Most of my favorite greats would never be allowed into or would want no part of heaven.
I have no idea what Kiribati is.
If you had a chance to "cure" your spouse of his/her least favorite quality or behavior, would you do so or would you keep her as is?
One stop. I'm tired of the merry-go-round.
Would you rather live in the city or the country?
Country.
Would you rather read English or Russian literature?
English, we have Austen and Joyce and Shakespeare and George Eliot and Wallace Stevens and Dickinson and so many I love but the only two Russians I truly love (so far) are Tolstoy and Chekhov. I'd hate to give them up though. Besides I can't read Russian!
Would you die to save a younger friend's life?
City.
If you had a chance to "cure" your spouse of his/her least favorite quality or behavior, would you do so or would you keep her as is?
It depends on the circumstances, but as a rule: yes for family, no for others. And always yes for my wife.
Would you keep an ancient arrowhead that you found on tribal reservation property?
I'd feel bad about breaking the rules.
Would you say anger can be helpful and even constructive, to a point?
Yes.
Would you tell a lot of lies about yourself in order to bed someone?
So with the courage of a clown, or a cur, or a kite jerkin tight at it's tether
No...
Would you blame idealism for certain omnipresent problems? Which ones?
Yes, some. The history of Christian Jew hatred, for example.
Would the allies have stopped Hitler without Stalin?
Yes, the one where you don't get laid, as evidenced by your answer to my question.Originally Posted by Lykren
So with the courage of a clown, or a cur, or a kite jerkin tight at it's tether
I don't know, but Stalin would have acted independently anyway. If you mean if Russia were just an empty wasteland (ha ha) with absolutely no inhabitants, however, then I have no idea.
Would you say that total war and intentional attacks on civilian cities and populations was a necessity in fighting ww2?
So with the courage of a clown, or a cur, or a kite jerkin tight at it's tether
No, I meant without an alliance with him. And the answer is no, the other allies wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell.
Yes, as it turned out.
Was the late war destruction of much of Germany by the RAF and USAF morally justifiable?
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 04-19-2015 at 03:52 PM.
No it wasn't. I don't really believe in "war crimes" for the most part, but I don't think it was morally justified.
Would you (knowing what you know now) have gone along with Churchill and Patton in an immediate post war attack on Russia?
So with the courage of a clown, or a cur, or a kite jerkin tight at it's tether
You know, speculative history is hard to do. An invasion of Russia would have cost all the money that the US ultimately put into the Marshall Plan, which in the long term is what won the Cold War. So no, probably not. What we ended up doing worked. And it's impossible to say how a pre-bomb invasion would have worked out. Granted Truman learned about the Manhattan test at Potsdam, but no one was going to bomb Russian cities in 1945.
Same question.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote