Month: October 2012

Here it is.

Not much more need be said about Obama’s bad intentions regarding Romney on Tuesday night, and Romney’s fear is palpable. Obama is leaning into him…stepping to him, in street language…head and jaw thrust forward, ready to bite Romney’s head off. Romney is already backing away, holding Obama’s arm in self-defense while Obama’s left hand (his dominant hand) is poised to attack whatever part of Romney presents itself as a useful target. Obama has a fighter’s haircut; Romney’s looks like it would get messed up by a missed punch. Obama is lean and mean-looking while Romney looks soft around the neck and middle. Obama’s chest protrudes; Romney’s looks concave. Romney’s ass looks like it’s looking for a way to leave the building; Obama’s is tucked and ready for battle.

The tomato can and the champ.

And that is without a doubt the way the debate went as well. Obama’s horses, bayonets and submarines line was absolutely devastating. In a real debate setting…a fair setting, where the judges are scoring on points instead of political desires…Romney would have lost so badly that he would be kicked off of whatever debate team he represented. But here? In media-controlled PermaGov America? The “judges” are almost all bought off by one aspiring fixmaster or another. And the right-wing fixers have pretty much gotten their wish. It’s now a “close race.” Shoulda been a blowout. If I was Obama I would have taken a serious blood test minutes after the first debate to see if someone had slipped me a mickey.

For real.

Read on.
Here’s all I have to say about this thing.

If Obama loses I want the entire Dem establishment…Obama first, while he is still in office…to call for inquiries into every unexpected vote tally in the country. I don’t care how impolitic or how “dangerous to the security of the country and economy” such an uproar would prove to be. The Rats won in 2000 and 2004 due to vote fraud and a fixed Supreme Court, and if it happens again I want to see the Arab Spring erupt in every Tahrir Square in the United States. Otherwise it’s back to the disastrous Bush II years and beyond…way back into Reagan territory. Nixon territory, even.

If that result happens…Romney by a squeaker…and the country folds like a wet rag the way it did in 2000, I’m outta here. My people have been on this continent since the 1600s on my father’s side of the family and my mother’s family came here after their father was shot and killed off of a provisioner’s wagon in the 1850s by the Brits during the Irish troubles. I’ve been loath to give up despite the shameful history of the U.S. in the post-WW II years, but this is looking like the end of the dream to me. I’m not exactly an Obama fan, but at least he appears to be a human being. Romney? Not. Human beings have unexpected depths and capabilities for change, but Rombots just clomp, clomp, clomp along, chewing up the scenery as they go.

I refuse to remain part of that scenery. Been chewed on just about enough since the JFK coup. Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes? Just about enough.

And there it is.

Does the country have enough spirit left after the last 50 years of media-induced stupor to stand up and say “No!!!”?

I dunno.

We shall see soon enough.

Let us pray.

AG

From the file of “Like that will ever happen,” the New York Times kills some dead trees to promote a so-called centrist alliance between the Audubon Society and ConservAmerica called, believe it or not, the American Eagle Compact.

The notion is to revive the sense of shared purpose that led to overwhelming approval of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency four decades ago. The idea is hardly new: a coalition of sportsmen and progressive environmental groups was organized to lobby President George W. Bush on wildlife issues eight years ago, and local and regional nonpartisan alliances have formed on a number of specific issues.

Yeah, like that worked out soooo well. We all recall Dubya’s sudden turn to protect the environment his last four years, because it was so fabulous. Must be why the GOP Tea Party Hpouse fo Representaives sponsored 247 votes on bills to weaken environmental protections, including 109 bills to help Big Oil out leading it to be called out by Democratic Reps Rd Markey and Henry Waxman as the Most Anti-environmental House in history:

(cont.)

The House of Representatives holds the title of the most anti-environment House in congressional history. Led by Republicans, the House has voted against the environment 247 times in the last 18 months, averaging one anti-environmental vote for every day the House has been in session.

The newest report, released by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), finds that many of these votes have directly benefited the oil and gas industry.

