the FDA may have made a hard call in proceeding with redistribution or calling an audible to multi-sourced testing, is a strategic problem. But let's not say nothing was done. I'm sure there were plenty of sleepless nights at the CDC, before we even had confirmed US cases. (Happened to drive by it today. And it's easy to forget that there are people, just like us, who are trying to do their best there. We all make mistakes. And sometimes we don't, but our bosses do, and we get blamed for it anyway.)
  - dillonmckay 7y ago
    The US refused the WHO tests and wanted to create their own.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/us-coronavirus-test/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/us-coronavirus-test/ That's kind of like saying "I've got a motherboard, am missing an Intel CPU, but AMD has CPUs, so I'll just put one of those in there." Rolling out testing on the scale that was obviously needed even then is a non-trivial thing, requiring coordination of multiple parties, all in a climate of dubious information. So, yeah, I think it's understandable (a) to stick to a prearranged plan (to avoid the risk of debilitating testing chaos), (b) to desire a domestic supply of tests, & (c) to avoid drawing on a global resource when there was expected to be no need. As Dr. Fauci says, hindsight is 20/20.

def8cefe 7y ago

American casualties at the beginning of WW2 were actually quite low as the US didn't enter the war until 1942 (WW2 began in 1939).