Then you'd agree that if the Liberal party in Australia had an arm (with the exact same name) that blew up primary schools, you'd expect the US to support it, because it supports the idea of free elections?

If a country votes in a leader who pledges to destroy the US should the US also support them? The issue of a democratic voting system and dislike for a country's choice of policy is not related. ie. People can choose to be friends or not, it is unrelated to their internal level of honesty (honesty = representation of people through voting).

Here is another voice against the pursuit of aggressive American foreign policies. A good article that puts the American agenda for global domination into historical perspective.

Imperialism 101 - The US Addiction to War, Mayhem and Madness - Part I

[Stumper]

It's funny that you raise the example of auto accidents compared to terrorism insofar as risk of getting maimed or killed. I use that myself, and it's correct--so far. Most people drive in the US and somewhere around 55,000 people are killed per year so I've heard. Yet, most people accept the risks without any hesitation or thought insofar as being fearful every day. People simply have come to mental acceptance of the risks of driving.

But by way of another example, the odds of getting killed whilst flying on an aeroplane are far lower yet far more people are afraid of it.

The key factor, IMO, is fear caused by personal lack of control over the circumstance. There is an obvious creature comfort with being on the ground and behind the wheel because the operator knows they have some measure of control over the risks and have a chance of avoiding the risks through their own actions and reactions. But being in a plane, they are not flying the plane, and there is knowledge of certain death if a problem develops at high altitude. Hence, the lack of control over their fate is obvious, and is entrusted in the good performances and behaviours of others over which they have no control.

It's the same with terrorism IMO. The biggest fear factor is the lack of control in it. There is always some risk that some terrorist will release some disease or toxin, or blow up a commuter train or aeroplane, or blast something, etc, and that they can pick and plot their plans at their own pace. They are the ultimate boogeyman--and for good reason.

But, that said, perspective is indeed important. I've sadly learnt this lesson repeatedly, seeing and experiencing first hand the ethnic/religious hatred in Ireland and terrorism produced from it, followed by my own family losses and near losses with Islamic extremism, including September 11

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...315#post797315

But I've been in car accidents too and driving doesn't scare me (I love to drive), and terrorism doesn't scare me either. There are risks that need to be assessed and handled (prudent driving, taking efforts to repel and reduce terrorism, etc) but they need to be assessed with a calm head. Fear is a helpful and needed warning sign of danger, but it needs to be put on a leash so clinical analysis can be performed to address the concerns. Unharnessed fear block critical judgement and leads to any and all combinations of poor decisions, paralysis, flight, denial, gullibility, etc. "

In saying that, though, doesn't meant that terrorism should be taken as a minor menace or with nonchalance. Alot of the problems the world is seeing now have a good chance of exploding into alot more sooner or later, including but not limited to Islamic extremism, and several stormfactors are brewing. IMHO, alot worse is coming before it gets better. And a few terrorists with the right plots can kill a tremendous amount of people.

Emphasis mine
The truth is I would ask someone like yourself, who is from Australia, how you feel about it and why. Then I would ask Daisym , Frank and a few others what thier views are and then I would decide what I think.

What I expect the US (government) to do may be entirely different but it would not be the first time.

__________________
Two-thirds of the world's lawyers practice in the US

I've been around since "Buy American" meant "Made in the USA".

Hypothetical reason in this case is religion, justified through ancient documents and centuries of worship. Would you still sit back and watch the kids die each day on the news as a new one was blown up? I know I would be camping outside the front of the government begging for violent intervention rather than 'talks'.

Two thumbs up on that suggestion.

No argument there at all and very well explained. They, plus Halliburton, were what I was offhand thinking when I wrote the qualifying phrase "A few areas and firms (often well-connected to the administration and/or Congress) are profiting, . . ." I remember full well how Rumsfeld, etc, were singing the praises of all the technologically advanced weapons the industry has made mega-billions creating, and forgetting the fundamental that is it troops on the ground and infrastructural reconstitution and development that secure the victory. Saddam and the Taliban were driven out quickly with superior technology and invading forces, only to see the troops since then play 'whack the mole' with insurgents because there simply is way too little troops to secure the grounds they invaded, with the results being no real control with the people witnessing skirmishing and 'door kicking' military uses that cause alot of grief and loss of life for both sides, including alot of innocent civilians, which in turn discourages and irritates the local populace. This lack of control also led to failure to develop the infrastructure, which in turn has inflamed the situation and lost opportunities for the US troops and businesses who could have invested there. And it was the greed and arrogance in quick technological victories that led to the reckless planning and pushing away of allies, all to the detriment as well.


