Dissent during WWII - A history lesson the right forgot....sm
Posted By: Democrat on 2006-07-06
In Reply to:
Dissent during WWII - A history lesson the right forgot.
Posted by ChrisSal on Wednesday June 28, 2006 at 3:04 pm MST [ Send Story to Friend ]
One of the right’s favorite things to do is to compare the Iraq invasion to WWII and Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler. They claim that anyone who opposes the war is an appeaser, a terrorist sympathizer, or a traitor. This rhetoric is absolutely laughable not only because it is a huge stretch, but also because Republicans have obviously forgotten their own history.
Following the rejection of the League of Nations treaty in 1919, America developed a strong isolationist foreign policy. This was, perhaps, in response to the expansionist policies put in place by Teddy Roosevelt and the abject horror experienced in WWI. The citizenry wanted nothing more to do with sending its men to fight in foreign conflicts.
However, in 1935 Italy invaded Abyssina, which provided the first real test of America’s isolationist foreign policy. Congress passed the Neutrality Act, applying a mandatory ban on the shipment of arms from the U.S. to any combatant nation. FDR vehemently opposed the bill, but signed it under intense Congressional and public pressure. Two years later, Japan invaded China starting the Sino-Japanese war. As China was our ally and public opinion was favorable, FDR found ways to circumvent the Neutrality Act and assist China. Another two years later Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and began their conquest of Europe.
In May 1940 Germany overran the low countries, which left Britain open to invasion. By the end of 1940, Britain was financially ruined and the isolationist support was beginning to rapidly erode. 1941 brought about the Lend-Lease act and a more aggressive US posture in the Atlantic. Some claim, with some validity, that FDR provoked both Germany, with the US Naval presence in the Atlantic, and Japan, with support to China and crippling embargoes, particularly the oil embargo, into war. For the purpose of this discussion, that is neither here nor there.
As it became more apparent that the US involvement in WWII was going to deepen, a group named ‘America First’ organized to put pressure on FDR to keep America out of the war. “America First” garnered the support of people from across all shades of the political spectrum, but it was the GOP, who hated FDR and everything he did, that started the ball rolling. Twelve days after Pearl Harbor, Sen. Taft (R-OH) gave a speech to the Executive Club in Chicago. He railed against US intervention into WWII and spoke on the need for dissent, particularly during wartime.
As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur. - Sen. Taft (R-OH) December 19, 1942
So, the next time a rabid right winger claims that opposition to the war is unpatriotic and treasonous, remind them that as Germany rolled through Europe, Japan rolled through the Pacific, and before the fires of Pearl Harbor were extinguished it was conservative Republicans that took the lead in opposing FDR and the American entry into WWII.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Thank you for the history lesson!
That was hilarious! Especially the girlie-man part - boy, do I know some of those liberals! =)
I don't need a history lesson
I majored in it in college. I know there's discrimination and I know there are people who will discriminate in this election - either for or against Obama. But I think it's just a shame that you think Democrats are all above this. I live in a pretty hick town in southeastern Ohio where there are MANY Democrats who are voting McCain simply because they won't vote for a black man, plain and simple. And if you think that southeastern Ohio is the only place this kind of mentallity is, you'd be wrong. Discrimination is a terrible thing, but don't think it's just a Republican thing.
We need to do a little history lesson
Israel DID create the situation. Gaza is landlocked on all it's borders by Israel. They are not allowed in and out. Dr. Ron Paul had made a comment about concentration camp state; that is accurate. They have no means to get supplies in and out. A lack of supplies doesn't meant the leaders are starving their people. Supply and demand. Simply economics. Those who can afford things get them. That wouldn't be the case if the market was allowed to flow within Gaza, but that will never happen because as of now Israel has them in a full nelson and at their mercy. Mercy isn't something Israel abounds with. Barely anything is allowed in, so the supply is small. That lack of food you talk about to feed families isn't the fault of the leaders. Demand is high, supply is low, so yes, the rich SOBs running the joint will do what rich people do -- buy what they can afford because no one else can.
