Since it was their icon roosevelt who sat on his *** even while Churchill begged for help.
2007-08-26 05:12:34 · 9 answers · asked by Libsuc 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
There are already numerous monuments to lives lost in WWII. They're in Okinawa, Luxembourg, Holland, England and France. All of them are beautiful and are maintained by the American Battlefield Monuments Commission. Several exist for WWI also. The world doesn't need any more monuments.
2007-08-26 05:44:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, that's smart. Let's honor the dead by damaging people's lives further iin the present. Roosevelt isn't my icon, but at the very least he was one of the few people in our history to do something right on a national level. The only reason he waited to help Churchill was because of national opinion, he wanted to help England long before he actually could.
Besides that, how many monuments do you need to erect before you remember? WWII has tons of monuments currently in existance. So, we should take from welfare programs, or perhaps from medicare, which keeps many of elderly in our country alive, to erect another statue? Grats on the terrible idea.
2007-08-26 12:24:17 · answer #2 · answered by whiteflame55 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What we should do is make the bastards who keep hiding the truth about WWII be prosecuted. 55 million killed during the war and 65 million killed by the communists after the war. The Jewish commies who killed all the people are all over Europe and they don't have to worry about being extradicted for their crimes. You want the truth about WWII? Churchill was nothing but a drunk bastard warmonger. He was as guilty as Stalin and Roosevelt.
2007-08-26 12:21:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is a new monument to WWII on the mall in Washington.
2007-08-26 12:52:15 · answer #4 · answered by alphabetsoup2 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To move foreword we must get over the past... Monuments are a waste of time and money. We shouldn't remember those who died, but those who lived.
2007-08-26 12:30:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Roosevelt only entered the U.S. in the war because it was beneficial to his purposes,then proceeded to yet again spend the hard working taxpayers $$ on social programs that have become a nightmare.
2007-08-26 12:21:43 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Who cares what you do with it just get it away from the liberals, but good point either way.
2007-08-26 12:25:54 · answer #7 · answered by facecancer 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, and for the Genocide of the unborn also.
2007-08-26 12:38:02 · answer #8 · answered by Jeremiah Johnson 7 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, no, why do that when we can dump the money into the war in Iraq?
2007-08-26 12:18:59 · answer #9 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