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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (154061)	12/15/2004 10:05:51 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It is worse than that. We had, for some time, been in clear violation of neutrality, especially with Lend- Lease, and therefore were culpable of behaving in a bellicose manner towards the Reich before the declaration of war. Also, in similar ways, and especially with the oil embargo, we had violated neutrality with Japan, and therefore had handed it a cause of war. I, of course, would say "Thank God", but it is clear that from a strictly juridical standpoint, it was our "fault" that war broke out between us and the Axis.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (154061)	12/15/2004 10:41:53 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<in WWII we were the invaders too> This is so patently absurd, it requires no reply -- but to point out the obvious, Hitler was on the warpath invading one country after another in Europe. We entered the war to stop this aggression. For the same reason with respect to Kuwait, we assembled and provided leadership for a broad-based coalition to repel the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Once again, we acted to stop aggression. In sharp contrast, we invaded Iraq as the aggressor.