Next Terrorist Attack

[greg334]

Greg...so Europe or France specifically twisted the U.S's arm and made them to decide to get involved? Come on now.....The U.S got involved to spread some ole fashioned western industry and democracy....

Yes OVM, most of the conflicts we were involved had more to do with Europe’s involvement in them first than it was done to spread any ideology. You really need to read the causes of issues and conflicts we were involved with, like Algeria or Lebanon in the ‘50s. We are the world’s police and primarily source of aid, even today. We didn’t start using the word Democracy or even consider spreading it until Wilson, a president who wanted us to be involved in the world’s affairs, be the police for the League of Nations. The failures of the League of Nations were corrected with the UN and look at how much money we give to the UN and how many of our forces fall under them.

Greg your a smart person ...what kind of country tells others what they can have or not have and try to control the way they do things?
Example: You can't be nuclear. You can't have WMD's? An invasive country does that.

I don’t know about that, but anyway….

Well I point to the one source of limiting countries sovereignty – the UN. No other entity has entered the world stage as the UN has and when you ask “what kind of country tells others what they can have or not have and try to control the way they do things?” you got to understand that the US has not done really a lot in comparison. The issue for us is stability of the world, the issue for the UN is control.

If you want to understand more, read about Wilson, read his speeches and look at his position about the need to have intervention on behalf of the world. It is really odd that people miss how destructive this guy was but hey when you have a president who believed that our system of checks and balances was the cause of the problems in American and our political system. Talk about dictatorial rhetoric. Once you get a grip on the League of Nations and the mindset of the 20’s to control and prevent war, famine and hatred, you can see where we have been going since. Wilson was the most vocal and the most prolific champion of this form of governance. Once you get that, read about the founding of the UN, what ER and LaGuardia did to set it up, who was advising them, and look how it grew.

It used to be that there were systems in place beyond the control of any centralized governance system (UN) that worked to a point but mechanized warfare changed everything. The UN does not want countries working out the solutions without their involvement.

But applying your question to today’s situation, I think that we need to retract ourselves from the world stage to a point; I think that Iraq was not as much as a mistake as not bombing Iran during the Carter administration. The former was a mistake not because of the invasion but because our ‘leaders’ didn’t read Lawrence, didn’t heed the warnings from the Iraqi community in the country and didn’t secure the country as the conqueror, but as a liberator. We lost the respect of the people not because of our harsh treatment but because of our compassion. We didn’t follow our experience that we gained after WW2 but decided to dismantle the military but left the political parties in place.

If another country wants to be nuclear and feels it need to defend itself without relying on others ...fine so be it....They have a right to defend themselves just like we do....
To threaten with embargos and sanctions is just wrong. Its Britian and France as well doing these things.

Ok, let’s let other country to use large destructive weapons. Look at India and Pakistan for a moment. Do you think that they have not destroyed each other because of a lack of outside forces forcing them to play nice? Here we have an issue with a disputed area of both countries, both claim the Kashmir area for their own, they have fought two wars over it. China has a stake in it too, with a third being under China’s control. We have a serious economic stake in the stability of all three countries, India and Pakistan especially. If either India or Pakistan starts a war with the other, we suffer.

But back in the mid-90’s there was a cry of how we stood by and allowed Serbia to kill all the Muslims and how we allowed them to mine areas in Kosovo. We were expected to get involved and prevent the killing but like Africa, we get involved we are criticized, when we don’t we are still criticized.

[Turtle]

If another country wants to be nuclear and feels it need to defend itself without relying on others ...fine so be it....They have a right to defend themselves just like we do....
To threaten with embargos and sanctions is just wrong. Its Britian and France as well doing these things.

Wow. First of all, nuclear weapons are offensive weapons, not defensive. They are defensive only with regard to a deterrent against others using them against you. Mutually Assured Destruction, A.K.A. MAD. "If you launch your nuclear missiles at me, I'll launch mine at you, and we'll both be dead. Is that what you want?"

Iran, for example, is a country with a government largely based on and operated by radical Islam. Do you want them to have a nuclear arsenal for defense? Do you think for a split second that knowing that we'll retaliate will deter them from launching a first strike to take a large step in riding the world of infidels?

Embargoes and sanctions are the only diplomatic alternative to conventional war in order to eliminate the very real chances of a nuclear war.

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by OntarioVanMan
"If another country wants to be nuclear and feels it need to defend itself without relying on others ...fine so be it....They have a right to defend themselves just like we do....
To threaten with embargos and sanctions is just wrong. Its Britian and France as well doing these things."

