Malone1234

Neal, if you study your World War 2 history carefully, you'll realize that the Allies simply could not have nipped Hitler in the butt in the 1930's. Following the first World War, nearly all the countries of Europe, but especially Britain and France drastically downsized their armed forces. Trench warfare was so unbelievably horrifying, that the people of Europe never wanted to fight again. In the treaty of Versailles, however, the Allies really gave Germany the shaft, which pissed off a lot of Germans, making it easy for the Nazis to rally support in the late twenties, early thirties. Britain and France decided to ignore Hitler's march into the Rhineland, not because they didn't have a preemptive doctrine, but rather because they were absolutely terrified of starting another war, and because they could not have sustained an attack against Germany at the time. The difference between then and now is that we took Baghdad in 3 weeks, and we knew that we could. We planned on doing it that way. In 1934, Britain and France were not entirely sure they were even capable of taking Berlin, let alone on any sort of quick timetable. Anyway, I'm really digressing here. Overall I think preemptive warfare is acceptable only in the most extreme of situations (like Kim Jong-Il goes on TV, points to the camera, and says, "Hey America, I'm going to bomb you."). Bush's reasoning for the war in Iraq is extremely questionable at best.

Careful, Mr. Read, that's awfully close to an oxymoron.

Actually Teddy Roosevelt was the one who came up with the phrase (or maybe somebody running his campaign did) "Speak softly and carry a big stick." His big stick was his big fleet of ships, though he never used them himself, their mere presence was enough to keep other countries at bay.

Yeah, I don't have any problem with allowing kids to pray in school (no matter what religion they happen to be). They can even get together in groups or afterschool clubs and pray together. The problem is that many people in this country, particularly Fundamentalist Christians in the South, are trying to equate "freedom of religion in school" with "have the principal lead a prayer in Jesus Christ's name every morning" (or have the football coach do the same over the loudspeaker before a game). That is not acceptable, and it's not lawful either.

Selfishness IS a virtue. FleaBag, why would I work just hard enough not to be punished (in a socialist society), when instead I could work as hard as I want to and be rewarded accordingly (in a capitalist society)? It's a very simple question, and I think you'll find that most people will choose the second alternative over the first because they are SELFISH! Are you afraid of what big mean scary capitalists are going to do? Andrew Carnegie was so selfish, that he built up a steel empire just to make billions of dollars for himself! In the process, the price of steel plummeted, which made rapid industrialization in every sector of the economy go into overdrive. EVERYTHING became cheaper because steel became cheaper. Sure, you can say that his workers were underpayed and worked in bad conditions. But they still worked for him! Imagine that! They looked around at the employment opportunities and said, "Hey, that Carnegie plant is the best thing around right now." These workers lived in poor conditions, but if they hadn't worked for Carnegie they would have lived in much poorer conditions. Communism is a WONDERUL idea, and it even works in the real world, under one condition. Every citizen of a communist nation can be provided food, clothing, and shelter. Beyond that, personal ambition is needed to produce non-essential things, and in a communist/socialist society, personal ambition is not possible.

Though I'm not a California resident myself, I do agree with you that the influx of illegal immigrants is a huge problem and must be taken careof. However, when you refer to the "rewriting" of American history, I think you should go back and review that time period yourself. When it comes to the Mexican American War, the U.S. was bad/wrong/imperialistic/immoral/takeyourpick, and while I wouldn't necessarily call Mexico good, they certainly got the shaft in that deal and they really didn't deserve it.

Nuclear, who is right, you ask? They're both wrong. The Liberals promote welfare programs, and the Conservatives let them get away with it. As logical1 has admirably pointed out, any JUST government should have absolutely NO INFLUENCE ON ECONOMICS unless it pertains to protecting the liberty of its citizens. I can proudly (and correctly) stand here this moment and point at both political parties and say, "I'm right, and they're wrong." Unfortunately, I haven't yet figured out how to make them see that.

Mr Farrius, I think we all know that America is not safe from every possible mode of attack by terrorists or anyone else who doesn't like us. I think that is the point most of these people are trying to make you see. It's impossible to anticipate every attack. The airlines anticipated suitcase bombs, gun-wielding terrorists, and other forms of attempted violence. Unfortunately they did not anticipate exactly the events that happened on 9/11. Does this mean they ought to pay millions of dollars to the families of the victims? I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't seem logical to me.