frankly Sam, i'm astounded by the historical, and economic igorance you've displayed in this thread. The new deal, what ever it may have been, was begun long before Truman was even a twinkle in FDR's eye, and did not end the depression. WW2 did, and that engine had been running for 6 years before Truman had a chance to conceive anything. i should add, i'm a truman fan second, and you would know this had you read the article, or stayed awake in 6th grade history. The Soviet Union was not our enemy before the war (they may not have been exactly friends either), and they were crucial allies when FDR and Truman met with Stalin, in Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam. and as to the kennedy comparison, many have argued that his meeting with Kruschev actually precipitated the Cuban Missle crisis, so inexpperienced did he seem. hardly a vote in Obama's favor.
LOL. They absolutely were our enemy. You apparently aren't as knowledgeable as I had assumed you were. If you think otherwise I question your most basic knowledge about the 1920's and 1930's in the USA or anywhere in Europe. The Soviet Red Scare is almost exclusively the theme of those years. Everybody was scared to death of Lenin (or alternately idolized him) before they even knew what a Nazi was. And more than Roosevelt, who merely disliked him, Churchill absolutely couldn't stand to be in the same room as Stalin. Churchill hated communists almost as much as Hitler did. When Churchill provided Stalin with intelligence predicting Operation Barbarossa, Stalin believed that Churchill was lying to him to drive a wedge between him and Hitler. And the feeling was mutual. The Soviets were essentially annually promising to overthrow all of the capitalistic regimes of Europe and North America and wash the streets with the blood of capitalists. Beyond the simple ideological conflicts of Communism/Capitalism, from the point that we occupied the Trans-Siberian Railroad against the wishes of Lennin and Trotsky, we were clearly enemies with the Soviet Union. Perhaps you should read this book as a starting point: The First Cold War: The Legacy of Woodrow Wilson in U.S.-Soviet Relations - the foreward is written by a good Reagan Republican, Lawrence Eagleburger
lol. i know more about US history than george w. bush....it's hillarious to say someone needs a history lesson when they voted for bush <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bEiKHItyl9g&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bEiKHItyl9g&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
so....what you're trying to say is that............you're a complete, unrepentat, undisputed donkeynad. Please pick a policy (foreign or domestic) in which your stupidity can be pointed out..........in advance.
The New Deal was the furthest example of liberal progressiveness by Truman...But....But... there is so much to Truman being different in principle than today's version:...... "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word." Harry S. Truman, June 23 1941 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman Difference in principle from today's snobbish elitist progressive (Kerry, Obama) example #1) Drop the bomb....Why? because this would not appease the far left anti war cluster puck gang...Today's progressive snob elitists which samfisher gets excited about would never have the guts to even think about dropping the bomb as an option, and even if they did...How would the far left anti-war base feel about that? Difference in principle from today's snobbish elitist progressive (Kerry, Obama) example #2) Supported the war on 2 fronts...TWO...Why? Barack Hussein Obama would say let's just focus on Japan...they attacked us. Germany didn't....Barack Hussein Obama would say it's expensive...let's not....Barack Hussein Obama would say let's meet with Hitler.... Barack Hussein Obama would say I will promise to get troops out of Europe and just focus on Japan...Hitler did not commit 12/7...They are not responsible.... The difference is clear...Add the fact Barack Hussein Obama is the worst candidate ever, and the distinction is further clear on how a certain progressive democrat (Truman) is far, far different from the vile, ugly, repulsive, loathsome entity it is now.... P.S. I usually don't go against my word, but after thinking it over... I will utilize the middle name because I refute the notion that my political opponents have somehow attached significance of a middle name is somehow racist or unpatriotic...Therefore I have used inspired reasoning from Barack Hussein Obama himself... on why I will utilize the middle name where I see fit!...Ask me in a couple months,...Perhaps my answer will be sometimes I use it,...sometimes I don't....
ROXRAN: Is Harold Ford, Jr. your favorite Democrat or just your favorite black Democrat? And didn't you vote for Corker?
Ford Jr. is my favorite Democrat because of his balance and other characteristics. I did vote for Corker because I felt it was an even choice at the time, and with the democratic surge happening at the time, it compelled me more...In hindsight, Corker has been good, but I think Ford Jr. would have been great...I somewhat regret my vote.
Unfortunately many conservatives don't seem to take history either or at least a very selective reading of history. Indeed..
