Originally Posted By mawnck FWIW: >>President Barack Obama stands by his campaign vow not to raise taxes on middle-income Americans to deal with rising budget deficits or pay for an overhaul of the U.S. health-care system, his spokesman said. “The president was clear during the campaign about his commitment on not raising taxes on middle-class families,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday. “I don’t think any economist would believe that in the environment that we’re in raising taxes on middle-class families would make any sense. And the president agrees.”<< <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=axjWiIM9Wbb0" target="_blank">http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...iIM9Wbb0</a>
Originally Posted By wahooskipper We tried to be isolationist prior to our entry into WWII. Where did that get us? Until NATO and the UN grow a couple of pairs the US and Britain are going to have to remain the world's police force. Having family in many branches of the armed forces I don't necessarily like it...but I think there isn't much of a choice.
Originally Posted By barboy ///We tried to be isolationist prior to our entry into WWII. Where did that get us?/// .... in a favorable position
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo And a great man once said "A house divided against itself cannot stand". We have one world. Please bring on a United Federation.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm not sure the folks living in Hawaii on December 7th would have considered their situation to be favorable.
Originally Posted By barboy ///And a great man once said "A house divided against itself cannot stand"/// Lincoln was a punk who lifted his leg on civil liberties like a street dog would a fire hydrant and I don't want to be connected with places like the Islamic world or China. Until they clean up their acts and treat humans like humans I want nothing to do with them.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Until they clean up their acts and treat humans like humans I want nothing to do with them.<<< Hmmmm, what, like Gitmo, and the treatment of New Orleans, and the atrocities allowed by our troops in the Middle East, the tacit support of torture, the death penalty, all in the US. Dangerous to tar every person with such things. We are all humanity, and we should all strive to improve and progress.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan ...guessing barboy won't be checking out the new Mr. Lincoln show...<< LOL!
Originally Posted By barboy ///I'm not sure the folks living in Hawaii on December 7th would have considered their situation to be favorable./// ///Agreed/// Come on you two. This was yours wahoo: "We tried to be isolationist prior to our entry into WWII." Yes, you said **prior** to the US's entry. The US was in a favorable position prior to our involvement.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Hmmmm, what, like Gitmo, and the treatment of New Orleans, and the atrocities/// And what in God's name does that have to do with places like Islamic nations and China committing unspeakbale terror against common folk? So the US response to 'Katrina and the Waves' excuses foreign atrocities? Is that what you're saying?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>So the US response to 'Katrina and the Waves' excuses foreign atrocities?<< You mean not releasing "Love Shine a Light" here? I can understand there being some hurt feelings there.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper barboy...I don't know if I'm following you. We got attacked for sitting on the sidelines. That was favorable?
Originally Posted By barboy ///barboy...I don't know if I'm following you. We got attacked for sitting on the sidelines. That was favorable?/// When others around the world were fighting the US was wise to more or less stay out--- isolating was a favorable policy, yes. But Japan didn't lower the boom on the US because the US was hanging on the sidelines. You see Imperial Japan wasn't too amused with an oil and scrap metal embargo or the prospects of a mobilized US joing Alllied forces. Thus, Japan decided to try and take the US out of the game early thinking the US had no stomach for mass body bags. Sideline or no sideline Japan wanted a piece of us(unless the US was inclined to support Germany and Japan herself---which was highly unlikely).
Originally Posted By Mr X ***We got attacked for sitting on the sidelines.*** That's extremely simplistic (simplified history really bugs me, like when people explain extremists by saying "they hate freedom"), and not altogether accurate. Here's a very simplified retort (sorry, it's early and I'm not in the mood for a detailed search)... * Part of the reason for going to war against the Germany, Japan and Italy. In March 1940: the Lend-Lease act was passed stating Roosevelt could direct aid to whomever he wanted. This meant that the US was no longer neutral. The US ended up contributing 42 billion dollars to the war effort by 1945. With Hitler taking over Europe, FDR saw fit to aid the British and French troops with arms, etc. * It also should be understood that while the US was technically neutral up to Pearl Harbor, they were already providing substantial aid to the Allied side. The British were being provided with arms and supplies on favorable terms, and no such supplies were being sent to the Axis. Convoys across the Atlantic were being escorted by US warships for the Western part of the journey. * The fundamental cause was indeed the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Such an attack is tantamount to a declaration of war. It's also true about Japan's invasion of China, and America's oil embargo. America had good relations with China (which was not communist) at that time. That was probably more significant that US-Soviet relations. <a href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_become_involved_in_World_War_2" target="_blank">http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_...ld_War_2</a> So, just a few points to ponder. The oil embargo, in particular, was seen by Japan as an extremely provocative move. The general consensus in both Asia and Europe was that America was spoiling to enter the fight at some point. The Japanese decided (foolishly? sure) to start things up on their terms. Hardly sounds like "standing on the sidelines" though, does it?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Hardly sounds like "standing on the sidelines" though, does it?<< Sure does to me, what we did in WWII is no different than what China did during the Korean war, and we didn't attack China because they were aiding our enemy....
Originally Posted By Mr X We didn't attack China because we would've gotten slaughtered. It wasn't for lack of will or desire, William.
Originally Posted By Mr X And are you honestly claiming that China was "standing on the sidelines" during the Korean war? I guess we have very different definitions of what that means. To me, it means something like what Switzerland does.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 We didn't attack China because we would've gotten slaughtered. It wasn't for lack of will or desire, William.<< But what you were describing happens in every war, a 3rd party gives support to one of the sides...It doesn't mean we are actively looking for a fight, it means we are protecting our interests by staying relatively neutral... We did not provoke Japan, they were just iching to take us out, and figured they did at Pearl Harbor, lucky for us we had Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett on our side.
