# Barbara Boxer Lied! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 21, 2005, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911 "2005-01-21T13:52:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/201 "2005-01-26T14:16:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But Hitler never attacked us. Yeah, he only declared war on us. First. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/202 "2005-01-26T15:03:15Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Yeah, he only declared war on us. First. After we committed acts of undeclared war against Germany. The parallels between FDR and Bush run only to this: they both decieved the American people into war, because they were confident war was the right answer. In FDR’s case, I believe history has answered that question satisfactorily: we know Hitler was evil, we owed a duty of moral support to France, the UK, Poland, and the other countries crushed beneath Hitler’s heel, and ultimately therte’s no real doubt our own survival would have been at risk if Hitler had conquered Europe. In Bush’s case, the historical jury is still out. There’s no question that we rid the world of an evil and despotic leader. Is that enough? Probably not, since there’s no shortage of other evil and despotic leaders in the world. Will this cause the formation of a stable Arab democracy in the Middle East, one that will spawn other democracies? I say it will, and I say THAT’S enough. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/203 "2005-01-26T15:08:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > After we committed acts of undeclared war against Germany. Did we attack sovereignty? Because that’s the key issue, not “acts of war,” but specific attacks on sovereignty. That’s the illegal part. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/204 "2005-01-26T15:14:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The parallels between FDR and Bush run only to this: they both decieved the American people into war, because they were confident war was the right answer. The only difference is, one president was right and one president was dead wrong. I leave it to your unparalleled judgment to determine if World War II was the right answer. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/205 "2005-01-26T15:36:30Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Did we attack sovereignty? Because that’s the key issue, not “acts of war,” but specific attacks on sovereignty. That’s the illegal part. I don’t understand what an “attack on sovereignty” is, and by what theory it is illegal. Could you please expound on this? > [@Fear Itself](#): > > The only difference is, one president was right and one president was dead wrong. I leave it to your unparalleled judgment to determine if World War II was the right answer. I agree that FDR was right. But I don’t agree that Bush was wrong. I contend they were BOTH right. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/206 "2005-01-26T15:41:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A deficit is not a depression. And FDR _also_ left us in a deeper deficit than when he started. > > But Hitler never attacked us. We’ll take this a little at a time. I don’t type fast. FDR fought a world war. This Iraq thing is just a brushfire compared to when and where we fought in the 40s.Also FDR was in power for what(?) 12 years. GWB did it in less than 4. Yes my dear Bricker. And Saddam never attacked us either. Did you want to talk about Japan? ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/207 "2005-01-26T15:58:11Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] FDR “resisted” only in the sense that US opinion was staunchly against it. He wanted to go to war, and he manipulated events to cause US opinion to come around. Yes, GWB ignored world leaders who counseled appeasement. FDR ignored world leaders who counseled appeasement. GWB agreed with world leaders who wanted military action. FDR agreed with world leaders who wanted militray action.//Quote Yes and it took how many years of listening to the American people before we entered WWII. Too bad Georgie didn’t listen. Saddam had his ass kicked by us barely 10 years before we attacked him. We were monitoring him all that time. Thats why is so hard to believe bush. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/208 "2005-01-26T16:05:01Z")
Are the words “Pearl Harbor” going to come up in any of this? I’m fascinated, in a Bizzaro World kind of way, how the discussion of FDR conning us into war can overlook this rather significant event. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/209 "2005-01-26T16:13:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t understand what an “attack on sovereignty” is, and by what theory it is illegal. Could you please expound on this? I’m pretty sure you know what sovereignty means but just to humore you, the UN Charter (a treaty signed and ratified by the US Congress) forbids any act of aggression against the sovereignty of another nation (that is, it forbids any attempt to overthrow another government) except in the case of self-defense. “Agression” is defined as follows by the [UN General Assembly](http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/3314.htm) (I bolded some highlights): > [@](#): > > Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition. > > Explanatory note: In this Definition the term “State”: > > (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations; > > (b) Includes the concept of a “group of States” where appropriate. > > Article 2 > > **The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression** although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity. > > Article 3 > > Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: > > **(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,** > > (b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State; > > (c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State; > > (d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State; > > (e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement; > > (f) The action of a State in allowing its temtory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State; > > (g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein. > > Article 4 > > The acts enumerated above are not exhaustive and the Security Council may determine that other acts constitute aggression under the provisions of the Charter. > > Article 5 > > **1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.** There you go. It is a violation of the UN Charter and international law to overthrow another government for any non-defensive reason. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/210 "2005-01-26T16:27:36Z")
