Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Bush almost 50% more popular than Pelosi/Reid/Congress

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: MonsterMark

Who would have thunk it that it would take Democrats to make Bush look good.

AP Poll

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Who would have thunk it that it would take Democrats to make Bush look good.

AP Poll

Standing next to a group of retards does that.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Of course they are unpopular. The democrats gained power in congress mainly becaise they wanted things to change. They ran on change - the promised change.

Things didnt change.

So - people are even more unhappy.

Posted by: MonsterMark

They have control of the House and the Senate, so what is the problem.

Is big, bad, and dumb George Bush standing in their way?

Hell, I'd argue that Bush has gotten everything he wanted since the Dems took control. So much for lame duck. Go figure.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Hell, I'd argue that Bush has gotten everything he wanted since the Dems took control. So much for lame duck. Go figure.

And so much for the argument that Ron Paul would accomplish nothing with an opposition Congress.

Yes, I threw RP in here. Sue me.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Yes, I threw RP in here.

RP????

What does RuPaul have to do with Congress?

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Hell, I'd argue that Bush has gotten everything he wanted since the Dems took control. So much for lame duck. Go figure.

That isnt saying much. His numbers are not much better.

Congress 22% - AP Poll

Bush 30% - AP Poll

The ABC Poll has them both at 33%

It doesnt reflect well on either.

I dont get the ron paul thing - what does he have to do with this?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

I dont get the ron paul thing - what does he have to do with this?

Refers to another thread. I admit it's off topic.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Got this from a Bush hating rant on Craigslist.If Bush is more popular than the congress it doesn'say much about our elected officials. You guys who think Bush is such a great leader feel free to rebuke the points made by this poster. You are undoubtedly more informed about these things than I and I haven't tried to verify most of these contentions. Please help me out here. Of course Bush is known to be privately fun and charming unlike his garbled public performances but how relevant is that to being the president. Beyond these alleged points the jury is still out on his legacy.Since he's almost yesterdays man at some point people will look to the future and stop beating on him but for now I wanted to get your take on his accomplishments in office.

This individual seeks an executive position. He will be available in January 2009, and is willing (and hopeful) to relocate.

RESUME

GEORGE W. BUSH
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington , DC 20520

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

Law Enforcement:

· I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pleaded guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been 'lost' and is not available.

Military:

· I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam .

College:

· I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.

Past Work Experience:

· I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.

· I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

· I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.

· With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.

Accomplishments As Governor Of Texas:

· I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.

· I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

· I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.

· With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President of the United States, after losing by over 500,000 votes.

Accomplishments As President (with 4 3 5 Notable Firsts):

· I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

· I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.

· I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

· I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

· I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

· I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

· I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues.

· I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My 'poorest millionaire, ' Condoleezza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

· I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.

· I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

· My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history,

· My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

· I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

· I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

· I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts

· I appointed more convicted criminals to my administration than any President in U.S. history.

· I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States Government.

· I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S history.

· I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations to remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

· I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

· I refused to allow inspector's access to U.S. 'prisoners of war' detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

· I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

· I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

· I garnered the most sympathy ever for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

· I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.

· I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. Citizens and the world community.

· I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.

· I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

· I am supporting development of a nuclear 'Tactical Bunker Buster,' a WMD.

· I have so far failed to fulfil my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.

Records And References:

· All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

· All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

· All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review. I specified that my sealed documents will not be available for 50 years.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

[right]Got this from a Bush hating rant on Craigslist.If Bush is more popular than the congress it doesn'say much about our elected officials. You guys who think Bush is such a great leader feel free to rebuke the points made by this poster. You are undoubtedly more informed about these things than I and I haven't tried to verify most of these contentions. Please help me out here. Of course Bush is known to be privately fun and charming unlike his garbled public performances but how relevant is that to being the president. Beyond these alleged points the jury is still out on his legacy.Since he's almost yesterdays man at some point people will look to the future and stop beating on him but for now I wanted to get your take on his accomplishments in office.

On Craigslist? I would have never thought to look there.

As to the record, it is interesting propaganda, nothing more. Don't wanna waste time disproving absurdity, but...

A few examples of blatant spin here:

Quote:

"I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations to remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission"

I am pretty sure that Bush didn't remove us from the Human Rights Commission

Quote:

"I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. Citizens and the world community."

war with Germany in WWII was unprovoked, and when we invaded Iraq, the majority of U.S. Citizens supported it, as well as both houses of congress, on both sides of the isle.

Quote:

"I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security"

I can find bias statistics (or make them up) to support my on point of view too...

Quote:

"I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history."

The president has not had a bona-fide vacation since taking office. All "vacations" are working ones. Effectively, he moves the white house to somewhere else. he is still working.

