Replies

" Did you read the article past the summary post? "

Honestly, no. He simply regurgitates the boring, old anti-Semtitic propaganda.

It is difficult to read about an "American-Israeli" was against Iran, because it is a total nonsense. American troops never acted together with Israeli ones even under conservative presidents such as Reagan and Bush, who were true friends of Israel. Never in a million years would Obama autorize that.

The article misrepresents reality simply to anger Anericans against their Jewish fellow citizens.

I worry about an Israeli attack on Iran that would hurt us in Iraq and Afghanistan (we have whole lotta troops there).

Troops cannot be in more danger than they are; they are on the front lines. This too is not new, by the way: this is the line some Arabs started to promulgate a couple of years ago. The objective is old, too: "the West will stop suffering from us Arabs when ___" --- fill in the blanks. SOmetimes it they are filled with "Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved," sometimes with "When you withdraw from Iraq," etc. The line changes according to what they, Arabs, find expedient. This is nothing more than propaganda towards uninformed.

"We are bankrupt. Can we fight another war? "

Yes we can and should if it is unavoidable. Would you rather be poor and enslaved?

We can fight a war. What we cannot is fight a war and continue upgrading our TV sets every few years. But which generation of Americans ever could? Which country ever fought a war without sacrificing convenience?

"the army doesn’t want war with Iran."

Of course it does not. I don't either. I don't know anyone who wants a war.

The question about wars that are indeed fought is not whether we want them, but, Can we postpone and possibly avoid it altogether, or we are pushed to the wall and must fight either now or later at a greater cost?

"Sorry, don’t buy all the Neo-Con hype."

I don't know what that means. The line about spreading democracy is a clumsy line that Bush offered to the American people, and which the American people mostly rejected.

The truth is, however, that we had to fight it for other reasons. A good general fights wars far away from home. We did that in WW I and in WW II. We were doing the same in Korea and Vietnam, but the leftists managed to misrepresent reality. They are even more successful with the Iraqi war. Were neocons responsible for Korean and Vietnam wars? Hardly, as they did not even exist then.

"I like to think that I am an old-style conservative. Small government. Limited foreign policy. "

I am with you on that. What we have to understand, however, is that we could afford the limited foreign policy when the oceans protected us from the rest of the wold. This is no longer the case. Such policy is simply not an option. Times have changed, but the majority of American people are lagging behind in education; they simply don't know how the rest of the world affects them (and the MSM does not help here either).

"Bombing everybody (and payin for it up da wazoooo) aint conservative to me. "

I agree. But we are not doing that. We are bombing those that affect us adversely. You miss that connection, and I don't blame you a single bit. It is the responsibility of our leaders to communicate the truth in an accurate and understandable manner. Bush, unfortunately, has failed in those communications. But that make the war unnecessary.

In sum, we could limit ourselves to the wars on our borders, but no longer can do that. And, just because the war is outside of our borders, it does not mean that it is avoidable or frivolous.