::pies Jay::
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
...
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I think they would be crushed under the mighty boot of America!
*Patriotic Music starts playing*
(Joke, for those who don't know... Joke)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The captioning was stupid and redolent of a donkey, but you must admit that there'd be a helluva lot more criticism of America now than there was then should such a thing happen.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Perhaps, Rakeesh, but the photo takes it for granted that criticizing by Americans is treasonous and cowardly, and therefore suggests that we don't have a right to disagree with our country's choice of action, and that there are no possible other reasons for doing so.
(And I don't think the situations are nearly as analogous as all that.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't either. The link is essentially a bumper sticker with a fancier picture. It's taken one idea-that the reaction today would include much more criticism of America than it would have over sixty years ago-and totally tricked and `roided it out to the point where it's totally different and redolent of donkeys.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Furthermore, I believe that Jay's purpose was not to start a rational conversation, which I believe you and I could have on this topic, but rather to inflame. I would love to have a discussion in another thread, but I don't believe Jay should be rewarded or encouraged for destructive behavior.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
As I have said in the past I post great stuff like this to see what you all will say about it. It’s always very interesting and intriguing. I found the parallels in the picture with today’s conditions very festinating. It’s rather sobering to see. Not to mention it was so funny!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who said I was rewarding him? I labeled something he called true stupid and donkey-smelling Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't mean you, I mean me if I take him seriously and rise to the bait.
It's a problem I have, and one that I constantly fight against here.
I'm finding pie-throwing to be a relatively satisfying alternative.
::pies Rakeesh::
::wedgies Jay::
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, you have a different strategerie for that than I do. You throw a pie...I throw a pie with razor blades Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
fes·ti·nat·ing adj.
1. Inspiring the desire to throw a party. 2. Conducive to merriment. The geriatric disco dancers graemlin is the most festinating graemlin ever.
Fig. 1
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jay,
I find your willingness to use a national tragedy like Pearl Harbor as a way to make cheap jokes at the expense of your political opponents to be both childish and inappropriate.
Did you stop to think about the many many people who lost loved ones at Pearl? Regardless of their political affiliation, they probably wouldn't want the memory used for such lame political attacks.
I suggest you think beyond your own puerile need to antagonize and think about other people, including the families of killed and injured servicemen, before you use them for your silly purposes.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::spikes Bob's café::
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
As in spike? or do you mean spike? or, heaven forbid, Spike? Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
No, Megan, Spike.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Well, I guess as long as it's not spike, I guess it'll be ok.
That, or unless Icky decides to volleyball spike the hot beverage toward someone...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, hey, fair is fair. Germany wasn't behind 12/7. Nor did they get nuked. Apparently Truman had better aim than comrade Bush.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Doesn't it strike you as a bit desperate that Republicans have to reach THAT far into tastelessness to try and make their ridiculous point stick?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
...I have no words.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Wow, one more fine example of how unfair we can be, and how easy modern technology makes it to attach a political group you don't agree with, with a situation totally dissimilar to our own, and show what "asses" they are for being in the picture you thought of and created yourself.
I kinda feel bad for whoever thought this one up, God should have given them a bigger brain.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not to mention whoever thought it was a good idea to post it here...
...Wait, that was Jay.....
BTW, my Uncle died in WWII, so I really find it a bit offensive that you would post this. Aren't you one of the ones who are always claiming the ones are the insensitive ones regarding the Armed Services? Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Spike, the others are just copycats.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Am I the only person here who sees this as nothing more than a political cartoon, and not much worse than many other political cartoons that are printed every day in papers across the country?
Personally, I laughed.
Edit: I'd also like to add that I forwarded it to my father, whose father served in WWII and who is friends with many WWII vets. I still think he will find it funny. He'll likely print it out and take it to show to his vet friends. The oversensitivity is a little out of hand - or do none of you ever read political cartoons or satire?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I'm with Cow on this one (animal power!!). You may not agree with it, and you may be annoyed at Jay most of the time in general, but come on. The sanctimonious posturing is getting a little thick.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I agree with the Cow and the Rat. Some things aren't even worth the effort to get offended by. It's just a stupid little political cartoon. Read it, roll your eyes at it, and move on with your life.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Animal and Fictional Character Power!!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::pies cow::
::pies dog::
::wedgies verily::
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Every face on the life boat is the face of a man seeking his own advantage first. I saw today that the news was all full of protest and bombings in Iraq as being linked to the elections, they had to work hard to avoid all the hope and quiet over here.
Bob I thought that while we disagreeded you were at least a decent if misguided fellow. Now I think you have slipped beneath my notice. How many WWII pictures showed ships sinking and troops dying with the caption "Somebody Talked"
Now the caption should read "They will not keep silent so our enemies take comfort..."
BC
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Every face on the life boat is the face of a man seeking his own advantage first. I saw today that the news was all full of protest and bombings in Iraq as being linked to the elections, they had to work hard to avoid all the hope and quiet over here.
I haven't seen any but the merest blip about the post-election protests. Most of the coverage has been extremely positive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Every face on the life boat is the face of a man seeking his own advantage first.
An interesting exercise is to come up with three politicians who could be in that boat about whom this calumny would be self-evidently and laughably false to everyone.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I still think it is offensive. For you to call that posturing is ridiculous, Dog.
I am more offended by that phrase than by the cartoon, to be honest.
How many times have people overreacted (IMO) to comments about your religion on this board? Because what they were criticizing MATTERED to you it didn't seem like an overreaction, I am sure...but to a lot of us the response from this board was often disproportionate to the comments...
I said I found the cartoon to be "a bit offensive", but didn't report it, and didn't ask him to remove it. I just thought the fact that he thought it was funny said a lot about his actual attitude towards others, and thought I would mention it.
You don't have the right to decide what people care about, and hearing you describe any of this as "sanctimonious posturing" is insulting and demeaning.