Quote:

"I refused to allow inspector's access to U.S. 'prisoners of war' detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention."

The detainees in those prisons aren't "prisoners of war" as defined by the Geneva Convention. Thus, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

Quote:

"I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S history."

Would luv to see the spin to back this up...

Quote:

"I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States Government"

"Ministry of Homeland Security"?
I am sure that the bureacracies that run the medicare, medicaid, welfare and EPA (among others) are much larger then the bureacracy that runs the "Ministry of Homeland Security"

Quote:

"I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My 'poorest millionaire, ' Condoleezza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her"

Where is the sin here?

Quote:

" I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury"

The surplus was "projected" through cooked books. There never was a surplus.

Quote:

"I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period"

Yes, I am sure BUSH set that record...

Quote:

"With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President of the United States, after losing by over 500,000 votes."

Bush didn't "lose" the election.

The author forgot to add that Bush eats babies and worships Satan; sacrificing a dirty liberal virgin twice a week.

Michael Moore makes a more convincing and factually accurate arguement.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Yes I like reading the rants and raves columns for snickering entertainment purposes but occasionally someone posts something interesting.
Bush is not responsible for every bad thing that has happened during his watch and even Saddam wanted everyone to believe he had WMD so we can give him a pass
on that, but he has to take some responsibility because he has set the priorities.
A lot of these contentions point to why many consider him to be Alfred E Neuman and are embarassed that he was elected president of this great country.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

war with Germany in WWII was unprovoked

This is incorrect. Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, thus provoking us to war.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Well shagdrum you have retorted on 11 of 45 points here.
I know you enjoy knocking things down on a point by point basis. Some of these things are dismissable as irrelevant but many help explain why his popularity is so low and none of the Republican candidates envoked his name (even shunning him)prefering to patronize the iconic memory of Ronald Reagan as their true hero and role model.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

our hero

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

This is incorrect. Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, thus provoking us to war.

I stand corrected

Still, it could be argued that there was no physical provocation to war with Germany.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Yes I like reading the rants and raves columns for snickering entertainment purposes but occasionally someone posts something interesting.
Bush is not responsible for every bad thing that has happened during his watch and even Saddam wanted everyone to believe he had WMD so we can give him a pass
on that, but he has to take some responsibility because he has set the priorities.
A lot of these contentions point to why many consider him to be Alfred E Neuman and are embarassed that he was elected president of this great country.

Yeah, some of what I attacked was easy due to poor wording (usually vauge). Example; the claim the Bush removed us from the human rights commission. If it had been worded as "Bush's actions lead to the US being removed from the Human Rights Commission" then the statement would've made sense. I could still argue it, but it would've been a little harder. Might've actually needed to cite a source for it then. As the statement reads, it is absurd because removing us from the Human Rights Commission in the way we were removed (voted out by the other members) is beyond Bush's power and influence. It is like saying Bush caused Katrina.

Many of the claims stem from areas he has been attacked for in the media; some credible and many not at all credible.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

I stand corrected

Still, it could be argued that there was no physical provocation to war with Germany.

Germany was sinking US merchant marine convoys that Roosevelt was sending to help Britain for 2 years before war was declared.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Germany was sinking US merchant marine convoys that Roosevelt was sending to help Britain for 2 years before war was declared.

Yeah, but that didn't push us into war. We didn't go to war over that. We went to war with Japan for Pearl Harbor, then added Germany into the mix.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

So shagdrum are you contending that there wasn't enough German provocation and that we should have ignored Germany until it actually tried to attack american soil?
Or are you just splitting hairs here.
WWII made the US a world superpower and brought about the modern life so it was answering the call of destiny.

Posted by: ford nut

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

I love craigslist rant and raves also the best of, were else would you find somthing like this ?

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/540076210.html

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

So shagdrum are you contending that there wasn't enough German provocation and that we should have ignored Germany until it actually tried to attack american soil?

I am not saying we should have, I am saying we did; at least until after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. That event was what pushed public sentiment over to supporting entering the War; both in Asia and in Europe.

Quote:

...are you just splitting hairs here?

No. It is relevant to the logical consistency of the analogy between Germany and Iraq. If Germany sinking US ships disproves the claim that going to war with Germany was militarily unprovoked, then Iraq shooting at our aircraft and supporting terrorism at least since the 1st Iraq war disproves the claim that going to war with Iraq in 2003 was unprovoked.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Iraq did not declare war on us. Declaring war is a serious diplomatic decision, and will and should always be provocation sufficient to respond.

There is no consistency in our government policy concerning when and why we go to war.

