http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080311/lf_nm/iraq_war_dc


Americans, too.

We should have applied the Truman Doctrine, it is a be all to end all with our superpower stance in global affairs. No war, less economic involvement, and less resultant hatred to America.

__________________
"We've been blowin up, we're the issue, we're ammunition" Switchfoot

At the very least, if the administration felt so strongly that action was needed, we should have used the international body we founded to address exactly such situations.

To share the burden, to share the responsibility, to lend world-wide legitimacy, etc...

Meaning the UN?

__________________
"We've been blowin up, we're the issue, we're ammunition" Switchfoot

Yes.

Perhaps the process would have stopped us altogether.

But, now that we've gone and invaded outside of the UN, we bare all the costs, human and otherwise...

It would be wise to consult the UN on all world affairs. It would also appease those nations whose ideologies we so desperately try to contain within their borders - this should be America's concern.

There will be some or many who hate me for saying this, but I believe I must: The wars of America, against oppressors, against dictators, and against evil will create repercussions so strong no nation or cooperation of nations will save her from the sheer turmoil and distress she has caused the world. I don't blame anyone in America for this, I am an American, I also take responsibility for our actions. Granted we have brought peace, which is always our motive, but out of peace comes pacification. It is a known fact pacification is impossible based on the standard laws of entropy. We fight an indomitable war with a common enemy we will never see. That enemy never changes, it has always been, and always will be that which is antithesis to ourselves.

__________________
"We've been blowin up, we're the issue, we're ammunition" Switchfoot

Well Said.

I would add that the only way we could ever fail in the face of such an enemy is to abandon our systems for their's.

Although we could live in cooperation. I applaud you for your insight, it makes one think revolution, does it not? Perhaps a future leftist one?

__________________
"We've been blowin up, we're the issue, we're ammunition" Switchfoot

The greatest facet of our system is that it anoints nothing permanantly; it's always a revolution of sorts; within boundaries of the constitution.

Personally, I think a the result of a leftist revolution would be instability, uncertainty, and the potential for other, subsequent revolutions; we could end up with Napolean, so to speak.

The American citizenry gets a bad rap these days; we are nothing if not busy folks, and in that way, many have rather myopic views of their part in whatever we are collectively.

My sense, or perhaps my hope, is that the younger generations, with it's easy access to information, will be more aware and more vigilant about the proceedings of government, and the higher purposes of business, etc.

I hate to bring up Ron Paul, because that name is now stigmatized by the phenomenon that never materialized; but I have a strong feeling that he will be a Goldwater-esque figure that will be remembered, again by the younger generation.

Now, I fundamentally disagree with him on the role of government, and his interpretation of the constitution; but he has a philosophical framework that is sound, unlike much of the right these days.

I think that consistency moreso than the man's specific policy ideas, is why he hit the viral-node.

On the left, there are many inconsistencies; re: John Kerry, for it/against it.

But with Howard Dean at the helm of the party, another revolutionary candidate who never truly materialized as an individual, the democrats are poised to offer an equal but opposite consistency, particularly in the younger generations.


These two philosophical frameworks are exactly the argument the constitution requires on the role of government, domestically.

But, on international matters, the differences are stunningly minimal; there are some related to economics, but few related to the use of force, etc.

So, yes, revolution is always in the air; when it's not, hope is truly lost.

Certainly, we all hope for this.

Please expand, I'm not sure I understand your idea here.

International economics would be a major motivating force for something like this.

Another good observation.

__________________
"We've been blowin up, we're the issue, we're ammunition" Switchfoot