NationStates Jolt Archive

Article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/01/carter.hamas/)

What a brainless America hating worthless twit. In what fucking universe does the US sending money to Hamas make any sense. I guess then we could add ourselves to the list of terrorism sponsors.

Have not sending anything and demonizing them worked so far?

Thursday, February 2, 2006; Posted: 7:12 a.m. EST (12:12 GMT)

William Henry Harrison is alive?!

William Henry Harrison is alive?!
I thought it was Harding, myself.

For a moment there I was wondering why the hell Dubya would be advocating sending money to Hamas, NSG being what it is.

William Henry Harrison is alive?!

I thought it was Harding, myself.

For a moment there I was wondering why the hell Dubya would be advocating sending money to Hamas, NSG being what it is.

And here I was wondering how Zombie Buchanan had managed to come back.

Why are you gravedigging CNN news Anikdote?

William Henry Harrison is alive?!

I thought it was Harding, myself.

And here I was wondering how Zombie Buchanan had managed to come back.

Buchanan was definitely worse! I mean...look at his record. He could have stopped the south but he did absolutely nothing. No wonder there has never been a PA president since then :D

What a brainless America hating

it seems its very easy to hate America these days, why I just had a lovely cheese and cucumber sandwich so off I must go to Allah my Ackbar

twit.

you nearly had me fooled there! you had me very nearly convinced you was not a time traveling primary school teacher from the 1970's :eek: so what do you have to say for yourself?

Article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/01/carter.hamas/)

What a brainless America hating worthless twit. In what fucking universe does the US sending money to Hamas make any sense. I guess then we could add ourselves to the list of terrorism sponsors.

What are you getting all alky about? Firstly, It's Jimmy Carter, you don't want to pay too much attention to that old fella. He's relentlessly correct about everything and utterly powerless to do anything about it. It's a sort of Zen I think. Jimmy Zen.

This thread is going like most NS threads. Hijacked by leftist euro wankers.

This thread is going like most NS threads. Hijacked by leftist euro wankers.

w00t!

In lieu of a point that is probably the best result

This thread is going like most NS threads. Hijacked by leftist euro wankers.

Maybe you want them to use their other hand?

This thread is going like most NS threads. Hijacked by leftist euro wankers.
I foresee that with comments like that you will not be around long enough to really find out how NSG threads go.

Besides, this is a debate board. People disagree with you here, get used to it.

This thread is going like most NS threads. Hijacked by leftist euro wankers.

He's on to us!

This thread is going like most NS threads. Hijacked by leftist euro wankers.

The topic is two years old. Try something more recent ;)

This thread is going like most NS threads. Hijacked by leftist euro wankers.

So, your argument gets trashed and you just start screaming abuse?

I foresee that with comments like that you will not be around long enough to really find out how NSG threads go.

Besides, this is a debate board. People disagree with you here, get used to it.

If it were actual disagreement and intelligent criticism then I could possibly be more receptive. However most the time it turns into nontopical cynicism.

DISTRACT AND ATTACK!

Buchanan was easily the worst president. I'm not sure how anyone figured it was a good plan to elect him.

If it were actual disagreement and intelligent criticism then I could possibly be more receptive. However most the time it turns into nontopical synicism.

DISTRACT AND ATTACK!

"Cynisism"

"Cynisism"

cynicism

Thursday, February 2, 2006; Posted: 7:12 a.m. EST (12:12 GMT)

i was very surprised that i had missed palestinian elections. not that i pay strict attention to them but i do watch the news channels now and then.

If it were actual disagreement and intelligent criticism then I could possibly be more receptive. However most the time it turns into nontopical cynicism.

DISTRACT AND ATTACK!

Because

What a brainless America hating worthless twit. In what fucking universe does the US sending money to Hamas make any sense. I guess then we could add ourselves to the list of terrorism sponsors.

is the height of intelligent criticism. And isn't "nontopical cynicism"

cynicism

Damn! I knew it was one of those.

This thread is going like most NS threads. Hijacked by leftist euro wankers.

how else do you think we became so awesome? beyond giving money to hamas that is

He's on to us!

quick mention WWII to distract him!

