Yo, Joe -- I think he confused you with me. I'm the ex-Marine. Yes, I got shot at, and fired a few rounds myself. I got nicked a couple of times -- nothing bad enough to get me sent home early. All this makes my opinion worth about the same as anyone's, veteran or not. A limited nuclear strike is the last of a string of bad options, as has been noted elsewhere on this thread. Unfortunately, you may end up being correct. Radical Muslims see every conflict as an end game, and will most likely push us to that extreme. They will never give up their hostility towards Israel, and Israel knows that all too well. All "peace" -- all truces --in that region are merely temporary opportunities to reload. The US and Western Europe continue to seek rational answers to an irrational issue. We think economic cookies and gentle threats will entice the enemy over to our way of thinking, but I fear all this just stalls the inevitable. I don't like the stated premise of the Iraq war -- Bush's spin -- but we had to take that regime on, simply because Saddam was determined to test our resolve. Somebody was taking notes when we abandoned Viet-Nam. I don't like the conduct of the war -- we're dragging things out by trying to appear reasonable. War is the breakdown of reason. Once the shooting starts, winning becomes the only option. Save the apologies for later. Even now, we could achieve some credibility by court martialing Saddam, shooting his hairy ass with the attendant pomp of a public execution, committing to victory, winning, and establishing a permanent presence in the area. But that will not happen. The farce will be played out until somebody fires the first nuclear weapon. It's just too easy nowadays for any swingin' dick to get his hands on one.
Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |