About America, Politics, & The War

[Kishiro]

I thought I'd post this here, seeing as how it's a special topic, and not everyone has a ticket to Pay To Post. This way everyone gets a fair crack at it.

Having said that, let me first state this, as I believe it to be fact:

Most conservatives are drones, liars, and a good portion of them are bigots. No all just most. They'll cover for each other, lie for each other, and rely way too heavily on Christianity to run the government and their own "morals". But they can work together very well.

Just as many liberals are morons. Idiots, "free thinkers" that can't come up with one damn good idea, yet still criticize all the bad ideas what conservatives have. Most of them can't agree on one thing, or work together. Too many have their own angles that they are working. Their only salvation are their open minds. Problem is, it is also their curse, often times.

The problem with independents is that no one takes them seriously, they're not aggressive enough, and there are too few of them. On top of that, it is still hard to get them to work together. Curses!

Ok, having expressed my views about the left, right, and middle, I'd like to address the war.

If you think that we should just pull out immediately, and even all at once, you're a moron, and shut up. Maybe you shouldn't even post on this thread if you're going to touch on this subject. Here's why:

Should someone come along (be it Bush, or the next president) and command an immediate, complete, and total withdrawal from Iraq and the middle east (which, thank goodness, I'm sure Bush won't allow), it will cause more trouble than this whole war has, and will make things worse than when we started. We have made progress, not phenomenal amounts, but we did get Saddam. That's a start. And we're training Iraqi soldiers and militaries. Should we just go and do that massive evac that everyone seems to be rooting for (for some STUPID reason), there would be a power vaccum, and a struggle in the middle east between rival factions, and the Iraqi military (should it hold up under the stress of a civil war). There is also the chance that the government and military WON'T hold up at all, after the withdrawal, and that makes it just that much worse. Then all the weapons they've acquired will be taken and split amongst the factions when the soldiers defect to them. Wouldn't THAT just be loads of fun?

Why is it that this is the answer every campaigning politic has now, anyway? When asked what they'd do about the war, almost all of them say "I'd have our troops pulled out and brought home as soon as possible." Is that because they really believe it to be the best idea, or is it that they say to please the people silly enough to want that? Of course I understand people wanting their friends and relatives home from the war, I understand as much as anyone can. Some of my closest friends have come and gone, and so has my father. Some of my friends went with other friends that died over there, and still, people I went to school with or knew around town have died. I don't want the war to go on, but understand that it can't, won't and should never end immediately like so many "Free thinkers" want.

Presidents... Yeah, we're going to be getting a new one here soon. Election time. Time to take to the polls. And the apathetic youths of our country are ever increasingly NOT voting. I'd say they are all morons, and I also say that if you don't plan on voting, then don't you whine, don't you complain, and don't you offer any ideas or "solutions", because you PASSED on your chance to choose and and help make a difference.
Further more, on this topic... I really TRULY hope Hilary Clinton doesn't get elected. That'd be just as bad, if not worse than George W. Bush being allowed to be elected for a third term. She's worried about her own career and image, not the people. You could even say she's the female version of Jack Thompson, only she has real political power, and that's what makes her a threat.

We need someone to be in office that genuinely cares about the American people, and for the world for that matter. Someone caring enough to want to take care of the good people, here or across the oceans, but also firm and stern enough to know when it's time for business. Someone whom isn't afraid of war, or going to it, but knows that it should be a last resort, after diplomacy, or other less all out tactics and operations. We need someone that isn't being pulled and funded by lobbyists, and isn't a career politician. Someone whom is open minded, but isn't crazy or totally irrational. Optimistic, skeptic, and pessimistic on all fronts.
I wonder why it is so hard to find someone like that. Is it that the good people just don't want to get in to politics?
Don't say Oprah, she already told everyone that she'd never run for president, so drop that thought.

Another bit. Why is it cool to be Anti-American these days? So many of today's youth make me sick with this crap. You know what? You don't like it, then leave.
There have been way too many people that have put themselves in harms way to protect the country where you are so free, and many have gone through a lot to be here. The people that move here have much more appreciation for America than those born here these days, and it is sad that is that way. For anyone that lives in this county to sit around and bad mouth it all the time while they enjoy all their freedoms that they take for granted, is stupid, hypocritical, and selfish. Get lost or go die. Really.
I'm tired of seeing, hearing, and reading about how think America is doomed, and how they hate everything about this place, or wherever they are.

