[JR]

i would agree with his reasoning completely. peace is only (and always has been) nothing more than the downtime between wars. as long as their are kids who get raped or don't get a puppy for christmas or whatever, there will always be those who grow up to be cunning and charismatic sociopaths/psychopaths bent on causing as much pain, death and destruction as possible. or there will always be those "have nots" (either percieved or otherwise) who will lash out as well as a natural biological and genetic function of simple protecting our own DNA in fulfilling the primary mission of any living organism.

they will always find enemys and they will always rally others to their cause and there will always be a fight. its very strange to me that people, after witnessing thousands of years of war, refuse accept that as a fact of life.




"There's some key assumptions going into this:
1. There isn't enough time to let the MidEast evolve into a democracy on its own before somebody cooks up a megadeath attack.
2. America doesn't have the willpower to maintain an empire.
3. Staying on the offensive will keep terrorists from launching a major attack against the US.
4. Islamofascism is powerful and agressive enough that we can't coexist with it.

I favor "Gunpoint Democracy" as the option that gives us the best chance of getting the best outcome, and gets us as far as possible from the worst. Given that strategy we've got to start somewhere. Iraq (for many good reasons) was it."