"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

Just because it had not been
officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and legally
already at war with Germany long before.

Yer joking, right? Well it's a pretty poor joke and an insult to those
who
lost their lives actually engaged in the war. I'm sure Hilter was quaking
in his boots at the thought that the US was "morally" engaged in the war.
==================
Yes, I'm sure he was. Roosevelt declared the US neutral at start of war.
Want to know how long that lasted? 1 month. 1 month before the arms
embargo parts of the act were repealed. Supplying arms to a billegerent is
not a 'neutral' act.



Bleeding the British treasury dry by selling them munitions isn't the best
way of showing moral involvment.
==================
So, you put a price on freedom. Nice to know... Ever hear of lend-lease...

Picking up a gun and pitching in would have
been a lot more productive and would have shortened the war considerably.
====================
ROTFLMA We did that fool.



The only way for the US to be legally at war was to defend itself against
the
Nazis, which in turn required them to have declared war on the yanks which
only
happened as a result of the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor and the
Philippines.
=======================
I suggest you go for the refund of what ever school you went to.



I'll give you a stating place,
look for a connection between destroyers and bases

Oh you mean the token escorts of the North Atlantic convoys? Here's a
fact -
even after the Americans entered the war the Canadian Navy had more ships
on
escort than the yanks. IIRC, the yanks took over a year to gear up to the
point that they actually contributed as much as a nation one-tenth its
size.
=======================
No, fool, I'm talking about destroyers, traded to Britain in return for
areas to install US bases. Hardly the stuff of neutrality, what?



It was the rest of europes' indecision and appeasment that allowed the
war
to happen, not the USs'.

Nice try. You find it easy to lay blame but impossible to admit that the
majority of Americans had no interest in the situation in Europe.
======================
ROTFLMAO Like the French or British had any interest? What a hoot. You
were warned for years what could come, but your 'good' life came before any
inconveninet thing like upholding treaties, eh?


Last
I checked, the US was a member of the League of Nations at that time.
They could have acted but chose not to.
================================
Because they wasn't even a hint of the european pansy wanting to do
anything, except Churchhill.



Mike

in article t, rick etter
at wrote on 11/29/04 7:30 PM:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

Just because it had not been
officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and legally
already at war with Germany long before.

Yer joking, right? Well it's a pretty poor joke and an insult to those
who
lost their lives actually engaged in the war. I'm sure Hilter was quaking
in his boots at the thought that the US was "morally" engaged in the war.
==================
Yes, I'm sure he was. Roosevelt declared the US neutral at start of war.
Want to know how long that lasted? 1 month. 1 month before the arms
embargo parts of the act were repealed. Supplying arms to a billegerent is
not a 'neutral' act.

If your point is that Roosevelt had to in effect lure the country into armed
involvement one baby step at a time, you are correct.

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
news:BDD14171.12B21%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
in article t, rick etter
at wrote on 11/29/04 7:30 PM:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

Just because it had not been
officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and
legally
already at war with Germany long before.

Yer joking, right? Well it's a pretty poor joke and an insult to those
who
lost their lives actually engaged in the war. I'm sure Hilter was
quaking
in his boots at the thought that the US was "morally" engaged in the
war.
==================
Yes, I'm sure he was. Roosevelt declared the US neutral at start of war.
Want to know how long that lasted? 1 month. 1 month before the arms
embargo parts of the act were repealed. Supplying arms to a billegerent
is
not a 'neutral' act.

If your point is that Roosevelt had to in effect lure the country into
armed
involvement one baby step at a time, you are correct.
=====================
It still means that in a legal sense the US was at war. The same can be
said with the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor because of US actions in the
pacific.

in article et, rick etter
at wrote on 11/29/04 11:16 PM:


"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
news:BDD14171.12B21%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
in article t, rick etter
at wrote on 11/29/04 7:30 PM:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

Just because it had not been
officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and
legally
already at war with Germany long before.

