Replace the constitution :rolleyes:

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously you can't do it

No, he just understands that getting people from vastly different views on the political spectrum strengthens his argument. Majority decides what's right after all .

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Bingo.

So Floyd's doctrine says he give in to murderous dictators and regimes.

[cinch]

Sava:

WIth the help of American, Polish, Czech, and South African pilots. Britain had only a few hundred airmen in 1940.

There were also noteworthy numbers of Aussie, New Zealander, and Canadian pilots.

Not that that really has any bearing on anything, but still...

[David Floyd]

So Floyd's doctrine says he give in to murderous dictators and regimes.

First of all, I was responding to his post about Japan's intent in the war. Secondly, what does "giving in to murderous dictators and regimes" mean? It certainly doesn't mean that the US won't defend itself, and it certainly doesn't mean the US won't say those regimes are wrong.

Now, I won't force anyone to pay for a war they don't support, or force them to fight in a war they don't support, but that is hardly giving in. That is taking and keeping the moral high ground.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
So Floyd's doctrine says he give in to murderous dictators and regimes.

What does that have to do with why we fought WWII?

[Odin]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Someone brought up FDR as a good president. I refuted, and so on it went.

He was the greatest prez. I want him on Mt. Rushmore. He was the first president to work with Keynesian economics, and it worked brilliantly. He was the most "socialist" president we have ever had. If he wouldent of died of a riptured blood vessel in his brain he might of got elected for a 5th term in 1948. (Truman sucked ). He had a few slip-ups (japanese prison camps and not taking a harder line with Stalin), but that was peanuts compared to the good he did for America. He made those Supply-siders shut up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Cause we didn't give in to murderous dictators and regimes there .

[David Floyd]

He had a few slip-ups (japanese prison camps and not taking a harder line with Stalin), but that was peanuts compared to the good he did for America.

Oh, excellent.

You just admitted that money is more important than social freedom - that is, your comment that the internment of Japanese-Americans was "peanuts" compared to economic recovery. Not very socialistic of you

[Sava]

Cinch: hehe... sorry for missing you guys.

First of all, I was responding to his post about Japan's intent in the war. Secondly, what does "giving in to murderous dictators and regimes" mean? It certainly doesn't mean that the US won't defend itself, and it certainly doesn't mean the US won't say those regimes are wrong.

It is in the US's best interests that murderous dictators and empires don't rival US supremacy. And by failing to stop those empires and regimes from expanding, you are allowing them to gain strength and threaten peace and freedom. Perhaps an experience in a WW2 POW camp would open your eyes. You live in America and enjoy freedom, but don't feel you have any responsiblity to protect or contribute to the protection of it. Freedom isn't free.

Now, I won't force anyone to pay for a war they don't support, or force them to fight in a war they don't support, but that is hardly giving in. That is taking and keeping the moral high ground.

There's a difference between a just and unjust war. I opposed current military action in Iraq because I feel it's unnecessary and not the best course of action for removing Saddam and bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq. But the goal of defeating Saddam is sound and moral. WW2 was no question. You may feel safe and secure in Texas, because Europe is so far away. But the world is a small place. And if tyrants and evil people are allowed to control empires, your freedoms will be threatened. You not only have a responsibility to your country/society/nation; you have a responsibility to your descendents to do what's best for the world. Defeating Nazism and Imperial Japan was the right thing to do. I hope that one day you will see the light.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Cause we didn't give in to murderous dictators and regimes there .

We didn't care about murderous dictators and regimes in WWII. Look at a few of our allies if you don't believe me. We fought to prevent the rise of another regional hegemon.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We didn't care about murderous dictators and regimes in WWII.

Sure we did... we didn't want those murderous dictators and regimes to be telling us what to do and threatening us with war if we didn't do it.

[Odin]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Oh, excellent.

You just admitted that money is more important than social freedom - that is, your comment that the internment of Japanese-Americans was "peanuts" compared to economic recovery. Not very socialistic of you

Hindsight is 20/20 DF, people were hysterical after Pearl Harbor. I don't agee with it, but you have to rember the social climate then. People on the weast coast were deathly afraid that there were spies there. I also think people were telling him that the camps wern't as bad as they actually were, (I don't know if that is the case, but is a logical guess because I highly doubt he would of condoned such treatment).

[David Floyd]

It is in the US's best interests that murderous dictators and empires don't rival US supremacy.

In what way was the US supreme in 1939? Let's see, it's military ranked below that of Portugal's, it's army air corps was virtually non-existent, and it's armor doctrines were far below those of the major powers. It's navy was nice, of course, but certainly not supreme. The US had the biggest economy in the world, but other nations were spending far more on defense.

The US was supreme in 1945, not in 1939, and it was supreme as a result of its war effort - it didn't fight the war to retain superiority

And by failing to stop those empires and regimes from expanding, you are allowing them to gain strength and threaten peace and freedom.

Yes, but not the peace and freedom as they relate to the US. Further, it is incoherent to promote peace and freedom to start a war supported by conscription.

Perhaps an experience in a WW2 POW camp would open your eyes. You live in America and enjoy freedom, but don't feel you have any responsiblity to protect or contribute to the protection of it. Freedom isn't free.

I'm sorry, I thought we were debating WW2, not any supposed obligation to society.

There's a difference between a just and unjust war.

Sure. A just war is fought in self defense, and immoral means are not used to fight the war.

But the goal of defeating Saddam is sound and moral.

Sure, but the goal of defeating Saddam by forcing me to participate, killing Iraqi conscripts, and occupying Iraq is far from moral.

WW2 was no question. You may feel safe and secure in Texas, because Europe is so far away. But the world is a small place.

The size of the world is irrelevant to the fact that Germany and Japan did not have the capability to invade, out-research, or out-produce the United States.

And if tyrants and evil people are allowed to control empires, your freedoms will be threatened.

A madman controlling a nation does not equate to that nation suddenly becoming threatening to me. It wouldn't matter WHO was in charge of Germany, it STILL couldn't have invaded the US.

You not only have a responsibility to your country/society/nation;

What does this have to do with anything?

you have a responsibility to your descendents to do what's best for the world.

Now, I have responsibilities to people who are not even born yet, and may never be?

Defeating Nazism and Imperial Japan was the right thing to do.

But bombing civilians, forcing Americans to fight and fund the war, internment of Japanese-Americans, etc., were WRONG. The ends do not justify the means.

[David Floyd]

Hindsight is 20/20 DF, people were hysterical after Pearl Harbor. I don't agee with it, but you have to rember the social climate then. People on the weast coast were deathly afraid that there were spies there.

And on the same token, the "social climate" of Germany made it OK to exclude the Jews and continually violate their rights. Was this fine, too?

I also think people were telling him that the camps wern't as bad as they actually were, (I don't know if that is the case, but is a logical guess because I highly doubt he would of condoned such treatment).

That's pretty interesting, considering the fact that at Tehran, FDR and Stalin talked openly about simply shooting the entire German officer corps after the war to destroy "Prussian militarism".

[David Floyd]

Sava, I am glad that you stopped talking about the actual war, though - it's saving me the trouble of rebutting you on that subject.