[Archenix]

Do you think that the U.S.A should keep out of other countrys, meaning that they shouldn't just barge into a country and claim war, and that they should just worry about themselves, and whats going on in there own country. What do you think? Do you think that either they should meddle in other countrys or stay in there own. I think that if they stayed out of Iraq we wouldn't of had such a loss of troops and same with the Iraqi people, and Afghani people. This is the place to talk about it.

[wolf]

I think the U.S. should stay out of other countries. I don't under stand why the government thinks they are helping buy trying to make other countrys just like them. Everything was fine as it was until the U.S. started getting involved. Now the U.S. is acting just like England did when they were top dog.

[marchosias]

i don't have a problem with a defense policy of preemptive action, but id prefer if we could stick to leveling the areas instead of this spreading democracy rubbish. if they don't want it, don't waste our troops lives trying to bring it to them. If a person or group threatens our security, cut them down and then move on, don't stick around to get shot at.

[superblob88]

the U.S.A is acting like somo sort of global nany they should keep ther noses in their affairs, the only thing they are getting for getting involved in other countries affairs is to be hated by them, they are the top dog but that could change anytime and sooner or later they gonna need help and the other countries might hate them too much to give em help.

[Sakujo]

Originally Posted by marchosias

i don't have a problem with a defense policy of preemptive action, but id prefer if we could stick to leveling the areas instead of this spreading democracy rubbish. if they don't want it, don't waste our troops lives trying to bring it to them. If a person or group threatens our security, cut them down and then move on, don't stick around to get shot at.

While I can agree that sometimes defensive action is necessary (We are, after all, living in a globalized world), I think that violence of any sort should be our last resort. Look at teh success China is having with leveraging power based on economic strength and potential alone. Iran is doing the same. They don't say that they're going to build weapons or rush an economy; they merely make sure it's known that they can, but have no intention to at the moment. They'd rather try to make friends with diplomacy and economic policy.

[marchosias]

You realize China is currently occupying Tibet, and took it by force of arms (and consider Taiwan part of their territory as well). not exactly the prime roll model for the peaceful negotiations.

and i don't think we should invade Iran, to be honest. let it be, for the time being. make damn sure their nuclear program never gets so much as an inch of the ground, but let it be. for so long as they can maintain a peaceful disposition and do not advance a nuclear program, they can do as they please. Their religious issues and internal affairs are not our problem.

but the moment they become a (violent) problem to their neighbors or others, a stricter method of discipline is warranted.

[Sakujo]

China is a good example for the very fact that they have used arms and abuse human rights. In other words, they're achieving success internationally Despite these obvious problems. Why? They are otherwise not using military force, but using economic power.

As for Iran; they have every right to a nuclear program. They have faithfully followed many guidelines that have been set, and are not following current guidelines seen as illegitimate. Can we argue with Iran on that point? Certainly.

We also need to consider the reason behind Iran's actions in the middle east. We are threatening Iran and Israel has been threatening the entire area for years. It is our pro-Zionist stance that is causing much of the trouble. When there is aggression against Israel we are quick to condemn it, but we say little or nothing when Israel goes on the offensive.

As for Iran's religious situation: It is Absolutely our right, and I would say our prerogative, to interfere with their religious attitudes; though this should be done through scholarly debate and the like.

[marchosias]

i don't feel like hitting the quote button, so i'll just address the points in order.

So China is better because they use military force nearby instead of farther away?

Iran has no right to a nuclear program until they can show some manner of stability and and ability to keep their arms out of the hands of the dangerous and the deranged. Thats the only guideline anyone should care about. Nuclear weapons are already the most likely reason humans will be wiped from the face of the earth, no need to rush towards a global suicide.

Israel is the only stable country in the entire area, its natural we support them. it gives us a base of operations in the area where the locale population isn't trying to get us killed. They've also made technical advances in medicine (as well as many other fields) that benefit to us. really, whats wrong with supporting a country that is actually doing us some good instead of trying to get us killed? It'd be a tremendous mistake to let them go under, for ourselves and the world.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could talk fundamentalists into traveling a less violent path? I'm not opposed to trying, i just don't see it working.

however, the topic is how the US deals with foreign affairs, and i don't want to derail this topic into something its not, so lets cut the chatter on more... broad topics sch as religion and zionism. so ta make my position perfectly clear, i do not approve of attempting to spread democracy by military means, but i do wholeheartedly support the use of overwhelming force to put down threats to our security. If they want to screw themselves up internally, to an extent, let em (lets try to keep genocide and the like to a minimum yes?). if they want to screw things up internationally, let em burn.

[PaulRotterdam]

Originally Posted by marchosias

Israel is the only stable country in the entire area, its natural we support them. it gives us a base of operations in the area where the locale population isn't trying to get us killed. They've also made technical advances in medicine (as well as many other fields) that benefit to us. really, whats wrong with supporting a country that is actually doing us some good instead of trying to get us killed? It'd be a tremendous mistake to let them go under, for ourselves and the world.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could talk fundamentalists into traveling a less violent path? I'm not opposed to trying, i just don't see it working.

however, the topic is how the US deals with foreign affairs, and i don't want to derail this topic into something its not, so lets cut the chatter on more... broad topics sch as religion and zionism. so ta make my position perfectly clear, i do not approve of attempting to spread democracy by military means, but i do wholeheartedly support the use of overwhelming force to put down threats to our security. If they want to screw themselves up internally, to an extent, let em (lets try to keep genocide and the like to a minimum yes?). if they want to screw things up internationally, let em burn.

from top quote to bottom quote...how somebody's glasses can be colored and the owner-writer does not see it...all nonses!!
Israel is a newborn country that exists 60 years....so its not a stable country

why is it natural that usa supports 60 year old countries...
The word natural is nonses. Just say its for the money or something. Or for weapon selling and testing bullets on people.
natural is a non word.

Base of operation.....for genocide or what do you mean? what base... base of expansion??

Technical advances in medicine. Ah German WO 2 made also some advances in medicin remeber, so you probably had supported that time "the others". Thanks for sharing.
Lets agree this is nonsens. If there is grass growing we will suport you...

Let me steal youre country ands drive you to the north pole and than we talk about he lets forget this and why are you so hostile over there.. go icefishing .... fundamentalists, formerly known as USA, now brother Eskimooos.

now the juicy part starts and his glasses turn deeper in color...

" i do wholeheartedly support the use of overwhelming force to put down threats to our security."
Yeah, i love quoting dumness...

Let me get this straight.
USA was invaded by
-Korea
-Vietnam
-Cuba
-Niqeraqua
-Panama
-El Salvador
-Colombia
-Afganistan
-Iraq

You need to do something at youre defence system if all these countries walked over you because you have invaded them all.

i love easy targets as this writer, please make it a little difficulter. In other words....do think before you hit youre keyboard.

[marchosias]

well well, someone didn't read the hey lets not derail the topic part. but oh well.

and also, ya didn't actually read what i said. at all didya? care to point out where i said the iraq and afghan wars were a good idea? or any other for that matter? your reading too far into what you wan to see, not whats there. for the record, i think our current military engagements are quite stupid, to say the least.

what i did say is that i would support the hammering of a legitimate threat, and by that i meant preferably from the air without involving ground troops.

im going to ignore the bit abit israel cause that ain't the topic.

try harder next time. maybe if ya actually read what someone says you'll come off as less of an ass.