<p>No, there weren't. The soviets didn't even have nukes right after WWII, and so we wouldn't be afraid of ballistic missiles yet. Eisenhower would have been, but not truman. And I read that site you listed MED, and I fail to see how it justifies your answer.</p>
<p>umm sorry...did you read any of my posts before this. BARUCH PLAN was immediately following WWII. NOT THE BERLIN CRISIS, which was 1 year later. And the Americans werent afraid of the Soviet Army. If they were, they wouldnt have underminded the blockade. They were ready for an all out war to develop from the issue. The SOVIETS FEARING THE U.S. BACKED DOWN.</p>
<p>PWNZZZZZZER</p>
<p>so does anyone know how i can cancel my score?</p>
<p>It's army because the video I watched said so.... =D
p.s...., just trying to end this whole argument.</p>
<p>char and others...what did you guys put for the scopes question?</p>
<p>I didn't mean afraid like that you twat. And the question was testing to see if you were stupid enough to think that ballistic missiles were even close to being compelted in the late 1940's.</p>
<p>i pout religious fundementalism</p>
<p>yes, i got fundamentalism</p>
<p>does anyone know how to cancel a score?</p>
<p>your guys are wrong...it was liberalism</p>
<p>If you are actually serious I am not going to even consider one more thing you post.</p>
<p>char...the question referred to the defense</p>
<p>Ask yourself these questions</p>
<ol>
<li>who was the defense</li>
<li>What was fundementalism</li>
<li>did the defense support fundementalism</li>
<li>what was protestant LIBERALISM</li>
</ol>
<p>NOONE in this topic put down liberalism besides you. And there are some bright people in this thread, unlike you.</p>
<p>wat was the question?</p>
<p>they asked about the protestant side, which was comprised of religious fundamentalists.</p>
<p>"He (truman) ended up within a year facing a Russian military threat in the very center of Europe at the most important point of American interest in Europe." - Pretty solid proof the answer was "army."</p>
<p>charchazwick...YOUR WRONG..the question was a glimpse and answer wrong question.. religous fundementalism stated that god controlled every aspect of life, and it supported strict interpretation of the bible</p>
<p>Protestant Liberalism stated that bible was not intended as a strict guidance, but rather a book of moral conduct</p>
<p>The defense was John T. Scopes, who broke against the Fundementalist and began to teach in school, the theory of evolution.</p>
<p>Therefore, he, the defense, supported liberalism. YEP.</p>
<p>I don't even have the stomach to argue with this complete idiot anymore...someone else prove him wrong yet again.</p>
<p>if that wast the question the defense would definetly not suppourt fundamentalism</p>
<p>"they asked about the protestant side, which was comprised of religious fundamentalists."</p>
<p>that is the funniest thing I have heard in my life. The PROTESTANT liberalism was the anti-thesis to fundementalism. In my school textbook for AP USH, it states in the heading before the scopes trial "PROTESTANT LIBERALISM VS. RELIGOUS FUNDEMENTALISM"</p>
<p>If they were "comprised of religous fundementalist" would they fight against themselves. UM NO. THANKS. YOUR WRONG</p>
<p>so who doesnt know their history: CHARCHAZWICK</p>
<p>and greenbay proved YOU WRONG. LMAO</p>
<p>Fundamentalists in the south WERE protestants dumb dumb. Not all protestants were fundamentalists, but alot were.</p>
<p>Greenbay doesn't even remember the question, he's just assuming you remember correctly, which you obviously don't - LMAO</p>