The newest edition of the RW rabid cousin

[serryjw]

I am going to bed..look forward to your responses tomorrow
quote.........
ME 42% are nutjobs. Support a war with Iran? Be prepared for WW III!
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/living/15584612.htm.

COUSIN

Wait, correct me if I'm wrong. Wouldn't those 42% nutjobs be on your side in looking to avoid a conflict in the Middle East at all costs!? By the way, I would agree that those 42% are crazy! Strange bedfellows, you and such Christian nutjobs.

All I can deduce with certainty from your formulaic comments and approach to every issue is that you would have been saying the same thing re prospectively going to war with Germany and/or Japan before WWII. You know, "We must discuss, we must appease, we must have diplomacy, we must compromise. Going to war will be Armeggedon." Those in your camp were clearly wrong then and just as surely wrong now. Civilized society cannot compromise, appease or use diplomacy with homocidal fanatics, who (in today's context) not only blow themselves up, but commit atrocities against and wantonly murder thousands of innocents who share their religion and culture. Get it into your head once and for all, it's not Americans killing 1000's of innocent civilians in Iraq, or the World Trade Center, or Bali, or Madrid, etc., etc. It's fanatical Muslim terrorists. It wasn't Amerca committing genocide against hundreds of thousands of Iraqis before the war, it was Sadaam. If you can't grasp this one simple fundamental truth and fact, then you can't even participate in an intellectual discussion about the problem and how to solve it. Debating with you is like it would have been trying to convince Hitler that genocide of the Jewish race was a diabolical evil, a fundamental crime against humanity.

Just as an aside, would you have been against dropping atomic bombs on Japan to end the war? Firebombing of Dresden to bring Germany to its knees? Even though forgoing those extreme acts of war actually saved perhaps a half million American soldiers' lives. If you can't even understand that the fundamental premise of conducting a war is to beat the enemy into submission, not coddle them, then there's not even a scintilla of common ground as a basis to start a discussion from.

Your idealism is a wonderful goal. Unfortunately, for you and everyone else, we have to live in a real world filled with evil people bent on killing as many and whomever necessary to impose their will and achieve their goals. When a person is being mercilessly attacked by thugs, you need to deal with the assailants before you can begin to treat the victim. Terrorists and the world's downtrodden peoples are just the identical analogies on a global scale. Try looking at the world other than through your "Hate Bush, Hate Republicans, Hate America" glasses and you will have taken a major step forward in maturity and objectivity.

end quote......

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. "Firebombing of Dresden to bring Germany to its knees?"

This just about says it all about this guy.

I don't think anybody else has ever claimed that the tragic bombing of that place ever had any positive effect on WWII. Your friend is in need of psychiatric care.

[begin_within]

2. I'm a liberal and I think we should have bombed Japan right off the map.

Completely wiped the entire nation off the face of the Earth. Should have sunk the four main islands. They deserved it and they should have been eliminated completely.
So there.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. Well, then I would have been out of a job!

(signed)

Lydia Leftcoast
Japanese-English translator

[nam78_two]

4. ??!!!

They deserved it-wiped off the face of the earth??!!!
I have Japanese friends...I am glad their families weren't wiped off the face of the earth!

You forgot your sarcasm tag :shrug:?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

6. Finally--someone else who feels the way I do!!!

Let's hear it for reciprocity--those 72 million civilians deserve to die because they live in the same country as that nasty emperor!! :crazy:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MikeH]

15. I hope you are not serious

[wtmusic]

5. Another WWII-equater

One half-hour on DU and he'll be running with his brave little tail between his legs.

[sandnsea]

7. Neville Chamberlain was a Conservative

The party of business, professionals, white-collar class and farmers - just like the Republicans in this country who opposed entry into WWII too. I do not know how we are getting saddled with this, it's incredible.

[B Calm]

10. Doesn't history show it was republicans that opposed WW2?

[Dick Diver]

11. Both...

Dems and Rethugs opposed our entry into WWII for various reasons. Witness Joe Kennedy, one of the most vocal and persistent opponents of entering the war.

[B Calm]

12. Is that right.... Did you hear that on the liberal media?

[Dick Diver]

14. No, from historical facts...

I'm not sure which "half" (or both) of my post you're commenting on.

In regards to both Democrats and Republicans being in opposition to involvement in WWII:

During the 74th and 75th Congresses (1935-1939), Democrats had control of the House by a margin of 3-1. Yet, during that time, three ever-more-stringent neutrality acts were passed. These acts were designed to make American involvement in foreign wars (particularly aimed at European wars) impossible, through the prohibition of financial transations with warring beligerents. While sponsored by the Republicans, they could not have passed without majority Democratic support as well.

As the war approached, more and more Democrats came to the realization that U.S. involvement was inevitable. However, Roosevelt campaigned (certainly disingenously) on a platform of keeping America out of the war. When the Lend-Lease Program was voted on in 1941 (a key signal of the U.S.'s leanings and coming involvement), a key public proponent of the bill was W. Wilkie, Roosevelt's defeated Republican opponent. It passed the House by a vote of 317 - 71, a House in which the party the division was: 267(D), 162(R), and 6 various Progressive/Labor. Even if one assumes that all 71 votes against were by Republicans (probably not true, since the vote was prior to Hitler violating the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact and most Progressives were still supporting the isolationist position), a majority of the Republicans did not vote against the bill (many abstained). One of the key Senatorial opponents of the bill was Burton Wheeler, a Democrat.

In summary, it is certainly true that the majority of opposition to American involvement in WWII came from the Republicans. However, throughout the 1930's there was clearly strong bipartisan support to avoid any involvement in European affairs. This changed as the war grew closer and more Democrats came over to Roosevelt's position.

In regards to the second point, i.e., Joe Kennedy's virulent opposition to any involvement in WWII on the side of the allies, I would simply refer you to study why Roosevelt recalled Kennedy from his post as Ambassador to the Court of St. James. Kennedy's opposition is well documented.

And no, I don't get my information from the "liberal media." I get it from study of primary sources and extensive reading. Where do you get yours? From the voices in your head?

[magellan]

13. Yup.

The Republicans were isolationists who ignored the threat of Hitler and voted against increased defense appropriations. Some of them apparently even went so far as to make business deals with the Devil....But fortunately for all concerned, they weren't the party in charge.

Now they advocate the torture and death of anyone within shouting distance of the enemy, while war profiteers provide unsatisfactory support to our troops and their pResident uses Hitler-esque propaganda to keep the battle "nearly won".

I'm at no loss to say which is worse.