CPAC...Round them up and Send them to Camp Gitmo

[BadenP]

The difference is Scout that this war was a personal vendetta to finish something his father failed to do. I am sure in time it will come to light that the intelligence used to justify going into Iraq was manufactured to get the worlds support for the invasion. The Iraq War unlike other wars was of our own making to insure an open supply of oil for the US, all the other reasons were a smoke screen.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

[TheScout]

Lincoln certainly attacked the Confederacy.

 

Wilson wanted to fight Germany and brought the US into a war when no US interests were at stake.

 

FDR had no reason to fight Germany. He shot at their submarines on the high seas and send aid to the British.

 

Anyway, does it even matter? So we are allowed to violate the constitution on wars that you think are worthwhile and not a personal vendetta. That makes a lot of sense.

[OldGreyEagle]

 

Bush was the victim of faulty information, he beleived what others said...

[Hal_Crawford]

Scout:

I do not expect you to believe that the South fired first at Ft. Sumter. Southerners have spent over a hundred and forty years re-framing the "late unpleasantness" as the "war of northern aggression". Believe whatever you want.

 

World War One: There were compelling US interests. Freedom of the seas was one. The Germans were practicing unrestricted submarine warfare, endangering American lives and commerce. The "Zimmerman telegram" in which the Germans tried to persuade Mexico to attack us was more compelling than the WMDs in Iraq. Also, in accordance with the constitution, Congress declared war on Germany.

 

World War Two: Pearl Harbor, Japan attacked us. The next day Congress declared war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declared war on us. Congress then declared war in return. Don't see the constitutional issue here.

 

I think you alluded to Lend-Lease: We provided ships, tanks and other military hardware to Britain, the USSR and China. Again, this was passed by Congress, not the President acting on his own. This has never been determined to be unconstitutional. Before Pearl Harbor, American ships went on patrol to protect the US coast (neutrality patrols) and escorted lend-lease convoys as far as Iceland. I am not sure what incident you are talking about when you refer to American ships attacking German subs unless you are talking about the destroyer USS Reuben James getting in the way of German torpedoes, 31 October 1941 with a loss 100 US sailors.

 

Note that World War II was the last time that Congress declared war on anybody. If there are constitutional issues they would be Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom not to mention, Somalia, Bosnia and all the other minor incursions that Presidents of both parties have involved us in in the last 60 years of so.

 

I get the sense that you think the wrong sides won the Civil War, World War I and World War II. Is this so? From where I sit you are sounding more and more like either a neo-confederate or a neo-nazi. Do you see yourself aligned with either of those political philosophies?

[OldGreyEagle]

Hal, you are getting cloe to having me invoke Godwin's law or at least the part where the conversation is over when you call someone Hitler, A nazi, Gestapo, etc

[perdidochas]

And I thought us Republicans were supposed to be the mean-spirited ones......

 

Also, the Patriot Act had only one vote against it in the Senate (and one abstaining vote). It was a very bipartisan bill/law.

 

 

On the subject of Gitmo, though, I will bet that Gitmo will still be open a year from now.

[TheScout]

If another country occupied a fort in the midst of one of your harbors, I think you have the right to shoot at it.

 

In World War I Wilson armed merchant ships sending munitions to Germany and supported the UK's blockade of Germany. If you were the German Emperor, wouldn't you have attacked ships sending munitions to your allies too? The Zimmerman telegraph was rejected by Mexico and was a proposal IF war occured between the US and Germany. Whatever we think of this, was it worth over 100,000 American lives? I think not.

 

Same with World War II. FDR armed merchant ships bringing supplies to Germany and allowed them to fire on German submarines. Germany had no beef with the US. Only a US actively aiding her enemy. There was much resistance around that period to going into the war. Ever hear of the America First Committee?

 

I resent the suggestion that makes me a neo-Nazi and think you should apologize. I just don't think saving Britain or France, or the European Jews was worth 200,000 American lives - thats a real lot. Hitler and Stalin would have come to blows anyway and would have destroyed each other. We just aided one evil dictator to take out another.

 

All of this is not the point though.

 

Even if these wars were right/wrong why did Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR violate the constitution to such a greater extent than Bush ever did? And why are they considered among our greatest Presidents?

[perdidochas]

Oldgray,

 

Godwin's law says nothing about shutting down a conversation. It merely says that the longer an internet discussion grows, the chances of Nazis or Hitler being mentioned approaches one.

 

Informally, that is the point at which further discussion is futile (unless of course WWII is being discussed).

[John-in-KC]

"FDR had no reason to fight Germany. He shot at their submarines on the high seas and send aid to the British."

