|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
![]() |
New
![]() |
Find
![]() |
Notify
![]() |
Tools
![]() |
Reply
![]() |
|
|
Member |
Sixty years to the day of the World Trade Center bombing on 9/11, 1941, FDR gave his "Shoot-on-Sight" speech.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/7-2-188/188-29.html I found it remarkable the similarities in Bush and FDR's reaction. Below are selected excerpts with comment:
Of course Bush was dealing with a direct attack on American soil of the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and White House.
FDR considered it "inexcusable folly to minimize such incidents" yet the left continues to do so.
Substitute terrorist for Nazi.
Are you lefties listening to your boy from 67 years ago?
Isn't "silence" and/or withdrawl what the left wants us to do?
Again, substitute terrorist for Nazi and go WOW!
Amen FDR! Wait, didn't Bush say something like that?
Take not Senator Obama!
We will if the left has their way!
Remember now, this is FDR speaking, not Bush.
The above quote speaks for itself; again FDR, not Bush.
For FDR it's defense. For Bush, the left calls it treason and murder.
The sad thing is that we are no longer an United people. FDR had the people behind him, Bush does not. There lies the difference in a strong American then and a weak America now. It's not the POTUS, it's the people. |
||
|
Experienced Member![]() |
Of course Bush's response was to invade a country not involved in that attack 6 months later.
I disagree. I believe the left would have supported a war which actually focussed on the perpetrators of 9/11.
Are all terrorists of one persuasion such as Nazism?
Are you saying Iraq has designs on the Western Hemisphere?
No.
Are we speaking of Iraq or terrorists/terrorism?
Yes and then hamstrung the effort in Astan in order to tip windmills in Iraq.
I think you meant take note. So are you saying that if Obama (not my candidate of choice) had the opportunity to attack the actual perpetrators of 9/11 he would negotiate instead?
I have no answer for this except BS.
Yes, and when FDR went after the Nazis he bombed and invaded Germany not New Zealand.
Yes, as long as you are striking someone involved in the issue.
I think FDR actually attacked the Nazis, not so Bush with the terrorists.
Actually, FDR did not have the people behind him until after Pearl Harbor which, by the way the Nazis had nothing material to do with. He did, by some accounts, allow Pearl Harbor to happen in order to enter the war against Germany. |
|||
|
Experienced Member![]() |
As I recall, FDR went right after the people who bombed Pearl Harbor and stayed after them until he defeated them.
How's Bush doing with that "We'll get him dead or alive" thing with Bin Laden, Mazski? Bush, speaking about Bin Laden on March 13, 2002, only six months, almost to the day, after the World Trade Center attack:
Oh, yeah, he compares VERY favorably to FDR. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
|
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
WE AGREE! |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Psst... the bad guys wore uniforms. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Ironic too that FDR fought a largely Republican Isolationist movement to re-arm America and trick the isolationists into helping arm Britain via "lend-lease."
There is an allied effort in Afghanistan, but a dwindling one in Iraq. Justified to shutdown Saddam? Sure plenty of UN resolutions allowing that. Remember if Saddam had beaten Iran and invaded Kuwait, he would have controlled about 1/3 of the world's oil reserves. Not something the Saudis (our very good friends and bastions of civil rights) would tolerate. Going into Iraq without a viable occupation plan and support from a multi-national force to take over? Pure incompetence, or is is arrogance, or both? Bush I got Gulf War I right. They were advised to not destabilize Iraq; an "artificial" country created by the Brits. If they had listened to the Generals, and Rumsfeld was not trying to prove that he could do a lean war (aka McNamara), they might have just pulled it off. MacArthur told Kennedy not to get involved in a land war in Southeast Asia. Schocroft tried to do the same for Bush's son. Negative results. Hey how 'bout them Iraq borders, have we secured them yet? |
|||
|
Experienced Member![]() |
Eddie,
Many Iraqis would not agree with this statement.
I'm still waiting for you to show us that post. I said many would die. Many have died. However, many more have died in the misdirection of Iraq.
Are you saying I support terrorists? Careful former grasshopper those are libelous words. Show me one statement I have made that supports terrorists.
So we are in Iraq because extremists somewhere have designs on the Western Hemisphere?
In a word, bullshit.
Again the question is are these Iraqis that did all this to us before we invaded their country?
So you are saying we did not lose sight of the objective by sending 90% of our forces to Iraq instead of sending an adequate amount to Astan to surround AQ and put them out of commission.
Well Einstein, bin Laden and/or the AQ that attacked us on 9/11 were not hiding in Iraq at the time we invaded that country.
Please post a single non-political viewpoint that states that premise. Please show one article by an expert in the field of terrorism/counter terrorism that shares your view and is not beholding to GWB and the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. My apologies to the late great Jimmy Breslin.
yes, history showed Churchill to have the correct opinion of what to do with Hitler. However, you ignore the historical record that clearly shows Britain would have lost had they declared war in 1938. They almost lost even declaring the phony war of 1939.
Because it is an historical fact? |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Many Iraqis would not agree with this statement. Many Iraqi's?..How many have you talked to?...How about those that went to the polls for the first time in their lives, turning out in greater percentages than we do...Again a liberal using an isolated fact and trying to use it as an accusation.
I'm still waiting for you to show us that post. I said many would die. Many have died. You said thousands and thousands...and your tone was much different than you try to imply now...for political reasons - you can keep waiting...trying to pull up a post that old...You know the odds and you're banking on it. No problem.... I remember it, and I now save the best posts for future reference..Things like how you are an eternal optimist..ya know. However, many more have died in the misdirection of Iraq.
