Eighty or Ninety percent of Americans would not have supported World War II

by MsMcDucket 32 Replies latest social current

    XJW, she is going to a 4 year college (if that means anything).

    I was just curious. I have attended 2-year community colleges in the past, and I am currently attending a 4-year university, and the level of professors is so much greater at a 4-year school. That is all.

    Jesus didn't have to go to school or have a degree did he?

    Not when you are God.

  • mouthy

    tired of American's dying fighting other people's wars. That was the public's opinion at that time.

    Excuse me!!!! But the reason Americans joined in the War was because they had been bombed at Pearl Harbour & That was quite late in the war after millions had died. So they were responding to that

  • Wasanelder Once
    Wasanelder Once

    The difference between December 7th and September 11th is that on the 7th we knew exactly who did it. On September 11th it was anyone wearing a turban. So, the willingness to strike out was there, but the enemy was less defined. Now we are at the mercy of the opportunists of the Military Industrial Complex.


    alt (not my work. An example of the way many feel. no poll taken)

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan

    Well, IMO public opinion is never going to be what is in the best interest of the country. I agree that if we are talking about the time before Pear Harbor, the numbers could be kind of accurate, but they still seem high.

    America is an Empire, and it has to do what is in it's best interests. This of course is not always in line with public (or world) opinion. This I believe is what has happened in Iraq. The leaders of this country saw an opportunity to expand American interests in the middle east. That is why it was unopposed for so long. I believe that both political parties knew that if there was a victory it would be a major gain for America. The problem is that this war was so terribly planned and executed that the public wants out. Now the democrats are making use of this politically. The pearl harbor effect of 9/11 wasn't enough to keep the public at bay for this war.

    Layer this with the fact that Americans are not really suffering right now. While the country economically isn't great, for the most part people are getting by. If the US public was suffering a little more their morals wouldn't be so high as regards to this war, it would be seen as a necessary evil and the majority would be behind it.


    The continual labeling of Bush as a Nazi, diminishes the autrocities committed by the Nazis.

  • JeffT

    I agree with xjw4evr. I told a guy on the street with a sign that said "bush and cheney are nazis" that the fact that he was there with that sign was proof that they weren't. I got a blank look.

    I think the comment that the enemy post 9/11 is ill defined is correct. As soon as the bombs started falling on 12/7/41 we knew who did it and where to find them. The war on terror is going to be made very difficult because the enemy can be (and likely is) everywhere. A better comparison to this point in time may be three years into WWII. By that time the body count was too high, and the public was getting tired of war, but recognized the need to see it through. This led to the use of the atomic bomb, as it seemed like a good idea at the time.

  • free2beme

    I think that teacher is an ULTRA LIBERAL and that is what is teaching a lot today. WW2 was not favored in Europe, but the Pacific was a whole other ball of wax. When Pearl Harbor happened, Americans were lining up at the draft boards and were all for it. WW1, on the other hand, we were major against that one. Wilson brought us in late, only because they were worried that the UK was about to fall and he was right, they were a mess.

  • MsMcDucket
    I think the comment that the enemy post 9/11 is ill defined is correct. As soon as the bombs started falling on 12/7/41 we knew who did it and where to find them. The war on terror is going to be made very difficult because the enemy can be (and likely is) everywhere.

    This war is definitely different from Viet Nam. It's more like urban warfare with street gangs. You have different factions trying to get control. Viet Nam was different because it wasn't such a grey area (so to speak). It was democracy against communism. America lost the war because the Viet Cong were better at scaring the Vietnamese people. The Vietnamese people gave up. The American's should have known that when the French pulled out that this war was going *not* to be won. After the Americans pulled out the Communist moved in.

    In Iraq, you can't tell a Shiite from a Suni or whatever other faction is over there. These people easily infiltrate into programs that America is trying to set in place for the people to run the government by themselves. You often hear this in the news how someone infiltrated the police force and killed so many people.

    How can we help them? Just leave and let them commit atrocities against one another until the winner comes out on top. It's easy to say that we should of never went there in the first place, which I do believe that we shouldn't have done. Now we really have a situation. The Americans can pull out and see if some dictator like Pol Pot (I think that's his name.) takes over and commits genocide on the people that are not of his kind.

    Is this the only solution?

    kill tally
    mini biography
    more information
    reflections on killers


  • daystar

    Prior to Pearl Harbor, the US was isolationist. America was largely against being involved in the war in Europe. Pearl Harbor turned popular sentiment around 180 degrees. No poll required.

  • Warlock

    Different time.............different attitude. You cannot, in all honesty, take a poll NOW about something that happened THEN.

    This is intended to brainwash the students, with an ulterior motive in mind.


Share this