If it were actual disagreement and intelligent criticism then I could possibly be more receptive. However most the time it turns into nontopical synicism.

well if you actually had an argument instead of "omg he hates America!!11" I would be inclined to like stick in sources, fudge some evidence and stuff

so come now, tell us why people who need aid shouldn't receive it

So, your argument gets trashed and you just start screaming abuse?

I think he was expecting us to say "what a well written and thought provoking commentary. You are, of course, completely right."

After all, that's what normally happens on debate sites, isn't it?

If it were actual disagreement

With ... YOUR disagreement with YOUR dimly apprehended idea of what ol' Jimmy was on about ... which so far has extended to calling President Carter names and pointing out that Hamas is on the list of US-proscribed terrorist organizations.

You could probably look into that question more. I believe there are degrees of prohibition ... private citizens can still give money to organizations which government prohibits itself from. You might have a basis for an argument there.

and intelligent criticism then I could possibly be more receptive. However most the time it turns into nontopical cynicism.

DISTRACT AND ATTACK!

Just how much attention do you want? Have you considered getting a webcam?

Oh, and one line from your mental script of your argument with your inner strawman, does not a thread subject make. This thread sucks because the first post sucks.

I think he was expecting us to say "what a well written and thought provoking commentary. You are, of course, completely right."

After all, that's what normally happens on debate sites, isn't it?

Unless they are populated by leftist euro wankers of course ;)

Unless they are populated by leftist euro wankers of course ;)

ARRR, back in the day. They were all underage, female and working for the KGB. Actually, they weren't, they weren't and they weren't, but anyway.

Those were dark days indeed. Now we all work for the Leftist Euro Wank, a promising young organization in desperate need of a nifty acronym.

Which I think, having a mostly leftist, mostly self-gratifying, and mostly euro audience in mind, I think we can safely say is the shining hope of future humanity. Leftist Euro Wankerism FTW!

If it were actual disagreement and intelligent criticism then I could possibly be more receptive. However most the time it turns into nontopical cynicism.

DISTRACT AND ATTACK!
You failed to post anything relevant. I mean, it's a two year old article with very little for us to go on beyond ranting, what were you expecting? Some more haiku?

Those were dark days indeed. Now we all work for the Leftist Euro Wank, a promising young organization in desperate need of a nifty acronym.

Of course, if we were the Leftist Euro Wank Demons, we could be LEWD.

Of course, if we were the Leftist Euro Wank Demons, we could be LEWD.

That's the spirit!

I was thinking something you could register on the stock exchanges. What is the corporate status of a Demon, I wonder ?

For a moment there I was wondering why the hell Dubya would be advocating sending money to Hamas, NSG being what it is.
He's too busy trying to convince people we should keep the same number of troops in Iraq forever.

This thread is going like most NS threads. Hijacked by leftist euro wankers.

I am by no means leftist but to call GWB the worst president the US has ever had is ignoring US history.

If it were actual disagreement and intelligent criticism then I could possibly be more receptive. However most the time it turns into nontopical cynicism.

DISTRACT AND ATTACK!

"Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them."

Dude, Reagan's dead.

Dude, Reagan's dead.

And he was one of the best.

You failed to post anything relevant. I mean, it's a two year old article with very little for us to go on beyond ranting, what were you expecting? Some more haiku?

Yyyyyooooou rang?

And he was by far the worst.Fixed.
;)

And he was one of the best.

yeah i love a doddering old man who will sell arms to our enemies so they will get our hostages released then use the profits to support revolution in central america.

It is hard to say which one is worse- Woodrow Wilson or FDR. Neither of them did anything that helped the development of the country. Wilson opened the door to allow big government to take over the country and FDR walked through that door. I can find positive things about Wilson's career, but I find it hard to find positive things about FDR's career in office. Before people respond saying FDR is an American hero and that I am crazy, think about this little tid bit of information. Why is it that once FDR was out of office the amendement was passed to limit presidents to only two terms in office? I know this is a little fact but the post would be too lengthy to state everything that was done during FDR's term.

Yyyyyooooou rang?
You need Kat's picture for the full effect there. :D

You need Kat's picture for the full effect there. :D

Which one?