Are you saying I support terrorists? Careful former grasshopper those are libelous words. Show me one statement I have made that supports terrorists. I'm saying the same thing I've said for the entire time...The terrorists consider our free speech a weakness that can be exploited...your words against your nations leaders are something the extremists count on. The more we are divided the more they become emboldened. And it's not libel..It's my free speech to say I believe your words and your methods border on treason....Certainly no worse than meat's accusations...If you want to be considered objective maybe you would be offended when MeatUSCG states that those that support the war on terror are complicit in murder. So take your careful line and....you know. It's not one line that I need to find...simply check your recent posts bashing the President, arguing about the war on terror verses the "war in Iraq" that supports the terrorists (our enemy) efforts.
So we are in Iraq because extremists somewhere have designs on the Western Hemisphere? YEP!....We are there because of the war on terror...because Saddam did not fulfill what the UN said he must, We are there because of those states that support terror....Saddam's Iraq being one of them
In a word, bullshit. Yeah...dress it up anyway it tastes better...But leaving Iraq the minute a democrat takes office will send a real clear message to those that wish to destroy this nation...bit by bit, piece by piece, innocent by innocent they will be emboldened to dig in and defeat the Satan they believe we are....After all, as a Professor you should understand how the extremists view nations that embrace usury.
Again the question is are these Iraqis that did all this to us before we invaded their country? Again your question defies logic...A Non sequitur...because we did not invade the nation of Iraq to tear it down, we went to Iraq and removed a murderous dictator that defied the UN one too many times. We stayed, defended them during elections and the constitutional process, rebuilding of infrastructure and are there now trying to get them to stand on their own
So you are saying we did not lose sight of the objective by sending 90% of our forces to Iraq instead of sending an adequate amount to Astan to surround AQ and put them out of commission. I think we should have sent in 300,000 troops (Iraq) and totally squashed any form of resistence...but the crying, whining liberals would have had a hay day with that....As it was we did more, in less time than any previous conflict to date, with less lives lost...but that would not appease the whining, crying, soft liberals bent on anything anti-Bush.
Well Einstein, bin Laden and/or the AQ that attacked us on 9/11 were not hiding in Iraq at the time we invaded that country. Nice try...no game though...If Hitler was hiding in New Zealand...we would have went there...If Saddam was hiding in Iraq, that's the logical place to go if you want to remove him...but you knew that, you're attempting to play cute deflection debate games because your argument is flat.
Please post a single non-political viewpoint that states that premise. Please show one article by an expert in the field of terrorism/counter terrorism that shares your view and is not beholding to GWB and the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. My apologies to the late great Jimmy Breslin. The objective portion of your post is red...do you notice that you tried to use logic, but inserted your personal feelings instead...that pretty much wipes out any chance you would receive the news that many supported this effort...because the EXPERTS you would consider EXPERTS...would only be those that you already agree with, concerning...how did you say? oh yeah.. "beholding to G.B. and the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight"
yes, history showed Churchill to have the correct opinion of what to do with Hitler. However, you ignore the historical record that clearly shows Britain would have lost had they declared war in 1938. They almost lost even declaring the phony war of 1939.
Because it is an historical fact? It is????...You are saying that this is unwavering, documented, unequivocal historical fact? Who do you know that told you first hand what went on behind closed doors in FDR white House... Here is what you are now saying is in fact an unequivocal historical fact: by some accounts, allow Pearl Harbor to happen in order to enter the war against Germany. What pray tell liberties are you using to determine that SOME ACCOUNTS creates historical fact? [QUOTE] This message has been edited. Last edited by: scrounge, |
|||
|
Experienced Member![]() |
So you are saying the only true support you can find is from Bush a$$ kissers.
Good Eddie. When you have no actual substance ask me if I went to see FDR, a man that died six years before I was born. You are certainly a piece of work. Read the history and you will find it. Wishing it were not true or wishing something was true does not make it so. Take for example your defense of GWB's every move. That doesn't make them right. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Then you may find this tidbit about FDR very interesting. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html
The biggest difference between FDR and Bush is that FDR was shrewd. FDR also recognized the power of the press and post Pearl Harbor regulated what was published and broadcast for the duration of the war. Becasue he had the entire nation behind him, WWII only lasted 4.5 years. Now Bush, like FDR, played the game but his honesty and pandering to the U.N. and the left hog tied the administration and the war effort. He could not limit or regulate the press as FDR had. Public opinion of course turned. So now 5 plus years into the war on terror, there is no end in sight due to the fractured American people. We, the American people, elect the POTUS to represent ALL of us. Obviously things are done at that level that we ALL don't agree with. That is why the POTUS is the toughest job in the world. I say let the POTUS and congress do their jobs under the system put in place by our forefathers and stop analizing every single move they make. It may also be time to start once again showing a bit of resepct for not only our leader but the leader of the free world. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
I say not only is he NOT the leader of the Free World, he is only the leader of a Clown Parade. You could line up the world's leaders, and you couldn't find ten guys to pizz on George Bush if he was on fire. Not only do we need to analyze every move he makes, we should maintain indescribable pressure via the media to torment and second-guess his every breath. That is the penalty he should face for his ineptitude in first implementing and then mishandling a conflict with Iraq. |
|||
|
|
Member |
It's well thought out, constructive comments as these that bring the war on terror to a rapid close, boost morale, and get the troops home. Well done! |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Yah, well, truth hurts ... "leader of the free world" ... what turnip truck did you fall off of?
|
|||
|
Experienced Member![]() |
Maz,
I agree with your assessment of FDR as far a his misleading ways. No doubt about the fact that he had to mislead many in order to save the world. The difference is/was he actually got it done. |
|||
|