I will remember this the next time you post an honest feeling/opinion about something you care about.
I just get sick of being referred to as unAmerican, upPatriotic, and self serving, when my family and I have sacrificed more for this country than most. If anyone has a right to an opinion about these issues it would be us.
We have earned the right to disagree, thankyouverymuch.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Well the "America brought it upon itself" routine is kinda accurate if you postulate thta it was America that was blockading Japan with economic sanctions. In fact Japan's militarism may very well have started with America pressuring England to not renew its Alliance with Japan a decade or so before hand.
Also if you consider that no one was sanctioning Italy of Germany for its militerism until it was too late, you kinda see the position Japan was in.
Though Japan's occupation of Manchuria was wrong, Japan's invasion of China was wrong, however I think we can all safely say that a Unified China would not have been possible without Japan's invasion in the first place. The Sino-Japanese war of 1898 infact helped bring down the Manchu's eventually in 1911 with the foundation of the Republic of China, and eventually in 1949 the People's Republic.
Other then that, aside from remembering Nazi sympathizors like Charles Limburgh there isn't all that much in common. (though charles eventually signed up for the airforce and helped defend the US, so its all good)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
You do know that SaudiArabia provided 15 of its citizens as part of the 19 9/11 skyjackers -- 80% if the SaudiArabian named as the "missing 20th skyjacker" is counted -- recruited the rest through its international evangelical programs, provided 90%+ of alQaeda's funding, and 100% of alQaeda's ideology. So if 9/11 were the equivalent of PearlHarbor, the nearest 1940s equivalent to Dubya&Gang's actions would have been declaring war on Guam and the Philippines.
More realisticly, you do know that Dubya's grandfather, George's father aided the Japanese militarists and the Nazis in their attempt to arm themselves through evasion of US law. So had Dubya&Gang been in charge during 1940, the US would have allied itself with the Nazis against the British. And Japan would have never been subject to the US&British TradeEmbargo. Thus Japan would have never have had a reason to attack PearlHarbor.
[ December 26, 2005, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As much as I don't find these types of cartoons conducive to actual discussion - and note that I see as bad or worse going the other way at least once a week - I'll simply confine my remarks to wondering how many people will get as outraged about aspectre's post.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Oh come come, Dagonee. Even those who generally agree with my political views have pummeled me often.
[ December 25, 2005, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kwea -
quote: when my family and I have sacrificed more for this country than most.
While I agree with everything else you said in your post, this little tidbit has me wondering. How do you know? I had two grandfathers in WWII, two uncles in Vietnam, and my brother most recently was a Marine. Other than military service, my family has still done much for this nation, especially the efforts of my grandmothers for the war effort in WWII.
I guess my point is, how do you know for sure that your family has sacrificed more than the majority of others? I'm not criticizing, just questioning what sounds to me (without knowing your family situation or history) like hyperbole.
Other than that I agree with you 100%. I think everyone has the right to VOCALLY dissent from whatever the opinion of the day is, regardless of their contribution, it's a native, in born right as an American. I don't mind when people argue with me because they disagree with my point, but when they attack my right to disagree at all, that's when I get pissed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
[total tangent] Actually, I think there were sanctions against Italy over their invasion of Ethiopia. Oil embargo, I think it was. [/tangent]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
For the record, I didn't so much state that the picture was offensive--rather, I (correctly) pointed out that Jay was not interested in a conversation, and so I saw no need to give him one. I think Jay *was* interested in fireworks, but I personally find that manipulative, and I refuse to be his monkey. As for the rest of you, Dance Monkeys, Dance! *clap*
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
<--------- monkeys!
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Actually, I think there were sanctions against Italy over their invasion of Ethiopia. Oil embargo, I think it was."
The embargo was by the League of Nations, of which the US was not a member. And while the US did embargo munitions sales to Italy
quote:Following negotiations of Sir Francis Rickett, a director of Rockefeller's Socony Vacuum Oil Co, with Mussolini, in which it is apparent that the Rockefeller interests assured Il Duce of supplies of oil for a war on Abyssinia in exchange for a thirty year monopoly of the Italian oil market and the ratification of their Ethiopian concession, as well as other considerations, border incidents on December 9, 1934, between Italian and Ethiopian troops, in connection with a dispute over the Italian Somalian frontier, served as a pretext for the waging by Italy of an undeclared war. In the midst of the war, on September 1, 1935, the press announced the text of an Ethiopian concession, negotiated by Sir Francis Rickett, to the African Exploration and Development Co., organized in 1933 as a subsidiary of the Socony Vacuum. The names of Mellon, Mitchell and Teagle were mentioned in connection with the deal, and in the following month, October 15, the press linked an Ethiopian arms order to the Rickett deal. This followed the traditional practise of the Rockefeller Empire, of playing all ends against the center. Shortly thereafter, the British, acting on behalf of the League of Nations, offered Haile Selassie a negotiated peace for surrender to the Italians of the oil-rich Fafan Valley in the Harrar Province---the original 1923 concession to the Rockefeller interests. This was rejected on December 12, 1935. In the meantime, belated economic sanctions were ordered by the League of Nations to go into effect November 18, 1935, and continued until July 15, 1936, after termination of the war. The Rockefeller empire, which had assured Mussolini in advance that no effective sanctions would be applied in respect to that absolute essential of modern war---oil---made good on its assurance. On December 4, 1935, the press announced that the Rockefeller interests would defy the League and supply Mussolini with oil from the Romanian fields; on December 12, Socony Vacuum announced the building of two refineries for Mussolini in Naples; and on January 8, 1936, it was announced that Italy might get oil from Germany.
From: Emmanuel Josephson's Rockefeller, Internationalist -- Chedney Press, New York, 1952, pp. 202-3
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The average American family hasn't had 8 members of his family in the service, all within one generation. The average American hasn't served himself.
