Target,AMERICA

[Bill Peckham]

(the) liberation and overhaul and security in present day Iraq and bringing it into the 21st century.

Really? Creating a Shiite theocracy , a Kurdish homeland and Sunni tribal area out of the once secular, yet despotically ruled state is bringing Iraq into the 21st century? Was that a typo? Because if you had wrote 11th century I might think you knew what you were talking about.

[BigSky]

The initial statements of support were a credit to America's long history of international leadership - countries were willing to take an American president's word. Since those heady days in the summer of 2003 what's happed?The world came when we asked and they now straggle off scratching their heads mumbling wtf? The true price of this misguided detour will not ever be fully reckoned. What price should we put on this countries diminished stature? What country is ever going to be able to come to side on the word of our president? Every President has had the ability to put the reputation of the United States on the line and since WWII that has been enough for our friends and allies. Now? Does Bush have that ability now? Will the next president enter office with that power?

Actually it was far more than his word. 

They thought something needed done.  You forget that during the first Gulf War many countries had troops there but they didn't actually do a whole lot of combat.  This time around troops were on the ground trying to help rebuild Iraq.

We do what is right, not because what someone may think of us.  If we did stuff because we were worried what others might well think of us we would not have fought the Revolutionary War.   For pity us the upstart rebellious people that thought we should have a FREE country.

Doing the right thing is never popular. 

Our reputation?  I am not worried.

Saddam was the one who violated 12+ years and 16+ resolutions from the UN.  Saddam was the one who funded and had terrorist acts committed and was linked to terrorist groups.  Saddam was the one who continued on with banned programs, Saddam was the one who made threats to the US and committed acts of terror against the US.

That hardly makes us the bad guy.

You jab a stick in a sleeping bears a** long enough he will wake up.  We woke up and we bit back.

Hey after all we could have dropped all resolutions against Iraq like France wanted us to do.  Or we could have undercut UN resolutions like France, Russia, China and Germany did in order to make a buck off Iraq.

[BigSky]

(the) liberation and overhaul and security in present day Iraq and bringing it into the 21st century.

Really? Creating a Shiite theocracy , a Kurdish homeland and Sunni tribal area out of the once secular, yet despotically ruled state is bringing Iraq into the 21st century? Was that a typo? Because if you had wrote 11th century I might think you knew what you were talking about.

Secular? 

You must be trying to avoid that Saddam was a ruthless dictator that was responsible for the murder of millions of innocent men, women and children.

We are making it so people do not have to worry about the government dragging them or their family off and killing them, nor do they have to worry about their children being taken and raped or husbands seeing their wife raped or beaten in front of them by a government officials.

We have eliminated a threat in Saddam.

As such is it too much to ask that since this threat is removed that we do not allow the country to fall to terrorists and resort to its former self or that like the Taliban?

[angela515]

 

[Bill Peckham]

(the) liberation and overhaul and security in present day Iraq and bringing it into the 21st century.

Really? Creating a Shiite theocracy , a Kurdish homeland and Sunni tribal area out of the once secular, yet despotically ruled state is bringing Iraq into the 21st century? Was that a typo? Because if you had wrote 11th century I might think you knew what you were talking about.

Secular? 

You must be trying to avoid that Saddam was a ruthless dictator that was responsible for the murder of millions of innocent men, women and children.

I think despotically ruled covers it.

We are making it so people do not have to worry about the government dragging them or their family off and killing them, nor do they have to worry about their children being taken and raped or husbands seeing their wife raped or beaten in front of them by a government officials.

Why was that the problem of the US military? There are many other humanitarian causes that we can't address because Iraq has consumed our resources. If we had allowed Iraq to muddle along how many people could we have kept alive in Darfor? How many more would be alive in Afgahnistan. The opportunity costs of the Iraq war will never be known but clearly they are considerable.

We have eliminated a threat in Saddam.

And replaced that penny antie dictator with a civil war, and an emboldened Iran facing an exhausted US military.

As such is it too much to ask that since this threat is removed that we do not allow the country to fall to terrorists and resort to its former self or that like the Taliban?

