Not sure this is really all that comforting anymore. We had months and months to concentrate our satellite surviellance capabilities on Iraq and pinpoint those WMD, especially if they were being shuffled around as some have suggested, to hide them from those buffoons, the UN inspectors. But we came up empty. Personally I would not rely much on our intelligence gathering and processing capabilities right now.

And boneheaddoctor, go back and read your posts to get some frame of reference for how you are being perceived. Like this one:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by KirkVining
I think the rest of the world is about to re-arm because of OUR belligerent activities. Our pre-emptive invasion may have caught the attention of many who wish not to be pre-empted. The Russians and the Europeans, after four years of estrangement under Bush, have figured out they really don't need us anymore. The French, the Germans and the Russians are about to form their own alliance. The price we have paid for our "go it alone" policy is the rest of the world is about to let us do just that.



Kirk, you may want to be the unarmed guy at the gunfight, but thank god most of us don't.

A little lesson in world politics is a lot like High school. You have bullies, and they like to threaten others....And if you want to be the timid pascifist that hands over his lunch money to the bullies everyday and still gets his butt kicked because he is afraid to stand up for himself, do so......

Luckily that mindset is limited the the BLUE area of the map. If it wasn't for the RED people on the map and people like them, We would not be the USA and today you would be speaking either Japanses OR German .

We have the right and the need to be properly armed to defend our freedom."

What does your response to Kirk's post, which you quoted to make us all aware of what you were responding to, I suppose, have to do with Kirk's post?

For example, where does the analogy to the school yard bully fit in? In a preemtive strike, you are being the bully. You are attacking not because someone attacked you, but because they have something you want to physically wrest from them. It can be lunch money or oil. Pick the prize.

Also, where did Kirk's post suggest he was advocating an America without a strong military? Having lived in Europe for more than a decade, I experienced first hand the relief Europe felt that America had a very strong military, and we were very willing to use it to help them fend off the Russians. Their trust in us was based on our actions after WWII, when, had we been a nation of thieves and criminals we would have treated them like property, taken their land, possessions and enslaved them. Instead we treated our Allies like equals, and the conquered like humans. We helped them all get back on their feet. Our response after WWII was unique in human history. We did the same for the Japanese.

This earned us a loyal following in those countries that has begun to fade on its own, just because those present at the time have aged and are now in the vast minority. The following generations have not been willing to grant the US the same allegiance on faith. Our opportunity to demonstrate what America is occurs every day. But in the last 4 years we have elected to tell the Europeans we only value their allegiance if they shut up and do as we tell them. We don't even pretend to treat them as equals anymore. Which has made them learn to be self sufficient. And that is the first step toward becoming an equal, something we should not have welcomed so readily.

Step back and look at the present situation not as a set of problems to be resolved in a year or two so things can return to what they were. That doesn't happen. Look at everything we do as how it sets America up for being what we want her to be in the next century. And the one after that. If it is not apparent we cannot maintain our role of leadership with guns, bombs and cowboys for Presidents who got their foreign policy from western movie scripts, you have not really tried. Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)