Diogenes wrote: On his behalf, I will point out that FDR was advised by Military experts that Japan could not successfully launch torpedo attacks against American Ships in Pearl Harbor because the harbor was so shallow that the torpedoes would hit bottom and never recover. Unaware to both Roosevelt and the Military experts is the fact that the Japanese had overcome this problem.
Roosevelt wasn't aware of how bad an attack would actually be. It is possible he wanted a cosmetic attack, but never appreciated that it wouldn't be cosmetic, but massively destructive in terms of property and loss of life.
I have read that the British had decoded radio intercepts of explicit plans by the Japanese navy to attack pearl harbor a month in advance of the actual attack. It is inconceivable that Churchill would not have provided this information to Roosevelt. Much of Roosevelt's pre-war behavior can only be construed as bizarre unless it was his intention to have the United States attacked as an excuse to enter into the war.
Woodrow Wilson had done something similar previously, (Lusitania) so why would it be so shocking for Roosevelt to have followed the same methodology?
Assuming such alleged intel reached FDR's desk, and assuming it was believed. After all the Brits were known to be desperate for us to join.
The basic point is..it would have been irrelevant to the American public if the attack by the japs had failed, because pearl was warned & prepared. From the moment they attacked, we were a war with them regardless if we routed them or they us. FDR would have no reason to take such bizzare means to make the jap attack go well, it would make no difference. If you think that your just as stupid & biased as those who think Bush(or his minions) put incendiary/explosive device in the twin towers (and bld 3) to make sure the terrorist knocked them down completely. Again why would you do that? The 2nd they crashed the planes into the tower we were at war with them, regardless of how many people killed or bld knocked down.
Diogenes wrote: You mean the rooster took credit for the sunrise. World War II got us out of the Great Depression. If you want to give Roosevelt credit for involving us in that ( A position which you objected to above) then you have a point, but it certainly was not his economic policies that made any improvement in the American Economy.
The man was faced with the greatest economic catastrophe in our nation's history..he gave strong leadership and hope when it was needed. Not surprising that everything he tried didn't work. Everyone knows it was WWII that got us out of the Great Depression, the point is FDR sucessfully navigated us through both.
williatw wrote:
And his massive spending and leadership lead this country to its greatest military victory in our nations history against the existentialist threats of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy & Imperial Japan in WWII.
Diogenes wrote:Yes, he was riding the horse when it crossed the finish line. Doesn't mean he contributed anything to winning the race.
Didn't contribute anything to winning the war other than he was prez from beginning to almost the end, formulating policy. The Manhattan project, D-day, even Lend lease before the war.. yeah right he had nothing to do with any of those things. As opposed to Reagan who came into the cold war pretty late in the game but your nose is so far up his backside you seem to think he single handedly won it. Greatest president since Washington?! You gotta be freaking kidding me.
let's see 1948 to 1980:
Berlin air lift/Korean war: Truman
U2crises/McCarthyism: Eishehower
Cuban missile crises/space race/start Vietnam war: Kennedy
Space race/Vietnam war: Johnson
Recognition of China/ending said war/detente/SALT: Nixon/Ford
Seem to me your god Reagan came onto the game pretty late to be given such almost single handed credit for winning the whole thing. Would say Reagan was far more just riding the horse when it crossed the finish line than FDR was.
williatw wrote:
The American people and the world owe him for that. FDR started SS but it was a considerably more modest program under him, it was originally intended to be only a supplement to retirement income.
Diogenes wrote:He threw the rock that broke the first window. He cast the first stone at the witch. He fired the first shot. He led the mutiny. He started the avalanche. He lit the match. Without him going first, there would have been no subsequent abuses.
Doesn't excuse presidents from Eisenhower through Reagan, Clinton , and Bush up to Obama doing nothing about the explosive growth of entitlements. Your elected president to lead this country, not make excuses for what your predecessor started. If you don't think that's acceptable you have no business being president. The point is that SS worked fine under FDR that's what he is responsible for, what happens when he is captain of the ship.
williatw wrote:
[/b]As for the thing about making it illegal to own gold, that wasn't changed until under Ford 30 or so years after FDR died, many repub before Ford and after FDR could have changed it if they wanted to, again they don't get a pass.
