No, definitely not. I would argue that even in revolutions, the revolutionaries aren’t the aggressor, that is they aren’t the party striking first, they are the ones revolting against serious egregious actions perpetrated against the people by the ones in power

Countries who strike first haven’t any morally just case no matter how they phrase the reasons. See the Germans in world war two, see the Japonese against the Chinese and the United States, France during the Napoleonic Wars, I believe the inferences are fairly obvious. The countries who joined in to help the aggrieved parties had more justification in striking because their’s was a defensive one.

By striking first, one removes any possible vindication. I think that we have, as a nation, been at war for far too long. I think that war unfortunately changes a nation’s people for both the good and the bad. It also depletes a nation’s resources in so many ways; human resources, financial resources and psychologically.

What is making me nervous is that the republican presidential candidates are starting to spout the same aggressive rhetoric about Iran that was said about Iraq before we invaded. The candidates themselves aren’t capable of doing anything to back up their rhetoric, but throwing those words out into the atmosphere for republican senators such as Lindsey Graham to hear and obsess over in Washington.

This prompt is a perfect opening for a full discussion of the ongoing developing situation between Israel and Iran. The hawks in the U.S military and the hawks in Israel are never far from the surface in the political circles so it does lend itself to some anxiety.

I would hope that we would have learned our lessons from the Iraqi invasion and the Afghanistan war. You cannot predict how any war will turn out as we have discovered unfortunately.