Protest During WWII and FDR?

Bump

 

She'd be lucky if she wasn't standing blindfold in front of a firing squad in short order.

 

-She most likely would have been ignored by the press back then.

-A lynchmob is a real option, considering that a number of Jehavah's Witnesses got castrated by similar mobs in the USA during WWII. Those JW's only crime was that they didn't want to enlist. They were strictly not political activists.

-An official sanctioned execution by the US government by a firing squad wouldn't have happened.

As a sidenote. Historically speaking. When it comes to the president, cheating on your wife is not the exception, it's the norm.

 

She would have been shunned by everyone including the press.

The media at the time recognized that freedom of the press would not survive a Hitler victory... the fact seems to be lost on them with the prospects of a Muslim victory.

 

You really can't compare WWII and the war in Iraq as they are totally different.

WWII really wasn't a war of choice; we were attacked. Iraq did not attack the United States. Also, in WWII the United States had allies who supported us. Bush, on the other hand, has alienated our allies.

For Bush supporters, I guess it's easier to demonize a grieving mother than to hold George Bush accountable for his mishandling of the Iraq situation. Will you ever hold Bush accountable?

 

On Iraq, I have no problem so far!

On border security, yer dern tootin!!!!!!

Him AND the whole congress of the once great USA!

 

I strongly suspect that either Gerald Ford, or Jimmy Carter was the 1st US president in the whole XXth century that didn't cheat on his wife. Neither were exceptional in other positive ways as presidents go.
As for Bush junior, I hope that he is exceptional in that regard.

 

Oldregular
The US and France have had a strange love-hate relationship from the days the US was founded, that's long before Charles de Gaulle entered the worldstage.
It's probably because the US is in many ways a caricature of France, or maybe it is the other way around.

 

I am trying to make peace with the French.

I think that we have had other 20th century Presidents who were faithful to their wives.

I know it is popular to say that Ike cheated but I think that the facts are thin on that.

I never heard anyone say that Nixon cheated or Truman either, for that matter. Herbert Hoover was honest. I would think that Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Coolidge, and Taft are without scandal. I never heard that Reagan cheated on his wife although he was divorced, which hurt him with some voters. I agree about Carter and Ford, and I would add George Herbert Walker Bush to the list also. I don't know about Lyndon Johnson--one hears stories but I doubt them--Johnson was greatly admired in the 1950s. He was a disappointment as President because he cared more about domestic issues than winning the war, which he micromanaged excessively in calling halts for no good reason.

Wilson would have been the one to put you in jail for speaking against the war as he did to Eugene Debs, socialist candidate for President. Debs was pardoned by Harding.

http://www.eugenevdebs.com/

 

9/11 was al Qaeda, not Iraq. We already snuffed out at least an equal amount of Afghani civilians by May 2003, twice as many fighters.

link

Whose bacon are we saving in Iraq?

France, Germany, Canada, New Zealand and Kyrgyzstan fought alongside us in Afghanistan (linkie), while Russia, South Korea, Greece, China, Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, India, Bangladesh, the European Union, even the Palestinian Authority had pledged cooperation (linkie).

Agreed.

Mmmmmaybeeeee.

Possibly. We have to fight those who attack us, but too many people confuse all of Islam with radical Islamic terrorists.

I really do abhor the Taliban.

Trouble is that Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Party were opposed to radical Islam and rule by mullahs. We opened the floodgate there and now we are drowning in it. We do have to close it again.


( Hey there, Priscilla Ann! )

 

"Whether the charge against FDR is true I don't know and it is irrelevant at this time."

It takes a long time for history to sort out the truth, and sometimes it is never known. The left is much too quick to judge President Bush on this matter (yet I don't seem to recall them protesting Kosovo). It will take years to analyze the Iraqi military/intelligence documents we've discovered, and some of the documents already found tend to confirm an Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection. For any president, of any political persuasion, to have ignored the intelligence presented to him would have been guilty of deriliction of duty.

I am simply amazed at the accusations some Christians have made against President Bush, himself a brother in Christ!!!

 

cmg
Just to cover 1 of the presidents you list as honest marriagewise.
During the Kennedy vs. Nixon campaign for the presidency, a number of journalists which despised Nixon, discovered that Tricky Dicky was a regular visitor to a very expensive brothell. They were about to publish when they discovered that JFK (who they supported) was a regular in the same place!