Grow up, you spoiled brats.
You think you have it bad? When was the last time you knew for sure that you are most likely going to die at any time of day or night? When was the last time you didn't feel safe in your own home? When was the last time someone started slaughtering and abducting your family and friends, or launching mortar shells at your house? Is your roof still there? Do you have electricity, plumbing, clean drinkable water? Do you have decent clothes to wear, not rags? Do you have a choice to wear what you want from day to day?

Hey-- aren't you online right now at an Anime website? Just wasting your time away? Your life must not be so bad if you have time to read this, or be here, huh?

Computers, Video Games, Internet, TV-- etc. All luxuries, nothing you need to survive. The three essentials of survival are food, shelter, and clothing. Many people around the world don't have these things. And all of you do viewing this do, and so much more.


Well? Now is your time for rebuttals, agreements, arguments. Get to it, I want to hear what the people have to say, whether it be intelligent or not-- but either way, I'd like sincere responses, and your honest feelings. I don't want senseless wit, or catchy remarks. If you're just going to joke, then don't post, how about that?

I applaud anyone that took the time to read all of this. And even if you don't post, I hope I've got you thinking. I think that is what we need more than anything these days, people thinking-- REALLY thinking, and being aware of what is going on around them, and in this world.

[Gjallarhorn]

Well, that was certainly a large post. I'll be honest in the a skipped around in a few parts, but I've read the majority of it.

On the first issue, that being the state of our major political parties, I would have to agree. The right will never admit any fault, be it the widespread bigotry within the party, or any of the various problems the party has caused during it's time in power of the legislative and executive branches. I notice this every day as I watch CNN or Fox News, that the political reports always contain some subliminal or indirect shot at the left, one stands out: during a story about a group of Yale musicians being beaten while on a trip, the anchor made a point to mention that it is the home town of Nancy Pelosi, as to create an image that her town reflects upon here or vice versa. They also have a large amount of spin, twisting the potentially good ideas presented by the left into something far from what it was intended to be. Also to take into account was that just two weeks after the left had won over congress back in November of 2006, the forementioned television stations and various right-of-the-isle congressmen were already blaming the left for many things which they had little or nothing to do with, as well as mistake the right themselves had made when they were in power. At that point, they never attack another person on the right. I also agree strongly that there is fault in allowing their Christian beliefs to rule, and even outside by general dislike of religion, this goes against the ideal of the separation of Church and State, though that ideal has never truly existed in the first place.

The left is just as bad in a sense. They have the numerous problems of the right right before them, and yet they can not pull together to do anything against them. It is because they are unable to pull together that as a party they have become weak and thus become targets for the right.

The problem with these parties in general is that both parties have ceased to do their jobs; represent the beliefs and opinions of those who have elected them. What they do now is listen only to their own individual beliefs and the beliefs of their party, which is not always what the people may want. In the 2006 Gubernatorial race in Massachusetts, what I particularly liked about one of the running candidates, who ended up winning, was that he stated that he is there for the sole duty of representing the people and not a party.

As for the war, I am not sure why the politicians make it so black and white: "we pull out now!", and "we don't pull out!". In actuality, pulling out immediately would be a stupid mistake, only further harming the country of Iraq, and further ruining our foreign relations with many countries who do not like what we have done and are doing. Not pulling out at all will only result in a vast consumption of resources and will also continue to ruin our foreign relations, as well as continue to upset the American people who do not approve of the war. I would rather have our government put more money and focus on the strengthening and training of the Iraqi military we are building, as well as to the government, so that the Iraqis will be able to manage themselves when we do pull out at some time in the future. While we train them, we should continue our hunting of insurgents and jihadis, trying to remove as many of them as possible, as well as the militia groups which have been rising up under those who wish to takes Saddam's place as the ruler of Iraqi. I saw that in 2.5 to 3 years, if things go right, we could begin removing our troops at a steady pace...not too slow, and not all at once.

