Message Board User's Guide, Rules of Engagement, Posting Photos

 
Register  |   |   |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Note: This topic is locked. No new replies will be accepted.


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
tom70

SPONSOR
Registered:
Posts: 1,231
Reply with quote  #1 

Amazing, this was said 100 years ago.

The year is 1907, one hundred years ago...... 

 


Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.


"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907



__________________
If I had known I was going to live this long I would have taken better care of myself ! Mick #7
BobJohnston

Avatar / Picture

SPONSOR
Registered:
Posts: 1,092
Reply with quote  #2 

Hard to believe he was a Democrat!  He must be rolling over in his grave to know what has become of his party since then!


__________________
Bob Johnston
Even being good for nothing, makes you good at something!
laguna_b

Avatar / Picture

Century Club
Registered:
Posts: 2,912
Reply with quote  #3 
Actually Bob, he was a Republican then turned third party Bull Moose....all this is off the top of my head....but I  don't think he was ever a Democrat.

__________________
REAL Patriots Defend The Constitution!
Ken

Avatar / Picture

SPONSOR
Registered:
Posts: 856
Reply with quote  #4 
Bob,

You are confusing the great TR with his liberal pinko communist distant cousin - FDR.

__________________
Kenneth J. Berger
JimDavis

SPONSOR
Registered:
Posts: 1,001
Reply with quote  #5 
Yes, Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican; he became President upon the death of William McKinley, who was the last Civil War veteran to serve as President.  And, actually, TR was considered extremely liberal for his times, with his trust busting, and conservation programs: the Bull Moose Party was created by him, because he thought William Howard Taft was not following through (as his successor) with his liberal Republican policies.  Remember that until FDR, African-
Americans were mostly Republicans (the party of Lincoln) while the Democrats, especially in the South, were considered the suppressors of their rights.

SAMMY67 
 
TonyCasamento69

Century Club
Registered:
Posts: 1,762
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobJohnston

(TR)... must be rolling over in his grave to know what has become of his party since then!



Yea, the Republicans have certainly disgraced themselves.  Unless you were talking about the Bull Moose Party.

__________________
"Everything in moderation, including moderation"
Tony Casamento '69
laguna_b

Avatar / Picture

Century Club
Registered:
Posts: 2,912
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
You are confusing the great TR with his liberal pinko communist distant cousin - FDR.


Ken....I am surprised at you....actually I thought that when I was Mr. young conservative. Now with a lot more insight into the history of the country I have an incredible respect for FDR.

Those of us born when we were were inculcated with the concept that communism was the great inherent evil. Of course the definition of communism depended on who you talked to. But we had the broad brush. The reality is that those in the 20s and 30s who identified with both socialism and communism (certainly not the same) had not the vision of hindsight that those born in the late 40s and 50s had. They just had a capitalist system that had failed them miserably. Communist concepts sounded good on paper and if your parents went through the Depression you can very well understand why people saw C as a revolutionary answer.

This is hard to see when you have examples like North Korea, former Soviet etc. as "models". They never were actually, but rather strange constructs of totalitarian rule. I would highly recommends watching the movie "Reds" to get perspective on the times.

As for FDR, he inherited a country on its back, in despair, with a world in chaos heading to a horrific war. He gave our parents hope and some work. He gave us heroic leadership at a time when this country was challenged like never before with odds terribly against us.

Ken, I would have used like you did when in HS and in College, obviously my opinion has changed. Looks like a couple bottles of wine for us now...one on climate one on FDR.


__________________
REAL Patriots Defend The Constitution!
Ken

Avatar / Picture

SPONSOR
Registered:
Posts: 856
Reply with quote  #8 
Barry,

I consider TR our greatest president. He was a great conservationist & believed in America & Americans first. In other words, we take care of our own & then worry about the rest of the world. Unfortunately, his major flaw was running on the Bull Moose ticket & hence splitting his party's vote because of his dislike for Taft. It is unfortunate that his record is blemished by this act of vanity.

