If politics and business fail us, of course the military will be called in. In the developing world, the massive and repeated ecological disasters are quite commonly met by the military.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The military don't start wars. Politicians start wars.
War is, in fact, an extension of politics, and in any war, military operations have to be conducted in such a way that they contribute to sustainable political outcomes consistent with vital interests that are at stake in that war.
The military might of a country represents its national strength. Only when it builds up its military might in every way can it develop into a thriving country.
Wars don't happen on battlefields; they go on happening in people's hearts for generations and generations, and the ecological damage is unfathomably complex and dire.
The use of large-scale military force in volatile regions of underdeveloped countries is difficult to do right, has major unintended consequences and rarely turns out to be quick, effective, controlled and short lived.
The president's very right about one thing: When you have a disaster of that scale, whether it be natural or a terrorist attack, there's only one part of our entire government, state or local, that is equipped to handle it, and that's the U.S. military.
Politicians do not enter into wars lightly. It is usually the military themselves who are keener to become involved.
I think that some of our soldiers die in the battlefield and some come home to bad health and die prematurely, just by the nature of the kind of business they're in.
The crises in North Korea, Iran, the Middle East, show how quickly things can change and how they can go wrong. We must be prepared. And right now the Army is not.
My belief is that when the military is used as the sole instrument of power, that never has a good outcome. If there's no one to take ownership and develop that failed state, human suffering can be even worse than that created by the conflict itself.
No opposing quotes found.