I will also agree with the notion that being anti-America has really become part of popular culture, the cool thing to do. Sure, we all have issues with what is going on in our country. That is only natural. But people who claim they hate this nation and wish to leave honestly do not know what they are talking about. In fact, if they said that in some other countries, they would be imprisoned or shot to death on the spot. In this country we have more freedoms than most, if not all, other countries in the world, and yet so many take that for granted. Sure, you could back that up with "freedom of speech", but if you choose to speak, do it intelligently, otherwise keep your ignorant mouth shut.

[Kishiro]

You know... with The War, we just can't win. And that goes for using military force anywhere in the world for whatever reason.

We're the bad guys for using force.
We're the bad guys for stepping in and saving people, whether we use force or not. Because on top of being "world police", we're also being "nosy" and "intrusive".
We're the bad guys for not stepping in and saving people as well. Because then we're being "apathetic", "cruel", and "uncaring".

The majority of the American people don't know what they themselves want, and will go along with most anything. Whatever the most convenient crowd goes for. Very few (by comparison), can make up their own minds, and decide for themselves what they want.

Personally, I think it was silly to declare "War On Terror[ism]", but I think going against Iraq was a good idea. We can never defeat terrorism, but we did defeat a mass murdering dictator, and in the process, saved many innocent lives, even though a large numbers of lives were also lost in the process. A tear shed for those lost, and a moment of silence in their honor. But to make their sacrifice worth it, pressing on and saving more lives and continuing the mission is our best bet until it is complete.

A gradual withdrawal from Iraq isn't such a bad idea, but American/Allied troops should stay there and help maintain stability, until Iraq is on two feet without crutches. Now, for Afghanistan, and such, and the hunt for Bin Laden and "The War On Terror" in general, those troops should come home, in my opinion. They're fighting rogue factions in guerrilla warfare, and right now, we don't have strategy to cope with that.

Then, the batteries of troops in Iraq can be circulated and rotated in a way that troops will see fewer tours in the middle east, and possibly even a more frequent exchange of troops.

[Gjallarhorn]

We're the bad guys for using force.
We're the bad guys for stepping in and saving people, whether we use force or not. Because on top of being "world police", we're also being "nosy" and "intrusive".
We're the bad guys for not stepping in and saving people as well. Because then we're being "apathetic", "cruel", and "uncaring".

I rather liked Robin William's take on this same matter. He, at some speech, listen 10 ways to improve America, the first being more a of a "screw you" to all of the nations who, as you have spelled out, will consider us the "bad guys" whether we get involved or keep to ourselves. Think about if America were to just announce "Okay, we won't get involved anymore...we won't 'interfere'". All those other countries would be happy. And then some disaster comes along, be it war, famine, or natural disaster, and they will look at us expecting assistance, only this time, they don't get it. And you know what? They will get angry with us, and yet all we did was comply with their demands of our ceasing to "interfere". Granted, this is only an ideal, and probably wouldn't play out as picturesque as this in reality, but nonetheless, it has an interesting sentiment to it.

[Princess Minako]

Thats a double edged sword.

We were criticised for not getting involved sooner in WW2, but criticised for getting involved too soon in iraq. Can't win.

Gradual withdrawl from Iraq is a HORRIBLE idea. If we pull out now, they will see us as weak and influencable by the generally weak minded populous. When one thing goes wrong we run. Its like psychological training from a childs perspective; I cry I get my way.... so what will I do, anytime they don't do what I want, I cry. just substitute crying with killing. If we attack and kill 100 innocents they'll just run... so next time America is in doing something we don't want, we'll go kill 100 innocents. We are no longer safe at all. Not being dissuaded by terrorism or any of its acts, continuing and completing the job is what has to be done.

[Kishiro]

I agree with you on that whole heartedly.

I suppose I didn't make it clear enough with my statement about the withdrawal issue. It isn't that I want a gradual withdrawal to start any time soon, but-- that would be the best idea in the means of withdrawing period, as opposed to a complete and total immediate withdrawal.

I support the eventual path of the a gradual withdrawal though-- should it happen, letting the Iraqi forces getting on their feet little by little, slowly over time. It'd probably take a couple years to complete, and "The War" could fade in to obscurity in the minds of most people before it is finished.

