I'm retired from racing. Really.

I couldn't agree more!

The difference between the United States and many other nations when it comes to war in general is that we can point to several positive things that came about as a result of war. We won our independence as a result of a war. Slavery came to an end as a result of a war.A huge chunk of our territory was added as a result of victorious wars. Fascism was defeated and the holocaust stopped as the result of a war. So I think there really is this belief in the U.S. that despite its' horrors, war can lead to very positive changes.

If you are, for example, Germany, you don't have this.

The United States possesses great power. All nations that have great power will use that power in what they perceive to be their self interest. If the U.S. believes that it is in its interest to prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb, then it will probably do so.

So the only question is how will we use our power? You can certainly make the case that the invasion of Iraq was an unwise use of it and I would agree with you mostly. If you are Ron Paul, you need to make the case of why it isn't in our interest to use military action to prevent Iran from attaining nukes. The fact that some Iranians will die and perhaps some Americans will not do it. As a nation we aren't that sensitive.

Another thing we could do to get more Americans who matter to take these things seriously is to require military service of more Americans. In my years in the Army I never knew a rich guy. The class of Americans that fights our wars is very distinct from the class that sends them.

Thoughts?

Rob- in general, the only time I think war is ok is if someone is invading you, or suppressing you and denying you your freedoms (i.e. American Revolution). It is true that the US has great power, and we have pretty much abused that power over the past 60 years (and even for 100+ years). You are correct that Americans don't really give a hoot if people in other countries die, which is a sad, sad indictment of us as humans.

Here's a good article about Iran getting nukes (which, by the way, it doesn't seem they are): http://lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis267.html

And for why Iran thinks they need them and hate America, read this, where America and Iran's histories are reversed:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bryan2.html

Thanks for giving me a sore throat! Lame.

I agree on the horrific stance of all the candidates besides Ron Paul. It's pretty ridiculous.

I totally agree with your sentiment on unnecessary wars that must end for moral/economy/etc. reasons. But I disagree with Paul's strict understanding of non-intervention (things like leaving the UN). I think that's naive for a country that should be a leader in seeking peace. Among the Republicans I think Huntsman has a better philosophy on foreign policy (and experience), and he seems to be alone with Paul as far as Iran goes.

Also, I think Rob is right that our military's makeup is unbalanced socio-economically, and that works against making sound decisions about how we use force. Too many vets coming home broken.

But that's enough politics for me, I come here to read about running. Just thought I'd leave a quick thought. Good luck on the Western States bid.

Thanks, Dave. Yeah, my running blog has a little politics mixed in it now and then these days. The sad part is that we still have another year till this election.

Too true. Hard to avoid it these days. In my job it seems like I'm hammered by partisan politics all day long, and I'm sure that's only going to increase for the next 11 months, so running is a nice release valve.

Rob- by the way, some people may argue with saying that US and our Allies have better morals or results than our enemies in war. The leaders of both groups have many atrocities and much, much blood on their hands. Here's a long read addressing that, giving a less-PC version of history that what we find in school books:

http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory243.html

It can't be all running all the time. Running makes us smarter, clearer thinking people. We need to share that.

All running makes for boring guys. And skinny. That's why we argue about the most taboo subject of all- politics!

I - like Dave - am surprised that Huntsman hasn't gained any ground. But I guess I shouldn't be too amazed in the pendulum of Obama/Dem backlash the Republicans are in right now.

Given the choice between Huntsman and Romney, I'd choose Huntsman. Mainly because I never heard about him when he was Governor, while Romney was in the news a lot as a Governor (not a good thing in my book).