So, why did they not invade?

[NickC 23]

My apologies if this has been posted before. But i found it to be pretty interesting.

 

After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941,

They could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to

California To finish what they started. The prediction from our Chief

of Staff was we would not be able to stop a Massive invasion until

they reached the Mississippi River. Remember, we had a 2 million man

army and war ships…... All fighting the Germans.

 

So, why did they not invade?

 

After the war, the remaining Japanese generals and admirals were asked

that question.

 

Their answer…... They know that almost every home had guns and the

Americans knew how to use them.. The world's largest army..America's

hunters! I had never thought about this....

 

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states

and Arrived at a striking conclusion: There were over 600,000 hunters

this season in the state of Wisconsin .. Allow me to restate that

number.

Over the last several months, Wisconsin 's hunters became the eighth

Largest army in the world.

 

More men under arms than in Iran .. More than in France and Germany

combined. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state

to hunt With firearms, and no one was killed. That number pales in

comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and

Michigan's 700,000 hunters All of whom have now returned home.

 

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally

Establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone

Would comprise the largest army in the world.

 

The point?

 

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of

home-grown firepower. Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the

freezer. It's a matter of national security. That's why all enemies,

foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.

 

Food for thought when next we consider gun control.

[CageFighter 236]

then add in people like me who DONT HUNT, but love building their arsenals!

[NickC 23]

then add in people like me who DONT HUNT, but love building their arsenals!

+1 for that bro...

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

then add in people like me who DONT HUNT, but love building their arsenals!

 

Ditto.

[NicePants 58]

then add in people like me who DONT HUNT, but love building their arsenals!

 

+1. Just let them try to invade!

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Deer don't shoot back with fully-automatic fire and wear body armor while calling down artillery on you and your homes. Just try to keep that in mind when playing the whole hunter/gun-owner = hidden army of fighters fantasy.

 

Not saying that the average gun owner can't mount a resistance... but you can't do it alone. It's why we should start forming local militia outfits to train and fight together. NJZed is a nice start from what I heard. I'd like to get some Morristown/Cedar Knolls/Morris TWP locals together to network and train up.

 

It would also help if we were allowed to equip ourselves with actual military weaponry... but that's a whole 'nother story.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

As for Japan, they didn't invade because they lacked the resources to do so... and what purpose would it serve for them? Historical Hindsight says: if they invaded Hawaii and attacked the Naval shipyards, oil refineries, and the Panama Canal, we would have 49 stars on our flag instead of 50. The US would have simply not had the capacity to strike back as quickly and as massively as it did.

 

Hitting the shipyards would've knocked them out of commission for a time, hitting oil facilities would've hurt local infrastructure, and taking out the Canal would've extended US supply lines immensely. They wouldn't even have to invade... just keep us on our heels long enough to consolidate their holdings in Indonesia, the Philippines, and in China.

[EchoMirage 137]

NJZed is a nice start from what I heard. I'd like to get some Morristown/Cedar Knolls/Morris TWP locals together to network and train up.

 

if only people would show to the events......would could have had a full squad training and outfitted by now

[Motofan 10]

Thats probably why no one nation will ever attack wearing a uniform. Instead poison our water, food, economy etc.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

if only people would show to the events......would could have had a full squad training and outfitted by now

 

I'll admit that I haven't been able to meet up with you folks as much as I'd like. A lot of meet ups tend quite far away from me so I haven't been able to go. Any events at CR, CJRPC, OBRPC, Shongum would work for me.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Thats probably why no one nation will ever attack wearing a uniform. Instead poison our water, food, economy etc.

 

The US has become so powerful militarily and diplomatically, that the only threats we face are internal rather than external. Iran is a joke, Russia is a joke (aside from the nukes), China is a joke (except for nukes), and North Korea is a joke. Even the much vaunted Al Qaeda is a joke... it's so sad that we let such an inept organization put us in such a state of fear. They pull of one crazy idea, and all of a sudden we think they're an organization made up of Jackal-like members who can infiltrate at will, assemble complex weapons, and scheme there way into committing terror.

 

Hell, the US Federal Gov't has done more harm to this country than any foreign entity combined. Those morons in DC are gonna kill us all with their moronic attempts to 'protect' us.

