<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Will to Power</title>
	<atom:link href="http://netzoo.net/will-to-power/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://netzoo.net/will-to-power/</link>
	<description>musings on new media, social web, culture, tech from a Cubs fan in Los Angeles</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:22:05 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: RPB</title>
		<link>http://netzoo.net/will-to-power/comment-page-1/#comment-2226</link>
		<dc:creator>RPB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:38:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.everythingbetween.com/will-to-power/#comment-2226</guid>
		<description>George Will has apparently joined your head in the Middle Eastern sand entourage. Iranian nukes don?t matter, what scares you are neoconservatives and Christian extremists. Glad you?ve discovered the enemy. Will writes, &quot;...if Assad&#039;s regime does not fall after The Weekly Standard&#039;s hoped-for third war, with Iran, does the magazine hope for a fourth?&quot;

Will surfaces amidst the same intellectual flotsam that circulates around liberal hot tubs.  Any U.S. strike on Iraq, Afghanistan, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria or Iran would not represent &quot;another war&quot; but rather an attempt to clean up the same cesspool. To follow Will&#039;s line of logic, after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. should have refrained from fighting Germany or Italy because they represented different wars or an overextension of American resources. Will also suggests a containment strategy that allegedly worked against &quot;Stalin and his successors.&quot; Containment led to the communist extermination of tens of millions souls and the enslavement of hundreds of millions more. Flawed from the outset, containment became a strategy of expediency after the Soviets and Chinese acquired the bomb. That is, until Reagan moved beyond containment. If the U.S. waits until Iran acquires nukes, containment may be our only option. Teheran&#039;s fanatics, however, may not be interested in a balance of terror, only wars of annihilation. A containment strategy would surrender the initiative to an intractable enemy and would only serve to convince the Islamic fanatics that we lack the will to defeat them. If we follow Will&#039;s defeatism, they may be right. Instead, Iran, by unleashing her cats paw, Hezbollah, has provided Israel and the U.S. with justification to scourge this threat from Beirut to Damascus to Teheran. The U.S. has the means, the question remains does she have the will and resolution to act? A ceasefire that leaves the Iranian/terrorist threat from Beirut to Teheran intact, will present only an illusion of peace. We will still get war, only later and with any enemy much bolder and stronger than today.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>George Will has apparently joined your head in the Middle Eastern sand entourage. Iranian nukes don?t matter, what scares you are neoconservatives and Christian extremists. Glad you?ve discovered the enemy. Will writes, &#8220;&#8230;if Assad&#8217;s regime does not fall after The Weekly Standard&#8217;s hoped-for third war, with Iran, does the magazine hope for a fourth?&#8221;</p>
<p>Will surfaces amidst the same intellectual flotsam that circulates around liberal hot tubs.  Any U.S. strike on Iraq, Afghanistan, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria or Iran would not represent &#8220;another war&#8221; but rather an attempt to clean up the same cesspool. To follow Will&#8217;s line of logic, after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. should have refrained from fighting Germany or Italy because they represented different wars or an overextension of American resources. Will also suggests a containment strategy that allegedly worked against &#8220;Stalin and his successors.&#8221; Containment led to the communist extermination of tens of millions souls and the enslavement of hundreds of millions more. Flawed from the outset, containment became a strategy of expediency after the Soviets and Chinese acquired the bomb. That is, until Reagan moved beyond containment. If the U.S. waits until Iran acquires nukes, containment may be our only option. Teheran&#8217;s fanatics, however, may not be interested in a balance of terror, only wars of annihilation. A containment strategy would surrender the initiative to an intractable enemy and would only serve to convince the Islamic fanatics that we lack the will to defeat them. If we follow Will&#8217;s defeatism, they may be right. Instead, Iran, by unleashing her cats paw, Hezbollah, has provided Israel and the U.S. with justification to scourge this threat from Beirut to Damascus to Teheran. The U.S. has the means, the question remains does she have the will and resolution to act? A ceasefire that leaves the Iranian/terrorist threat from Beirut to Teheran intact, will present only an illusion of peace. We will still get war, only later and with any enemy much bolder and stronger than today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