I am NOT saying only those who have served should ahve an opinion, nor that one families opinion matters more because more of their family members died...
I never said that one had to have any of that to have an opinion on the war....just that I KNOW my family has payed it's own price...in time, in divorces, in blood, and in lives.... to be able to live in America and be able to have our OWN opinions without being accused of being self-serving cowards or traitors.
Not all of my family would agree with some of my points, so even within those who have served there are disagreements about many issues; but the one thing we should all agree on is that we have earned our own rights to act as we believe is right.
Funny thing is that most of the time people making those claims have no idea where I stand on most of the actual issues. Half the time I am not sure, as my opinions are constantly evolving. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was just curious. And you're right, I can't imagine anything approaching the average family in America has had that many members in the service all in one generation.
I hope you know I wasn't attacking you or anything, it's just that I hear so many people say the "My family has given more than so and so's family..." line so many times, it starts to lose its meaning when so many people are using it so flagrantly. And either way, I totally agreed with you.
My apologies.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That wasn't what I was trying to say...I have no idea what anyone else has done, or sacrificed. It isn't a "better than your family" thing, but rather a reiteration of the fact that my family has payed it's dues fully, to the best extent of our ability.
Just off the top of my head, I was Army as was my dad and uncle (who died at Omaha Beach); my two other uncles were Navy, my aunt was a full bird in the Marines and was activated for all of Desert Storm. I have had cousins in the Air Force for years now as well, and my SIL was Army as well.
Jenni has a CMH winner in her family tree as well.
My grandma was active in DAR and we had many family members on BOTH sides of the Civil war not come home. My family has lived and died for this country since before it WAS a country, so I think we have a right to say what we believe in if anyone does. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Apology NOT accepted...there was nothing to apologize for, IMO. Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Kwea, I didn't single you out, so you don't have to take it as a personal slight.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The thing that bothers me about the cartoon is not that it's simplistic (which it is) or that it serves to amuse and outrage people whose minds are made up (which it is) but that it's misleading. The situations aren't even close to being similar (picturing politicians that protested the invasion of Afghanistan immediately after 9-11 might have been closer, but then there weren't as many of those). But by making jokes such as this serious concerns can be mocked and dismissed and people complaining can be accused of not having a sense of humor.
As it is, it's the political equivalent of a fart joke.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: The thing that bothers me about the cartoon is ... that it's misleading.
See, this could be said about any movie by Oliver Stone, or most of the "historical" movies that have been made (Pearl Harbor, The New World, Pocahontas, etc, etc...)
Lots of things are misleading. Political cartoons very often so. In fact, their humor is often derived by taking a complex issue and boiling it down to one panel. It either provokes thought, outrage, laughter, or another emotion... but the intent is to be provocative, nonetheless.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The thing that bothers me about the cartoon is not that it's simplistic (which it is) or that it serves to amuse and outrage people whose minds are made up (which it is) but that it's misleading.
This is the thing that bothers me about almost all political cartoons.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm amazed this is being taken so seriously. It's right about at the "ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE" level of political rhetoric, isn't it?
One thing that I can't resist contradicting, though...Lyrhawn, do you really want to start associating entire political parties with what their radical fringe-idiot groups publish?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
While it would be comforting to think otherwise, Dubya&Cheney and Hastert&DeLay and Frist&Stevens aren't a fringe-idiot group.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I've hesitated to post this because the comparisons to WWII are just not all that enlightening, but I had occasion just now to read through FDR's speech on 12/8/1941 in which he requested that Congress declare war on the Japanese.
Since we're apparently going to decide that such comparisons are fair game, however, perhaps we can do some constructive review of the past -- in hope of both repeating the successes, and also avoiding the failings.
I'd be interested in a compare and contrast of how the two Presidents handled the immediate aftermath of the respective crises they faced.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
hehe, *grin* I have the full audio recording of FDR's speech.
The Oil embargo on italy I wasn't aware of, all I knew was Stalin's comment on how "Don't wish to start a war? How can they fight a war without oil?"
Also, technically Pearl wasn't a "surprise attack", they had sent a DOW about 30 minutes before the attack, but because it was sunday it took until 30 minutes after the attack for it to reach the President.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Do you have a source for that statement about the Declaration of War? What FDR's speech says he got was a reply essentially breaking off negotiations, not a declaration of war.
quote:Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
by the way, if you Google FDR "Pearl Harbor" one of the first links will get you to the audio source.
It's a lot easier quoting a written transcript though. Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Am I the only one who thinks the discussion over the causes of Japan's involvement in WWII and the attack on Pearl Harbor is more interesting than any fireworks Jay was trying to provoke?
*pies those who have yet to add anything regarding this topic, including self*
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
*pies everyone, for good measure, and because pie is good*
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
That's true, FDR went straight to Congress and asked for a declaration of war. GWB attempted to avoid congress and anyone else who would have questioned an invasion of Iraq.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well, there's lots of precedent for engaging in wars without a formal declaration by Congress, but that difference did sort of stand out to me as well.
Not sure that I'd make much of it, though. Unless someone were to make the case that this is part of a larger pattern...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I viewed it quite differently, Dan_raven. I think it was very obvious to Congress what was going to happen.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Blayne, that message was not a DoW, Bob pointed out. And in any case, if no notice was given until after the attack began, for what ever reasons, it was a surprise attack. Notwithstanding the decryption efforts of Americans: their messages didn't reach Pearl until too late too.
quote: Just before the attack, a long message was sent to the Embassy from the Foreign Office in Tokyo (encoded with the Purple cryptographic machine), with instructions to deliver it to Secretary of State Cordell Hull at 1 PM Washington time (that is, just thirty minutes before the attack was scheduled to begin). Because of decryption and typing delays, the Embassy personnel could not manage to do so. The long message breaking off negotiations ("Obviously it is the intention of the American Government to conspire with Great Britain and other countries to obstruct Japan's efforts toward the establishment of peace through the creation of a new order in East Asia... Thus, the earnest hope of the Japanese Government to adjust Japanese-American relations and to preserve and promote the peace of the Pacific through cooperation with the American Government has finally been lost") was delivered well after the intended time.
