I wouldn't cry if we went back to being more isolationist. Let the rest of the world deal with their own problems.

I'm pretty much thinking the same thing these days. But, I don't have any confidence the world is going to do a better job taking care of their problems this time around, so sooner or later we will probably have to get involved again.

That's exactly what would happen.

Some people have no idea the degree that the USA acts as the guarantor of security across the globe. The number of wars that would break out across the globe would be a world record (anyone care to list them?). It's like what would happen if the police (yes, like it or not, the USA is the defacto World Police) abandoned the streets - the criminal element would run wild knowing that they had a limited amount of time before the cops came back so they need to grab what they can.

Listening to people on forums like this makes me think that maybe that's what the world needs to happen in order to realise the USA is NOT an evil, imperialistic, terrorist country that you hear tossed around places like this forum. In 17 years living abroad in Eastern Europe (including Russia), SE Asia (plus China) and the Middle East I could count on one hand with fingers left over the number of non-native English speakers who had a problem when I told them I was American. On the other hand, the Brits, Canadians, Kiwis, and Aussies take "I'm American" as an invitation to whinge all night long. Often they don't even wait for that to start in. Fortunately, they are easy to handle. Unfortunately, if the US does become isolationist, it's the former group of non-English speaking countries that would suffer the most. And having met so many who are good people, I'd hate to see that happen. So, in the end, we just need to deal with the complaining and keep doing what we are doing.

We dont make much of anything ourselves anymore due to those regulations & the unions demanding silly high wages in comparison

to the rest of the world. So I cant blame the owners for taking their work elsewhere.

Another obvious truth that seems to be lost on the people back home who don't understand why manufacturing has gone abroad.

How do Germany and Japan manage to keep it?

Some people have no idea the degree that the USA acts as the guarantor of security across the globe. The number of wars that would break out across the globe would be a world record (anyone care to list them?).

That is a nice thought but the reality is the recent list of wars policing actions are our own so call preemptive strikes.

That aside history has shown any empire that would try to fill the so called *World Police* shoes fail & end up bankrupted.

The USA is not far from that these days.

What does this World Policing job pay? What does it cost the people & future generations of America?

Here are a few "What If's?" from someone who I think knows the difference.

What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others?

What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?

What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan – and bombing Pakistan – is directly related to the hatred directed toward us and has nothing to do with being free and prosperous?

What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?

What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?

What if all wartime spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?

What if we finally see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty?

What if conservatives, who preach small government, wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?

What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?

What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?

What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?

What if the American people learn the truth: that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and that it never changes from one administration to the next?

What if war and preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?

I wouldn't cry if we went back to being more isolationist. Let the rest of the world deal with their own problems.

I'm pretty much thinking the same thing these days. But, I don't have any confidence the world is going to do a better job taking care of their problems this time around, so sooner or later we will probably have to get involved again.

That's exactly what would happen.

Some people have no idea the degree that the USA acts as the guarantor of security across the globe. The number of wars that would break out across the globe would be a world record (anyone care to list them?). It's like what would happen if the police (yes, like it or not, the USA is the defacto World Police) abandoned the streets - the criminal element would run wild knowing that they had a limited amount of time before the cops came back so they need to grab what they can.

Listening to people on forums like this makes me think that maybe that's what the world needs to happen in order to realise the USA is NOT an evil, imperialistic, terrorist country that you hear tossed around places like this forum. In 17 years living abroad in Eastern Europe (including Russia), SE Asia (plus China) and the Middle East I could count on one hand with fingers left over the number of non-native English speakers who had a problem when I told them I was American. On the other hand, the Brits, Canadians, Kiwis, and Aussies take "I'm American" as an invitation to whinge all night long. Often they don't even wait for that to start in. Fortunately, they are easy to handle. Unfortunately, if the US does become isolationist, it's the former group of non-English speaking countries that would suffer the most. And having met so many who are good people, I'd hate to see that happen. So, in the end, we just need to deal with the complaining and keep doing what we are doing.

If the "policing" actions of the US were truly altruistic, you would have a point.

But the US's actions are not seen to be altruistic.

Reap what you sow.

I wouldn't cry if we went back to being more isolationist. Let the rest of the world deal with their own problems.

I'm pretty much thinking the same thing these days. But, I don't have any confidence the world is going to do a better job taking care of their problems this time around, so sooner or later we will probably have to get involved again.

That's exactly what would happen.

Some people have no idea the degree that the USA acts as the guarantor of security across the globe. The number of wars that would break out across the globe would be a world record (anyone care to list them?). It's like what would happen if the police (yes, like it or not, the USA is the defacto World Police) abandoned the streets - the criminal element would run wild knowing that they had a limited amount of time before the cops came back so they need to grab what they can.

