I cited WW2 because the British (Chamberlain as Prime Minister) always tried to work diplomatically with Hitler before the war. Hitler put on some nice face and said yea okay I will do what you say. He then went on to take advantage of the British and their trust. You remember what happened afterwards? Chamberlain goes home to England and gives this massive speach about peace with honour. While he is doing that Hitler is preparing to invade and start war. GO DIPLOMACY!

Then you cite North Korea. Just you even mentioning them shows you have no knowledge of history. We have been working with North Korea since early to mid 1990's. Back then North Korea promised not to pursue nuclear ambitions. Idiots like Jimmy Carter was going over there to North Korea and interfering and causing even more problems by coming home and saying how nice things are. So anyways, they promise not to pursue nuclear weapons. So we pay them off with fuel, money, etc etc. They happily take our stuff and while that is going on they continue to develop nuclear technology. Then back around 2000-2002 they come out and finally admit they have been developing nuclear weapons for years. IMAGINE THAT! Then more recently we keep coming up wth deals. We promise them stuff if they stop their weapons programs.
You always hear how North Korea has agreed to shut down their program but guess what! I know this may com as a surprise but I will tell you a secret. THEY HAVEN'T. They keep saying they will but never do. They are just stalling, screwing around with us all, and trying to develop nuclear weapons. So that just goes to show another example of how diplomacy does not work.

You cited Vietnam. That is a liberal favourite to go into. They betrayed us back then and still continue to mention it today. I am not going to touch that one right now.

As for Iraq. That was a security threat. There was and are so many reasons that war was justified. But I see you as being one that will try to debate that. For that reason I am not going to waste my time typing out a massive page of info. I will keep it simple.
-Saddam had broken more than a dozen UN resolutions involving developing WMD's and funding terror groups.
-WMD's which he had used on the Kurds etc. Do not say they never existed that gets so old.
-Ties to the the original WTC bomber back in 1993.
-Ties to terror groups (maybe that goes with the funding of them and giving them munitions).
-HE MASSACRED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF HIS PEOPLE
-By UN law the UN should of been in Iraq years earlier. But the UN is worthless as a group. America being part of the UN is supposed to act and fix problems. It really should be America and every single other country that is in the UN. They should all be in Iraq just for the humanitarian cause.

So either way you look at it the war was justified and military action was the solution. We had been trying to solve this diplomatically for years and it never worked. Military action would be doing a lot better in Iraq if we did not have these retarded movie stars at home being unpatriotic. Military action would be doing a lot better in Iraq if we did not have these defeatist Democrats in Congress lying about the war.

You want examples of military solutions working? Look at just about every major war. Minus WW1 because I think that was just about the most retarded war in history. But that is for different reasons lol.

More examples include the minor battles throughout the Cold War in which we free a lot of smaller nations from communism.

That is all I am going to say right now.

__________________


Paid Posting Forums- Cheap professional posting.
Paid Posting Forums- Cheap professional posting.
Mesothelioma Lung Cancer is a rare form of cancers often associated with asbestos


Make Easy Money in 5 minutes a day.


Hoodtube.com Our time to shine


Face the Monkey

Hillary Clinton

John McCain

George Bush

Barrack Obama

(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.

Oh I like a good debate. And what I like even better is that you actually try to debate. Most people I know outright just name call and expect that to say that they won the debate. So thank you for actually providing information to me lol.

Anyways

I think we pretty much agree about Hitler and the whole diplomacy issue here so I will stop with that.

For the Iraq war, I have already given reasons that it was justified. It could be justified on grounds of security, on illegal development of WMD's, or most importantly on the grounds of regime change for the hundreds of thousands of his own people.
The last one itself makes the war justified. And I believe the UN should be in there helping. But as have said in the past. THE UN IS WORTHLESS. I would support a withdrawel from the UN but if we did that then we could no longer veto all the idiotic decisions they might try to make.

And if you say Bush was wrong about the connections to terror that Saddam had then you have to say the majority of the UN was wrong to. Cause they were the ones issuing resolutions against Iraq for funding terror groups.

