And there's an argument to be made that a single sentence stating an opinion with no rationale or justification doesn't add to the conversation.
But let's be honest, whatever "etiquette" may be, people here vote how they want, for whatever reason they want.
If it matters that much to you then you might prefer an instance where downvotes are disabled. Or, if you use an app, find one, like Voyager, that allows you to turn vote visibility off.
Why worry so much about someone who downvotes and won't engage in discussion with you about what they downvoted?
As someone who was only just alive in 1985 though, I'm curious where you were in the US in 1985 and if you remember how big or widespread the news coverage was on the MOVE bombing?
The original question was should the US have entered in 1939. That word implies a moral perspective.
Should
verb
used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
I can assure you, since it was my question, that should was used in reference to obligation or duty. So while it can be referencing correctness (morality), it wasn't.
The US was isolationist, but should it have been. Should any country be? (Draw your own historical parallels to today).
Assuming your asking about correctness then that would depend on the person answering's opinion and when they are answering from. Again, it is easy to say now, with access to all the information post-event but, clearly, in 1939 the reigning belief of the US population seems to have been "no".
America shouldn't be the world police, but it should help resource a world police force. And to be fair, the US did provide a huge amount of non military resources to Europe throughout WWII.
Here we agree, mostly. America also contributed 407,316 lives of its soldiers and 671,278 injuries to others.
I myself wonder if American hegemony would exist today if they had entered the war in 1939.
A large part of both the rise of America as a world power and world police role came about initially because of the war.
Between a form of legal profiteering in lend/lease, the huge industry boom during and post-war and the fact that Europe faced so much destruction and needed a lot of rebuilding, America's rise came about. Then, rather quickly after I'd say, the perversion of their role began into what it is today.
In my opinion, America should have worked to withdraw over time and let their allies take over the "policing" role in their areas of concern, or actually allow NATO to work as intended.
Edit: On a separate note, I appreciate the civil discourse and conversation. I am well aware of the faults America has, they are many.
Doesn't matter. A Grand Jury proceeding, as I understand it, is almost always controlled by the prosecutor and results in an indictment if they want it to.
There's no defense present or argument against indicting, it's just a prosecutor explaining why they think there should be an indictment and presenting their "case".
I think we can safely assume the DOJ prosecutor is operating on political orders and not in service of the country or the law.
Did the government claim it was accurate to the law? I'm guessing just providing code doesn't open the government to liability. That would fall on anyone who implemented it. I always assumed that's why for-cost software has Ts&Cs that indemnify them unless you pay extra for the protection.
The US should have been part of the League of Nations. It was cowardly not to have been.
Maybe they should, Wilson certainly wanted
them to. Whether it was "cowardly" is entirely opinion based.
The US did not join the League of Nations primarily due to strong opposition within the Senate and a prevailing isolationist sentiment in the country. Concerns about the League's potential impact on US sovereignty and the entangling of the US in foreign conflicts, particularly in Europe, fueled this opposition.
If it were moral for England and France to enter into war, then why would it not moral for the US?
Looking back at it now or in 1939? I'm not arguing morality because that's the problem. Knowing what the world knows today it's easy to say it was moral to declare war, but if the Allies were looking for help at the start of the war, why did they not share information about the concentration camps to spur others into action? Maybe because nobody knew in the beginning?
Taking a 1939 perspective? I would say that if the prevailing sentiment among Americans was isolationism, is it not moral for the elected representatives to work in the interests of their constituency.
We're talking about people in a country half a world away, that is only a few years removed from the Great Depression, with the memory of fighting another war in Europe fresh in their memories.
Remember, in the 1930s people in the US had virtually no televisions or 24/7 tv news, only about 1/3 of homes had telephones. The world is very different now than it was 90 years ago.
Your opinion might be that the US "sat and watched for 820 days" but that's rubbish. It's not supported by the facts or history.
An American could have the opinion that WWII occurred because Neville Chamberlain, the UK, France and the rest of the League failed to appropriately address the threat prior to 1939. Guess what? The facts and history don't bear that out either.
No, he's not. Your quote is from a radio broadcast on September 3, 1939 where Chamberlain was speaking about England and France declaring war.
Note, this is also the same Chamberlain who made a speech in 1938 after signing the Munich agreement where he said, “My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time….”; The speech would later seal Chamberlain’s reputation as the chief architect of appeasement..
What I'm gathering is that everyone here seems to think the US had some moral obligation to declare war earlier, which is easy to say in retrospect but history doesn't support that idea when viewed in situ.
And there's an argument to be made that a single sentence stating an opinion with no rationale or justification doesn't add to the conversation.
But let's be honest, whatever "etiquette" may be, people here vote how they want, for whatever reason they want.
If it matters that much to you then you might prefer an instance where downvotes are disabled. Or, if you use an app, find one, like Voyager, that allows you to turn vote visibility off.
Why worry so much about someone who downvotes and won't engage in discussion with you about what they downvoted?