The threat has been multiplied while we've alienated our historic allies. What, I ask you, is our current objective? Do you consider a Shiite theocracy , a Kurdish homeland and Sunni tribal area a success?

[BigSky]

I think despotically ruled covers it.

That barely touches it. 

Why was that the problem of the US military? There are many other humanitarian causes that we can't address because Iraq has consumed our resources. If we had allowed Iraq to muddle along how many people could we have kept alive in Darfor? How many more would be alive in Afgahnistan. The opportunity costs of the Iraq war will never be known but clearly they are considerable.

Because we do the right thing.  Saddam was a threat to us and the world.  We eliminated that threat.  Is it really too much to ask that we do not let it revert to what it was?

Darfor?  None.  Its pretty clear where the dems would stand against the US doing anything.  Can we say Somalia?

And replaced that penny antie dictator with a civil war, and an emboldened Iran facing an exhausted US military.

Penny ante?  Hmm a man responsible for the murder of over a million people is penny ante? A man who was a  major funder of terrorism is penny ante?  A man who tried to commit and committed attacks on the US is penny ante?  Good grief talk about downplaying what the man did   Just what did the man need to do to be a "major" player?  Kill a billion people?  What arbitrary number are you going to set for this for him to be more than "penny ante"?

Iran was already emboldened.  Kohbar Towers ring a bell?

The threat has been multiplied while we've alienated our historic allies. What, I ask you, is our current objective? Do you consider a Shiite theocracy , a Kurdish homeland and Sunni tribal area a success?

We never alienated our allies.  They alienated us by subverting UN resolutions designed to take care of Saddam.

Our objective was to eliminate the threat being Saddam.  We have done that.  Just because we eliminated Saddam, in good faith we cannot just let the rest of Iraq fall to the wolves, we owe humanity more than that.

We brought democracy to Iraq and must insure that it blooms.

Democracy comes in many forms and it does not certainly mean that Iraq will be identical to that of the US in how it follows democracy.

[Bill Peckham]

Wisdom is limited and hope blinds, it's time to see Iraq for what it is and not as what we wish we had wrought.

The strategy for concluding a civil war into some kind of Shiite theocracy , a Kurdish homeland and Sunni tribal area is plausible - the Biden soft partition.  Who's going to tell the President?

[George Jung]

BigSky - What I said was..."and we are not present with military involvement in their countries." 

Well, I suppose I am not quite as articulate as you are but it was a statement to be taken in context.  Meaning, we are talking about a ongoing war in Iraq and nowhere else in the world do we have the number of troops as we do there , nor are they acting as they are in Iraq.

I should have been more clear with my statement but if you have a problem with that we can do something about it.

Attack you? LOL What a joke. This is gonna burst your bubble but using YOUR OWN WORDS against you is not attacking you.
You made the false statement, not me. You want to blame someone for "discrediting" you, you best look in the mirror and blame that individual for making the statement in the first place.

Yes. Those were my words.  Just because I wasn't as clear as I could have been (really thought it would be understood since we are talking about a p*cking war.) doesn't make it false.  Thats my poor cummincation and you using it to your advantage.  Weak punch. 
By the way, the next time I look in the mirror and admire what a fine young man I am I will stand there for an extra minute and admire some more.  I am so glad more and more Americans seeing things in a new light and less and less look at the situation as you do.

Well I wouldn't expect everyone to fight terrorism in the same manner as us. Countries fight to what they think needs done.

As to Iraq more countries signed up for this action than signed up for the first Gulf War.

Who else you say??

How about those in Iraq.

South Korea, Slovenia, Australia, Georgia, Republic of Macedonia, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Latvia, Mongolia, Albania, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan,Estonia, Romania, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Netherlands, Slovakia, Poland

You wouldn't expect everyone to fight terrorism as we are?  You got to be joking!    NOBODY who is anybody is fighting this as we are.  This is who you are talking about?  -  South Korea, Slovenia, Australia, Georgia, Republic of Macedonia, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Latvia, Mongolia, Albania, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan,Estonia, Romania, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Netherlands, Slovakia, Poland

lol   oh man....I don't know what else to say right now.....

