"Judah" wrote in message
...
No. If an enemy believes he wants to start a war in order to change his
situation, peace can only be achieved by convincing the enemy that 'the
grass won't be greener on the other side.' There are two ways to do this.
One is to convince him through diplomatic discussions, and form a treaty
or roundtable with him to discuss the issues that come up and work them
out.

The other way is to scare the hell out of him by showing him that if he
decides to fight he is going to lose.

Or I guess you can go to peace rallies and have hunger strikes in the
name of peace, and hand over your land, your rights, and your freedom by
default.

Your analogy sounds cute, but it's really off the mark.

It's not my analog; I was being sarchastic towards the one who originally
posted it. It was stupid back in the 60's and remains stupid today.



"Tom S." wrote in
:


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:L6eZa.106474$o%2.47518@sccrnsc02...
And what lesson was derived from the B-17's and B-29's in 1943-45?

That air power can be truly decisive in war?

That "strategic precision bombing" wasn't yet possible using the
Norden bomb-sight and "dumb" bombs?

That many brave boys died over Europe so that you and I might be free
to write this today?

So "bombing for peace" is NOT like "****ing for virginity"?