[Comrade Ogilvy]

Roosevelt the hero, or Roosevelt the rat?

The surprise Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1940 is written up in American history books as a day of infamy.

It certainly was, but not for the reasons mentioned by historians.

Did he know the attack was coming ?

Was Roosevelt, the whiter-than-white American hero of the Second World War ?

or was he a mass murderer ?

[Stygian]

I like your style smily, willing to question everything. I wish more people would free thier minds in a similar way. On to the mentioned ww2 president; I believe he was somewhere inbetween (but i certainly wouldent have put it past him to let pearl harbour happen). he desperately wanted America to cease in its iscolationism policies and what better way to get the public on his side?.

[Politicus]

Also the fact that he was elected on the campaign promise that he would not send America's sons to die in foreign lands kind of tied his hands with respect to WW2, which America was dying to get into (no pun intended).

Back when campaign promises actually meant something.

[Disenfranchised]

Nothings all black or all white FDR was the greatist president after George Washington!

[Comrade Ogilvy]

America had broken the Japanese codes and they knew weeks in advance where the Japanese fleet was located and what their intentions were.

Roosevelt refused to allow the American Navy to put to sea. Instead he deliberately left the ships and their men anchored in the harbor as sitting ducks.

When, on the morning of the attack, the Japanese were picked up on radar in Hawaii, the two operators, one of which was alive until recently, were ordered by their commanding officer to remain silent and do nothing. He knew the attack was coming.

The American sailors had no warning. They were slaughtered in their bunks as wave after wave of fighter planes bombed them.

Roosevelt, the whiter-than-white American hero of the Second World War, was a mass murderer who betrayed 2403 of his own men to a horrible death to satisfy his nasty political agenda. He needed an excuse for war,

so Pearl Harbor and its martyrs became a bit like our modern 9.11. A contrived situation designed to stir Americans' anger so they will agree to finance war industries.

[Sponge Bob Square Pants]

There is no historical basis for you argument. What sources do you have?

FDR was a hero, he suplied ships and supplies to britain and even used US ships to escort convoys when the majority of US opinion wanted to stay out of the war.

[clownboy]

FDR was a hero, he suplied ships and supplies to britain and even used US ships to escort convoys when the majority of US opinion wanted to stay out of the war.

Depends on who you ask, then and now.

As President he's supposed to be subject to "the will of the people", right? The vast majority of the people (and Congress) were strongly isolationist. By skirting the grey areas, didn't he frustrate the will of those he swore to serve?

Interesting parallels to today's Presidents. Should the President act against the general interests and wishes of his people when there is a "greater good of the world" involved?

[Sponge Bob Square Pants]

Depends on who you ask, then and now.

As President he's supposed to be subject to "the will of the people", right? The vast majority of the people (and Congress) were strongly isolationist. By skirting the grey areas, didn't he frustrate the will of those he swore to serve?

Interesting parallels to today's Presidents. Should the President act against the general interests and wishes of his people when there is a "greater good of the world" involved?

I posted purely from a British perspective.

Otherwise you are right, he acted against public opinion.

[The One.]

A president's role I believe is to lead the people.

A person is an intelligent being however "masses" are dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb sheeps.

A president has access to intelligence reports that no one else would see,know mouvements of troops that no one would hear about. I think people and congress should allow flexibility when it comes to national security.

[Politicus]

A president's role I believe is to lead the people.

If by president you mean monarch and by people you mean subjects, then I totally agree with you.

A person is an intelligent being however "masses" are dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb sheeps.

Too bad you weren't present at the constitutional convention to help the delegates out with this "fact".

A president has access to intelligence reports that no one else would see,know mouvements of troops that no one would hear about. I think people and congress should allow flexibility when it comes to national security.

Yes, because becoming president is like winning a lottery for being a king. You get to do whatever it is that pleases you for the duration of your term. Whether you like playing with the nation's resources or handing them over to corporations for safe keeping for when your term runs out leaving the next president that much less to play with. I would almost say that it's like feudalism with an election process, but recently it appears that hereditary rule is back.

[The One.]

If by president you mean monarch and by people you mean subjects, then I totally agree with you.

And if not?

Too bad you weren't present at the constitutional convention to help the delegates out with this "fact".

That's just too bad

Yes, because becoming president is like winning a lottery for being a king.

Damn, how come candidates have to make speeches before the people to influence their votes then?

You get to do whatever it is that pleases you for the duration of your term.

I said flexibility and only on national security matter.

Whether you like playing with the nation's resources or handing them over to corporations for safe keeping for when your term runs out leaving the next president that much less to play with.

Read.

I would almost say that it's like feudalism with an election process, but recently it appears that hereditary rule is back.

Read.

[Politicus]

Yes, because becoming president is like winning a lottery for being a king.

Damn, how come candidates have to make speeches before the people to influence their votes then?

Even in a lottery you have pick the numbers or have them picked for you. That's what they're doing. It's not like they actually have to speak though. Candidates don't even contribute sound bytes to TV commercials anymore. This is the epitome of indolence and you're valorizing them?

You get to do whatever it is that pleases you for the duration of your term.

I said flexibility and only on national security matter.

Do you lack education or just feign it as part of your PoFo persona? I provide the following quotes in good faith that it could be the former.

Herman Goehring at Nuremberg:

naturally the common people don’t want war in any country, but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist leadership, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders in time of war.

Major General Smedley Butler, USMC:

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

So there you go. As leader, you divert the nation's resources to do your bidding. There are other ways though. Bill Clinton, for example, used a blowjob to divert national attention from his political agenda. Hey, whatever gets your juices flowing.

Mel Brooks:

It's good to be king.

[The One.]

Even in a lottery you have pick the numbers or have them picked for you. That's what they're doing. It's not like they actually have to speak though. Candidates don't even contribute sound bytes to TV commercials anymore. This is the epitome of indolence and you're valorizing them?

Well it's the fault of the people if they elect candidates that don't want to speak. But hell what are you talking about they don't speak? They're litteraly flooding my TV screen and news reports with the democratic race for party leadership!! they do is talk talk talk!

So there you go. As leader, you divert the nation's resources to do your bidding. There are other ways though. Bill Clinton, for example, used a blowjob to divert national attention from his political agenda. Hey, whatever gets your juices flowing.

Yeah FDR acted this way to do his own bidding. What kind of personal interest FDR saw as so important to make him take such a stance?

That is why the people needs to keep them in check and that is why we have democracy. But HELL if we have stupid politicians in power like bill clinton that is because of the people. Unhappy?VOTE REPUBLICAN.

I think you have gotten my opinions wrong. .I said flexibility, but flexibility on small matters, like for example FDR support for great britain or him freezing german assets.What was the big deal? Hitler -with stalin- was the biggest prick on earth,what the heck was wrong with supplying the UK who stood alone against fascism? If everyone jumped off a bridge would you go?

Of course war is not a matter to be taken lightly, but FDR did not go to war without the consent of the people did he?

As I said,a leader's role is to lead. The leader must convince the people to follow him and can take actions in the direction where he thinks the people would support him and is in the good of the nation. If you ain't happy rally people against him or vote republican in the next election.

War is not a racket,it is nescessary.

If you want peace,prepare for war

It is good to be king.Damn right.

[Politicus]

Of course war is not a matter to be taken lightly, but FDR did not go to war without the consent of the people did he?

No of course not, but it's pretty myopic to think that the story ends there.

You never heard of the McCollum Memo, have you?

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm

That's the most concise treatment I could find.

Unhappy?VOTE REPUBLICAN.

You probably missed my sig. I already am a HUGE HUGE fan of dubya and what he's done for the top 0.01% of Americans I so fondly admire. If only I wasn't born stupid, lazy and grotesquely unphotogenic, I too could earn a gazillion dollars from my struggle to bear the burden for the rest of America... no, the free world even.

[The One.]

No of course not, but it's pretty myopic to think that the story ends there.

You never heard of the McCollum Memo, have you?

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm

That's the most concise treatment I could find.

I would not say he pushed the japs for war. Mcmollum has written a memo in which he says that if the japs attacked,it would be good but that is unconclusive, the japs were acting on their own behalf and their decision to go to war was theirs not roosevelt's.

What FDR did was merely not to give up to the demands of an imperialistic fascist country with a backward system and ideology.

What makes the theory illogical is that if FDR knew of the attacks and had the intelligence pointing to a jap attack why haven't he warned the public? It would have been a good enough reason to go to war even despite strong isolationnist tendencies!

You probably missed my sig. I'm already am a HUGE HUGE fan of dubya and what he's done for the top 0.01% of Americans I so fondly admire. If only I wasn't born stupid, lazy and grotesquely unphotogenic, I too could earn a gazillion dollars from my struggle to bear the burden for the rest of America... no, the free world even.

Cool . Im glad to see a bush supporter. Proving that americans are not all demo-rat sheeps.
But you could do even more by donating for his campaign!

Bush n' Cheney for '04!

[clownboy]

Along with possibly forcing the American people into a war they did not want (sound familiar? ), he also began the planned secularization of American society.

Take a look at a one dollar bill, on the back, under the pyramid, "novus ordo seclorum". In latin that's, "New Secular Order". Designed by FDR and his VP (both Masons). He told the congressial committee it meant "New Deal". Congress made him include "In God We Trust".

This is just another example of leading the people in a direction that they clearly oppose, and lying to them in the process.

So, if you don't like our current president's SOP, you really gotta hate FDR.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

TRP you must be a sheep considering you are a follower of bush..
I my self am the force within, I dont vote for any of the elitist cunts.

[Balthaak]

Well, actually, the bombing on Perl Harbour occured because the Americans have cut out the oil trade routes passing the Pacific. Because Japan has no oil or gas, their economy and production was brought to a halt, and they considered this the best way to respond.

Take a look at a one dollar bill, on the back, under the pyramid, "novus ordo seclorum". In latin that's, "New Secular Order". Designed by FDR and his VP (both Masons). He told the congressial committee it meant "New Deal". Congress made him include "In God We Trust".

I find this quite discriminating to atheists.

I'm already am a HUGE HUGE fan of dubya

Why? Are you stupid too? (No offense) He was the worst president that the USA ever had!

[fastspawn]

I'm already am a HUGE HUGE fan of dubya

Why? Are you stupid too? (No offense) He was the worst president that the USA ever had!

Damnit no one gets politics sarcasm do they.

[clownboy]

I find this quite discriminating to atheists.

O'hare hadn't made it a "religion" yet, or even founded the Atheists. Until just recently, those who didn't believe in God kept that lack of belief to themselves. In fact, if the belief was different from the "Christian norm" of the community, it too was practiced privately.

Much like homosexuality.