[bigshot99]

I would also enjoy to hear you fathers stories about his experience in WWII.  I find it very interesting to learn about history from someone who lived it.  You are fortunate to have a brave man as your dad.  He sounds like a good man.

I was just talking with my dad about this war and that there is an out cry about 3000 k.i.a. in the past 4 years of this war. Now with all due respect, and i know you say that you can not compare WWII,,, to this war,But the FACT remains that we lost a hell of a lot more men in WWII, than this war .Now theres not many men from WWII left around to tell there story of that war,And my dad is,and he is a hell of a dad ,and husband, and men , so i would much rather hear his storys than play a game and guess how many men were lost......

With each war that passes there are less and less lives lost due to technological advances.  Better weapons, more accurate tracking systems and such.  So it comes as no suprise that less lives are lost.  The style of combat is different.  I think people are upset because we can't see progress that measures up to the cost, financially and loss of life.  There is a better way.  WWII was just that, a world war, and while our cause is also of a worldly concern the world does not support our tactics.  Americans have a not so nice of a reputation right now outside of the U.S.

Anyways, all I wanted to do was to point out that the great loss of life from WWII is widely exposed, so much so that there are games about it.  I do receive my information from much more reliable sources.  It's kinda funny to me.....in high school I hated history....now I find it most interesting.  Maybe you could start some sort of thread about your dad's stories as you learn about them.  I know you said he doesn't like to talk much about it but I personally would love to hear more.

George  may i say , my friend, unfortunately,,this verry well could be the early stage of WWIII,, remember Germany nazism ,the people in iraq dont push back against the extremist,because there will be a high price for them to pay,,like there families.  this will, i believe continue to come our way, sooner or later,,, just like 9/11...did  ?

[BigSky]

BigSky - What I said was..."and we are not present with military involvement in their countries." 

Well, I suppose I am not quite as articulate as you are but it was a statement to be taken in context.  Meaning, we are talking about a ongoing war in Iraq and nowhere else in the world do we have the number of troops as we do there , nor are they acting as they are in Iraq.

I should have been more clear with my statement but if you have a problem with that we can do something about it.

Ohh I know what you said, I quoted you on it...remember?  I really do not think one can be more specific than actually quoting.

You can try to change what you meant all you want but it doesn't float.  It was quite clear what you said and there was no other context.  Funny how when confronted, time and time again you claim after the fact you actually meant something else and not what you said.

Yes. Those were my words.  Just because I wasn't as clear as I could have been (really thought it would be understood since we are talking about a f****** war.) doesn't make it false.  Thats my poor cummincation and you using it to your advantage.  Weak punch. 
By the way, the next time I look in the mirror and admire what a fine young man I am I will stand there for an extra minute and admire some more.  I am so glad more and more Americans seeing things in a new light and less and less look at the situation as you do.

Your statement was indeed false and I am not buying your excuse as to poor communication as it was far past that point of mere poor communication.  You have made several statements that show a clear pattern of more than poor communication, they are that of which are deliberate in nature.  However the misspelling of the word "communication" was a nice touch.  

While Epoman allowed some language, I think using the f word outright is a bit over the top considering younger people also have access to this board. 

Do not be getting prissy with me for calling you out on false statements you make.

NOBODY who is anybody is fighting this as we are.  This is who you are talking about?  -  South Korea, Slovenia, Australia, Georgia, Republic of Macedonia, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Latvia, Mongolia, Albania, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan,Estonia, Romania, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Netherlands, Slovakia, Poland

lol   oh man....I don't know what else to say right now.....

Discounting those other countries in Iraq now are you?

[Hawkeye]

this very well could be the early stage of WWIII,, remember Germany Nazism ,the people in Iraq don't push back against the extremist,because there will be a high price for them to pay,,like there families.  this will, i believe continue to come our way, sooner or later,,, just like 9/11...did  ?

DING, DING, DING  this is right on the money.  We have bent all the rules and probably broken a few along the way leading us to ultimate disaster.  It won't be long if we continue to follow the path Bush has set for us that WWIII will begin and we will be the bad guys with the world against us.  If we keep policing the world and doing what we want regardless of what the UN or our own people say will be outcast and attacked.  9/11 sympathy can only take us so far before the nations of the world finally say "ok this has gone far enough".