[-Batman-]

My thoughts on this...War, if you can even call it that.

Pulling our troops out? Heaven's no.
No one forced them to join the military, there is no draft, they choose to fight and die for America. I know many soilders, I've never heard a single one of them complain about this war, and many actually looked forward to it.
Now, if I were behind the oval office desk right now, I would push for the same motion as bush. I would wish to send more troops over to Iraq.
Why? Pulling troops out won't finish a damn thing. More troops means more operations and assignments. This a quicker end. How quick? Who's to say. However, it will certainly be faster than retreating.
If all of those soilders who enlisted after 9/11 up untill today didn't want to be there, they would have never signed up in the first place.
As for solving all of Iraqs problems, it will never happen. We can solve some, but others the nation itself must solve.

As for these...Young teeny bobbers. (this only applies to actual citizins of the United States)
Do you hate America? I can understand hating...Certain things about America. Such as hating Fast Food resturants, as they contribute so much to the obesity in this country, and in recent years across the globe. Fair enough.
I can understand hating certain cities, or disliking certain political figureheads (Not directed at anyone in paticular, so no one even say "Stop with the bush bashing", I assure you Bush wasan't included in there).
I can even understand hating entire groups of people, I don't think it's right, but I can understand.
However...If you truly hate America as a hole. Next time you're in highschool, and you see those military recruiters in the hallway outside of the cafe' during every lunch period. Walk up to one of those troops, and walk up to him alone. Look him right in the eyes.
Spit in his face. That is one of the many faces of American Freedom. So go spit in his face, you can claim it as a victory in your circle of cutters and goth friends. Just remember, that soilder should be mad at you, furious enough to snap your pathetic pizza faced noodle frame in half. I bet a lot of them actually would feel that way...But remember, there will also be a part of that soilder that will feel lower than trash, knowing people out there show no value for what he's doing, or why he and his companions are dieing, or why he's away from his wife and newborn child.
If you hate this country that much, you shouldn't have any trouble doing it. You should actually be looking forward to it. However, most of you won't.
Why? Because this crap about "We hate America, Bush is a Nazi"...It's nothing more than a hot topic fad. I bet most of you don't even really mean it...But even if you don't, you should be deported to some barren wasteland, wartorn country for even saying it. Go spend some time in Africa, then ask yourself if this country is so bad.
I hate all of you, I really do...When the most patriotic thing you've done in your life was rent Team America World Police, you don't deserve to be here.
Grant it, i'm far from the most patriotic person on the planet, and there are in fact many things in this country I could live without, and that I dislike (New Jersey for instance), But I still love my country. Weird, I know. For everything I dislike, theres a like...And for everything I hate, theres something I love.
For you to say that there is not one thing, ONE thing at all in this country you don't love, then leave now I do NOT return.

And A quick note about Hillary Clinton.
She's just as bad as Bill...Everyone costantly rips on bill clintons love affair. Did anyone read Hillary Clintons book...? Well...I didn't either,
But She did the SAME thing, when she was the first lady. MUCH better.
On top of that, she has no military experience or knowledge. If theres one thing we need in a President, it's someone who knows war.
Also, let me say...
I don't care if the Next president Male or Female. White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, or whatever. You could be Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Budhist.
I really don't care what you are, as long as you do a good job, Hillary Clinton WON'T do a good job. As Kishiro said, she only looks out for herself and her image.


Oh, one more note on the war. Anyone who complains that this war is too Cruel, heartless, or violent...
What?
Honestly...What?
What the HELL do you think war is supposed to be? Super happy awsome fun time? Cuddly Puppy time? Calm negotiations and dinner dates with the enemy officers? Talking?
No. Humans never respond to these things when they are opposed.
Ladies, when a mugger tries to take your purse...Do you
-Ask him to stop politly.
-Give him your purse willinging...And while you're at it, lets take off our jewlery for him too. The man looks hungry, he could use the extra money.
or
-Kick him where it hurts and try to fight him off as best you can?

