Terrorists use children who don't want to die . .

[Lurker]

There is a big difference between defending ourselves (even taking pre-emptive actions) and invading a sovereign nation because Bush doesn't like the leader.

Yes we should strike at terrorists but then we should strike at all terrorists.  Not pick & choose based on who the president likes or dislikes.  And in many ways we need to be more isolationist in connection with military action.   Bush's trigger happy approach is costing the US dearly in diplomacy around the world.  The strike on Afghanistan in retailiation for attacking us was accepted by the world as protecting our interests.  Invading Iraq under false pretenses was seen in similar light as Germany invading Poland.

However we are not the world's police....never have been.  We should not get involved in various actions that do not effect us directly.  We can offer support as we did in WW2 prior to be attacked directly.  We can steps when we have verifiable knowledge that actions are being taken against Americans.  However we don't get to decide who is right or wrong and punish those we deem wrong.

[Randy]

By-the-way, my understanding isn't that we went in because of WMD but because Iraq wouldn't cooperate and show proof of their destruction of the WMD.

No Randy, that's not why Bush SAID we went in there.  Revisionist!

Umm, I think he made it clear that we went there to find WMD but if you remember Saddam was given an ultimatum to cooperate or else -- that's why we went in.  If Saddam had cooperated with inspectors, this wouldn't have happened.  

[SPURSX3]

There is a big difference between defending ourselves (even taking pre-emptive actions) and invading a sovereign nation because Bush doesn't like the leader.

Yes we should strike at terrorists but then we should strike at all terrorists.  Not pick & choose based on who the president likes or dislikes.  And in many ways we need to be more isolationist in connection with military action.   Bush's trigger happy approach is costing the US dearly in diplomacy around the world.  The strike on Afghanistan in retailiation for attacking us was accepted by the world as protecting our interests.  Invading Iraq under false pretenses was seen in similar light as Germany invading Poland.

However we are not the world's police....never have been.  We should not get involved in various actions that do not effect us directly.  We can offer support as we did in WW2 prior to be attacked directly.  We can steps when we have verifiable knowledge that actions are being taken against Americans.  However we don't get to decide who is right or wrong and punish those we deem wrong.

just which leaders are not working with us???  dont buy into the kerry garbage of mysterious unknown leaders supporting him.  until i see our trade stop dead in the water, or countries not allowing americans to enter thier land then i will say we have no cooperation.  money is flowing, slowly but it is flowing, the economy - atleast as far as stocks go has gone up in recent months steadily, i cant imagine it staying that way without actual job growth to follow.  this country is surviving, and thats asking a lot IMO after 9/11, recovery was not going to be immediate in any sense, and whether you like it or agree with it, 9/11 did show that we SHOULD be in everyone business no matter how great or small they are.  for invading Iraq think of who else we would NOT have to invade, look at Libya, one less jack ass to worry about, look at IRAN - more dangerous than Iraq, even they have backed off - and yes it is our influence, american culture that is helping to get the young in that country go against the old ways and try to turn Iran into a more democratic country in the future, that would be one more - hopefully - country on our side, one less enemy to worry about, look at pakistan, kuwait, etc.  we cant leave theswe territories and hope for the best.  i think you said that we could just pull our troops out of iraq and bring them all home.  how? why?  what would happen?  we sit back pretend that nothing is happenning, and blam either we get attakced or some stupid ass dictator gets it in his head he can invade to take over another nation or resource.

[Randy]

There is a big difference between defending ourselves (even taking pre-emptive actions) and invading a sovereign nation because Bush doesn't like the leader.

Yes we should strike at terrorists but then we should strike at all terrorists.  Not pick & choose based on who the president likes or dislikes.  And in many ways we need to be more isolationist in connection with military action.   Bush's trigger happy approach is costing the US dearly in diplomacy around the world.  The strike on Afghanistan in retailiation for attacking us was accepted by the world as protecting our interests.  Invading Iraq under false pretenses was seen in similar light as Germany invading Poland.

