So much for the end of history
 

U guys keep argueing about trees and don't look at the forest......what is the larger picture....the long range view....what is the world going to look like in 5 years....where is the US heading and how are we trying to get there?

I believe the US has a cohesive and comprehensive foreign policy....which is aimed at preventing any further attacks by terrorist organizations.

I think the core of the policy goes back to the speech GW gave after 911 that your either with us or agin us....that includes anyone who aids, abetts, or habors terrorists...and we are going to get them....

Afganistan was the start, Iraq was a centerpiece but not for the obvious reasons...it has more to do with the political effect it has on other Arab or Islamic countries....that the USA has the will and means of achieving it's ends....that we are a serious country. This is to a world that understands force and violence more than it respects human rights....which is illusory at best.....

blaablaablaa. Getting really p-issed about your mentality and your while we are there theory. There is black and white, but there are colours of grey between those. With us, or against us theory is bull.

don't mess with texas...

I didn't make the speech....

Re: So much for the end of history
 

Yeah, I was thinking about this too. (My strange parallel to how the left is handling all this) It's like a liberal is wandering aimlessly, lost in the desert. A person drives up and says get in. The liberal stubbornly says "NO. . .I don’t like the color of your car, and you seem to be driving the wrong direction. . . .I want to go in any direction other than *your* direction."

However (re: arguing about trees) "history" does deserve a bit of arguing about the trees. History is, to a large part, driven by what is currently and commonly considered to be "reality." Many out there are missing key facts about how all this has been going down. Letting people bash the US on complete fallacies will lead to more bad-blood between counties. That's not good. . . .even if we can squish'em like a bug. ;)

Yeah Finland next

bump

But between the start of this thread, and the present day, Tabs has had one or more epiphanies, like Saint Paul on the road to Damascus. That is why he is now known as St. Tabs.

Ghandi was once asked why he said something that completely contradicted what he said the day before. He replied, completely nonplussed, "because I have learned something since yesterday."

Now let me get this correct...you think that a "cohesive and comprehensive foreign policy" is for us to have our troops in foreign nations. Right?

Well, the goobers in Washington must be listening to you since in 2003 the USA had 387,920 military troops on foreign soil. God only knows what that number might be today.

Let me ask you another question: how many foreign military troops would you personally allow to be in our country...10,000...1000...100? Probably not 160,000 huh? So why then do you think that we have some divine right to have OUR troops all over the damn planet?

Why do we have 34,000 troops protecting South Korea from North Korea and we have zero troops on our borders?

Because the Canadians are unlikely to attack anytime soon? Just guessing here.

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

---GWB, 9/11/01

Sorta' puts old Georgy in a pickle now doesn't it, if it is "proven" that A.Q. is responsible for the Benzair Bhutto assassination. Obviously Pakistan (supposedly a U.S. ally) will be "harboring" A.Q., right? Otherwise how can they possibly be acting with such impunity in Pakistan?

Another Bush lie. Why do I suspect nobody will be surprised by this?

Sorry, southern border. It seems that if we can have so many in these other countries, we can afford to do a better job or protecting our own border. Again, why do we have 34,000 troops protecting South Korea? They're a big country, with money, can't they defend themselves? Same with France, Germany, England, Japan, and a whole bunch of other countries where we have troops.

Finland can take care of itself.

1939-1940. The world owes a debt of gratitude.

The Shadow Minister of Defense for the UK right after 911 said in a speech before Parliment. "The United States has been the guarntor of Global Security since 1945, if the US fails to act (in response to 911) militarily Global Security will fail."

The US is the 500 lb Gorillia militarily and economically. The US is akin to the Roman Empire of old. It is not a empire where we occupy but use economic means to do our bidding. Money is the weapon of choich. The US military acts as a policeman to keep the worlds streets safe, to insure that rogues don't upset the apple cart. Mickey Mouse, Coca Cola and McDonalds is far more effective in projecting American power than any army could ever hope to do. Take a look at the Global economy and tell me where American influence doesn't touch the lives of people.

Thank You Dottore ya bailed me out on this one.

You can make bold assertions like that, and fail to follow through, when you're a make-pretend cowboy.

Bin Laden's safe haven?
Ex-CIA officer: Bin Laden hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas
By Henry Schuster
CNN
Tuesday, May 31, 2005 Posted: 7:24 PM EDT (2324 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/31/schuster.column/index.html

The head bad guy is hiding in Pakistan - let's invade there next.

In fact, there might be terrorist entering Canada so let's invade Canada too.

Rumor has it that the 9/11/2001 terrorist lived in the United States for a while, maybe the USA should be invaded.

Tabs, what makes you think that there is only and always a military solution to terrorism?

How's that working for ya?

Situation getting any better is it?

stop dragging up old politcal threads from 4 years ago.

it bad enough with the new threads rehashing the same old story...now someone has to bring out the old dirty lawndry...

unsubscribing after making my point.

I say we bomb the mther fkers back to the fintSTONE AGE