Anyways...

Miru ga ii...

The poor neocon
Slanders Carter for a thing
Repubs do a lot.

Article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/01/carter.hamas/)

What a brainless America hating worthless twit. In what fucking universe does the US sending money to Hamas make any sense. I guess then we could add ourselves to the list of terrorism sponsors.
tell me: do you ever read the articles you post, or do you just follow what Fox and Rush tell you to think?

For starters, this article is over 2 years old.

Next, read what he actually said in the article:
"If you sponsor an election or promote democracy and freedom around the world, then when people make their own decision about their leaders, I think that all the governments should recognize that administration and let them form their government," Carter said.
Oh my giddy aunt - he's defending the democratic right of a people to freely decide for themselves who they want to govern.
Democracy. Freedom. How unAmerican can you get?! Man but he must hate America when he comes out in support of such horrid concepts like that.

"If there are prohibitions -- like, for instance, in the United States, against giving any money to a government that is controlled by Hamas -- then the United States could channel the same amount of money to the Palestinian people through the United Nations, through the refugee fund, through UNICEF, things of that kind," he added.
There we are - he's advocating giving money to Hamas. Oh, wait a minute. No, he's not. He's saying give it to UNICEF to help sick children. UNICEF, Hamas. It's all the same, innit? I mean we don't like the government they freely elected so what better way to show it but by letting innocent children die, right? That'll show them just what a great nation the USA is.

Carter expressed hope that "the people of Palestine -- who already suffer ... under Israeli occupation -- will not suffer because they are deprived of a right to pay their school teachers, policemen, welfare workers, health workers and provide food for people."
There we go again, making all sorts of unAmerican vitriol. How dare he suggest sending humanitarian aid to help innocent people out. To pay for school teachers, doctors, police...
That bastard should be shot for making such nasty, hateful statements.
How dare he want to help out innocent people. What a twit.

This thread is going like most NS threads. Hijacked by leftist euro wankers.

I am stunned by your well articulated arguments, you are indeed a worthy adversary Anikdote!

yeah i love a doddering old man who will sell arms to our enemies so they will get our hostages released then use the profits to support revolution in central america.

Who doesnt?:p

You failed to post anything relevant. I mean, it's a two year old article with very little for us to go on beyond ranting, what were you expecting? Some more haiku?

I actually wouldn't mind seeing some Haiku. *nods*

I actually wouldn't mind seeing some Haiku. *nods*

Then kindly look at the last page.

I actually wouldn't mind seeing some Haiku. *nods*

I came across this one by John Cooper-Clarke the other day

To convey one’s mood
in seventeen syllables
is very diffic

I actually wouldn't mind seeing some Haiku. *nods*


Meatless thread posted
in a den of carnivores
Wilgrove's dream comes true

Carter was a bad governor and a bad President and has been the worst ex-President ever. He's the only one who could make that pantload from Little Rock look good. The man is a disgrace.

To this day, from time to time I'll have a Jimmy Carter sandwich--peanut butter and baloney :p

This thread is going like most NS threads. Hijacked by leftist euro wankers.

You've discovered one of the unfortunate truths of NS. Just look at as an opportunity for laughter at their expense :D

Who doesnt?:p

Most of El Salvador?



I knew you were being facetious.

Carter has also never struck me as quite the peacemaker that he seeks to make himself out as. Yeah, sure, compared to his predecessors he was an improvement in that area, as well as accountability, but he lacked a lot, and I daresay for all of his rhetoric, he was the President who presided over soured post-detente relations with the USSR, botched the Iranian hostage crisis.

Although, on the other hand, he appointed Volcker, an excellent choice.

Article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/01/carter.hamas/)

What a brainless America hating worthless twit. In what fucking universe does the US sending money to Hamas make any sense. I guess then we could add ourselves to the list of terrorism sponsors.

Because sending $3 a day per person in the US to Israel so they can bulldoze Palestinian homes isn't funding terrorism?

Because sending $3 a day per person in the US to Israel so they can bulldoze Palestinian homes isn't funding terrorism?

Did you forget one of the main right-wing truisms?

"It ain't terrorism when we do it!"

Article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/01/carter.hamas/)

What a brainless America hating worthless twit. In what fucking universe does the US sending money to Hamas make any sense. I guess then we could add ourselves to the list of terrorism sponsors.

I'd like to point out that before Israel was a nation, the terrorist organization known as Irgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun) was responsible for numerous attacks against the government of Palestine and the British including the bombing of the King David Hotel ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_Bombing) in 1946. This terrorist group eventually evolved into the Likud Party in modern Israel.

So it would seem to me that there's an established history for violent terrorist organizations becoming legitimate governments, don't you think?

In what fucking universe does the US sending money to Hamas make any sense. I guess then we could add ourselves to the list of terrorism sponsors.
Not everyone in the Gaza Strip loves Hamas. If you send the Palestinians money, you'll get them being able to remove themselves slightly from the extremely shitty situation they're in, and might stop to think about who they vote for next time, and become more Israel-friendly, simply because they're not so poor and starving they'll believe anything so long as they get a bowl of rice and lentils out of it.

Incidentally, this was written before the current civil war in Palestine, so at least put some context to it.

Article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/01/carter.hamas/)

What a brainless America hating worthless twit. In what fucking universe does the US sending money to Hamas make any sense. I guess then we could add ourselves to the list of terrorism sponsors.Wrong pres- it's Dubya. The worst.

Wrong pres- it's Dubya. The worst.
Nixon was pretty bad, too, to be fair to Dubya, and that's not forgetting Reagan.

Nixon was pretty bad, too, to be fair to Dubya, and that's not forgetting Reagan.Reagan forgot a lot. Let's return the favor.

And here I was wondering how Zombie Buchanan had managed to come back.

Buchanan was just a fruit.

Oh, and I thought of Grant.

Buchanan was just a fruit.

Oh, and I thought of Grant.

Why doesn't Johnson ever make these lists?

President Carter
Wants to send Hamas money?
When hell is wint'ry!

see now? that's a real haiku

Why doesn't Johnson ever make these lists?

Which one? Andrew, Lyndon, or the dick?

Article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/01/carter.hamas/)

What a brainless America hating worthless twit. In what fucking universe does the US sending money to Hamas make any sense. I guess then we could add ourselves to the list of terrorism sponsors.


What would you expect from Carter? Are you really shocked and surprised?

Which one? Andrew, Lyndon, or the dick?

Andrew. My bad.

I'd like to point out that before Israel was a nation, the terrorist organization known as Irgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun) was responsible for numerous attacks against the government of Palestine and the British including the bombing of the King David Hotel ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_Bombing) in 1946. This terrorist group eventually evolved into the Likud Party in modern Israel.

So it would seem to me that there's an established history for violent terrorist organizations becoming legitimate governments, don't you think?

As I read this excellent post, I can't help singing along with the theme from Exodus.

"This laaaaand is miiiiiine, God gave this laaaand to meeee; He gaaaaave this glorious laaand to meeeeeeeeee..."

I actually wouldn't mind seeing some Haiku. *nods*

Oh my God it has
spread from the Let's Play forum
that is on SA

And here I was wondering how Zombie Buchanan had managed to come back.

Zombie Buchanan sucks. I wanna see a fight between Zombie Reagan and Zombie JFK

Did you forget one of the main right-wing truisms?

"It ain't terrorism when we do it!"

Thats true. The US sponsors a lot of people who can be classified as terrorists. But they agree with our social and economic policies. So of course that means they arent terrorists.

So it would seem to me that there's an established history for violent terrorist organizations becoming legitimate governments, don't you think?
If you think the Likud governments in Israel were "legitimate"...

Which one?
This one:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/yourang.jpg
:D

This one:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/yourang.jpg
:D

Ah! :D

Zombie Buchanan sucks. I wanna see a fight between Zombie Reagan and Zombie JFK

Pfft. Zombie Andrew Jackson could kick both their asses.

Pfft. Zombie Andrew Jackson could kick both their asses.

Andrew Jackson was a Racist just like Woodrow Wilson.

Andrew Jackson was a Racist just like Woodrow Wilson.

