Replies

taken up by what appeared to be nothing more than a jumble of stacked books covered with my six-year-olds army toys -- tanks, helicopters, soldiers large, small and Risk-sized, with a few cowboys and Vikings thrown in for good measure. To me, a nonsensical disaster.

When at peace, prepare for war. When at war, prepare for peace. One can only fail when one is ill-prepared, and yes, it seems nonsensical.

The problem in the Middle East is that one party (Islam) hasn't made any preparations for peace during this war. If we keep slamming them, they eventually will but, it's anyone's guess as to when.

The degree of 'kick-ass' may affect the length of any subsequent peace. Say some rogue state (Iran) cracks a nuke, we follow with supernukes. Peace will follow, might go 100-150 years. Which would mean to any prudent nation 100 or so years of preparing for the next war. And the beat goes on. (/sonny&cher)

The problem in the Middle East is that one party (Islam) hasn't made any preparations for peace during this war.

This is an excellent point, and one that never comes into the debate. It's the old "it takes two to make peace but only one to make war" adage wrought stark and chiding. Yet the critics will not even approach the fruit of this fact, and remain unhumbled by reality. And the blahblahblah goes on and on and on.

Interesting how that which is so simple is somehow so difficult for some to grasp. Peace means submission to the enemy, and we're just not all Centanni.