Listening to people on forums like this makes me think that maybe that's what the world needs to happen in order to realise the USA is NOT an evil, imperialistic, terrorist country that you hear tossed around places like this forum. In 17 years living abroad in Eastern Europe (including Russia), SE Asia (plus China) and the Middle East I could count on one hand with fingers left over the number of non-native English speakers who had a problem when I told them I was American. On the other hand, the Brits, Canadians, Kiwis, and Aussies take "I'm American" as an invitation to whinge all night long. Often they don't even wait for that to start in. Fortunately, they are easy to handle. Unfortunately, if the US does become isolationist, it's the former group of non-English speaking countries that would suffer the most. And having met so many who are good people, I'd hate to see that happen. So, in the end, we just need to deal with the complaining and keep doing what we are doing.

If the "policing" actions of the US were truly altruistic, you would have a point.

But the US's actions are not seen to be altruistic.

Reap what you sow.

Like in Kosovo?

Maybe he was just another mentally disturbed person that wanted to shoot American soldiers (which he might have believed are partly responsible for the killing of so many innocent humans).

So he was a "rational" mentally disturbed person with a political agenda. Sounds like a terrorist

UG, you clearly do not understand what I have stated.

It is OK,we can see from your replies that you do not understand anything related to the original and following post.

Take care all,

Alex

If the "policing" actions of the US were truly altruistic, you would have a point.

But the US's actions are not seen to be altruistic.

Reap what you sow.

Like in Kosovo?

Kosovo was because of obligations to NATO, and as such, could not be truly called altruistic.

You only have to listen to the arguments spouting from the Republicans against intervention in Libya; "We don't get our oil from there, Europe does, so it's Europe's problem, not ours". It's not about the people or human rights. From the tone and words of the Republicans, it seems that there would be a different tune sung if America was getting it's oil from Libya.

UG, you clearly do not understand what I have stated.

There is nothing unusual about that. Would a tin-foil hat help - do you think?

There are very few military interventions that are altruistic. Extreme human suffering sometimes brings the best out in people (but not always gov'ts), but often it is only after a great deal of death and suffering.

US policy is based on protecting US interests abroad, in general. Assisting NATO would fit the policy.

The topic of this thread isn't about that and personal digs at other posters isn't going to cut it here.

If the "policing" actions of the US were truly altruistic, you would have a point.

But the US's actions are not seen to be altruistic.

Reap what you sow.

Like in Kosovo?

Kosovo was because of obligations to NATO, and as such, could not be truly called altruistic.

You only have to listen to the arguments spouting from the Republicans against intervention in Libya; "We don't get our oil from there, Europe does, so it's Europe's problem, not ours". It's not about the people or human rights. From the tone and words of the Republicans, it seems that there would be a different tune sung if America was getting it's oil from Libya.

Most likely the Republican leadership is like me, tired of listening to the bitching and whining about the U.S. and in particular George Bush. People bitch if we invade or even try intercede, and then they bitch when we don't. I say very well, let the world deal with their own problems if they think they can do better. The U.S. has enough of problems of it's own, but I think if we stop focusing so much on external problems, we(U.S.) have good a possibility of solving our own.

Yup - bring everyone back from Iraq and Afghanistan, deploy them along a five-mile-wide 'no go' zone along the Mexican border.

Keep out the drugs and IIs, do much more good for the US than having them under fire in two countries where no one wants them.

UG, you clearly do not understand what I have stated.

There is nothing unusual about that. Would a tin-foil hat help - do you think?

UG do you know that stating incomplete replies (In context)against board rules?

You are wrong (as per usual). It is perfectly acceptable to quote exactly what you are replying to or no-one would understand what one was referring to in many cases.

In fact, it is actually against the rules to highlight someone else's post in a quote to show what you are responding to - although it is done all the time. Now, enough with the inaccurate nit-picking.

Yet another Punch and Judy show. Any chance that OTB could be returned to its original purpose - that of mature discussion between grown-ups with different opinions who are willing to at least consider different points of view?

Yet another Punch and Judy show. Any chance that OTB could be returned to its original purpose - that of mature discussion between grown-ups with different opinions who are willing to at least consider different points of view?

grown-ups? where?

Those that support American foreign policy (as an example) can cry whatever they want about a few US soldiers being shot to death and blaming this on terrorism linked to Muslims and perhaps some "Terrorist group" are in serious denial of history and current events.

LEARN HISTORY!

Those that support American foreign policy (as an example) can cry whatever they want about a few US soldiers being shot to death and blaming this on terrorism linked to Muslims and perhaps some "Terrorist group" are in serious denial of history and current events.

LEARN HISTORY!

Republican Congressman Peter King, a blinkered bigot, (and supporter of the IRA!) could learn from history.