And men, if you were to come home one night late from work and find your lock broken...You go in, and you see some strange man raping your wife...What do you do? Ask him to stop and leave? Pat him on the back and say "Thats okay, I don't mind"? No.
You go Gatsu on him and put his head through the nearest wall...Then you beat the crap out of him.

So you see, why DID I just ask these questions? Apply those same questions with the war, and just reword them to fit the situation.

[miniPhil]

wwwwooooooooooooowwww that was long, at least i got an applause at the end.
Right one of the main things i had a problem with your post was the hole idea that iraq is now getting better. Are you mad? Although Sadam killed inocent people the death toll now is far higher, nearly a hundred die each month. If you think you can justify that by saying the iraqy people now have more freedom youve truly lost it. 'Yay we now have freedom, sure i cost thousands of lives but at least now we can go get killed trying to vote.'

Gradual withdrawl from Iraq is a HORRIBLE idea. If we pull out now, they will see us as weak and influencable by the generally weak minded populous. When one thing goes wrong we run. Its like psychological training from a childs perspective

I agree but not for the same reasons, withdrawl from iraq will couse the county to fall into anarchy. America should establish a better law system before withdrawing.

[Eris]

We were criticised for not getting involved sooner in WW2, but criticised for getting involved too soon in iraq. Can't win.

That is different, the US started the war in Iraq.

Gradual withdrawl from Iraq is a HORRIBLE idea. If we pull out now, they will see us as weak and influencable by the generally weak minded populous. When one thing goes wrong we run. Its like psychological training from a childs perspective; I cry I get my way.... so what will I do, anytime they don't do what I want, I cry. just substitute crying with killing. If we attack and kill 100 innocents they'll just run... so next time America is in doing something we don't want, we'll go kill 100 innocents. We are no longer safe at all. Not being dissuaded by terrorism or any of its acts, continuing and completing the job is what has to be done.

Remind me again, what exactly is "the job to be done?" And why is the US doing it?

[FarEastStyle]

Thats odd I remember it all started from a attack on Our soil 5 years ago,
...and you're right Minako no matter what America does or doesn't do people will still criticised.

[Eris]

Thats odd I remember it all started from a attack on Our soil 5 years ago,
...and you're right Minako no matter what America does or doesn't do people will still criticised.

Huh? How is Iraq related to 9/11? Sounds like an after-construction to me, seeing as how I can't quite remember that part from the rhetoric justifying the war when it started... It was more along the line that they might... uh... maybe have some sort of WMDs.... perhaps...

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Huh? How is Iraq related to 9/11? Sounds like an after-construction to me, seeing as how I can't quite remember that part from the rhetoric justifying the war when it started... It was more along the line that they might... uh... maybe have some sort of WMDs.... perhaps...

Actually, it was the main justification to start the war. Then after everyone else pointed out how blatantly false it and the WMDs were, they switched to the "Saddam was a bad guy" "argument". Al Qaeda and Saddam hated the hell out of each other and any attempts to work together on anything fell apart in the planning stages.

[Princess Minako]

Saddam was proven to have paid suicide bombers 20,000 to bomb US Embassies. That seems like an act of war to me.....

Don't forget Russia had the same intel we did about there being WMD's.

The mistake that the US made was in 1992 during the first war. We should have continued and never stopped and taken Saddam out of power then... We wouldn't be here if we had.

[Eris]

Saddam was proven to have paid suicide bombers 20,000 to bomb US Embassies. That seems like an act of war to me.....

He actually paid them himself, cash-in-hand? That sounds a fairly odd thing of a dictator to do.

Don't forget Russia had the same intel we did about there being WMD's.

Just because two nations have fallacious intel doesen't make this intel correct. This is some sort of strange twist on argumentum ad populum, with very few people to actually back it up.

This War on Terror is all too much Don Quixote for comfort. The actual realistic threat of terrorism is vastly inflated, in lack of better things to bomb to smithereens.

[FarEastStyle]

The mistake that the US made was in 1992 during the first war. We should have continued and never stopped and taken Saddam out of power then... We wouldn't be here if we had.

