The Tri-War Conundrum

Brad Reed's post concerning the recent war with Libya attacks fellow blogger William Kristol and President Obama. A reach out to those already against the constant warring with other nations is blatantly apparent, but he also manages to touch up on subjects that most don't see. Such as the costing cuts affecting simple things we tend not to take note of.

"In case Bill hasn't noticed, we're facing massive cuts to public education, to social safety net programs and even to services as basic as public street lights."

 In an authoritative sense I can't really see Reed as making an argument using his own experience in the subject or using any other information to strengthen his own argument in any kind of ethos manner. Weak credibility, but there's not much you can say for the credibility of those who argue against or for war. The men and women who serve in these wars could add light to the situation, but as it stands I don't believe Reed is a war veteran. We'll just leave it at that and move on to his pathos. The article is absolutely riddled with snippets of sarcasm and humor intended to keep the readers attention, but at the same time it addresses the issues he has with having started this war with Libya

"It's hard for most of us to comprehend the sort of vile vampiric scumbag who relishes the thought of having his country go to war in three different countries at the same time, but that's pretty much how Bill Kristol rolls. I wonder what would happen if America successfully invaded the entire world -- whatever would Kristol do to pleasure himself? Perhaps he'd recommend sending our entire army into the depths of the Pacific Ocean to launch a long-overdue war against the lost city of Atlantis."

Strong and harsh words draw the readers attention, bring forward the main idea (the three wars we're in simultaneously), and then in a pallet cleanser sort of way throws in a taste of snark to keep the reader's attention held longer. The logos was pointed out earlier as he argues that we're losing simple things like our public street lights.

I personally find that the two extremes that exist, those who oppose, and those who embrace war will not change their opinions because of this blog. Those less extreme who see war as a necessary evil may be swayed. A preference for diplomacy and trade is my outlook, and while the article is strongly written with many emotional touch ups that may seem a bit extreme at times. I wholeheartedly agree with Brad Reed on this one. War should be the alternative, and never the solution. What happened to the pen being mightier than the sword?