Islamic Terror Attacks on American Soil

(3,098 killed by Muslims in America in 67 terror attacks)

http://www.thereligi...icanAttacks.htm

History!

Those that support American foreign policy (as an example) can cry whatever they want about a few US soldiers being shot to death and blaming this on terrorism linked to Muslims and perhaps some "Terrorist group" are in serious denial of history and current events.

LEARN HISTORY!

It appears Europe is taking the lead. I just hope HISTORY is not repeated and the lead from Europe does not result in yet another World War.

This is shaping up to be the perfect opportunity for the EU to step up to the plate and show the world their leadership abilities.

I can pretty well guarantee the Obama administration isn't going to take any leadership role in this fracas so it seems the Europeans will finally get their chance to test their mettle for all to see.

Alex, you may get what you have been yearning for...European leadership.

Let's just hope the term isn't an oxymoron.

_______________________________________________________

Gaddafi takes key towns as Nato squabbles over Libya action

• Rebels retreat from Ras Lanuf and Zawiya

• Regime warns of full-scale military action

• Nato in paralysis as US blocks no-fly zone

• Navy chief says Britain ready to send more ships

Peter Beaumont in Tripoli, Ian Traynor in Brussels and Nicholas Watt

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 10 March 2011 20.44 GMT

The Gaddafi regime has issued a defiant warning that the "time for action" had arrived as a sustained military assault forced the defeat of Libyan rebels in the strategically important town of Zawiya and their retreat from Ras Lanuf.

Amid squabbling among EU and Nato leaders on the eve of an emergency European summit on Libya in Brussels, Muammar Gaddafi's son said that a new offensive would be launched within days.

Read more here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/10/gaddafi-libya-nato

______________________________________________________

This is shaping up to be the perfect opportunity for the EU to step up to the plate and show the world their leadership abilities.

there's no need for the EU to show any "leadership". there's no need to start meddling and interfere with the internal problems of a non-EU country or ANY country. there is also no legal basis which justifies interference into the internal problems of a sovereign country. those EU politicians who would like to interfere are just trying to divert the public attention away from the existing problems in their countries.

anyway, interfering and meddling is always only done from a position of strength, meaning gallant pilots of the war monger nations (plural) are bombing the living shit out of whoever is hit by their ordinance. and if the wrong parties are hit then (after denials, spreading blatant lies and hesitating a very long time) the "collateral damage" is bemourned with crocodile tears whereas the ultra-right(eous) armchair politicians and generals are applauding, smirking and commenting "the whole free world..."

Dear Chuck,

I am asking and whishing that NATO, EU and the US stay out of all of this.

Who do they think they are? the protectors of democracy?

Do you want to show the US as a perfect example of democracy and a free world?

Please think again.

People are fed up with this crap all around the world and they will revolt against all of this BS.

Recently a court decided that it was OK to shoot a 13 year old girl and actualy finished his gun magazine into her, him telling he would do the same to a tree year old that posseded no threath?

Are you OK with that Chuck?

Shooting innocent people by people that have been drugged with Ampethamines and brainwashed?

I just wonder how you can justify this all.

Alex

.

Shooting a tree is unforgivable.

Inflammatory unsubstantiated supposition removed also quoted reply

To get back on topic and cool down a few peeps I suggest we look again at the definition of terror/terrorism .

From US law definition:

terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;

(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and

(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—

(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—

(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or

(ii) as a transit point; and

( the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—

(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;

(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or

(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

Something different from Wiki.

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[1]

If we/you can forget about the word terror or terrorism, and cancel out religion.

What would this event be called in your opinion?

Dear Chuck,

I am asking and whishing that NATO, EU and the US stay out of all of this.

Who do they think they are? the protectors of democracy?

Do you want to show the US as a perfect example of democracy and a free world?

Please think again.

People are fed up with this crap all around the world and they will revolt against all of this BS.

Recently a court decided that it was OK to shoot a 13 year old girl and actualy finished his gun magazine into her, him telling he would do the same to a tree year old that posseded no threath?

Are you OK with that Chuck?

Shooting innocent people by people that have been drugged with Ampethamines and brainwashed?

I just wonder how you can justify this all.

Alex

.

For the second time, let me respond to this post.

What are you talking about? What court has decided it is OK to shoot a 13 year old girl, when was this decision made and where was this alleged murder carried out?

What does this have to do with the lack of leadership from the EU and the US in relation to the Libyan civil war, which was the thought behind my post you responded to?

If the question about the 13 year old girl was asked then you should provide a link so all of us will know what your thought process is and can respond appropriately to your very leading question.

How can you possibly make the statement..."I just wonder how you can justify this all."

Since I have no idea what you are talking about, how can you make the assertion that I justify it at all?

