paranoidandroid

If the cap fits.

Despite repeated requests from the British govrrnment for the US government to outlaw Noraid, it still allowed it to carry on. For those people that it affected in the UK, it probably seemed extremely like support for terrorism.

paranoidandroid

Agreed, 100%.

Pulaski

Which Arabs in Iran? What are Arabs doing in Iran? (Iranians are not Arabs.)

Leslie

No. Wrong again. Congress didn't derail anything. Roosevelt had publicly been consistently isolationist, as was the American population, and congress was being consistent with both the president and the public. After the start of WW2, what little support Roosevelt was giving to the Brits was kept on the down-low because it would have been extremely unpopular. He was also quietly appointing interventionists in key governmental positions in preparation for what he felt would predictably occur. When Roosevelt finally did ask congress for a declaration of war (the "infamy" speech after the bombing of Pearl Harbor) it took congress only one hour to come back with their approval.

kimilseung

Absolutley.

Only becomes a problem when used in a mud slinging fight about whose dad is better. UK or US.

The UK seems to turn a blind eye in similar situations. Interpal for example. Which many accuse of being a terrorist funding front, but also without hard evidence.

kimilseung

Tell that to the Arabs.
Do you remember the London Iranian embassy siege? That was Iranian Arabs. In the cause of Arabistan

Pulaski

Why? They already know the Iranians aren't Arabs.

Sally Redux

My only point was that the simplistic view of two world wars ignores the contributions of other countries.

Of course there are wider issues around whether WW2 could have been averted altogether, eg by supporting the German economy after WW1.

kimilseung

Iranians are Iranian
Persians are Persian
Arabs are Arab
Iranian Arabs are Arabs in Iran. 1.5 milllion of them

Pulaski

Oh, OK. . (I suffer from irritation whenever any refers to the Iranians as a block as "Arabs".)

Leslie

I think a lot of this mentality stems from the original propaganda put out by the US government to garner public support for the war(s). It was very much sold to the people as a, "We're the only ones that can do this!", proposition. The problem is when that notion is still being taught and perpetuated as fact when the history is much richer and much more complex.

Also, I think there is a collective guilt-trip for all the horrors that happened while the US was dragging its feet. Therefore a tendency to revise and gloss over certain aspects, most certainly of WW2, in order to obsfucate the real life consequences of the USs isolationism.

My position is one of being honest without being apologetic. Acknowledge the contributions of everybody that fought (and won) the war but also try to make it understood that the US was war weary at that point in time. Also, we are viewing it through today's lense when, back then, there wasn't a "special relationship" yet and Americans weren't so quick to defend foreign interests or the interests of foreign nations.

Sally Redux

Yes good points.

Desdemona

I stand corrected. My guru (my ever loving Dad, agrees with you) what do I know, I've lived in this country barely 14 years

cindyabs

You forgot the Jews!

kimilseung

I read that in a Jon Stewart playing his Jewish grand-mother voice.