Before the war in the Middle East and after 9-11, the Rand Corp had advised that our response should be with Thermo Nuclear Weapons and for total annihilation to send a message to our enemies and future enemies that the United States is off limits to attack. And that if you do attack us you, your nation, genetic heritage and Culture will be wiped off the plant. We did not listen to them, but in hindsight it might have been the best choice. Of course this is not Politically Correct to say, but it might have persuaded North Korea and Iran to change their nuclear weapons policy upon seeing the devastation and one could almost guarantee it would prevent a war against the United States for at least two and a half decades. Now instead we have Jihadists threatening us and planning to attack us.

Rand clearly seems to show that military superiority and defense of a nation needs to be entrusted to capitalists and entrepreneurial visionaries with a sense of nationalism, rather than the bureaucracy and bull shit provided by inefficiency of government. And they are correct. If Rand Corp is honest then they also realize, as I have seen in many of their papers, that Carl von Clauswitz has a lot of important things to say in "reciprocal response" and total annihilation of an enemy, that indeed are to be considered and not so easily dismissed.

Other scholars have indicated that; “Herman Kahn, another Rand scholar in his book “On Thermonuclear War,” kept it real. He essentially said if you’re going to do it, do it. If not don’t play around with it.” Additionally those reviewing conflicts warn us that; “If you’re

Indeed no one really wants to think here in our Western Advanced Civilization as we are beyond that, but this is what the rest of the world thinks and how mankind acts. If we are to truly protect our nation, we should never forget the truth about wars. The true protector of a civilization says; “I only care about winning once it starts, that is all only winning, everything else is irrelevant.” Of course any real General will tell you; Try to not to have a war, try to create a win/win/win for all concerned, but if you can't and must have a war. Friggin win it. Additionally even Reagan's cold war was an interesting strategy, but in the end, it was about winning either way.

For all those arm chair Generals I have some thing to say to you;

"War is hell, an unfortunate impasse of competing political wills, if and when this occurs, it is extremely important to WIN!" Lance 05'.

If we pussy foot around with wars, conflicts and do not get tough, we do so to the future detriment of all we are and all we have built. That's it basically. We should be thinking here.

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

• Too Many Lobbyists in DC


• What Goes Around Comes Around


• World War III.: The Annihilation of Damascus


• One More Argument Supporting Globalization


• Who Should Run the World?


• In the Past Our Nation Had Changed Sides Many Times


• Mass Murderers On Ballot


• As Oil Prices Rise, So Does Interest in Energy Ventures


• Oil Production Hurricane Rita


• The Things That Stay Important To Us...


• Democratic Party Values and Principles For Which We Stand


• Youve Come a Long Way, Baby?


• An Alternative to Nazism


• Bush Supports Home-Bred Terrorists


• I Choose Rightouseness