From: wolfie <>
Subject: Re: Veteran's Day
Full headers:
From: "wolfie" <>
Subject: Re: Veterans Day
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 21:28:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <ou5n8h$7ti$>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 02:28:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="0c9a4067a521d3a2758daaae172e4337";
logging-data="8114"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Z4pJS1Fv5hqYRMnLNtPByPW2dI/F/re4="
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3528.331
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3528.331
Importance: Normal
Cancel-Lock: sha1:So9N0bplIGv1x+y7lF8W5W4r1iQ=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Print Article
Forward Article
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"  wrote

> My point is that if you don't resolve the issues, you'll just have
> either a) more fighting or 2) long-running resentments that flare
> up forever. 

> That's why the U.S. unconditional surrender demand in
> WWII was brilliant. They didn't prioritize stopping fighting over
> resolving the issue.

The issues weren't resolved until afterwards, with
the Treaty of San Francisco in '52.

Just like the issues with Germany after WWI were a 
result of the Treaty of Versailles, not the Armistice.

First you stop fighting, then you work to resolve issues.
Your statement is more "beating someone unconscious
in a fist fight prevents them from going and getting a gun
after they get back up."   It doesn't.