Oh wait, are you going to tell us Hitler would have been talked out of it as well? I believe he couldve, again, if we had the right chips.

I'm curious, what might those chips have been? Offer up a few more countries? Tell him that if he stops his goal to conquer the world that we'll spend more money trading with his country?

You can say all you want that there must have been some diplomatic solution, but I don't see one, and if you can't see one either, I don't see how you can put any stock into that belief, or expect anyone else to do so.

It seems to me that the only approach to one whose goal is total dominion(over pizza toppings - bonus points if you know this reference) is to make them know that the costs of fighting you are too great. I know of only two ways to do so. One is to remove the means of making war, and the other is an excessive display of force that demoralizes the opposing force and displays to the leaders that defeating you is impossible.

I'm actually going to cross the political line and say that war is indeed necessary. Yes, I agree with conservatives...oooh, I'm a bad liberal

---Zoo

Not bad, just smarter than the average.  

Diplomacy works when both parties want it to work. You see...if I try talking to a hungry bear, no matter what I say that son of a bitch is going to try to eat me. If I have a gun, I'm going to shoot the damn thing. Same goes for war...when your enemy is determined to wipe you off the face of the planet or at the very least become your overlord, then no matter how many angry letters you send, you're fucked if you don't fight.

---Zoo

Good analogy....very well put. Ninny (or "Bela", as Limbaugh calls her) Pelosi and Jackass Murtha need to see this post.

Frankly, I don't know if i can ever forgive him, in a way...it's a lot easier to not forgive him, but...that's another piece of history for another day.

---Lucas

"To err is human, to forgive Divine." Grudges can burn you up over time; make you bitter and hateful. I've seen it happen many times. Besides, who's really being hurt by your bad feelings, you or him?
It's always best to work at forgiveness. Harder, yes, but then....nothing worth doing is ever, ever easy or quick to accomplish.

Now, I know this comment doesn't really jibe with what I've written, but please realize that there is a big difference between personal forgiveness of someone who has wronged you, and advocating the use of force or violence in standing against a threat of mass aggression.
I do pray for my "enemies" but understand that the Islamic Fundies calling for my death and the deaths of my friends and family are just as much my enemies as people I know personally, and even moreso (and, as a Christian, I understand that I really only have one Enemy....the others are just....obstacles and irritants that Enemy puts here and there to annoy me and bring me down in moments of weakness).
My personal "enemies" don't want me and mine dead. At least I hope not, 'cause they're a lot closer, and I would like very much to live to forgive my enemies. Including the Muslim Fundies.

Still, i dont want to see our country get screwed, i want it to grow and prosper so i, and others can raise families in a good, or at least decent working nation.

--Lucas

Then, you need to come over to the other side of the fence!  

I'm not ignoring, I was busy, I'm coming down to the wire here with classes. I've been giving your comments some thought as well, as much as i could spare. Okay? My apologies.

---Lucas

Sure...no problem. I sometimes read stuff in that isn't there. My bad. I just hope you've got at least one decent, conservative teacher where you go to sc-rew-ool.

That's Righwingers point, "diplomacy" has killed far more people than any war. How so?

I don't think anyone ever answered this for him.

Diplomats are seldom willing to admit that all their work has come to nothing. Therefore, they keep talking and talking while people keep dying and dying. We saw it all through the 90s with Iraq. Going all the way to Baghdad in Desert Storm would have precluded all the crap that came after, and ultimately led us to Iraqi Freedom.
In 1938, Daladier and Chamberlain insisted that they had purchased "Peace in Our Time". What they really did was screw everybody in Czeckoslovakia (how the hell do you spell that, anyway?) by selling them out to a vicious, aggressive tyrant.
If they had simply observed the rules laid down by the Treaty of Versailles and sent in their armies when Hitler occupied the Rhineland, or even sooner, the whole European War could likely have been avoided.
Yes, war should always be the last resort; but unfortunately it too often is shown to be the most efficient one, too.

I never said, "Dr. Guy you are a _____." That would equate an insult.

yes you did. Dont lie, it does not become the new you. Or is that the old you?

Since you've been lofting it up, you are the one who seems to be supporting it here, not I.

In your words, "errm no". I did not. best to identify who says what before calling them assholes and other stupid names.

But since you are a liberal, and you demanded a conservative justify a liberal (who also did not do that), dont demand of a conservative to explain what a liberal meant if you are too cowardly to take on the task yourself.

But since you are a liberal, and you demanded a conservative justify a liberal (who also did not do that), dont demand of a conservative to explain what a liberal meant if you are too cowardly to take on the task yourself.

Nowhere did I say you had to justify him based on party, I intended for you to justify it as based on being a human being, a living-breathing, caring,

As far as I am concerned, this question by default isn't of parties...it is of personal morals, ethics...would you, if put in that situation - do what he did?

How about you place yourself into their shoes, would you still do it?

Tick tock, tick tock, doc, what I'm pretty much doing is giving you an ethical/moral dilemma.

How would you handle it? Will you be human, will you follow party lines?

Yeah, well, don't forget....Ghandi was murdered by a religious fanatic. Too bad it wasn't a Muslim fanatic; that would have worked out great here! Woulda fit right into my point! Oh, well......

LOL Yeah, that dawned on me after i posted...I was like, "Ah cripe, he was..."

And there ya go...anywho.

And yes, you did call him an asshole, Lucas.

I don't remember doing so, still I apologize Dr.Guy. My temper does get the best of me some times.

How about you place yourself into their shoes, would you still do it?