[bbk 188]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that there aren't threats with faces in the world. The US and its allies are just very good at what they do, and have revamped their tactics, and, in some cases, have overstepped their authority to do so (like the UBL raid, not that I disagree with the outcome). Iran is definitely not a joke, nor is Russia-- if it went down the YBR. Same goes with countries like Pakistan and North Korea. All have the capabilities and potential of doing enough pushing on the see-saw that is geopolitics that their actions could indeed trigger a domino effect. Most countries, who could be potentially involved, realize, like the mob, that you don't make money when you're fighting (unless you're the US, and everybody pays you for the technology/resources to fight wars).

 

The biggest threat though is still asymmetric warfare. The two prominent include terrorism and cyberwarfare.With all of the changes made in counter-terrorism, there is still the large threat of a multitude of small-scale yet surgical strikes that could, again, cause domino effects. It's the "Easter Egg" story; terrorists detonate a small-scale dirty bomb, or some type of WMD, that maybe causes casualties of around a few hundred. Enough to scare, but not be absolutely catastrophic (relatively speaking; any loss of life is of course catastrophic). They then say that they have five more that they'll detonate in succession over the next five weeks. The government kicks things into overdrive, and find all five. The government makes a press announcement that they've saved the day, and people should go about their business. Then a few weeks later, maybe a month, an identical bomb is detonated, and an announcement is made from the group saying that they have more UXOs planted. In short, this would cause a massive amount of panic, even if the terrorists were bluffing. Civilians wouldn't go to work, business would suffer, and people would be living, again, in a heightened state of fear. There would also be a breakdown in public trust (more so) between the masses and the government.

The same results could occur if there were an incident involve cyberwarfare-- which seems even more likely as the US is seemingly a bit behind the curve.

 

Would there ever be a conventional invasion? No, I don't think so. I don't think it would even be possible unless someone found a way to cripple the EW capabilities of the US (which is next to impossible). The above two threats of course bypass our EW simply because we don't necessarily have a dependable, 100% effective EW. Further, would someone even have to invade the US to truly ruin it? If someone were able to throw this country into chaos, I think the people within this country could tear each other up plenty without having a single round fired from a foreign, enemy combatant.

[CageFighter 236]

the US will be destroy from the inside out, not by forces from another nation.

our liberties are being taken away every day, politcial correct bs, etc.

we even have the head of the north american MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD sitting across from Barrack @ a dinner.

open your eyes fellas......pay attention to whats going on!

[Joelk 61]

if only people would show to the events......would could have had a full squad training and outfitted by now

I guess I missed hearing about any NJZed training events. Which trainers have you brought in for them as I am always looking for more local training?

[JackDaWack 2,895]

the US will be destroy from the inside out, not by forces from another nation.

our liberties are being taken away every day, politcial correct bs, etc.

we even have the head of the north american MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD sitting across from Barrack @ a dinner.

open your eyes fellas......pay attention to whats going on!

I couldnt agree more, in the past couple decades we have allowed outside sources to eat away at our nation from the inside out. The whole war on terror is being lost at home, not in the middle east.

[BlackOps Badger 52]

nevermind

Edited October 14, 2011 by JoeSkiLove

[Kaiser7 33]

If I'm not mistaken, old K98s are turning up in Iraq and Afghanistan because of their effectiveness at defeating modern body armor. Besides, even though hunters wouldn't have the logistical, or force multiplier support, they have intimate knowledge of the terrain and concealment. They'd likely be able to act like the werewolves of Germany did in WWII. Also, if I'm not mistaken, hunters and native Aleutians helped to slow the spread of the Japanese into Alaska. A lot of the scouts and such were armed with their own weapons. America's greatest enemies are within, but on any conventional war, we would be able to win. Barring a full-out nuclear strike on the US, we have tons of gun owners who probably have more range and firearm experience than our military. Even assuming their weapons are too dated for modern warfare (which, though a Mosin is slower to fire and reload, the advantages in range and stopping power may counter a high ROF in the right circumstances) we could probably hastily issue old M16s, or even M14s to your average hunter and see great results against an invading force. Most likely, if America was seriously threatened by invasion, militia groups would work in conjunction with the National Guard and standard Army units. I think that in this event, we'd be fine, the only fear is that of nuclear war, otherwise we are pretty much invincible. Not to mention a tank can be choked out with a molotov, which was a tactic employed by the Russians against the Germans due to a lack of dedicated anti-tank weapons. If we preserve our 2A rights, we're nearly invincible.

 

As for North Korea, they're pretty much a joke. Their military looks impressive on paper, but even South Korea has a far stronger force capable of crushing them. All of the North Korean hardware is out of date, and they're decades behind in getting the technology for a ICBM, and even if they did, with their crappy economy, I doubt they'd be able to build up the type of arsenal that would be of any threat to us, we'd probably get hit in one city, but then we'd just march in there and obliterate them. They're a pretty seriously overblown threat.

[Sixtytwo327 14]

The Japanese didn't invade because their real goal was to invade China for land. The attack on Perl Harbor was meant to destroy the American carriers and trap the American fleet in port - so by the time the Americans could rebuild and get carriers back into operation (years), the Japanese would have already occupied large parts of China.

 

A better question is why WE didn't invade Japan: and the answer is that the Japanese withheld 600,000 of their combat veterans (who were also the best armed) for defense of the homeland. When the Japanese unconditionally surrendered, the Chinese communists captured most of the Japanese armory, which helped the People’s Liberation Army led by Mao Ze Dong defeat Chiang Kai-shek and his forces (who fled to Taiwan). In 1948 or 49 I think Mao Ze Dong and established the People's Republic of China.

 

Or something like that.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that there aren't threats with faces in the world. The US and its allies are just very good at what they do, and have revamped their tactics, and, in some cases, have overstepped their authority to do so (like the UBL raid, not that I disagree with the outcome). Iran is definitely not a joke, nor is Russia-- if it went down the YBR. Same goes with countries like Pakistan and North Korea. All have the capabilities and potential of doing enough pushing on the see-saw that is geopolitics that their actions could indeed trigger a domino effect. Most countries, who could be potentially involved, realize, like the mob, that you don't make money when you're fighting (unless you're the US, and everybody pays you for the technology/resources to fight wars).

 

Iran IS a joke. Their nuclear program is a complete waste of time, money, and effort. Their army, navy, and air force is tiny and outdated. Even if they built the bomb and used it, the DoE, DIA, and DoD will be able to figure out very quickly where it came from and hit them back hard 1000x over. Russia is a joke because their military is old, lacks power projection, and their infrastructure/logistics are too fragile.

 

This kind of thinking is what justifies our runaway military spending and the attitude that we need have immensely large and powerful capabilities or we will totally get owned. That simply won't happen.

 

In short: what good is all our vaunted military spending when the cost is our economy and national well being? The Soviets fell victim to this, and so will we.

 

The biggest threat though is still asymmetric warfare. The two prominent include terrorism and cyberwarfare.With all of the changes made in counter-terrorism, there is still the large threat of a multitude of small-scale yet surgical strikes that could, again, cause domino effects. It's the "Easter Egg" story; terrorists detonate a small-scale dirty bomb, or some type of WMD, that maybe causes casualties of around a few hundred. Enough to scare, but not be absolutely catastrophic (relatively speaking; any loss of life is of course catastrophic). They then say that they have five more that they'll detonate in succession over the next five weeks. The government kicks things into overdrive, and find all five. The government makes a press announcement that they've saved the day, and people should go about their business. Then a few weeks later, maybe a month, an identical bomb is detonated, and an announcement is made from the group saying that they have more UXOs planted. In short, this would cause a massive amount of panic, even if the terrorists were bluffing. Civilians wouldn't go to work, business would suffer, and people would be living, again, in a heightened state of fear. There would also be a breakdown in public trust (more so) between the masses and the government.

The same results could occur if there were an incident involve cyberwarfare-- which seems even more likely as the US is seemingly a bit behind the curve.

 

There is nothing we can do to stop the "Easter Egg" type of attack. The only thing preventing that now is the sheer incompetence of the terrorist organizations we're facing. These are guys who think an awesome killing machine is a tractor with swords taped to it trying to drive into a crowd of people. Home grown terror folks are the real issue. People who look like you and I and have the brains to pull this off.

 

Beyond that: the vast majority of out 'PATRIOT ACT' powers and DHS funding isn't even going to fight terrorism... but the War on Drugs. Oh, and useless bullcrap like Body Scanners. The Federal Gov't is trying really hard to create the illusion of security because they know they can't provide it.

 

Would there ever be a conventional invasion? No, I don't think so. I don't think it would even be possible unless someone found a way to cripple the EW capabilities of the US (which is next to impossible). The above two threats of course bypass our EW simply because we don't necessarily have a dependable, 100% effective EW. Further, would someone even have to invade the US to truly ruin it? If someone were able to throw this country into chaos, I think the people within this country could tear each other up plenty without having a single round fired from a foreign, enemy combatant.

 

Easiest way to do it is to EMP us... with the lights out, civil unrest occurs, food stops being shipped, fuel stops being refined, our warfighters are forced to deal with internal issues. Eventually, the Navy has to reduce it's operations when there are no ports to service their ships and when the sailors end up wanting to go home to their families. After a year or two, they can deploy small units and mess with reconstruction efforts, sow fear in the population and really terrorize us.

 

That is... if the EMP doesn't lead to a whole host of internal issues where splinter groups within the nation try to challenge the Federal Government.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

Actually, I'd love to chat more about this with you... I don't necessarily want to disagree with you on the potential threat many nations and organizations pose to us, but I just have some thoughts in regard to the ROI on our military and intelligence organizations in dealing with the foreign and domestic security threats we face as a nation.

 

Is the status quo the best way to go about things? Or will the cost of keeping the world at it's current geopolitical arrangement break us as a nation?

[Dan 177]

Japan and Germany had no interest in invading the US during WW2. They were both playing the game of containment. The US population at the time had no appetite for war, and prior to Pearl Harbor had an undertone of neutrality and isolationism (despite this we have been contributing to the war under the lend-lease program). Japan's attack was purely in their eyes to break our Pacific naval assets back , so we don't interfere with their invasions in the Pacific/southeast asia. They did not think we could rebuild, and become a serious threat, nor did they think we would want to.

 

They had a choice... continue their invasions in the pacific, and hope that the US didn't get involved or butt in. Or per-emptively strike down our Navy, and force us so that we couldn't get involved. They then calculated it would take a long long time for us to get our Navy back into fighting shape. By then they figured they would have taken over most of the Pacific, China, Southeast Asia, even Australia and would have been reaping in the benefits of raw materials to become even stronger.

 

They were wrong... They commenced the attack even when they knew our aircraft carriers weren't in Pearl Harbor, and they didn't anticipate 1) How the attack would polarize the US population to support war, 2) the power of aircraft carriers (battleships were still thought to be the end-all weapon), 3) how quickly we could recover.

[bbk 188]

We definitely don't disagree. The status quo approach by the military and intelligence communities (IC) are not effective with the shift in the threat paradigm. I think we're starting to see this as the military and intelligence community make their changes. The problem that both face sometimes is convincing the budget committee with what is important moving forward. Should the DOD invest in 155 CH-47s, or should we consider adding more capabilities for the IC? Should we concern ourselves with countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, or do we already have the capabilities for achieving certain missions related to those area (let's face it, those two are a political thing, and not a national security/military issue at this point, which is sad because of the investment of human lives that goes into funding them-- as well as our tax dollars). The budget committees find that it is sometimes easier convincing themselves and the sheeple about external threats that are more concrete and "sexier" than theoretical possibilities (some that have not even yet occurred).

 

But there are changes being made like I said. In cases like this, I don't mind the down-sizing of the military, given it becomes a lean, mean machine compared to it's current composition (bloated as a means of filling in the gaps). I don't mind chipping away at the brigade combat teams, and reallocating those resources to components within the IC and other related agencies, or even the national budget.

 

However, to a certain degree, maintaining the geopolitical situations around the world is for the best benefit of national security. Political shenanigans aside, I wouldn't want to see Pakistan become a failed state or have a military coup-- have certain parties acquire 15-20KT nuclear weapons and other related materials. I wouldn't want to see DPRK become a large-scale arms trafficker. Iran, in it's current state, does not pose a threat, but with emerging technologies, both on their part and others, could change that. Plus, if Iraq fails, Iran could always come in and save the day with political savvy/land grab-- something that they have been wanting since before there was even a thought of an America.

 

So, then the question becomes, does the status quo help keep things in perspective moving forward, affording a decent amount of security, as we make the shift in the threat paradigm. Or is the status quo in fact detrimental to realizing the emerging threats? While there are smarter people than me figuring this out, I think the country is realizing that we need to change with the emerging threats, and are doing it very slowly, on the down-low. Related, I think people will start to realize that PATRIOT Act is a moot point in the next decade or so, and maybe it will be discarded in favor of a more specific policy (or I hope).

[Parker 213]

Japan and Germany had no interest in invading the US during WW2. They were both playing the game of containment. The US population at the time had no appetite for war, and prior to Pearl Harbor had an undertone of neutrality and isolationism (despite this we have been contributing to the war under the lend-lease program). Japan's attack was purely in their eyes to break our Pacific naval assets back , so we don't interfere with their invasions in the Pacific/southeast asia. They did not think we could rebuild, and become a serious threat, nor did they think we would want to.

 

They had a choice... continue their invasions in the pacific, and hope that the US didn't get involved or butt in. Or per-emptively strike down our Navy, and force us so that we couldn't get involved. They then calculated it would take a long long time for us to get our Navy back into fighting shape. By then they figured they would have taken over most of the Pacific, China, Southeast Asia, even Australia and would have been reaping in the benefits of raw materials to become even stronger.

 

They were wrong... They commenced the attack even when they knew our aircraft carriers weren't in Pearl Harbor, and they didn't anticipate 1) How the attack would polarize the US population to support war, 2) the power of aircraft carriers (battleships were still thought to be the end-all weapon), 3) how quickly we could recover.

 

Correct. The Japanese didn't have the resources to muster an invasion here. And they underestimated our ability to recoup. It certainly wasn't because they feared gun owners in America. Great soundbite, but it's simply not true. The embargo the U.S. placed on Japan had something to do with Pearl Harbor. To circumvent and procure resources, Japan was taking as much territory as it could grab in proximity to their homeland. As a culture, they considered themselves superior to their neighbors. The attack on the U.S. Pacific fleet was to stymie any retaliatory efforts of the U.S. as they went about their way.

 

The Japanese did try something in the Aleutian islands back in 1942. It was meant as a diversion for Midway. In a nineteen day battle, the U.S. suffered approx. 1,400 losses a year later taking back their bases on Attu and Kiska islands: http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/aleutians/attu-homepage.htm

 

Towards the end of the war, the U.S. ruled the skies and controlled the shipping lanes in and around the Japanese mainland. Now with no supplies coming in, the Japanese people were literally being starved to death in their own the homeland. They were were being taught to live on acorns and grasshoppers. Consider that in 1945, the U.S. had never dealt with such a fanatical foe before. Suicidal pilots with only days of training were put into planes used as aerial suicide bombs. A concept American's could not begin to fathom. No one was excited to invade their mainland.

 

The U.S. had been conducting firebombings for months of major Japanese cities, killing more than 400,000, wounding more than 500,000, destroying 2.5 million homes and leaving more than 9 million homeless. Our bombings became indiscriminate, the intent was to kill everyone. Every man, woman and child were viewed as a potential enemy. The Hiroshima bomb killed 140,000 people; the Nagasaki bomb killed 70,000. And these are still viewed as estimates today as the numbers always get disputed. The atomic bombs only hastened their decision, because they were getting squeezed from all sides. The same day the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki (August 9th, 1945), one million Soviet troops invaded and took Manchuria, killing 180,000 Japanese. Stalin had let the USSR-Japan Nonaggression Act lapse months earlier. The Soviets then took another 700,000 Japanese prisoners from the city, and marched them off to the gulags, never to be seen again.

 

BTW - If you have any Korean or Chinese friends whose parents lived through that era, ask them how they feel about the Japanese. Their reaction & response won't be complimentary.

[Dan 177]

It is definitely glamorous to think about how a well armed US population would make invading our mainland very difficult, but the bottom line is without organization and proper training, it would be a mere annoyance to a well trained professional military. If you take a look at history in the area of resistance/insurgency fighters, their challenges were almost never a lack of weapons , or their ability to procure those weapons.

