|
Guns
Dec 28, 2006 16:10:44 GMT -5
Post by Denithar on Dec 28, 2006 16:10:44 GMT -5
What exactly would you have done that other men wiser on such matters then yourself did try in stopping the Nazis without using military force? Chamberlain tried to make peace with the Nazis, and it only encouraged Hitler. That's why Chamberlain resigned, and Winston Churchill was elected Prime Minister in his place.
|
|
|
Guns
Dec 28, 2006 16:50:10 GMT -5
Post by Gil Alexander on Dec 28, 2006 16:50:10 GMT -5
That's a rhetorical question; I don't know how you expect me to answer that.
Yep, but at the time Chamberlain was acclaimed for trying to keep the peace. Appeasement probably wasn't the best option, and neither was war, either. You need to acknowledge the fact that there are other ways to solving issues, (and I admit I don't know much about what else there is) than war. I think I'm too much of an idealist for this, but there is ALWAYS more than one option.
Another side to this issue that I somewhat support is the idea of democracy; and while I wouldn't necessarily vote in favor of entering WW2, there's no doubt that a majority of the American people would vote for entering, and for that I would support the troops. I'm acknowledging the fact that there are other people out there with perfectly valid ideas. Not all of them I would agree with, of course, but that's the good thing about democracy.
Plus, going back to the appeasement/peace issue: doing the right thing doesn't always mean you're going to win all the time.
|
|
|
Guns
Dec 28, 2006 17:08:16 GMT -5
Post by Denithar on Dec 28, 2006 17:08:16 GMT -5
Sorry, let me rephrase that: What exactly could we have done instead? I understand if you don't know the history of WWII well enough to offer a full answer, but even if you have some sort of idea for what might have worked better, I'm interested in hearing it. We're both trying to get the other to the same conclusion. I absolutely agree that there are other ways, and far, far better ways of resolving conflict than war. But I believe that in some instances war is the morally correct answer, as in the instance we're using, the stopping of the Nazis. Will you not admit that some men in the world are only interested in their own gain? Surely this is obvious. And when a man like that (or women of course. I don't mean to be sexist, but it tends to be men) is in power and has decided that what is best for him something that will hurt others, how is he to be stopped? Appeasing dictators usually only encourages them to take more from others. As for Chamberlain, I agree. He was not a bad man. Merely deluded. He made a wonderful peacetime Prime Minister.
|
|
Hunter
Rank 2 (STILL a Newbie)
Total BAMF
Posts: 154
|
Guns
Dec 31, 2006 18:53:53 GMT -5
Post by Hunter on Dec 31, 2006 18:53:53 GMT -5
Question: why is Hong Kong one of the choices on a list of countires?
|
|
|
Guns
Jan 1, 2007 14:17:12 GMT -5
Post by Denithar on Jan 1, 2007 14:17:12 GMT -5
I'm afraid you've completely lost me. Is this a joke, or am I seriously missing something?
|
|
Hunter
Rank 2 (STILL a Newbie)
Total BAMF
Posts: 154
|
Guns
Jan 2, 2007 12:10:37 GMT -5
Post by Hunter on Jan 2, 2007 12:10:37 GMT -5
In Gil's table on the preceding page--why is Hong Kong listed?
|
|
|
Guns
Jan 2, 2007 12:30:05 GMT -5
Post by Angie on Jan 2, 2007 12:30:05 GMT -5
(Read the second footnote on it.)
|
|
Hunter
Rank 2 (STILL a Newbie)
Total BAMF
Posts: 154
|
Guns
Jan 3, 2007 0:08:07 GMT -5
Post by Hunter on Jan 3, 2007 0:08:07 GMT -5
Oh :embarassed:
|
|
|
Guns
Feb 6, 2007 3:47:22 GMT -5
Post by Emily on Feb 6, 2007 3:47:22 GMT -5
Seriously guys - Sit down and read a newspaper. You don't even have to read it. FLick through and skim read the headlines. Boy of 16 shot on Ice Rink Mother and young child shot dead in street Shot through the head yet only 13 You get the picture? I'm only on page 16... Guns will always be a problem, likewise with knifes, and any other offensive weapon. No matter how hard we try to eliminate them, the problem will most likely worsen. I'm not sure about this debate...
|
|
Spinner
Rank 2 (STILL a Newbie)
Posts: 223
|
Guns
Jun 4, 2007 9:48:04 GMT -5
Post by Spinner on Jun 4, 2007 9:48:04 GMT -5
too keep it short... guns don't kill people, people kill people... If you eliminate guns, people will find some other way to be violently destructive... Consider two options, if we're talking about absolutes...
with guns: sure, guns will be around the streets AND obviously abused.
without guns: sure, the crazies won't have guns. but this also means cops won't have guns. But the locals can easily find some other way to be violent. But cops, being more hesitant... welll let's put it this way, a cop with a broken beer bottle will have a lot of trouble keeping the peace....
|
|