Should we allow other countries to decide whether we go to war?

[Rigby5]

Since in my opinion; notice I said my opinion, we have seen what happens when countries try to appease as Chamberlain did, and because of History, we also know what the Nazis were thinking if Chamberlain didn't............they were going to run like hell.

First of all, Chamberlain bought valuable time, so appeasement was good strategy.
But second of all, WWI and the Treaty of Versailles was both totally criminal BY the Allies. The Allies had murdered Archduke Ferdinand and his wife, and had started the hostilities by invading southern Germany. Not to mention illegal confiscation of German property, ships, colonies, factories, borderlands, etc.
But third is the fact the war was likely no matter what Chamberlain did, because the US, British, and German corporations wanted munitions profits.

 

[Rigby5]

Great Britain commenced both World Wars with a declaration of war against Germany. Once they began, it was inevitable that we would come to the rescue of our English speaking cousins. The machinations of getting there are immaterial to this fact.

As Winston Churchill said: "You cans always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities."

The US was totally wrong to enter either war, WWI or WWII.
The Allies were the bad guys in both.
Go look at a map before WWI, there is no Poland.

 

[Rigby5]

Why should we be ceding anything to anybody? Ukraine is not ours to cede, and NATO has plenty of power to protect its member countries.

The Ukraine has NO claim at all to the Crimea, Donetsk, etc.
The fact Khrushchev was a Ukrainian and simply transferred these ethnic Russian people, is not a valid legal move. It violates the principle of "local autonomy".
The locals in half the Ukraine are Russian, and do not at all like Kyiv.

 

[Rigby5]

I also have heard the theory on FDR and Pearl Harbor, but as of yet, it has never been proven as far as I know, just a conspiracy theory. Therefore, if we can't even agree on the facts from which to draw our conclusions, debate on the issue is a waste of bandwidth. It is not I am uninformed, it is that I am using what is at present history, and you are using a theory that has yet to force history to be rewritten, and trying to present it as present day accepted facts.

It had been long proven the US had intercepted, decoded, and were aware of the Japanese fleet steaming towards Pearl Harbor.
The only defense is the claim that the messages were mistakenly sent from CA to DC by motorcycle currier instead of phone or radio, which no sane person would possibly believe, since it had been sent from the Pacific to CA by radio already.
No one aware of the contents of the messages, would have deliberately delayed them by a week unless they wanted to start a war.
And if Pearl had been warned, they could have repelled the attack and it would not necessarily have started a war.
The failure to warn Pearl had to be deliberate.
The decoded messages should have gone to the cmdr at Pearl first, not DC.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You are uninformed.

Both Wilson and FDR provoked war.

Read up on Wilson’s many provocations against Germany, particularly the sinking of the Lusitania.

FDR did much the same, provoking Germany and Japan. Read up on his numerous economic and absurd demands against Japan, and his foreknowledge of the coming attack on Pearl Harbor. Allowing him to move out the carriers and his favorite battleship, just prior to the attack.

His moving the US pacific fleet to Pearl was a provocation, but also making it entirely defenseless from air attack. He dismissed the commander of the Pacific Fleet because he opposed the move. He also scapegoated the commanders at Pearl, after the attack. Though he refused to warn them the attack was coming. Nice guy.

The Media Limit the Questions That Should Be Asked

FDR moved the carriers out of Pearl in order to closely shadow the Japanese fleet heading for Southeast Asia. He hoped this would provoke an attack on our fleet out there, which would have fared a lot better than the sitting ducks left at Pearl.

His oil embargo against Japan is internationally recognized as an act of war. So why didn't we seize the Arab oilfields after their 1973 embargo?
Nixon planned to do that, but the Deep State forced him not to. It would've prevented the recession afterwards, which was the real reason he got no popular support in defending himself against the trivial Watergate political hijinks.

 

[jwoodie]

To be fair, you have to realize that in WWI, the U.S. Stayed out of it until 1917, when the Zimmerman note, a secret telegram sent on Jan. 16, 1917, by German foreign secretary Arthur Zimmermann to Count Johann von Bernstorff, the German ambassador to the United States. In it Zimmermann said that in the event of war with the United States, Mexico should be asked to enter the war as a German ally. In return, Germany promised to restore to Mexico the lost territories of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. British intelligence intercepted and deciphered the telegram and sent it to President Woodrow Wilson, who released it on Mar. 1, 1917, to the press. The Zimmermann note helped turn U.S. public opinion against Germany during World War I and strengthened the advocates of U.S. entry into the war. Britain did not drag us into that war.


In WWII, The U.S. was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, so we declared war on them. In turn, Germany declared war on us. Britain didn't drag us into that war, the japs and jerries declared war on us.