To see what happens when the English speaking peoples adopt this live-and-let-live posture toward a fanatical adversary, one has to go back in time only seventy years to the late 1930's and see what Germany did under similar circumstances. As Saddam Hussein was being penalized by no less than fourteen different UN sanctions, so was Germany supposedly bound by post WW1 treaties NOT to re-arm or build offensive weapons. They did it anyway, all the while claiming that they weren't and meanwhile France and England dithered and appeased. Before long they were in the Rhineland and France capitulated while Neville Chamberlain appeased some more. We all know what happend after that. All this time they were building up armaments while Europe and the rest of the world stood by not wanting to cause trouble by taking an aggressive stance toward the soon-to-be Nazis. One of Churchill's lamentations in his historical account of WW2 was that it could have been prevented if the European nations had only enforced the treaty signed by Germany at the end of WW1.

Back to the present: it's easy to see the similarities between the rise of Nazi Germany and today's Islamo-facists. Dedicated fanatics that believe theirs is a superior race/religion and everyone else must submit, convert, be enslaved or die. We dealt with Iraq - granted, it could have been done a lot more effeciently but it was necessary. If we don't diplomatically nip this Iran nuclear problem in the bud we'll find ourselves in a military conflict there also. Dealing with Iran might also take care of a lot of terrorist problems - but that's another subject.

[OntarioVanMan]

Question asked, question answered...Thank you for the lesson.

[arkjarhead]

Question asked, question answered...Thank you for the lesson.

Actually you haven't gotten the full lesson yet. This deal with United States forgein policy goes farther back than WWI. I would say it dates back to 1823. In 1823 there was a document written called the Monroe Doctrine. This U.S. doctrine basiclly stated three things.

1. The US would respect all European colonies in the Western Hemisphere.
2. The US would not allow any new European colonies in the Western Hemisphere.
3. The US would be the police force of the Western Hemisphere.

This doctrine also said that any fighting between European nations and their colonies in the Americas would be seen as a threat. This partly explains US involvment in the Spanish-American War which began in 1898.

So basiclly one could say the US has always been one to meddle in other countries affairs. Alot of times it has been for good reason i.e. WW2. IMO, that war had to be fought. If we would have kept to ourselves nothing would have stopped Hitler and the Japenese.

[OntarioVanMan]

The Monroe Doctrine...learned about that in public school history....described as the worst piece of Anti-British legislation passed in that time period. (Canada didn't exist yet as a country) Its intent on paper was called intrusive and offensive and threatened soveriegn rights of all the Americas'
How dare the Yanks infer that the Western hemishere is thier domain?
and yet there's an island in the St Lawrence river that is still owned and governed by France!! Seeing it's in this area the U. S would have to defend it by the Doctrine....ironic?

[tallcal101]

If they count on us being "dumb",as you point out,they have had their way the last 7.5 years with the dumbest President in the history of our nation.
Once sanity is restored to the White House and these moronic civilians who think they are military men are replaced by straight thinking Democrats who will allow the military to once again do their job,we will all be safer.

A very wise man once said you go to war becasue you have to not because you want to.Based on lies,idots pretending that they knew what they were doing have created more of a threat then ever before.Everything that Osama and his merry ment could have wished for they got in our lame President As Osama sits in his cave and makes plans for the future,our counrty is speaking loud and clear that the GOP no longer stands for anything but ignorant old men who have no plan and no clue.It's so inspirering to see the ground swell of emotion for our new President taking form and sweeping the nation.You and your ilk are nothing more then a small irritant at this point and will soon be nothing but a memeory of a very soiled time in our great Republics glorious history.

Go on tell yourselves how macho you are,and impress each other with your "intell'' BS.It's so amazing that in this day and age you have to resort to such banter to get your point across,but then we are the land of the free,and everybody gets to speak their mind,even if it's the same old rot we have been hearing from the right since day 1.

[hdxpedx]

Code Pink Has Infiltrated Our Forum!! The Military Stands Up For American Victory/leadership REAGAN/BUSH!! Not Clinton-carter Don't Ask/don't Tell Meal On Wheels! Been There Done That!!Okinawa Japan 58-63 -Ft. Bragg NC 63-83!! MILITARY HATED CARTER AND DISPISED CLINTON!! I NEED ASPRIN-- PRESSURE'S UP!!

[LDB]

replaced by straight thinking Democrats who will allow the military to once again do their job,we will all be safer.

I presume those are the same straight thinking democrats who did such a fine job with Vietnam. I didn't quote more because I couldn't force myself to. I presume you include half of your current dynamic duo in the idiots category since she voted for and supported going to war. We must remember what an excellent job the last Clinton did militarily. What a fine example and inspiring memory.

Hilama is so far from a military leader or example as to be not visible in the same universe. McCain is no prize as he is way too soft on terrorists and torture but he's at least not a total loss like Obamily.