However we are not the world's police....never have been.  We should not get involved in various actions that do not effect us directly.  We can offer support as we did in WW2 prior to be attacked directly.  We can steps when we have verifiable knowledge that actions are being taken against Americans.  However we don't get to decide who is right or wrong and punish those we deem wrong.

Actually, I think the US has always been the world police.  Who makes up most of the military and financial base of the UN?  The US -- certainly not France.  The US has had a long history of being "big brother" to the world.

As for going after terrorists, I think we need to start with terrorists who show themselves as a legitimate threat to the US.  Saddam posed a legit threat to the US because of his willingness to use his country, his people and his money as a way of striking America.  I certainly believe he posed a threat.

[SPURSX3]

There is a big difference between defending ourselves (even taking pre-emptive actions) and invading a sovereign nation because Bush doesn't like the leader.

Yes we should strike at terrorists but then we should strike at all terrorists.  Not pick & choose based on who the president likes or dislikes.  And in many ways we need to be more isolationist in connection with military action.   Bush's trigger happy approach is costing the US dearly in diplomacy around the world.  The strike on Afghanistan in retailiation for attacking us was accepted by the world as protecting our interests.  Invading Iraq under false pretenses was seen in similar light as Germany invading Poland.

However we are not the world's police....never have been.  We should not get involved in various actions that do not effect us directly.  We can offer support as we did in WW2 prior to be attacked directly.  We can steps when we have verifiable knowledge that actions are being taken against Americans.  However we don't get to decide who is right or wrong and punish those we deem wrong.

Actually, I think the US has always been the world police.  Who makes up most of the military and financial base of the UN?  The US -- certainly not France.  The US has had a long history of being "big brother" to the world.

As for going after terrorists, I think we need to start with terrorists who show themselves as a legitimate threat to the US.  Saddam posed a legit threat to the US because of his willingness to use his country, his people and his money as a way of striking America.  I certainly believe he posed a threat.

I think it is far past time for the US to stop being passive.  we need to get back to being THE military power of the world.  I dont think we are anymore, I think  we have depleted our military, military technology has just started to kick back up again.  i know there is no cold war, but i feel the world thinks we are lazy now.  I belive our country needs to stay strong in order to survive....but it could just be the fact that i am from texas and support the death penalty too.....

[spursfan101]

We need to just pull all of our troops out of Iraq, and start amassing them on the Japanese border. I say we invade Japan and take over the country since they are a communist country and they pose a serious nuclear threat to the world.  After the job is done, we'll point to faulty intelligence and say we thought the Koreans were the same as the Japanese. Bush can present his georgraphy transcripts, and all will be forgiven.  

We can sell off Nintendo, Sony, Toyota and Pokemon, by the time were done, we'll be out of debt.

IT'S  THAT SIMPLE PEOPLE, GEEZ, YOU PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS! I should really consider running for office. (just don't ask me to shake anybodies hand.)

 :lol:  

[SPURSX3]

We need to just pull all of our troops out of Iraq, and start amassing them on the Japanese border. I say we invade Japan and take over the country since they are a communist country and they pose a serious nuclear threat to the world.  After the job is done, we'll point to faulty intelligence and say we thought the Koreans were the same as the Japanese. Bush can present his georgraphy transcripts, and all will be forgiven.  

We can sell off Nintendo, Sony, Toyota and Pokemon, by the time were done, we'll be out of debt.

IT'S  THAT SIMPLE PEOPLE, GEEZ, YOU PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS! I should really consider running for office. (just don't ask me to shake anybodies hand.)

 :lol:

two things 101, japan is not communist, and they have Godzilla, Monster X, Mothra, and every other b movie monster to ever whip A-hole on this earth.......even Bush wouldnt mess with Japan.... <_<  

[gaither]

I hardly think we (our government) have shown ourselves to be either competent or impartial enough to qualify as the world's policeman. That role should never be assumed by one nation.  :blink:  

[Lurker]

I hardly think we (our government) have shown ourselves to be either competent or impartial enough to qualify as the world's policeman. That role should never be assumed by one nation.  :blink:

Well said, gaither.

 :ph34r:  

[Guest_Randy]

I hardly think we (our government) have shown ourselves to be either competent or impartial enough to qualify as the world's policeman. That role should never be assumed by one nation.  :blink:

All it takes for tyrants to succeed is for good men and women to stand by and do nothing.  Hitler was a perfect example of that.  I can tell you that too many leaders and countries in this world are totally self-absorbed and don't give a flip about what happens around the world unless it affects them in some way.  If the US doesn't do anything -- nobody does (Britain is one of the few countries who strive to make a difference as well).  

[gaither]

I hardly think we All it takes for tyrants to succeed is for good men and women to stand by and do nothing.  Hitler was a perfect example of that.  I can tell you that too many leaders and countries in this world are totally self-absorbed and don't give a flip about what happens around the world unless it affects them in some way.  If the US doesn't do anything -- nobody does (Britain is one of the few countries who strive to make a difference as well).

I'm not saying that we (American government) can't be a leader in bringing trouble spots to the attention of other nations and rallying their support to take action. But any punitive or military action needs to be taken with the unified support of a world body like NATO or the United Nations. Sometimes that means we may have to wait longer than we'd prefer to take action, but the end result is preferable. Bush blew off the UN because he didn't feel like waiting to line up support for the war with Iraq; the end result is we are perceived as one nation (and yeah, Britain too) imposing it's will on another nation...and for what?...WMD that did not exist.

I know that we view Saddam Hussein as a bad leader, ruthless and indifferent to his own people (not to mention groups like the Kurds and surrounding nations). We justified taking immediate action because we said he needed to be taken out because he was on the brink of developing or already had WMD. Turns out there is no proof that these weapons currently existed or a program to develop them was even in the works. We basically took out Hussein just because we didn't like him. One nation should not be able to depose of the leader of another nation just because they don't like that leader or think he might be up to something bad. That's a recipe for world chaos. There are many nations that don't like Bush and think he is a bad leader, do they have the right to invade American and "free" us from Bush? Trying putting the shoe on the other foot, Randy, and look at what we did from an outsider's point of view.

[SPURSX3]

I hardly think we All it takes for tyrants to succeed is for good men and women to stand by and do nothing.  Hitler was a perfect example of that.  I can tell you that too many leaders and countries in this world are totally self-absorbed and don't give a flip about what happens around the world unless it affects them in some way.  If the US doesn't do anything -- nobody does (Britain is one of the few countries who strive to make a difference as well).

I'm not saying that we (American government) can't be a leader in bringing trouble spots to the attention of other nations and rallying their support to take action. But any punitive or military action needs to be taken with the unified support of a world body like NATO or the United Nations. Sometimes that means we may have to wait longer than we'd prefer to take action, but the end result is preferable. Bush blew off the UN because he didn't feel like waiting to line up support for the war with Iraq; the end result is we are perceived as one nation (and yeah, Britain too) imposing it's will on another nation...and for what?...WMD that did not exist.

I know that we view Saddam Hussein as a bad leader, ruthless and indifferent to his own people (not to mention groups like the Kurds and surrounding nations). We justified taking immediate action because we said he needed to be taken out because he was on the brink of developing or already had WMD. Turns out there is no proof that these weapons currently existed or a program to develop them was even in the works. We basically took out Hussein just because we didn't like him. One nation should not be able to depose of the leader of another nation just because they don't like that leader or think he might be up to something bad. That's a recipe for world chaos. There are many nations that don't like Bush and think he is a bad leader, do they have the right to invade American and "free" us from Bush? Trying putting the shoe on the other foot, Randy, and look at what we did from an outsider's point of view.