Diogenes wrote: Many president's could have given back the land that Andrew Jackson stole from the Indians too, but that didn't happen either. That doesn't make any of them as culpable as the man who stole it in the first place!
No not for what Jackson did persee...but they did or were party to more than enough land taken/treaties broken on their own.
Diogenes wrote:williatw wrote:
So then I guess that Reagan is a failure since he started the largest(at the time) peacetime deficits to pay for his military spending(&growth of entitlements).
I keep seeing this accusation repeated. Reagan built up the military to defeat the Soviet Union. Congress Ramped up budget spending to pay off their political contributors and keep pork barreling themselves back in office. They dealt dishonestly with Reagan at every turn.
The point is, Reagans tax breaks resulted in an INCREASE of government revenue, more than enough to pay for his military buildup. However, that pile of Scum (The Democrat Congress) simply could not refrain from spending money on stupid crap, all the while blaming Reagan for the Deficit.
To sum it up, for Reagan's Defense expenditures and policies, we won the cold war and got rid of the Soviet Union. For the Democrat Congress' excessive lack of discipline during the same era,
Since it was in their best interest to blame Reagan instead of themselves, that is the popular narrative around Democrat Circles. It is not the truth. It is a lie.
williatw wrote: Sorry Diogenes no sale I blame Reagan and the Dems equally. If ones a piece of excrement then they both are..Reagan signed off on those budgets, you don't get to be prez and not take responsibility.
Diogenes wrote:Reagan traded something necessary for something unnecessary. (He traded Winning the cold war for Democrat Pork.) He made the right decision. It was worth putting up with idiot democrat spending on social programs and pet projects to contain and eliminate the threat of a Militarily aggressive soviet union. It is not right that he should be blamed for THEIR excess and stupidity regarding the deficit.
It is perfectly right, Reagan signed the budget he was president he shares in the blame along with the Dems.
williatw wrote:
Just like you don't get to be prez sell arms by the billion to our enemy khomeini's Iran, and say well Reagan gets a pass for that because carter should have double downed on the soon to be dead Shah(talk about betting on a dead horse). That would be like giving Obama a pass for not stopping the Iranians from getting the bomb (though I understand he and the Israelis are sabataging/assasinating left and right) because bush didn't do much. Sorry no sale
Diogenes wrote: Again, there is no evidence that Reagan knew what Oliver North was doing, but what Oliver north did was exactly the right thing to do. The Democrat congress had cut off the money we had promised to the Contras (Much the same way that Democrat President John Kennedy had Cut off the Air and Naval support to the Cuban Freedom Fighters who would have taken Cuba back away from Castro.) thereby backstabbing the people we had made promises to. Oliver North Sold missiles and components to Iran, cheated them heavily in the bargain, and used the proceeds to finance the Rebels in Nicaragua. The man deserves the medal of freedom for what he did, and those Democrat Bastards who cut off the money should have been placed against a wall and shot.
Come now Diogenes it was designed to leave him out of the loop of operations/planning to give him plausible deniability if uncovered. Shot for passing the law banning aid to the Contras signed by Reagan? What about god Reagan should he also have been shot? After all he signed it into law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolan_Amendment
Diogenes wrote: You are apparently not listening and not bother to learn what happened. Reagan TRIED to restrain Democrat spending, but he had to work with them. They lied and broke every promise to constrain spending, but he still had to work with them. In order to get his Necessary and ultimately vindicated spending, he had to put up with the
williatw wrote: What did we get Diogenes? Those Entitlements so beloved by a large portion of the white elderly american public. The bulk of our spending, deficit & debt. Doubt if most of your elderly white tea-party members would want SS or Medicare touched, they have made that abundantly clear. My understanding is they want the government to "not touch their medicare."
Diogenes wrote: Social Security and Medicaid are left-overs from the Roosevelt and Johnson Administrations respectively. The Democrats did not create these programs between 1980 and 1988 so therefore your point is based on mistaken information. The Entitlements we got during the 80s were Democrat pet projects such as the expansion of money for AIDS research.
Who suggested Regan or the dems(of Reagan's congress) started the entitlements? But they blew up under Reagan he signed the budgets,
"trying" to hold the line on spending isn't good enough when you are president. Again he is as responsible as the dems the 2nd he signs the budgets.