Our parents' generation thought highly of FDR; I however do not. He, in my opinion, was the first of many of the type of politicians we see today: the rich who think they speak for & relate to the common man. He was in office so long that he possibly believed he was king. He cheated on his wife & continued to cheat even though he promised her it was over. He died in Warm Springs, GA during a meeting with his lover (arranged by his daughter). (BTW, that is not why I dislike him, although it does show that he was capable of lying). I have never been convinced that he was totally unaware of the imminent attack on Pearl Harbor. He made Adm. Kimmel & Gen. Short the scapegoats (on October 30, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed a defense appropriations bill containing congressional findings that both Kimmel and Short were denied crucial military intelligence).

Although FDR normally ranks high among U.S. presidents, he ranks low on my list. But then again, I'm an Earth Scientist & not a Political Scientist so my opinion is just my own. I leave it to those trained in the field to argue FDR's  merits or lack thereof.

BTW, I knew my comments would spark a response from you but at least we are both civil about it. Cheers!


__________________
Kenneth J. Berger
laguna_b

Avatar / Picture

Century Club
Registered:
Posts: 2,912
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
He cheated on his wife & continued to cheat even though he promised her it was over.


Ken,

Many presidents have done so. Anything that does not affect their performance in office and duties to me as a citizen, are not my concern.

I do look forward to the next face to face....will have better pizza though.

And some good wine.

Barry


__________________
REAL Patriots Defend The Constitution!
Ken

Avatar / Picture

SPONSOR
Registered:
Posts: 856
Reply with quote  #10 
Barry,

As I said, "that is not why I dislike him".

__________________
Kenneth J. Berger
laguna_b

Avatar / Picture

Century Club
Registered:
Posts: 2,912
Reply with quote  #11 
Ken,

On Pearl Harbor, why would FDR withhold information for an attack. I remember even as a kid I used to hear anti-FDR people say that he might have withheld info so that America would change its isolationist ways due to the attack. But if they were ready at Pearl, they STILL would have been attacked but we might have the ships at sea where they were more able to maneuver and protect themselves.

Even after Pearl, MacArthur failed to prepare Manila as the US Army aircorps planes were sitting ducks lined up in neat rows ready to be taken out.

Perhaps incompetence in various military areas due to a peacetime mentality woould have been more the cause.

Barry


__________________
REAL Patriots Defend The Constitution!
Ken

Avatar / Picture

SPONSOR
Registered:
Posts: 856
Reply with quote  #12 

Barry,

Remember the carriers were at sea! Some people believe that we would not have recovered if our carriers were at Pearl during the attack & believe that is why they were at sea. The planes in the PI were lined up like sitting ducks because it was believed that it was easier to protect them from sabotage. MacArthur had been predicting an attack on the PI & had been asking for money (which was slow in coming) to beef up defenses.

The attack on the PI was not really after Pearl, unless you mean "by after" a few hours (3 hours). The attack on Pearl, the PI, the Malay Peninsula, Hong Kong & Thailand was a coordinated attack & all occurred within hours of each other on December 8th. According to the Japanese, the attack on Pearl et al. were ALL on December 8th (because Japan was on the other side of the IDL). Most Americans think the attacks on the other places happened the next day -- NOT true. They were all "more or less" simultaneous.

Even my father believed that FDR knew of the imminent attack (BTW, my father was also grateful to FDR for getting us out of the depression & helping the unemployed youth - such as himself - through various programs such as the CCC). Possibly FDR wanted to unite the country into going to war. He was under tremendous pressure from the Brits to have the U.S. enter the war. After we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us. That gave us a reason to enter the war against Germany. After we were in the war, the European theater was given top priority, much to MacArthur's dismay. Remember the Japanese (not the Germans) attacked U.S. soil (Hawaii) & invaded U.S. territory (PI). Yet, because of the pressure from the Brits & the friendship between FDR & Churchill, our main thrust was against Germany & NOT Japan. MacArthur constantly had to fight for troops & resources & supplies to fight in the Pacific. He was constantly frustrated that most of the stuff was going to Europe.