Japanese records admitted into evidence during a Congressional hearing show the Japanese had not even written a declaration of war until after they heard of the successful attack on Pearl Harbor. The two-line declaration of war was finally delivered to Ambassador Grew about ten hours after the attack was over. He was allowed to transmit it to the United States where it was received late Monday afternoon.
The United States had decrypted both parts of the final message well before the Japanese Embassy had managed to finish. It was decryption of the second part which prompted General George Marshall to send his famous warning to Hawaii that morning. It was actually delivered, by a young Japanese-American cycle messenger, to General Walter Short at Pearl Harbor several hours after the attack had ended. The delay was due to the fact General Marshall was out riding when the Navy requested to use the Army's communications system, then to difficulties with the Army's communications so it was finally transmitted by commercial cable, and had somehow lost its "urgent" marking during its travels.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: That's true, FDR went straight to Congress and asked for a declaration of war. GWB attempted to avoid congress and anyone else who would have questioned an invasion of Iraq. Originally posted by Rakeesh: I viewed it quite differently, Dan_raven. I think it was very obvious to Congress what was going to happen.
Yes, but it seems to me you're both right: it was obvious to Congress what was going to happen, and Bush avoided going to Congress for an explicit DoW against Iraq. It's not either/or.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I remember quite well the pressure the White House was putting on congress not to even have a vote for war or authorization.
The Invasion of Iraq, with no Congressional approval was debatably legal. The Invasion of Iraq with Congressional disapproval would have been much less likely to be considered legal.
Since the White House was unsure of the vote at that time, they tried hard to avoid one. When that didn't work, they put on the pressure by highlighting questionable intelligence like WMD and AlQueda links.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
PearlHarbor was even less of a surprise, Blayne Bradley.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
What I find ironic about this cartoon is that this kind of rhetoric did occur both before and after Pearl Harbor - but it came from the conservatives, who saw the war as a danger to american economic interests.
Today rhetoric rests on the same fulcrum point, except that industry sees the control of oil as being in "America's best interest." In fact, the logic behind an unprovoked attack is remarkably similar to the logic the Japanese used to justify the attack against Pearl Harbor.
So to put the cartoon in perspective: If the characters in the boat are Americans, they should be republicans, because that was who was making these kinds of arguments at the time. But more accurately, the characters in the boat should be Japanese, such as Yamomoto, who recognized that a war with America could not be limited to the issues the Japanese wanted to fight about.
Oddly enough, prior to WWII, it was the liberals like Dr. Seuss that argued in favor of entering the war.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd be interested in a compare and contrast of how the two Presidents handled the immediate aftermath of the respective crises they faced.
I think on the civil liberties front, FDR comes off worse than Bush, hands down.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yeah, well, that's probably true, since Japanese internment camps happened on FDR's watch.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. In sheer numbers it's hard to catch up with that.
Edit: and I've obviously only answered the portion of your question that's easy. The rest requires too much thought for now. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
aspectre, that interpretaion is controversial, and many historians don't believe in the conclusion that Roosevelt used the US Pacific Fleet as bait for a Japanese attack.
I must say, though, that web page makes a very convincing case.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
It may be controversial, but can you explain why EVERY single U.S. aircraft carrier stationed in the west was out doing maneuvering, games, and other training that day far to the north east?
I'm going to bed now. Elsewise I would love to go into this conversation with you. I love studying WW II. There were so many advances made, and so many coverups that are still almost covered up. If it weren't for the fact that most people don't care anymore.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote: Yeah, well, that's probably true, since Japanese internment camps happened on FDR's watch.
I took a class on the internment a few quarters ago. Previous to that, I knew very little about the subject; mainly that it happened, and that FDR was president at the time. Being of Japanese descent, I immediately stopped liking him, nevermind anything else he did. This class forced me to change my mind. FDR had a lot of people working for him feeding him bogus or poorly researched reports and suppressing dissenting ones. He made a decision based on the best information he had. I still hold him ultimatly responsible. He's the president, comes with the territory. I'd like to say I'd have done differently, but I don't have the safety of a nation weighing on my conscience. But at least now I can have a grudging respect for him.
Restoring the citizens' property could've been handled better though...
Interesting aside: If you were a halfie like me back then, you only had to go to the camps if your father was Japanese. Kids with Japanese moms were A-okay (although mom herself had to go).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: FDR had a lot of people working for him feeding him bogus or poorly researched reports and suppressing dissenting ones. He made a decision based on the best information he had. I still hold him ultimatly responsible. He's the president, comes with the territory. I'd like to say I'd have done differently, but I don't have the safety of a nation weighing on my conscience. But at least now I can have a grudging respect for him.
Interesting. I'd say that one definite lesson from the past that could've been learned is that Presidents who get surrounded by advisors who sing one tune can make some pretty horrible mistakes. FDR, to me, is responsible for the internment of American citizens during WWII, and no picture of the man is complete without recognition of this vastly monstrous act. The country screwed those people over and never even came close to making it up to them.
On the whole, I still think of him as a good President, but this (and other) decisions by him point to some extremely serious flaws that ought not to be forgotten.
Recognizing the imperfections in our system of government is, to me, an important step toward changing our behavior, and maybe fixing some of the problems that recur throughout our history.
The "proper" distribution of power among the 3 branches of government, for example, is something that we've struggled with since day 1 of our Republic.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:He made a decision based on the best information he had.