Hamas was created by Israel as a counter to the PLO. Much like we go about the world creating little counter-revolutions everywhere, so does Israel in the middle east. They create groups to do their bidding, using useful idiots who might actually BE extremists or just idealistic people, then when the group deteriorates away from their original purpose, Israel doesn't like that and starts crying that they're being persecuted by everyone around them. Poor little Israel can't get a break. Always getting pushed around by the big mean Arabs. Yeah, the Arabs with AK-47s that are 50 years old. You know, the same Israel who would just assume firebomb entire neighborhoods, killing anything and everything around. Mossad is active in every country in the world in the same fashion that the CIA is. Slapping around a bee's nest only invites them to sting you to death. That's what's occuring.
Hamas has eventually become a tool of the people around and has been elected into governments. Israel doesn't like that. It's a threat to their tyranny.
Extremism exists on all sides. Not just the poor idiots that get talked into blowing themselves up. Zionism has been a blight that has existed for generations and will continue to exist as an excuse to kill millions of innocent people in the name of God.
Recent history lesson....(sm)
Before Prop 8 gay marriage was legal in Calf.....therefore, a RIGHT. Prop 8 took that RIGHT away.
I'm afraid my history lesson disqualifies your argument.
be a smartass and ask what has changed since his statement. I simply stated the obvious answer. What has changed is his MIND. If he didn't feel qualified, he would not have run. Evidently, 65,431,955 citizens agreed with this chane of heart. You cannot argue away the fact that GREAT presidents have held office with much less experience than Obama...and I look for him to be adding his name to that list of the BEST our country has to offer in short order.
They don't want debate or dissent, although....
that is the biggest cry from the left, that dissent is good. Unfortunately they only tolerate dissent that THEY agree with. I actually find it quite boring to simply say on my own board and preach to the choir. That's what's fun about politics, the debate and the banter. But I see far less tolerance for differing opinions from the liberals in this country even though they claim to be all for choice and dissent and all those other nifty little words they volley about.
It is not dissent, it is bashing..
The whole gist of your post is bashing. When I complain about bashing of liberals on the liberal board, you reply by bashing even more....and not just bashing me, but all liberals. Why does it bring you so much pleasure to hate so many?
I don't really want an answer, I'll not read any more of your posts, or AG's crowing about you and her slamming the liberals on the liberal board. They are garbage.
Shutting up voices of dissent...
have you not watched any of the major news outlets? I heard plenty of dissenting. I heard plenty of inneundo, like we do in every administration. The reason you heard about it when Clinton was in office was because he could not keep his hands off women, and when caught not being able to keep his hands off women, lied until the DNA on the black dress proved him to be a liar. Not even close to same thing. If Clinton had behaved himself there would have been nothing to talk about. He could have stopped it all had he just told the truth because his party would have protected him, but no, he lied until the DNA got him.
WWII and Vietnam
I think that you have made a crucial error in believing that WWII and Vietnam are at all similar. WWII and the US Civil War were also very different wars. There are even major differences between Iraq and Vietnam and the Korean War although some historians would also find greater similarities in these three wars. You may rewrite the history of wars as well as US history to fit your agenda of political hatred, but you will never be able to present a convincing argument if you have completely questionable sources and facts to back it up.
You negate most historical records, which I admit often have some aspects of questionable validity, and you seem to re-create a fictionalized account to accommodate your rather far-out-there belief system based in hatred of the left. You rearrange and fictionalize facts and history to make your point. You provide spurious sources for your facts (I could probably find sources that prove that the earth is populated by aliens from Mars if I looked hard enough).