Also, the telegram that came in to DC regarding the attack was never marked as high priority (why?) & so was put into the normal queue for decoding rather than being moved to the top of the pile

BTW, Kimmel & Short had also been concerned about an imminent attack but, as has been proven, were kept in the dark.

The last chapter regarding FDR & his knowledge of Pearl & other matters is yet to be written. Many documents are still classified. I shall leave them to the historians to interpret. Just as in the sciences, it is not possible to make an accurate interpretation when all the data are not available. And even if & when it is, there will always be various interpretations. Unfortunately, we can not ask FDR if he knew ahead of time about Pearl. However, even if we could, would he tell us the truth? Afterall, we already know that he was capable of lying to his wife for many years, why not also to the American public? Give me TR anyday.

.


__________________
Kenneth J. Berger
Tony71

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,496
Reply with quote  #13 
A fellow alum has forwarded this site as one of interest to those trying to find more information on military history

http://libraryautomation.com/nymas/



__________________
Tony
laguna_b

Avatar / Picture

Century Club
Registered:
Posts: 2,912
Reply with quote  #14 
Ken,

I agree that we will never know the whole truth. I agree also that TR was an incredibly good president who would be a great outstanding choice today. It took almost 100 years for the Trusts that he busted to finally get a President that would look the other way as they ascended yet again, and be willing to clear cut our precious few national forests "to save them".

Correcting your statement, at least based on the documentary "War", my recollection was that MacArthur had 9 hours to prepare for the attack on the PI. The sabotage issue was not mentioned as a counter reason.

The reason it was the same day, as I am sure you know, is that the other targets were on the other side of the dateline. Thus December 8.
...an aside: I became a member of The Order of The Golden Dragon when at the age of 6 I crossed the International Date Line on a Navy ship going to Japan.

My instinct would be to blame incompetence and laxness with a military that was a peacetime force manned by non-combat soldiers and sailors whose concept of urgency was severely lacking.

FDR certainly had reason to lie about his affair. (Who among us has not told a lie more than once in their lives?) He had no reason to lie about Pearl, assuming of course that he had not failed the nation. If I were him, I would have set the entire navy to sea on war games rather than leave such a precious level of sea power to be at risk. Some things just don't make sense....and you have to go with the motive and evidence.

Barry


__________________
REAL Patriots Defend The Constitution!
Ken

Avatar / Picture

SPONSOR
Registered:
Posts: 856
Reply with quote  #15 
Barry,

Read "The American Caesar" by Manchester regarding D. MacArthur. An excellent book!

You might be confusing MacArthur's inaction to respond to the attack.  When the PI was attacked M waited a number of hours before responding. He was holed up in his suite at the Manila Hotel. Why he delayed in having an immediate response has never been answered. There is no way he had 9 hours to prepare PRIOR to the attack. Perhaps the 9 hour figure comes from confusion with the IDL. (Remember most people still think the attack on the PI et al. happened a full day after Pearl).

I have always heard of the sabotage possibility as the reason for keeping the planes lined up. They were easier to check & keep an eye on. If M had suspected an immediate attack he would have definitely dispersed the planes.

The American public was very much against our entering the war. They saw it as a European problem. (Again remember FDR was doing everything short of declaring war to help the Brits. Churchill was putting tremendous pressure o him). Something was needed to change our minds. The attack on Pearl was perfect. Also, it had to be of a large enough scale to enrage the public & the politicians so there would be no doubt that war was the only recourse. Pearl served that purpose. But we had to protect our carriers. Billy Mitchell had proven years earlier that the future lied with carriers & not battleships. By the beginning of WWII, batteleships were already becoming passe. It was to be a war of carriers & subs. Battelships were good for showing the flag but not in modern warfare.  I do not recall the battle but it was in WWII when two fleets met for the first time in battle & never saw each other, because it was fought with carriers.

Ken

__________________
Kenneth J. Berger
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!