We have heard "OFTEN" from liberals (See Ted Kennedy today on Meet the Press) that the war to liberate Iraq was an unnecessary distraction from the war against Al Queda, as though the U.S. Military was incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time . Well, this has happened before. All of us remember the history lessons from World War II, where we all learned that FDR had to withstand charges from liberals that went as follows: "Why did FDR get us involved in an unnecessary war against Germany? Germany did not attack us! The war against Germany is an unnecessary distraction keeping us from winning the war against Japan. Fighting Germany is keeping us from winning the war against the Japanese. Why fight Germany, they did not attack us? It is not our job to overthrow every despot! We should concentrate our efforts only on Japan!"
...Perhaps if there had been a broader understanding of the uses of nonviolent direct action in Germany when Hitler was rising and consolidating his power, the brutal extermination of six million Jews and millions of other war dead might have been averted and Germany might never have become totalitarian. If Protestants and Catholics had engaged in nonviolent direct action, and had made the oppression of the Jews their very own oppression, and had come into the streets beside the Jew to scrub the sidewalks, and had Gentiles worn the stigmatizing yellow arm bands by the millions, a unique form of mass resistance to the Nazi regime might have developed... Martin Luther King, Jr., May 20, 1965
Apparantly not all of us remember our history lessons.... Germany declared war on the United States when we declared war on Japan.
Yet MLK forgets that a great number of Germans were against the Hitler regime and did practice non-violence. Yet Hitler was more than willing to respond to NV action with violence.
Arf. Need we trot out the usual "miscegenation is an evil against God" conservative nonsense we heard in the first half of this century? Or the fact that as of 2 years ago the Republicans had a Senator who once said he was committed to fighting desegregation everywhere, and filibustered against those awful civil rights acts. Btw, I'd like to see a cite on what you provided, since its more likely to be attributed to Charles Lindbergh than to liberals.
Yeah, but we sent troops to Europe to fight them rather than the other way around. If we'd really wanted to say "Uh...yeah, Adolf, have fun with that, maybe if you can find away to get some of your troops across the Atlantic we can have a go" we could've done so.
Two little things I must point out. First, Germany was sinking US ships, and was an aggressor against US interests. Plus, they had invaded special friend #1, Britian. No leap in faith in attacking Germany was necesary. Second, you are stealing my idea. I keep pointing out that if Bush were running the US during the Pearl Harbor bombing, he would've gone after South Korea, and by 1944, there would be a Japanese lobbyist working in the White House. Admit it. George W. Bush is a terrorist appeaser with his lobbyist for the Saudi royal family working in his White House, and has done a miserable failure of a job on the war on terror. FDR and his liberal friends kicked the crap out of fascism. Even ran the Manhattan Project.
If today's liberals lived in 1943, they would try to kill Hitler because he's so much like George Dubya Bush.
No, MLK forgets nothing here; you, apparently, forget how to read. "...by the millions...," he said. If you know about any nonviolent anti-Nazi action that took place in the streets alongside Jews and other oppressed in Germany that included millions of "Protestants and Catholics," as MLK focuses upon, or millions of anyone else, please, share with us all...
Funny you claim being immuized against stupid. No doubt it's becasue your stupid already. Read before you post. At least I do that.
Oooo...Doyle. You cut me to the quick. This, the kindest cut of all, making it easy to laugh at you, as most others would, in 1943 or today. Me read? Yeah...right. Your analysis of MLK, in a word, sucked. You got called on it. As Sidney said to John in Let's Do it Again, "live wth it; live with it."
First of all, Alex, Germany was blowing up our cargo ships in the Atlantic. Please, if you're going to use my/our money to go to BC, take some history classes. They have some good ones. Second, if today's neocons lived in 1943, they'd think it was totally normal to invade Chile to "send a message" to the rest of the world that we meant business. That'd be really stupid, wouldn't it? Yes it would. So just shut the fuck up about all this already.
i am sorry to have to don the hat of captain obvious, but we...don't...live...in 1943? or 1918... or 19--anything for that matter. we live in 2004 where there are crazy things that exist that did not exist in 1943, like cell phones, and people who pretend to care about human rights, civil rights, and their 401K. 1943 and 2004 situations cannot really be compared, the world is too different. even the warfare is different. by maybe im the @sshole. i have been before.
Good God, USASoccer is one stupid, stupid person. Hey chump, google "premature anti-fascist" if you want to know what liberals would be doing in 1943.
If today's conservatives lived in 1943, they'd be advocates of appeasing Der Führer, pretty much like today's conservatives are advocates of appeasing the House of Saud. And for what it's worth, yesterday's conservatives were pretty much down with appeasing Der Führer.
The lack of perspective on WWII always astounds me. Its the "we won WWII" syndrome. I hate to say this, but the foray into Europe on the part of the allies in 43 and 44 had quite a bit to do with keeping Western Europe away from Russia, not defeating Adolf. By D-Day the war effectively won; the Russians had routed Hitler's war machine at Stalingrad, Kursk, and two weeks after D-Day Russia launched operation Bagration, which made D-Day seem like playtime. (And please, no "we drew troops away" - the best troops were always in the East - Hitler had hopes of making peace with the Allies, not with uncle Joe.) Unless you also think the invasion of Greece was about defeating Hitler. Next, Germany did actually declare war on the US, and began sinking US transports to England, America's ally in the Pacific (whose colonies do you think Japan was taking over?). Unless you think its reasonable not to fight a war against a country that's openly at war with you. These fantasies of projecting Pat Buchanan's views on liberals in 1941 are some of the worst conservative wet dreams I've ever seen.
The lack of knowledge on WWII displayed in this thread is absolutely shocking, especially when considering the comparisons that are made with the situation the world's in now. Dear oh dear.
And with this thread USAsoccer has officially been qualified as useless for any real discussion. Whether you are conservative or liberal on these boards, if you don't bring at least an ounce of intelligence and historical understanding to your posts, you really aren't worth listening to. This may be one of the worst posts of all time. What ever happened to mannyfreshstuna???
Yep... There is a direct correlation between the amount of vitriol and the closer to home you are! I'd say I hit it spot on with you liberals... Hence all the vitriol. You constantly carp that we took our eyes off Al Queda by liberating Iraq, as though the two were completely separate issues on the war on terror or that the U.S. is incapable of doing both at the same time. The analogy with World War II and Germany and Japan is absolutely spot on, and you know it... That is why you can only hit back with personal attacks. And frankly, I am more accomplished and a helluva a lot smarter than any of you who post here.
Boy you told us off. Sorry for doubting your brilliance on this issue. God I miss Colin Grabow and T-WUB. Mental sparring with the Republicans who frequent this board now is like burning ants with a magnifying glass.