[Skybird]

War is always a costyl affair, and suchz costs should only be payed in an effort that makes sure the process must not be repeated. I totally oppose the idea of accepting war as an ordinary tool of opportunistic every-day-politics. Wage war in the way necessary for not needing to repeat it, but to end it. Set your objectives accvordingly. Many small wars possibly do more ahrm and cost more losses than one big one, btw. Many small wars not only give arguments for new future violence, but even found a tradition to do so.

It simply is against everything in fighting spirit and combat principles I have been trained in by my mentor. I admit I follow the Samurais view on things there, quite uncompromised. Draw your sword only when determined to kill. Mean no compromise. Accept nothing to come between you and the achieving of your obekctive and the killing of your enemy. Not even your own death. War is a play of death, weapkns are tools of death. If you are not adamently determined in your heart, better don't play. The wavering and soft talking of Western politicians when it comes to fighting, makes me sick. For these worthgless Dummschwätzer, everything is negotiable - everything, even their own self-damaging. I refuse to weaken myself like that.

I also cannot justify, if I were a miliutary comander, to tell my subordinate troops that they should risk their lives for anything less than something that is of utmost importance. I would not will to expose men that I would command to the risk of being killed or getting crippled if they are not allowed to sell their lifes as expensive as possible, and to go for the enemy's throat without compromise, and secure victory by the means necessary to achieve it. What should I tell men, if I were to command them? "Risk your lifes and accept getting injured whuile trying to gain some advanatge, but ifd you would need to kill too much or to drop too many bobms, please better sit down and die yourself instead of being so harsh to kill the others instea"...? Is that the speech I should held? "We are so civilised, we wage war, but only if it does not get dirty, we are proud to sacrifice ourselves instead of getting dirty on the others"...?

That is not what war is about. That is a politician's excuse for hiding defeat.

The sword's blade falls down on the other's head, or it doesn't. You pull the trigger, or you don't. The bullets flies towards its target, or it doesn't. You will to fight, or you don't. The bad guy hides behind a hostage - shoot at the hostage and hurt it to make it fall, and then shoot the bad guy exposed. Either you go to war, or you don't.

But when you start going, go all the way.

Iraq 92: after four days, the enemy all of a sudden was saved from further destruction. The result was a decade more of tensions, bloodshed, and another war, and the chaos resulting from it. One should have finished Saddam in 92, the door was wide open, chances were better than they were in 2003. Sympathies were with the Americans, too. There would have been no massacre against the Shia rebellion. One did not go all the way. Look what has come from it. Nothing but negative things.

Also consider that Israel cannot afford to raise hostile xsentiments by its neighbours again and again every two years or so, by starznmg a new war against Iran. The govenrments of those countries may be a bit more pragmatic, but the mptions of people in the streets are not. That is dangerous.

Do it, or don't. When it comes to war, I accept no in-between.