Remember, this is history. The answerer who said there was opposition is correct. In fact, it took the attack on Pearl Harbor to get Americans into the war.
If the left could figure out a way, they would also criticize the US for entering WWII. They are unable to be vocal about their true opinion, because they need the votes from the Jewish Americans. But I have heard Liberal professors say that the US was selling arms to both sides. True or not, it is clearly an attempt to discredit the US.
The major difference is that in spite of their opposition, there was a general social attitude of respect for the office of President of the US.
2007-05-15 13:38:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Shrink 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
Crack open a history book if that doesn't scare you. Coming out of the great depression, the vast majority of this country was against WWII, Europe was being destroyed, until Pearl Harbor...ooh forget it, I'm just wasting time.
War was declared! War has never been declared against Iraq because...ooh wait i'm wasting my time. lol
This is a prime example of the Neo-Con= good, Liberal=Bad or vice versa world we live in today.
BTW We're in Iraq, I support WINNING, not leaving but I don't know what Winning is! I've yet to hear it from anyone. Stability is objective...not a definition! Not a Mission! Depending who you talk to it will take 5-10-20yrs. It is beyond believe how we got where we are concerning Iraq. 3 nations in the AXIS OF EVIL, one of which has nuclear weapons, one on the verge yet we invade the one least threatening. Yeah I know all the intelligence, for every bit of intelligence saying go to war, there were many, many in the CIA and pentegon saying wait we can't quite confirm any of your shyte!!
Afghanistan should be the world biggest club med with all the money we've spent instead of invading Iraq...but I guess that oil pipe line wouldn't do us any good, if Iraq wasn't in the plan.
2007-05-15 21:03:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by William G 2
·
2⤊
2⤋
Charles Lindbergh was one of them. Our hero?? Really, during the days of WW ll there were not to many of these around, a few, but most folks knew the score, this was a war for world domination, nothing less, and Republicans and Democrats went to war as brothers and sisters, same uniforms, and the enemy was 'over there' as in WW l. This time the 'Over there', could be 'Over Here' pretty quick. Today's conflicts are not all that different when you examine the situations.
2007-05-15 20:41:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by Blitzpup 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
It was a little different then. The Japanese bombed us and brought us into the war. The whole country sacrificed, not just a few. We went in with all our troops and fought with our allies and ended it in 4 years. We were not being sold out at home as our troops were off fighting or allowing illegals to enter the country. Our president didn't tell people to go out and spend to build the economy. Instead we had food stamps and rations, because the most important thing was to supply the troops, not the corporations.
2007-05-15 20:33:58
·
answer #4
·
answered by jackie 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
Roosevelt and Truman were both Democrats, so the few liberals in the party at that time were shut down! The new liberals are left over, free love, anti-establishment, make pot legal, freedom from the bra, and freedom from soap, hippies of the sixty's. Bill, Hilary,John, and John, Teddy. The few true Democrats still around are led by Mr. Lieberman.
2007-05-15 20:35:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by T C 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
They weren't around because WWII was a clear cut, good vs. evil conflict. Everyone knew what had to be done to stop the Nazi's and the Japanese aggressors and they were willing to sacrifice in order to stop their actions. Today, it is unclear whether or not America has a just cause for war against Iraq, and the people you refer to as "crying liberals" mostly believe that we do not have a legitimate reason for invading Iraq.
2007-05-15 20:32:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
Back then, the U.S. was led by a man with great credibility and leadership skills, FDR; then, Harry Truman. Also, Japan had attacked one of our home bases.
Today, we are led by a man who started a war with Iraq without any real provocation, and his advisers have no real plan of action. In the meantime, thousands of people are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, with more to follow. Further, due to leadership faux pas, his approval rating is plummeting.
Thus, the liberals are whining today because we do not have leaders like we did in WWII.
'Nuff said!
2007-05-15 20:33:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by MenifeeManiac 7
·
2⤊
4⤋
"Libs" like George McGovern flying B-24s and earning the Distinguished Flying Cross . "Libs" like John Kennedy fighting the Japanese. "Libs" like Walter Cronkite parachuting into Holland. "Libs" like Andy Rooney flying missions over Germany with the 8th Air Force. "Libs" like Senator Daniel Inouye earning the Medal Of Honor (and a Bronze Star).
Are these the guys you mean?
2007-05-15 20:53:17
·
answer #8
·
answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Let's see, If we go back to the late 30's, conservatives like Chamberlain were appeasing Hitler to avoid fighting while liberals had already been fighting the Facists in Spain.
2007-05-15 20:44:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by the_meadowlander 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
there is a big difference in ww2 and iraq. i personally think that it was a huge mistake.but i do agree with you, that if liberals of today, were in charge, back during ww2, we would have never won. they would have done what chamberlain did. which is try to appease hitler, and the japanese. and if they would have had the p.c. movement then, instead of fighting them, we would have tried to figure out what we had done to make them hate us so.
2007-05-15 20:42:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by out for justice. 5
·
2⤊
2⤋