Would modern day libs respond to Dec 7th, 1941?

Question

i am curious is modern day liberals like kennedy, Reid and Pelosi would respond to the events on Dec 7th, 1941 at Pearl Harbor? Would they have handled it the same? Im sure they argued the same thing that Japan will never be a democratic govt( Iraq?)...But look at japan now. A very strong allie and just 60 years ago we killed how many hundreds of thousands? So what would modern day libs do? I think they would surrender myself.

" Modern day libs"...Not democrats from the 40's There is a huge difference in your party. I am talking about your current leadership. Read people READ

Answer 1

For Windseeker_1: "Yes modern day 'libs' would respond to any attack by punishing those responsible for the attack not another country that had nothing to do with it!"

But the Democrats were in control back then, and who attacked us in Pearl Harbor... thats right it was the Japanese. And who did we go attack first? Thats right the Germans.

So once again the facts of a matter, get in the way of liberals belief structure.

Fact is the the Democrats were correct back then. The world was under a great threat for multiple sources, and even though the attack against us came from a single source, the correct approach was to attack the evil in world at ALL sources. Sounds pretty familiar to modern times doesn't it?

For Olderandwiser:
Just how to we manage to get across the Atlantic then? Lets face it is Germany didn't present a great threat, perhaps even greater threat the Japan, we would not have gone to war with them first. But we rightfully went after a grave danger, even though, we were NOT under an immediate threat from them. Iraq was a grave danger, no matter how you people want to spin it.
But I agree with you in part. Which is actually my point of this whole response. The Democrats back back then were an honorable party. JFK was the last great Democratic president, he was for a strong National defense, he opposed the spread of communism, he lowered taxes and inspired our great country to do great things (i.e. the moon). He also was for personal responsibilty... How does, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" fit in with the modern day liberal notion of the welfare state, entitlement after entilement. People in the wake of Katrina, sitting there waiting for the government to help. If the Democrats would go back and start acting like Democrats did then, they would probably be in control of the government again. Till then they will keep on losing.

Answer 2

You need to define what a "lib" is first of all. The majority of people I know(including myself), range from slightly left of center to slightly right of center. In other words, moderates. We subscribe to neither the hard left or hard right.
If you're of the mindset that anyone disagrees with you is a "lib", then this is pretty much a predecided question for you. In other words, you're closing your mind to anyone who can make a good argument or introduce a better idea. Pretty much what dictatorships do because they demand complete obedience & conformity. However, in a democracy, diverse ideas, perspectives & debate is encouraged to try & craft the best path to follow.

I still believe war would've been declared on Japan nonetheless, regardless if modern day Democrats were in charge. No one of any political stripe I have ever spoken to has had a problem with us going into Afghanistan. I know a few die hard bleeding hearts & they never knocked Bush for going after the Taliban. As one told me, we should've finished up the job first in Afghanistan before turning elsewhere. Most people's problem is with Iraq, mainly because Hussein was pretty much contained & not a major threat to the region.
You also have to understand that WWII was fought on more conventional terms, such as regular military forces fighting each other, actual lines of control between Allied & Axis powers, a bona fide infrastructure & industrial complex to target & so on. In addition, there were formal governments in charge of the major belligerents. When unconditional surrender was demanded, there were legitimate parties present who could formally accept or deny the terms/conditions.
Japan & Germany were thoroughly defeated & the populace beaten down from years of war, they had no choice but to accept a democratic form of government. In Japan, the Emperor was kept in place since he was still revered. The enemy's military apparatus wasn't completely dismantled at the time either. The Communists made a hard play & that's how we wound up with the "Iron Curtain" & the Cold War. The Marshall Plan helped prop up Western & Southern Europe from going Communist.
Concerning someone else's comment that we attacked Germany first. Wrong assumption. Hitler declared war on the US after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Why? He believed Japan would return the favor by attacking the Soviet Union, which never occurred. In fact, the Russians didn't get involved in the Pacific War until after we'd dropped the first atomic bomb(possibly the second, my memory escapes me at the moment). It was agreed among the Allied powers that Germany posed the greatest threat, so a "Germany First" policy was developed. It was also noted that once the Japanese were crippled at Midway, their offensive punch was taken away & therefore not a threat to the West Coast anymore.
I seriously doubt you'll pick this for best answer, but WTF. ;-)
I just couldn't let it go by without an answer! LOL

Answer 3

How easily you forget that Democrats were behind Bush sending troops into Afghanistan to get the people that were actually responsible for the attacks. I think Democrats just have this thing that makes us feel uneasy about attacking people that had nothing to do with it. So I would say yes that modern day Democrats would respond to Pearl Harbor, but not by storming into Brazil like the modern day Republicans would.

