MontanaHatchet said:
No, I'm upset with you because you feel that every post should be a 3 paragraph argument. Pacifism is only a poor policy when one side follows it and the other doesn't. In this case, these aggressors aren't going to cause serious harm just because of the absence of the Missile Shield. Now, expanding on my earlier point, bringing up Hitler was a really random excuse for war. The reason Hitler rose to power was not just because he was unopposed, but because of hardships that Germany had faced from the aftermath of World War I. If Germany had avoided starting World War I in the first place, they likely never would have faced those hardships. The German people were willing to accept anything after the economic collapse and humilation. The U.S. has had a habit of getting in unfruitful wars, so it would be in its best interest to avoid them whenever possible. Now obviously, the U.S. can't let other nations walk all over it. But the costs of war aren't always worth the pride. If a dictator seems to be rising to power, I'll be calling for war with everyone else. But in a case like this, removing the missile shield was a good idea, and not being pacifist isn't a good enough reason against it. |
Germany didn't start WW1.... the side we were on did.