[George Jung]

BigSky - think what you like.  False statements time and time again?  When I said military involvement is was intended to mean an involvement such as in Iraq (since that is what we were talking about.  Sorry that  is beyond your comprehension.  Sometimes what one means is not always expressed properly and can also be misleading in its form.  I want to thank you.  I am always trying to learn more and improve myself in any way possible and you challenging me is a good way to exercise my communication abilities, I will try to do better.  However, I stand firm on everything I believe wheather I said exactly what I meant or not.

You know what is "funny" to me?  It's how your post are more and more about personal attacks rather than about the subject.  I agree though, it is easier to find fault in me as opposed to how I view the circumstances of  U.S. involvement in THE WAR on terrorism.

Yes.  I will discuss "those" countries now.  I was unaware of the extent of some of their involvement.  Maybe because it is so minimal they are not talked about often.  Sorry to leave the little guys out but where are the major powers of the world?  Are they in that list, I didn't see them?

Hey, If you still have a problem ...like I said ...We can get togeather and work it out (if you know what I mean).

Well to get back on subject, what were you saying about those power house countries?

[BigSky]

BigSky - think what you like.  False statements time and time again?  When I said military involvement is was intended to mean an involvement such as in Iraq (since that is what we were talking about.  Sorry that  is beyond your comprehension.  Sometimes what one means is not always expressed properly and can also be misleading in its form.  I want to thank you.  I am always trying to learn more and improve myself in any way possible and you challenging me is a good way to exercise my communication abilities, I will try to do better.  However, I stand firm on everything I believe wheather I said exactly what I meant or not.

Ya right   Funny how of all the threads of yours I have seen you only mysteriously have that problem in the political threads.  Hmm why is that?

You know what is "funny" to me?  It's how your post are more and more about personal attacks rather than about the subject.  I agree though, it is easier to find fault in me as opposed to how I view the circumstances of  U.S. involvement in THE WAR on terrorism.

I have yet to personally attack you.  I clearly point out your false statements.  If you don't like that, then don't make em in the first place.  If you really think I am suppose to sit back and roll over and let you post em you are sadly mistaken.

Yes.  I will discuss "those" countries now.  I was unaware of the extent of some of their involvement.  Maybe because it is so minimal they are not talked about often.  Sorry to leave the little guys out but where are the major powers of the world?  Are they in that list, I didn't see them?

Hmm first you claim I attack you because I confront your obvious  false statements and then you admit you didn't even know.  So that begs the question, why did you make such claims in the first place without doing research?

Hey, If you still have a problem ...like I said ...We can get togeather and work it out (if you know what I mean).

So is that a threat?

[bigshot99]

this very well could be the early stage of WWIII,, remember Germany Nazism ,the people in Iraq don't push back against the extremist,because there will be a high price for them to pay,,like there families.  this will, i believe continue to come our way, sooner or later,,, just like 9/11...did  ?

DING, DING, DING  this is right on the money.  We have bent all the rules and probably broken a few along the way leading us to ultimate disaster.  It won't be long if we continue to follow the path Bush has set for us that WWIII will begin and we will be the bad guys with the world against us.  If we keep policing the world and doing what we want regardless of what the UN or our own people say will be outcast and attacked.  9/11 sympathy can only take us so far before the nations of the world finally say "ok this has gone far enough".

  What about Iran,Are they in the right ,What in the devil are they doing now, Iran is way past Breaking rules.Iraq ,,same thing. America is not the bad guy .   
           AMERICA IS THE TARGET..........

[George Jung]

BigSky - think what you like. False statements time and time again? When I said military involvement is was intended to mean an involvement such as in Iraq (since that is what we were talking about. Sorry that is beyond your comprehension. Sometimes what one means is not always expressed properly and can also be misleading in its form. I want to thank you. I am always trying to learn more and improve myself in any way possible and you challenging me is a good way to exercise my communication abilities, I will try to do better. However, I stand firm on everything I believe wheather I said exactly what I meant or not.

