What i really dont get is what this crew of ted, bayer, parsons et al would do or not do if it was their town being attacked with rockets? Would they self defend. Ted in an earlier post said he wouldnt.
I didn't see ted's remark but I don't find it surprising. And frankly, it is the reason we don't need liberals running our foreign policy. Sometimes, war is necessary to solve problems.
And frankly, not only is it sometimes necessary, it is sometimes PREFERABLE to other means. Everyone, from Army Generals to politicians, is fond of saying, "War is a last resort". It just sounds great.
But the reality is that a failure to go to war can sometimes be a far greater disaster than doing nothing. The question will always be open whether, had we stayed in Vietnam and won the war, The Killing Fields might have been avoided. There can be no doubt that had we acted sooner in WWII lives would have been saved. And frankly, we'll never know just how many lives were saved by our intervention in Iraq -- although it will be decades -- allowing time for the current crop of "journalists" to move on where some more objective minds can look at the situation.
Israel is going to have solve this problem with brute force, that is clear. There are to be no "negotiated" arrangements. You cannot negotiate with Hamas, a terrorist organization who has no interest in peace, nor can you with Iran, its backer. So wouldn't it cost fewer lives to just do what they have to do now and then, hopefully, have a few years of security until the next round of attacks? |