 

On top of this, I'm sure there are many enemies out there that would not hesitate to use mass punishment against areas where civilians are using their personal arms to inflict damage. The use of mass reprisals, such as killing all men and boys over the age of 16 in entire towns/population centers has been used before.

[bulpup 98]

The embargo the U.S. placed on Japan had something to do with Pearl Harbor. To circumvent and procure resources, Japan was taking as much territory as it could grab in proximity to their homeland. As a culture, they considered themselves superior to their neighbors. The attack on the U.S. Pacific fleet was to stymie any retaliatory efforts of the U.S. as they went about their way.

 

 

you certainly know your history. However i always get a bug in the you kmow what when people mention the oil embargo >pearl Harbor timeline and make no mention that Japan had aleady taken manchuria, sunk a us naval vessel and that the US did not want US oil to fuel their invasion of Chinese cities.

 

 

We stopped their flow of oil and munitions to stop their war on China. We did not just arbitrarily decide to do it.

 

This always bugged me in my history classes as a kid. It has been taught that the embargo brought japan to Pearl harbor and the us was responsible.

 

Japan's ravaging of china brought the embargo.

 

Sorry if I sound like an a**. I can't tell you how many times i have had to tell that to anti military types.

[Babyface Finster 45]

Remember, we had a 2 million man

army and war ships…... All fighting the Germans.

 

 

The US declared war on the Japanese several days before declaring war on Germany and Italy.

[Parker 213]

I could have added that part but I shortened the full history version and provided a Cliff Notes excerpt. Yes, a lot gets missed in history. We always get the abridged version today. No different than the people who decry America's use of atomic weaponry. Had they been around in the 40's, they would have had a different opinion.

 

Good read, full of interesting tidbits about the war. Another James Bradley book: Flyboys

 

(Got it for my father for Christmas, had to read it after he finished it.)

[Maksim 1,504]

Devs, the us intelligence also never though Islamic fundamentalists would bomb us embassies, or bring the war to us. Keep in mind, a huge army means squat. How long have we been in the sandbox? How many Russians died there before?

 

Point is don't underestimate Iran or Russia or anyone else.

 

You can't scare people who are not afraid to die. The threat to us is here already within our borders. Anyone that takes out the powergrid or a nuclear plant will do more damage, and inflicting more psycological damage than an Iranian sub off the coast of Jersey.

 

 

 

 

Ps, Russia does have arguably the best air fighters avail today. Look at the new SU's.

[bulpup 98]

 

 

Ps, Russia does have arguably the best air fighters avail today. Look at the new SU's.

 

This is what I have been reading as well. A few years ago they had the ability to turn the lock sensor in the air to air missile head instead of having to point the entire plane on axis of the heat source. Basically the missile sensors are connected to the pilots helmet much like the cannon on the Cobra and apache helicopters

 

That weapon system has since been exported to countries that use Russian aircraft. I don't know if the US has made anything similar to that since I last read it but that had the US reeling. Especially wehen India won an air to air competition using the Russian planes.

[bulpup 98]

 

 

Ps, Russia does have arguably the best air fighters avail today. Look at the new SU's.

 

This is what I have been reading as well. A few years ago they had the ability to turn the lock sensor in the air to air missile head instead of having to point the entire plane on axis of the heat source. Basically the missile sensors are connected to the pilots helmet much like the cannon on the Cobra and apache helicopters

 

That weapon system has since been exported to countries that use Russian aircraft. I don't know if the US has made anything similar to that since I last read it but that had the US reeling. Especially when India won an air to air competition using the Russian planes.

[Old School 611]

I'm always amazed how knowledgable our forum members are... sincerely!!

 

I tend to be somewhat isolationist but to a point. Yes the Japanese atrocitities were mentioned that were purportrated before our entry into WWII.

 

But there were also 1.5 million Jews murdered in Eastern Europe before our declaring war on Germany as well.

 

So as much as I want to be an isolationist I really have to think about our global responsibility.

 

So here I'm sitting on the boat posting in the greatest country in the world. Fat and happy!

 

I just need to say Thank You to those that served and died to make my fat and happy possible.