Yer joking, right? Well it's a pretty poor joke and an insult to those
who
lost their lives actually engaged in the war. I'm sure Hilter was
quaking
in his boots at the thought that the US was "morally" engaged in the
war.
==================
Yes, I'm sure he was. Roosevelt declared the US neutral at start of war.
Want to know how long that lasted? 1 month. 1 month before the arms
embargo parts of the act were repealed. Supplying arms to a billegerent
is
not a 'neutral' act.

If your point is that Roosevelt had to in effect lure the country into
armed
involvement one baby step at a time, you are correct.
=====================
It still means that in a legal sense the US was at war.

I think most people would say that you are at war when you say so, and when
you have people with guns shooting at other people with guns. There can be
no question that the majority American sentiment was to stay out of the war.
Roosevelt took actions that brought the US into conflict situations until
sentiments changed to the extent that the desire for war was stronger than
the desire for isolationism.

On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

Supplying arms to a billegerent is
not a 'neutral' act.

The administration was provoking the Nazis to get them to attack
a US ship or territory. The people did not want to enter the war
but the administration did. They didn't have the guts to force
the war on the people, so they hoped that Nazi action would
get the people in a belligerent mood. Once into the war, there
was popular dissent wrt the draft. The fact remains - the
US got dragged into the war kicking and screaming.

We did that fool.

Eventually. The war started in 1939. The rest of us were there
from the start.

Let's get to the point - those who were involved in the two world
wars from the start are getting tired of the American bull**** of
claiming that they saved the world by entering the wars. You yanks
drag that out every time you feel the world owes you something.
The problem is that the world is giving you a rough time about all
the **** your foreign policy entailed _since_ 1945. You don't
get that - you never will. With so many crackers keeping their
heads up their asses, the Americans will never understand what's
really going on in the world or why they are losing friends in
the world. Bush baby is coming to Canada tomorrow to try to
patch things up - he will be met by a lot of protestors telling
him to shut up and go home till he gets a clue. You won't get
that either.

Cheers,
Mike

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
. ..
I think you guys are getting hung up on semantic technicalities.

Actually, it's the other way around. I think ou are playing semantics
around the idea of when the US was at war. They were at war the first time
they took a shot, which is particularly obvious in a discussion about US
willingness for involvement in WWII as compared to other countries.


Well, you can look at it that way, but I look forward to hearing you explain
how the term 'legally' had nothing to do with laws.
:-)

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
. ..
I think you guys are getting hung up on semantic technicalities.

Actually, it's the other way around. I think ou are playing semantics
around the idea of when the US was at war. They were at war the first
time they took a shot, which is particularly obvious in a discussion
about US willingness for involvement in WWII as compared to other
countries.


Well, you can look at it that way, but I look forward to hearing you
explain how the term 'legally' had nothing to do with laws.


--errrr, and that comment should be aimed at Rick, btw.

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
. ..
I think you guys are getting hung up on semantic technicalities.

Actually, it's the other way around. I think ou are playing semantics
around the idea of when the US was at war. They were at war the first
time they took a shot, which is particularly obvious in a discussion
about US willingness for involvement in WWII as compared to other
countries.


Well, you can look at it that way, but I look forward to hearing you
explain how the term 'legally' had nothing to do with laws.
:-)

Heh. I'm talking about what meaning people associate with "being at war." I
think for most people the standard is:

1) You declare "we are at war with country x"
2) You gather up a bunch of weapons and hurl them at country x

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
. ..

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
. ..
I think you guys are getting hung up on semantic technicalities.

Actually, it's the other way around. I think ou are playing semantics
around the idea of when the US was at war. They were at war the first
time they took a shot, which is particularly obvious in a discussion
about US willingness for involvement in WWII as compared to other
countries.


Well, you can look at it that way, but I look forward to hearing you
explain how the term 'legally' had nothing to do with laws.
:-)

Heh. I'm talking about what meaning people associate with "being at war."
I think for most people the standard is:

1) You declare "we are at war with country x"
2) You gather up a bunch of weapons and hurl them at country x

Well, for the record I agree with your assessment that 'waging war' is the
usual litmus test for whether or not you are 'at' war. But I think that what
a US president is able to do before he manages to sway (or win) public
opinion so that they will not flinch when he sends their kids off to fight
depends a lot on how committed to 'waging war' a country is. Once the
congress has declared war, its pretty much no-holds-barred. But before that
happens, a President (or PM, or whatever) is a bit more careful about how he
'wages' war, because he can easily lose his job if he ****es enough people
off.

