You're correct Indy. The thread did take a wrong turn back there. That's one of the reasons that these types of topics have been avoided like the plague. Sorry that I rose to the "bait."

Hum. I'm thinking that in a war, the first target is every oil derrick, oil pumping station, and every storage situation.

To say we would be screwed is an understatement, IMHO.

Oh and I'm sorry for taking Bowline's response several levels of intensity higher. Whoops!

D-Rod, we are "all of that" because we were the first nation to separate from colonialism and install a government run by the population, not a monarchy.

We changed the world in too many ways to enumerate. We changed the isolation of Japan, We broke the hold that Spain had on numerous island nations, we broke the back of the Germans in WWI and we defeated Germany and Japan in WWII with both our military and our manufacturing ability.

We have invented more life changing devices and methods than you can shake a stick at. We have done more good in this world than any other nation in any time in history. We are the best hope for the future of the world. This is not a slight on any other nation, but a simple fact.

Population has nothing to do with power or properity. Look at who the people of the world aspire to emulate. Just because our leaps of improvement come with pratfalls and bruises, does not mean they are any less significant. We cannot make the entire world a better place to be. Our first responsiblity is to our nation and then to our friends. Do you suggest that we starve our people so that other nations go less hungry? Especially when they are part of a country that tries to cheat or destroy us.

The hard reality is that we are probably doomed to fight a major war within the next two decades. There is too much population growth and not enough ability for nations to care for their people. People with little education and intelligence, will usually strip their native lands of all that can sustain their lives and then move in on other lands. We are seeing that all over Africa and Asia. And also to a degree in Central/South America. You already are seeing the problems of immigration from the Middle East and Africa to Europe, and from Central/South America into the US.

We can only do what is necessary when it arrives. The future is not fixed and history shall always be debated. We live in constant fear that someone will do something stupid to change the world like Hitler and Tojo did. The big issue will be who can get their act together best when that situation happens. An alliance of China, India, and Arabs would present a major problem for NATO. We can overcome their advantages, but at an unheard of cost.

Hate to say this, but I have to agree with D... However it really comes down to the Golden Rule!! We no longer have the golden rule, and so with that comes insecurity. We have created our own problem, and now it is time to deal with it. How I don't know...

Also, I would agree that missles are for posturing/distraction that was mentioned before.

Seadog...just to probe some thought.

What do you think we're doing to Iraq?

If a dude approaches you, leveraging defamation against you, and you get pissed. So you swing the fist and knock the dude out. Does his verbal actions warrant your physical response? I think not! Point is, we have no business in Iraq. Is the Middle East more stable than it was in 2003? Please submit supporting evidence if you wish to make such claim.

Such can be said about the US in 1700's. Britain thought they knew best for us. They tried to control/manipulate us. Yet for this high-horse reason, we feel we're so [censored] good we can go tell another country what is best for them. Give me a break!

Likewise, our HISTORY is NOT what we are TODAY. We did some great things in history. We HAVE NOT been doing great things for the past few years, especially in terms of World diplomacy.

Secondly, friends are more important than oneself. If I am not mistaken, you served in the army. I believe this is a core component of the Army, that protecting the your country before protecting yourself. Point in this argument is yourself is not first. I think this should be applied to World diplomatic situations. US friendships with other countries should come first. Strong friendships bring success.

World alliances are MORE important than our right-now wants. We do not have the ability to fight the World. We have to cooperate with the other nations in the World. We cannot bully them around as we have tired the past 8 years. Bullying creates enemies and poor relationships. We have to have STRONG relationships as the World population grows.

I think Bush is doing the correct thing by going to China for the Olympics. I think Barack has the right idea to talk to foreign enemies. To drawing lines in the sand does a whole of nothing, which is what we have to stop doing. Collaboration is key!

And Bankonit27.....did that hurt for you to say that?

As I 'm trying to cook dinners for the next three nights, and posting in between, Bill has every right as an American to express his opinion. (...pertaining to doing it here...no problems either as long as the board allow it)

If you are willing to give up those rights, I've heard there's an exchange bus heading every hour to Guadalupe, Mexico. And I've aslo heard it's empty of North-bound passengers. (They got off before the river...)

Those who serve in the military live and breathe by the concept that the best way to prevent wars is to be strong enough to deter war. They also realize that there will be those who test our resolve, and we have to make a strong point that we will not back down from a bully.

Despite all the hullabaloo about what was wrong about our going to war in Iraq, we had every right and very little choice. The big failure was in that those who were responsible for planning did little thinking about the followup actions. We would have been a lot better off if reconstruction had been laid on as part of the military planning. Even so, we are seeing daylight and we may be able start removing troops within a short period. And if the Iraqi government continues as it is, they will soon be producing an abundant amount of oil to help our cause.

