<p>Has it ever occurred to you, Fides, that these Europeans do not hate Americans, but just hate the current American 'leadership'?</p>
<p>To think that they hate Americans is like thinking that Americans hated Russian civilians during the cold war. We all knew it was their govt. that was at fault. We didn't blame the Russian people.</p>
<p>Hey, the American people voted for this government -- twice! Unlike Soviet Russia, America is a democracy. The majority of the American population evidently approved of this government as late as November of 2004, well into the Iraq mission.</p>
<p>Irrelevant. Fewer than half the population voted (yes, I know, their fault) and then there was evidence to suggest fraud BOTH TIMES.</p>
<p>Even if it were a fair election, that still does not mean that the people agree with the govt. Right now bush has an extremely low approval rating. It happens all the time. People allow someone to get into power and then the leader abuses it. The Germans loved Hitler when he first rose to power. </p>
<p>My point is that there should be a separation between the civilians and the leaders when speaking of a country. To just refer to us as 'Americans' is misleading.</p>
<p>oh come on! Bush did win the 2nd time around.</p>
<p>Liberals see conspiracies in everything. It's like a paranoid psychological disease.</p>
<p>Why do you do that, Fides? I very much respect your opinions, arguments, and information regarding those, but you tend to through that all out the window when you make ridiculous claim like that. </p>
<p>Saying that liberals see conspiracies in "everything" is pretty naive of you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bush did win the 2nd time around.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Barely. If Kerry weren't so ugly, he would have won.</p>
<p>"Bush did win the 2nd time around."</p>
<p>Diebold.</p>
<p>Guess the Dems are screwed again if they are stupid enough to pick Hillary.</p>
<p>Bush's victory in 2000 was not fraud. It was just the result of a flawed voting system and the decision of a conservative Supreme Court.</p>
<p>"Guess the Dems are screwed again if they are stupid enough to pick Hillary."</p>
<p>I agree. She is too polarizing.</p>
<p>I want Obama!</p>
<hr>
<p>The 2000 election had fraud. Did no one else watch the hours of footage on CSPAN about all the bags of votes that got lost? In certain counties? Yeah, there was definitely fraud. 2004 was much more blatant.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html</a></p>
<p>AND FOR THE LAST TIME ,THE MILITARY IS NOT PROTECTING OR DEFENDING YOU!!!</p>
<p>Since WW2, America has not been in a single situation in which the military has defended the country. Please stop spewing your rhetoric.</p>
<p>"Since WW2, America has not been in a single situation in which the military has defended the country. Please stop spewing your rhetoric."</p>
<p>Wow, great point! SO TRUE!</p>
<p>So they aren't allowed to help other countries?</p>
<p>And the point is, the military exists so it can protect and defend you. You think there will only be one when we need it?</p>
<p>"military exists so it can protect and defend you. "</p>
<p>Sure. I have no problem with it existing for in case it's needed. Just with it being used to further the political agenda of those who are corrupt, and interfering with other nations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since WW2, America has not been in a single situation in which the military has defended the country. Please stop spewing your rhetoric.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Depends on your view of what defense entails.</p>
<p>Is defending the country just defending the US and its borders? Or is it defending its allies and interests? Or is it only there to exist during attacks? Should it be used preemptively? </p>
<p>There is very little that is cut-and-dried about what "defense" is. A reasonably logical case can be made that the Korean War not only defended two future allies (South Korea and Japan), but it also kept PRC influence from spreading to the rest of Northeast Asia. </p>
<p>Similarly, US military projection in Western and Central Europe can be argued to have kept the USSR at bay. It's hard to argue that an allied Western Europe wasn't key to American defense and interests.</p>
<p>But it definitely gets stickier in cases like Granada, Iraq, Vietnam, and Panama. Even in those cases, however, arguments can be made for the "interests" theory of defense. Panama's continued existence as a power friendly to the US and its allies was considered key in maintaining commercial shipping through the Canal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure. I have no problem with it existing for in case it's needed. Just with it being used to further the political agenda of those who are corrupt, and interfering with other nations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Define "corrupt." You'll find that it's not as simple as you might suggest or believe.</p>
<p>Secondly, is interfering always bad? Should we stand by and watch Darfur continue? Was Rwanda not a reasonable time to interfere? How about Myanmar? Cambodia? </p>
<p>Is sovereignty worth watching millions be slaughtered by inept and cruel governments?</p>
<p>I think the moment the word "depends" comes into play describing what the military does, all need to argue goes away.</p>
<p>Is it really so black and white, though?</p>
<p>Usage of military power is not nearly as simple as you suggest. Nor should it be. The world, and international relations, are far too dynamic and volatile to say otherwise.</p>
<p>But I'd like to hear your argument, beyond the sound bites you've provided thus far.</p>
<p>And even WW2 as a case of the military defending the country is arguable. Germany hadn't declared war, and the Japanese were unlikely to attack the US directly (bearing in mind that Pearl Harbor was part of a territory and not a state at the time.) How was the US, and not its interests per se, threatened by any of the Axis powers directly?</p>
<p>"Define "corrupt."</p>
<p>Lying.</p>
<p>That's an incredibly difficult standard, and one that may make any military use impossible.</p>
<p>Plus, there's the fact that people simply assume that whatever a politician says is a lie. You think that that 9/11's official explanation is a lie, and I don't. This makes it a bit harder, don't you think?</p>