As an objective observer of the political system I wonder if this partisanship is helpful. What you need is an honorable, wise and decent human being running the show. You should be concerned with your leaders quality not his party.  If that had always been the criterion for leadership, not popularity, you would not be in the mess you are in.

That's happened on occasion.  Jimmy Carter was a 'wise and decent human being' but a lousy president.  Other 'wise and decent human beings' have been president & done well.  Principles matter more than 'decency' which is a very subjective trait.

Actually, the French were "'first in' 'Nam".  We foolishly went in to bail them out as you might recall.

I agree with you 100% on the treatment of our Veterans, from ALL recent wars.  It's been disgraceful.

Fellow Hippy

Generally I agree that the UN shouldn't set our foreign policy, but in the case of Iraq, they were indeed smart enough to say there was no legitimate case for us going into Iraq a second time.  And, as it turns out, they were right.

My position is simply that it's MUCH easier for us to be the world's lone superpower if we're not going it alone if we don't have to.  We've had multinational coalition support for the first Gulf War, peacekeeping in Kosovo, and ending the Taliban and pursuing Bin Laden in Afghanistan after 9-11.

We didn't have it for Vietnam or the second Gulf War.  And the last two were clearly HUGE foreign policy mistakes for our nation. 

Don't you see the pattern?

Nope.  But it is a smaller and smaller world and our economic interests are irrevocably interconnected.  Ironically, in fact, Bush's borrowing has made us MORE interconnected and subservient to the often contrarian positions held by our Chinese bankers, for example.

As as far as the NWO.  Just because Sarkozy would love to see the French nation relevant on the world stage again, doesn't mean it's ever gonna happen. 

I linked you to one of many UN mandates regarding protection of refugees of the Balkan wars.  NATO was the best equipped from a command and control perspective to execute the military objective in the European theater.

Your semantic argument is irrelevant to the point at hand.

Agree 100% (and now by 52% of Americans). 

I swore I wasn’t getting involved in this thread again but I just had to say;

me too!!!

I'm curious as to why you feel what is needed is someone who doesn't reflect the morals and intregrity of those they would lead.  Yes, that is meant as a joke.

In order to have an honorable, wise and decent human being running the show, well quite frankly, the rest of society needs to also reflect those qualities.  How on earth would you find someone in your society if it didn't reflect those values.

As a society we need to make the changes in our own personal values to reflect what we seek in our leaders.  In other words they will be no better than we expect them to be, which is no better then we are.

I'm truly sorry for this reply, but it is how I personally see the world.

Even in your own response, you utterly contradict your own "conclusion".  Clearly I am supporting and condemning a mix of Republican and Democratic wars and police actions.

This is my position.  Repeatedly and clearly stated.

You can continue to debate my "imaginary" position to suit your preconceived notion but it won't accomplish anything except proving you have made an error in your assumptions.

Hah, Nothing funnier than a guy wanting to contradict others so badly that he will pick the one time the UN was right to argue his point as if they were always right. WTG Excalpius, I'm sure if you dig deep enough you would probably agree with Hitler, Saddam, Fidel Castrol and Osama somewhere along the long as well.

And I linked you to the fact that there was no mandate.  Or now are you cherry picking your facts?

So when I trump your opinion with facts, it is sematics?    Well, you are showing your true colors.  But I will hand you kudos for not resorting to name calling when you lose.

No, not a conclusion, an opinion based upon what you support and oppose stated here.  I am not debating "imaginary" anything unless your responses are classified as such.  But you still cannot explain away your war mongering while proclaiming to be a pacifist, nor can you explain why you like Kosovo, but not S Osetia - other than who did the thumping.  And you claim you support UN sanctioned wars, yet you do not like the Gulf war.  I cannot comment on Korea since you never mentioned that one, and of course the wars before that predated the Useless Nations.

So far, you have only refuted my facts with "irrelevant" with no supporting documentation, or even a feeble attempt at refuting them (another honorable quality - you dont state facts are wrong, just "irrelevant" - at least you are not mindless.  Just wrong).

Tell that to the Aussies that died in 'Nam.... or the Clearance Divers in the Gulf.... or the SAS in Afghanistan.

Small country that is invariably forgotten by self-proclaimed 'super powers' that have an urge to run the world THEIR way.... and for their own ends.

Semantics....

The art of re-labelling 'invasion' as 'pre-emptive strike'.

Howard got that insidious disease from brown-nosing Bush....we got rid of him.

What kind of ridiculous non-sequitors are these?  I can only assume that you're just flame-baiting here.  If you'd like to actually discuss any of these men in some cogent and rational fashion, I'm all ears.