And JFK was a misogynist and Reagan was a homophobe. Buchanan supported the Dred Scott decision. What does any of this have to do with their zombie fighting skillz?

Andrew Jackson was a Racist just like Woodrow Wilson.

Ah, but a cowboy racist, which are the most powerful types of zombies. Just look at Theodore Roosevelt.

Click Stand;13599078']Ah, but a cowboy racist, which are the most powerful types of zombies. Just look at Theodore Roosevelt.

Zombie Andrew Jackson vs. Zombie Teddy Roosevelt. Now THAT would be a fight.

I think Andrew Jackson was the worst American President, personally, he just completely fucked over the Constitution and abused the powers of the Presidency worse than damn near anyone else...

I mean honestly, telling the Supreme court to fuck off, and effectively commiting Genocide against a group of people is pretty bad, IMO...

Theodore Roosevelt was the best president, definitely not racist, he wanted all Americans to consider themselves Americans and nothing else...and had the best Economic and Military strategies...

I think Andrew Jackson was the worst American President, personally, he just completely fucked over the Constitution and abused the powers of the Presidency worse than damn near anyone else...

I mean honestly, telling the Supreme court to fuck off, and effectively commiting Genocide against a group of people is pretty bad, IMO...

Theodore Roosevelt was the best president, definitely not racist, he wanted all Americans to consider themselves Americans and nothing else...and had the best Economic and Military strategies...

And he supported the Women Sufferage movement.

Bush is far from the worst President. He's in the bottom 5, certainly, but he's not the worst by a longshot.

Bush is far from the worst President. He's in the bottom 5, certainly, but he's not the worst by a longshot.

he's not far from the worst but his term isnt up yet. he may do something to cement the bottom position or he might do something right for a change.

who do you think was worse?

I thought it was Harding, myself.

More importantly, put me out of my misery; what in fluffle's name is happening on the 20th of March 2010?

Carter is not the worst president in US history. At least Carter had a functioning brain.

he's not far from the worst but his term isnt up yet. he may do something to cement the bottom position or he might do something right for a change.

who do you think was worse?

I'm not answering that, because I have no interest in hijacking the thread.

Did you forget one of the main right-wing truisms?

"It ain't terrorism when we do it!"

Oh, that's not only a right-wing truism.

Buchanan was definitely worse! I mean...look at his record. He could have stopped the south but he did absolutely nothing. No wonder there has never been a PA president since then :D

Why should he have done something? If they wanted to secede, good riddance to them.

Carter is not the worst president in US history. At least Carter had a functioning brain.

Not the worst, but he comes damn close.

Not the worst, but he comes damn close.

pfft, Reagan was worse

pfft, Reagan was worse

I disagree, though Reagan was horrible.

I disagree, though Reagan was horrible.

he had more time to do lasting damage, at least Carter didn't plunge this nation into massive debt or push his damned "voodoo" economics on people, damn Reagan's black heart.

Reagan wasn't that bad...
I mean, he loved jelly bellies...
and he once fell asleep during a one-on-one conversation with the pope. That takes guts. Or gray hair. Whatever.

and he once fell asleep during a one-on-one conversation with the pope.

lol

Reagan wasn't that bad...
I mean, he loved jelly bellies...
and he once fell asleep during a one-on-one conversation with the pope. That takes guts. Or gray hair. Whatever.

heh, better than Dubya with the pretzel!

heh, better than Dubya with the pretzel!

:confused:

:confused:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXCr9OCNHgk

bush explains :D


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_George_W._Bush_pretzel_incident

teh details

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXCr9OCNHgk

bush explains :D


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_George_W._Bush_pretzel_incident

teh details

LOL!

Not the worst, but he comes damn close.

I bet you are going to say FDR.

The shrub is the worst. I use to think Harding but the shrub beat him.....

I'm not answering that, because I have no interest in hijacking the thread.
Maghda won't hijack
A thread which is discussing
Zombie fighting skills

I bet you are going to say FDR.

A good guess, but no.

The shrub is the worst. I use to think Harding but the shrub beat him.....

Wow, Harding's corruption is worse than FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans, lying us into war, cozying up to Stalin, forever destroying limited government in the U.S., backstabbing our friends in Eastern Europe and China, prolonging the Depression, etc.?

