It seemed to me to be entirely un-kosher, if that's a word, to try to put a debate about war right in front of the midterm to try to affect the midterm outcomes.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The utterly fallacious idea at the heart of the pro-war argument is that it is the duty of the anti-war argument to provide an alternative to war. The onus is on them to explain just cause.
If you're against war, you're against war regardless of what happens. It's a wrong method of trying to settle a dispute.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
There is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no difference who wins. Nearly always one side stands more or less for progress, the other side more or less for reaction.
A faction willing to take the risks of making war on the ossified status quo in the Middle East can be described as many things, but not as conservative.
War is a contagion.
War implies a lack of comprehension of mutual national interests; it means the undermining and even the end of culture.
My personal opinion is that if someone writes honestly about war, it will inherently be anti-war.
I think the whole policy of pre-emptive war is a serious, serious mistake.
New terms used like, 'overseas contingency operation' instead of the word 'war' - that reflects a worldview that is out of touch with the enemy that we face. We can't spin our way out of this threat.
No opposing quotes found.