"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 28-Nov-2004, Warren wrote:

The world that sold out to Hitler in the '30s

Never studied American history, did you?
=====================
I suggest you read a little more history. 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. I'll give you a stating place,
look for a connection between destroyers and bases, and come back with the
date.



The yanks tried to hide
under the covers and avoid the war as long as possible. They only
entered after the German's declared war on them. How very brave.
======================
It was the rest of europes' indecision and appeasment that allowed the war
to happen, not the USs'. If Europe had had the balls to stand up and
enforce the treaties, there would have been a better chance at staving off
war. It rests on Europe's cowardly inaction.



Mike

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.

Bleeding the British treasury dry by selling them munitions isn't the best
way of showing moral involvment. Picking up a gun and pitching in would have
been a lot more productive and would have shortened the war considerably.

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'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.

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. Last
I checked, the US was a member of the League of Nations at that time.
They could have acted but chose not to.

Mike

"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.

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
news:BDD1614E.12B4A%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
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,
======================
Really? The people that you are helping to kill might have a different
idea of when you are at war, wouldn't you think?


and when
you have people with guns shooting at other people with guns.
=======================
People can die from others actions of war than from being shot. But then,
with your limited thinking I'm sure you wouldn't think that, eh?

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.
==============================
Spin it any way you like. But morally and in a legal sense, we were at
war. US actions provided that, regardless of how you think the country as a
whole thought.

Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions
that are taken by agressors, not neutrals.

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

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
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.
====================
The fact remains that morally and legally we were at war. Tap dance any
way you like...



We did that fool.

Eventually. The war started in 1939. The rest of us were there
from the start.
===================
The problem was you *weren't* there all through the 30s. Instead you played
and played, ignoring the violations of treaties until too late. Wait, that
almost sounds familiar.



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.
========================
Sounds like you have a guilty conscience or something. I don't remember
saying that, eh?


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.
=====================
Ah, feel the ahte of the uninformed losers....


Cheers,
Mike

On 30-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

I don't remember
saying that, eh?

Go back through the thread. You jumped in when I responded to
such a statement.

Mike