Oh, I see now! You wanted America to get a permission slip to defend herself from the dreadful and aggressive machinations of the Saddamites! Is that what you’re up to Mr. WimpAss Pacifist Lefty? And when Saddam’s incontinental drones of doom are flying over our Eastern seaboard, spreading nuclear anthrax through our skies, what were you going to do, Mr. Liberal Quisling, dance around in a circle and sing “Kumbabya”? You know he had a centrifuge, right? Cunningly hidden till our back was turned, and, then, he could start it spinning and could manufacture a nuclear weapon in just under 10,000 years. Bet you’d like that, Mr. “Personally, I Welcome Our New Iraqi Overlords”. We all have made sacrifices, some lives, some treasure. But GeeDubya sacrificed his very _integrity_! He was willing to lie his ass off to protect our country. But I guess that doesn’t mean much to _you_, huh, Mr. Lickspittle Poltroon! ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/211 "2005-01-26T17:14:59Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Are the words “Pearl Harbor” going to come up in any of this? I’m fascinated, in a Bizzaro World kind of way, how the discussion of FDR conning us into war can overlook this rather significant event. I didn’t mention it because it was a given. Hitler sank our ships,attacked our allies,and lots of other bad stuff. Saddam squeaked a few threats. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/212 "2005-01-26T17:55:16Z")
> [@justwannano](#): > > We’ll take this a little at a time. I don’t type fast. So far, I’m keeping up. > [@](#): > > FDR fought a world war. This Iraq thing is just a brushfire compared to when and where we fought in the 40s. Also FDR was in power for what(?) 12 years. GWB did it in less than 4. Both true. But I fail to see the relevance. What difference does it make how long each president was in office? What difference does it make how big the conflict was? If anything, FDR is more at fault than Bush; Bush limited our involvement to a small theatre while FDR got us in trouble all over the world. > [@](#): > > Yes my dear Bricker. And Saddam never attacked us either. > > Did you want to talk about Japan? Sure, Japan attacked us first. I’m not questioning our attacks on Japan. > [@Diogenes](#): > > It is a violation of the UN Charter and international law to overthrow another government for any non-defensive reason. I’m not sure how to characterize this. Had the UN Charter existed in 1939, and had both the US and Germany been signatories to it, the US would have been the first to violate its terms with respect to Germany. Of course, it didn’t, and I guess I’ll acknowledge that this is a substantive difference between FDR and Bush: Bush arguably acted in defiance of an existing treaty, and FDR did not. Of course, FDR acted in violation of US law, and Bush did not. I’m inclined to call it a wash. ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/213 "2005-01-26T19:12:17Z")
FDR didn’t lie to the American people with respect to the nature of the threat from Germany, or the need for rearmament. (Although he often prodded Hitler into making outlandish responses that helped propel the US towards war). He certainly was less than straightforward about our commitment to helping our friends. I use the word friends because we had no formal alliances. What he defined as all means of assistance “short of war” is no doubt a wee bit different from the impression he intended to give to the significant portions of the country that were isolationist or pacifist in opinion at the time. While the actions that the US took would seem pretty unimpressive from a cold war/post cold war point of view I think they might not have entirely passed muster pre 12/7/41. Sending advisors/trainers even into combat situations, providing intel (like “theres a uboat right here, come 'n get 'm”), coordinating defense plans, having warships respond aggressively (like shooting at) to certain kinds of actions by U-boats (like harassing convoys we were sort of kind of escorting). Certainly our naval actions had an element of provocation to them. Certainly the US naval involvement pushed Hitler into declarating war in '41, Hitler having a not unreasonable belief that the US was doing pretty much all it could to help Britain navally. [grumbling about pet peeve] I loathe the use of the word appeasement/appeaser. Just say what you mean to say - dictator loving girly man. With it’s current meaning, everyone appeases everyone except when they go to war. In the thirties it was neither as unreasonable nor as naive as we currently like to pretend [/grumbling] ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/214 "2005-01-26T19:20:37Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] So far, I’m keeping up. Both true. But I fail to see the relevance. What difference does it make how long each president was in office? What difference does it make how big the conflict was? If anything, FDR is more at fault than Bush; Bush limited our involvement to a small theatre while FDR got us in trouble all over the world./Quote You fail to see the relevance??? There have been several people trying to tell you that but you still argue.There is no comparison. What difference does it make how long each president was in office? What difference does it make how big the conflict was? It has to do with how quickly it took Bush jr to put us in that kind of debt. Bush limited our involvement to a small theatre while FDR got us in trouble all over the world./Quote So far! God help us. FDR is more at fault than Bush For what? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/215 "2005-01-26T19:40:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Bush arguably acted in defiance of an existing treaty, and FDR did not. Of course, FDR acted in violation of US law, and Bush did not. > > I’m inclined to call it a wash. Except that, to you, a point against Bush is simply “arguable”, while a point for him is plain fact. Unfortunately, there is no argument you have proposed, nor can you, that Bush’s actions were in compliance with the UN treaty already too-patiently linked for you. Your statement that Bush did not violate US law ignores the text and context of the Congressional authorization to which you presumably refer - when you note that it was virtually all about working with the UN, not flouting it, you have to go into your “Boxer Lied” mode to defend it. The Bush violations of US law regarding prisoners and torture came later, of course, as did his violations of the Geneva Conventions treaties. Or maybe that’s at best “arguable” for you. :rolleyes: It isn’t that hard: Germany declared war on us, because of its alliance with a country that had attacked us, and not because of convoy escort activity. World War 2 had been underway for over 2 years by then. To claim that FDR is responsible for \*starting \* it, much less worsening it, is ludicrous. Bush did start the Iraq war. That is not “arguable”. History judges warmongers (which you’ve previously acknowledged he is) even more harshly in hindsight than in the present. History has not judged FDR a warmonger, to understate it radically. Only by trying to create an argument for the simple fun of arguing can one advance that proposition, and only through sheer stubbornness in the face of fact can one maintain it. > [@](#): > > In Bush’s case, the historical jury is still out. There’s no question that we rid the world of an evil and despotic leader. Is that enough? Probably not, since there’s no shortage of other evil and despotic leaders in the world. Including in Iraq itself, just gathering their power and getting themselves ready. You do see that happening, don’t you? And if (when?) Saddam is replaced, there will most certainly be a question that we “rid the world” of one. > [@](#): > > Will this cause the formation of a stable Arab democracy in the Middle East, one that will spawn other democracies? I say it will, and I say THAT’S enough. Based on what evidence? What precedent? What trends? There aren’t any, as you know. You can hope all you want, and I even vervently share that hope, but you make a grave mistake when you call a hope a belief, much less a fact. It’s just hope. One looking only at the facts of the lessening US control, the steadily-increasing death rate of both US and Iraqi collaborators, the signs of incipient civil war, does not reasonably see a stable democracy aborning. How do you conclude the opposite? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/216 "2005-01-26T22:55:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Had the UN Charter existed in 1939, and had both the US and Germany been signatories to it, the US would have been the first to violate its terms with respect to Germany. This is completely ridiculous. If you assault my neighbour, and I come to his defence, my actions are _not_ considered defensive, but are rather to be understood as aggressive? That’s extremely tortured logic. I submit that if the UN Charter had been in force in 1940-41, no country joining the war on the side of the Allies either formally or informally could have been considered a violation of the Charter, because Germany was undisputably the aggressor, even absent any specific aggression towards the joining country. By your argument, the Gulf War I was unsupportable. Only Kuwait had been on the receiving end of aggression. The countries in the Coalition had not been attacked, and hence had no right to get involved. But of course, no one interprets the UN Charter to be proscribing defense of one’s neighbours and allies. No one but you, anyways. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/217 "2005-01-27T00:01:00Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > This is completely ridiculous. If you assault my neighbour, and I come to his defence, my actions are _not_ considered defensive, but are rather to be understood as aggressive? That’s extremely tortured logic. I submit that if the UN Charter had been in force in 1940-41, no country joining the war on the side of the Allies either formally or informally could have been considered a violation of the Charter, because Germany was undisputably the aggressor, even absent any specific aggression towards the joining country. > > By your argument, the Gulf War I was unsupportable. Only Kuwait had been on the receiving end of aggression. The countries in the Coalition had not been attacked, and hence had no right to get involved. But of course, no one interprets the UN Charter to be proscribing defense of one’s neighbours and allies. No one but you, anyways. Apart from that, Germany declared war against us. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/218 "2005-01-27T00:27:29Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Apart from that, Germany declared war against us. Well, but **Bricker** is referring to some naval skirmishes that occured between USN destroyers and German U-boats when the latter engaged convoys the destroyers were “coincidentally” in the vicinity of - but not escorting! The US was neutral, after all (if you ignore Lend-Lease). To this extent he is correct: the US engaged in a few smallish acts of war against Germany prior to Pearl Harbor, all of which to my knowledge were part of the Battle of the Atlantic. It’s my contention, though, that _any_ navy could have dropped depth charges on those U-boats without being in violation of the UN charter (had it been in effect) because those U-boats were engaged in prosecuting a war of aggression against British/Canadian merchant marine assets. Intervening on behalf of the Allies does not constitute unprovoked aggression against Germany, but rather defending the legitimate military efforts of the Allies. Frankly, this analogy of Bricker’s between WWII and GWII is stretched waaaaay past the breaking point. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/219 "2005-01-27T02:23:19Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Frankly, this analogy of Bricker’s between WWII and GWII is stretched waaaaay past the breaking point. But it has done the job he hoped for, in spades. I mean, how many hijacks of his own thread could he generate? The man created more spinoffs than Norman Lear. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/220 "2005-01-27T05:39:24Z")
So, unless I missed my guess, Bricker has in these hijacks, turned out to be both pro Bush and pro Hitler. Right??? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911.md?page=12)