I still think we really need to let other countries take center-stage for a while as we step back, slow down, and re-evaluate our direction. We can't totally withdraw from the world scene but at this point we're only picking up speed and making bad choices because we won't take the time to think.

Minase for President 2012
(running mate: Jesus)

I'd sure like it if the US did that.

I would also like to see an end to American adventurism, but I didn't want it to happen out of humiliating necessity. For this, Bush deserves no thanks.

Ah, the Bush years. I'll go out on a limb here and state that this whole mess is not completely his fault. It's our fault. Since WWII this country has been the proverbial bull in the china shop. We need to stop throwing our weight around militarily and assuming that other nations are just going to nod and grin. Did we learn nothing from the collapse of former rival Soviet Union? It could happen to us as well.

I sincerely hope the next president will lay the heck off the trigger finger. Focus on salvaging our economy and foreign policy. As for Islamofacism, we need top notch intelligence and political allies to combat terrorism, not armies. In addition, getting us off the oil addiction would basically reduce the Middle East into nothing but a sand box. That region is the richest source but not the only one. Remove their monopoly on oil and what would there be left to fight over?

Agreed. I'm not advocating complete pacifism. I am suggesting that we walk softly while carrying a big stick.

I'm sorry but that doesn't work anymore.

I'd like to see the prosecution of everyone from the past eight years involved in anything illegal.

Clearly the old saying has no root in actual truth. Comparison withdrawn. Insert "drunk soccer hooligans."

Shiho, what point are you making? Care to make a claim?

Not quite true. The EU is gathering what are called "Battlegroups" to act as fast deploying forces to deal with regional and international peace-keeping efforts when needed. It is only at a very embryonic stage right now due to the many different legal requirement for nations to deploy troops internationally but the EU is certainly keen to improve it military clout. As we speak, a EU force is heading to Chad to station themselves along the border with Darfur to try and stave off a potential flash point. They cannot enter into Darfur as they legally won't be allowed without U.N. approval.

While the EU certainly won't become a major military power anytime soon (nor does it wish to be) but it does want to stave off future humanitarian disasters like the former Yugosalvia and in Africa. Equipment such as the Airbus A400M is evidence of this intent.

With respect, what's absurd about them? Yeah, the mouth-breathing hyperbole was not needed, but there's several things here - what is Islamofascism (especially in the context of 9/11)? Is terrorism a greater threat than a hostile national power? What's the relative danger of terrorism within the US?

There's a lot here on both sides. For example, we lose over 40,000 a year to car accidents and just wave it away, yet we fear terrorists showing up in Peoria with AKs to shoot down kids at the elementary school. At the same time, we can't *ignore* it. But it's entirely possible that the damage we have done to ourselves with the war has outweighed anything a terrorist can do. (And consider that even a dirty bomb probably won't kill 40,000 - we have our risk priorities messed up, and it's hard to think it's not politically motivated.)

We lived through a decade or more of terror in the 70's and early 80's. This is not really very different, except that we are far more scared of a remote, unlikely threat than we were then. After 6 years of getting the covert war mostly right, we need to rethink the idea that we should cower helplessly whenever Our Leader changes the threat color (usually before some embarrassing revelation, or a close political race.) To me, Bush and Cheney have told us that Americans should rightfully live in fear, and I for one am bothered by that - and embarrassed by my own initial reactions to 9/11, which were right in line with the hyperbole of terror.

Relatively tiny formations without the logistical muscle to back them up over the long term. A bunch of European nations have been dickering around for years deciding whether to buy even a few C-17s collectively to support operations abroad. That tells me they aren't very serious about overseas missions. Even Great Britain, the most militaristic of the European states, can't get government support to buy all the helicopters it needs to support operations abroad. A lack of funding is a constant issue for European militaries. You see some contributions in Afghanistan, but without U.S. involvement it wouldn't be happening.

So we'll see little missions here and there, provided they don't require much of a commitment of resources. But nothing major. The will is not there. The spending is not there.

I agree that "mouth-breathing classes" was unnecessary, but denial? Are people in denial if they aren't continually, deathly afraid of terrorism, even though they are statistically more likely to be killed by lightning strike?

Well you're less likely to be killed by an Islamofascist than just any terrorist. Because, y'know, I've heard rumors that even non-Muslims can be terrorists.