I believe in the idea of a United Nations, but the UN in its current form is a failing entity. I have no problem with a UN that raises money to give aid to support Health clinics in rural nations, or to help eradicate diseases(Polio, Measles,Malaria) that should not kill millions every year. A UN that brings countries together to help fix problems, not one that creates them.

 

BTW, did you know if we wanted to, the USA alone could wipe out polio and other childhood diseases in Africa.

So you are against entanglements that involve us in other nations' conflicts but you are not in favor of withdrawing from the United Nations? If so, then you are opposed to some foreign entanglements but not others.

 

I am not in favor of any of the things done in the name of the UN. It is a corrupt organization that absorbs a lot of American dollars and gives us very little in return. If supporting democratic governments that share our values in opposition to communist countries seeking to enslave them is none of our business, then I fail to see why the world's health problems are any of our business either.

So you are against entanglements that involve us in other nations' conflicts but you are not in favor of withdrawing from the United Nations? If so, then you are opposed to some foreign entanglements but not others.

 

I am not in favor of any of the things done in the name of the UN. It is a corrupt organization that absorbs a lot of American dollars and gives us very little in return. If supporting democratic governments that share our values in opposition to communist countries seeking to enslave them is none of our business, then I fail to see why the world's health problems are any of our business either.

 

 

I am opposed to foreign entanglements that result in violence. I guess I am just a wild eyed idealist, but I will never shelve my idealism.

 

On the subject of other people's health, I believe if our country has the means to help heal those or cannot heal themselves;then why not help.

 

I would rather spend a few million dollars on polio vaccines across the world, then paying a group of fat-cat politicians and bureaucrats who don't do their jobs; or financing there life of luxury.

I am opposed to foreign entanglements that result in violence. I guess I am just a wild eyed idealist, but I will never shelve my idealism.

 

On the subject of other people's health, I believe if our country has the means to help heal those or cannot heal themselves;then why not help.

 

I would rather spend a few million dollars on polio vaccines across the world, then paying a group of fat-cat politicians and bureaucrats who don't do their jobs; or financing there life of luxury.

I see. It just seems logically inconsistent to care about the global community's health while taking a hands-off approach as people who are only seeking to live in freedom and peace are terrorized and killed. Good health is not much of a consolation if one is dead.

I am opposed to foreign entanglements that result in violence. I guess I am just a wild eyed idealist, but I will never shelve my idealism.

 

On the subject of other people's health, I believe if our country has the means to help heal those or cannot heal themselves;then why not help.

 

I would rather spend a few million dollars on polio vaccines across the world, then paying a group of fat-cat politicians and bureaucrats who don't do their jobs; or financing there life of luxury.

 

To the bolded that is pretty clear and has been for a while.

 

To the second paragraph, unless it has any benefits for us then I really don't feel we can justify the expense outside of simple altruism (which in my opinion doesn't actually exist).

 

Now I will largely agree with your third paragraphs, but that aid would have to get some concessions with it as well. No one gets anything for free, nor should they.

To the issue at hand though I posted this in the WWIII thread and I feel it prudent to place it in here as well:

 

 

The Russia/Georgia thing is something that concerns me because the Russians, even well before the Soviet era, have always considered themselves the masters of Eastern Europe and were pretty consistent in throwing their weight around. Considering the fact that Eastern Europe has only really been stable in recent memory UNDER the rule of the Soviet Union I am not so sure I mind the idea of them taking over Georgia if it comes down to it.

 

As potent as our military is, it currently lacks the manpower needed to fight someone like Russia and Russia understands this. Pound for pound we are equal to or superior to them, but numerically we are dramatically inferior and NATO would not be terribly unified in helping us to protect Georgia. I hate to say it but for the sake of peace at this point in time we need to let Georgia twist in the wind with what they themselves provoked.

 

Frankly it was the kind of carte blanche "we'll support you no matter what"(Germany to Austria) mentality in addition to the overlapping alliances (Triple Entente and Triple Alliance) that helped to start WWI. Ironically enough in the same general region of the world. I am not for action at this point in time with Russia.

 

Considering the fact that the EU does not want to ruffle Russia's feathers I think we need to tread lightly. Without considerable support from the EU and the NATO countries therein any conflict with Russia would be difficult to handle. We often forget that Russia has one of the world's largest and best equipped militaries. Their air force is almost on par with ours technologically and they are better trained than the second rate powers we have been dealing with in the last few years. Without European support, I would not want any conflict with Russia right now. Once our combat operations in other parts of the world have ceased then I would be a little more for it, but not a whole lot more.

I think Russia might try and test the waters here. They know we are extended and have a lame duck President. They are prepping for a Russian Empiracal expansion. Unless everyone wants the cold war to start again, we should stomp this fire out before it gets too big. We should do everything possible to end this diplomatically. However, there has to be a breaking point. To me, that point should be the bombing and shelling of Tbilisi. They have nothing to stop our strategic bombers, we could eliminate their artillery in a couple of hours. Not push it any farther than that. We are currently sending humanitarian aide in. US soldiers will be face to face with Russians, as they will have to travel through Gori to get to Tbilisi. The Russians have full control over Gori.

 

Either way if air battles do kick off, the Russians have no counter for F-22's and those guys would rack up record enemy kills Probably around a 20-1 ratio. If not more. The only thing I worry about is if we totally dominate Russia and show their weakness, the hardliners which run that country, will get scared and do something stupid.

