" As usual, complain and gripe, but don't offer any solutions other than to stick our head in the sand and ignore a dangerous situation. Fortunately, adults look at situations and make decisions on how to resolve them based on the facts at hand.

No one thinks the world would be be a safer place with a nuclear Iran. Use of military action is one response and has to be considered. "

" All I can say is this is an appropriate rant from someone that actually believes the "Register is an excellent newspaper." Unbelievable what they'll print now a day. "

" I agree that a major war is likely. Consider history, in the order it happened:

1. Germany loses WWI
2. Post-WWI Germany's economy goes south
3. Germany goes nationalist (electing Hitler)
4. Germany invades Czechoslovakia because there are ethnic Germans in the Sudentenland
5. Germany gets away with taking the Sudetenland and invades Poland.

And consider today:

1. The Soviet Union loses the Cold War
2. Post-Cold War Russia's economy goes south
3. Russia goes nationalist (electing Putin)
4. Russia invades Georgia because there are ethnic Russians in South Ossetia
5. Russia gets away with taking South Ossetia and invades ??? (we'll find out soon)

Under this model:

Russia = WWII Germany
United States = WWII Great Britain
China or India = WWII United States

We're already nationalizing the economy...seems to happen before every major war. Resources (energy, raw materials) are scarce...just like before WWII. All of the agreements (NATO, etc.) are in place to draw everyone in. The question in my opinion is, what will be the catalyst that starts it, and how long do we have?

Most Americans don't even see it coming... "

" Actually, kevin, there was a solution offered at the end of the letter, although it was poorly conveyed. Hemphill is calling for diplomacy.

And what sort of "adult" solution is a preemptive strike? Like Iraq? My, how gloriously THAT turned out. Yes, it's better now, but the "facts at hand" at the time (which were massaged beyond recognition) let us into a quagmire that killed thousands of US soldiers...and for what? So we could get rid of nonexistant WMDs? Yes, that's very adult. In fact, WE are to blame for putting Iran on this path, because we have removed the balance of power from the region (Iraq), so now Iran is the de facto superpower in that region, in terms of cultural and diplomatic influence.

You know what adults do? They admit when they're wrong, and they look for opportunities in the future to solve problems in a manner differently from what failed them in the past, as opposed to bashing at the same problem repeatedly and expecting a different result.

And if anyone honestly believes that the US would do anything as politically poisonous as start a military action while we're still planted in Iraq & Afghanistan, they're hallucinating. If anything happens militarily, we'll use Israel as a proxy, providing them with the technology needed to strike far enough into Iran. There's no way we're going to agitate China by interrupting the energy flow from Iran. Neither presidential candidate has the guts for that. "

" Um, Kevin, remember Bush didn't make decisions based on the facts at hand. He manufactured facts and misinterpreted information to push his pre-determined decisions.

I agree with the writer -- we need to avoid any more wars. We can do it. War is NOT the natural human condition. It's waged over resources. Always has been, always will be. We need to figure out how to manage our resources better -- globally.

Watched the contingent of California National Guard preparing to take off for Afghanistan last night. We need more troops there, but there go our homeland security troops. This is not good planning. Or resource management.

Wish we had been able to impeach when it mattered. Maybe Hemphill is right that Bush could start an Iran fiasco before he retires. But I'm ready to bet the military knows better. We just can't afford it. "

" Della, your comments would make more sense if you weren't supporting a candidate that wants to invade Pakistan.

Of course he said that a couple weeks ago, so he could have changed his mind three times by now... "

" Impeachment is only necessary for a sitting president. Sometime next January he can be indicted for war crimes & treason without having to go through impeachment
at all, as can all his traitorous thieving gang. "

" Good point telebender. We can then start impeachment against B.O. for his collusion with the crooks at Fanny Mae for causing the current Democrat financial crisis... "

" and for those advocating military strikes against Iran, exactly what do you think you have left to use to make that strike? "

" I see the writer admires isolationist Ron Paul. If it was left up to the likes of Ron Paul, Hitler would have taken over all of Europe and Africa, with Japan taking most of the rest of the world. Like it or not, wars are often necessary. "

" Golly Kevin, have you been paying attention to the news of late? Seems like we have already started attacking Pakistan or perceived enemies within Pakistan's borders. Appears we've even been able to kill some Pakistani troops which our military always denies.

Have you noticed that when we blow up a bunch of Afghani or Pakistani civilians who were not the enemy, the Pentagon either denies it, says the incident is being looked into, or claims the number of dead was only 2 or 3 people versus much higher claims. Interestingly, the original death counts almost always appear accurate after the investigation.

Now how did Obama pull this off (the attacks on/in Pakistan) before he has even been elected? Hello? Kevin? "

" It's called "dipolomacy" rogers. We do one thing and say something else, allowing the other party to save face and to avoid international incidents.

Seems silly, but that is how the game is played: we cross the border, deny it and Pakistan threatens to do something.

B.O. is running around saying he will invade Pakistan. That changes the game and not for the better. It shows a lack of expertise.

But he is not a leader, he doesn't know. How could he after only serving 143 days as a US Senator? "

" actually kevin, i don't think he said he would invade...he has said he would attack across the Pakistan border if that is what it takes to get bin Laden and the Taliban...


and now lets look at that bogus 143...from the time he was sworn in until ,he announced his exploratory committee the senate was in session 304 days with Obama present....even the source of the 143 day figure refuses to confirm that is a good figure or how she arrived at it...check out factcheck's findings.. "