Ya right Funny how of all the threads of yours I have seen you only mysteriously have that problem in the political threads. Hmm why is that?

I don't think that is so.  The majority of my posts in other threads are highly opinionated with different values than that of a POLITICAL thread such as this.  Maybe it could also be in part that you don't necessarily want to disagree with them.  And by the way, I have made communication errors in those post you talk about but because I use the personal message feature to clarify some of them you wouldn't have any idea.  Nice assumption though and I appreciate your vote of confidence.

I have yet to personally attack you. I clearly point out your false statements. If you don't like that, then don't make em in the first place. If you really think I am suppose to sit back and roll over and let you post em you are sadly mistaken.

Okay.  Looking back on it you're right.  I will improve on my statements, I am not above that, in fact I already thanked you.  Can we move on?

 

Yes. I will discuss "those" countries now. I was unaware of the extent of some of their involvement. Maybe because it is so minimal they are not talked about often. Sorry to leave the little guys out but where are the major powers of the world? Are they in that list, I didn't see them?

Hmm first you claim I attack you because I confront your obvious false statements and then you admit you didn't even know. So that begs the question, why did you make such claims in the first place without doing research?

I made the claim in reference to what I consider to be real political superpowers, not some piss ant that really has a very small effect on the outcome of the situation.  Anybody of considerable major importance in that list?  Any support there that might influence someone "bigtime" that what is going on should be supported world wide?  Damn man, we are struggling to get half of America to support what is happening and you suggest that the world is behind us?

Hey, If you still have a problem ...like I said ...We can get togeather and work it out (if you know what I mean).

So is that a threat?

Hmmmmm?  How about we get back to the subject.  I said I stand corrected for the poorly stated thought so can we move on?  We were talking about major world support I think.

What about Iran,Are they in the right ,What in the devil are they doing now, Iran is way past Breaking rules.Iraq ,,same thing. America is not the bad guy .
 AMERICA IS THE TARGET..........

If Iran and Iraq are breaking rules that means we can do it to?  America is a target, because we stand for something that somehow poses a threat to groups of people in some of these countries.  We need to be setting an example, not follow down a path of ignorance and wrong doing.  How do you think we will be perceived by the rest of the world community if we lower ourselves and our standards, no matter who the enemy is or what they do.

[Hawkeye]

What about Iran,Are they in the right ,What in the devil are they doing now, Iran is way past Breaking rules.Iraq ,,same thing. America is not the bad guy .   
           AMERICA IS THE TARGET..........

I never said that any what any other country is doing is good.  There are certain rules by which we as a nation are supposed to uphold when we joined the UN.  There are plenty of countries out there that did not join or that have broken those rules.  Either way it's not our specific duty to hunt those nations down breaking those very same rules.  Because we have been doing this the popularity of the US in other countries is failing fast and we are being seen as the aggressor not the defender.  That's all I'm saying.

[BigSky]

I don't think that is so.  The majority of my posts in other threads are highly opinionated with different values than that of a POLITICAL thread such as this.  Maybe it could also be in part that you don't necessarily want to disagree with them.  And by the way, I have made communication errors in those post you talk about but because I use the personal message feature to clarify some of them you wouldn't have any idea.  Nice assumption though and I appreciate your vote of confidence.

Opinionated or not, a untrue statement is still a falsehood.

I made the claim in reference to what I consider to be real political superpowers, not some piss ant that really has a very small effect on the outcome of the situation.  Anybody of considerable major importance in that list?  Any support there that might influence someone "bigtime" that what is going on should be supported world wide?  Damn man, we are struggling to get half of America to support what is happening and you suggest that the world is behind us?

First of all the term superpower is a worthless term and the methods used to determine what a superpower is, are worthless and mean absolutely nothing IMO.

To get right down to it in technical terms the US is the only superpower, even called the hyperpower after the collaspe of the Soviet Union.  So to other superpowers being involved it matters not because there are no others by definition of a superpower.

Some countries are well known more than others, Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark etc. etc.   Just because these other countries may not be well known to you, hardly lets them be marginalized in what they are doing or the commitment they have made to fight terrorism, take down Saddam and help rebuild Iraq.

