Like many of her Democratic colleagues, Sen. Dianne Feinstein is calling for a timetable to exit Iraq. That is not enough. The longer we stay, the more Americans will be killed and the greater will be the burden on the American taxpayer and the U.S. military. As we have seen recently, with the recall of former Marines to active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military is stretched too thin. Were the U.S. to face a genuine crisis, not the made-up one of Iran, we would not have the resources needed to deal with it adequately. The sooner the U.S. leaves Iraq, the more secure the American public will be from an attack on American soil. The only purpose in staying in Iraq is to postpone admitting that we have lost the war. How many of our soldiers have to die before we inevitably face the truth? Even if we were to pull out before the end of this year, our departure would not be enough. Feinstein and others have argued that we must keep troops in the area, in Kuwait and elsewhere. The Bush administration still has not given up on the idea of maintaining military bases in Iraq indefinitely. Leaving our soldiers in the area is asking for trouble. As long as our troops are stationed in Muslim countries, we will be subject to assault. In Lebanon in 1983, 241 U.S. servicemen died when Hezbollah staged a suicide bombing. Even though our Marines were in Somalia in the early '90s to bring humanitarian supplies to the people, they were waylaid and forced out. In 1996, Osama bin Laden called for Muslims to drive the Americans out of the holy lands of Saudi Arabia. His express purpose for 9/11 was to force our retreat from the land of Mecca, the holiest site in Islam. Although it is especially important to remove our forces from Muslim countries, it would be advantageous to bring them home from other overseas bases as well. Why do we need troops in Germany? The Cold War is over. Why do we need troops in Japan? Is it to intimidate the Chinese or the North Koreans? In Okinawa, among other places, the local population strongly objects to the presence of our military, which also breeds resentment in neighboring countries, many of whom feel threatened. Terrorists have not attacked Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, New Zealand, or many other nations that have no military presence in the Muslim world. The fable that Muslims are attacking us because they don't like our democracy or our freedoms implies that they should also be bombing Stockholm and Geneva, which are less protected and easier to attack than New York City or London. Clearly those cities and nations have little to fear from al-Qaeda. This does not mean that the U.S. should become an isolationist state. Isolationism was originally embodied in the U.S. rejection of the League of Nations. Pulling back our troops to our own land would not preclude our participation in such international bodies as the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. Moreover, with the budget savings that a less aggressive foreign policy would make possible, we could provide greater help to poor countries and those suffering from AIDS or natural catastrophes. Having a smaller military budget would strengthen our economy, already the globe's strongest, while giving us a great deal of influence in the world. In fact, posing no threat to other nations would likely increase our sway over them. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for powerful countries to want to exercise their power. As we all know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the late 18th century and early 19th century, Britain became the world's major power and created a huge empire. The U.S. today has close to absolute power. As a result, the temptation is compelling to impose our will on others, always in the name of freedom or democracy. Historical precedents abound. As Stephen Kinzer outlined in Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq, the U.S., starting in the last decades of the 19th century, began to exert its power over weaker countries. The U.S. has also built much of its empire without direct rule: we just put "our sons-of-bitches" in power. Regrettably, many people feel a patriotic urge to "fly the flag" around the world. Resisting the temptation to interfere militarily in other countries would be difficult. Can it be done? From an optimist's point of view it seems likely that, if the U.S. scaled back its military to a level that would allow us simply to defend our shores, this nation might become the "city upon a hill." We could even wind up with more influence than we can achieve through military might. We would certainly have a more peaceful globe. by Thomas Gale Moore
As great an article as it might be, it won't be read by most people here... For me, articles like that on my monitor burn my eyes... I'd recommend picking out the strong points, and posting them, with a link to the full article... it'll get a much better response...
We need a timetable for when terrorists are going to leave Iraq. Someone needs to let these sexually frustrated men know...there aren't any virgins in paradise.
I wish I could do that. It's just that sometimes I find good articles that I use for my study and I like to share them in here but I can't summarize because sometimes I don't have enough time to type that. But I will try to do my best and thank you so much for your comment
Well, posting whole articles without permission is a copyright infringement, so there are good reasons to take a bit of time to post a summary. Sometimes just the first few sentences and a link will do the trick. I do agree with what he says, though, although I think that as long as the USA sees itself as Top Country and is so suspicious of the UN, it'll be stationing troops around the world for the foreseeable future.
