reply to post by intrepid
Intrepid, there are two thoughts on how to conduct war. One is to dialogue, the other is to act.
"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of
collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the
establishment of personal contact with the dictators."
Neville Chamberlain wrote that, trying to purchase peace at any cost. As a result of not addressing Hitler while his forces were more manageable, in
Europe alone, 40,000,000 died.
By contrast, Alexander knew the principles of warfare when he stated, "It is important to win morally as to win militarily. By which I mean our
victories must break the foe's heart and tear from him all hope of contesting us again. I do not wish to fight war upon war, but by war to produce
such a peace as will admit no insurrection."
Of the two approaches, Alexander had it right.
Ruthless force resulting in catastrophic destruction will win long-term peace.
Right now, you can't pry German troops out of Germany. They don't like war, they don't like fighting. The Japanese don't even want a
I would suggest that the words of Alexander have proven true over the millennia.
He on defense does not fight war, he can only endure it.
When a people, government, or a President has suggested that your government must be wiped out, then prudence requires you take them at their word.
It's not nice, it's not polite, but when threatened, those threats that are eliminated, are no longer threats.
And let no one make a mistake. The Arabs hate the Persians, and the Persians hate the Arabs. The Islamic requirement to kill Jews is the only thing
that binds them.
But even the Arabs in the region are scared of Iran.
Therefore, the enemy of my enemy is not always true.