I understand the caution you wish we took into consideration, but we should not always be worrying about what others think. Do you not think that someone like, say, Castro would dislike the US if we went around promoting the idea of voting for a new leader every few years, say 4? Do you think we should take Catsro's feelings into consideration when we promote this so that we can still convince people to move towards this kind of idea knowing he will not like it because it will mean the end of his dominance over the Cuban people (not taking into consideration he's close to dying). Do you take your childs feelings into consideration when you say no to them for something they absolutely want? Sure, but you still say no. See my point? Sometimes someone has to take the lead, sometimes someone has to make the hard choices and then someone has to take the fall for it all. The US makes mistakes like anyone else and sometimes we don't take others into consideration when doing something that benefits us. But I choose not to ignore the good that we have done compared to the wrong things we have done because it's all part of life. No one is perfect. I see more good than wrong and while I would rather we did all good and no wrong, it's simply ludicrous to believe it's possible.

What's right is always a subjective concept. It really all depends on who's the one deciding what isright and what is wrong. Do you think people like Castro, Chavez, or Ahmadinejad think what they do as leaders of their countries is wrong? Or maybe those in countries like Darfur, or what Hitler did. Regardless what anyone thinks or says, it's my personal belief that our country (regardless who was President at any given time) is nothing like any of thes world leaders past or present. But as right or wrong is subjective, I'm sure many would disagree with me but I won't let their beliefs twart mine, which is probably the same reason countries like Iran and N Korea are so defiant.

Should we leave them allow and ignore their desires to acquire things such as nuclear weapons or fund terrorist groups or wish to obliterate countries like Israel just because we may think it's wrong but they may not?

Should we therefore not do anything and simply cross the bridge when we get to it? Do you believe in preventive action or after the fact? Should we wait for Iran to possibly drop a nuke on Israel before we all agree they were capable and it was their intentions all along or do we work under the assumption that a man, who denies the holocaust, who has said many times that Israel should be destroyed, that has funded terrorist organizations, who hid a second nuclear power plant, who sent terrorist-like groups to attack his own people who believed his election was a fraud, might be capable of making nukes out of his "for energy only" nuclear program and use them against Israel with the rockets he recently tested since he believes it the right thing to do?

Like I said Charles, and I will say it again - there are always, always exceptions to it. That being said, is it not practical to seek help from other nations when, say, we go to war? That would mean: Less troops, less cost, less time (possibly), and so on so forth. It would also strength diplomatic bonds so that, say, down the road if we need help - they are more likely say yes, as opposed to no, or something more colorful.

That's presumptious Charles because I don't ignore the good we do. Granted, I do often come off as extremely critical of the United States, but that's because I give a damn (a lot) about my native country.

Yes, we make mistakes, but does that mean we shouldn't apologize for them? What gives us the right, or entitlement to be arrogant and not think we should own up to our mistakes?

That's the biggest issue I have -- the, seemingly, arrogance that people display when it pertains to our country. Simply, we should be willing to own up to our D'uh moments, no matter how big our ego is, how wide our pride is, or how arrogant we may be. It's not just practical, diplomatically smart, part of the American spirit/way, but it is also beneficial to us in our pursuit of our interests.

You're fallaciously generalizing Charles.

Honestly, I cannot answer that because I've yet to reconcile defensive and proactive action. I believe in defending and would defend my friends and family with a vengeance, but I cannot say that I would seek pre-emptive/preventative action. That to me still rings of aggression and "acceptable" violence.

Why be so concerned about Israel? Okay, so they're our "only" ally (yeah, right. *cough* Saudi Arabia *cough*) in the middle east. Your point? We need to stop coddling or worrying so much about them and more about us. What happens in Israel, should just stay in Israel - you know? Granted, it may affect us, but we'll deal with it when it does.

Charles, he's been in office since 2005 - so that's four years. We've believed they have had the capabilities and intention for a while now...so...why haven't they given some terrorist some uranium or other radioactive materials for a dirty bomb? He has had a lot of time, and many many opportunities to carry out his threats....but he hasn't. Why?

