Previous 21 - 30 Next
ericynot1 Wrote: "I'm curious, Mike. Many people ridicule Chamberlain for his 1938 "Peace for our time" pronouncement blowing up in his face. But what do you think he SHOULD have done vis-a-vis Hitler? Just declare unilateral war on Germany?" The answer to that is easy, eric. When you draw a red line you should enforce it. If Europe had had the courage when Austria was annexed to tell Hitler "no" none of what followed would have been necessary. Perhaps Chamberlain had no options because Europe lacked any intestinal fortitude and integrity. We've been fortunate on this planet in recent decades that the U.S. was able to act in this role without help. When we stopped you saw the chaos and violence escalate immediately. The question you should be asking is how and when will it stop.
Corbett, I've read your recent posts, essentially summed up in this one. The problem you have is that there are equally relevant factors on the other side of this argument. You say stop sanctions, killing, invading, and so on. Hard to argue except that your response to Joan reveals the flaw in your logic. People did kill us on 9/11, first attack on our soil since 1941. We can argue and argue about all the causal events in history back to the Crusades, but I think our most relevant error in recent history has been to give up our "wars" before they're finished, starting with the humiliating end to the Viet Nam conflict. In for an inch, in for a mile. Otherwise we invite the kind of nose-thumbing aggression against our allies and ourselves that is becoming almost universal, and which may result in the 3rd World War and/or the end of civilization.
Nah, you're wrong. I win. Back to work.
kmassey, I will preemptively add you to those offering no "Debate." It's my expectation that you will not engage. My response is that you offer a false choice (mirroring your president, and his practice of the false dichotomy). We didn't kill all the Japanese, Germans or Italians. We simply waged the war until it stopped. The terrorist attacks can be stamped down to an irreducible minimum. Instead, we pussyfoot around allowing them to bring in ordnance from the real bad guys in Iran, and we (meaning Western media and too many politicians) express far too much condemnation of Israel when they simply defend themselves after having been attacked without provocation. You may deny that it's "without provocation" because of all the anti-Israel arguments about "occupation," "refugees," "blockades," etc., etc. But you need to go back to the beginning of this recent history, the 1967 War, to judge who is right in this conflict. Israel has every legal justification to act as it has until the aggression against it stops. And it has repeatedly engaged in "peace talks" in which nothing was off the table. So what is your argument against their "winning" the war?
Both Pete1215 and Flattus elicited responses to their inane comments within minutes, but they refuse to "Join the Debate!" What do we hear? Crickets. Flattus, you are completely wrong on the basis of objective facts alone. Historically, bombing has evolved. When the Nazis were bombing London, what were they doing to avoid civilian casualties? I don't recall. Conversely, when the good guys bombed Dresden, was it because of military targets there? Regrettably, no, but that was the way war was conducted in that time. The Iraq invasion gave us a graphic image of the new technology that permits bombs to be dropped, literally, down a chimney. We've learned of bunker bombs that can penetrate and destroy underground hideouts and storage facilities. What Israel is doing to counter the relentless assault of rocket fire against them is the most targeted and focused destruction that technology permits. If Hamas wants peace, all they have to do is stop attacking Israeli civilian targets with their primitive weaponry. But to ask Israel to stop defending itself is ridiculous. Schlichter makes an excellent point. When did the civilized world ever prevail by seeking "peace through weakness"?
psst! loyal democrat, is that you?
In response to:

Bad Policies Are Their Own Worst Enemy

Kenneth L. Wrote: Aug 01, 2014 10:05 AM
I am equally embarrassed (well, almost equally) by the "suckegg mule," and similar unconvincing arguments as I am by the hysterical ranting and name-calling by Flattus and his ilk. But Chapman is wrong, again. Here are some of the most obvious reasons: 1) His column is trite. If bad policy always spoke for itself we would have much more effective government, and if something seems to finally become apparent after 50 or more years, so what? 2) His examples always betray his liberal-leaning libertarianism. Same-sex marriage? Why? Legalize pot? Okay, big deal. But that policy solves nothing, and only presents new problems that will need to be handled by government. Or do we want pot to be smoked by children? Do we want people driving under the influence of pot? 3) Viet Nam as historical reference? Iraq and Afghanistan equivalent "strong doses of aversion therapy"? I beg to differ. The point is to strive for peace through strength. No era has ever enjoyed peace through weakness. So the "lead from behind" school will only create the need for more Iraqs and Afghanistans. The cardinal error committed by our politicians is to embark on any military mission and then drop it mid-stream. The end of the Viet Nam conflict is a humiliation that this nation is unlikely to every live down. In itself this has created the need for Iraq-like efforts in Syria, Palestine, Libya, Ukraine, Iran... And announcing the date of our departure from Afghanistan is not going to pacify the Taliban. "Trite" barely describes the sophomoric superficiality of Chapman's isolationist nonsense once we get beyond domestic issues like same-sex relationships and drug use.
In response to:

Please Stop Helping Us

Kenneth L. Wrote: Jul 30, 2014 2:06 PM
kmassey Wrote: "You enjoy his writing because he tells you what you want to hear." Can anyone tell me what this means? Is there no objective standard by which to judge anything anymore? Is what Professor Williams writes true or untrue, kmassey? Is his argument flawed? Are there historical factors that he overlooks? Your comment is utter nonsense, and I don't understand the point of it. You have accomplished nothing except to embarrass yourself. Are you grownup or child? Just curious.
In response to:

Cease the Cease-Fires

Kenneth L. Wrote: Jul 30, 2014 1:11 PM
The thing you miss, tsimitpo, is that there are human beings of every level of intelligence and experience, on a bell curve distribution. What needs to happen is for the best and brightest to help those of lesser ability to see obvious truth. When you don't even engage with the profound thoughts offered by a giant intellect like Thomas Sowell you contribute to whatever any "detractors" might be saying. Read the same thing in the Wall Street Journal, and some other periodicals with a tradition of real research, reasoning and great writing. Obama and Kerry are contributing to the problem, not solving it. Just quickly, to address your non-argument today, even if your comment is accurate it's non sequitur. But it is actually false, by reason of being off-point. Looking at everything through a cynical, political lens will never yield the answer you pretend to be looking for that might help us end this or any conflict. As the Wall Street Journal has argued, Kerry and Obama have given both sides reason to keep fighting--Israel because they fear loss of support from the civilized world in the near future, and Hamas because they know they have us buffaloed, and that there will be few, if any, consequences for their uncivilized behavior.
In response to:

Cease the Cease-Fires

Kenneth L. Wrote: Jul 30, 2014 8:58 AM
tsimitpo proves once again that there is a segment of humanity completely impervious to the most compelling, sound reasoning, the most unassailable logic. If I were he (she/it), I would be careful about taking on an intellect like that of Thomas Sowell. For those with a strong prejudice, like the conspiracy paranoia of tsimitpo, there is no amount of logical argument that will prevail. So once again I'm left shaking my head, forced to accept the most pessimistic version of the end of our world and species because there is no progress toward an ability to live in peace. Despite enormous gains in technology, the manifestation of those gains in the realm of international relations is more efficient ways we kill each other. And tsimitpo bleats on...
In response to:

Do Blacks Need Favors?

Kenneth L. Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 10:43 AM
It's all been said. Williams is brilliant. If only common sense could be recognized by those who can no longer see the forest for the trees in spite of high IQs and a lot of education. The ability to take complex things and make them clear, as Prof. Williams does for us on a regular basis, requires a higher intelligence than that possessed by many of the leading thinkers of our age. But the very ability to make things clear is derided as over-simplifying, simplistic, etc. It's tragic. The culture problem hasn't infected only blacks. Many people of all stripes won't recognize truth even when it smacks them right in the face.
Previous 21 - 30 Next