Well, the truth is, that France and England declared war on Germany. But on the other hand, this was a reaction to Germany first invading Austria, then cheqoslovia (or however you write that in english) and than poland.
I guess France and England were right in the declaration of war. But still Hitler didn’t want the war with England or France, he ‘just’ wanted to kill the eastern european people to get some “Lebensraum” for his blond and blue eyeds…
Ghandi was up against England. Do you think passive resistance would be effective against Hitler?
The problem is:
or
Why Cheryl Crow is an idiot
The first part is true, there are retributions to be had, and that she thinks war is based upon greed is her opinion.
Well the second part is flat out incorrect. Well, I mean it’s correct that she thinks that, but she’s wrong, war does solve things. However that statement can be made true with the word “ideal” before “answer”.
As for the last part, this is hilarious. It’s a truism, which is why it’s not given credibility. Of COURSE it would be better if we didn’t have enemies, life would be peachy, but we get enemies because they don’t think the way we are living is conducive to the way they live. It’s not like you can just wave a wand and say “no more enemies please”
Erek
I think that she meant, the US could have prevented these enemies from being enemies by different actions.
Nah, I think what she meant is more on a par with statements like ‘Why can’t people just get along.’ or ‘If only the world were run by women, then there would be no wars.’
She’s just naive.
I guess she is right …
Are you so incapable of debating that you have to resort to violence?
Did you read the last part of his post before your knee jerked?