Bush almost 50% more popular than Pelosi/Reid/Congress

[fossten]

The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever-increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearny and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

Accept, Mr. Chargé d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.

December 11, 1941

​

This strengthens my argument. You have posted evidence that the United States was acting militarily without a Declaration of War. September 1941 was pre-Pearl Harbor. So we provoked Germany by military actions without declaring war. Noting the consequences of one man having the authority to do so, this supports my position that we should not be allowing the President to act outside the Constitution.

 

[shagdrum]

This strengthens my argument. You have posted evidence that the United States was acting militarily without a Declaration of War. September 1941 was pre-Pearl Harbor. So we provoked Germany by military actions without declaring war.

We did this in reaction to the fact that Germany was sinking US civilian and military ships. Germany's Declaration of War was (among other things) a piece of political propaganda that conveniently ignored this fact.

June 6th, 1941: President Roosevelt, in a message to Congress, denounces the sinking of the American merchant ship Robin Moor by U-69 as 'an act of piracy'.

September 4th, 1941: As a result of U652's attack on the US destroyer Greer, President Roosevelt warns German and Italian vessels that from now on, if they enter the Pan-American security zone, they do so at there own risk.

October 9th, 1941: President Roosevelt in a message to Congress urges the repeal of Section 6 of the Neutrality Act which would allow the arming of U.S. merchant ships against "the modern pirates of the sea", the U-boats.

October 27th, 1941: Roosevelt claims ‘America has been attacked. The shooting has started’, when referring to German naval aggression during his Navy Day broadcast.

 

[fossten]

We did this in reaction to the fact that Germany was sinking US civilian and military ships. Germany's Declaration of War was (among other things) a piece of political propaganda that conveniently ignored this fact.

June 6th, 1941: President Roosevelt, in a message to Congress, denounces the sinking of the American merchant ship Robin Moor by U-69 as 'an act of piracy'.

September 4th, 1941: As a result of U652's attack on the US destroyer Greer, President Roosevelt warns German and Italian vessels that from now on, if they enter the Pan-American security zone, they do so at there own risk.

October 9th, 1941: President Roosevelt in a message to Congress urges the repeal of Section 6 of the Neutrality Act which would allow the arming of U.S. merchant ships against "the modern pirates of the sea", the U-boats.

October 27th, 1941: Roosevelt claims ‘America has been attacked. The shooting has started’, when referring to German naval aggression during his Navy Day broadcast.

Okay, but you just contradicted your earlier statement in this thread:

Still, it could be argued that there was no physical provocation to war with Germany.

I'll give allowances for you obviously reading up on the causes for our entry into WWII only since this thread started. Given that, there still were direct physical attacks on us by Germany, and only when we started fighting back did the war start. Still, I would have supported it at the time.

However:

Saddam taking potshots at our planes was not the reason we invaded his country. It could even be argued that we didn't need to be over there thumbing our no-fly zone in his face. It's almost as if we were daring him to do something so we could go in there and kick ass.

Face it - Iraq never really attacked us. They certainly were not shooting down planes or sinking ships like the Germans were.

 

[shagdrum]

Okay, but you just contradicted your earlier statement in this thread:

I was saying it could be argued. In fact this wasn't what pushed us into war with Germany. THAT was Pearl Harbor and the effect if had in changing public sentiment. Rossevelt wanted to go to war, but the population didn't agree with him until after Pearl Harbor.

Saddam taking potshots at our planes was not the reason we invaded his country.

And Germany sink US ships wasn't the reason we declared war. That had been building for a while. we were sending supplies to the allies, on both military and civilian ships. That is why the Germans were sinking them. At the same time, Rossevelt and the Congress were making agreements with the allies and building up the military. Basically, Pearl Harbor got the public on board with something that was inevitable, and allowed the government to quickly formalize what they had been working toward.

 

[fossten]

I was saying it could be argued. In fact this wasn't what pushed us into war with Germany.

Look, this isn't really relevant to the substance of the discussion, but when you say "it could be argued" it is commonly assumed that that is your position UNLESS you immediately take the opposite position as a counterpoint, something you did not do.

You're quibbling.

 

[shagdrum]

You're quibbling.

Yeah, I guess.

Though there are really three situation, any one of which I would use terms like "it could be argued..":

A: I don't wanna get distracted by the issue, just point out that there is another reasonable point of view on the issue.​

B: The issue is inherently vauge or somewhat open to interpretation and I wanted to point out another reasonable point of view, but not go so far as to plant my flag in that arguement and take that position.​

C: I don't know enough about the issue and don't wanna tie myself to that position.​

Basically; expediency of the arguement, vaugeness of the facts and/or evidence, or ignorance.

In the case of the Germany/Iraq analogy, It started out as both A and C. I have since educated myself on the issue.

 

[fossten]

Yeah, I guess.

Though there are really three situation, any one of which I would use terms like "it could be argued..":

A: I don't wanna get distracted by the issue, just point out that there is another reasonable point of view on the issue.​

B: The issue is inherently vauge or somewhat open to interpretation and I wanted to point out another reasonable point of view, but not go so far as to plant my flag in that arguement and take that position.​

C: I don't know enough about the issue and don't wanna tie myself to that position.​

Basically; expediency of the arguement, vaugeness of the facts and/or evidence, or ignorance.

In the case of the Germany/Iraq analogy, It started out as both A and C. I have since educated myself on the issue.

Fair enough.