Yessir, you have it. Contrary to popular misconception, AQ is a movement, not like a Co., LLC, LLP, Ltd, etc as many erroneously assume it is. It's an ideological movement that is meant to inspire others to take up its mantle. No offence meant by comparing a very benevolent and helpful movement with such a bad one, but AQ sort of works like a 12 Step Programme like Alcoholics Anonymous. There is an ultimate goal and there are sets of steps, principles and strategems towards achieving the ultimate goal and people work together to achieve the ultimate goal. You are a member if you say you are. And each group carries personal autonomy, but recognising the movement as a whole, with bin Laden and his main sidekicks being the genesis inspiration similar to that of Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob, who are the founders of AA, but the daily cause being carried and spread by each adherent person or group.

This kind of format is very effective and hard to quash.

Yes, likely so. No doubt the POTUS is key. But I have a feeling that good charismatic leaders with intelligent plans and good demeanour can do alot towards creating the atmosphere to improve a weaker POTUS and/or get a stronger POTUS come election time.

Try looking up who the other two countries that have also refused the ban. Serious guilt by association here.

The USA brags that it is the greatest military power on the planet.

Simple political choice here. Military application or maiming innocent children. Take your pick.


The UN authorised military support for S.Korea in response to their illegal invasion of S.Korea.

The UN did not authorise any invasion of N.Korea. The US (MacArthur) authorised the invasion on their own. The 'illegal' US invasion of N.Korea brought an immediate response from China and a million Chinese soldiers proceeded to push the US Army back out of N.Korea rather quickly.

Thus, the USA made direct war against N.Korea without authorisation from the UN. Thus, N.Korea has a reasonable expectation of a treaty with the USA to settle that unfinished business. The USA categorically refuses to discuss such issues with N.Korea, apparently prefering a state of perpetual cold-war here. This is US foreign policy in action.

Never ceases to amaze me how so few Americans seem aware of these 'facts'.

Yes, the USA has every right to defend themselves as they see fit. That is the actual issue of this thread. The fact that the actions the USA chooses to (ostensibly) defend themselves tends to engender less security for the American people (by fostering a terrorist response such as 9/11).

And like I mentioned about Israel, occupying foreign territory can NEVER be considered legitimate self-defense - it is offensive by definition.

And what amazes me is people who are AWARE of the utterly idiotic and dangerous positions promulgated by the United Nations, who continue to act as though it has any credibility.

There is no such thing as "supportive" war. War is war, and anyone who thinks that the purpose of war should EVER be anything other than the unconditional defeat of one's enemy has no business making decisions of war and peace.

Would the world be better or worse off today if we had merely fought a "supportive" war in WWII and stopped at the German, Italian, and Japanese borders?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

The UN is only as good as we make of it ourselves.

One ought to take into consideration Sun Tzu. The best and most lasting victory is one with no blood spilled at all. The best general defeats his enemy before the battle is fought. Killing isn't victory.

I dunno. Historical 'what if?' speculative games seem impossible and therefore useless. Chaos theory suggests the mere flapping of a butterfly's wings can change the weather - ergo, too many billions of factors are at play in such speculations.

From a legalist perspective (such as the League or UN Charter) or even a pragmatist perspective (such as my own) the Allied invasions of Germany, Japan and Italy were justified at that time (though the UN Charter did not exist at that time, if retroactively applied, would have permitted the Allied invasions of Germany, Italy and Japan).

On this latter basis, I don't see how you can make your point. I have not made any pacifist arguments here. Realpolitique is my only flag - and Sun Tzu my only standard of judgement in such matters of war.

It CAN only be as good as we try to make it, but we cannot make it a useful, relevant, or even morally serious organization on our own, and quite frankly, there are members of the Security council which are not morally legitimate governments (including a permanant member) and the orginazation is heavily populated with equally morally void dictatorships and appeasers.

