Monday, June 4, 2012

Survey Question - Was FDR a War Criminal?

This, for his having routinely targeted major population centers in Japan throughout WW2 (areas with quite literally zero military or strategic value).............I personally say no. We were fighting for the future of Western Civilization and FDR was trying to break the will of the Japanese people (not that bombing is always a strategy that works, mind you - it certainly backfired big in Vietnam).

20 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

No, because we won. If the Japanese had won, he probably would have been convicted of war crimes. After all, the victors get to write history.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I still don't like what Churchill did in Dresden. The war was for all intents and purposes over and that was a purely punitive act, IMO.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Will,if you were Churchill and had watched your countrymen killed by V-2 rockets you may very well had a bit of revenge in your heart.

Les Carpenter said...

"All's fair in love and war", or so I've heard it said.

So, the question is "whats fair?" Or put another way, how does one define the anti concept "fair?"

So, in answer to the war criminal thing and FDR the answer is (drum roll)... a resounding NO.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Russ, in the words of that esteemed philosopher, Bill O'Reilly, you shouldn't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.......Still, though, I tend to agree, a war criminal he probably wasn't, considering everything.

Dervish Sanders said...

WW2 wasn't a war of choice.

dmarks said...

It was, no more and no less than the war with the terrorists of the past decade.

In both situations, the war was on us, whether we chose it or not. The only "choice" was whether to fight back, or to let the aggressors keep attacking us.

Dervish Sanders said...

Afghanistan and Iraq were both unnecessary wars of choice. And bush lied in both cases to get these wars started.

With Afghanistan bush told the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. The Taliban said YES to that demand, but bush ignored them and attacked.

With Iraq the UN weapons inspectors said there were no WMD. They reported that Iraq was disarmed. bush ignored the weapons inspectors, demanded Iraq disarm (even though they had already done so) and attacked.

These unnecessary wars actually made terrorism much worse. When our bombs killed innocent people their relatives vowed revenge and joined the Taliban/al Qaeda. It makes one wonder if that wasn't the goal (to make terrorism worse).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

So, if it wasn't a war of choice, you can then wantonly slaughter women, children, and refugees (in a progressive universe)?......And Vietnam (under LBJ) was clearly a war of choice as well as undeclared.

dmarks said...

"Afghanistan and Iraq were both unnecessary wars of choice"

No more or no less than fighting back against the Axis during WW2. There were plenty then who argued that it was fine to let Hitler and imperial Japan rampage unchecked.. "
And bush lied in both cases to get these wars started."

This false accusation is false no matter how many times you repeat it. Both wars were on before Bush ordered retaliation. In one case, the constant attacks from Iraq in violation of the cease-fire dated back before Bush's inauguration. In the other, the Taliban and Al Qaeda started that war, not Bush.

"The Taliban said YES to that demand, but bush ignored them and attacked."

The terrorists in Afghanistan said NO. They placed poison-pill conditions which killed it.

"With Iraq the UN weapons inspectors said there were no WMD."

And yet many were found after the invasion.

"They reported that Iraq was disarmed."

Considering that Saddam was still blocking inspections right up to the 2003 invasion, there was indeed good reason to believe that this 'report' was false.

Also, you ignore the fact that Saddam was a major terrorist kingpin. Supporting and promoting many terrorist groups. Saddam's regime was one of the few in the world that supported the 9/11 attacks. In light of the event of 9/11, letting Saddam keep engaging in terrorism and attacking made less sense than ever.

"bush ignored the weapons inspectors, demanded Iraq disarm (even though they had already done so) and attacked."

Iraq refused to disarm, actually.

"These unnecessary wars actually made terrorism much worse."

They greatly reduced the terror problem, in reality.

"When our bombs killed innocent people their relatives vowed revenge..."

The foaming at the mouth mad dogs demanded this stuff before the US launched retaliation.
and joined the Taliban/al Qaeda.

"It makes one wonder if that wasn't the goal (to make terrorism worse)."

Well, he went in the opposite direction.

dmarks said...

Will, do you see WD's idea that we should have "let" Afghanistan turn over the Al Qaeda perps to a tribunal made of terrorists who judge only according to religion a good one?

Dervish Sanders said...

Will: So, if it wasn't a war of choice, you can then wantonly slaughter women, children, and refugees (in a progressive universe)?

So, in the universe of a Conservative who thinks he's a moderate, you can then wantonly slaughter women, children, and refugees... and it does not matter if the war is one of choice or not?

