blatham wrote:Dialogue, agreements, concessions, the sort of activity that the State Department looks to, is NOT in the interests of a corporation whose bottom line is based on the sale of bunker buster bombs.
That may well be true, but neither is such activity ultimately capable of keeping us safe and free in the real world in which we live.
I cite the following merely to help explain my thinking. I leave it to you to decide whether you find it meaningful or reasonable...
Quote:It has recently been revealed that for 12 yrs. a behavioral scientist at the U. of Hawaii* has headed up a team of distinguished colleagues in a Federally-Funded, computerized study of International behavior. Summed up in one sentence they have learned that "to abdicate power is to abdicate the right to maintain peace."The Treaty Trap is true. "Nations that place their faith in treaties & fail to keep their hardware up don't stick around long enough to write many pages in history."
According to the report
Power is not only sufficient military strength but it's also a sound economy, a reliable energy supply and
==
* Professor Rudolph Rummel, Department of Political Science
It simply makes sense to me that you either demonstrate a willingness to defend what you have or you invite others to take it from you; whether "it" is property, liberty, your life or your very way of life. I believe that last bit of the quote, "...the belief by any potential enemy that you will not choose surrender as the way to maintain peace" is what we
gave away under Clinton, the reason 9/11 occurred, and what the Bush administration is
buying back for us at a stiff but necessary cost.