I also notice on the conservative board constant condemnation of liberals, leftists as a whole. We are characterized as stupid, immoral, crazy, unpatriotic, love the terrorists, cowards, angry, on and on. You are condemning at least 50 percent of the citizens of this country with those adjectives. Doesn't seem at all patriotic to me. Your group also points out nuts (like those who would spit on veterans) as representing the liberal mindset. I realize I am not going to be able to convince you of the great disservice you do to yourself with a narrow and naive mindset like that. I know many Republicans and with the exception of possibly one, none are as condemning and narrow-minded as the posts I see on your board. Thank heavens for that. While I have participated in bashing and see bashing on the liberal board, it rarely occurs in a generalized fashion toward all right-wingers. As I said, that would be a very naive assumption and the root of bigotry and prejudice and ultimately hatred is in the grouping of all peoples as being of one mindset.....think of Muslims, blacks in the south pre-Civil Rights, Native Americans in the 1800s (and even now). So easy to ridicule and oppress when we don't see folks as individuals. Actually the comments I see made about the liberal mindset are so far removed from the reality of most liberals in the United States it verges on the ridiculous, well no, it doesn't verge on the ridiculous, it IS ridiculous.
As far as your further condemnation of Democrats as far as blacks and their allegiances, I believe most informed political science folks would be the first to admit that the party doctrines have evolved over time. What probably counts most is the current party belief system. Just some common sense.
End of sermon.
What about the thousands that died in WWII to
keep us free from the nazi regime/communism? What about the Korean War? They died, too, to keep communism from spreading.
Viet Nam was another story. They died and people here were so outspoken about it (just like it is happening now), and that it brought the moral of the tropps down. When our president pulled them out so quick, all he-- broke out. The Viet Cong and Cambodia armies slaughtered thousands.
Those fighting now mostly support and believe in what they are doing. If the troops are pulled out as quick as O wants, the same thing may happen there. This is why they are trying to get Iraq's military and police set up so another Viet Nam will not happen. Support our troops.
And my grandfather died in WWII, defending the country where you live now in freedom (nm)
x
Like the Nuernberg Trial after WWII or the Internat'al criminalThe Hague Court..sm
what good does it make to show the torture picture to the public? None.
I could take a lesson from you in cut and paste perhaps....
.
Thanks for the geography lesson. nm
nm.
You could take a lesson from your last four words.
Sarah Palin has infintely more class that you exhibited.
Pub lesson on how to win friends and
This must be some sort of new maverick style of reaching across the aisle and getting that bipartisan cooperation Americans are so anxious to see again...he just left out the part about looking at his opponents down two barrels of a shotgun.
He/she passed first lesson - lie.
NM
Thanks for the lesson on the constitution, however ...
There are TWO fundamental flaws in your premise.
1) The provision for Congress to declare War is for the purpose of STARTING a war where none exists. If "the other guy" starts one, no such declaration is needed nor appropriate. For example, if Canada invades, guess what? We're at war with Canada and Congress need not legislate to determine if this reality in fact exists. That is applicable to the present because SADDAM started a war in 1991 that was never concluded until the 2003 invasion. (There's been a Stability And Support Operation since then).
2) Congress DID declare war against Iraq. (redundantly, since as per #1 above, we already WERE at war.) There is nothing in The Constitution nor US Code that spells out specific language such declaration must utter. The fact that no resolution was passed with the words, "we declare war" or whatever you imagine it has to say, does not alter the inescapable fact they DID expressly vote to use military force against Iraq, specifically authorizing the invasion, in fact. You can claim that's not a declaration of war if you like but no honest person will join you.
The lesson I learned is that Sam has class...you are
3rd grade civic lesson
Posted by Don Rasmussen of CampaignForLiberty. com on 10/30/08
Special thanks to my mom for sending this along.
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia’s mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down. The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.
”
She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn’t know. The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide.
Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers ice cream, and fifty percent of America reacts like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other fifty percent know they’re going to have to feed the cow.
Just taking a page out of sam's lesson plan.
nm
The lesson here is...not everything people "believe" is correct! (nm)
xx
Learn to spell lesson first before you preach right
--
A civics lesson in the Constitution of the United States
Our country's highest governing document, The Constitution, has been our guiding light throughout most of this country's history and has provided protection and equal treatment of the citizens of this country for over 200 years. Now, some people are saying that it needs to be changed, amended or done away with because it is "old-fashioned" and out of date. What I think these people want done away with is just the parts that they don't find fits their particular needs or desires at the moment, in particular, it would seem, the 14th Amendment and its definition of who is a natural citizen of this country and eligible to run for the office of President of the United States.
