Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Can you imagine the catastrophic results of a world under the control of peaceniks? why it could mean........peace. We must avoid this at any cost.
I suspect you would find quite the opposite would be true. Imagine a Middle East where Saddam Hussein's neighbors were peaceniks. I suppose you could argue that having the entire Middle East under Saddam's control would have meant it was all at "peace", but what kind of peace?
Take a look at a book called "The Treaty Trap". Reagan used to refer to it often. It is a scholarly study of the use of treaties and agreements with other nations as the primary method of national defense. What you will find if you look at the facts (rather than "feeling" what is right :wink: ) is that of all nations who put their faith in treaties rather than maintaining a strong military and the plausible threat of retaliation to keep their neighbors at bay, NOT ONE SUCH NATION still exists. In EVERY case, these nations were wiped off the face of the planet by other nations who desired their land, their resources, their "stuff".
I don't have a lock on my front door for people like me who respect the rights of others; it's there for those who don't. Likewise, we don't need our military to protect us from nations who are happy to coexist peacefully with us, it's the others that make maintaining our military superiority critical to our continued survival as a nation.