---SiPo (Lucas)

I know this was addressed to the Doc, but let's not forget that, at the time, the nation was seized with hysteria. The Japanese had attacked us, suddenly we were very much involved in a war most of the nation had very much hoped to avoid, and here we had this potential Fifth Column---potential spies and saboteurs---right here on our shores.
Yeah, there were Germans here, too, but as I pointed out, it was the Japs that had attacked us, and they're much easier to pick out than Germans. So, it was pushed through that the Japanese-Americans should be interned.
Not that that makes it right; after all, there may have been some underhanded economic and/or even racist motivations, but who knows....doing so just may, indeed, have prevented deadly sabotage and intrigue here. We'll never know...why? Because they were rounded up and sent to camps. If they hadn't been, there just may HAVE been sabotage resulting in death, and Japanese spying here.
And the FBI and OSS (the forerunner of the CIA---see, back before the Clinton era, when Janet Reno built a legal wall between the two agencies, they did work well together) did work to keep an eye on many German-Americans, people of German citizenship residing in America, and many people, including diplomats, from Axis-affiliated nations. The Germans weren't completely ignored.

Should we round up all American Muslims? No, of course not.... why? Because we now have technology now that would allow us to keep an eye on them in other ways. They should still be suspected, if only for basic security reason. That, I think, should be done. It's stupid and counter-productive that we're not doing so.
After all,just the other day, they arrested a guy in Detroit (of course---Little Fallujah); he was on his way from Nigeria to Phoenix.
On his laptop, he had information about Cyanide and nuclear materials, and he had with him nearly 80 grand in cash. I'm sure he was just going to do some Christmas shopping, right?
Who knows how many people get past us? Political Correctness will be our downfall, trust me.
Moonbat Bela Pelosi wants to make profiling of Middle Eastern peoples a crime punishable by law. That should be a crime, right there. I'd call it treason.

Lots of cheap shots in this thread.

know this was addressed to the Doc, but let's not forget that, at the time, the nation was seized with hysteria. The Japanese had attacked us, suddenly we were very much involved in a war most of the nation had very much hoped to avoid, and here we had this potential Fifth Column---potential spies and saboteurs---right here on our shores. Yeah, there were Germans here, too, but as I pointed out, it was the Japs that had attacked us, and they're much easier to pick out than Germans. So, it was pushed through that the Japanese-Americans should be interned. Not that that makes it right; after all, there may have been some underhanded economic and/or even racist motivations, but who knows....doing so just may, indeed, have prevented deadly sabotage and intrigue here. We'll never know...why? Because they were rounded up and sent to camps. If they hadn't been, there just may HAVE been sabotage resulting in death, and Japanese spying here. And the FBI and OSS (the forerunner of the CIA---see, back before the Clinton era, when Janet Reno built a legal wall between the two agencies, they did work well together) did work to keep an eye on many German-Americans, people of German citizenship residing in America, and many people, including diplomats, from Axis-affiliated nations. The Germans weren't completely ignored. Should we round up all American Muslims? No, of course not.... why? Because we now have technology now that would allow us to keep an eye on them in other ways. They should still be suspected, if only for basic security reason. That, I think, should be done. It's stupid and counter-productive that we're not doing so. After all,just the other day, they arrested a guy in Detroit (of course---Little Fallujah); he was on his way from Nigeria to Phoenix. On his laptop, he had information about Cyanide and nuclear materials, and he had with him nearly 80 grand in cash. I'm sure he was just going to do some Christmas shopping, right? Who knows how many people get past us? Political Correctness will be our downfall, trust me. Moonbat Bela Pelosi wants to make profiling of Middle Eastern peoples a crime punishable by law. That should be a crime, right there. I'd call it treason.

I realize that,

Do you remember what John Walker Lindh showed us? That fanatic muslims don't fit a single mold, it can be anywhere, anytime. I dont agree with the way the profiling is going...in (from what i have seen/read) just those of middle eastern complection, just because the 9/11 hijakers,etc... are of middle eastern look. We could end up with another JWL. I see little effort exerted in profiling in general, then effort put in profiling those who are of middle eastern origin/complection.

PCness has its place, other than that - i too would like it to be tossed.

Who knows how many...white, black, asian terrorists are out there? I think folks forget that there are other terrorists out here, not just fanatic al quaeda/muslims.

I dont agree with her push for that, it's like the Dutch pushing for a ban on brquas, it's yet another freedom taken away.

I don't call it treason, i call it stupid. It's alienation of their base.

~L

Do you remember what John Walker Lindh showed us? That fanatic muslims don't fit a single mold, it can be anywhere, anytime

---Lucas (SiPo)

True, but the vast majority of Middle Eastern, or "brown" peoples ARE Muslims. Sure, we COULD end up with a black, white, orange, green or purple Muslim, but there are far, far more brown ones.
So, if we could check the brown ones off the list right away, that would take many, many, many of them out of the equation at one fell swoop. It's a simple matter of practicality, which is something the PC mentality just doesn't grasp.

True, but the vast majority of Middle Eastern, or "brown" peoples ARE Muslims. Sure, we COULD end up with a black, white, orange, green or purple Muslim, but there are far, far more brown ones. So, if we could check the brown ones off the list right away, that would take many, many, many of them out of the equation at one fell swoop. It's a simple matter of practicality, which is something the PC mentality just doesn't grasp.

Meh, i guess so.

I'm sorry SP but you're contradicting yourself here. According to you it's okay to own a gun, but not to use it to protect ones self. What a load!

---drmiler

Weeelll....I think that's kind of splitting hairs, drm....I think he meant if you use a gun unprovoked. Now, if someone attacks you, that's another story. At least I think that's what he meant.

You'd be surprised how much more dangerous guns are to you then a criminal at least statistically.

I know I was.