Piece of **** muslim convert kills young soldier and wounds another

Backing up the world's threats made for stability costs a lot of money. In the meantime, you call other nations spineless, but if they figure, "Don't worry, USA will take the lead." Then we take the lead. Other nations don't have the cost to contend with. They don't have the blame to contend with. They get US financed security at a very reasonable price.

The world is run by thought put into action, so when we always take the lead and accept responsibility, everybody blames USA when things go wrong. That blame turns into resentment, which turns into further negative action we must deal with.

We take too much on and don't hold other nations responsible for policing their corner of the world. If they don't want to or can't, maybe some other regional power can. We are the ones always walking the tight rope. In the meantime, our schools are failing, our banks are failing, our dollar is sinking, our grip on the world is slipping. So what is all this world policing gaining us? Very little, and the little it is gaining us is very expensive.

If the middle east went to sht, that would be undesirable for us. It would be more undesirable for Europe, Russia, China, Israel. Unless we really do want to rule the world, which I don't think we could if we wanted to (though Republicans and Democrats alike seem to think we can and seem to think is desirable).

I'm sure a lot of you will argue that if we don't police the world then we will be destroyed by terrorists and Russia and China. But that's clinging to an illusory safety net. How many Mexicans cross the border, and how hard would it be for terrorists to cross the border amidst those Mexicans? How many shipping containers enter the US that are not inspected? How impenetrable is our shield?

We should take a stake in the world, but we need to put the pressure on other nations. As predicted, entangling alliances have us turned every which way. Through strident and costly efforts the world is still a mess and it really seems as a nation we are gunning for world government. We seem to believe our only hope for total security is to keep the world and other powers on complete lockdown. But we are overextending ourselves and will never be able to maintain that mindset without a world government, "financed" by the largest banks and corporations.

What makes this more troubling is that Congress hasn't declared War since WWII. They have instead voted on whether or not to give the president the power to decide when we should use military force. I'm not so sure taking the lead against Iraq in 1991 was the right choice. Maybe it bought us favor and more power in the region to improve our grip on the world?

I'm going to lock myself in the bunker now. Laterz.

 

Everyone seems to forget that Hussein had allowed the weapons inspectors back in, they were on the ground, inspecting for weapons and had to evacuate when we intitated the war.

 

Yes, going to war just to prove a point is reasonable.

And stupidly invading sovereign nations for unjustifiable reasons does not?

 

it was a yes or no question, and i imagined both possibilities on your behalf. i have to do this because you are not honest and dont really answer.

then the war resumes. i am glad you agree and understand how a cease fire works.

obviously. nobody is really obligated to listen to a single word the UN says, and they rarely do.

a cease fire. do you what that is? it means you cease firing because of an agreement. if the agreement is not met, the firing resumes.

no, it frightens them. they know you might invade like a maniac. it doesnt embolden our enemies when they know we are happy to go to war for unjustifiable reasons.

every war in history has been to "prove a point". world war 2 started for us when we wanted to prove the point to japan that you dont attack us. the iraq war started when we wanted to prove to iraq that you dont invade kuwait. it temporarily stopped for a cease fire agreement that was not honored, then resumed.

 

My intent was to convey that my STFU was not directed at you. But now, I beg you, PLEASE, STFU.

 

very true. we are the country that does all the work, and the rest of the world is greatly indebted to us.

would they do something if we didnt? probably not. the rest of the world is, as i said, spineless. we keep the world stable.

maybe among lunatics who are already searching for a place to set off their suicide bomb. but regular folks are either too smart to resent the US, or just resent them in a way that does not matter, while buying american products and watching american tv shows.

if you are syria, and you know that the US will be happy to take you over and shoot your leader in the face if you harbor terrorists, doesnt that make you vigilant about that sort of thing? see how that works?

agreed.

i encourage you to go the UN and give those cowardly cunts a talking to.

it is about stomping them out at the source.

when you get your protest signs and march outside the UN, i will bring you as many hot dogs as you want. maybe try a sign that says "dear world, stop being weak bitches and join the US in policing the world".

i dunno why it matters about the declaration. the US is pretty much the only nation that can be trusted.

the european nations have a ridiculous history of empire und colonization. we do not. we are totally unique in that respect. we do not keep the nations we conquer. there is a huge difference between losing a war to us and anyone else. we set you up all nice with a new democracy and leave you alone.

the US is stunningly unique in history in that we solve problems and take nothing as a reward. france, britain, japan, russia, pretty much everyone else, they dont do it like we do. you do not have to fear the US. when you see US troops landing in your country you should bring them your best bottle of wine, because they are liberating you. so people do not and should not really resent us the way the media says.

 

Do you really think that the friggin' United States of America has image problems when it comes to 'looking tough?'

Showing a reckless disregard for intelligence and strategy (i.e. exit) and stretching your military thin most certainly 'emboldens' your enemies.

That's an extremely convoluted way to look at it. When you attack someone who attacks you, it's called self-defense. When you stop someone from invading sovereign nations, that is called defending others. The difference should be obvious.

My 'special foolishness,' huh? Glad to see that your maturity level held static through your hiatus.

 

well, not after the amazing two terms george bush just piled up. but they would if we had just ignored saddam.

so your contention is that, for example, north korea is not convinced that we would help south korea if they invaded, and this is based on how we helped kuwait in ai similar situation? north korea expects us to not follow through because our history demonstrates that we do follow through?

you think your foolishness isnt special? dont sell yourself short.