Help with debunking email from RW cousin

He is compaing the lies Bushit told to get us into a war with what FRD did in WWII. I think FDR probably did lie but why and why was it justified?

for $$/power suits.

it wasn't.

was incomparable to that posed by Hitler and Hirohito. Not that I think lying to get into a war is justified at all, but still...

and get back to me if he says anything.

Really, the China/Japan thing was about the most deceptive thing I know of, and he choices vis a vis Japan would have been limited, even had there been no European fascism to worry about. Totalitarianism was very much on the rise in the late 30's.

We are talking about the destruction of Nanking, which makes 911 look like small beans indeed.

..the obvious. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Did Iraq attack us?

Nope....but of course he will try to portray all Muslims as monolithic. "They" attacked us on 9/11. ""They" all hate us for our freedom, blah, blah, blah. Aside from the fact that this is a really lame arguement, you might ask him why in WWII we only declared war against Japan and her right-wing ally, Nazi Germany. Why didn't we attack China, Korea, etc--after all, they are Asians like the Japanese.

Peace Out

This is by far one of their sillier talking points so far. And have you noticed they keep bringing up WWII and comparing that war to Iraq? AS IF!!

But tell your cousin this - Iraq did NOT attack us on 9/11. Japan DID attack us. So this comparison would be fair if we had declared war with China after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

No lie, and no comparison.

that's the crux of the whole Iraq/Iran debate.

If you killed someone because you thought they may kill somebody someday, you would go to prison or the looney bin.

War is the act of violence against a nation - the same rules apply.

First, what does he say FDR lied about? There is a CT that FDR knew of the attack and refused to defend against it, to justify getting us into war. That's never been proven, and seems unlikely, since too much of our military was in Pearl Harbor to make that a wise decision. Even if it turns out to be true, they still attacked us. Iraq never did.

Second, there was a war already going on in WWII. We didn't start it, and we didn't invade anyone until we were attacked.

Third, I've heard some Repubs claim that we attacked Germany even though Japan attacked us, claiming that was similar to Bush attacking Iraq when Al-Queda attacked us. It's a false comparison. First, Germany declared war on us before we got involved in Europe. Second, Germany and Japan were allies and had agreements to attack anyone who attacked either one of them. There was no connection between Iraq and Al-Queda.

Fourth, put WW II into context. It was a war that was affecting every nation. It was an active, hot war, not some vague potential threat. And the enemy was an actual military power with whom negotiations had failed, not a depleted nation on the verge of collapse who had given in to most of our demands, and was actively seeking a diplomatic solution even as we began dropping bombs on them.

Fifth, thank him for admitting Bush lied. Most Right Wingers aren't honest or smart enough. Now ask him if he really feels good about supporting a man he admits lied to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

WW II was a war. It was not as clear-cut or as innocent on our side as we are taught, but it was clearly a war with no diplomatic solutions. Our invasion of Iraq was an attempt to murder one man Bush didn't like, and resulted in the murders of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. WWII was a war before we got involved. No war would have happened with Iraq if Bush had not lied. In fact, quite the opposite--lives would have been spared, the nation would have been more stable, and our greatest enemy, Al-Queda, would not have gained a foothold if we had not invaded.

None of this will probably matter to your cousin. Anyone who has not already admitted the war was a mistake is incapable of learning, at this point.

My last post didnt go through so I will try again.
FDR most certainly lied and did a few pretty shady dealings behind the back of Congress.
(I know: "OH NO I cant listen to this!!!! la, la, la not FDR! He'd never lie to us!)
America was certainly not sure about whether we should jump in on the side of Britain. It was even worse than the debate in the WW1 because this time many Americans thought, rightly, that Hitler was the creation of the Allied powers and thus we dont need to get tangled up in anyones damn war since we screwed the peace up so bad the last time. FDR knew we needed to get in on Churchill's side so he made a whole gambit of deals to essentially give Britain whatever it needed free of charge (put it on my tab) congress was not consulted on this deal until after it was made and he used all of the power of his office to put pressure on them to pass it. All of this was done while loudly procraiming our neutrality. It was also done well before a US ship was ever attacked. However it put Hitler into a position where he would have to attack a US ship and he declared open season for U-boats on neutral-flagged ships. As soon as the first merchant was sunk, US opinon started to see things FDR's way.