Good point,
Bush just inheirated the problem, anyway as -Deadpool- pointed out about the soilders he knows..I know one and know of many more that supported and never complain about the war or the President. I mean really I don't see way so many people who don't have anything at stake to turn this war into such a wrong decision and to protest about it. Which is funny because I hate seeing people protesting almost as bad as other countries sticking there faces in on something they washed there hands of.. but yeah about the protesters... The soilders that put their lives on the line fighting this war, see that and it's sad because it's looks like the people that their protecting doesn't care.

[Kishiro]

I wonder if people would be less critical about the government's methods and how we dealt with Saddam, if they would've been completely honest about why we were going after him.

There have been plenty of good reasons since he turned on us. Him turning on us being the first reason. Invading Kuwait being the second. Genocide being the third. Paying people to attack embassies being a fourth. Do I really need to go on?
We put him there. Trusted him. We made a mistake in that, he turned on us, turned on the world. He got violent, and started to slaughter people.

Plenty of reasons to remove Saddam from power. Like Minako said, we should have done it and finished it the first time.

Intervening because Saddam is killing people is no less a good reason or cause than it would be for us to go aid in Sudan/Darfur. Hell, that genocide problem is just now getting attention. It has been going on since the media was going crazy over Michael Jackson, and longer.

People want us to go in now. But I guarantee as soon as we do, they'll complain.

Same deal happened in the middle east. Americans will complain, and the rest of the world sitting on their duffs just watching will criticize.

[Eris]

What the US should do about Darfur is to wait for the UN to make a decision, and -then- act upon it. This cowboy approach, riding in toting guns all around, shooting first and asking questions later makes the US a loose cannon in the international community. Nobody wants to live next doors to a crazed vigilante with enough nukes to carpet bomb the planet.

The Iraq war would have had a lot more international and popular support if Bush had just waited for the UN to make a decision, instead of rushing ahead like something out of an old western movie, especially since Iraq clearly wasn't an immediate threat.

[Alice Lost]

Nobody wants to live next doors to a crazed vigilante with enough nukes to carpet bomb the planet.

That sounds like Bush to me.

[Kishiro]

What the US should do about Darfur is to wait for the UN to make a decision, and -then- act upon it. This cowboy approach, riding in toting guns all around, shooting first and asking questions later makes the US a loose cannon in the international community. Nobody wants to live next doors to a crazed vigilante with enough nukes to carpet bomb the planet.

The Iraq war would have had a lot more international and popular support if Bush had just waited for the UN to make a decision, instead of rushing ahead like something out of an old western movie, especially since Iraq clearly wasn't an immediate threat.

Yeah, waiting around for the UN to decide is always great. They can take all the time they want. In the end, however, it is still mostly (if not entirely these days) Americans acting as soldiers of The UN and NATO.

Let's let all the people sitting around doing nothing-- because either they can't, or they won't-- make the decisions. Sure, why not.

Yeah, we're the Cowboys. We're the cowboys because we're the only ones willing to act. Say The UN decides that we should leave Darfur alone, then what? We let all those people die? Great. People die because they aren't valuable, and nor is their land.
Of course, America couldn't really stand to send troops to Darfur in Sudan right now, because they are already spread thin as it is in the middle east. It'd sure be nice to have some help, I'm sure the boys in camouflage would appreciate it, and the relief.

That sounds like Bush to me.

Oh, you know him? Was he a wild guy back in your hey day?
Crazy 'ole Bush. He's SUCH a character, right?

[Eris]

Yeah, waiting around for the UN to decide is always great. They can take all the time they want. In the end, however, it is still mostly (if not entirely these days) Americans acting as soldiers of The UN and NATO.

Let's let all the people sitting around doing nothing-- because either they can't, or they won't-- make the decisions. Sure, why not.

That's because the UN favors diplomacy infront of warfare. Like it nor not, talking is often favorable to blowing someone up. And talking takes time. I can't believe how impatient American politicians seem to be. What are they, 5 years old?

Yeah, we're the Cowboys. We're the cowboys because we're the only ones willing to act. Say The UN decides that we should leave Darfur alone, then what? We let all those people die? Great. People die because they aren't valuable, and nor is their land.

People would die because Darfur is none of America's buissness. Nobody's nominated America to be world police, and until that happens, America remains world vigilante... and as I said, nobody wants to live next to a loose cannon like that.

