"Freedom" thread or something

The T wrote: One of the few democrats opposed to war, Dennis Kucinich, has lost his seat in recent primaries. It's as if in the US being against war is the worst possible idea for any candidate.

Which is strange because polling would indicate otherwise. It's not the people don't like the candidates, it's that the parties themselves do not like the anti-war candidates. They make sure these people don't get nominations.

Remember that Republican state lawmakers redistricted the state prior to the primary which deliberately led to Kucinich's opposition having a more favorable districting.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - March 08 2012 at 11:17

Another laughable attempt at journalistic smearing.

Read something about how some of the Paul campaign are let down and confused about the massive throngs of support they have that don't seem to be quite translating to votes.
The youth, us 25 and unders (a large bastion of Paul support) are famous for leaving people on the altar.

We all remember Paul's massive online support in 08 that ended up with bupkis.

Some will say it's media smearings, GOP oppression, and other reasons...all of which are valid and have proven to be true, but think the youth of America yet again are running out on wedding day?

No doubt about that, and seems like it is a bit of all 3 indeed.

Is a shame, more I thought about more I thought there was a very strong possibility he could've beaten Obama, surely Romney won't and the others even less chance. Ah well. Guess we'll see if something crazy happens with the primaries.

I still would prefer Bama to Romney and co. so that's fine by me but barring quite a change I'll still be writing in Paul in November.

That's for sure. 

The T wrote: I agree with this short assessment. Just as today, there was no need for the US to jump into the war in Europe

 

And if the article is solely making an analysis in hindsight, I can do the same:

The holocaust continued on even as Germany was being eaten away at all sides, so with only one front (since there'd be no one else involved) it would've been even more horrifying. There'd have been more time to carry it on. I may be non interventionist but if you are willing to say "yeah I would accept that result" just for not being involved...then wow.

I'm not so sure "those b*****ds would've wiped each other out" is too solid either.
One of them would've won. Maybe it would've been the Soviet Union and they'd have greater influence (hell in hindsight we can say anything, maybe Stalin would've gone 1812 on their asses and push all the way to France) OR more likely without any distractions...Germany would've won.

That's just what we would've loved.

Ahhhhh I was making the point the article was just looking back and saying "this and that" so I did the same.
You see it's not really that good a strategy.

Sorry for the explosion but I find it crazy Especially since, as you say, it could've easily ended with the Soviets winning sooo yeah, THAT is what we would've liked??
Sorry but the idea of not being involved with WW2 I find utter lunacy and how intensely that article talks of it is outright scary to me.

The whole thing was wrong.
Necessary, even justified, does not make war "right". It's a terrible thing, and I wish people had that mindset. It's always wrong, even if it's needed, and thus should be used as an absolute last case. Which I think WWII is pretty fitting of. Especially since:

I don't think appeasement was horrendous either. Again people look at it later and say  "OMG LOOK AT WHAT YOU DID" but he was trying to keep peace. He didn't want a war, and did what he could to try and prevent that.
Since we don't have future vision, he could've had no idea what Hitler was like. He thought, like a sane person, if you gave Hitler what he wanted, he'd be content. I also read that he did it to try and keep the more moderate forces in the Nazi Cabinet happy, if he took too hard line a stance maybe the more extreme forces would've been empowered.

As you said it was inevitable. Hitler was truly an insane human being, in ways we can't fully know. Nothing on Earth could satisfy him short of his goals, and he loved war. Had a hard on for it. Really was sad times.

Slartibartfast wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: The T wrote: I agree with this short assessment. Just as today, there was no need for the US to jump into the war in Europe   Yes we were such idiots.  We should have allowed Hitler to get on with whatever he wanted to do.  Someone remind me, what was it he was up to?      Feminazis?

 

The discussion is a little pointless considering that Hitler did the brilliant move of declaring war on the US himself thus making life easier for Roosevelt