 

The US was never attacked by Germany or Italy. Many people both then and now suspect that FDR either allowed or even manipulated the Japanese to give him an excuse to get into the European war.

There are a little under 2000 grieving mothers due to this war. This woman is one of the few who have attempted to turn their child's act of ultimate sacrifice into a political spectacle.

You know... there were grieving mothers after the "Black Hawk Down" incident... except in that case, the administration had consciously not provided the troops on the ground with the resources and support they needed.

There were also grieving mothers in WWII- 200K+ of them.

Some of them were mothers of tankers... who lost their lives because of the political/budgetary decision that it would be better to field more inferior tanks than fewer superior ones.

The result was a 3 to 1 loss ratio against German tanks. That's right. The father of modern Democratic liberalism- his administration made the assessment that losing sacrificing 9-12 American boys was worth killing a German tank and its 4 crewmen.

Well... let's see. On June 6, 1944, 3000+ Americans died to gain a foothold from which to liberate France. Almost twice as many as the whole Iraq operation to liberate a whole country and eliminate a sponsor-state for terrorism.

Maybe its time that folks like you take an objective approach and consider the costs/benefits of this operation.

For instance, what do you think Saddam would have been doing now considering Iran's efforts to develop a nuke? Do you think he would have been playing nice and letting the UN inspectors have free reign?

Do you think we wouldn't have been handicapped if Iran and Iraq were simultaneously developing a bomb?

Sure. The better question is will you ever take time to consider how he should be given credit?

We have taken the war on terrorism to the enemy's back yard instead of letting them fight it on the streets of NY, LA, or your home town.

Al Qaeda recruits dying in Iraq... are not and will never become al Qaeda operatives killing people in their office buildings.

 

The ties were that the Kurds of Iraq were training with them against the government, iirc.

You had asked which allies we had lost. We haven't lost England, Australia, Poland or Italy as allies; my list was of those who were with us in Afghanistan but not Iraq. See the links.

Wow, way to read into a "maybe"! I prefer democratic republicanism (is that a word?) to communism.

Probably a lot less than you think. However, you are blind, perhaps deliberately so, if you think that radical Islamic terrorists are loved by normal Moslem people.

They bombed us, for one thing. They are bloody, misogynistic, antihumanitarian thugs who would be kings, for another.

Some methods of doing that are better than others.

Sorry, I don't remember saying that - are you sure it was me?

 

You are apparently as naive about radical Islam as you were, perhaps are, about Communism.</font>[/QUOTE]
I keep hearing people talk about "radical Islam" being the problem.

Couple of observations:

1) Last time I saw an estimate, it said that around 15% of Muslims fit in this category. Don't know how they came to that figure but... it would seem that this 15% pretty much silences the opposition. I just haven't seen joyeous Muslims in the streets celebrating free Iraqi elections... or the fact that the US liberated Iraq from a man who was by all accounts a mass murderer of Muslims. I have seen them in the streets celebrating the mutilation of American bodies.

2) I recently read an article concerning the Islamitization of Europe. It was written concerning a book written by a cleric to Muslims living in nations where they were a minority. Assuming these principles are commonly held (as seems to be the case due to their unwillingness to assimilate into these different societies) even peaceful Muslims aren't seeking free co-existence. They are following a plan to attain political and cultural domination wherever they go.

3) The difference between "radical" Islam and the rest of Islam seems to be methodology, not goals. I don't know about you but I don't really care if someone is attempting to take my right to freedom of religion with a gun or through politics... I am opposed to them either way.

 

Probably a lot less than you think. However, you are blind, perhaps deliberately so, if you think that radical Islamic terrorists are loved by normal Moslem people.</font>[/QUOTE]Prove it.

Most importantly, prove it by the behavior of these "normal Moslem" people. If the "normal Moslem" people in various Islamic states would simply stand up and demand that terrorist funding and training not take place in their country... the problem would end fairly quickly.

Truth is, I suspect the "normal Moslem" person though not specifically agreeing with the methods still respects "radical Islam" for its zeal concerning Islam.

I would compare it to majority racism in the early 20th century. While most people wouldn't openly approve of the KKK, many still liked the idea of keeping blacks as an underclass and agreed with the Klan in principle if not method. People in my own family have held such a view during my life time.