Continued from here where we were getting off topic.
In reply to PeppyHare66, #253:
In reply to Exodusv, #248:
First, Germany didn't have plans to conquer America. Hitler's relationship with the American Nazi Party was for photo ops only. Any talk of invading America is either not real or not a serious consideration of Germany.
Really? Because residents of the Crystal City internment Camp, Fort Douglas, and Fort Oglethorp for in Texas sent to the USA by the Nazi's in late 30s to lay the framework for exactly what you're saying Hitler had no intention of doing would tend to disagree with you. An admittedly small portion of the 10k+ germans detained within American leading up to the second world war, but more than enough to suggest that germany had more than a passing interest in invasion.
You're being absurd. Even if FDR's motivations weren't at all motivated by a personal passion (I have a hard time seeing you say any bad things about FDR outside of this discussion), there's plenty of examples to draw from. Paul Kagame is a good example. Even though he uses some authoritarian tactics, it was his RPF's intervention that stopped the Rwandan genocide. It's like if you've created this standard that views only the immediate effects of a certain policy, but not the result of it.
I'm actually of the opinion that FDR was one of the absolute worst presidents in human history with only John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, Warren G. Harding, and Ulyssies S. Grant lower than he on ranks of presidential failures. He was a very emotive president and a very popular president but his handling of the Great Depression was disastrously mishandled. Were it not for the second World War and the resulting wartime economic boom I have little doubt that he would be remembered in disfavor. WW2 saved both FRD's legacy and the American economy.
Like how stealing guns is a horrid thing to do, never mind that it's done to shoot baby eaters.
I've already answered this in full.
In reply to Exodusv, #239:
In reply to PeppyHare66, #236:
In reply to Rainwizzard, #237:
The use of force, especially lethal force, must always be held up the the greatest of scrutiny.
Yes the state is obligated to investigate the lethal use of an illegally obtained weapon even if the victim in question is a child murderer otherwise the defense "he eats babies" can be used as a get out of jail free card for weapons theft and murder. Likewise the use of a firearm to kill two people within an arms length of the president equally merits of full legal investigation.
Why? Because the law has to apply to everybody equally and protect everybody equally or there is no point in having it.
The reason we have laws like the good samaritan laws on the books and there are laws in place for extenuating circumstances is so that when these extraordinary situations arise there is a legal framework within which the law can come to a reasonable conclusion on how to deal with the use of violence that is not directly sanctioned by the state. Likewise jury trials exist to account for these situations.
No matter how often you use of the "Appeal to Common Practice" and the "Appeal to Emotion" fallacies doesn't make that argument any less irrelevant.
In reply to Exodusv, #251:
Why would FDR want to allow the victorious nations to re-expand their power? Thats exactly what they did after WWI, and it was the same old European Colonialism no different than it ever was. A multipolar world in which several powerful nations compete against one another is a recipe for constant warfare.
It isn't a matter of what FDR would want, its just the nature of war. Generally speaking the victorious army will, if possible, try to gain either territory or mineral resources at the end of any way. If anything WW1 only increased the desires of most nations to gain a larger Empire, which is essentially what helped start the second world war in the first place. The USA was not, however, in a good position for retaining any territorial gains provided that the Allies were to win the second world war so it makes sense that they would start a treaty that would weaken their primary post war rivals.
The bipolar world of 1945 and 1990 was one of the most peaceful eras of world history between all the major world powers. The mono polar world from the 90's to today is even more peaceful.
FDR would not, America had no realistic way of retaining any territorial gains in Asia. Churchill and Stalin however had substantially more realistic frameworks within which to expand their borders following an Allied victory.
That being said FDR was not clairvoyant. He had no way of knowing at the time this treaty was signed that Atomic bomb would result in that society. Based upon all history leading up to that point FDR had no possible way of knowing that the USSR and US bipolar MAD fears would cause decades of unprecedented peace. Without the invention of the Atomic bomb it would not have been possible, the Manhattan project didn't even start till the following year.
He did however have a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that a Mono-polar situation was ideal, which is the logical conclusion of Atlantic Charter provided that the Allies were to abide by it following the second world war.
Post edited 7/05/11 7:52AM