"Freedom" thread or something

Equality 7-2521 wrote: At least he regretted it after being removed from the fear that the Nazis would develop the weapon first. Small consolation to those that died, but there's a big difference between creation and use.

Tell that to the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. 

True enough.

Yes. I understand him being pissed off about the Nazis driving him out of Germany but from there to "let's create a weapon that can obliterate everybody in the world" it's a little too big of a jump...

I don't know what the hell is up with these kids today with their clothes and their hair....

Damn I missed an interesting discussion :(

It really was all inevitable.

Especially with Hitler being different from most other leaders, he was the epitome of an ideologue. Fueled largely on his racial beliefs, some on paranoia and power craze. Nothing ever satisfied him, even when he got what wanted.

Truly insane human being, (or possessed by Satan whichever you wanna believe) and compiled a cabinet of lackeys, power driven kiss ups and other extreme idealists. When you really think about it, more disturbing it all was.


Sooooo it looks like we can add Kansas to the list of states that hate America
Wonder if Paul will at least win one state? Maybe a 3 way where he can eek out a victory. He seems pretty popular here in NJ (from like the 20 people I know who like him!)

^The US apparently did know there would be an attack and was waiting for it to happen but didn't get the location right. The Japanese didn't, either. Most historians agree Pearl Harbor didn't accomplish anything for the Japanese Empire since most of the fleet they destroyed was old and none of the real important ships were touched. Also, they didn't really destroy infrastructure like runways to the degree that would've served them better. The lifes lost aside, Pear Harbor was only a minimal problem to the US but quite the perfect, waited-for excuse.

stonebeard wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: I wonder how history would have looked upon the USA is they had sat and set an example watched from the sidelines.  Probably not so bad, given the white washing that western media would do anyway. Few people in America know there is compelling evidence that Roosevelt knew of the attack of Pearl Harbor, but allowed it to happen to rally support for intervening in Europe and the Pacific. Anyway, think WW2 had to be fought. The Japanese and the Germans were aggressive forces with cold, horrible ideologies, and they were committing atrocities left and right. Even if they overextended and would have at some point been forced to scale back, having powerful nations ignore sovereignty of multiple  countries and take back land and people should not be allowed, whenever possible. Shame the nature of war back then was still basically throwing guys in front of machines guns. Less tactical and more deadly.

Can you provide a source for this? It seems well documented that the US military had been able to crack some Japanese diplomatic code and received similar from British intelligence warning that an attack was imminent. However, this theory of a complicit FDR seems to stem entirely from a statement made by Chief of Staff General George Marshall: the United States desires that Japan commits the first overt act.
The US certainly knew that Japan was about to declare war but there is no evidence to suggest that they knew the target location for any attack. Given the sheer size of the Pacific Ocean, likely targets were many e.g. the Phillipines, Singapore, Dutch East Indies, Kra Peninsula, Borneo etc
I also believe that if the Pearl Harbour attack had never happened, the US would still have declared war on Japan: all the indicators were there to suggest an American public growing increasingly concerned by an ever increasingly powerful adversary.


Edited by ExittheLemming - March 11 2012 at 08:34

Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: Since we're talking about Republicans and Democrats (and their similarities or differences in 21st-century Presidencies), I'd like you all to have a look at and discuss this piece: Bush 2.0: 100 Ways Barack Obama Is Just Like George W. Bush It's amusing.  Many of us on the left said that he wasn't going to be the liberal savior he was being spun as.

Yet he retains your support? 

Since we're talking about Republicans and Democrats (and their similarities or differences in 21st-century Presidencies), I'd like you all to have a look at and discuss this piece:

Bush 2.0: 100 Ways Barack Obama Is Just Like George W. Bush