Even based on that information his decision was immoral. Even if he could justify separating Japanese-Americans from the population, it could have been done much more humanely.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I know quite well of all the revisinist arguements prior to the war and I don't believe that any politician or General/Admiral would ever be foolish enough to risk the destruction of dozens of Captiol ships and escort vessels and sacrifice the lives of thousands of Americans just because they wanted to bait the fish that badly. Besides, it could've backfired monstrously, what if Japan invaded with ground troops and took the island? Can you imagine fighting the pacific theatre from only San Francisco and Seattle?
I consider it a gross imcompetance on the side of the American High Command and a lack of clarity on the position of air power for the Naval branch of the armed forces. In fact, this very attack was warned of some decades ago by one Billy Mitchel, the father of Air Power for the united states the very man who proved that aircraft armed with bombs could sink battleships. He warned that Hawaii was vulnerable to a sea/air attack by the Japanese and was laughed at.
As for the DOW I was mistaken but I knew that it was pretty darn close to one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So to put the cartoon in perspective: If the characters in the boat are Americans, they should be republicans, because that was who was making these kinds of arguments at the time. But more accurately, the characters in the boat should be Japanese, such as Yamomoto, who recognized that a war with America could not be limited to the issues the Japanese wanted to fight about.
Ha! Public sentiment against involvement in the war was against across the board. Your labeling it republican is much more than anything a demonstration of your own biases, Glenn.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I consider it a gross imcompetance on the side of the American High Command and a lack of clarity on the position of air power for the Naval branch of the armed forces. In fact, this very attack was warned of some decades ago by one Billy Mitchel, the father of Air Power for the united states the very man who proved that aircraft armed with bombs could sink battleships. He warned that Hawaii was vulnerable to a sea/air attack by the Japanese and was laughed at.
Nearly everyone laughed at it. Hindsight is 20/20, Blayne. And more people than that put forward the threat. Patton was one as well.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Nice cartoon and a good chuckle, but unfortunately its short-lived.
As common sense begins to take hold, the cartoon will need to be revised almost continuously in order to hold more people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:It may be controversial, but can you explain why EVERY single U.S. aircraft carrier stationed in the west was out doing maneuvering, games, and other training that day far to the north east?
That really isn't that big a deal. Fleet groups always contained multiple carriers back then. Plus, emphasizing "EVERY" makes it sound like there were more carriers than there really was. FOUR carriers isn't exactly a giant amount, but that was our entire carrier fleet in the Pacific at the time. Japan had eight operating carriers at the time.
Don't you think it was a bit heavy of a gamble to wager the entire ocean on 2 to 1 odds?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Ha! Public sentiment against involvement in the war was against across the board. Your labeling it republican is much more than anything a demonstration of your own biases, Glenn.
Pretty funny then, that the conservatives accused FDR of intentionally allowing Pearl Harbor to happen in order to get us into the war.
Also:
quote:During World War Two, Geisel wrote editorial cartoons from the pages of the left-leaning New York newspaper PM that scathingly criticized Naziism, Fascism, American isolationism (Charles Lindbergh was a favorite target on this front), and racial discrimination in the hiring of defense workers...“PM was against people who pushed other people around,” Geisel told his biographers shortly before his death, “I liked that.”
Of course, you provide nothing to back up your statement, which is a demonstration of what, exactly?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dog, you may not have singled me out personally, but you were mocking my views. It doesn't matter which one of the three of us (because that is how many of us there were stating we were a bit offended) you thought were "posturing".
On the other hand, it IS a personal issue with me...my dad never even got to meet his own brother, and was in fact named after him, because of WWII, so perhaps I was a little too offended by your unamended comments.
Sorry about that. I guess my point was that regardless of Jay's intentions starting this conversation, some very honest and personal opinions were offered. The discussion moved on to actual views about things that matter to some of us. When something people believe in and care about is mocked people tend to not react well, you know.
I believe you can disagree with someone without demonizing them or their views, so I just get a little sick of the "humor" presented in this cartoon.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
I really don't like when people make World War Two references for casual political reasons. America is definitely facing a grave threat from terrorists and our efforts to stop them aren’t exactly being facilitated by the far left, but it strikes me as intensely ignorant to compare that to Pearl Harbor.
It’s not something to joke about. Tens of millions of people died, and the freedom of the people of the world has never been so threatened. It’s shameful when people compare Americans to Hitler, and not even Saddam himself was that evil, so I’d really appreciate if everyone would stop making that particular analogy.
The point the cartoon was trying to make, that the far left is undermining the war on terror and defaming our military, is unfortunately valid, however it’s irresponsible to say anyone would react that way to Pearl Harbor.
(Oh, and Germany declared war on us not the other way around so that’s not a valid point.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The point the cartoon was trying to make, that the far left is undermining the war on terror...
If that's the point the cartoon was trying to make, shouldn't it have included some caricatures of actual members of the Far Left, as opposed to mainstream politicians?
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
I'm pretty sure Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Howard Dean are about as far left as you can get before you fall off.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, not in the least.
Lets see . . . Howard Dean's known for laissez-faire economic policies while governor, Ted Kennedy's made more deals to support conservative measures than most trees have rings, and John Kerry was proposing more middle class tax cuts than Bush's plan included.
If you want to look at liberals, you have to look outside American national politics.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Kennedy, Kerry, and Dean mainstream? Wow….. That’s pretty funny. I’d have to say anyone who thinks that is for sure bouncing the scale to the left like a catapult!
Those three are the most extreme and radical of their party. And their party is very liberal. You might be able to point to some token conservative item here and there, but the tiger’s stripes… err…. I mean donkey’s tail, stays the same.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Yes, yes, Kennedy, Kerry, and Dean are not mainstream. They are the most extreme and radical lefty liberal commie pinko fascist liberal liberals that exist.
Which is why they keep getting elected.