Again, I point back to my point regarding him being a blowhard. (Doesn't mean he isn't dangerous, but I feel it is unlikely he'll carry out the threats)

Granted, so how do you know what you're talking about is right? LOL Sorry, had to throw that out there. Oh, I am positive they do -- people can rationally explain damn near anything.  Who says we're like them? I don't; we're far from them, but we have to protect our image (as well as credibility, etc.). Also, it's a practical thing to do in that it can help with our national defense.

Ahmadinijead(sp?) is a blowhard; he is an egocentric meglomaniac who is saying whatever he can to keep himself in power for as long as he can (Which is ironic, given that he is, ultimately, really just a puppet of the theocratic despot Khamenei). He knows damn well, as do every Arab/anti-israel nation, that if they go to war with Israel...they'll get their arses handed to them on a silver platter. Granted, it gets tossed on it's head when nuclear weapons are introduced, but then again...Israel has a program of their own.

Charles -- granted, we need to keep fighting them -- but do you realistically believe that we are going to defeat once and for all these terrorist groups? My money is on no, simply because it is human nature to be easily swayed and to give into hate, violence, and so on. As long as there are more than two people in the world, there will be a chance/liklihood of hate, venom, ignorance, and so on - the foundation of this perversion called terrorism.

Btw, I'm not talking about seeking their permission, per se (unless we want to do something on their soil for example). I'm talking about working with them, not against them, and definitely not devolving into the whole "Freedom Fries" ignorance again (what a joke, lol).

~AJ

yeah 30 for me...that makes your ecucation "newer".

 bingo

Really? Hmm, and to think I had you pegged at mid/late twenties. (Or maybe that was Taltamir?) That being said, aside from recent findings in science, history and so on - there really isn't much difference in what you learn. It's still based on the basic reading, writing, and OH MY GAWD BRING ME SOME ASPRIN! (Er, I mean math, lol; I'm not a math person by any means if you can't tell. My forte was video and writing/history).

*rolls eyes* Good grief, I hope you're joking; otherwise, I might take up drinking again. (Yeah, I know I'm odd - a straight edge college student.)

~AJ

Lets reverse your "thinking". Who apologizes to the US? What gives them the right, or entitlement to be so arrogant and not think they should own up to their mistakes? Does the shark apologize to the sea-lion for eating it? Does the sea-lion apologize to the clam? The clam to tiny organisms? Your liberal (and Obama's) utopia sounds wonderful, but it is what it is, make believe.

"Love is never having to say your sorry" and I love everyone in the world.

You may be taking this a few steps too far. You were talking about sticking our noses in other peoples business. I was basically refering to that concept, not jumping to war every time we "think" someone is doing something that could "potentially" be bad. Pre-emptive action, not pre-emptive attack. But as i said, if we think someone like Iran or N Korea is seeking nukes, should we ignore this until something comes up such as a big mushroom cloud?

Why so concerned over Israel? Let's see, they are our allies, they are human beings and they are basically in between a bunch of countries that hate them, wanna destroy them and are surrounded by other countries who seem to be waiting for something to happen in order to take action rather than prevent the events. I like your use of coddling, just a moment ago you were defending gays and lesbians and here you are stating we should not be coddling Israel. You can't have it both ways AJ, you either stand by your friends side and have their backs or you let them fight their own fights.

Hmmm, you are assuming. You don't know what he has done, what he has provided, what he has. The US did not know about the second Nuclear Plant (or at least the Obama Adinistartion lead us to believe they didn't know). Just because he has not done anything does not mean he does not intend to. People like Ahmadinejad are not stupid, they are smarter than we want to believe. Do you want to find out if he is capable? I surely don't and expect the US and any other country willing to stand up for whats right and not what benefits them financially to do the something about it.

