So because the French lost lots of troops they deserved something special? Yes. You see a similar principle behind our court system, after all, with damages being awarded to parties a judge deems deserving (though I am but a layman, and could be grossly wrong). In the case of the Treaty of Versailles, G
So because the French lost lots of troops they deserved something special? Yes. You see a similar principle behind our court system, after all, with damages being awarded to parties a judge deems deserving (though I am but a layman, and could be grossly wrong). In the case of the Treaty of Versailles, G
Saint wrote "about that hypothetical welfare dependent who decides to rebel against human nature and pursue a career of laziness." Any other time of my life I would agree, but I spent last week (and spring break, no less) doing habitat-for-humanity-esque work in rural South Carolina. Met a lot of people there who rocked my suburban-sprawl world. Anyhow, the one thing I noticed was that a solid half of the people there appeared to live in complete apath
Bringing the political parties into the question brings up a good point. Sadly, in order for Americans to wage war it nearly seems that whatever "party" (read: their president) is pursuing the war will always be opposed stalwartly by the other half. There seems no pattern where we could say one party has always/consistently been the hawks; Bush pushed for war in Iraq, Dems opposed; Clinton pushed for ousting Milosivec, GOP opposed; &c. for most other w
A discussion on the wars cited... Brad, you provide some darn good precedent for the US going to war, but you seem to be leaving a few key parts out, especially concerning Cold War-era conflicts. The presidents during the wars in Korea and Vietnam were following the U.S. policy of containment with regards to communism. Many American leaders were still following the thought process of Kennan and the Long Telegram, of which one key tenet was tha
JoeUser Forums