Let's look at the constitutional requirements for President of the United States, the 14th Amendment which further defines a natural citizen and the law which fills in the gaps and makes the explanation whole and more easily understood.
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
- Anyone born inside the United States
- Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
- Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
- Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
- Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
- A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
Some have theorized that because John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
If one group of people who want to see Obama in office manage to do away with the 14th Amendment, then what is to keep another faction of people from doing away with any of the other constitutions? The Constitutions, its Amendments and Articles were put in place not to oppress the American people but to protect them and their rights and freedoms. What if all the men in the country decided they wanted to do away with the 19th Amendment? I bet we would see some really mad women in this country. Or how about doing away with the 22nd Amendment which limits the number of terms that a President can serve? Can we say "dictatorship?"
So enlighten us, I love to learn, the past 8 years were a hard lesson indeed.....nm
nm
History is history and opinion is opinion. You need to learn the difference.
x
Well, there it is. She probably forgot though.
xx
I cannot believe I forgot it...I mean him!!! LOL!! nm
Forgot something... LoL
When did Lindsey Graham suddenly become liberal? I believe he was a former JAG and is totally against Bush's torture techniques and military tribunals.
And when GENERAL Colin Powell says something, I put much more credence in what he has to say than in a bumbling authoritarian idiot who never had the guts to set one foot on foreign soil to serve his country.
Bush talks about the professionals, yet he refuses to listen to any of them. And the faithful Bush disciples don't even care that the torture Bush wants will come back on OUR troops, the same troops they claim to support so much, leaving them susceptible to the very same treatment.
Have you noticed how many Republicans are starting to stand up and do the right thing? And have you noticed how angry Bush is becoming in press conferences and interviews? (I thought the was going to hit Matt Lauer the other day.)
Bush's temper is definitely about to explode, and he doesn't look like a very stable person. Elections are less than 2 months away, and if the Republicans lose control, Bush is finally going to have to be accountable to the country. He's getting angrier and I think he's beginning to panic.
Another **terror attack**?
I think we should all be afraid, BE VERY AFRAID. :-(
I forgot to add
Just in case anyone comes back with "oh you just don't like her" - yeah, you're right - I don't like her and for good reason. She is a liar. We had her as first lady for 8 years! Enough! America doesn't need that back, and we certainly don't need her impeached husband back in the white house running around. That good for nothing impeached piece of work is out campaigning as though he is running for President. Both he and his wife are bold face liars they lie right to the camera and everyone's face and their attitude is "so? what are you gonna do about it". So no, I do not like either one of them. Our country was in horrible shape when they were in. NAFTA took away good jobs for people, our military was dessimated, and all the time he stood and lied and lied and lied. So no, I don't like them. P.S. In case your thinking I'm republican - I'm not. I even voted for Clinton the first time. Learned within 2 weeks what a mistake that was.
oh yes....I forgot......
the war is all Bush and McCain's doing....no one elses. Just them. All their fault. Had nothing to do with even the dems who voted to go for it. Hmm. Yes...funny how people always forget that tid bit. I do believe that even Biden voted to go into Iraq.
I FORGOT!!!!!
masturbation is a SIN!!
forgot
forgot one question. We have 2 children, 16 & 13. I think I answered the rest.
I forgot to add
Did anyone catch that now Obama is saying people who make $200 and less. What happened to the $250. This is what I mean. The slimy little worm keeps lowering and lowering his belief of middle income. Soon he will be saying if you make 4OK your above middle income and will be taxed more (less we forget what Clinton did). Which, by the way, Obama will have all his excemptions for all the people making over a certain amount. The people who pay and run Obama are millionaires. Do you really think they are going to sit back and say, yeah Obama take money from me, I don't need it.
Did anyone notice his slick way of making you believe that you will receive the same level of health care that he and his rich friends in cogress receive. Right!