But that doesn’t mean that trend can’t be reversed by the good old bipartisan centrism like policies promoted by the American Eagle Compact such as – Fracking!

(Mr. Sisson): [ConservAmericaa] actually has a policy up on our Web site called Cleaner Here and Now. We think natural gas is an incredibly important energy source for the coming decade. […]

(Mr. Sisson): Fracking’s been done for 50 years in this country. In Michigan, where I’m based, the natural gas boom is really expanding all of a sudden. We’d like to see fracking come under the Clean Water Act requirements. We think fracking can be done safely to realize the benefits natural gas can bring us environmentally and economically. […]

(Mr. YarnoId) [Of The Audobon Society]: I agree. That’s a sound and responsible approach. As Rob said, the Susquehanna River doesn’t recognize any boundaries. Audubon actually is not suggesting that fracking is a terrific thing. I think the science is unclear.

So, the path to responsible centrist, Republican and Demicratic environmental cooperation means we nee to Frack the country for Natural Gas – responsibly of course. Yes, I can fee lNYT editors’ “moderate” orgasms bursting out all over regarding Dems doing what Big Oil and the Republcians of all stripes want – more environmentally disastrous hydrofracking, because, of course, the sicence on the damage being done is “unclear.” Except to the scientists at the EPA that is:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said for the first time it found chemicals used in extracting natural gas through hydraulic fracturing in a drinking-water aquifer in west-central Wyoming. […]

The EPA dug two deep monitoring wells into the aquifer and found “compounds likely associated with gas-production practices, including hydraulic fracturing,” according to today’s statement. Levels of the chemicals in the deep wells are “well above” acceptable standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the agency said.

Fracking chemicals may have entered the aquifer through faulty well construction, gaps in impermeable rock or fractures created during drilling, the EPA said.

And the potential for earthquakes caused by fracking:

Nine quakes in eight months in a seismically inactive area is unusual. But Ohio seismologists found another surprise when they plotted the quakes’ epicenters: most coincided with the location of a 9,000-foot well in an industrial lot along the Mahoning River, just down the hill from Mr. Moritz’s neighborhood and two miles from downtown Youngstown.

At the well, a local company has been disposing of brine and other liquids from natural gas wells across the border in Pennsylvania — millions of gallons of waste from the process called hydraulic fracturing that is used to unlock the gas from shale rock.

Oh, an the fact hydrofracking may very well increase the release of one of the worst greenhouse gases, methane, into the atmosphere. Not to mention the known increased levels of methane found in groundwater near hydrofracking sites:

A team of Duke researchers has found high levels of leaked methane in well water collected near hydrofracking and shale-gas drilling sites, according to a study funded by the Nicholas School of the Environment and the Center for Global Change. The 60 samples were gathered from private groundwater wells from five counties in Pennsylvania and New York.

“Eighty five percent of samples contained detectable levels of methane,” said Stephen Osborn, an earth and ocean sciences research associate at the Nicholas School. “We noticed that, on average, natural gas concentrations in homeowners’ wells where there is natural gas extraction is 17 times higher [than areas where there is not natural gas extraction].”

And lots of other toxic and carcinogenic chemicals finding their way into our water supplies wherever fracking occurs:

Chemicals used to extract natural gas from vast areas of the United States include “extremely toxic substances, such as benzene and lead,” according to a new report released by members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Twenty-nine of the chemicals are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for risks to human health or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, according to the report.

“This report shows that these companies are injecting millions of gallons of products that contain potentially hazardous chemicals, including known carcinogens,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D) of California, senior Democrat on the committee.

But hey, who cares about that just so long as Democrats and Republicans can agree on such moderate and bipartisan solutions to our looming environmental disasters. Except where are these moderate Republicans ready to stand for environmental protections? Cowering in fear, it seems, as even the Republicans the NYT interviewed admitted:

(Mr. Sisson): Absolutely conservatives can find common ground and develop approaches to solving or mitigating the problem. The issue, as David alluded to earlier, is the way our political system works right now. With primaries so partisan, most Republicans don’t dare mention it publicly for fear they won’t come out of a primary.