I think Russia might try and test the waters here. They know we are extended and have a lame duck President. They are prepping for a Russian Empiracal expansion. Unless everyone wants the cold war to start again, we should stomp this fire out before it gets too big. We should do everything possible to end this diplomatically. However, there has to be a breaking point. To me, that point should be the bombing and shelling of Tbilisi. They have nothing to stop our strategic bombers, we could eliminate their artillery in a couple of hours. Not push it any farther than that. We are currently sending humanitarian aide in. US soldiers will be face to face with Russians, as they will have to travel through Gori to get to Tbilisi. The Russians have full control over Gori.

 

Either way if air battles do kick off, the Russians have no counter for F-22's and those guys would rack up record enemy kills Probably around a 20-1 ratio. If not more. The only thing I worry about is if we totally dominate Russia and show their weakness, the hardliners which run that country, will get scared and do something stupid.

I disagree with those who advocate a military engagement with Russia. Reports that I have heard from Georgia say that Russia's air force is not performing as well as expected in Georgia and that it has lost several aircraft. So, I agree that we could very easily embarrass them because the tiny Georgian air force is embarrassing them.

 

However, the reaction of the hard line communists (including Putin) might very well be to strike a deal with Al Qaeda, Hamas, or other terrorist group. A few suitcase nukes, which many people already suspect are in terrorist hands, could do far more to this country than embarrass our leaders. I am not certain what our response would be, but I cannot see the liberals who control the Democratic Party and the media advocating a full scale retaliatory nuclear attack on Russia. They would probably want to a UN Security Council resolution condemning Russia for its carelessness in allowing nukes to fall into the wrong hands.

 

We need a better reason to engage Russia militarily than Georgia's squabble with Russia and we can take a firm stand without attacking Russia's troops.

If most already feel the nukes are in the hands of terrorists, why should we fear that? If the Russian hardliners are wanting to get nukes into the hands of terrorists and hurt us, it is gonna happen no matter what we do. We are a threat to their power and ideaology. All of the 21st century conflict has been a fight over ideaology. As long as we exist the there will always be a beacon of hope against tyrannical rule and communistic ideas. When we finally give in and say its not our problem, its not worth the fight, then we've already lost. We just don't know it yet. These people have no care for human life, they would kill each and every one of us if it gets them more power.

If most already feel the nukes are in the hands of terrorists, why should we fear that?

Because if nukes were already in the hands of terrorists, then they would have already used, IMO.

 

If the Russian hardliners are wanting to get nukes into the hands of terrorists and hurt us, it is gonna happen no matter what we do. We are a threat to their power and ideaology. All of the 21st century conflict has been a fight over ideaology. As long as we exist the there will always be a beacon of hope against tyrannical rule and communistic ideas. When we finally give in and say its not our problem, its not worth the fight, then we've already lost. We just don't know it yet. These people have no care for human life, they would kill each and every one of us if it gets them more power.

The Russians could have forged a secret alliance with Muslim terrorists at any time during the Cold War and given them nukes but apparently that did not happen. Something else that did not happen is direct combat between the Russians and Americans.

 

If we were to attack the Russians with the American military and humiliate them in their own backyard, then the Russians would be forced to reevaluate their strategy. They could adopt a softer stance militarily, they could hand nukes to terrorists, or they could do both. I just do not think that it is worth risking nuclear war over Georgia.

 

I think Bush's decision to use our military to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia is a good one. If the Russians want a direct confrontation with the US, then they will have an opportunity to trigger one. Otherwise, we will be showing support for Georgia's democratically elected government and demonstrating some courage with some restraint.

Because if nukes were already in the hands of terrorists, then they would have already used, IMO.

 

The Russians could have forged a secret alliance with Muslim terrorists at any time during the Cold War and given them nukes but apparently that did not happen. Something else that did not happen is direct combat between the Russians and Americans.

 

If we were to attack the Russians with the American military and humiliate them in their own backyard, then the Russians would be forced to reevaluate their strategy. They could adopt a softer stance militarily, they could hand nukes to terrorists, or they could do both. I just do not think that it is worth risking nuclear war over Georgia.

 

I think Bush's decision to use our military to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia is a good one. If the Russians want a direct confrontation with the US, then they will have an opportunity to trigger one. Otherwise, we will be showing support for Georgia's democratically elected government and demonstrating some courage with some restraint.

 

I don't think we should not act for fear of a nuclear strike. If that is all it takes for us to do nothing, then we are royally screwed in the future. We have to depend on the fact that they know mutual destruction is immenent in any nuclear strike on America. These people want to rule the world, not get their entire country nuked.

 

As Ive stated, conventional strikes by the US military are only necassary if the Russians start shelling Tbilisi. (and then only on the artillery or planes doing the bombing.) None of us should find it ok to sit back and watch thousands get slaughtered. We've done it before as a country and it is shameful, and we should learn from our misdeeds and not repeat them.

Return of the Cold War... many high up russian officials are Soviet Union bloodline.... they are tired of being pushed to the back.

Why does there have to be an answer; it is not our problem.

 

Are you serious? Hmm I hope the rest of the American people don't think that way..... If so our days are numbered.