DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Bleacher Bums Forum
*****************************************************
#Post#: 148858--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: CUBluejays Date: September 13, 2013, 10:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What was the US response when Saddam gassed the Kurds?
#Post#: 148860--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: davep Date: September 14, 2013, 12:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I see no evidence that either Wilson or FDR wanted to go to war
when they were first elected. Can you cite any?
#Post#: 148866--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 14, 2013, 10:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=CUBluejays link=topic=96.msg148858#msg148858
date=1379129963]
What was the US response when Saddam gassed the Kurds?
[/quote]
Relative silence.
#Post#: 148875--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 14, 2013, 3:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=davep link=topic=96.msg148860#msg148860
date=1379135698]
I see no evidence that either Wilson or FDR wanted to go to war
when they were first elected. Can you cite any?
[/quote]
I see no relevance to the issue you raise, that being what their
views were in November of 1912 and November of 1932,
respectively.
The issue was whether the circumstances and realities they
learned of after their last election before they pushed for war
became some new "responsibility (causing them to) take a more
realistic view of things" and to support entry into war when
before that election (of 1916 for Wilson and of 1940 for FDR)
they had been "antiwar."
Both them campaigned with promises to keep the U.S. out of war,
while planning to do the exact opposite, just as Nixon
campaigned on a promise of having a plan to end the war in
Vietnam (he never called in a "secret plan".... he just refused
to ever explain what the plan was), when in fact his plan was to
continue the war and escalate it.
Less than a year before Pearl Harbor FDR asked his advisers to
tell him what would need to be done to force Japan into a
position in which it would initiate war with the U.S. and
provide a justification for the U.S. to enter the war... and
then he did exactly what they advised.
The idea that those three were pacifists and were only forced to
change course by the realities of the world is a bit bizarre.
The justifications commonly cited for Wilson in April of 1917
calling for the U.S. to enter WWII are the following:
1) Sinking of the Lusitania;
2) Germany's attempts to get Mexico to join the Axis;
3) Germany's announced plans to use submarines to sink any
vessels supplying the Allies;
4) That Germany had spies in the U.S. spying on what we were
doing.
To deal with those, in order:
1) A German sub sunk the Lusitania sunk in May of 1915, so that
was certainly well known before the 1916 election. The
Lusitania was also carrying war munitions to England and it was
at the time within what was the declared "zone of war."
2) Germany's efforts to get Mexico to join the Axis powers --
the fact that one nation in a war should try to get other
nations to join it should come as no surprise to anyone. In all
likelihood both the Axis powers and the Allies at different
times before then had tried to get the U.S. to join them in the
war. In fact the way the U.S. learned of Germany's effort to
recruit Mexico was itself in an effort by England to get the
U.S. to join the Allies. Granted this issue is somewhat
complicated by the fact that the cable exchange the English
intercepted between Germany and Mexico included the Germans
trying to persuade Mexico to invade the U.S. if the U.S. joined
the Allies, there was a massive IF in there, and if Mexico had
joined the Axis and the U.S. did join the Allies, a state of
would would have automatically existed between them the two
nations.... AND Mexico clearly rejected the proposal (a proposal
which itself made clear the desire of keeping the U.S. neutral
in the war).
3) Germany's intention of sinking ships supplying the nations it
was at war with is pretty routine in war. I believe the United
States did the same when it blockaded naval ports serving the
Confederacy in the Civil War.
4) Spies.... the presence of spies as a basis for going to war?
Really?
None of those constitute real changes of anything meaningful
after the 1916 election.
So with Nixon, FDR and Wilson, the best evidence of what they
intended to do when the elections is not anything they said, but
what they actually did right after they won the election before
they took (or in Nixon's case continued) the U.S. to war.
#Post#: 148881--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: davep Date: September 14, 2013, 4:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be agreeing with my position. You have given
absolutely no evidence that when they campaigned in 1932 and
1916 that they were in favor of going to war for any of the
reasons mentioned, or for any others. But once they assumed the
responsibility, their pacifism disappeared, just as has that of
Obama, and every other President we have ever had.
Did they lie during their campaigns and hide their "real"
intentions? Probably. But nothing you say gives any proof
thereof.
#Post#: 148883--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 14, 2013, 5:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
davep, what a person says, particularly what a politician
running for office says, often discloses very little to nothing
about their real intentions. What they DO, however, generally
discloses a great deal. If you genuinely consider what I
pointed out to constitute no proof, that discloses a good deal
about you.