The Zimmerman note was used as an excuse to declare war on Germany, not a precipitating reason. If anything, the sinking of the Lusitania was a more compelling reason, yet President Wilson sent a strongly worded telegram to the Kaiser instead. In both of these events, British perfidy seems to have been at play: The Zimmerman note was allegedly decoded by the British and then forwarded to the U.S. for obvious reasons, and the "passenger liner" Lusitania was indeed carrying war materiel to Great Britain which made her a legitimate target for German submarines.

As for WW2, our increasingly belligerent supplying of war materials to Great Britain and Russia made war with Germany inevitable. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor simply moved up the timeline. Hitler's intemperate declaration of war a few days later merely gave the U.S. a rationale for devoting most of its war efforts against Germany instead of Japan.

 

[jwoodie]

Your knowledge of history and current events in underwhelming.

So are your inane one-liners.

 

[Rigby5]

The Media Limit the Questions That Should Be Asked

FDR moved the carriers out of Pearl in order to closely shadow the Japanese fleet heading for Southeast Asia. He hoped this would provoke an attack on our fleet out there, which would have fared a lot better than the sitting ducks left at Pearl.

His oil embargo against Japan is internationally recognized as an act of war. So why didn't we seize the Arab oilfields after their 1973 embargo?
Nixon planned to do that, but the Deep State forced him not to. It would've prevented the recession afterwards, which was the real reason he got no popular support in defending himself against the trivial Watergate political hijinks.

Wrong.
The US fleet of carriers did NOT at all shadow anyone.
They were sent officially "on maneuvers", and totally kept away from everyone and in radio silence.
And the Japanese fleet was NOT heading for Southeast Asia, but Hawaii.
And it would be insane to risk carriers as the ships to make contact with, since they are the most easily sunk and the most expensive. You always hold them in reserve and protect or hide them.

The US oil embargo against Japan was illegal because it was not our oil.
The 1973 Arab oil embargo was legal because it was Arab oil.

 

[jwoodie]

I also have heard the theory on FDR and Pearl Harbor, but as of yet, it has never been proven as far as I know, just a conspiracy theory. Therefore, if we can't even agree on the facts from which to draw our conclusions, debate on the issue is a waste of bandwidth. It is not I am uninformed, it is that I am using what is at present history, and you are using a theory that has yet to force history to be rewritten, and trying to present it as present day accepted facts.

I do not believe that FDR deliberately provoked the attack on Pearl Harbor. The consensus of Naval thinking at the time was that it was impossible to send a huge task force over three thousand miles and conduct a massive aerial shore bombardment. That is why the Philippines, Guam and Midway were considered the only feasible targets, and the U.S. fleet was concentrated in Pearl Harbor as a quick reaction force. Fortunately, our aircraft carriers were already out at sea in contemplation of these attacks. Unfortunately, Army ground radar installations were not yet fully operational, and it was felt that the greatest threat to Pearl Harbor was from local saboteurs.

 

[jwoodie]

It had been long proven the US had intercepted, decoded, and were aware of the Japanese fleet steaming towards Pearl Harbor.
The only defense is the claim that the messages were mistakenly sent from CA to DC by motorcycle currier instead of phone or radio, which no sane person would possibly believe, since it had been sent from the Pacific to CA by radio already.
No one aware of the contents of the messages, would have deliberately delayed them by a week unless they wanted to start a war.
And if Pearl had been warned, they could have repelled the attack and it would not necessarily have started a war.
The failure to warn Pearl had to be deliberate.
The decoded messages should have gone to the cmdr at Pearl first, not DC.

The decoded messages to the Japanese Embassy in Washington indicted that a major strike by the Japanese navy was imminent, but the specific target was unknown.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Those idiots in Europe have been killing each other for 2,000 years. Maybe we should let them blow each other to hell.

It's too darn late......they've already infected the major political party with European ideoloy from Rousseau, Hegel and Marx.

 

[BluesLegend]

It's too darn late......they've already infected the major political party with European ideoloy from Rousseau, Hegel and Marx.

Europeans are inbred.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I do not believe that FDR deliberately provoked the attack on Pearl Harbor. The consensus of Naval thinking at the time was that it was impossible to send a huge task force over three thousand miles and conduct a massive aerial shore bombardment. That is why the Philippines, Guam and Midway were considered the only feasible targets, and the U.S. fleet was concentrated in Pearl Harbor as a quick reaction force. Fortunately, our aircraft carriers were already out at sea in contemplation of these attacks. Unfortunately, Army ground radar installations were not yet fully operational, and it was felt that the greatest threat to Pearl Harbor was from local saboteurs.

Nor I.

