Don’t know what your deal is, Cosmo, but here’s the facts: Germany declared war on the US as part of its alliance with Japan. (Theoreticly, they were not required to do so, their pact with Japan only had affect if Japan were attacked…).
Doubtless, FDR’s sympathy lay with Britain. Be that as it may, had Japan not attacked, we cannot assume that FDR would have led us into war, or even he might have been able to do so, absent some direct belligerance on the Axis’ part.
A considerable number of Americans would have been coldly tickled pink to see Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler beat the living snot out of each other. And, of course, if everybody else loses, we win. To a certain degree, that’s exactly what happened.
Do you suppose FDR knew those actions would lead to a declaration of war? What happened to cause FDR to issue such orders? The Germans had attacked American ships. Why? Because FDR had circumvented the law in order to ship military supplies to the UK. Which is what I originally said.
I apologize for my scarcasm. We are way off subject here, but what I have said is true. Check out my response to ** squeegee** FDR had virtually declared war on the German navy before they officially declared war on us. Both of these things happening before Pearl Harbor. I suspect that FDR would have been satisfied to just go after Germany but following PH he had no choice but to go after Japan as well. No fooling. He wanted us in the war and was working it to win public support. Germany attacking our ships as we illegally supplied arms to UK only helped.
Jesus, listen to yourself: my link was to Germany’s declaration of war against the U.S. Are you really taking Germany’s word, in 1941, about the “crimes” of FDR? Really?
Just for everyone’s edification: The actual text of the September 11, 1941 “Fireside chat” in which FDR ordered attacks on German naval vessels that were attacking U.S. shipping in limited areas designated as defensive by the U.S. even though they were outside U.S. territorial waters.
Congress passed the Lend-Lease Ace in March of 1941 thus authorizing US supplies to Britain so FDR circumvented no laws in furnishing such supplies. Here is atimeline of events applicable to the US Neutrality Act. None of FDR’s actions violated this law and all of the actions relative to supplying arms was in voilation of the act and were open to examination of Congress.
With regard to aid to Britain after the fall of France, the mood of Congress changed drastically as did the mood of the majority of the US populace. There was no deception although die-hard isolationists still complained.
Amend this sentence, “None of FDR’s actions violated this law and all of the actions relative to supplying arms was in voilation of the act and were open to examination of Congress.” to this: “None of FDR’s actions violated this law and all were open to examination of Congress.”
What appears to be actually delusional would be the Bushivik’s expectations. They appear to really believe thier own press releases, that the only difficulty is that GW hasn’t clearly articulated the real situation. And that all that is required is a forceful, direct speech that communicates his vision to the people. And the approval rates and all those other ghastly numbers will reverse themselves, and he will bask once again in the warm approval of his people.
Not at all. It’s just that you don’t get to decide for everyone else what justification is good enough.
For me justification and what determines murder is the what’s in the heart and mind of those doing the deed as well as the circumstance. Since that’s how we seem to judge deaths in our own court system I’d say more than a couple of people agree with me.
Yes that’s exactly what it does. If some macho ass decided to go kill some towelheads on his own then that would be murder. It’s not the same for troops by any court I can think of. I’m just talking legality not morality.
I’m not shruging off any innocents killed.PLease cite me the phrase where I said or implied any such thing. I’m disagreeing with your sweeping generalities about the war. The opposite yet equal arguement to this gem you just spouted is when the Neocons claim everyone who doesn’t agree with them are somehow supporting terrorism. Both statements equally illogical and repugnant in their ignorance.
No it is most certainly not the same thing as breaking into someone’s house for a little murder and rape. If you believed your neighbor was beating and abusing his family at what point would you consider it you moral responsibility to break into his house, and intervene?
If you believed your neighbor was supporting someone who had indeed attacked you and killed your friends what might your moral responsibility be then? Some of us knew these things weren’t true from the start but many Americans believed.
Does that mean that your answer to my question is that it is indeed only your opinion and you don’t have even one reference to support it. If that’s the case it might not be as obvious as you propose, otherwise you might find some reputable source that agrees with your assesment. That being the case, I’ve already given it all the consideration it deserves.
No it isn’t. When someone is accused of murder {as you are doing} then the motives and miindset of those that that are accused are given consideration are they not? Isn’t that how our legal system works. The war on terrorism is far from imaginary but I’m going to refrain from going off on another tangent.