Will: And Vietnam (under LBJ) was clearly a war of choice as well as undeclared.

OK.

dmarks: No more or no less than fighting back against the Axis during WW2.

Much, much, much, much, much more so... in that WW2 wasn't and the illegal wars with Afghanistan and Iraq were.

Will: Considering that Saddam was still blocking inspections right up to the 2003 invasion, there was indeed good reason to believe that this 'report' was false.

So now it isn't JUST Scott Ritter whom Saddam paid to lie, it was every single weapons inspector? dmarks = looney tunes.

dmarks: They greatly reduced the terror problem, in reality.

No, it made it worse. We could have crushed al Qaeda if the retaliation had been handled correctly. Instead bush decided to swell the ranks of the terrorists.

dmarks: The foaming at the mouth mad dogs demanded this stuff before the US launched retaliation.
and joined the Taliban/al Qaeda.


I was talking about innocent civilians whose relatives were killed. I didn't mention the "mad dogs".

dmarks: Well, he went in the opposite direction.

Actually he didn't. bush's wars made terrorism worse. People rushed to join up after bush illegally invaded two Muslim countries. Those who were previously on our side and had sympathy for us (due to the 9/11 attacks) were outraged that we used the attacks as an excuse to wage war on them.

ABC News: According to an estimate from the National Intelligence Council, the war in Iraq is making the threat of terrorism worse. America is less safe today than it was after Sept. 11, 2001, because the conflict is creating more extremists. (9/25/2006)

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I've already answered the question, wd. FDR was not a war criminal. You're the the one with the high and mighty attitude about killing civilians. FDR INTENTIONALLY killed thousands civilians. What say you? War criminal or no?......And I believe that that comment about Saddam and the weapons inspectors was meant for dmarks.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Yeah, dmarks, that's totally whacked. wd apparently doesn't realize that just like it wasn't JUST Hirohito who bombed us in 1941, it wasn't JUST Osama bin Laden who attacked us on 9/11. It was an entire network of terrorist attack cells and we needed to eradicate them and the terrorist training camps. What the Afghan War ultimately evolved into (with some obvious help from Mr. Obama who to this day maintains that the war was legal and just) is something that you and I may ultimately disagree about, but, yes, the absolute and utter annihilation of al Qaeda we totally agree on (as did the entire country at the time).

Dervish Sanders said...

Will: I've already answered the question, wd. FDR was not a war criminal.

That wasn't the question I asked. I asked if it is OK (and never a war crime, no matter the circumstance) to kill innocents. You seem to be saying yes.

Will: What say you? War criminal or no?

We were at war (a real war, not a war of choice), and it was not certain we would win. I say no, but leave open whether or not I could be convinced otherwise. I don't know what the other options were or if they would have worked.

Will: It was an entire network of terrorist attack cells and we needed to eradicate them and the terrorist training camps.

We didn't need to go to war with Afghanistan to do that.

Dervish Sanders said...

Will: ...the absolute and utter annihilation of al Qaeda we totally agree on (as did the entire country at the time).

We did nothing to "annihilate" them. bush grew their numbers significantly.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I was AGAINST the war in Afghanistan (at least once it morphed into a nation-building enterprise) and, hence, I was WAY ahead of the Dems on this one, fella'. And I have never said that Mr. Bush successfully waged this anti-terror war. I have only said that it was right to go after al Qaeda in Afghanistan and I only wish that Mr. Bush had been MORE aggressive in wiping these miserable cock-suckers out.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

So, are Mr. Obama's drone attacks (replete with their massive civilian casualties) also creating more terrorists?

Dervish Sanders said...

"Massive" is the 1.4 million people killed in bush's illegal war in Iraq, but YES Skippy, Obama's drone attacks are creating more terrorists. Duh.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

a) The 1.4 million figure is a complete exaggeration. b) 98% of the civilian deaths in Iraq have been Iraqis killing other Iraqis (the Shia had some scores to settle because of Mr. Hussein's brutal Sunni government). Yes, we popped the cork but that was a civil war that was just waiting to happen. c) Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac who I think that at least some of the people are thankful that he's gone (the Kurds, wd - duh). If Mr. Bush had even a semblance of a post war plan up his sleeve then maybe this whole thing could have turned out better (I actually agree with Mr. Biden's partition plan and have stated so repeatedly).