Open your eyes people. You are just oozing with such hatred for someone, and the only reason I can see is that McCain is older because you've never said anything bad about his policies. It's all about looks with you.
What you forgot to say
You forgot to say that you're a racist. Let's be real, and keep it real.
Wow - ignorance must be bliss.
PS - I forgot to add
The RNC investigated this and it was determined valid that he is a natural born citizen.
The DNC never checked out Obama. You gotta wonder why and who put Obama in there.
I forgot to say I wish your son all the best
and hope he has a safe and enjoyable career (?). Not sure if you'd call it a career. I loved my time in the military and learned responsibility, valuable lessons, leadership and respect for others. It was a wonderful time of my life. Met my best friend the first night we were sleeping in the chapel at Ft. Jackson waiting for beds to open up in our basic training unit and we remain as close today as we were when we were together (she now lives in another state). 2 years ago her son joined the Army and he also graduated basic training at Ft. Jackson.
So my best wishes for a healthy and good life for your son.
Oh, I forgot about BBC
When I lived up north I used to listen to the canadian news. Boy talk about getting a different perspective of what Canada thinks of us (and not just political - they are not too fond of us in general). I think film clips are the best way to find out what's going on. I'd rather listen to what Obama has to say rather than listening to Obama and then having someone interpret what he said to me. HA HA HA. (same for any person. I just hate when I watch a video clip and then the news reporters say "What so-n-so was talking about was...." :-) I usually end up yelling at the TV, I do have a mind of my own ya know.
Anyway...just didn't know if people had a favorite.
You forgot........
Bush would sneak in after hours and push legislation through while Congress was in recess..........remember? There is blame to be laid on both sides of the aisle, but Bush will die in infamy because of the horrible decisions he, and his neocons, made.
almost forgot.......if you by some sm
horrible chance happen to get very very ill or hurt and cannot work, you will change your mind about wanting to lower SS benefits.
I have been there and done that. Drew benefits for several years and then went back to work and stopped drawing. Believe me you will be glad you leflt SS alone.
You forgot...
Michael Moore, since he hates America so much, and if we're getting rid of Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly, we have to throw out Olberman, Mathews, and Maddow, too (just to be fair, 'cause it's all about being fair, right?).
That's right - I forgot....
I question Obama's policies and actions, so I'm a racist.
Thank you for reminding me!
That's right - I forgot....
I question Obama's policies and actions, so I'm a racist.
Thank you for reminding me!
BTW, almost forgot........I can fit 10 sm
cars in my driveway and doesn't bother a soul. If I want to have 20 people at my house once a week for a Bible study what is it hurting you or anybody else? In the summer time, quet peopl, sitting on the deck, studying God's word. Please tell me how in the world this is hurting anyone??!
no, it was my bad, because I forgot to put
in my first reply a comma between 'post' and 'and', so it was confusing. Sorry about that!
no, it was my bad, because I forgot to put
in my first reply a comma between 'post' and 'and', so it was confusing. Sorry about that!
oh yeah. I forgot.
Evangelical christianity is the only religion to be tolerated and their followers are perfect.
You forgot a few - HW Bush first sm
Also, H Howard Hunt, and Dulles (sp?). LBJ supposedly kept ducking according to witnesses like he was anticipating bullets. Many say he was assassinated due to Kennedy's attempts to pull American out of South Vietnam, and his attempts to dismantle the Federal Reserve Bank according to a book called, the Vatican Billions.
LOL. You forgot a couple....sm
911 gone bonkers brigade (one from Charlie Sheen after he got attacked)and Mike Malloy's - yes, I am a liberal and I shall eat your eyeballs.
The Scholars for 911 Truth have quite an impressive group of members. Here is a link to their membership page:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
Forgot the link - sorry
http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/cocc1121.html
Almost forgot...all the others are correct TOO!!
The others that you mention -- they are correct, too (about being on to me). Don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by leaving them out.
Oops, that's right -- all those others are ME!!!!!
|