We have close relationships with maybe 50 or 60 Republicans on the Hill. They all get this — they understand the enormous ramifications and risks to our nation and to national security. But they have a question: “Would you rather have me here or have me lose to someone who comes from an entirely different place?” There are a lot of conversations in conservative circles right now about the evidence that man, particularly with a lot of burning fossil fuels, is the primary driver of what we are seeing.

Q. Those must be quiet conversations.

A. They are quiet conversations. That’s one of the great things about the compact. These Republicans are looking for cover. They are looking for support back home from a broad range of constituents who will back them up when they take a stand on this and other issues.

Yes, quiet conversations that will accomplish nothing. Because these Republicans are not in control of their party. Just ask John McCain and Mitt Romney and all the other Republican candidates for any other office who discarded their pro-environmental views when it became time to win their nominations and get elected. Yet, thanks to the New York Times we are “reminded” that some Republicans really aren’t all bad on the environment. They won’t do anything to protect it, but they care about it, they really do. Not enough to take a stand or fight to change the toxic policies of their Party, but they will hold anonymous, quiet talks about their concerns. How gracious of them.

Is it just me or does anyone else think this is just another scam by the Grand Old Party to pacify centrist Dems? Thanks dear Old Grey Lady for helping them carry out their con game on Dems still gullible enough to think moving the Democratic Party’s center further and further to the right is the way to win elections.

Is Israel on the path to becoming an apartheid state, or is it already one?

The discussions on this topic have been contentious since President Carter published his book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid in 2006.

However, the time for pretense is now over. A recent survey of the Jewish public in Israel shows a majority support for apartheid policies.

Remember Richard Goldstone of the Goldstone Report fame? Goldstone was vilified by pro-Israeli groups after heading the investigation into Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli incursion into Gaza in December 2008/January 2009. He is a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court.

Goldstone was vilified by pro-Israel groups as a “self-hating Jew” and his report was likened to a blood libel, a false charge against Jews with roots in medieval antisemitism. Nevertheless, the report galvanised Israel to start investigations into the charges that were made against its military operation, which are still ongoing.

Goldstone was boycotted by Jewish communities around the world and was not allowed to attend the bar mitzvah of his grandson in South Africa.

Yet, he has continuously defended Israel from accusations of apartheid, as evidenced in this New York Times Op-Ed from a year ago.

[…]In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts … committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.
[…]

But Goldstone’s rose colored view of the situation in Israel finds little support in the Israeli public.

Today, Haaretz published an article based on a survey conducted by Dialog conducted on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. It reveals that a majority of Israeli Jews support anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views.

Survey: Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel

Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank.

A majority also explicitly favors discrimination against the state’s Arab citizens, a survey shows.

The survey, conducted by Dialog on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, exposes anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views espoused by a majority of Israeli Jews. The survey was commissioned by the New Israel Fund’s Yisraela Goldblum Fund and is based on a sample of 503 interviewees.

The questions were written by a group of academia-based peace and civil rights activists. Dialog is headed by Tel Aviv University Prof. Camil Fuchs.

The article speaks for itself and I hope you find the time to review it.
The below graphic should give you a quick overview of what to expect.

 

I am increasingly left with a feeling of “this is like Serbia” in the mid- and late 1990s. Isolation and condemnation from most of the free world. A large part of the population in denial over the impact of actual and proposed policies.

And the attitudes reflected fit like hand in glove to the brief diary I posted a week ago: Take it All Away from Them

I think it’s funny that Mitt Romney’s cynicism bit him in the ass last night. For the first time, I watched a debate on CNN so I could watch the moment-to-moment reaction of their survey group. Every time that Romney said something bellicose the audience reacted negatively, which seemed to vindicate his overall strategy of backtracking on all his tough talk on foreign policy. But that was an effort to win a bunch of small skirmishes that caused him to lose the war.

The segment of the population who actually knows what Romney has been saying about Iran and Pakistan and Israel and Iraq and Egypt and Libya noticed that Romney was flip-flopping and changing his positions. Those who didn’t know his record noticed that he was basically endorsing and approving of Obama’s policies.

I’ve seen analysis that Romney was debating like he had a lead. It may have seemed that way, but he doesn’t have a lead and he never has had a lead. And that’s not what he was thinking. He was thinking that the foreign policies he has been espousing poll very badly and that Joe Biden exposed that in his debate with Paul Ryan. It’s not that Romney thought he could coast to victory. It’s that he had nothing to say that could possibly help his cause.

But, here’s the thing. Romney would have been better off espousing unpopular opinions in a confident manner than he was in jettisoning his whole foreign policy critique and looking weak as a result. He should have learned that from his success in the first debate in which he lost on substance but won by being the more dominant personality.

.
Please don’t jump to conclusions. Item has gone viral in social media and mostly rumours have been spreading.

Update [2012-10-24 10:56:43 by Oui]:

Winnsboro residents surprised, relieved in Moffitt case

WINNSBORO (News Star) — The unexpected turn of events in the Sharmeka Moffitt case has left many area residents stunned, confused and wanting answers.

The news that one of their own had reportedly been attacked in a nearby park sparked fear and concern among the people living in Winnsboro until it was announced in a Tuesday news conference at the Franklin Parish Courthouse that evidence revealed Moffitt had fabricated the story and set herself on fire.

Prayers for Sharmeka Moffitt

UPDATE VIDEO: Sharmeka’s Mother clears up Rumors – “She was NOT wearing an Obama shirt, She was NOT Raped, She was NOT Beaten, She WAS Burned on 60% of her body”

UPDATED: Sharmeka Moffitt Set On Fire and In Critical Condition; KKK Rumored To Be Behind Attack

(Black Youth Project) – A black woman named Sharmeka Moffitt  was attacked and set on fire while on a walking trail in a city park in Winnsboro, LA. Since the report surfaced, social media has been flooded with allegations that the attack was a hate crime perpetrated by three white men affiliated with the KKK.

According to Winnsboro Police, [racial slurs and] the letters “KKK” were written on the hood of Sharmeka Moffitt’s car. They are holding off on calling this a hate crime at this point.

More below the fold …

Moffitt is still in critical condition

(News Star) – Police say Moffitt could not confirm the race of the attackers. The investigation is ongoing and is being conducted by the Louisiana State Police, the state fire marshal’s office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Winnsboro Police and Franklin Parish Sheriff’s department. There have been no arrests made and no suspects have been identified.

Moffitt was taken to LSU Medical Center Shreveport where police say she remains in critical condition.

NAACP: KKK activity remain a fact of life in Louisiana

Otis Chisley, the president of the local branch of the NAACP, said he had been in touch with Moffitt’s distraught family. He said he was waiting for more facts to come to light before drawing any conclusions about what happened and that “everyone wants to move with caution.”

Regardless of the investigation’s outcome, though, Chisley said, racism and KKK activity remain a fact of life in the state. “It’s prevalent throughout Louisiana,” he said. “It’s hidden but it exists.”

• Read more and watch a news report on the incident at wmbfnews.com

I watched the debate in Spain at 3.00AM so wasn’t at my sharpest. Europe wasn’t mentioned much except when Romney choose Greece as a metaphor for things going sour if the national deficit isn’t tackled. I wonder how Greek US voters feel about that! Some impressions from a European perspective:

1. Obama immediately started attacking Romney – didn’t seem quite “Presidential”, “above the fray” yadda yadda
2. Obama was at a disadvantage in attacking Romney because Romney has zero actual foreign policy experience, so all Obama’s criticisms seemed personal, almost petty. Romney could attack broad Government decisions or events or outcomes, and it didn’t come across as quite so personal.
3. Romney tacked so hard to the left on substance, it’s hard to see how this could not hurt him with some of his thinking base – although the wingnuts were probably just keen to see him act “Presidential” and couldn’t give a crap about actual policy.
4. Romney’s attempt to say he never would have “let Detroit go bankrupt” was so incredible it probably undermined his credibility on every other issue. Sometimes you just have to own up and admit you made a mistake – it hurts a lot less that coming across as totally unbelievable and dishonest – and improves your credibility elsewhere because everybody accepts you will make some mistakes and will be relieved that you own up when you do.
5. Romney said the word “Peace” so many times in his closing – even where it didn’t fit into the meaning of the rest of the sentence it almost sounded ridiculous – a palinesque word salad – as if some focus group polling told him that was the word which got the most positive emotional response from swing voters.
6. Diehard Republicans will be satisfied that Romney looked Presidential compared to a carping President – some will worry that he tacked so far to the centre that his positions often seemed indistinguishable if not to the left of Obama. It will reassure some he is not a wingnut and others that he is “ready for office”.
7. On the Dem side Obama did what he had to do to reassure and bring out his base.
8. My guess is that the few remaining undecideds will call it a near draw and go with the “devil the know” rather than an unknown and unknowable Romney who spent the night trying to show he is not Bush, but who is still too much of a reminder of the Bush years.
9. If Romney were the incumbent and Obama the challenger, undecideds might have gone with Romney as the safer bet.
10. If Romney loses narrowly he might yet become the GOP nominee in 2016. He has probably done enough to make Republican’s feel he is their best hope in a contest they will be absolutely desperate to win after 8 years of Obama. He will then be regarded as “experienced” even though he will be 69 and won’t actually have held down a real job in 14 years.

The MSM/polling reaction to the debate of a slight/pronounced Obama edge will probably also help swing those undecided voters who switched to the football long before the end of the debate. It will help create a narrative that Obama is back on his game and that the first debate was an uncharacteristic “blip”.

Some voters need reassurance that the President still wants it badly enough to really fight for them. The setback at the first debate may actually help Obama in the long run – killing any complacency on the Democrat side and reassuring independents that Obama is not too aloof or arrogant to stop listening to them or caring about their concerns. Everybody likes a comeback kid. Romney had that going for him after the first debate – now that psychological edge is with the President.

It’s better to have the late momentum rather than to peak too early and have the narrative saying your lead is slipping coming up to the polls. It’s surprising how many voters make a very very late impulse decision almost after they enter the polling booth. In the privacy of that space the temptation is to play it safe – whatever fighting public positions you may have taken with your friends outside.

Tonight was the worst ass-kicking any presidential candidate has ever received in a debate in the history of presidential debates. Mitt Romney was slaughtered. And let me explain why.

Ordinarily, the Democratic candidate does much better on substance than the Republican. This has certainly been true since at least 1992, including in the vice-presidential debates. But the problem is that the majority of the voting public is not well-versed enough on substance to know who is telling the truth or which statements are realistic and which are ridiculous. I don’t say this to denigrate the intelligence of the American electorate; it’s just a fact that most people can’t devote enough time to politics to have informed opinions about policy. That’s particularly true of foreign policy.

As a result, it was possible for George W. Bush to make a fool of himself and still win a debate against Al Gore because Al Gore acted like a jerk. It was possible for John Kerry to completely decimate George W. Bush three times and still not win the election. And it was possible for Sarah Palin to appear on stage with Joe Biden without the entire Republican Party being struck by a lightning bolt. The reason Mitt Romney lost bigger tonight than any candidate in history is because he lost on every measure other than substance and he lost on substance, too.

Simply put, Mitt Romney was the beta-dog all night in every exchange. Obama never took his eyes off him. He never failed to attack. Romney was reduced to agreeing with Obama on half the questions. Romney got pushed around by the moderator. His demeanor was weak. His expression was weak. His arguments were weak. If this were a 12-round heavyweight bout, Romney lost every round.

Now, the spin from the so-called “savvy” Republicans will be that Romney softened his position and thereby tacked to the middle. He was the candidate of “peace” and he “didn’t get dragged to the right.” I think we have all seen that these debates are not won and lost by how the candidates position themselves ideologically. They are won and lost by which candidate dominates the other candidate.

Winning on substance is preferable to losing on substance, but it has proved to be no substitute for being both more formidable and more likable. Obama was both tonight.

Having said that, I also told you before the debate started that Obama probably couldn’t move the fundamentals of the race much unless Romney committed a titanic gaffe. Romney didn’t do that.

