logo Sign In

Post #260729

Author
Knightmessenger
Parent topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260729/action/topic#260729
Date created
8-Dec-2006, 1:42 AM
"But, though far from the government for the people, of the people and by the people that the Founding Fathers envisioned, we still have some semblance of representative government in the United States"

Actually, the Founding Fathers intended a republic, not a direct democracy. They wanted a government that would listen to the people but not subject itself to every popular whim.

And can you believe after Pearl Harbor, we also declared war on Germany? Every study and expert group had said Germany had absolutly no involvement in Pearl Harbor! We were such an unprovoked aggresor to go to war against the Nazi's and Italy. Clealy just an attempt by FDR to profit off his relationship with Big Beer.

I still don't see how the US commited so many dastardly deeds if the mayor of Tall 'Afar, Iraq would refer to our military as "Knights of a bygone era," for liberating (yes he used that exact word) his city from being the headquarters of terrorist al-Zarqawi.

Saddam behaved very strangley over the years if he didn't have any weapons. Why wouldn't he have just let the UN inspectors in in that regard? There already is justification for preemptive strike from the 1930's. It's easy to say WWII was justified now but it wasn't so easy to see when the Nazi's were building on their power at the time. It was morally wrong for Europe not to launch a preemtive strike but instead brand people like Churchill fear mongerers of a phony war. After all, most people were weary of the first great war and to get in another one, without the stakes being fully immenient might make the leaders unpopular. Appeasement and peace negotiations FAILED as they always will when one of the parties is intent on world domination, destruction or both. You can never make a deal with the devil or pure evil incarnate.

Let me put it another way. You're in a bar that can get a little rough. It's not uncommon there in a fight between hostile people for one of them to end up dead. Some guy who is clearly not a friend and has a history of being a bully forces you at gun point to a secluded area of the bar. He's really a small punk who doesn't seem that powerful. It's hard to know for sure exactly how dangerous he is. For all you know his gun might not even be loaded. Yet he's still waving his gun at you and making vague threats about how great and glorious it will be with you wiped out. You happen to have a gun of your own at the ready.
Are you justified in shooting first?