Iran kidnapped our citizens and we did not go to war. Mexico routinely shoots at our border guards and we do not go to war. The Mexican government routinely and openly coaches its citizens on how to invade our soil, and we do not go to war. Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran routinely support terrorism and we do not go to war. China shoots lasers at our satellites and we do not go to war. Often our government has exercised restraint instead of responding to skirmishes, and never before Iraq have we preempted another nation without a declaration of war.

Need any more examples? I could do this all day.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

If you wanna reopen that can of worm, I suggest we do so in the thread we had goin about this.

To recap my position:
Declaring war is purely diplomatic and political in nature. It means nothing without the military backing it, and declaring war in not neccessary to make war, constitutionally or otherwise. we have only declared war only 8 times in our nations history. we didn't declare war in the Revolutionary War or the Barbary Coast War; both wars conducted by the Framers.

In regards to WWII, up until the Pearl Harbor, public sentiment was against entering the war, on any front. There were some who said we should get involved (including FDR), but general public sentiment in the country was to not get involved. After Pearl Harbor, public sentiment changed and supported getting into the War on both fronts. That is why Hitler declared war against us. He knew that we were gonna get involved. At the start of WWII, Hitler had no designs on America, and didn't wanna get involved with us. We could have set out the whole of Europe in WWII and not had to militarily engage German forces. Hitler's view of the world was similar to what eventually came about after WWII; two superpowers, a bipolar system. The difference is that the powers would've been Germany and America, not the USSR and America.

You can't ignore the role that public sentiment (especially in reaction to Pearl Harbor) played. THAT is what launched us into war; offical declarations were just formalizing that.

Posted by: fossten

You tried to cleverly sidestep one important fact in your spiel. A Declaration of War is not just a political formality. To make such a statement is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the system of checks and balances. It's like saying Supreme Court decisions don't have any real weight, they are just opinions that can be ignored.

The fact is that a Declaration of War only being authorized to the Congress plays a very important role: It keeps a check on Presidential power (well, it's supposed to). In other words, the intent of the framers was to prevent just one man from making war on another nation. The consent via a Declaration of War or Letters of Marque and Reprisal must be obtained. At that point the President's authority as Commander in Chief gains teeth in the ability to make war.

It doesn't make sense any other way. If you say the Prez has the authority to attack anybody he pleases regardless of the will of the Congress, then why bother putting any wording about Declaring War in the constitution? That would be wasted words; no real check on Presidential power. That's inconsistent with the checks and balances theme that pervades the Constitution's entire body.

It's like saying the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, but the 1st Amendment is.

Furthermore, your entire spiel about the will of the people and public opinion has no weight in a Constitutional setting. Yet another specious argument. You're fond of pointing out that the Constitution does or does not specifically provide for this or that, so I must return the favor. Citing public opinion in this discussion has zero backing by law. There is no check or balance provided in the Constitution that requires the President to get public opinion on his side to go to war. The only check allowed to the citizens of this country to keep rein on government is the ballot, and we've already lost that. But that's another subject.

It is too easy to get public opinion swayed in one direction via the use of the media and the bully pulpit. Just look at public opinion surrounding Waco, the Brady bill, the assault weapons ban, Oklahoma City, and WMDs. In each case government was able to use the media and propaganda to whip up frenzy and garner support for actions that were harmful to the country.

The founding fathers obviously understood the frailty of the mind of the citizen (Read: the mob) when they instituted a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, something completely different from a DEMOCRACY. So our government officials are bound by the Constitution and balanced by each branch, not by public opinion. And the Constitution does not allow for military action (the definition of war) EXCEPT by Declaration of War by Congress. You can deny this all you want, but that is REALITY.

Finally, your point about Germany and the USSR swerves into an interesting idea. If we had avoided going to war, your theory is that Germany would have been the next superpower instead of the USSR. And you also posit that the REASON Germany declared war on us was because we declared war on Japan. So really, if we had stayed out of it, we would have had Germany on the other side of the earth instead of the USSR. Either way, a formidable and evil enemy. The map of Europe would have been redrawn either way.

But several hundred thousand US soldiers would not have died.

Posted by: shagdrum

I'll leave the constitutional issues to the Founding Fathers on Non- Intervention thread, as it would get us further off topic here to reopen that can of worms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Furthermore, your entire spiel about the will of the people and public opinion has no weight in a Constitutional setting.

I never said the will of the people had weight in a constitutonal setting (and I didn't mean to imply that either, sorry if I did). The will of the people does have weight in a political setting.

Quote:

The founding fathers obviously understood the frailty of the mind of the citizen (Read: the mob) when they instituted a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, something completely different from a DEMOCRACY.

Very true...

Quote:

And the Constitution does not allow for military action (the definition of war) EXCEPT by Declaration of War by Congress.

Not so true. No declared war on the part of the US in the Revolutionary War or the Barbary Coast War; both wars conducted by the same people who wrote the constitution.

