Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The document's intent may not have been, but of the eight points recommended, seven were followed by the authorities who read the document. FDR wanted war, this was well-known even at the time (although before Watergate, nobody publicly accused Presidents of having sinister agendas.)
If FDR's desires were so well know you should be able to point to sources, right??? I'm not convinced.
List those seven when you find time, I'm thinking some of those seven were consensus ideas within the administration already. You cannot even show that FDR saw this memo.
Seems FDR didn't start this war, he wasn't pressing the league of nations or congress for authority to attack, he took a passive hands off approach. Sure he wanted to support our allies and sold enough war material to keep England afloat, but I'm not seeing where FDR was driving us toward war.
Dude the better part of the globe was at war and we were bound to be drawn into it sooner or later. FACT is we were attacked, what party the prez belonged to had ZERO to do with that. What was the vote on the declaration on war? How many R's held out.
Last edited by buzzards27; 03-21-2012 at 04:30 PM..
Historically, most recent wars were initiated by Democratic governments.
You could say in a way the Civil War was, since the Democrats were largely associated with the South.
World War I - Woodrow Wilson, Democrat
World War II - Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman
Korean War - Probably the exception
Vietnam War - LBJ
The wars in the Middle East, yes were started by Republicans.
That's right...
Desert Storm: Bush sr
Afghanistan: Bush jr
Iraq: Bush jr
Quote:
But Obama isn't really any less of a warmonger than the Republicans,
Feel free to list the wars Obama has started, then.
Quote:
but why are conservatives/Republicans seen as being more pro-war?
Oh, I dunno...
Maybe because three of the four bozos now running for the GOP nomination have indicated repeatedly how they can't wait to mix it up with Iran. Ron Paul (the only one with any military experience) is the exception.
So, to review, in the past quarter century, republicans have been responsible for all 3 wars the US has initiated. And they're now looking to start a fourth.
Feel free to list the wars Obama has started, then.
Oh, I dunno...
Maybe because three of the four bozos now running for the GOP nomination have indicated repeatedly how they can't wait to mix it up with Iran. Ron Paul (the only one with any military experience) is the exception.
So, to review, in the past quarter century, republicans have been responsible for all 3 wars the US has initiated. And they're now looking to start a fourth.
Maybe that's why.
Just a guess, mind you.
Don't forget the smaller wars the R's have put us into...
Granada, Panama, Somalia, Beirut, and this War on TERRA that is really a open ticket to go into any country Bush wanted to. Any other small wars??? Was reagun's illegal aid into the Nicaragua conflict another? Iran-Contra, Ollie North anyone?
Don't forget the smaller wars the R's have put us into...
Granada, Panama, Somalia, Beirut, and this War on TERRA that is really a open ticket to go into any country Bush wanted to. Any other small wars???
And the D's (Bosnia, Kosovo, etc). And "any country Bush wanted to" does not equal what he actually did. Why didn't he order the invasion of North Korea? An actual "warmonger" would have done just that.
Quote:
Was reagun's illegal aid into the Nicaragua conflict another? Iran-Contra, Ollie North anyone?
Feel free to list the wars Obama has started, then.
Oh, I dunno...
Maybe because three of the four bozos now running for the GOP nomination have indicated repeatedly how they can't wait to mix it up with Iran. Ron Paul (the only one with any military experience) is the exception.
So, to review, in the past quarter century, republicans have been responsible for all 3 wars the US has initiated. And they're now looking to start a fourth.
Maybe that's why.
Just a guess, mind you.
We know how you and the *******s have a selective memory even though we won't let you get away with your *******iness. No quarter given, none received.
Remind me, Bosnia, Kosovo were those limited air patrols under NATO authority???? Did we invade? Did we start either?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
And the D's (Bosnia, Kosovo, etc). And "any country Bush wanted to" does not equal what he actually did. Why didn't he order the invasion of North Korea? An actual "warmonger" would have done just that.
Remind me, Bosnia, Kosovo were those limited air patrols under NATO authority???? Did we invade? Did we start either?
I meant sending troops to other countries. If you want to get technical, the U.S. Congress has not declared war since WWII.
Quote:
Oh, but it was illegal.
No, it wasn't.
The Boland Amendment prohibited the federal gov't from providing military support for the "purpose of overthrowing the Gov't of Nicaragua." Aimed to prevent the CIA funding of rebels opposed to the then Marxist-elected gov't of Nicaragua, the Boland Amendment sought to block the Reagan Administration support for the Contra rebels. The amendment, however, as interpreted by the Reagan Administration, was only to apply to U.S. intelligence agencies, allowing the National Security Agency, not so labeled, to channel funds to the Contra rebels.
The Boland Amendment was clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of the President's clear authority to conduct foreign policy and flew in the face of the Monroe Doctrine, which the U.S. had relied on for the previous 150 years.
I meant sending troops to other countries. If you want to get technical, the U.S. Congress has not declared war since WWII.
No, it wasn't.
The Boland Amendment prohibited the federal gov't from providing military support for the "purpose of overthrowing the Gov't of Nicaragua." Aimed to prevent the CIA funding of rebels opposed to the then Marxist-elected gov't of Nicaragua, the Boland Amendment sought to block the Reagan Administration support for the Contra rebels. The amendment, however, as interpreted by the Reagan Administration, was only to apply to U.S. intelligence agencies, allowing the National Security Agency, not so labeled, to channel funds to the Contra rebels.
The Boland Amendment was clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of the President's clear authority to conduct foreign policy and flew in the face of the Monroe Doctrine, which the U.S. had relied on for the previous 150 years.
You're looking ridiculous. Bush's War of TERRA received a vote from congress AUTHORIZING the use of force, that is still in effect. That is the same as a declaration of war.
Other congressional authorizations for military action since WWII
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, August 7, 1964
S.J.R. 159 September 29, 1983, Lebanon.
H.R.J. Res. 77 January 12, 1991, Iraq
S.J. Res. 23 September 14, 2001, Afghanistan
H.J. Res. 114, March 3, 2003, Iraq
What Ollie and Reagun did was ILLEGAL what Reagun thinks about the law doesn't define the law. When was the Boland Amendment ruled unconstitutional?
Quote:
During fiscal year 1985, no funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization, movement or individual.”
Historically, most recent wars were initiated by Democratic governments.
You could say in a way the Civil War was, since the Democrats were largely associated with the South.
World War I - Woodrow Wilson, Democrat
World War II - Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman
Korean War - Probably the exception
Vietnam War - LBJ
The wars in the Middle East, yes were started by Republicans. But Obama isn't really any less of a warmonger than the Republicans, but why are conservatives/Republicans seen as being more pro-war?
This is a common illustration for which political party's presidents actually start wars or simply send our military in, to break things and kill.
We know how you and the *******s have a selective memory even though we won't let you get away with your *******iness. No quarter given, none received.
And the best part is that none of your conservatard spin alters the fact that over the past quarter century, all wars have been started by GOP presidents. That you'd like to go back two hundred years to try to make a point just smacks of desperation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
