We are coming up for the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbour. Suppose the Japanese had postponed their attack till 7 December 2011. What would have happened?

--The Republicans would devote their energies to blaming Obama for “letting it happen.”

--Within three nanoseconds of the news breaking the blogosphere would be filled with conspiracy theories. It was an inside job. Obama organised it to justify overturning the constitution. Mossad did it to distract attention from Israeli “genocide” of the Palestinians. It’s all the fault of the Rothschilds.

--Noam Chomsky(1) would publish a piece in the Guardian explaining that the whole thing was the fault of the United States.

--Tariq Ramadan(2) would publish a piece in the Guardian explaining that the whole thing was the fault of the United States.

--Robert Fisk(3) would publish a piece in the Independent explaining that the whole thing was the fault of the United States.

--Der Spiegel would publish a piece explaining how this was all the fault of the United States and Germany would withdraw from NATO.

--Obama would make a series of speeches.

--Bob Brown would blame Rupert Murdoch.

--The Tea Party leadership would announce that a world war was no reason for raising taxes or increasing spending.

--The UN Council on Human Rights would pass a motion condemning Israel.

--After protracted negotiations between Speak Boehner, Senate Majority Leader McConnel, Senate Minority Leader Reid and Obama, the Congress would pass a bill setting up a bipartisan super-committee to advise on suitable measures, the committee to report back after the 2012 election.

Somehow the need actually to win the war would be neglected and the Japanese would win easily.

Now we know what the Japanese got wrong. They attacked 70 years too soon.

(1) http://www.chomsky.info/

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan

(3) http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/

Steven, partisan politics in the US and all first world nations is flawed, no matter which team you barrack for there can be only one outcome, your nation will become indebted.

The reason for this being the inability to control the destiny of the nation even when you have the numbers, and the reason for that is Free Trade agreements and the dropping of protectionist policies.

Both sides want to stimulate employment which brings prosperity to the domestic economy, and as long as the employed are manufacturing and exporting the balance of trade controls your nation’s debt. But how can politicians in America consider any light at the end of the tunnel with corporate manufacturing already having fled to cheaper climes within ten years of getting the tariff barriers dropped, and small and medium businesses wanting to stay in business also sourcing their stock from OS.

Steven it is like a pantomime, both sides of politics follow the protocols directed from the owners of the global monetary, trade, and manufacturing cabals, and they do not want the first world to be self sufficient, if it is they lose control.

How can any first world government promise anything to any of us regarding future national prosperity when they KNOW the money aint coming back to our nation, they grew up watching the balance of trade swing from west to east , why would things change while their nations have no import duty. We can talk about the right, the left, global warming, climate change, carbon dioxide, green power, the rights of individuals the rights of the masses, the rights of disease spreading Flying Fox’s, but national sovereignty regarding trade is banned. Who banned it.

Pantomime politics, no matter who you vote for you get a bank

re Japanese 70 years too late.

I wonder if WW2 could have been avoided if the Allies had a fraction of the vision the Germans had ?

The Germans had Hitlers visions, the Italians had Mussolini's,the Japanese had the Militarists vision, the Russians had Stalins, the Brits Chamberlains, the US Rosevelts, which vision had vision indy?

Dear SOG,

So who has vision today?

cont'd ...

If politics was run like a Big Corporate Organisation
it would achieve greater results, construct bigger
structures, expand their influence and make bigger
profits and the shareholders would be happy.

You would still be in competition with other corporations
but at least you'd achieve results or go out of
business.