What in the Sam Hill kind of revisionist history is that, Sir? Go back and review the timeline of World War II:

Dec 7/Dec 8, 1941: Empire of Japan attacks United States of America at Pearl Harbor, Nichols Field, and assorted other Pacific Island stations.

Dec 8, 1941: In a special session of Congress, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asks for a Declaration of War against the Empire of Japan.

December 11, 1941: The German Third Reich declares war against the United States of America, under terms of the Tri-Partite Axis (signed Sept 27, 1940). The United States of America reciprocates.

As the son of a soldier who fought on Corregidor in the defense of the Philippines, get your bloody facts straight! (This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[Hal_Crawford]

Scout:

I said you sounded like either a neo-nazi or a neo-confederate. I asked if your were either. You took offense to neo-nazi and for that I apologize.

 

Ft. Sumter was a US Army installation. The state around it seceded. It is up for debate whether that was constitutional. Lincoln and the army's position was that it was still a US fort. Confederate artillery attacked it. War resulted.

 

Southerners often blame Lincoln for calling up 90,000 volunteers. They say that was an overreaction and the real start of the war. In fact, where I am sitting is an area in Virginia that was pretty quickly occupied by Federal forces. There were probably tents where I sit and the soldiers bathed in Four Mile Run 150' from here. Was it an invasion of the south or the reasonable reaction of a country protecting its capital?

 

Wilson and Roosevelt probably violated international law through neutrality violations but they did not violate the constitution as what they were doing was enacted into law by congress. And, yes, congress has been complicit in a lot of more recent mistakes including the Patriot Act. My constitutional issues with the the past administration have more to do with their interpretation of the Patriot Act and other laws.

 

The US did not enter WW2 to save European Jews. I am not saying that would not have been a good reason but we and the rest of the world were in pretty active denial about what would later be called the Holocaust. The US supported Britain, the USSR and China because it appeared in our best interest to do so. It was controversial and I have heard of the America First Committee as well as the German-American Bunde. American hero Charles Lindbergh was associated with both but some historians maintain that he was a victim of propaganda from both sides, pro-Germans who exaggerated his support through cropped photos etc and anti-Fascists who vilified him for his apparent support of Hitler.

 

We entered WW2 because we were attacked by Japan. Germany and Italy declared war on us. Over 418,000 Americans died as a result. Was it worth it? My father was a veteran of WW2 and was at the liberation of a concentration camp. He was a career officer (combat engineers) who hated war. He thought WW2 was worth it. He did not feel the same about Korea or Vietnam. I have met few WW2 vets that thought differently.

 

What do you think the world would look like if we had stayed out of WW2?

 

Hal

[TheScout]

""FDR had no reason to fight Germany. He shot at their submarines on the high seas and send aid to the British."

 

"What in the Sam Hill kind of revisionist history is that, Sir? Go back and review the timeline of World War II:""

 

Umm. . . Lend Lease we were pouring aid to Germany's enemies. Then we started using our own convoys and US Navy ships were authorized to fire on German submarines.

 

Why were we basically giving weapons to one side of a conflict. No wonder Germany was angry at us. Wouldn't you be if you were German?

 

 

"Dec 7/Dec 8, 1941: Empire of Japan attacks United States of America at Pearl Harbor, Nichols Field, and assorted other Pacific Island stations."

 

Germany didn't.

 

"December 11, 1941: The German Third Reich declares war against the United States of America, under terms of the Tri-Partite Axis (signed Sept 27, 1940). The United States of America reciprocates."

 

Germany thought the US would come into the war anyway. Plus, who cares? If some country that does not threaten our national security today declares war on us and has no way to hurt us declares war on us, she we invade them?

 

So tell me, what was our issue with Germany that made us go to war? Or Italy?

 

Were they worth the lives of 200,000 Americans?

 

It is not really a crackpot theory.

 

Pat Buchanan wrote a book recently, "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecesary War." It discusses how the UK and the US blundered into the war against Germany.

 

Like him or not Buchanan is probably one of the best paleo-conservative writers in the US.

 

Many old school Republican conservatives like Robert Taft and Henry Cabot Lodge were quite against World War I and World War II respectively.

[Hal_Crawford]

Scout:

I am confused by your logic and Mr Buchanan's. Churchill and Roosevelt blundered into war with Germany? England declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939 in response to Germany's invasion of Poland. Churchill became Prime Minister on 10 May 1940. It would seem that Neville Chamberland "blundered" into war with Germany. Churchill didn't get the job until the beginning of the Battle of Britain.

