Replies

OK u-89,

Which do you think would have cost fewer lives?

a) Not getting involved in a stupid EUropean quarrel between Britain, France and Germany and letting them settle it themselves until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

b) Telling Chancellor Hitler in no uncertain terms that America's overarching military goal would be the complete annihilation of The German Nation if he set one foot on Polish soil?

Of course, keep in mind that dedicated liberal and SEC Chairman Joseph Kennedy was telling FDR that he saw no difference between Hitler's actions in Europe and Great Britain's activities on Bloody Sunday in Ireland.

Also, dedicated conservative Charles Lindbergh was telling anyone who would listen that The US needed a good strong Nazi Party, just like The Hinterland.

The War vs. Anti-War debate does not occur between liberals and conservatives. It occurs between the venilely selfish and the courageous.

Like Joseph Kennedy and Charles Lindbergh in the late 1930's, you'll hear Pat Buchanon and Howard Dean recite a sonorous, braindead dirge of complaints against any military action you'd care to name.

What you'll never hear from these selfish powermongering piglets is the following.

a) A comprehensive plan of what we should do instead.

b) What consequences we accrue if they gave a war and only the other side showed up.

c) What, if anything, would make these greedy bloat-bags actually give rather than take....

a) Not getting involved in a stupid EUropean quarrel between Britain, France and Germany and letting them settle it themselves until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

If the US did not get involved, Germany would have had a few more years to develop the A-Bomb.

b) Telling Chancellor Hitler in no uncertain terms that America's overarching military goal would be the complete annihilation of The German Nation if he set one foot on Polish soil?

And you think that would have prevented Hitler from sending his million soilders into Poland ?

b) Telling Chancellor Hitler in no uncertain terms that America's overarching military goal would be the complete annihilation of The German Nation if he set one foot on Polish soil?

And you think that would have prevented Hitler from sending his million soilders into Poland ?

Your comments are negated because they neglect to factor one critical point. What legal authority to we have to interfere in territorial disputs between countries on the other side of the globe or dictate their boundries? What authority do we have to force a regime change because another country's leadership does not comply with our designs or live up to our ideals? None of these things can be honestly interpreted as part of our national defense. And action under the guise of the UN is unconstitutional. Are our troops mercenaries or a global police force?

How does squandering American lives and moneys on actions beyond our territorial jurisdiction contribute to the government's purpose to secure our lives, liberties and properties. These action in fact jeopardize the very things the government is chartered to protect yet you define it as courageous.