Typical liberalism. Yes, the BEST victory is one you can win without spilling blood, but it is utterly ridiculous to equate not spilling blood with victory, it is more often than not in history that not spilling blood has either been synonymous with surrender rather than victory, or has simply been a momentary appeasement that has result in far more death and destruction in the long run. That is why Neville Chamberlain is a pathetic figure in the view of any rational human being and Winston Churchill is one of the seminal great figures of the twentieth century.

People who say "war is never the answer" are so unserious as to not even being worthy of being included in a rational debate about policy.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I am not agreeing with not signing the land mine ban, I am just saying the rational.

MacArthur got fired did he not? And N.Korea started the war, we were just trying to finish it and prevent this stalement that is happening today.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

I wouldn't go that far on GWBush and the USA - I mean the guy's and idiot and has harmed American interests, but this accusation seems a bit over the top.

Either way, I don't believe that your assertion of "morally legitimate governments" is tenable.

As soon as a rightwinger brings up Neville Chamberlain in the context of 21st century American politics, I know the discussion is over. Just RNC/talk-radio talking points.

The Chamberlain argument is laughable and harms your point, but you'll never see it that way. Nor will you notice the "cry wolf" game either. Soundbite arguments are for the idiot masses on television. To launch one at me is insulting.

Indeed - they are so unserious as to be non-present in this discussion.

You apparently need to believe that I'm a peacenik in order to make your 'arguments by association' (Republican style to the bone). That is absurd, but whatever floats yer boat. Just makes you look foolish in my opinion. If you can't win one argument, change the argument to one you can - even if that argument is not the one your opponent is making. Doesn't seem to matter - winning is everything right? Even if you have to do a bit of torture to get there. Just change the topic and keep talking - hopefully people won't notice that you've lost the actual argument and are trying to change the topic to make yourself (and USA) look strong and resolute. That's the RNC talking point on Iraq/terrorism - strong and resolute (weak, greedy and foolish is more accurate).

The US gets the government they deserve, no doubt of that.

I shall on the basis of your Chamberlain comment presume this discussion is complete. Chamberlain analogies are like Hitler analogies. They are designed to shut the discussion down with an emotive response. I grant your request since I don't play emotive/symbolic games. I prefer real arguments.

Hey, you are the one who refered to Sun Tzu that the best and most lasting victory is one with no blood spilled at all. The best general defeats his enemy before the battle is fought. And that would have been fine, had you left it at that, since it merely rates that type of victory as preferable to other types. But you then went further and added your own observation "Killing isn't victory."

Well I am sorry, but just because you don't have the perfect storm of complete and utter defeat of your enemy without bloodshed does not mean that it isn't victory. It might not be the IDEAL victory, but it is victory.

We did a whole lot of killing in WWII, and guess what, it was a victory, period.




Well, thus far I have not seen a single thing to suggest that you are not predisposed to be opposed to war at any and all costs, especially based on that simplistic "killing is not victory" comment.

Wow, that shows a tremendous lack of perspective. Hitler was evil, Chamberlain was merely naive and wrong, and while his actions may have caused immeasurable harm, he, unlike Hitler was not a bad or malevolent person.

Chamberlain is synonymous with peace as a synonym for surrender, or "killing isn't victory" as you put it.

By the way, going back to my earlier point about how utterly naive it is to bye into the excuse that the extremists are driven to it by U.S. Policy, here is another public service announcement, brought to you be the "religion of peace":

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Marcus1124;802508]

COMMENT:Actually it is true that many of your detractors have been "UNPRESENT" in this portion of the discussion, But I for one have been reading it all. And much of your position is a complete mystery to me, such as:

Hey, you are the one who refered to Sun Tzu that the best and most lasting victory is one with no blood spilled at all. The best general defeats his enemy before the battle is fought. And that would have been fine, had you left it at that, since it merely rates that type of victory as preferable to other types. But you then went further and added your own observation "Killing isn't victory."

Well I am sorry, but just because you don't have the perfect storm of complete and utter defeat of your enemy without bloodshed does not mean that it isn't victory. It might not be the IDEAL victory, but it is victory.

We did a whole lot of killing in WWII, and guess what, it was a victory, period.

You seem to be talking in circles all because he added "killing isn't victory" (which of course I agree with) Would you explain what you mean???

Well, thus far I have not seen a single thing to suggest that you are not predisposed to be opposed to war at any and all costs, especially based on that simplistic "killing is not victory" comment.

I definitely agree with him.