[bakakame]

Ok this thread is already far too much reading that I'm willing to sift through, at least with back and forth bickering.

I'll make this very, very brief, and appologise if it's already been said.

There is no such thing as an end to war as long as humans still exist. I'd rather see us involving ourselves in matters that could escilate to full war while they are still small, rather than sitting around discussing the matter until it's too big to contain.

[ParaParaJMo]

Personally, I think we should have taken care of Saddam the first time. Even though terrorists would still attack, I'd still doubt it'd be on the same scale it is now and I think Iraq would be a much better country today if the world acted the first time given the right opportunities and circumstances and international support at the time. I think if the world acted the first time, the lives that we lost in this war would still be alive today.

I am a Republican though I don't classify myself as a conservative or right-wing. I do consider myself to be religious but I don't force my morals on other people and I respect everybody's right to believe or not believe. After all that is a right given to us by the First Amendment which is given to us by God according to the writers of the constitution.

I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice. As a male and being unable to become pregneant, it's hard for me to express my voice. I think both arguments are very legitimate and reasonable. I think there are better alternatives to abortion, but I can understand that there are certain circumstances why a woman would seek one (ie, rape, condition, incest, etc).

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Yeah, we're the Cowboys. We're the cowboys because we're the only ones willing to act. Say The UN decides that we should leave Darfur alone, then what? We let all those people die? Great. People die because they aren't valuable, and nor is their land.
Of course, America couldn't really stand to send troops to Darfur in Sudan right now, because they are already spread thin as it is in the middle east. It'd sure be nice to have some help, I'm sure the boys in camouflage would appreciate it, and the relief.

Diplomacy is always preferable to fighting.

Sun Tzu's Art of War, Chapter 3, 1-4

Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.
The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided. The preparation of mantlets, movable shelters, and various implements of war, will take up three whole months; and the piling up of mounds over against the walls will take three months more.

Basically that entire chapter applies.

[Kishiro]

Favorable? Yes, of course.
Does it work? Apparently not.

Diplomacy is nice, and yes ideal, but still it is most ideal in theory. People like Saddam don't care to talk. That's when we go to fight. Yes, the UN favors diplomacy, and do you realize WHY that is? It is because most countries in the UN can't stand to one another, and especially and obviously not the super powers.

While we waste time negotiating to just open up negotiations, innocent people are dying. Vigilante. You say it as if I'd take offense to that. I'd be a vigilante over a lump or a coward any day.

There should be a time cap on diplomacy when lives are hanging in the balance. At some point, you have to realize that talking is going to be useless with certain dictators, and that only force can help the situation overall and in the long run. It seems like you are ruling out fighting altogether for some kind of utopian idea that all things can be solved with diplomacy.

This isn't a perfect world, and so, that just isn't possible.

[Eris]

Favorable? Yes, of course.
Does it work? Apparently not.

Diplomacy is nice, and yes ideal, but still it is most ideal in theory. People like Saddam don't care to talk.[...]

Awww... don't fall for the demonization. It's propaganda: Every single enemy at war since the old roman days have been barbarians--heck, even Hitler recommends demonization of the enemy in Mein Kampf. It's time people start seeing through that one. You've got nukes. You could turn Iraq into a lifeless wasteland for thousands of years. That is a very good bargaining chip.

While we waste time negotiating to just open up negotiations, innocent people are dying. Vigilante. You say it as if I'd take offense to that. I'd be a vigilante over a lump or a coward any day.

Scenario: Your neighbor is beating his wife. You call the police. Nothing happens (beacuse they're investigating it). According to your policy, it is perfectly acceptable to take a chainsaw and a sawed off shotgun, cut through the door, kill the husband, the dog, some other neighbors, torture an old lady, and badly wound the wife, who you'll later force to marry you?

There should be a time cap on diplomacy when lives are hanging in the balance. At some point, you have to realize that talking is going to be useless with certain dictators, and that only force can help the situation overall and in the long run. It seems like you are ruling out fighting altogether for some kind of utopian idea that all things can be solved with diplomacy.

No, there shouldn't. The same way there shouldn't be a time cap on police investigation before you bring out the old sawed off shotgun and take justice into your own hands.