Terrorists have not attacked Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, New Zealand, or many other nations that have no military presence in the Muslim world. The fable that Muslims are attacking us because they don't like our democracy or our freedoms implies... ...that they should also be bombing Stockholm and Geneva, which are less protected and easier to attack than New York City or London. Clearly those cities and nations have little to fear from al-Qaeda. ~~~~ Right on target. This is also why Ron Paul is gaining so much new support. Many people are finally ready for real change, and less war. http://www.ronpaul2008.com Congressman Ron Paul: Archives (Dr. Ron Paul in his own words and brilliant writings)
Are you stating that as a fact? or are you just assuming. I'll post something interesting for you upon your response. Don't disappear like gemini181 did
So you was stating an assumption as fact. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/03/canada.terror/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5054198.stm It's not like the extremists or muslim minority only take issue with the US or the UK, in fact they take issue with anything that is un-islamic & that's almost everything besides the quaran & mosques. Remember though we wouldn't want to rile them up though i mean it's bad enough at present when 12% of Canada's muslims wouldn't mind the beheading of the Canadian PM.
Unlike Holland or Norway, eh? Blind man in a paper bag. Radical Islam cannot stand freedom of religion. One war at a time is not enough for them - take a look at the world's conflicts and how radical Islam, the dominant world desease we now suffer, is at the heart of three quarters of them. They can't get along with their neighbors. They can't play well with others. Islam, were it not for the west, would just waltz right into Switzerland and destroy her, like she's trying to do in other parts of europe right now. I have no disillusion of the cancer that radical islam is, and until good muslims around the world stand up and tell them to SHUT THEIR MOUTHS and STOP KILLING and STOP TRYING TO IMPOSE SHARIA across their lands and the lands of others, even moderate muslims will have a hard time finding anyone taking them for real. Or trusting them completely. Moderate Islam is at greater risk than we are... and they are afraid for their lives. So they remain for the most part grotesquely silent in the face of this obvious evil. And when they open their mouths the radicals silence them, or try to, by issuing fatma's against them, the all too few muslims brave enough to stand up to them. The rest cower. Incidentally, for me it's not about leaving Iraq is not enough, but rather SOON enough. Don't mistake this for fear, I never would have invaded Iraq in the first place. By the time I got done with it, there would have been no Iraq, Iran or Syria left to invade.
I did not disappear, I took time to watch football. Is this OK with you? Are you stating that as a fact? It is a fact neutral countries have far less attacks than aggressive ones or are you just assuming. I am assuming the above fact will make us safer. How do you propose ending the endless War on Terror?
Gtech, were there any suicide bombings when saddam was in power. Our war there has actually increased terrorism, not stop it. these extremists can create more babies than our weapons can kill . This doesnt take into effect our soldiers and the innocent iraqi civilians that are being killed each day. Whether uadmit it or not saddam was the perfect buffer against terrorism, and he was weakened enough to the point where he wasnt much of a threat anymore, but we both know this wasnt our only objective longterm in iraq was it? Gemini ok , i give. Now tell me how this Ron Paul is gonna change things. What power does he have to effect this change and how will he impliment it. If you can persuade me on this then maybe i will do something i never did in my life. i will actually VOTE!!!!!!!!!! Because i know for a fact my vote doesnt count at all,when every politician that ever crossed our way made so many promises and most of these promises were never fulfilled to us, the american power. It is our tax dollars that feed the big power interests in this country and our great politicians (lol), if only we all came together and started thinking about whats best for teh american people, we can do so much.
Thanks for asking As president he will be in a very powerful position to make many changes Obviously he will need to gain the support of other leaders Here is why you should consider actually voting for Ron Paul Remember, in some states you need to be registered as a Republican (((20 years in congress))) Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record: He has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. He has never voted to raise congressional pay. He has never taken a government-paid junket. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against regulating the Internet. He voted against the Iraq war. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year. Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress. http://www.ronpaul2008.com Congressman Ron Paul: Archives (Dr. Ron Paul in his own words and brilliant writings)
Ok gemini, very good stats i must say, but like i said before the only president that actually went against the elite was JFK. Whatever happened to him. Ok on a lower level maybe he can do this, but once he gets to the big stage where he is in a position to interfere with the foreign policy plans of the elite(of which both democrats and republicans are a part of) do u think they will just walk over and let him actually serve the will of the american people? Does he have the clout or power change foreign policy and if he does do u actually believe the elite will actually let him win the presidency? On a side note Ron Paul was the only candidate that had the guts to admit that we did interfere in iran in the 1950's by taking out teh peaceful leader back then(mossadegh). To me that demonstrates honesty and the guts to admit our wrong doings even in the face of massive political pressure not to mention these things at center stage in front of the american people. I just might vote
So when you really get down to the bottom of the cesspit, nobody nor any country is immune from muslim extremeists/terrorist, yes or no? So getting attacked less whilst doing nothing, is better than getting attacked more for fighting back?