If it were October 1942 do you think liberals would want to "Cut & Run"?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Deadlock:_1942
Just because a war is not going the way you want is no reason to retreat... unless you happen to be French or a Liberal.

Answer 1

Worse! They would be crying to talk to Hitler and Tojo. They would call Guadalcanal a a failure. They would be bitching about the internment camps and calling FDR a Nazi. Cindy Sheehan would be camped at Hyde Park crying about Standard Oil & Henry Kaiser's contatcts. The Libs in San Fransico would declare a no war zone and demand the military leave.

Answer 2

Quite to the contrary it was a Democratic President, FDR who had to drag republicans into WWII kicking and screaming 2 years after it started. In fact, during the Presidential election campaigns of 1940, the republicans accused Roosevelt of warmongering. Conservative Americans were doing too good of business with Hitler to want to interfere. Henry Ford was selling automotive equipment up until the last minute. They also new about the extermination of the Jews, but did not care about that either.

Wendell Willkie, the 1940 Republican Presidential candidate appealed to isolationist conservatives:

•"No man has the right to use the great powers of the Presidency to lead the people, indirectly, into war"; the next day headlines blared, "MUST AVOID WAR, WILLKIE DECLARES."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1940

Answer 3

First of all, idiots, America did not claim war on Germany. They claimed war on japan after the sneak attack on pearl harbor. Due to all the axis countries being ALLIED, after the US declared war on Japan, Germany and Italy declared war on he US.

Second, cut and run? Is that what the majority wants us to do? We have been in this fight for a long time, and many have died. We can not just cut and run now that we are this far along, regardless of the purpose behind it all. Otherwise all of the US soldiers and Marines have all died in vain. With all of those already dead, it's not only a moral obligation to "stay the coarse", it is also the only practical thing to do.

Answer 4

Liberals didn't want to cut and run but republicans did. They criticized FDR for that but we seem to have selective memory. The war in Europe was going well and we actually liberated people. Iraq hates us and 60% of them want us dead. Do you see the difference?

Answer 5

Unlike Republicans like Henry Ford, the directrors of Texaco Oil and Prescott Bush, Democrats would not have collaborated and traded with the Nazis DURING THE WAR ...or helped them hide and avoid accountability after WW II. ( as Allan Dullus ( sp? ) and Harriman did in the CIA in the late 40s and early 50s ) .

Answer 6

My question is, whats the difference between the french a liberals? They both hate everyone that disagrees with them, and they're both cowards. No, the liberals would not want to cut and run, cause they'd know they'd get their butts kicked for saying it

Answer 7

The liberals were in charge in 1942. They declared war on Germany to save the world.
Bush declared or Iraq to save his buddies in the oil business.

Answer 8

Yah that is an awesome point.
Lets see we dont stop the holocaust, we dont get involved until we are attacked and then we attack the country that attacked us.
No I think liberals would be all for that.

Answer 9

You're a complete idiot, just like Bush. The American public will speak on Nov. 7th and the Republican party will get their asses handed to them. Guaranteed.

Answer 10

dude, french resistance fighters kept fighting even after the invasion of France, in fact alot of downed American airman owe their lives to Frenchman who hid them from the Nazis and helped them get home.
I recall that the people most opposed to the war where conservatives who believed they needed to uphold the Monroe doctrine and stay out of European affairs.
I also recall that the number one appeaser was chamberlain of the CONSERVATIVE party.