Might be best for women to decide what kind of progress they're looking for....
*****The official 2024 Presidential election day and results thread*****
- Thread starter Chishawk1425
- Start date
Might be best for women to decide what kind of progress they're looking for....
This is the Chris Matthews piece...he's exactly right.
I haven't stopped into HROT in months. I just wanted to come see how this board was holding up after us true Americans took the country back.
I am surprised to see ChisHawk still posting. Figured he would be packing his bags to move to Canada.
I am surprised to see ChisHawk still posting. Figured he would be packing his bags to move to Canada.
He drank enough last night to forget the election even happened so I think he is "okay".
He came crawling back for a second but has gone into hiding again.. waiting for him to vote on his account staying around still actually.. where you at @GOHOX69 ??
Be kind Scruddy, you are a good human I know you will do the right thing.
I already have an alternative punishment in mind for hox to stay, I'd hate to actually see him leave but I need him to vote for his new punishment option 😅
Constant goalpost shifting = dishonest argument. I am not an ardent interventionist and disagree with many of our misadventures abroad over the last 60 years, but sitting out WWII would have produced colossally terrible consequences here and around the world. I know we likely don't get II without the aftermath of I, but the board was set by 1939, and we had to play the game before us.
I don't follow.
Where/how do you think I moved the goalposts?
I was directly addressing you contention:
"Do you really think the United States should have sat WWII out? Yeah, yeah, Lend-Lease and all that, but FDR got us into the war and not an unprovoked attack on our naval base? "
I explained, with documented historical facts, why that attack was not 'unprovoked'.
Your initial premise is factually flawed.
Our Secretary of War's diary explained FDR was trying to provoke the attack.
I don't understand how that is being dishonest, or moving the goalposts.
You presented a shallow (I won't call it dishonest, because I don't know if you actually know any better, most people don't) understanding of the events that led to Pearl Harbor, and I provided more detail to explain how I've arrived at my conclusions that differ from yours.
But you don't have any evidence of that, and haven't even offered a theory as to why.
We're just supposed to assume intervention led to the better outcome, and yet I've highlighted how earlier interventions (WW1) actually led to the worse outcome (WW2).
Without WW2 we're not losing 58k men in Vietnam. That ends up being Japan's losing battle against an unrelenting nationalist independence movement.
Intervention begets intervention.
That's just it, we didn't 'have to play the game', anymore than we 'had to play the game' in 1803 or 1870 or 1905 when Euro or Asian powers went to war.
If we hadn't 'played the game' of empire starting in 1898 we don't even have a Philippines colony astride Japan's trade routes.
Intervention begets intervention.
