| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Evidence that the president planed to go to war; long before he told the American people. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 26 2005, 08:05 AM (440 Views) | |
| Dr. Noah | May 26 2005, 09:14 AM Post #16 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Then why not discuss the program rather than creating a political satire? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Darthsith | May 26 2005, 09:19 AM Post #17 |
|
Ensign
|
Political satire? Are you referring to the other post? I found that while searching for real information to post. I thought it was funny and I thought it was allowed on this message board. So I posted it. This post however is just a true discussion of history. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | May 26 2005, 09:21 AM Post #18 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
My fault. I get confused when there are two posts of the same subject in the same forum. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | May 26 2005, 09:21 AM Post #19 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Then why didn't you put "FDR" somewhere in your title? By saying "the president," you were immediately implying a link to the current President. I think you are getting exactly what you planned for... a debate that ended up discussing/comparing the current president and war in Iraq with what happened leading upto WWII. However, not being a mindreader, I can't say for sure. That is my opinion of what you did though. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | May 26 2005, 09:21 AM Post #20 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
I concur. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Darthsith | May 26 2005, 09:26 AM Post #21 |
|
Ensign
|
I agree, It was my understand that a president is always referred to as president even after they are no longer holding the current title. Clinton is still President Clinton, and Carter is still president Carter. There is nothing untrue with the title of this post. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | May 26 2005, 09:29 AM Post #22 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
I have always heard a former president referred to as "Former President _____" |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | May 26 2005, 09:30 AM Post #23 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
I'm Canadian and even I know that former presidents are still entitled to the title of President. Not "former president". |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | May 26 2005, 09:32 AM Post #24 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
That's the way I have always heard them referred to. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | May 26 2005, 09:34 AM Post #25 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
They may be referred to as "Former President_______," but when they are addressed it is as "Mr. President." |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 8247 | May 26 2005, 09:34 AM Post #26 |
|
Apparently we look like this now
|
I've heard Clinton referred to as President Clinton, Bush Sr. referred to President Bush, etc...after they were out of office. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | May 26 2005, 09:34 AM Post #27 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
They can be referred to either depending on the circumstances. However, FDR is dead. "Former President" would have been more accurate. We are all mincing words though. I think DarthSith still knew the effect his wording would have. Why? Because he just started a new thread with a similar teaser. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | May 26 2005, 09:35 AM Post #28 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
^^^ I am inclined to agree 24. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | May 26 2005, 10:11 AM Post #29 |
|
Admiral
|
Gvok, Re: your Iraq and WWII question. Iraq was most certainly a war of choice of the United States. World War I was a war of choice as well, arguably, but less so, I think. World War II was as close to a 'just war' as we will ever live to see, I think, within our frame of modern history. The participation of the United States in the war on Hitler and the Nazis, I think, was morally justified. Japan was allied with Hitler, and so, by extension, included in the struggle against him (and those supporting his war aims, etc.; I mean, it is not about one person, no matter how apparently powerful). The United States was not blameless, however, in my view, in the contest with Japan. The United States had competing economic interests in the Pacific with Japan, and was competing for resources, especially oil and iron/steel, but also rubber and other commodities. The United States restricted its iron trade with Japan well before Dec 7th, 1941. On the other hand, nothing requires that one nation sell a commodity like iron ore, or scrap iron, to another. All I am saying is that Japan is a less clear case, and US/Japan relations in the 30's would bear looking into. Finally, I believe that while the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Japan could be justified (if through a horrible calculus), the second can not. The cost in non-combatant lives, even in defeating a totalitarian state, is something I would never have been able to face, given the choice. Others obviously draw that line to the right or the left (both bombs justified, neither bomb justified). The effects of Allied bombing, overall, also bear looking into IMO. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | May 26 2005, 10:33 AM Post #30 |
|
Unregistered
|
That's probably a fair assessment and I can't disagree with any point you have made. However, in WWII the US and Japan were roughly on par militarily. The US and Iraq were no where near on par militarily when the US invaded that country. So if you want to argue that US chose to compete with Japan for resources in the Pacific it is not the same as saying that the US chose to invade Iraq. At least it is not the same in my estimation. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:06 PM Jul 11