Harding was corrupt as all hell, but the man never killed anyone or repressed anyone in any way.

Maghda won't hijack
A thread which is discussing
Zombie fighting skills

I applaud your haiku skills, good sir. :)

Why should he have done something? If they wanted to secede, good riddance to them.

Because it is his job to do something and he failed in that utterly.

I bet you are going to say FDR.

The shrub is the worst. I use to think Harding but the shrub beat him.....

That's because you failed history.

AWow, Harding's corruption is worse than FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans, lying us into war, cozying up to Stalin, forever destroying limited government in the U.S., backstabbing our friends in Eastern Europe and China, prolonging the Depression, etc.?

Excuse me but how the fuck did FDR lie us into World War II?

Excuse me but how the fuck did FDR lie us into World War II?

It's probably a reference to the story that Roosevelt received advanced warning about Pearl Harbor but did nothing about it so the U.S. would have legitimate excuse to enter WW2.

I'm not answering that, because I have no interest in hijacking the thread.

I have no such qualms. Start with these:

Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton
LBJ--think Vietnam and Great Society
Herbert Hoover
Warren Harding
Woodrow Wilson--he kept us out of war (not!)
Benjamin Harrison
Chester Arthur
Rutherford B. Hayes
Ulysses S. Grant
Andrew Johnson
James Buchanan
Franklin Pearce--his own party refused to re-nominate him
Millard Fillmore
Zachary Taylor
William Henry Harrison--didn't live long enough to even do anything

George W. Bush's ranking has yet to be determined, but will eventually be in the top 20%.

George W. Bush's ranking has yet to be determined, but will eventually be in the top 20%.

WOW! You have precognitive abilities too? I thought it was just me. For example, I successfully predicted earlier today that, the next time you posted, you would choose to spit out stupidly unreasoned bullshit.

That's because you failed history.


So says the one that stated the US didn't loose Viet Nam. They won until they left.....

WOW! You have precognitive abilities too? I thought it was just me. For example, I successfully predicted earlier today that, the next time you posted, you would choose to spit out stupidly unreasoned bullshit.

Didn't you get the memo? In 100 years or so, they will say he was a great President. ;)

More importantly, put me out of my misery; what in fluffle's name is happening on the 20th of March 2010?

Spring Equinox? :cool:

Because it is his job to do something and he failed in that utterly.

What should have he done? Kept them in the Union at gunpoint?

It's probably a reference to the fact that Roosevelt received advanced warning about Pearl Harbor but did nothing about it so the U.S. would have legitimate excuse to enter WW2.

Fixed for accuracy.

Andrew Jackson was a Racist just like Woodrow Wilson.

Yeah, but Andrew Jackson's favorite hobby was dueling. In case you haven't been to the 18th century lately, this unmanly sounding activity actually involves standing across from an armed man and shooting at him while he in turn shoots at you. The number of duels that Jackson took part in varies depending on what source you consult; some say 13, while others rank the number somewhere in the 100's, both of which are entirely too many times for a reasonable human being to stand in front of someone who is trying to kill them with a loaded gun.

Click Stand;13599078']Ah, but a cowboy racist, which are the most powerful types of zombies. Just look at Theodore Roosevelt.

Teddy was the ultimate badass.

Fixed for accuracy.

Source?

Source?

The "FDR had no advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor and was unable to prevent it" myth has been debunked to death hundreds of times.

The "FDR had no advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor and was unable to prevent it" myth has been debunked to death hundreds of times.

When and by whom? Forgive me if I seem skeptical, but I have never heard that claim stated as fact before, and I'd prefer to have it substantiated by more than just someone on the internet.

The "FDR had no advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor and was unable to prevent it" myth has been debunked to death hundreds of times.

In other words, you don't have a source.

Fixed for accuracy.

You failed basic fact checking, Grasshopper.