You, kind sir, are out of line with this post.

To get back on topic and cool down a few peeps I suggest we look again at the definition of terror/terrorism .

From US law definition:

terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;

(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and

(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—

(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—

(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or

(ii) as a transit point; and

( the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—

(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;

(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or

(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

Something different from Wiki.

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[1]

If we/you can forget about the word terror or terrorism, and cancel out religion.

What would this event be called in your opinion?

1. Please provide links to your source material.

2. What does this sentence mean?

"If we/you can forget about the word terror or terrorism, and cancel out religion."

3. Are you talking about the assassination of the two US military men with this ambiguous question?

"What would this event be called in your opinion?"

4. What's your point with this post?

To get back on topic and cool down a few peeps I suggest we look again at the definition of terror/terrorism .

From US law definition:

terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;

(2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

(3) the term "terrorist group" means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;

(4) the terms "territory" and "territory of the country" mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and

(5) the terms "terrorist sanctuary" and "sanctuary" mean an area in the territory of the country—

(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—

(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or

(ii) as a transit point; and

( the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—

(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;

(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or

(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

Something different from Wiki.

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[1]

If we/you can forget about the word terror or terrorism, and cancel out religion.

What would this event be called in your opinion?

1. Please provide links to your source material.

2. What does this sentence mean?

"If we/you can forget about the word terror or terrorism, and cancel out religion."

3. Are you talking about the assassination of the two US military men with this ambiguous question?

"What would this event be called in your opinion?"

4. What's your point with this post?

Surely those are frivolous and time-wasting questions? I can't believe that you don't know the answers to your own questions.

If so, he must just be trying to fit in with the rest of the thread.

This is shaping up to be the perfect opportunity for the EU to step up to the plate and show the world their leadership abilities.

there's no need for the EU to show any "leadership". there's no need to start meddling and interfere with the internal problems of a non-EU country or ANY country. there is also no legal basis which justifies interference into the internal problems of a sovereign country. those EU politicians who would like to interfere are just trying to divert the public attention away from the existing problems in their countries.

anyway, interfering and meddling is always only done from a position of strength, meaning gallant pilots of the war monger nations (plural) are bombing the living shit out of whoever is hit by their ordinance. and if the wrong parties are hit then (after denials, spreading blatant lies and hesitating a very long time) the "collateral damage" is bemourned with crocodile tears whereas the ultra-right(eous) armchair politicians and generals are applauding, smirking and commenting "the whole free world..."

Agree with every word of it.

And all the European nations will be looking after their own interests, not those of 'Europe' - an entity that exists only in the dreams of a few (dead) politicians.

Sarkozy goes out on his own, Cameron/Hague have their opinions, Italy is different again. Germany is saying 'a plague on all your houses' and Baroness Ashton, the voice of 'Europe' for foreign affairs, says nowt, as usual.

Dear Chuck,

I am asking and whishing that NATO, EU and the US stay out of all of this.

Who do they think they are? the protectors of democracy?

Do you want to show the US as a perfect example of democracy and a free world?

Please think again.

People are fed up with this crap all around the world and they will revolt against all of this BS.

Recently a court decided that it was OK to shoot a 13 year old girl and actualy finished his gun magazine into her, him telling he would do the same to a tree year old that posseded no threath?

Are you OK with that Chuck?

Shooting innocent people by people that have been drugged with Ampethamines and brainwashed?

I just wonder how you can justify this all.

Alex

.

For the second time, let me respond to this post.

What are you talking about? What court has decided it is OK to shoot a 13 year old girl, when was this decision made and where was this alleged murder carried out?

What does this have to do with the lack of leadership from the EU and the US in relation to the Libyan civil war, which was the thought behind my post you responded to?

If the question about the 13 year old girl was asked then you should provide a link so all of us will know what your thought process is and can respond appropriately to your very leading question.

How can you possibly make the statement..."I just wonder how you can justify this all."

Since I have no idea what you are talking about, how can you make the assertion that I justify it at all?

You, kind sir, are out of line with this post.

You Sir, apparantly have no idea what is happening outside your 30 square meter studio other than claim victory on all illegal interventions, invasions and illigeal occupations made by the greatest nation on Earth, similary claimed by the once mighty Austrian guy. (No pun intended).

The question was and still is: Is the brutal killing by a person with Muslim thinking (whatever that is) considered an act of terror?

To those that said it is, I gave a counter question: Is unloading a gun inside a 13 year old kid who showed no visible threath, an act of self defence, murder or an act of terror or as so many times claimed a mistake, collaterol damage or a legitamite action?

The court decided it was OK.

Just try to look at it ( The OP question and my example) from both sides (If you can).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/16/israel2

And please do not try some word games and questionares, we all know what I mean although my English is not good.