See the Founding Fathers on Non-Intervention thread.
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=39099

Quote:

Finally, your point about Germany and the USSR swerves into an interesting idea. If we had avoided going to war, your theory is that Germany would have been the next superpower instead of the USSR. And you also posit that the REASON Germany declared war on us was because we declared war on Japan. So really, if we had stayed out of it, we would have had Germany on the other side of the earth instead of the USSR. Either way, a formidable and evil enemy. The map of Europe would have been redrawn either way.

But several hundred thousand US soldiers would still be alive.

My "theory" is based on Hilter's plans from Mein Kampf. He had no designs on the US.

Here is something interesting to read; the text of the declaration of war on the US by Germany.

The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever-increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearny and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

Accept, Mr. Chargé d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.

December 11, 1941

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever-increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearny and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

Accept, Mr. Chargé d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.

December 11, 1941

This strengthens my argument. You have posted evidence that the United States was acting militarily without a Declaration of War. September 1941 was pre-Pearl Harbor. So we provoked Germany by military actions without declaring war. Noting the consequences of one man having the authority to do so, this supports my position that we should not be allowing the President to act outside the Constitution.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

We did this in reaction to the fact that Germany was sinking US civilian and military ships. Germany's Declaration of War was (among other things) a piece of political propaganda that conveniently ignored this fact.

June 6th, 1941: President Roosevelt, in a message to Congress, denounces the sinking of the American merchant ship Robin Moor by U-69 as 'an act of piracy'.

September 4th, 1941: As a result of U652's attack on the US destroyer Greer, President Roosevelt warns German and Italian vessels that from now on, if they enter the Pan-American security zone, they do so at there own risk.

October 9th, 1941: President Roosevelt in a message to Congress urges the repeal of Section 6 of the Neutrality Act which would allow the arming of U.S. merchant ships against "the modern pirates of the sea", the U-boats.

October 27th, 1941: Roosevelt claims ‘America has been attacked. The shooting has started’, when referring to German naval aggression during his Navy Day broadcast.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Okay, but you just contradicted your earlier statement in this thread:

Quote:

Still, it could be argued that there was no physical provocation to war with Germany.

I'll give allowances for you obviously reading up on the causes for our entry into WWII only since this thread started. Given that, there still were direct physical attacks on us by Germany, and only when we started fighting back did the war start. Still, I would have supported it at the time.

However:

Saddam taking potshots at our planes was not the reason we invaded his country. It could even be argued that we didn't need to be over there thumbing our no-fly zone in his face. It's almost as if we were daring him to do something so we could go in there and kick ass.

Face it - Iraq never really attacked us. They certainly were not shooting down planes or sinking ships like the Germans were.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Okay, but you just contradicted your earlier statement in this thread:

I was saying it could be argued. In fact this wasn't what pushed us into war with Germany. THAT was Pearl Harbor and the effect if had in changing public sentiment. Rossevelt wanted to go to war, but the population didn't agree with him until after Pearl Harbor.

Quote:

Saddam taking potshots at our planes was not the reason we invaded his country.

And Germany sink US ships wasn't the reason we declared war. That had been building for a while. we were sending supplies to the allies, on both military and civilian ships. That is why the Germans were sinking them. At the same time, Rossevelt and the Congress were making agreements with the allies and building up the military. Basically, Pearl Harbor got the public on board with something that was inevitable, and allowed the government to quickly formalize what they had been working toward.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

I was saying it could be argued. In fact this wasn't what pushed us into war with Germany.

Look, this isn't really relevant to the substance of the discussion, but when you say "it could be argued" it is commonly assumed that that is your position UNLESS you immediately take the opposite position as a counterpoint, something you did not do.

You're quibbling.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

You're quibbling.

Yeah, I guess.

Though there are really three situation, any one of which I would use terms like "it could be argued..":

A: I don't wanna get distracted by the issue, just point out that there is another reasonable point of view on the issue.

B: The issue is inherently vauge or somewhat open to interpretation and I wanted to point out another reasonable point of view, but not go so far as to plant my flag in that arguement and take that position.

C: I don't know enough about the issue and don't wanna tie myself to that position.

Basically; expediency of the arguement, vaugeness of the facts and/or evidence, or ignorance.

In the case of the Germany/Iraq analogy, It started out as both A and C. I have since educated myself on the issue.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Yeah, I guess.

Though there are really three situation, any one of which I would use terms like "it could be argued..":

A: I don't wanna get distracted by the issue, just point out that there is another reasonable point of view on the issue.

B: The issue is inherently vauge or somewhat open to interpretation and I wanted to point out another reasonable point of view, but not go so far as to plant my flag in that arguement and take that position.

C: I don't know enough about the issue and don't wanna tie myself to that position.

Fair enough.