Straight Dop Staff Report: Did Roosevelt know in advance about the attack on Pearl Harbor yet say nothing? (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpearlharbor.html)

Dear Straight Dope:

I have just heard the disturbing rumor for the umpteenth time that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was about to be bombed, and said nothing, because he wanted America to be drawn into the war. Is this the truth? --Jeremy Uppington, Reno, NV

SDSTAFF Corrado replies:

One is tempted at this point to decry the legacy of Richard M. Nixon, whose actions as President (and, some allege, as a presidential candidate) made generations of Americans unwilling to put any trust whatever in their leaders. In this view, Nixon helped besmirch the character of one of the most capable and beloved Presidents by making it possible to believe that Roosevelt would allow thousands of Americans be killed or wounded in order to further his own political goals.

That temptation evaporates when one discovers that such rumors started almost immediately after the bombing itself. In fact, Thomas Dewey (Republican candidate for President in 1944) tried to turn it into a campaign issue; he and several Republican senators claimed that "certain Japanese codes before Pearl Harbor" had been cracked, and that FDR "knew what was happening before Pearl Harbor, and instead of being re-elected he ought to be impeached." In the end, Dewey dropped the issue; partially because Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall provided evidence to the contrary, and partially because Dewey knew if he were to make such accusations in public, the Japanese government would realize that their codes had been compromised, which would prompt them to change their codes and cause serious hardship to future American operations.

On the face of it, there's a ring of truth to the rumor. The American military had broken some Japanese codes, and had received prior warning of an attack, both from notes they intercepted as well as notes the British cracked and passed on. Given that Marshall warned Pacific army commanders "the United States desires that Japan commits the first overt act," how hard is it to believe that Roosevelt allowed the surprise attack to occur in order to bring a vocally isolationist Congress and public into supporting war with Japan?

But let's look at each of these allegations in detail--you may note some flaws.

The American military had broken Japanese codes.

Yes. However, what they had broken were diplomatic codes. During the pre-war negotiations with Japan, Roosevelt often knew what the Japanese were prepared to offer and willing to settle for. The messages sent on December 6th made it perfectly clear to Roosevelt that the Japanese government was planning to declare war upon the United States.

So the American government knew an attack on Pearl Harbor was coming.

No. The Japanese government was not in the habit of informing its diplomats of planned military strikes in detail. So while the Americans knew that Japanese diplomats had been instructed to deliver a certain message to the U.S. government at 1 p.m. on December 7 and then destroy their cipher machine and secret documents, and from this deduced that something big was about to happen, they did not know where to expect the initial attack. The Pacific Ocean's a big place, and there were lots of targets available to the Japanese--the Philippines, Dutch East Indies, Singapore, etc. Admiral Stark recognized that the Japanese were planning to attack somewhere, but told his subordinates it would be "against either the Philippines, Thai, or Kra Peninsula or possibly Borneo." As is well known, the American military failed to take advantage of what little warning it did have through bad luck and incompetence.

But the carriers were out to sea on maneuvers, leaving behind several outdated battleships. So the Pearl Harbor attack wasn't nearly as successful as it could have been. Doesn't that mean that someone had ordered them to take precautions by sending out the carriers?

Try telling Roosevelt's staff and the navy that the Pearl Harbor attack wasn't nearly as successful as it could have been. Most of them believed that the Pearl Harbor attack had completely obliterated American strength in the Pacific.

As for the carriers, it would be another six months before their importance would be proven beyond a doubt, at the battle of Midway. At the time Pearl Harbor was attacked, nearly all naval leaders--including the Japanese--considered carriers and their aircraft best suited to reconnaissance. The real fighting would be left to the battleships, many of which were sunk or badly damaged after Pearl Harbor.

While the Americans knew some attack was coming, they did not know what type of attack. Had the air raid been followed up with an invasion, Pearl Harbor could not have held out for long, and the United States would have been without one of its major bases in the Pacific, in addition to having lost the fleet.

Even so, without the Japanese attack, America would never have declared war upon Japan.

Not true. Most people point to the August 1941 resolution to keep draftees on duty for more than twelve months, a measure that passed by the narrowest of margins, 203-202. But antiwar sentiment was waning quickly, especially in the wake of German U-boat attacks upon American vessels. In September, a poll showed 67 percent of the American public felt the United States should risk war rather than allow Japan to grow more powerful; 70 percent felt the United States should risk war with Germany. Many in Roosevelt's cabinet and the press felt that the President would have no difficulty in getting a declaration of war against Japan following the breakdown in peace negotiations in late November. But it was Roosevelt who refused to push the issue, instead waiting for Japan to make the first move.