 

And what part of Germany and Italy declared war on us do you not understand? We had already declared war on Japan without addressing them. Why do you make excuses for them? I really don't get it.

 

You keep referring to 200,000 lives. Over 418,000 Americans (including 1700 civilians) died in WW2. Are you just counting those that fought against the Germans?

 

John in KC:

Your father has my respect and sympathy. Those that served at Corregidor and in the Philippines at that time truly suffered. Few American soldiers have suffered more. The Battling Bastards of Bataan, no mother, no father, no Uncle Sam. I assume he was a POW? I hope he was able to recover from the experience and lead a peaceful and happy life after the war. He certainly deserved it.

 

Hal

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

If some country that does not threaten our national security today declares war on us and has no way to hurt us declares war on us, she we invade them?

 

That doesn't describe Germany in 1941.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber

 

[Hal_Crawford]

Merlyn:

Good point. By January 1942 German U-Boats were sinking American coastal freighters within sight of the coast. This was before the first US troops or aircrews departed for the ETO. Would they have done this had we not reciprocated their declaration of war? I suspect so.

 

Hal

[TheScout]

"Southerners often blame Lincoln for calling up 90,000 volunteers." The first great unconstitutional act.

 

A measure which must be approved by Congress.

 

"Was it an invasion of the south or the reasonable reaction of a country protecting its capital?"

 

The South wanted peace. They sent a peace delegation to Lincoln which he refused to meet with.

 

"The US did not enter WW2 to save European Jews."

 

I realize that, but this is usually cited as a modern reason why the war was good.

 

"What do you think the world would look like if we had stayed out of WW2?"

 

Probably the same. The USSR and Germany would have destroyed themselves. America would have less debt. And 200,000 Americans would not have died (The German number- of course we should have licked Japan). Many more would not have been wounded.

 

 

I wish I had my copy of the book with me, but I do not its at my house.

 

Its actual quite a good book. Very though provoking I read it a couple months back.

 

It does not just deal with Churchill, it talks about the UK as a whole. Its subtitle is "How Britain Lost its Empire and the West Lost the World."

 

"Buchanan states that Churchill either helped make the key decisions - or cheered them - in every key strategic and diplomatic blunder Great Britain made from the eve of World War I through, obviously, World War II. Among them:

 

Several misguided battles and maneuvers in both wars.

-Deterioration of the Royal Navy began when Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer (in charge of the budget) in the 1920's.

-Naively believing Britain and the U.S. had a "special relationship" with the U.S.; by war's end, however, Britain was more of a dependency of the U.S. rather than a partner with it. FDR and his successors were glad to see the Empire fall apart.

-As First Lord of the Admiralty in WWI, Churchill initiated a "starvation blockade" against the German civilian population, a war crime that also violated Freedom of the Seas. And as Prime Minister he again committed war crimes by introducing civilian terror bombing as a war tactic. These tore away at the fabric of the Christian West.

-Churchill despised Bolshevism and admired Mussolini and Hitler early on; his later obsession with knocking Hitler out drove him to appease Stalin - giving him half of Europe and signing on to ethnic cleansing campaigns that killed two million Germans.

 

http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=2977

 

Read the review. It does a good job of explaining the book real quick. He does discuss Chamberlain of course and all of European power politics in the 1920s and 30s. Of course Churchill was an important figure during this time and one of the biggest proponents of war against Germany.

 

 

"And what part of Germany and Italy declared war on us do you not understand? We had already declared war on Japan without addressing them. Why do you make excuses for them? I really don't get it."

 

I don't think I am making excuses for them. Part of understanding why countries do what they do is looking at things from their perspective. We were being hostile to Germany and aiding its allies. Of course they will attack us.

 

"You keep referring to 200,000 lives. Over 418,000 Americans (including 1700 civilians) died in WW2. Are you just counting those that fought against the Germans?"

 

Yeah, its a crude estimate. Just cutting the total number in half. Though in truth I don't know if the war in Europe counted for half of all casualties. I admit it is a crude measure.

 

The Amerika bomber never existed. Even if it did, few could fly across the Atlantic at that time. America could have used its massive manpower and resources to build fighters and anti-aircraft batteries to make us virtually inpenetrable. Anyway, Germany was quite busy fighting the UK and the USSR. IF we weren't fighting them or aiding their enemies it is doubtful they would expense such resources to hurt us.

 

 

"Good point. By January 1942 German U-Boats were sinking American coastal freighters within sight of the coast. This was before the first US troops or aircrews departed for the ETO. Would they have done this had we not reciprocated their declaration of war? I suspect so."

 

Why would you suspect that Hal? Countries do not attack those they have no problems with?