Bloodthirst

I came into a comment of Mr. North I cannot run away from. This post:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/horrors-of-war.html

Goes a little bit out of Qana's context. But it is his reasoning is quite extreme to leave it away:

To a very great extent, therefore, children finish their education imbued with the idea that "war is bad" – violence is bad, without in any way understanding the historical contexts in which wars have been fought, or realising that, bad though it most certainly is, there are worse things than war.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/horrors-of-war.html

Even considering this guy served in the military, he has a lot to grow up. War is bad, there's absolutely no doubt about it. No questions, no buts, no exclusions. The is only one thing:

War is a necessity...

Frankly, I don't remember exactly who stated this reasoning. Besides it is not so simple as it may seem. There was a development to why it is a necessity. A very weighed one. And it was said not by any journalist, comentator or expert but by someone who has been on the heat of the war. Anyway two things I remember from it:

1. Drop the moral judgements when you are at war as moral is virtually non-existent. You have a fight and not a judgement to make.

2. But, before it, try everything to stop a war before you come to the brinking point. That's the best you can do to win.

From what I saw from a war, I think that these are good things to bear with yourself. However, Mr. North seems to have learned his war lessons at Rome's Coliseum... What he says leads to think it is not even war that drives him. It's bloodthirst.