Now, I do not believe North Korea is out to start any wars. I just believe they do not need nuclear weapons. What I find amazing is that North Korea is a nation living in poverty. Yet their leader continues to go after his arrogant and greedy goals leading the nation into a worse situation.

AND diplomacy has not worked for North Korea. It has been more than 10 years. For 10+ years diplomacy has not worked. And it has been good diplomacy. We have given incentives, fuel, money, luxories, etc. So we have done our part to try and be nice about things.

And I will touch on the preemptive war part real fast. Anybody remember Rwanda? Where up to a million innocent people were massacred in a genocide? What did the UN do then? Oh yea nothing at all. The people over there were praying to god that we would get involved and help. Never happened. If some nation were to of gone in there to help fight the armed groups, killing these people, would that be considered a war crime? You could say that is preeemptive.

__________________


Paid Posting Forums- Cheap professional posting.
Paid Posting Forums- Cheap professional posting.
Mesothelioma Lung Cancer is a rare form of cancers often associated with asbestos


Make Easy Money in 5 minutes a day.


Hoodtube.com Our time to shine


Face the Monkey

Hillary Clinton

John McCain

George Bush

Barrack Obama

Yes, I know what you mean. Some people blindly argue - in vain because they don't provide a basis for their theories and resort to namecalling.

Pretty much everyone by now will probably have realized that the UN is being inefficient in many affairs. And as far as humanitarian efforts are concerned, they should be sending people to poorer areas and do something about it. I know Ron Paul wants us out of the UN, and to be honest, it's not a bad idea but still it's a tricky one. Anyway, even so it is a way to keep international order but some Middle Eastern countries have violated this. That doesn't make it okay for us to follow suit.

My problem with Iraq is the grounds Bush gave for "declaring" a war against them. If he had said it was purely for humanitarian reasons, then it may be justified and I believe we may even be getting some outside support. However, that was not what he said. He needlessly used the fear factor to lead us into it. And that is not justified.

With North Korea, diplomacy has worked to keep peace between her and others. Diplomacy has NOT worked to solve its internal problems. Only the people in the capital live in relative prosperity - the rest of the country is utterly in ruins. The leader, Kim Jong Il, knows this perfectly well but continues to spend God knows how much money on extravagant parades and propaganda schemes. I know that diplomacy does not work 100% of the time, especially when it involves people like Hitler. Still, one must exercise caution before using military action. It is a delicate issue with no clear answer. In any case, I do believe that the U.S. is overspending due to its current aggressive foreign policy and something should be done about it because we have problems of our own. I will vote for a candidate who will cut spending and focus on our own country and her staggering national debt before meddling in other people's business.

I think the entire UN needs to be redone. I support Ron Paul's idea of pulling out but as I also said we canno afford to because we are the only ones who try to get anything done.

At first Bush did not cite all the reasons we were in war. He originally argued for war due to terror reasons. Saddam certainly had a lot of links to terror links. I do not think we should of gone to war with Iraq right at the time though. Since we are in the war I support it for the reason's I have gave. Bush should of included all the reasons.

__________________


Paid Posting Forums- Cheap professional posting.
Paid Posting Forums- Cheap professional posting.
Mesothelioma Lung Cancer is a rare form of cancers often associated with asbestos


Make Easy Money in 5 minutes a day.


Hoodtube.com Our time to shine


Face the Monkey

Hillary Clinton

John McCain

George Bush

Barrack Obama

There was an interesting article I read about how Ron Paul's dropping out and running as a libertarian candidate might hurt the Democrats. I wonder if it's true, but that is interesting indeed because it seems to be the general consensus that the liberals will win the next election.

Yea that is true to an extent. He could possibly pull off a few wins in states and get their electoral college votes. That would take them away from Democrats and Republicans alike.

__________________


Paid Posting Forums- Cheap professional posting.
Paid Posting Forums- Cheap professional posting.
Mesothelioma Lung Cancer is a rare form of cancers often associated with asbestos


Make Easy Money in 5 minutes a day.


Hoodtube.com Our time to shine


Face the Monkey

Hillary Clinton

John McCain

George Bush

Barrack Obama