I truly do wish the key to ending war was just to think peace, to change our attitudes. I think of Neville Chamberlain, a kind and intelligent man, landing in his plane in England with Hitler's Treaty in his hand and declaring "we shall have Peace in our time". Now if Neville and Adolph had been of the same mind, it would have been quite possible, but instead, what you had was a Prime Minister who thought every difference could be settled through peaceful negotiation, and another who thought he would see what he could gain through peaceful negotiation before launching all-out war. The German people were not simply a bunch of fanatics led into war by a raving maniac. They were a country who had been defeated in a previous war, who had territory removed from them, whose economy had suffered complete collapse, and who were crippled by War Reparation Payments. They had legitimate (to them) complaints. Coupled with Hitler's ambition for a single German-dominated European Empire, the stage was set for what followed. PEACE was not even a desirable option for them! Peace is like love...before you can have it, you must have two people who want it. Otherwise somebody gets hurt. This seems so simple to me, I cannot comprehend the failure to appreciate it.

Bobert said As the WARRIOR NATION, the US can kick anyone's butt it wants to so, hey, with that a given anytime the US cannot impose the necessary circumstances for folks to not blow each other up, it has failed miserably. I mean, you give my 101 year old senile grandmother the US's might, and she would figure a way to create situations where folks don't go blowing each other up. Duhhhhh! Why is this such a difficult concept for folks to get?

Does he mean that the US should impose terms on the rest of the World so that Peace is mandatory? I guess, in terms of my previous statement, what he's saying is that if the two parties are not of one mind regarding Peace, then the party with the most nukes gets to declare peace on his terms. How in hell is that a new approach?