(My post will be pretty long, I won't hold it against you if you decide not to read everything.)

Alright, WWII is probably the biggest example of failed diplomacy, and Hitler was probably the most insatiable dictator in history who never bothered to listen to the League of Nations. His was an extremely aggressive foreign policy and he manipulated the people - I believe you won't argue with that.

Now, while WWII was indeed an example of failed diplomacy, it is a stretch to compare Hitler's situation with the one we have in hand right now. Iraq back in year 2000 was not a major threat to our security; consequently, to go into war with them was not justified, whereas probably very few will argue that declaring war against Hitler wasn't justified. What baffles me most today is how the people who supported Bush back in 2000 still support him. I don't know if you voted for him then, but why did the people vote for him? Why, because he used the typical Republican stance of "a humble foreign policy and no nation building". Indeed. The president has betrayed the people by resorting to an aggressive foreign policy and by justifying a war that we had no right to go into. It's true that Hussein was a bad leader, but Bush went into war saying that it was a national security problem. Wow. Here's an interesting quote by Goering, who, as you'll know, was Hitler's right hand. He said that all that was required to lead the people into war was to “tell them they are being attacked, and [then] denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger.” Sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it?

You say Iraq was a threat to us, the U.S. That's exactly what the Bush administration said, I know, and they never gave us ample evidence. Meanwhile there IS evidence for why they weren't a threat. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter clearly warned the government against using military action in Iraq, saying, in 2002, that our country "seems to be on the verge of making a historical mistake." For 7 years he searched for WMD. He was actually in Iraq, inspecting facilities and you're going to trust the guy in Washington over him? Bush went into war, knowing full well what the reports were saying. How he twisted the truth was despicable. But I'll stop here because no matter which war we're talking about, we can argue on forever. I'll say it wasn't justified, you'll say it was. We have strayed far from the original topic of this thread.

As pertains to North Korea, I mean no offense but I'm sick of people acting as if they know everything from afar. I've been living in South Korea for some time now and I know what's going on. Some of you people overseas act as if the North will invade anyday now with their weapons. You cannot be further away from the truth. I'm not saying North Korea is being goody-goody. But diplomacy is working. Already we have railroads crossing the border between two countries - a result of diplomacy. All you need is good diplomacy. If you're scared everytime there's reason for even the tiniest bit of suspicion and then call for military action, you're engaging in an unreasonable, preventive war: Hitler's favorite. At the Nuremburg trials the Nazis were tried not only for crimes against humanity but also for being in unprovoked wars. They tried to justify themselves by citing that they were preventative, fought in order to protect Germany from Poland. Bush has argued that this war is "preemptive". You need solid grounds before you declare war, and international law does not call for a nation to declare war without the approval of the UN Security Council.

That said, to return to the original topic, I do not believe that a Republican candidate would stand a chance against a Democrat in the elections, unless it is someone like Ron Paul who follows a sensible foreign policy. If the Republicans want one of their own in the White House in 2009, they'd better choose carefully.