For example, Britain certainly declared War much earlier in WW2 than the US
did, and for them, it was total commitment once they did. Our 'ambivalent'
time was similar to the time when Neville Chamberlin did his dancing around,
trying to avoid actual confrontation. But once Britain was into it,
Chamberlain was outed, and Roosevelt did some fancy footwork of his own
because the US public did not feel that we had a dog in that fight.
Personally, I think the Brits (along with the French, for as long as it
lasted) were braver than **** for taking on the German empire!! I think that
the US, not knowing how history would portray the whole thing after the
fact, were a bit late in pitching in....if you can actually say that someone
was 'late in pitching in' to a WAR!

There's a longstanding moral paradox in the states. One side of our brains
says 'wars are bad, avoid wars at all costs.' The other side says 'when
there's a fracas going on, be on the Good Guy's side.' For our own national
ego, we had to convince ourselves that Europe needed us 'over there' to
straighten things out, and that we delayed as long as was morally proper,
but eventually we were the heroes of the day. Of course, less
US-nationalistic minds realize that we just snuck in at the last second and
stole the limelight, because the Brits and others (especially the Brits) had
been toiling all along for years waiting for us to get off our hands. But,
to us Americans, we are the center of the Universe. :-(

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
. ..

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
. ..
I think you guys are getting hung up on semantic technicalities.

Actually, it's the other way around. I think ou are playing semantics
around the idea of when the US was at war. They were at war the first
time they took a shot, which is particularly obvious in a discussion
about US willingness for involvement in WWII as compared to other
countries.


Well, you can look at it that way, but I look forward to hearing you
explain how the term 'legally' had nothing to do with laws.
:-)

Heh. I'm talking about what meaning people associate with "being at war."
I think for most people the standard is:

1) You declare "we are at war with country x"
2) You gather up a bunch of weapons and hurl them at country x

Well, for the record I agree with your assessment that 'waging war' is the
usual litmus test for whether or not you are 'at' war. But I think that
what a US president is able to do before he manages to sway (or win)
public opinion so that they will not flinch when he sends their kids off
to fight depends a lot on how committed to 'waging war' a country is. Once
the congress has declared war, its pretty much no-holds-barred. But before
that happens, a President (or PM, or whatever) is a bit more careful about
how he 'wages' war, because he can easily lose his job if he ****es enough
people off.

For example, Britain certainly declared War much earlier in WW2 than the
US did, and for them, it was total commitment once they did. Our
'ambivalent' time was similar to the time when Neville Chamberlin did his
dancing around, trying to avoid actual confrontation. But once Britain was
into it, Chamberlain was outed, and Roosevelt did some fancy footwork of
his own because the US public did not feel that we had a dog in that
fight. Personally, I think the Brits (along with the French, for as long
as it lasted) were braver than **** for taking on the German empire!! I
think that the US, not knowing how history would portray the whole thing
after the fact, were a bit late in pitching in....if you can actually say
that someone was 'late in pitching in' to a WAR!

There's a longstanding moral paradox in the states. One side of our brains
says 'wars are bad, avoid wars at all costs.' The other side says 'when
there's a fracas going on, be on the Good Guy's side.' For our own
national ego, we had to convince ourselves that Europe needed us 'over
there' to straighten things out, and that we delayed as long as was
morally proper, but eventually we were the heroes of the day. Of course,
less US-nationalistic minds realize that we just snuck in at the last
second and stole the limelight, because the Brits and others (especially
the Brits) had been toiling all along for years waiting for us to get off
our hands. But, to us Americans, we are the center of the Universe. :-(

--riverman

An interesting post! To be fair, I think growth of US isolationist sentiment
was due to many factors, and not an altogether unreasonable position. In
fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see another round of it. Depending what
George W does over the next 4 years, Americans may become exhausted with
being cast in the role of unilateral global police force, and another
isolationist period might emerge.