Yes, I am very comfortable being at war, and specifically in a combat zone. And no, I do not wish us to be in a constant state of war, but as long as we are at war, then I want to be a part of it. And I am not in the Army because I want us to go to war. I liked the Army before we were at war, and I will like it just the same when we are no longer at war. However, how long do we talk to the Iran's of the world before talk is just that, talk? We have been an enemy of Iran for a long time, or at least since Carter fucked the Shah and allowed Islamic rule to take over. How long does the world allow a despot nation like Iran continue with its nuclear plan? Oh, I know. How about when Israel is now a nuclear wasteland? How about when Europe is under nuclear attack? I for one do not trust the Iranian government any more than I trust over half of the Iraqis here in Mosul. They can say all day long that all they want to do is build a nuclear power plant and that is it. Fine, if this is their sole intent, then allow the WORLD to monitor their actions, in their country to make sure they are complying. How hard is that? And you must have overlooked the part where I said the WORLD needs to get on board with this in my previous message. Not just the US. But, since we are the only ones who see a problem with a nuclear Iran, then fine, we take the lead. That is what leaders do. They take charge in the absence of orders. And if failure is the cost of avoiding violence, then in this context, what constitutes failure? Laying waste to a country with a bomb? Oh, sorry Israel, my bad. We failed. Oh well, at least we avoided violence.
Bruce Judah McAuley wrote: > Why do your comments scare me? You relish the prospect of going to war > with Iran, you denigrate the existence of the UN, you label the talk > of "diplomacy and policy change" as boring and poo-poo Obama for not > being "hawkish". You've got nothing but stick, no carrot. The world > view is simplistic and militaristic. I'm proud of the generations of > my family that have served in the military. But as far back as I am > aware, every one of them has served because of dire need, not because > they wanted us to go to war. > > Violence is last resort and a resort to it means that things have > failed. Sometimes you can't really help but fail as the cost of > avoiding violence is too great. I'm no pacifist. But the attitude > arrayed in your messages in this thread seem bellicose and wishing > for a state of warfare. Is it because you feel most comfortable in > that situation? I understand that you dearly love life in the military > and I can see that. But does that require such a belligerent attitude > toward the rest of the world in order to justify the place of the > military? > > I'd love to see our military in a place where it is a respected force > that is little used. I'm not someone who wants to see it done away > with. But diplomacy has to be the first, second, third, > fourth....n-1th resort. A perpetual state of warfare benefits no one > but the corporate and political vultures that feed on it. > > Judah > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:288036 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