So, despite trouncing Romney in a way that has never been done before, I do not think Obama will suddenly see a massive shift in the polls. What he will see is a modest bump in the polls. But, God willing, that will be enough to win.

Drinking Game

If Romney…

1. says ‘Benghazi,’ do a shot.
2. says ‘Ahmadinejad,’ do two shots.
3. says ‘daylight with Israel,’ hit yourself in the face with a vodka bottle.

Enjoy the fight.

As I learned from reading this piece at Huffington Post, tonight’s debate moderator Bob Schieffer has telegraphed his questions, effectively giving the candidates a cheat sheet.

…this final debate will also feature six questions, and candidates will have fifteen minutes to answer each, the same format that was attempted, rather unsuccessfully, in the opening round.

Those six question/discussion sections will encompass the following themes, barring any news event that intervenes between now and then:

America’s role in the world
Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan
Red Lines – Israel and Iran
The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I
The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II
The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World

These are good questions, but it leaves out almost any possibility that we can here a discussion of Europe’s economy or our relationships in Latin America, or anything non-terrorism-related in Africa. Schieffer didn’t just forget Poland; he forgot Russia, which Mitt Romney famously claimed was our biggest enemy.

What about global warming? What about HIV/AIDs? What about global poverty and hunger? No discussion of Mexico’s problem with gang violence and the War on Drugs?

At least legislatively, some of Obama’s biggest foreign policy moves have had nothing to do with the Middle East, Iran, or Pakistan. He signed free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, and the New START Treaty with Russia. It sounds like he’ll have to create some pretext to shoehorn those accomplishments into the conversation.

Romney’s biggest foreign policy accomplishment so far was to anger the Brits so severely that only three percent of them say that they’d view America more favorably if the Mittster is elected. I guess we can’t talk about that either.

So we know that the moderator isn’t going to be throwing the candidates any curveballs. That is a definite advantage for Romney. He won’t have to bone up on foreign leaders’ names because he won’t be getting any questions about Moldova or Tajikistan.

Since part of this exercise is supposed to be to vet the challenger’s knowledge of foreign affairs so we can reassure ourselves that he’s up to the challenge, announcing the questions ahead of time is self-defeating.

However, at least Obama knows that it’s up to him to expose Romney’s blind spots. Hopefully, he remembers that and has a plan.

One difference between the first debate and this one is that the two candidates will have to sit in near-proximity to one another and cannot get up and walk away to avoid the urge to punch each other in the neck. Given the level of raw testosterone that was wafting around during the townhall debate, this should present a challenge to both candidates. Above all, Mitt Romney is a very irritating man. And his game plan for both of the first two debates was to establish himself as the alpha dog and aggressor. It seems to have worked very well in the first debate, but it allowed Obama to walk him into a trap in the second. The sit-down format is simply not suited for that kind of aggression, but that doesn’t mean that Romney will be able to dial it all the way down. On the other hand, Obama has to avoid losing his patience and letting the whole thing devolve into a shouting match. These men simply do not like each other, and they don’t like losing.

There could be fireworks.

The following is a link an interview with Peter Kornbluh, a National Security Archive Senior Analyst

http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2012/10/22/the-cuban-missile-crisis-50-years-later/

My interest has been that we consider all the information before us. Foreign policy, the subject of tonight’s presidential debate, is a subject that affects every aspect of our lives, from our economy to our individual shared values.

The link I am forwarding in my opinion has considerations which are of utmost importance for us and our children.  I am unhappy with our use of drones and other aspects of our present foreign policy.  However, I am afraid that the policies promised by a John McCain or a Mitt Romney are even more bellicose and dangerous to both our own economic and personal security, as well as the security of the world.  We talk about the economic risks associated with Social Security and Medicare which pale in comparison to the costs of a hubris foreign policy leading us into preemptive wars.  Just imagine how our debt and economy would look like if we had not preemptively invaded Iraq and had a devastating war in Afghanistan.

Diplomacy is not only more moral, it also is cheaper.