When the leaders talk of peace
the common folk know that war is coming.
When the leaders talk war,
they know that peace is coming.
So far, there has been war talk
out the wazzoo for the past
fourteen months and other than
chasing some international criminals
out of Afghanistan into Pakistan
and blowing up some caves, there sure
hasn't been much of anything
resembling a war in the traditional sense.
In order to have a war it's nescessary
to have two nations willing to go at it,
and frankly so far its been the
equivilant of a bunch of boys
yelling across a schoolyard:
"If you don't cut that out I'm gonna pound you!"
"Oh, yeah?" "Well Fuck YOU!" , comes the answer.
On and on it goes as it always
has and probably always will.
Some observers still believe
that this will stay a war of words
and that it will be resolved
without nearly the agonizing bone
crunching blood letting conflict
that lots of people are so convinced
is inevitable. The ultimate cost
and consequence of any war is the
lives of the young men who participate in it.
And this country, for the past thirty years,
has been extremely concious of that and
is not willing to expend those lives
until all alternate soloutions have been tried.
As for war making re-election to
the presidency an asset I seem to recall
democrat LBJ being so unpopular for
his expansion of the Viet Nam conflict
that he didn't even bother to run for
re-election in '68. And of course, George H.W. Bush's leadership in the brilliant coalition victory over in Iraq in '91 didn't rate him a return to the White House for another four years either.
I find the thought of leaders practicing war
for some sort of political benefit at home repugnent.