But there is clear evidence that FDR's BFF, Stalin, put the idea into the Japanese to change their target from Russia.


In 1995,Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed "Operation Snow," the plan to manipulate Japan and America into war.
In "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History," Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter make a very strong case for Pearl Harbor being the most complex and successful KGB operation, designed to avert a Japanese attack on the USSR, and to force the United States to fight a two-front war, and be unable to stop Stalin from control of at least half of Europe. In 1995, former Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed his role in this "Operation Snow."

Pavlov "was sent to the United States seven months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to meet with Harry Dexter White, then director of Monetary Research for the Treasury.

Did "Snow" mean "White"? Yes, it did.

Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset" since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury.


Pavlov wrote that the Soviets feared a Japanese attack from the east, and his mission was to discuss with White what could be done to keep the Japanese from joining forces with the Germans."
Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History
[Operation Snow http://nation.time.com/2012/12/07/pearl-harbor-2-0/]


Such was the Roosevelt Administration, an effective aid to Stalin’s plans.

 

[22lcidw]

First of all, Chamberlain bought valuable time, so appeasement was good strategy.
But second of all, WWI and the Treaty of Versailles was both totally criminal BY the Allies. The Allies had murdered Archduke Ferdinand and his wife, and had started the hostilities by invading southern Germany. Not to mention illegal confiscation of German property, ships, colonies, factories, borderlands, etc.
But third is the fact the war was likely no matter what Chamberlain did, because the US, British, and German corporations wanted munitions profits.

The then globalists played their role. That few year period made a lot of changes in the world. In the United States they got the Fiat Currency they wanted, the Federal Income Tax and the 17th Amendment. In Russia they got the Soviet Union and in Europe they got WW 1. A good haul.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So are your inane one-liners.

At least my one-liners are true.

 

[jwoodie]

Nor I.

But there is clear evidence that FDR's BFF, Stalin, put the idea into the Japanese to change their target from Russia.


In 1995,Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed "Operation Snow," the plan to manipulate Japan and America into war.
In "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History," Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter make a very strong case for Pearl Harbor being the most complex and successful KGB operation, designed to avert a Japanese attack on the USSR, and to force the United States to fight a two-front war, and be unable to stop Stalin from control of at least half of Europe. In 1995, former Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed his role in this "Operation Snow."

Pavlov "was sent to the United States seven months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to meet with Harry Dexter White, then director of Monetary Research for the Treasury.

Did "Snow" mean "White"? Yes, it did.

Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset" since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury.


Pavlov wrote that the Soviets feared a Japanese attack from the east, and his mission was to discuss with White what could be done to keep the Japanese from joining forces with the Germans."
Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History
[Operation Snow http://nation.time.com/2012/12/07/pearl-harbor-2-0/]


Such was the Roosevelt Administration, an effective aid to Stalin’s plans.

Oh, you and your conspiracy theories. What are you going to suggest next? That the Rosenbergs were Soviet spies?

 

[HandleTheTruth]

If you know America is allied with that country and duty bound by treaty to protect that country if attacked then you made your choice in the matter. Don't mess with the bull.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Just musing about the two World Wars of the last century wherein Great Britain declared war on Germany and the U.S. was dragged in to bail it out. In both cases, GB entered into or reaffirmed military commitments to previously neutral third countries (Belgium and Poland) who then relied on GB to protect them from Germany. This promised protection never materialized and GB felt obligated to start both wars in order to save its reputation. This led to more than 100 million deaths worldwide and the replacement of the British Empire with the Soviet Union, not to mention the Communist subjugation of Eastern Europe. Good job, Brits!

The U.S. is now facing a similar in Europe, where we have guaranteed the sovereignty of the Ukraine, a country to which we had no previous obligation to defend. Instead, we egged that country on to confront Russia with a potential NATO adversary right on its doorstep. Like Belgium in WW1 and Poland in WW2, the Ukraine has put up a valiant but hopeless struggle to defend its borders from foreign incursion. And like Great Britain before us, we have now committed ourselves to a war over a country that does not represent our vital interests.

Does anyone here think that Ukraine can defeat Russia without our direct military involvement? Does anyone believe that a "no fly zone" can be established without serious repercussions? And where will that lead, other than the deterioration of our own economy and ability to control our own destiny? Are we really making the world safe for democracy, or just safe for Democrats?

So which countries went into Congress and voted for the US to go to war?

The US makes choices. It does not get dragged into wars it doesn't want to get dragged into.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, you and your conspiracy theories. What are you going to suggest next? That the Rosenbergs were Soviet spies?

....or....that Obama is a crypto-Islamist?????

 

[HandleTheTruth]

....or....that Obama is a crypto-Islamist?????

Even after they attacked him for his Christian pastor.