And to tm_tech32: Are you forgetting that Germany was an ally of Japan? Are you also forgetting that in the days after the attack on Pearl Harbor Germany declared war on the US? I know you Neocons like to believe in this fairy tale that Iraq and Al Queda were linked but there has simply been no proof of it.

Also, and I could be totally wrong since I'm not a military strategist, but I would tend to think that it is difficult to wage an attack on Japan right after most of your Pacific Fleet has been destroyed. It might be a wise decision to actually repair your ships before you send them across the Pacific Ocean to wage a war, but then again that's another point Republicans and Democrats disagree. We actually like to make sure our troops are prepared before they go into war.

And the reason it was so easy to go across the Atlantic to storm the beaches in France is because it seems the Japanese were unable to destroy any of the Atlantic Fleet....you know, since they were in Norfolk Virginia at the time. I guess the Japanese torpedos were not high tech enough to make it that far.

Answer 4

Exactly like we did then Just for your info the Kennedy's served well in that war. Joseph Kennedy, the eldest, died and JFK was badly injured. Many people of wealth served in that war not like Nam or this one now. Movie stars served, Jimmy Stewart was in the air force SAC and you may not be old enough to know that was the Strategic Air Command.Montgomery Cliff was the Most decorated soldier of the war. Many other Hollywood liberals fought. And what you seem to forget is that WE were attacked!! We did not attack a sovereign nation. The terrorists were not Iraqi they were mainly Saudis-- hello-----does anyone of his supporters realize that. Osama is hiding in Afghanistan and OH he's a Saudi too!!! If we were chasing the real terrorists we would be leading the charge GWB wouldn't have had to ask twice. And when we do go after the real terrorists we Liberals will lead the attack.------------------Note TMTECH the reason we went into Germany first was that our Navy was decimated and we needed to rebuild it. And since Germany had declared war on us we at least could send what we had there.

Answer 5

Funny you should ask that. If I'm not mistaken, it was a liberal Dem that "responded" to 12/7/41. It was also a liberal that dropped the bomb too. Remember one important thing sparky, Iraq did not attack us!!!!! The Iraqi people did not rape and kill us. We went into Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction that never existed. Most of the terrorist of 9/11 were Saudi. You know, the ones whose leader King George held hands with on a state visit to the US almost a year or so ago. But, look how close your king is to the Saudis now.

Answer 6

I do believe the Japanese air arm that liberated Pearl Harbor had rising suns on them. The planes that were flown into the Twin Towers were piloted by Saudis. In 1941 you attacked Japan. In 2003 you attacked Iraq. What was the reason again? Did they attack you? You are witnessing the fall of your empire, Jack-off!

Answer 7

It really wasn't too much different back then at it is today. The President (FDR a democrat) took a ton of flack for helping England. It was felt it was Europe's war, we shouldn't be involved. Hitlers atrocities were not known or they were thought to be rumor and propaganda. It wasn't until we were attacked by Japan on Dec 7, Then Germany declared war on the US on Dec 11th that finally got the US to make the commitment to go to war.

Answer 8

and we still have bases in japan and europe, why dont why pull our troops out from there before iraq, youa re right, the dems are defeatests, all they know is they hate bush and what to do whatever to undermind his goals, (remeber solcial security and how the APLUADED during the 06 state of the union) they i do believe are doing whatever to undermind this counrty, (immagration and the broders?) they have no goals, cant even get a group of em to agree on a liberal topic. i hope for the sake of the us that the poeple wise up and see all they do is slow down the govt and impead on pregress (is that why its call "CONgress?) the dem party isnt like it was in the days od FDR or JFK, they have lost theyre backs and if they think hillary will do US any better think again, she is a wolf in sheepp's colthing,

BUT dont think i am biased against the dems, we here in INdiana were silly enough to vote in Mitch Daniels (rep) who has donw nothin but change our time zone and lease out our public highways to onther country, he is a sell out

so not all Reps are purfect but a number of em have an idea on what to do

Answer 9

FOX news and conservative talk radio has given us a voice that we haven't had since the formation of the constitution. Unfortunatley this "Voice" has bitterly divided us as a people. Not since the Civil War have we been this divided. Sad thing is United We Stand and Divided we fall. It seems as if both the Liberals and the we Conservatives are the lambs being led to the slaughter. Remember "UNITED WE STAND". It is time we had a town meeting and find common ground so we can redefine our goals. If not, then it's divided we fall.

Answer 10

I'm certain that Liberals today would react to the attack on Pearl Harbor the same way liberals did when it happened. I think that George Bush and his regime (based on their recent behavior)would have jumped into action and immediately retaliated for the attack on Pearl Harbor by attacking Mexico.