please gaither dont make me laugh.  waiting on the nited nations or nato?  how many countries didnt want us to go into iraq and for what reason?  do you think it was to save the poor iraqi people - hell no.  it was to save thier own hidden interests with a country that was suppossed to have been sanctioned and held accountable for the first gulf war transgressions.  waiting for united nations to decide to take action would mean the country in question would need to have committed an act that NO country could ignore (ie 9/11) or would have to hae pissed of the major council nations on nato or the UN, how many chances will that happen?  every country would look out for its own interests in the same situation.  russia military is underpaid and depleted - or dont you think they would still be refusing to listen to the rest of the world and invade other nations for its own benefit like when they were a solid nation?  france - come on, despite the obvious jokes, they are in the midst of rebuilding thier economy to finally stop being englands mexico, Germany??  pre-emptive military action by them on a large scale would have a good chunk of the world on thier arse because of hitlers madness.  England, they wouldnt do it without us backing them and vice versa.  we are the only country to take action in the world. competency or not, you will not have perfect leaders, you will only have people who will do the best that they can - hopefully most of the time.  Action, military actions, ANY military action is ALWAYS seen as the wrong move, when it is at times the best move to make for a nation and its interests.  Look at 9/11 - you had protestors then saying "NO WAR" I was like "WTF?"  I suppose our military was created to sit in uniform and look pretty, all that training ust have been for show?  I know some of our men and women dont like the fact they may have to leave family friends behind to serve, but the fact is a good portion also believe in the military, thier leader, and thier cause.  i would support them in thier efforts.  containment is a policy that works, ourmpresence in the region will break down more efforts to attack us or our interests than not having our troops there.  last time i checked, Al Qaeda was not a member of the UN or Nato or the EU for that matter, whya should we wait for other nations to give us permission when it is not THIER interest being targeted - except for those that helped us.  In a way the bomb they found in france's rail system the other day is a signal to the world, whether you like it or not, your going to enter this war one way or another.

[jn]

X3,

You are waaaay wrong in one area.  Our level of military supremacy has never been higher.  I'll double check this, but if I recall correctly we spend more than any FIVE NATIONS COMBINED!!  

"Don't fall for the Clinton gutted the military"propaganda.  Yes he closed some military bases but during his reign we continued to outgrow any and all militaries.  

You should always be cautious about listening to the chorus yammering for increased spending because we are falling behind.  The most notorious example of how much BS this is of course the Soviet "Missile Gap."  Many yammered about how the Russians had thousands more ICBM's than the U.S.  Turns out they had far fewer.  

P.S. During the Ford administration the CIA gave an estimate of how many missiles the Russians had.  Within the Admin and Defense Dept were those who absolutely believed the CIA was wrong.  They formed there own commision called Team B to come up with a figure more suited to there hawkish fears, and they did. It was much, much higher than the CIA estimate.

Turns out the number was hundreds lower than the CIA number and thousands lower than the Team B number.  Among those involved in the Team B fraud?  Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.    

[SPURSX3]

X3,

You are waaaay wrong in one area.  Our level of military supremacy has never been higher.  I'll double check this, but if I recall correctly we spend more than any FIVE NATIONS COMBINED!!  

"Don't fall for the Clinton gutted the military"propaganda.  Yes he closed some military bases but during his reign we continued to outgrow any and all militaries.  

You should always be cautious about listening to the chorus yammering for increased spending because we are falling behind.  The most notorious example of how much BS this is of course the Soviet "Missile Gap."  Many yammered about how the Russians had thousands more ICBM's than the U.S.  Turns out they had far fewer.  

P.S. During the Ford administration the CIA gave an estimate of how many missiles the Russians had.  Within the Admin and Defense Dept were those who absolutely believed the CIA was wrong.  They formed there own commision called Team B to come up with a figure more suited to there hawkish fears, and they did. It was much, much higher than the CIA estimate.

Turns out the number was hundreds lower than the CIA number and thousands lower than the Team B number.  Among those involved in the Team B fraud?  Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

does China fall into that category about "ANY five nations"?  

[jn]

Yes.  The Chinese army is massive (of course) and has nuclear weapons but we are still spend far, far more.  

Remember that in 1991 Iraq was considered the 3rd largest army in the world.  Look what that did for them