[tallcal101]

Code pink invasion?Sounds like we may have a little soldier boy with a small calibur gun but a BIG attitude.We have a neighborhood out here in in San Fran where you will be more then welcome. What is it that frieghtens you good fellows about actually having someone at the helm of our country that is not brain dead? I mean for Gods sake guys,have you not been hearing the bell in you brain ringing out loud that we have completly spun this country out of control under the watch of Mr Nobody at home and never was at home?Are you so steeped in your intoxicant of bent and surreal dreams of Nixonian burlesque that you have all but all given way to the wayward train wreck of this administration and can't see the GOP as a foolish nighmare that holds no promise for all but the most paranoid among us?
Armed and trigger happy fools who defend the loose worded gun laws that allow any one with a pulse to be able purchase weapons and kill our young people?

Yes,the message of change is striking at the heart strings of many Americans who have just about had enough and will take it to the ballot box.The whines of the defeated and out of step paranoid victims of the old guard will shriek and yell foul,and try to use venum and base insults in desparate attempts to justify their baseless and rediculous brand of affirmation of all things backwards and lethal. In the end,it's not enough,and some rocks will once again be crawled under for 4 to 8 years.

[layoutshooter]

The presidents job IS forgien policy and Comander in Chief, NOT, internal affairs. That is mainly the job of the Congress. And as for the INTELL CRAP, you sorry so and so, you would most likely be dead, goose stepping, using chop sticks or be locked up in a Goolog if it were not for us DUMMIES!!! We fought WWIII for 48 years, we might have won that one, history has yet to determine that. THis war will be much harder. NOT ONE president has handled the middle east right since Carter messed it up. Reagan was only so-so. He turned tail and ran from Lebenon as soon as we got a little blooddy nose. Just as in WWIII(cold war) there are many theaters. Then is was Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia etc. Now it is Iraq, Iran etc. THey are not differnt wars. There is NO ONE running for pres this time that will be able to handle it right. Bunch of bums if you as me. Layoutshooter

[Turtle]

Wow.

Liberty Mind

[LDB]

Well Cal, as a "trigger happy fool" we've gone through this before so I'm not going there again. I'll just continue to protect you and all the other sheeples and true fools who won't do it for themselves as best I can. With the foolish limitations imposed by the brilliant left it's very difficult and folks get killed far too often as evidenced by Columbine and all it's successors.

As for our current president, he's definitely not the best orator but he's certainly far from stupid. Ask anyone who flies fighter jets if stupid people can do that. Ask any Yale alumnus if stupid people can be that. He's an abject failure at securing the border and minimalizing criminal aliens. I'd go back 7 years and replace him in an instant if there were a choice that would have done that job correctly.

Why do I bother. I'll just pay for the next round of left koolaid instead. Sadly, more likely a prophecy than a commentary.

[LDB]

Wow.

Liberty Mind

Excellent article but a waste of time posting it. It requires intelligence to comprehend and the left lacks that.

[greg334]

You know I just don’t get it. I thought that people were smarter than they are but I am wrong again.

The First thing I got to say to you TallCal, I am not a republican, I am not a democrat. Neither party fits my beliefs as they are. Some call me a libertarian but I am by real definition a classical liberal – one who is like a libertarian but also something slightly slanted to a conservative.

So with that said, I do believe that the problem we have is that Obama is not the right person for the country, but neither is Hillary or McCain. There is no right person but there also is no such thing as a qualified person – since we had Carter in office.

The problem starts with the primary election or as many of us call it a non-election election. With all this hype and BS, we get the voters setup to fail we force them to decide the winner long before it happens. It was not like this until 1968 and should not be like this now. At no time does this present process allow real issues to be placed forefront with the candidates or allow the people to really get a glimpse of the candidate’s actions.

It is all about the hype and mass marketing from November of 2007 on.

Now Obama has handlers, no doubt that they come from the Soros camp of politics. I think that they have come up with a great marketing campaign for a non-starter of a candidate and used mass psychology to bring about a momentum that has not been seen in 30 years. It amazes me that people actually fall for his ‘change’ rhetoric and many more, who I thought would see through his BS would understand what he is all about.

Now Hillary just p*ssed in Soro’s wheaties so if she gets the nomination, it will be a slim chance that she will gain a lot of the respect she needs to pull it off during the election. She has faultier not because of her rhetoric but because of her lack of focus that Obama has been able to establish. I won’t count her out until she says “I’m out” because you never know with her, she might do something really rash to get rid of Obama.

Well call me dumb but I look at it this way, either we will end up with McCain in the WH, which will be a disaster because of his indecisiveness OR we will end up with Hillary the Fascist or Obama the Leninist. Either way we better be ready for a horrible two years and get ready to vote in 2010 on new representatives and Senators.

Oh by the way, everyone registered to Vote?

Have you ordered your absentee ballot yet?