I'm curious, if you knew someone constantly saying they are going to beat you up, would you consider them dangerous? Bush said less things than Ahmadinejad and he was considered dangerous by many in this country alone.

It's not presumptious, I am going by what you comment and like Obama, you barely ever have anything nice to say about your own country. You use the few bad parts of us and make it seem like we are a orrible Nation and while it may not be your intent, it comes off that way.

It's one thing to admit mistakes. I do it all the time. It's another to talk about a country, your country, as if you had nothing to do with all the wrong it did, as if we never did anything right either. Obama does not say "we messed up", he blames past Administrations for the dislike others have for us. he forgets he was part of that Administration and what makes his commenst worse is that our countrys Govt is designed to balance power between many people, Congress, Senate, White House and even the Justice Syetem, but Obama says "I" over and over again as i he has all the power in the world to change anthing by himself.

Every time the news comes up with a story like "stray israeli mortar kills 5 year old girl at beach" israel first and foremost begins profusely apologizing to everyone for such a tragic accident...

Of course, when a few days later someone notices that the girl in the picture has rigor mortis and is the exact same girl held by the same "rescue worker" (crying, in a dramatic pose, every time) shown in the last 3 "tragic accidents" and put 2+2 together nobody publishes it and israel's own apology counts as an admission of guilt.

If the same dead body is pulled from 4 different explosions by the same "rescue worker" than only two things are possible:

1: she died in the first one, and he is carting her corpse around from place to place to jerk more tears. Where the last 3 instances where fraud.

2: she died from something unrelated, and all 4 cases were fraud. For all we know she died of the flu.

I am leaning towards the second option because she shows rigor mortis in the first picture.

Oh, I forgot possibility 3... she has 3 identical twin sisters who are coincidently all killed in the same week and whose body is found by the same single rescue worker every single time.

That or the news agency and/or journalist didn't do their job and get a photo of it; they could easily have decided (rather lazily) to use a stock/previously used photo. It happens all the time, unfortunately.

~AJ

BTW it is one thing to apologize to a family for an accident, it's another to apologize to the world for your predecessors policies (with a big exclusion for yourself and your parties contributing role).

That:

1. Fails to explain rigor mortis

2. Does not account for the different background, (I happened to see the photos, the background were different).

1. Simple, the person is dead.

2. Sure it does, they're being lazy and/or unethical. To be frank, there is some amazing shit you can do with some of the most basic photo editing software. Heck, with something like Adobe Photoshop I could fix a photo that would be unbecoming for, say, Obama. Isn't that hard really.

It's unfortunate, but in my opinion, the age yellow journalism is back. >_>

~AJ

1. rigor mortis takes some time to occur.

2. If they are using fake photos to prove it, then their claim of israel killing civilians is more than a little suspect.
Reminds me of another "israeli bombing" that happened during the same "lebanon war"... where it just so happens that in that particular case there were photos (smuggled out by an AP reporter who secretly took them - but the AP only showed the photos approved by the hamas) which showed them setting up the scene, dead guys walking into the rabble, getting makeup, and then lying down "dead" in the rabble... the press had a field day showing the corpses, but not the whole setup of the process.

1. I was being sarcastic, it was a joke.

2. Like I said: It is not hard to do;  I work with Adobe Premiere and Final Cut Pro all the time.  I figure they were just being lazy and/or unethical.

~AJ

1. Ah, sorry, sacrasm does not convey well over forums.

2. I totally agree that forging pictures is both lazy and unethical

*Nods* Frankly, I find it disgusting that any journalist would do that; however, as I've continued with my journalism studies, I've realized why they do it. Or, at least, some reasons why. I'm concerned about the return of yellow journalism, and the fusion of true , fact based journalism with entertainment (not to mention the business aspect). I fear that journalism, which really is a HUGE part of our culture (democracy, etc.), is going to fade away or falter. I would hate to see that happen. Heck, our nation was helped in its founding by journalism.

*shrugs* It's all good; I should have put some emoticon with it, but oh well.

~AJ