>Plus who else does the world turn to when there is real trouble? >Kevin T.
I agree completely, which is why our Pax Americana authority is valuable, PRECIOUS! Not to be squandered. When we use it right, our position rises and allies gain willingness to follow us. When we squander this authority, pushing allies around, browbeating them and ignoring their concerns, ignoring the fact that they are telling us we sound trigger happy and loopy, that is HARMFUL to America and harmful to our ability to lead. You cite Kosovo and the Balkans. A vastly harder problem than Afghanistan and Iraq combined, and far more important. Yet does anybody give Clinton credit for the long slow hard process of pushing pushing pushing the Europeans and slavs and albanians etc till they made peace? Our actions there were true leadership and the result is a Europe at peace for the 1st time since Neanderthals saw strange guys coming over the horizon with great big chins under their mouths. Dig it again, folks. The Brits have come aboard, but read their press. Even THEY don't want this dogwag spasm. And when the brits don't want a war, something is very very bad about the plan. Haha, haha that's funny. It only took Clinton seven years to act in Kosovo. The Dayton meetings did nothing, the ones in 1998 did nothing. He kept on warning warning warning while the people were dying dying dying. Heck next year let's give him the Nobel Peace Prize if we use the same standards that let Carter get it. I guess there weren't enough deaths in Iraq for Clinton to worry about that country. Let's have another 11 years of stern warnings while people die. The first tower bombings, the embassies, the Cole. Let's warn them some more, 'You do it again and we'll be really mad. Honest.' with stern looks and finger waving. I'm sorry for being flip about such a serious subject, it's what I do, how I respond to most situations. The press in Britain means nothing. Should we base our policy on The New York Times, which agrees with you, or The Washington Post who agree with President Bush on the issue of war? The whole start of this was your opinion that this is a wag the dog issue to distract the country from the economy (as if the dems screaming about it every chance they get isn't enough). But Bush has been talking about Iraq for more than a year now, it has been an issue for eleven years. The Democrats thought we should do more in Iraq a few years ago but now, gasp, the issue needs discussed. Compare to Libya: they have a madman in power but (boy this will sound bad) he understands his place in the world. He doesn't kill his own people or threaten and attack his neighbors. Is it so wrong to try and help a countries people from being terrorized by it's leaders? Why is stopping suffering in Europe a good thing but not in Iraq? The first purpose of this war is to reduce the threat to America and the whole world, but aren't the secondary reasons as important? To me they are more important. Kevin T. It's too late, to turn back now _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
