[tw]

Originally posted by Fireman
TW.....Let me see if I have what you are saying is correct. (me being an idiotic redneck,as pointed out by Radar) Because the US has a military, is the right for somone to attack us? ...

Now you have completely misquoted and misrepresented what I said. A great nation shows restrain. People starving in the street is sometimes important for a nation to become adults. Worst thing the US could do is try to solve starvation by military action. Emotional will not like it. But the hard nosed realist (an enemy of liberals and extremist conservatives) has long learned that things must get worse before the local people will decide to solve their own problems.

First, the problem must be solved by the local powers. Then by the UN. To walk in like a big bully and demand solutions - be it between nations or between persons - simply never solves the problem. But even worse, the big bully- the 800 pound gorilla - too often will resort to power before letting smarter negotiators solve the problem.

Iraq was a classic example. Problem was responsiblity of local powers actually threatened by Iraq - Kuwait, Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Iran. None - nada - saw any threat and said so because there was no threat. And yet we had to stumble in and protect them from themselves. Now we are paying the price. No smoking gun means no justification for war.

One need only learn that mistake in Somolia. We were stupid and fortunately got out before we got too deep in shit.

Bosnia and Kosovo demonstrate how to solve world problems. First it was Europe's and the UN's problem. Second, the solution would not work until numerous locals died. That applies everywhere. Only after enough had died (and I feared he was going in too early) and only after the local power proved to be incapable; only then did Clinton move into and solve the Balkans. Balkans demonstrate how smart people solve problems - military being only the last option - which is why the locals did not attack US troops (as in Iraq).

You are in the military. My restraint means I (and Radar) am your best friend especially having learned from Nam. You are to be deployed only when you can be effective. When our wealth is spent to good purpose. And when the action does not make us enemies of everyone. Not enought people died in Iraq to justify an American involvement.

There must be a smoking gun before America is threatened. IOW yes, many must die before war is justified. That also is the lessons of history. Smoking guns included Pearl Harbor, WTC, and Korea. There was no smoking gun in Somolia or Iraq. There was no threat even to local nations in that region. Unlike Afghanistan, we know there is no justification for US in Iraq.

I don't care if some live in shanties and others in mansions. That is not America's problem. It is a domestic or regional problem. In the meantime, people are living in shanties - without even a glass window - in W Virginia. Should we attack W Virginia - or seek an intelligent solution?

People living in shanties is a classic (and therefore naive) reason for justificaton of war? A reason that only the emotional would use. Sorry but the shanty comment must be replied to in the context it was posted - silly emotional reasoning must be blunty attacked. Shanties do not justify risking your life anywhere in the world - especially when the solution is found in diplomacy.

What the world needs is a smaller US military so that local powers take more action to solve their own problems. Other nations downsize because the US will pay for their protection. This is will continue because the US has too much military and gets involves (sometimes) too early. And yet that mistake is what an extremist military solution advocates. Fortunately places such as Sierra Leone did not have US involvement. Therefore the local powers solved the problem. Again lessons of history.

Iraq was only a local problem. We now know the local powers were correct. Saddam was a threat to no one. Too many shanty towns? That is a regional problem - not an American problem. Now we have major American economic problems because we decided (stupidly) again to be the world's policeman. Only enemies of American send American troops to solve all world problems.

Lets keep this straight. Your post implies you were personally insulted. You were not. Posted from Radar is what you want your leaders to do before you are deployed anywhere. So don't get emotional - and therefore misunderstand what is posted. Justifying the invasion of Iraq because of shanty towns is a very irresponsible and illogical response. Americans are intelligent when they don't try to solve all the world's problems - and instead let the locals eventually solve those problems. And yes, that means enough locals must die so that they never make those mistakes again.

Long before we attacked Iraq, we instead should have been going after Osama bin Laden AND let the 'powers that be' solve the silly Iraq distraction. Instead we let the French and Germans go look for bin Laden. More irresponsible use of US troops. This president let bin Laden run free - in part because he wanted to fix the world starting with Iraq.

America is attacked if we too quickly and to often resort to a military response. How often are the Bosnians, Serbs, and Croatians attacking US troops? Holbrook properly demonstrated how and when to use a military - only as a last resort. Attacking Iraq only made the US a target of terrorist - and let Osama bin Laden run free.