As for Japan, they most certainly wanted no such thing as a direct conflict with the US. They knew that we would out-produce them. Yamamoto/Tojo/Hirohito envisioned the Japanese Empire as and Asian and Pacific Empire. They did not want to go play in the US's kiddie pool. They wanted to rule Asia, destroy British footholds in India, Burma, and Australia and cow the US into leaving the Phillipines and the Solomons by sheer momentum. They wanted their empire and resources to be so vast that the US would stay on their side of Hawaii. FDR was advised, rightly, that the only shot was to make Japan strike early, while they were still bogged down in China. But once again that silly american populace and congress didnt see things that way. If they didnt want a war with Germany, the CERTAINLY didnt want a war with Japan. So without even consulting anyone in congress, he issued orders to position the US fleet in such a way that Japan was sure a preemtive strike was in the works. Japan saw their chance and struck. There is even a "tinfoil" theory that the radar operators at Pearl were given orders to ignore the contacts that they saw inbound so that the attack would appear all the more heinous.

None of this necessarily parrallels to Iraq, but I thought Id set the record straight.

We certainly weren't as neutral as we claimed, as I said in my first post. But there was nothing of the type of lie that Bush told to start the Iraq invasion. He created a war out of thin air. With FDR, there was already a war going on. It was already affecting us and our interests. FDR tried to affect the war behind the scenes, by supplying Britain, and by his military/diplomatic dance with Japan in the Pacific. I don't think he was trying to get us into the war (if there's irrefutable evidence that he was, I haven't seen it). I think he figured it would happen, and he was preparing for it. And he was pushing Japan, figuring they would have to give in or fight.

But he didn't lie to start a war out of thin air, the way Bush did. There is no equivalent of Powell standing before the UN and lying about WMDs. Well, unless you count Hitler and his excuses for invading Poland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia.

As for whether FDR was right or wrong, I can't say. It was a different world, and there is no telling how it would have been different if FDR had reacted differently. War does call for a different set of standards, and again, FDR did not start the war. Unlike Bush.

Is anything about this world today similar to what it was then?


He breezed right by Raygun and Millhouse in the process.

Japan attacked us and delivered the Dec. of War as the bombs were going off in Pearl Harbor . . . Iraq, um, well, they might have attacked us in 45 minutes (if they ever had the capabilities . . . where are those WMDs, already?)

We didn't go to Japan to "spread Democracy" . . .

BTW, where's he getting the FDR "lies"? Bet his source has "Regnery" all over it . . .

Germany declared war on US. Pretty straightforward story.

Now, many people believe that FDR ignored (or suppressed) clear warnings that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, but that has yet to be proven. Regardless, even if true, that would be subterfuge but not lying to get into war. To make it somehow analogous to Iraq, you would have to delude yourself that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (they didn't) and that we somehow suppressed... Oh hell, just give him a link to an encyclopedia eg http://www.bartleby.com/65/ tell him to switch off Rush and Fox News and learn how to think. Life is too short to waste on those who refuse to see reality.

The view to which I refer holds that FDR hoped that Japan would become fed up with the diplomacy game and attack a U. S. army or naval base (such as the U. S. airbase in the Philippines). The view is that FDR wanted the U. S. to enter the war and that an attack by Japan on an army or naval base would provide the U. S. with proper justification to do so. Of course, FDR did not realize that Pearl Harbor would be one of Japan's targets. For more on this view, read the chapter "Pieces of Paper" in John Costello's The Pacific War (1981).

And is he claiming some other country (like England maybe? perhaps Brazil) actually bombed Pearl Harbor?

On another note: just to nitpick with the claim "Iraq never attacked us", it did. In 1987, when an Iraqi Mirage jet fired an Exocet missile into the USS Stark.

But that was OK with St. Ron, so I guess it doesn't count.

"I'm sorry the leaders you trusted and believed in have turned out to be corrupt and dishonest almost beyond belief. It must be hard. But no amount of nit-picking about the follies of other political leaders is going to make that corruption and dishonesty go away." End of discussion.

Maybe it's time we stopped arguing.

Abe Lincoln with Beavis and Butthead.

You cant compare two people who are so far apart .One guy cared about the American people, one guy uses them to get his agenda across. One guy may have told a lie to help the country, one guy lied and it helped the few on top who owned military industry stock.