I'm going to have to agree with Basso here. The Soviet Union wasn't exactly our friend but they most definately weren't our enemy and while FDR and Churchill disliked Stalin they all agreed that the threat of Hitler was far greater and more pressing. It is incorrect to use Potsdam and Yalta as an example of us meeting with enemies when we were allies both in letter and in practice at the time. As for the Kennedy comparison I don't know if his meeting with Kruschev precipitated the Cuban Missile crisis but I think its pretty clear that Kruschev didn't have a very high opinion of JFK and sought to test him.
First - you're wrong with respect to Potsdam By the time the Potsdam conference was held - not only was Hitler not a threat, he was dead and Germany had surrendered two months earlier. The Yalta conference was also held just about two months before the fall of the Third Reichwhen it looked inevitable. Second - If it's incorrect to use them as an example of meeting with the enemy - then why did the writer of the amateurish column that basso is endorsing use them as his primary argument against to argue against meeting with enemies? Third - I feel stupid even discussing this. the ultimate point of this stupid execise is that JOhn McCain is going to SHOW our enemies how its done....by NOT ANSWERING THEIR TEXT MESSAGES !!! OMG SO COOL!!!! WOWZERS!!!11!!!
I'm not quite sure how a massive growth of government intended to directly benefit people can't be considered an example of liberal progressiveness. There's one problem with this view is that Obama is on record for advocating launching attacks into Pakistan even without Pakistan's approval. I don't think Obama is as dovish as you might think. As for dropping the bomb if you are specifically talking about nukes I doubt even McCain considers using those as a primary option. I think there is a big problem in trying to read how current candidates would react to historical views just as there is in trying to determine how historical candidates would react with todays issues. IMO you are drawing a very shallow comparison between WWII and today. While yes Germany didn't attack the US directly they publically supported the Japanese and themselves declared war on the US on the heels of the Pearl Harbor. At the same time they were already in a state of active war against the US allies. Saddam distanced himself from 9/11 and capitulated to US demands, allowing inspectors back in. Saddam wasn't occupying anyone or in a position to occupy anyone. In fact a big chunk of Iraq, Kurdish territory, was occupied by a force opposed to him and another big chunk was under aerial control. To argue that since FDR and Truman supported a two front war means that in the 2000's they would support a two front war or to say that if Obama was president in 1941 he wouldn't support a two front war since he doesn't support one now completely ignores the vast differences between the two situations. Roxran I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have anything racial in mind when using Barack Obama's middle name but it seems to me that all your doing is being antagonistic.
My mistake on Potsdam but we were still allied with the Soviets then and cooperating on the occupation of Germany. We weren't enemies then cold or otherwise. I'm not endorsing the whole column and agree its got a lot of problems just the particular point that when we met with the Soviets at Yalta and Potsdam we weren't enemies.
As I said, Churchill and Truman might not have liked or even trusted Stalin but we weren't enemies in letter or practice. It is a different matter between meeting with a suspicious ally versus meeting with an enemy. There's a huge difference between the US meeting with the Soviet Union at the end of WWII when we had been actively allied to defeat Germany versus what Obama is talking about in regard to meeting with no precondition with Iran who in practice has been opposing the US.
The more relevant Kennedy tale is of the secret talks regarding Turkey as part of the deal that led to the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis. During WWII, there were back door talks with the Japanese Ambassador to Switzerland, but they went nowhere. Korean War peace talks started during the Truman administration.
What I meant was: The New Deal was the most demonstrative example of liberal progressiveness by Truman...But....But... there is so much to Truman being different in principle than today's version:...... Honestly, I hope not...I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. If it meant saving a million lives...I think he would... I disagree with the assesment. Saddam sponsered through monetary means terroristic suicide bombing. The same suicide bombing mindset used by neighboring terrorists to cause 9/11 or other engagements against civilians or innocent lives...Saddam did occupy and would continue to occupy, and would position himself to occupy further if able to...If the Israelis doidn't bomb the nuclear reactor,...How much of a threat would Saddam be if allowed to? To think he was suddenly changed or contained absolutely is foolish to think of. He was a menacing threat... I don't think so...Democratic Presidents (FDR, Truman) had different principles on security...Inward,..not much so. I will admit that and I can live with that..., but to me there is vast, vast differances on foreign policy and security than what is based today...That is why I have much more respect and nostalgia glee for Democratic leaders I felt prouder of... I don't need, want or desire your benefit...I gave my reasoning in line with Obama's reasoning,....although I may change that stance just as he did out of inspiration...
