FFEMTPD72

Not an alert, but an overnight shelter @ John Jay High School should be opening soon.

Power's on its way out in Dutchess again.

I routinely confuse some of the fire houses down there as large venue halls.

We're talking bowling alleys, 2X the amount of bays needed and tiki bars.

Agreed. Censorship should not be practiced here.

Some of the best resolutions have spawned from heated argument and debate.

I guess you are unable to read what I've been saying because your too busy trying to defend your point of view, so I'll repeat it for you.

History has shown that diplomacy and negotiation only work when there is sufficient force and a willingness to use that force to achieve a peaceful resolution. Weakness in either aspect sends the message that we will talk but not act. This is as true now as it has been for the last 5000 years of recorded human civilization. Knowing our shared history and basing your approach to crisis on it IS considering the past, not living in it...it is called being prudent and learning from past mistakes.

That is the point of a debate, is it not?

Again, we are not suggesting that the United States lay down arms in favor of an entirely paper and pen approach.

Our current and past methodologies to achieve "peaceful resolutions" have been largely in vain, especially in regards to the two nations we highlighted. Sure, we have passed economic sanctions, but what did that do? These nations still have dozens of allies which proudly support them, regardless of threat from the United States and its democratic partners. India (world's largest democracy and prime ally for us) and numerous other nations have taken a more diplomatic stance in their approach to North Korea, and receive at least recognition from the North Korean government. Still, India and these nations continue to detain and inspect North Korean ships for weapons (etc.). Therefore, I certainly would not call their approach 'appeasement'.

It is because of our hard-line approach that no significant progress has been made.

That is indeed an interesting tid bit, number 7 huh? Out of how many nations is that?

194 countries, where France France, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand and Luxembourg are 1-6, respectively.

Yes, they are a success! For years prior to GWB we put our head in the sand and many servicemen and women as well as civilians paid with their lives. Remember what the 911 commission report stated, "They have been at war with us and we are not at war with them".

How about we send you down range to talk with some of our current enemy. Try your soft approach, it might work. What could happen? Saw your head off while taking a video of it for your family to watch, just because you are an American (I'll assume you are American). I choose to stand from a position of strength shoulder to shoulder with fellow members of the armed forces. Even if you don't want me too, I'm on that wall with our greatest treasure your sons, daughters and feel privileged to do so.

Like I stated before, no one doubts the bravery and courage of our armed forces. Remember, emotionally loaded language is a fallacy in rhetoric.

And, you are using the example of a few isolated executions as representative of all our adversaries? A bit hasty, wouldn't you think?

I was going to go into a long dissertation on the history that brought us to the world we live in today, but what would be the point. It really just boils down to to the fact that the actions taken in years past, be they right or be they wrong in your estimation, are what has allowed you and every other American to live free and maintain the highest standard of living the world has ever known. What you call "soulless aggression" is unfortunately and ulitimately how the world works, to believe otherwise is to live in a bubble, and to be quite frank is downright dangerous.

Yes, we all know that we live free because of this and that. Not one individual doubts those claim.

We want to consider the past in our current affairs, but not live in it.

Also - we are #7 in standard of living. Not important in this debate, but just an interesting fact.

Surely not in the economic and trade arenas.

Absolutely not.

In the diplomatic arena.

EFD, Thats it!

It's OK - they have a ambulance the size of a heavy rescue to transport all injuries.

IMHO what is truly laughable if it weren't so serious is to think that anything other than the threat and actual use of force at times will influence these powers. They cannot be reasoned with or bought off any more than Hitler could.

So you feel we should continually use military power to threaten and influence entities which do not see things our way, rather than attempt to research novel diplomatic solutions (which the current administration IS doing, regardless of insufficient 'output' YET)?

As I said, we will only further isolate ourselves by doing this. You cannot compare WW2 to now. Today is TODAY, not 1940.

Looks absurd.

...signs of indecision or lack of committment that no President of the United States should portray. This only emboldens our current and any potential future enemies to continue the fight (or begin one) in the belief that we lack the resolve to finish it. The security of this nation does not lie solely on our shores, but on those of distant lands as well. Our enemies must never again think they can inflict a horrific tragedy like 9/11 without an immediate, resolute and overwhelming response.

These 'signs of indecision' and 'lack of commitment' are inevitable results of Obama's effort to revise our overall approach. Clearly, as INIT915 suggested, our past attempts have largely failed to bring any substantial change in global politics.

We often forget that the current administration is dealing with a massive crisis on the home-front as well. Informed decisions need to be made based on what is best for America in the long run, and there isn't room for the use of 'immediate, resolute and overwhelming' style tactics to instill fear in future global politics. We're only isolating ourselves by maintaining hard-line tactics.

During my employment in Iraq there was one sentiment that was repeatedly expressed by the troops I had the honor of working for. Even though the war was (is) unpopular, almost to a man they felt it was better to shed their blood in Iraq or Afghan or where ever than to have even one drop of American blood be shed at home again.

I'm quite sure this is the current administration's sentiment as well.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, as are we all. I have to say though that on the above point I disagree strongly. A hard line resolute determined stance is exactly what is needed now. If history has taught us anything it is that appeasement doesn't work. Our advesaries are not bound by our moral or constitutional constraints. They will not be bought off either. The more we give the more they will seek to take. Only through strength and a willingness to use that strength can we assure peace and the future security of this nation. Freedom is not now nor has it ever been free. Believing that radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, or maniacal tyrants such as Ahmadenijad or Kim il Sung will yeild to talk without the force to back it up is a dangerous fantasy that will cost far more in blood down the road than that which may be spilled now.

I'm not advocating the use of generous appeasement tactics either.

What I am suggesting is that an approach like Obama's, which certainly differs in comparison to other times in our history, may be beneficial in the long run. His prose and rhetoric is based upon careful research into what would instigate the lowest amount of global damage.

Although the letter has the proper theme, many elements in it are misguided. It's important to appreciate that the President does many things to ease global tension. We cannot win taking hard-line stances anymore.

Also - Obama's approval ratings have started to rise again after the dip.

From the Poughkeepsie Journal: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20100120/NEWS05/100120023/Person-found-dead-in-Church-Street-apartment--police-quiet-about-the-cause-of-death