But what if we fail? Will the Middle East be any worse than it has been for decades? There have been warfare in the region for thousands of years. An inability to grow away from the tribal system has locked them into a life of strife. The only difference now is that oil has become an important part of the mix. But even without oil, religious struggles have been the norm of the area. Diplomacy only deals with nations that follow the rules. Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, North Korea, Chavez's Venezuela are noted for not following the rules. And that does not include those quasi-organizations that are a loose collection of groups bound only by their hatred for other groups. Diplomacy is a dangerous balancing act. For example, we angered many of our close friends in France and Britain when we did not support them in their struggle against Egypt over the Suez Canal. But we were trying to challenge Russia over their suppression of the rebellion in Hungary. It was impossible for us to support colonial control by our allies and oppose the same of our foes.

Our diplomacy efforts over the past few years have been good and bad. If it were not for the continual attacks by political opposition, we could get a balanced view of our efforts. Since politics have been such since inception, we have changed little in that aspect. Reagan was blasted over his diplomacy and yet now, he is being credited with bringing an end to the cold war. Lincoln was considered a poor diplomat. Wilson was considered a good diplomat, but luckily his own country saw the fallacy of the League of Nations. Diplomacy is a no win game, in that we cannot control world events. What may be a great deal in one minute can be totally ruined by events that are unforeseen.

The "isolationist" idea caused what to happen?

Bowline & D-Rod, you can be shocked and amazed all you want. And you can judge my opinion shallow all you want. But I am not wrong. And I don't care that the world laughs at us, as long as they do it with a little fear in their mind. Seadog is right, we are the best. D-Rod, the Commie teachers in schools have been spouting the same, "The U.S. is not #1" rhetoric since I was in school. Well guess what, we are #1 and we have to back it up and act like it from time to time. (All the time, I really say!)
As the world's resources become scarce, countries have two choices, wither away and die, or go get the resources by any means necessary. And since in this country, we are trying to become a Socialist Democracy, you really think that the 10% of the people in the U.S. that control all our money are just going to let the 50% of us that will be totally dependent on government just die? Franklin Roosevelt and the power that were didn't let the people just die in the 30's, they increased government size to give money away. Well, if our government doesn't have the oil to fuel our economy, what are they going to do? "Alternative" fuels are just that, alternatives to what is best/least expensive. They will never become our primary fuels.
Bowline, if the oil men in the middle east were just businessmen, i wouldn't have a problem with them at all. But they are fighting a holy war with us and specifically trying to hurt this country. At that point it is not business, it's war. Sorry you don't see it that way.

Wow, lots of opinions here. I am sad to see so much name calling on a typically reserved board.

Many preach of isolationism, while others want to make everyone happy while still being involved. IMO, you can't have both. Too many other countries do not want us involved in anything as it hinders thier world control movement. Anything beyond isolationism will not keep the peace with them. Isolationism also promotes permission for some groups to run amuck and do as they wish in terms of forcing thier will.

It's a point of view that I hadn't considered before... One that on the surface, I'm severely opposed to. However, Billy does make a couple of good points. History is littered with examples of countries that rose to power then used that power to control parts of the world they wished to control.

I'd like to think there is a better way, but maybe that's too utopian - obviously, his point of view is shared by some in high power.

The real pity is the number of intelligent, or at least think they are intelligent, people that get swept up in the rhetoric of politics.

There are several issues here and it is very difficult for even the experts to weave through the gauntlet. We, as a nation, think of the Middle East as a single hot spot, but it is a disjointed collection of conflicts. The Sunni-Shiite issues is as extreme as the North-South attitudes of the Civil War. And there are a lot of other similarities in that France and Britain gave a lot of support to the South in order to protect their trade issues. In those days, the 'oil' of trade then, was cotton.

Many of us had more liberal attitudes or more aggressive attitudes in our younger days. As we aged, we found that the world is not as black and white as we wish. Unlike the comics, in life, the heros have warts, and the villians have virtues. Some people turn to a God to sort things out. Others find evil in all things. And many turn to false idols for solutions. It is only when we realize that our best way of coping with what is wrong with the world, is to embody those ideals we want the world to have. Whether you believe in that religion or not, the Ten Commandments goes beyond one particular religion. It embodies what man should aspire to. Not as an absolute rule, but as a concept. For example. "Thou shall not kill" does not mean that you lay down before an enemy to be slain, it means that the taking of life should be an act involving much soul searching. Only when there is not reasonable alternatives can it be acceptable. And that is the issue with any religion. A religion must grow with the consciousness of the population. That is why the muslims have so many issues is that they are trapped between those who would interpret the concept of the Koran in the ways of the world and those who doggedly maintain that the interpretations of 1000 years ago should never change. Things like treating women like chatel, extremes in punishments, and approval of terrorism. Until the muslim world comes to grip with those issues, we will always have conflicts.

I'm done here.

I'm out of here too.