In order to believe that Roosevelt knew about the coming Pearl Harbor attack but kept mum, you have to believe he had better information than any of his subordinates in the government or the military--information that since has been destroyed, since no one has been able to find it. Moreover, you have to believe that Roosevelt was willing to sacrifice most of the Pacific fleet, and possibly one of the most important American naval bases in the Pacific, probably crippling American operations against Japan for the next two years (by which time the Japanese would likely have taken over the Pacific and begun operations against the American West Coast) in order to gain public support for a measure the public already supported by a two-to-one margin. You also have to believe that Roosevelt--who had been Assistant Secretary of the Navy, who always claimed that if he hadn't gotten into politics he would have liked to have been an admiral, whose first campaign song for President was "Anchors Aweigh" (before being replaced by the more appropriate and upbeat "Happy Days Are Here Again")--would countenance the deaths of thousands of U.S. sailors for a few extra votes in Congress--again, for a measure that many observers felt would pass easily.

If you're willing to believe that, I've got some great information on the Vince Foster murder I'm willing to sell you.

--SDSTAFF Corrado
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board

Anyone who thinks Carter was the worst has obviously lost their brain and had it replaced with Fox News broadcasts. At worst he was incompetant, and doesn't bless Israel for every child they kill, like some would have us do(and no, I have nothing against the Israeli people, only their government, and they're far more critical of it than America, by all acounts).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Carter never started a needless war. He never ran roughshod over half the constitution. Did he ever come close to running up the debt Bush has? No? Didn't think so.

The sad part is that with all this, Bush may not even be the worst. Carter doesn't come close. In office he was, at worst, mearly ineffective. Out of office, he has been a leading diplomat and humanitarian. And he is one of the very few prominant figures in American politics who has the guts to critisize Israel. He speaks his mind, apparently without carring weather others agree with him, and weather you do or not, I, for one, respect that. It's nice to have some one who's foriegn policy isn't based on Revelations, and who isn't paying lipservice to those madmen. It's nice to see someone who isn't so scarred of being called anti-semitic that he treats Israel as above reproach, rather than mearly another imperfect nation in the world of mortals. But I guess having a mind free of such nonsense is reason enough for conservatives to hate this man. For my part he is the only ex-president alive who I still truly respect.

This thread is going like most NS threads. Hijacked by leftist euro wankers.

You know, people like you make me ashamed to be an American. Honestly. I am so sick and tired of this constant idiotic fetish American conservatives have with painting anyone and anything that disagrees with their viewpoint as being automatically "leftist" as if left was bad, and as painting them with one stenotype or another. Are you going to start talking about how the French always surrender next? Or maybe you'll spit up a nice little retort about how Canada is worthless?

Ooh, or maybe you'll start calling me a traitor because I'm in the Navy and yet I'm agreeing with President Carter. Yeah, because being in the Navy means I gotta be a right-wing fuckwit.

What should have he done? Kept them in the Union at gunpoint?

He's the President of the United States. Charged with defending the Constitution of the United States and against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Fixed for accuracy.

Back it up then.

The "FDR had no advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor and was unable to prevent it" myth has been debunked to death hundreds of times.

Um son? Any historical research deals with sources. So tell me, what is your source? I would love to look it over.

Fixed for accuracy.

PWND.

Worst Pres in American History

...you didn't get good grades in history...did you?

...you didn't get good grades in history...did you?

This truth we hold to be self-evident....

Not only was Carter not the worst, not only IS Bush worse than he ever were, not only is the article old and the OP incapable of debating... Turns out, Carter was right. It was a mistake to cut off aid to the Palestinians while Hamas was getting the funds from elsewhere.

Spam in the forum
Blooming like lotus flower
The Modhammer looms

Alternatively:

The once was a man called Carter,
Whom Fox News tried to martyr,
But give to Hamas?
He wasn't an ass!
With the UN he hoped to barter.