As to your comment that that "once they assumed the
responsibility" of governing, "their pacifism disappeared"
ignores (and I would guess deliberately) what I have now pointed
out at least twice now. Let me run it by you a third time so
you can again pretend not to see it.
FDR's position when he ran in 1932 and Wilson's position in 1912
(when they ran for the presidency initially) is irrelevant to
the discussion. The relevant question is the position they ran
on in the election immediately before they called for the nation
to go to war. In other words we are talking about the 1916
election for Wilson, when he ran on a campaign which centered
on, "He kept us out of war," and the 1940 election for FDR, when
he promised to keep the U.S. out of WW II. At the time FDR was
campaigning on that promise he was having his adviser prepare
him a memo outlining what he would have to do to bait the
Japanese into attacking the U.S. in order to provide
justification for the U.S. to enter WW II.... and then he
followed that advice.
With neither FDR nor Wilson can you contend that they lacked the
responsibility of the presidency when they were running on the
promise of staying out of war.
#Post#: 148887--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: davep Date: September 14, 2013, 8:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree that what they DO discloses their actual current
intentions.
But what they DO does not reveal what their PAST intentions
were.
Even you must realize that people sometimes change their minds
when confronted with information and responsibility that they
did not previously have.
Obama is certainly not a pacifist NOW. Nor were Wilson and FDR
when they entered into war. That is not proof that they were
lying when they previously said they were.
#Post#: 148889--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 14, 2013, 8:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You continue to ignore the fact that when he was campaigning in
1940, FDR directed his advisers to tell him what he needed to do
to provoke Japan to initiate war, and then did exactly that.
And while it is entirely possible for someone to change his
mind, I also ran through the reasons given for Wilson supposedly
changed his... and for wach of them pointed out how the claim
made no sense. What is left when the reasons are dismissed as
nonsense is that he lied. I also notice that you don't even
bother making any effort to defend Nixon or pretend that that
sorry piece of sh!t was doing anything other than lying in the
'68 campaign about having a plan to get the U.S. out of Vietnam.
You asked me for evidence that they were lying.... what evidence
is there that any of them was being truthful? They were
pandering to voters they needed to win elections, and each very
quickly acted in ways directly contrary to what they had told
voters, voters they absolutely had to have in order to win.
#Post#: 148897--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: ticohans Date: September 14, 2013, 10:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"It sounds to me like you're miffed that I dissed George Bush."
I have no problem with the idea that you disapprove of Bush's
presidency. I'm miffed by your connection of Bush to the current
Syrian mess. Syria is one giant Obama screw up; bringing up Bush
as a means of distracting from that fact is classic liberal
knee-jerk nonsense. Thus the blinders comment. You asked me to
flesh out that idea, so I did. You want to talk about the Iraq
war, great. You want to talk about Syria, great. They're
separate things, and I'm not the one who attempted to compare
them. You did.
#Post#: 149091--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: davep Date: September 16, 2013, 12:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Jes Beard link=topic=96.msg148889#msg148889
date=1379210187]
You continue to ignore the fact that when he was campaigning in
1940, FDR directed his advisers to tell him what he needed to do
to provoke Japan to initiate war, and then did exactly that.
And while it is entirely possible for someone to change his
mind, I also ran through the reasons given for Wilson supposedly
changed his... and for wach of them pointed out how the claim
made no sense. What is left when the reasons are dismissed as
nonsense is that he lied. I also notice that you don't even
bother making any effort to defend Nixon or pretend that that
sorry piece of sh!t was doing anything other than lying in the
'68 campaign about having a plan to get the U.S. out of Vietnam.
You asked me for evidence that they were lying.... what evidence
is there that any of them was being truthful? They were
pandering to voters they needed to win elections, and each very
quickly acted in ways directly contrary to what they had told
voters, voters they absolutely had to have in order to win.
[/quote]
You continue to ignore the fact that I have acknowledged that
presidents can change their mind when situations change. Is
there any evidence that FDR was a hawk, to use your term,
previous to his election in 1932?
You say that the reasons that Wilson gave made no sense, but
that is your opinion only. And like all presidents, he could
easily have lied about the true reasons. Once again, do you
have any evidence that Wilson was a hawk before assuming the
responsibilities of the presidency?
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page