Sheriff Gonna Getcha
02-06-2007, 03:43 PM
Yeah, well they pretty much attacked us directly too. I can't remember the ship they sank (Lusitania?), but it was full of Americans.
That was the Kaiser (WWI), not Hitler. Sorry, I'm a history geek.
GhettoDogAllStars
02-06-2007, 03:55 PM
That was the Kaiser (WWI), not Hitler. Sorry, I'm a history geek.
Sorry about that. I had a feeling it was WWI. Needless to say, I am not a history buff.
Anyways, you do bring up a good point. In the case of WWII, of course I would support action against the Axis -- even without being directly attacked. However, the only way I could justify this action would be due to the threat that the Axis would have posed to myself and my family. I don't exactly support pre-emptive war, but I also recognize that if you wait too long, it may be too late.
I think America entered the war at just the right time (not considering that we were attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on us) -- any later may have been too late. Although, I don't think anyone could have conquered Russia. So, world domination was pretty much out of the question for Germany and/or the Axis powers.
That Guy
02-06-2007, 07:02 PM
You think that a libertarian is more liberal socially? The liberal left thinks that goverment is the cure to all the poverty, drug addiction, day care, etc.. and that the goverment can cure these problesm. A libertarian says ok we will butt out of your life and let you do as you want as long as it does not harm others but do not look to the goverment when your a poor addicted person out on the street. That will be left to charity organization and I used drugs just as one example. The liberal left and the libertarian party are totaly oppsite where one is self reliance (libertarian) and the other is big goverment to take care of you (liberal).
i meant social liberal in that they're more likely to be pro-choice and less likely to call gay persons abominations of god etc. You missed where i said economically conservative, ie: self reliance.