Bush ready to send troops to Liberia

We may be directly affected by foreign circumstances, that is true. But when we take ""the initiative"" and go forth on our own without the world''s backing that just further induces the evil people around the world to hate us even more. 9/11 would not have even happened had we not co-habitated within Saudi Arabia and pissed off Bin laden in the first place. And that was brought upon us when we first fought Iraq back, and decided we were going to keep our base there. If you want to correllate 9/11 with foreign circumstances, then you can directly point towards our sticking our nose in the Middle East in that instance. Hence, with our occupation continuing in Saudi Arabia, comes Bin Laden''s words stating that he would stop if we were to leave Saudi Arabia. At this point, I don''t suppose that would be an option, as that would be ""appeasement"" to the terrorists. Draw a line in the sand, I suppose we shouldn''t back down.

I believe most of the hatred against America is not of the pragmatical nature you seem to hold it for but is housed much deeper in a subconscious inferiority complex (it''s still up for sociological and antropological debate though). The proud Arab world, inventors of modern mathematics, the first in history to write, look where they are today. If it weren''t for their oil they wouldn''t be better off than say, Sierra Leone.

Unfortunately, world peace is not possible so there will always be conflicts, fighting, and other nastiness in some place at any time. Does this mean that we should have expanded our military to the point it is now, or expand it more, so that we can send troops to every country? At what point does this stop? When I mentioned our problems at home, I''m talking about the regular person, not the person who makes 6 figures and has the suburban house with the picket fence and a pension. I''m talking about the people that are hurting due to the cuts and deficits. Sure, I''m glad South Africa is getting 10 billion dollars from us in aid, but wouldn''t that 10 billion be better spent at home?

Those 10 billion $$ aren''t for South Africa alone, they are for the whole of Africa in a just fight against AIDS. If you want the mandate to intervene in Iraq you better be there for other countries when they need help. And I have to give it to the current administration that they are doing quite fine on a practical level.

North Korea has the largest standing army in the world. We may have better technology, but we had better technology 20 years ago and we still licked our wounds. Might does not necessarily translate into right. All it would take is a couple of nuclear missiles headed our way and we''re all screwed.

Wrong, China has the largest standing army in the world and I would count on India and possibly Pakistan to have sizeable forces too (although I''m not very well-informed on that subject). North Korea is actually a horribly overestimated force, I would reckon only WMD''s coult negate their apparant lack of conventional fighting power. Don''t forget that the million troops at the DMZ will face over 700.000 allied soldiers who are substantially better equipped and trained and command massive firepower. The real danger lies in a campaign of death against Seoul (2000 artillery tubes are ready to lay the city to ashes) or with the use of nuclear weapons. Would we all be screwed as you assume? No, but indeed the price would be too high to pay.

I still believe we should focus more on the problems at home than getting into everything overseas.

I think it''s too late for that, the situation has moved beyond the point of no return.

One last thing-- Lawyeron, you do make some good points, but you also show the ''American arrogance"" I mentioned in my first post in your last 2 paragraphs. It''s that exact mentality that makes terrorists want to target us, that makes people who ARENT Americans dislike us, and that sickens me when I see all the pseudo-commercial patriotism I see when people are jumping on the bandwagon. There is something to be said for a nation that may be the ''only superpower'' flaunting it like a bully. People know our strength, there is really no need to constantly push it. You get more respect when you are a humble giant.

Yeah but the big difference is how you handle your powers and the responsibilities that come with them. So far the Bush administration has done little wrong with their powers (none of the absurd speculations on a possibly Iraqi ''genocide'' has proven to be true), it''s the motive that still frightens me though. Even as I might agree with you on rampant pseudo-patriotism, false justifications of the Iraqi war and the madness of some parts of policy, most of your arguments are flawed.

"Koesj" wrote:

If it weren''t for their oil they wouldn''t be better off than say, Sierra Leone.

Err, Sierra Leone has diamonds. Sure, they''re embargoed, but I''m willing to bet their still getting out. And you never know, some unscrupulous type could be repackaging blood diamonds as diamonds from other places say...Iceland.

True, true, I was referring to the utterly f*cked up situation in Africa and in my enthousiasm I forgot the facts.

And you never know, some unscrupulous type could be repackaging blood diamonds as diamonds from other places say...Iceland.

What a bleh movie.

They may have grossly overplayed the ""evilness"" of North Korea and completely BSed the DNA-replacement nonsense, but they did at least get the ""conflict diamonds"" and their smuggling right.

I would agree with you or at least I definitely respect your views on several of your counterpoints to my point of view, Koesj, and I''m not so arrogant as to not be willing to change my own mind. While I don''t think my points are necessarily flawed, I think we just look at it slightly differently (which is good that we can do that, if we were in China one of us might get hauled away and beat). I did some research on both armies.. ok, I went to Google and did 2 searches. North Korea appears to be about 100,000 ground troops behind China, and has several million of reserve forces. Granted, some of these are peasants. Anyway, if you were interested at all, here''s a link to North Korea, and one to China:


I won''t refute your statements because I think you make a valid argument. That, and I''m really hungry, and I hear a hamburger calling me.


Although we are going a bit off-topic here it might provide for an interesting discussion...

I''m really not willing to start an argument on penile envy over who has the largest army here I do want you to take in account that the fact that the DPRK has x million bazillion troops here doesn''t mean jack squat when they first have to move through miles of minefields while under intense (unprecedented actually) fire from two of the most high-tech armies and up to a million (taking rapidly deployed US/International forces in account) of the best trained and equipped soldiers in the world. Conventional warfare is and will be not an option for the DPRK, certainly not in this era of force multipliers, networked forces and pin-point accuracy. What I would like to establish is that the only _real_ option for the likes of Kim Yong Il is acquiring nukes, you can leave their million march out of the equation.

Hey didn''t you watch die another day? The North Koreans used a satellite laser to cut through all those mine fields.

About the only way that the DPRK could realistically bypass the minefields is to nuke them and wait for the fallout to go away. Of course by then, Pyongyang would be vaporized by a US counterstrike.

Exactly, they really have no option (even WITH nukes) but at least the big bombs make better deals possible.