What about Iran,Are they in the right ,What in the devil are they doing now, Iran is way past Breaking rules.Iraq ,,same thing. America is not the bad guy .
 AMERICA IS THE TARGET..........

If Iran and Iraq are breaking rules that means we can do it to?  America is a target, because we stand for something that somehow poses a threat to groups of people in some of these countries.  We need to be setting an example, not follow down a path of ignorance and wrong doing.  How do you think we will be perceived by the rest of the world community if we lower ourselves and our standards, no matter who the enemy is or what they do.

Only problem is examples have been set and Iran refuses to follow that of others. 

Iran is a terrorist state plain and simple.

From kidnapping Americans and holding them hostage, to funding terrorism around the world to its most recent act of kidnapping and holding British troops hostage.

Time someone starts knocking off their leaders and religious clerics.

[George Jung]

I don't think that is so. The majority of my posts in other threads are highly opinionated with different values than that of a POLITICAL thread such as this. Maybe it could also be in part that you don't necessarily want to disagree with them. And by the way, I have made communication errors in those post you talk about but because I use the personal message feature to clarify some of them you wouldn't have any idea. Nice assumption though and I appreciate your vote of confidence.

Opinionated or not, a untrue statement is still a falsehood.

I STAND CORRECTED.  CAN WE MOVE ON NOW?  I PROMISE I WILL SAY WHAT I MEAN AND MEAN WHAT I SAY.

[George Jung]

I made the claim in reference to what I consider to be real political superpowers, not some piss ant that really has a very small effect on the outcome of the situation. Anybody of considerable major importance in that list? Any support there that might influence someone "bigtime" that what is going on should be supported world wide? Damn man, we are struggling to get half of America to support what is happening and you suggest that the world is behind us?

First of all the term superpower is a worthless term and the methods used to determine what a superpower is, are worthless and mean absolutely nothing IMO.

To get right down to it in technical terms the US is the only superpower, even called the hyperpower after the collaspe of the Soviet Union. So to other superpowers being involved it matters not because there are no others by definition of a superpower.

Some countries are well known more than others, Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark etc. etc. Just because these other countries may not be well known to you, hardly lets them be marginalized in what they are doing or the commitment they have made to fight terrorism, take down Saddam and help rebuild Iraq.

FIRST OF ALL, that's why I said what I consider to be......
That "To get right down to it" statement you made.....yea, you lost me on that one.  Are you feeling ok?

If Iran and Iraq are breaking rules that means we can do it to? America is a target, because we stand for something that somehow poses a threat to groups of people in some of these countries. We need to be setting an example, not follow down a path of ignorance and wrong doing. How do you think we will be perceived by the rest of the world community if we lower ourselves and our standards, no matter who the enemy is or what they do.

Only problem is examples have been set and Iran refuses to follow that of others.

Iran is a terrorist state plain and simple.

From kidnapping Americans and holding them hostage, to funding terrorism around the world to its most recent act of kidnapping and holding British troops hostage.

Time someone starts knocking off their leaders and religious clerics.

Regardless of what you think we can set an example, and we can start off by setting an example that mistakes can be made and corrected by a major country.

You say those soldiers were kidnapped?  Do you know for sure they were not in the wrong waters?

What exactly do you mean someone should knock off their leaders and religious clerics?  Are you implying that we need to overthrow these countries that we have differences with?

[BigSky]

FIRST OF ALL, that's why I said what I consider to be......
That "To get right down to it" statement you made.....yea, you lost me on that one.  Are you feeling ok?

You didn't quantify who you considered to be a superpower. 
Sorry but to "name" a superpower to meet your discretion is like trying to prove a negative.
We all know what a superpower happens to be and to meet your arbitrary view to what one is matters not because the world doesn't view who is and is not a superpower by your view or anyone elses, but by the classical definition and conditions that must be met to be a superpower.

You say those soldiers were kidnapped?  Do you know for sure they were not in the wrong waters?

What exactly do you mean someone should knock off their leaders and religious clerics?  Are you implying that we need to overthrow these countries that we have differences with?