My point being that many soilders believe they have good reasons for being there and their conviction is that they are doing their duty serving their country and accomplishing something worthwhile by freeing Iraq form an an evil dictator, saving them from an oppressive theocracy, and helping them to esrtablish a democracy. There is a huge difference between mistaken, misguided, and evil.
Evidently most of the country didn’t get your memo. The majority did not know it was wrong before it started. They have since come to realize that because of evidence presented after the fact.
They didn’t have any choice? They could have surrendered to an obviously vastly superior force. I wouldn’t expect them to make that choice but I’m just pointing out that you are wrong in saying they had no choice. They have a choice now. They don’t have to blow up their own people, yet they regularly do. They could actually non violently establish a democracy and run their own country yet they choose to use violent tactics.
When you are in the service and your commander says “Here’s your orders, report to duty” then a soilder has some choices too. Follow orders or disobey and face the consequences. What you don’t get to do is talk things over and get a permission slip to stay home from your commander. The decision to refuse to serve has serious consequences although I know some have had the courage to do exactly that.
I still don’t get the arrogant reference. You may think the comparision is invalid and incorrect but I don’t understand how it’s arrogant. No matter.
I think its interesting the way you accuse me of being sick for dismissing all the suffereing of innocent Iraqi’s {which I never did} and here you are dismissing the suffering of thousands of human beings because they don’t share your narrow moral vision. Whew!!
No I’m not. It’s historic fact. FDR did circumvent the Neutrality act to supply arms to UK and did order German ships to be attacked. Check out Tom’s link.
To be clear I think FDR was right on and GWB was and is completely wrong. I just find the similarities interesting.
Well, no it didn’t. The Neutrality Act was amended in 1939 (see the timeline in my previous post).
The provision of the amended act were:
None of these provisions was sidestepped by the destroyers for bases deal. We got rent free 99 year leases on bases that were valuable for defense of the Panama Canal and the east coast which was the equivalent of cash. The carry part was met because the British sent crews to pick up the ships.
And in fact no one was sent into a foreigh war. By the time any US personnel were sent into war it had become our war because of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war on the US by Germany.
The use of US naval units to escort British convoys partway across the Atlantic was questionable. However FDR didn’t lie about it, nor did he exaggerate the dire straits that Britain was in because of the fall of France and the U-boats in order to get us into a war with Germany.
Maybe so. I remember seeing something about this on the history channel {not that they are infallible. But from my link
Why did he had to declare anything surplus unless it was to in some way technically obey a law he was trying to get around?
Well that’s my point actually. FDR believed when he made his satement that we needed to have boots on the ground but needed something to motivate the public to his way of thinking. It took quite a while to convince the public while Churchill was begging him for support which he wanted to give. I suppose you can let him skate on the technicality of it then being our war but in spirit what he was telling the public was that we won’t get involved in the war in Europe when he believed that’s exactly what we should do. I guess that’s what made him a brilliant politician. After the election he appointed his opponent to go to Europe and this fellow who had campaigned against our involvement saw first hand what FDR knew in his heart. The stories that I have no evidence for is that he sought confrontations with German ships in order to give the public the reasons they needed for wanting to fight. It’s easy to believe that when he ordered US ships to **attack ** German ships, in self defense of course, he knew a declaration of war wasn’t far behind. Which happened to be what he wanted.
I’m not making him out to be a bad guy and the NAzi’s misunderstood. It just helps us have a more realistic view of history and how leaders have to make certain decisions.
Unlike some I see the war on terrorism as very real and a pretty serious threat. I think this admin has bungled the job in pursuit of their own greedy agenda but we have yet to see how the Dems will deal with things.
Thanks for the info BTW.
You might also note in my link that the provisions you quoted went in place in Nov as well as the lend lease deal for bases, while the “surplus” supplies were provided in June of that same year.
If a joke has to be explained it can’t have been very good. I was commenting on your spelling of “necessary.” “Nessecary” just doesn’t have that ring to it.
The Neutrality Act was modified to remove the prohibition against supplying arms to combatants, along with all the other cited provisions, in November of 1939. The destroyers for bases was in September of 1940 and the furnishing of surplus arms was in June of 1940.
Nothing whatever that FDR did was in any way comparable to the exaggeration of intelligence by omitting all references to caveats that GW did.
