The stomach to do something about it was not as universal, but France is never really up to that task. The only difference with Bush is that he was willing to do something about it, and many in the rest of the world fear that willingness should their friends want to pursue a similar path. They view the past and its lessons differently.
First, I do not care what France does or does not as it has been proven beyond doubt that they are irrelevant so, for now let's just leave them out.
Your comment above tells me that "doing something about it" then would lead us all to believe that the US President will finally resolve the problem of Saddam. (as it has) This, assuming there are no other motives, would resolve the short term problem. That is what the above tells me. (which then leaves me wondering.... what are US troops doing over there ... still]
I ask... how does the US "stomach" being part of the problems in the first place... again, by supporting these dogs in the first place ?
Where is the "remorse and stomach" that "forced" this President to act and invade now, back then ?
My question is specific. How does the public feel about these rogue policies that the US --at free will-- can support whatever gorilla happens to be convenient, at the time, place them in power, and then leave them to their own free will to perpetrate whatever the hell atrocities they dream up upon their people...?
What system of checks and balances would be reasonable to impose on these "leaders" so if they misbehave, they are removed from power before The US is forced to utilize American lives as if they were a mere "commodity", in order to then invade and remove "our" bad guy?
Or worse... that these assassins will NOT aim their guns and imagination.... UPON THE US (such as Bin Ladden did)
Does that not sound like hypocrisy ? or stupidity ?
I am interested knowing how does the people feel about that. "That" assumes the public would be informed about these "moves" of support for certain leader(s)... I mean Democracy is supposed to be where the people have a say in these matters... Right?
Because if you have the "stomach" to resolve the problem such as it is now... I am more interested in a far more intelligent solution and one that it will resolve the problem once and for all and is NOT repeated over, and over, and over again...
At the very least, a solution where the US does NOT become part of the problem in the first place. A solution that will stop a behavior that seems to be geared at self destruction since it flat out ignores what the rest of the world seems to think about our actions.
Is it safe to continue thinking the US is meant to be the policeman of the world and whoever does not 'line up' to or ways, they will pay for their indiscretion?
Does that make sense? Being the policeman of the world implies a lot more than just have an army with sophisticated weaponry to bomb the living shit of anything that moves.
Ah an infrastructure... Hmm I thought the UN provided that... oh well, they are irrelevant are they not ?
While the infrastructure here at home goes to hell... Would we be better off spending the billions spent in war toys, in stead of say... in R&D for alternative fuels, so the damned Middle East ceases to be within "our realm of global interest" ? as an example. oh but wait... the military provides jobs... at what [other] expense, I wonder?
I am interested in finding out what do people think about that. Again I will post this link that might better explain the questions I am asking:
perseusbooksgroup.com |
