Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (45119)	7/12/1999 3:25:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

nihil, even if your theory about US entry into World War II were 100% correct, that still would not demonstrate that it was based on "clannish impulses." You say: I believe that FDR's personal decision to save England from Hitler and China from Hitler and China from Japan was the principal reason for the U.S. entering World War II....It [the personal decision] was based on culture and "blood is thicker than water" (Admiral Simms controversial toast before we entered World War I). World War I was one thing, World War II another. While you could conceivably still use that old "blood is thicker than water" approach where our ties with Britain were concerned, no way was it applicable to the American-Chinese relationship. There were not that many Americans of Chinese descent in the United States, and Roosevelt sure as heck was not one of them. Of course, "pro-war" Americans found the English and the Chinese "culturally" more sympathetic, because they had NO sympathy for the kind of racist imperialism that the Germany and Japan of the time seemed bent on imposing on everyone else. But that is not "clannishness," unless you think that standing up to bullies is "clannish." The isolationists and "America Firsters," on the other hand, DID get a lot of support from clannishly-oriented Nazi sympathizers. Joan