In the short term it would be cheaper. I think it would be more expensive in the long run.
There is plenty to dislike about modern geopolitical theater. The UN has plenty of problems. So does the changing face/mission of NATO. The World Bank, IMF, and WTO have can and should be roundly criticized at every go. But you know what? Two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. That "settled down" to bloody regional conflicts between Cold War alliances (Korean War and Vietnam) in the early 2nd half of the 20th century. The last 20 years, there hasn't been a major states vs states war. We have a major set of issues with largely non-state based operators, to be sure. But those collaborative multi-national institutions, however flawed (and they are very flawed), have done the job. We have largely done away with large wars between nations and nothing is on the immediate horizon. We have problems internationally. And it very well may be that the institutions set up after WWII are not the right ones to deal with the problems we now face. I don't know. But I do know that our involvement in those institutions has been a major boon to the world at large and to our nation. The fact that we didn't have WWIII on schedule is something to ponder. Cheers, Judah On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 7:21 AM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've been saying it for years. > > Way cheaper too. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:366773 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