It comes down to whom I believe.  Iran who sponsors and commits terrorism or Britain who does not.

As to your second question,

Only those that have committed terrorist acts against us, of which Iran has a long history of doing.

[George Jung]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower   -  Well there seems to be many OPINIONS on what constitutes "a superpower", so I thought I would make my statement less plyable and just name some of the world "leaders"  (as I am going to call them that, you can call them whatever you like).

I thought this was noteable:

Characteristics of a superpower
The criteria of a Superpower are not clearly defined, but most definitions rely on measurements of four types of influence:[14]

Economic Power Comparative GDP size? Role in world trade?
Military Power Force projection capability? Troop size? Naval size?
Political Power Influential foreign policy? UN leadership?
Cultural Power Role of history? Worldwide art, music, film?
 
The European Union as an entity encompasses 492 million people and produces annually 30% of the worlds nominal GDP.As a consequence of subjective measurements, the identity of Superpowers might be disputable, but a superpower should be a hegemony in most aspects of geopolitics. This means a superpower should be a hegemon in terms of both hard power and soft power. A superpower should have the ability to project power around the world. In the modern world, this requires not only a strong land army, but also the air and sealift capabilities to deploy and supply that military in furtherance of national interests, as well as public support for doing so. The military is generally backed by a strong economy, one that has the capability of controlling the global market. In recent times, indications of a strong economy has been shown through space research, a key part of competition between the two Cold War superpowers.

It is also considered necessary to be able to project soft power, or cultural influence, across numerous regions of the world. Cultural influence implies a developed philosophy and ideology. The Cold War superpowers showed this through their spread of Western culture as well as the differing ideologies of capitalism and communism. Each built their own cultural blocs via these differing ideologies.

My list of "bigtimers" - countries who I believe should look up to the U.S., countries that we should "pave the way for", and show examples of worldly conduct that they will look UP to.

China, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, USSR, United Kingdom, India, Austria/Hungry,and Canada. (in no particular order)  Of course the U.S. also.

You say those soldiers were kidnapped? Do you know for sure they were not in the wrong waters?

What exactly do you mean someone should knock off their leaders and religious clerics? Are you implying that we need to overthrow these countries that we have differences with?

It comes down to whom I believe. Iran who sponsors and commits terrorism or Britain who does not.

As to your second question,

Only those that have committed terrorist acts against us, of which Iran has a long history of doing.

Sounds like you're ready for an old fashion lichin'.   How admireable!!!

[George Jung]

Arriving in Lebanon, Ban Ki-moon says dialogue is key to national unity
 
Ban Ki-moon
29 March 2007 – Continuing a diplomatic tour of the Middle East, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon arrived in Beirut today, where he said dialogue and compromise are key to Lebanon’s national unity.

Mr. Ban, who has so far visited Iraq, Egypt, Palestine, Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, said the trip has been instructive. “I have listened attentively and I have learned a great deal about the region and the challenges it is facing. I realize these challenges are particularly serious in Lebanon, where I trust a return to dialogue and reconciliation will prevail,” he said.

“We have seen how easily political tensions can spill over into violence. All sides would lose from such an escalation. I believe that dialogue and compromise are the only ways to stability and national unity,”

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=22063&Cr=lebanon&Cr1=

[George Jung]

Interesting stats here.

www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0320/p01s01-ussc.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/17/iraq.protest.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

I found this one most interesting. 

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1

[BigSky]

As to your second question,

Only those that have committed terrorist acts against us, of which Iran has a long history of doing.

Sounds like you're ready for an old fashion lichin'.   How admireable!!!

To sane people its called eliminating a threat. 

When time and time one again commits threats and acts of violence against another the victim has the right to defend ones self and eliminate that threat from ever occurring again.

[George Jung]

So you are talking about genocide again? 

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 and came into effect in January 1951. It defines and outlaws genocide, as a result of campaigning by Raphael Lemkin who had coined the term some years earlier. All participating countries are required to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and peacetime.. The total number of states who have ratified the convention is currently 137.

The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as

“ ...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.  „
—Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_and_Punishment_of_the_Crime_of_Genocide


You were saying something about "SANE" people?