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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (42332)	1/15/2002 3:39:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

FDR blinded the commanders at Pearl Harbor and set them up by - denying intelligence to Hawaii (HI) on Nov 27, misleading the commanders into thinking negotiations with Japan were continuing to prevent them from realizing the war was on having false information sent to HI about the location of the Japanese carrier fleet. I have never seen any evidence to support the contention that FDR did this. FDR sold munitions and convoyed them to belligerents in Europe -- both acts of war and both violations of international law -- the Lend-Lease Act. It may have been a violation of the law but that is not relevant to the main argument. As for selling weapons being an act of war, generally it has not been treated as such. In a number of historical cases the same country or organization has provided weapons to both sides of a war. Also in many cases providing weapons to those who will fight against an aggressive power can keep us out out of war. Germany and Japan where aggressive destabilizing powers. It was in our interest that they be stopped. Supplying weapons to their enemies made it more likely that we could stop Germany and Japan's expansion without going to war ourselves. The next day FDR froze all Japanese assets in US cutting off their main supply of oil and forcing them into war with the US. We may have put them in a tight situation by cutting off the oil but we did not force them in to war against the US. We where under no obligation to sell oil to Japan esp. considering that they where using this oil to power a war machine that was invading China and threatening a large section of the Pacific. I do think that it is possible that Roosevelt wanted to enter the war, but even if this is so it does not absolve Japan of responsibility for starting it. Tim

To: Solon who wrote (42332)	1/15/2002 4:01:33 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If you are unaware of this, I would be happy to supply you with links... We dropped The Bomb and ended the war, saving American, British, Australian, Kiwi, AND Canadian lives. Get used to it. And yeah, let's see those links. "Internal dictatorship is against the Constitution, but your tone implies that you are personally tickled by the ability to "dictate" in other countries." Cut the crap. That's what happens when you lose a war. That's what victory means- -the victor gets to dictate terms to the loser. What's new? How on earth does the fact of war justify your defence of being "tickled" by the opportunity to dictate I didn't say I was tickled. But see above. The next day FDR froze all Japanese assets in US cutting off their main supply of oil and forcing them into war with the US. And had Japan withdrawn from China, as the US demanded, that restriction would have been removed. So you're an anti-American Canadian. So what? Who gives a ****? Most of your countrymen like Americans and most Americans like Canadians. You're spitting in the hurricane.

To: Solon who wrote (42332)	1/15/2002 6:32:03 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Oh, here it is ... Did Roosevelt provoke the war? Okay, I didn't have to wait long for the next history revision. At a first reading of that revisionist polemic against FDR, I can find three truths. One, FDR did believe by 1941 that the U.S. needed to enter World War II if freedom and democracy in the world were to be saved from fascism. Two, there was opposition to our entering another European war, particularly in our midwest states, although it was waning by 1941. Three, FDR did wish that the first overt act of war come from the Axis side. If we look at numbers one and three ... they don't seem all that bad, do they? Indeed, if we recast them into the reverse, they seem really bad. As for the rest of what I read, I say, horse$*%t. I think that about covers it for now, although I may have more to say at a later time.