Which is why Kerry had half the vote.
Because they're not mainstream.
Good lord.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Jay's views |= reality
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote: That really isn't that big a deal. Fleet groups always contained multiple carriers back then. Plus, emphasizing "EVERY" makes it sound like there were more carriers than there really was. FOUR carriers isn't exactly a giant amount, but that was our entire carrier fleet in the Pacific at the time. Japan had eight operating carriers at the time.
Don't you think it was a bit heavy of a gamble to wager the entire ocean on 2 to 1 odds?
1) Please don't take this harshly, but I think I know how the Navy works. They really haven't changed tactics in over 50 years. Just updated equipment.
2) Aircraft Carriers were the biggest and most important ships (still are) in a battle at sea. To be able to fight from afar and not put your ship/s at too much risk than need be.... I'd would've wagered on 2 to 1.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm trying to decide what Jay would think if he met an actual Leftist, as opposed to a left-leaning moderate. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Of course, you provide nothing to back up your statement, which is a demonstration of what, exactly?
Well perhaps it's a demonstration of the fact that you haven't presented much except individual examples either, and that I'll be talking more about this later. That's what, exactly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Glenn Arnold,
So let's see. There's nothing to back up the statement that American sentiment in the 1930s and early 40s was against involvement in WWII across the board, huh?
quote:Even as the intentions of the Nazis toward the Jews became more obvious, there was little support for refugee relief. Four different polls taken in 1938 reported that between 71% and 85% of the U.S. public opposed raising the refugee quota. See Plater Robinson, Deathly Silence: Everyday People in the Holocaust, Southern Institute For Education and Research, Tulane University. In 1938, the President attempted to develop a multi-national approach to the refugee problem through the Evian Conference convened at his suggestion in France where 32 countries met for nine days.Most nations, however, including the U.S. and Britain, were unwilling to make commitments to significantly increase the numbers of refugees they were willing to accept and, apart from establishing a weak international refugee commission based in London, the conference ended with little of substance being accomplished.
We didn't want to help refugees from WWII. This was a precursor to the infamous turning away of a boat of Jewish refugees without American visas, returning them to Nazi hands.
quote:The Administration also tried unsuccessfully early in 1939 to get Congressional support to ease the restrictions imposed by the Neutrality Acts in order to provide increased aid to the British. After the Germans invaded Poland in September, Congress approved repeal of the embargo against trading with combatants, and in March 1941 the Lend-Lease Act provided the British with 50 American destroyers in exchange for U.S. leases on British bases in the Western Hemisphere. After the Germans broke their treaty with the Soviet Union in June and invaded Russia, the Russians also received military aid and other supplies. Spending on defense was also sharply increased, which further helped to create jobs for domestic economic recovery.
Gradually Congress permitted embargoes to be lessened. But it took time.
quote:While his margin in the November election dropped sharply from the landslide win in 1936, Roosevelt still easily defeated Republican Wendell Willkie, who argued for greater support of the anti-Nazi forces in Europe, by about five million popular votes and by 449 to 82 electoral votes.After his re-election, Roosevelt called for "lend-lease" aid to the anti-German allies. This aid, approved by Congress, greatly increased the flow of supplies to Britain. After Germany attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, lend-lease went to the Russians as well.
Roosevelt was elected over a candidate who supported greater involvement against the Nazis in Europe, Glenn.
quote:One of the most remarkable episodes in American history was the spontaneous and widespread opposition to Franklin Roosevelt's obvious attempts to embroil the United States in the European war that broke out in 1939. That opposition was centered in the America First Committee. In modern accounts of the war period, the committee is either ignored or maligned as a pro-fascist, anti-Semitic organization. It was nothing of the kind.
Spontaneous and widespread, Glenn. And a bunch of college students, no less.
quote:Meetings with some Chicago businessmen led to plans for a large-scale organization. In July 1940, General Robert E. Wood, chairman of the board of Sears, Roebuck, agreed to become acting chairman. (Wood had earlier supported the New Deal, but then broke with Roosevelt. He was less anti-interventionist than others in the new committee.) In late August, the group adopted the name the America First Committee (AFC).
Sure, he was a general and a chairman of Sears and Roebuck, but he was also at one time a supporter of Roosevelt's policies.
quote:One of the most important members was John T. Flynn, chairman of the New York chapter and a national committeeman. Flynn was a prominent muckraking journalist who exposed big business's connections to the New Deal. For example, he demonstrated that the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (which began under Herbert Hoover) was little more than a bailout scheme for big banks and railroads. He was a columnist for the New Republic until it dropped him because of his anti-interventionist position. No one was more vigilant about keeping fascists out of the AFC than Flynn. At one huge public rally in New York City, he identified a local fascist in the crowd and told him he was not welcome.
One of the foremost members of the AFC was Sargent Shriver, a friend of the Kennedys and a Democrat, Glenn. Gerald P Nye was famous for busting RNC involvement in the Teapot Dome Scandal. Norman M Thomas was leader of the American Socialist Party, and he belonged to the AFC. So too was Gore Vidal.
Now I'm no fan of the America First Committee. I think they were flat-out wrong. But you're equally wrong, Glenn, when you try to label American Isolationism prior to WWII as the playground of Republicans. That's just unsupported by facts and history, Glenn, and your position is untenable.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:fascist liberal
Actually, it's the right who are fascists. The left are commies. The two are pretty much mutually exclusive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm going to assume that's tongue in cheek, Verily. Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Naturally. If I were being entirely serious, I'd have said something more like, "Actually, fascism is a right-wing political philosophy, and is mutually exclusive with extreme liberal philosophies." But see, that wouldn't have been funny. Maybe the way I worded it wasn't funny anyway, but at least it was an honest attempt. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Actually, fascism is a right-wing political philosophy, and is mutually exclusive with extreme liberal philosophies.
Ah. See, I don't necessarily agree with this. Both modern communism and modern fascism focused on individual control of the state -- and, not incidentally, state control of industry, press, and education. As they're both profoundly authoritarian, I consider them to be very similar philosophies in practice.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I used the word fascist because Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, et al, commonly tell us that it is liberal philosophies which lead to fascism. And I assume that's where Jay is getting his information; his opinions, to me, seem a little too misguided to have come from anywhere else.
Who else is out there saying Kerry represents the voice of the extreme far left?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I see what you mean, now. But in a way, Limbaugh and Hannity are RIGHT -- insofar that authoritarianism DOES lead to fascism, and many modern "Leftist" policies are authoritarian. Where their generalizations fail, unfortunately, is in their reluctance to observe that both major American political parties tend towards authoritarianism nowadays.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: 1) Please don't take this harshly, but I think I know how the Navy works. They really haven't changed tactics in over 50 years. Just updated equipment.
2) Aircraft Carriers were the biggest and most important ships (still are) in a battle at sea. To be able to fight from afar and not put your ship/s at too much risk than need be.... I'd would've wagered on 2 to 1.
1a. I don't take it harshly, nor do I take offense. I don't doubt your knowledge of naval tactics, as I have no idea what you do and don't know.
1b.However, being that carrier warfare was untested at the time, I'd say facing off against the largest carrier navy force in the world, which also happens to be the nation that recently beat the living snot out of Russia's advanced navy with their own hand me downs, would give many people pause.
1c.And some things HAVE changed in the last 50 years, not necessarily about fleet tactics, but certainly about fleet composition. Fleets back then had several carriers in each group, supported by baby flat tops and a whole mess of battleships, destroyers, carriers, dozens of subs, and other fleet tenders.
1d. Currently, fleets are smaller. Yes, because of equipment changes, which is precisely why numbers don't mean the same thing today that they meant back then. One carrier battlegroup today can project more force than any other naval battle group in the world, and we have what, 8 of them total? 12? Something like that. Carriers don't travel today in more than groups of two unless there's some sort of joint fleet operation going on, or a major combat operation in effect. We don't even have battleships anymore, and there are a fraction of the subs that used to be out there. My point is that you can't compare fleet composition from back then to today.
2a. You underestimate the lack of carrier tactics from back then. Carrier tactics as they are used today didn't exist back then, except on the Japanese side of the ocean. We'd never been in a major combat with them, and had a largely untested group of ships. Facing off 4 carriers against 8 enemy carriers, especially 8 highly trained and battle hardened carriers is extremely risky, overly so, after having a majority of the power from the pacific fleet shot out from under us.
2b. Midway was the only reason we got a foothold in winning the war in the Pacific, and that had less to do with being more trained or having better tactics, that was entirely to do with guile and Japanese overconfidence.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:So let's see. There's nothing to back up the statement that American sentiment in the 1930s and early 40s was against involvement in WWII across the board, huh?
You didn't offer any with your post.
Actually, as I read your response, I see no statistical breakdown between liberal interests and conservative ones.
My post identified "left leaning" newspapers with being critical of isolationism.
quote:Gradually Congress permitted embargoes to be lessened. But it took time.
Much of your argument centers on pitting Roosevelt against Congress. Which party was in the majority at that time? (I confess I'm not able to find a breakdown.)
quote:One of the most remarkable episodes in American history was the spontaneous and widespread opposition to Franklin Roosevelt's obvious attempts to embroil the United States in the European war that broke out in 1939. That opposition was centered in the America First Committee. In modern accounts of the war period, the committee is either ignored or maligned as a pro-fascist, anti-Semitic organization. It was nothing of the kind.
Spontaneous and widespread, Glenn. And a bunch of college students, no less.
Pardon, but your quote backs up my previous statement that Roosevelt was accused of trying to get us into the war. As to college students, you're talking about a time when college students were a very distinct subgroup, being largely the sons of the very wealthy. Again, what evidence do you provide that any of these college students were left of center? No breakdown at all.
quote:“In the United States the German Embassy, under the direction of Hans Thomsen, the chargé d’affaires, was spending every dollar it could lay its hands on to support the isolationists in keeping America out of the war and thus discourage Britain from continuing it” (Shirer 747). Thomsen put particular effort into the party conventions occurring in 1940. He tried influencing both parties to include anti-war planks, especially the Republicans (748). According to German papers captured after their defeat, a Republican Congressman was paid $3,000 “to invite fifty isolationist Republican Congressmen to the Republican convention ‘So that they may work on the delegates in favor of an isolationist foreign policy’”.
As to Sargent Shriver, Norman M Thomas, and Gore Vidal, you're arguing by example, which is a fallacy. Would you care to bring your argument to exhaustion?
Of course, " the statement that American sentiment in the 1930s and early 40s was against involvement in WWII across the board" merely states the obvious. Most people are against war in general, which is as it should be. But isolationist rhetoric did tend to come from conservatives, and criticism of that rhetoric did tend to come from liberals.
Also, do you have a particular reason for the repeated use of my given name? It has a strong flavor of ad hominem.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Thank you Jay. With posts like that you simply prove my point.....
Agree with Bush |= centrist
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Try reading the article.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
What centrist democrats? The only quotations opposing "anti-Bush tactics" there are from one guy, who isn't any sort of politician, much less a member of Congress. They don't even mention the name of a member of Congress who agrees. Furthermore, the guy works for a think tank, so his job is to say provocative things.
I suggest you take your own advice and read the article next time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Glenn,
quote:My post identified "left leaning" newspapers with being critical of isolationism.
No it didn't.
quote:So to put the cartoon in perspective: If the characters in the boat are Americans, they should be republicans, because that was who was making these kinds of arguments at the time.
&
Oddly enough, prior to WWII, it was the liberals like Dr. Seuss that argued in favor of entering the war.
Are among the things you actually said. You didn't go into specifics, either. You spoke in vague generalities constructed to imply that liberals=anti-isolationism and conservatives=pro-isolationism.
You actually cited individuals when you were specific at all, but you were implying generalities. So...I spoke as you did, really.
As for using your given name...well, I didn't even know it was your given name, really. I just know it's the name that comes up next to all of your posts. Usually that's the name I use when I'm talking to people on Hatrack. As for repetition, that's due to the fact that I started and stopped frequently. Had to help remove Christmas decorations, after all. But the flavor comes from your palette, not my...umm...spicing? To try and stick with the culinary wording.
But if you want specifics, I've had difficulties finding breakdowns, too. Until I remembered Wikipedia. Seems a good resource for this sort of thing.
Your statements about who was for and against isolationism are wrong. It was Democrats and not Republicans who maintained control over the White House and the Senate (and I believe the Congress as well, although I haven't counted everything for the House of course).
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Try reading the article.
I did.
Your turn....try getting a clue.
I am not saying that no centrist Dems would ever agree with Bush....but rather that you seem to think that they are centrist ONLY if they do.
Also, I didn't see any specifics in that article, as mentioned by others.
If someone gets over 40% of the popular vote I would say they are fairly mainstream over all..by the very definition of mainstream, actually.
[ December 29, 2005, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Glenn,
quote: quote: My post identified "left leaning" newspapers with being critical of isolationism.
No it didn't.
Rakeesh, I see your problem Rakeesh. You see, Rakeesh, you just can't read, Rakeesh.
quote: quote:During World War Two, Geisel wrote editorial cartoons from the pages of the left-leaning New York newspaper PM that scathingly criticized Naziism, Fascism, American isolationism
[/rakeesh style smugness]
Oh, and thanks for providing the breakdown of Congress. Now turn you attention to the actual argument.
Getting back you to your original accusation:
You claim my post demonstrates my bias, as if I came up with the idea myself. As I said in my last post, I didn't pull this idea out of a hat. All I needed to do was show that this "bias" has been around longer than me to debunk that idea. Done.
You accuse me of labeling the "sentiment against involvement in the war" as being Republican. No, I accused Republicans of being isolationist, and using the kind or rhetoric in the cartoon in order to defend their economic interests. Prescott Bush comes to mind.
And that's the real point. It's not who was for or against the war. It's the reasoning behind it.
And BTW, you completely missed the bit about Yamomoto, who did make such statements, except they weren't empty rhetoric.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It isn't always necessary to come up with an idea yourself to prove that there is bias...bias works just as well in what you choose to believe, even which examples of what sources to cite.
Not that I am claiming it is bias in this case....I just thought that that was an imortant point to make.
Carry on. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Glenn,
quote:Rakeesh, I see your problem Rakeesh. You see, Rakeesh, you just can't read, Rakeesh.
Ohhh! Zinger! You sure showed me. My skin is still tinging from that electronic trouncing! Or maybe that's just static shock from the computer. Because actually, now that I look back, I see that I used your name twice in a paragraph only once. That was twice in two sentences, yes, and it was unnecessary. But it was an accident, and not meant to be insulting, as I explained. Other than that, I used it to begin the post, and then after quotes and links, seperated by blocks of quote and links.
So if you're going to be a whiny jackass, let's just be clear what it is you're actually whining about: a non-malicious mistake for which I apologized. The past-tense on that is entirely appropriate now though, because any regret for my mistake has evaporated.
This is the entirety of your original post to which I responded.
quote:What I find ironic about this cartoon is that this kind of rhetoric did occur both before and after Pearl Harbor - but it came from the conservatives, who saw the war as a danger to american economic interests.
Today rhetoric rests on the same fulcrum point, except that industry sees the control of oil as being in "America's best interest." In fact, the logic behind an unprovoked attack is remarkably similar to the logic the Japanese used to justify the attack against Pearl Harbor.
So to put the cartoon in perspective: If the characters in the boat are Americans, they should be republicans, because that was who was making these kinds of arguments at the time. But more accurately, the characters in the boat should be Japanese, such as Yamomoto, who recognized that a war with America could not be limited to the issues the Japanese wanted to fight about.
Oddly enough, prior to WWII, it was the liberals like Dr. Seuss that argued in favor of entering the war.(italicization mine)
Your original post makes plain the general point that prior to WWII, it was conservatives generally who were in favor of isolationism, and liberals who opposed it. That was my original point. As for who came up with the wrongheaded idea you posted-and I'm confused now, is it just a thought you were putting out there that wasn't yours?-it was that idea I was primarily addressing.
You posted an idea that it was the Republicans who were more Isolationist than the Democrats prior to WWII. (Actually, conservatives and liberals). This idea was flat-out wrong. Democrats maintained control of the White House and the Congress from the 30s through the end of WWII.
quote:And that's the real point. It's not who was for or against the war. It's the reasoning behind it.
You didn't make that very clear in your first post. Especially the part at the end where you say that it's liberals who opposed isolationism. You used the plural there. Your only real meat there was a single man.
The fact of the matter-nice try backepdaling and dodging, by the way, can you even see your original post from all the way back there?-is that isolationism in America prior to WWII was across the board. This fact is one which you argued against in your original post, in general and in particular.
Oh, and I used your name only once this time. Is that better? I certainly wouldn't want to offend. Let me know if I have. Or just stop being so hypersensitive. That'd probably save you more trouble.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
_________,
Oh, and as for the first part of your post, when I said, "No, it didn't," I misspoke. I was not specific enough. I should have said, "No, it didn't. Your original post implied much more than that," rather than saying, "No, it didn't," as though it were never mentioned at all.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
My family has lived and died for this country since before it WAS a country, so I think we have a right to say what we believe in if anyone does.