mgod wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 16:00 |
Just to put a little perspective on the situation, these are people over there: men, women, children, lovers, bakers, musicians, etc. My wife has some students from there who's parents spend half the year here and half the year there. These are the people were getting all hopped up to kill. KILL.
Just so we have a little awareness from the comfort of our non-combatant armchairs. As with any war, if you think it should be fought you should be doing the fighting. You should have to kill someone yourself if you think its justified, and live with the damage it does to your mind and body.
DS
|
Yes, mgod.
And there will always be a state of 'near-war' for as long as certain regimes have enough power to constitute a threat.
Just like Reagan broke down the Soviet Union with a fantasy war program and efficient counter-espionage without shedding a drop of blood, there's a way to reduce the power of those belligerant states: cut their supply of money.
Reduce your consumption of oil-derived energy.
This will reduce the power of the Islamic dictators and of clowns like Chavez.
And just like the Star Wars fake program had its costs, the reduction in oil consumption will have its costs too, but IMHO the long-term benefits, which include more than world peace, will be long-lasting and far-reaching.
A little less comfort now with less HVAC, less opulent automobiles, more rational use of energy, a shift from disposable goods to durable ones and other small things that add up.
Needs effort? yes. But again IMHO it ends up being less costly than a state of war, in all accounts.