That must be better than starting with "these folks" </font>[/QUOTE]That's "You Folks" ;)

<font color=plum>Fair enough, <font color=lime>Barry</font>. Obviously I read too much into your comments. My apologies for that.</font>

Their were two bullies that I recall with little fondness, but the one I loathed the most was from secondary school - I split my sides laughing when I went back home after a couple of years University to hear him ask me "do you want fries with that" :D . Aaaaah - life's little vengances. </font>[/QUOTE]Now Now Davros, take'n pleasure at vengance is an awful conservative Rupublican hate monger thing to do. ;) Where's the tolerance and strive'n for di-vers-at-tee, peace, love, and all that stuff? ;)

<font color=plum>If a person is old enough to vote but didn't, then they have no right to complain about the outcome.

The Democrats put a LOT of money and effort into encouraging young people to register and vote - thinking that the "young vote" would help swing the election in Kerry's direction. But either MTV, Puff Daddy, and other celebs failed to motivate enough young voters with their message, or they didn't vote the way the Democrats expected. The polls show that Kerry didn't anywhere NEAR the number of "young votes" the Democrats were hoping for.</font>

<font color=plum>If a person is old enough to vote but didn't, then they have no right to complain about the outcome.

</font> </font>[/QUOTE]I never said it did.

That's absurd. What if someone didn't vote because they didn't approve of any of the candidates? There are many good reasons somebody might not vote.
It would be slightly more reasonable to say if somebody didn't vote, only because they couldn't be bothered, they have no right to complain.

Their were two bullies that I recall with little fondness, but the one I loathed the most was from secondary school - I split my sides laughing when I went back home after a couple of years University to hear him ask me "do you want fries with that" :D . Aaaaah - life's little vengances. </font>[/QUOTE]Now Now Davros, take'n pleasure at vengance is an awful conservative Rupublican hate monger thing to do. ;) Where's the tolerance and strive'n for di-vers-at-tee, peace, love, and all that stuff? ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Why JD - that is all pinko-lefty tree hugger rubbish - I thought you knew I was right wing in my politics and persuasions. I ain't never voted left wing and I prolly never will.

Mind you - if I lived in the US I would not have voted for that drongo in the Whitehouse that hes messed things up so much over the past 4 years. Somewhere a man has to draw the line.

Well, I kind of thought someone would get hasty when reading it, so it didn't suprise me and I had the response ready at hand. I must admit though that I thought it would be other posters who would react most strongly, not yourself. No apologies necessary for the misreading, although if you're offering one do you think you could apologise for voting Bush? :D

I think we need an avatar similar to the "Elder Orbs" muppets to represent the D&D peanut gallery turned spelling class -- though I realize they may be in denial about that. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] Oh, wait, where's that smiley that Azred overuses -- oh, there it is [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

<font color=plum>Thanks for sharing your perspective, <font color=orange>Davros</font>. I understand that many non-Americans (and many Americans too) view President Bush in the manner you describe and other countries think America is just being a Big Bully right now.

Now allow me to provide an American perspective to counter the international one.

For several years, America has been more akin to a Gentle Giant than a Big Bully. We are the largest financial supporter of the U.N. and also provide one of the largest contingent of troops to U.N. peace-keeping efforts. But we've also had to abide by the restrictions placed on us by the U.N. Our local National Guard unit went to Gulf War I and are also in Iraq right now. EVERY person I've talked to that went to Gulf War I said that we should have continued the fight and gone after Saddam Hussein then. The commanders agreed, but the U.N. would not allow the troops to advance past the Kuwait border. They said the purpose of the mission was to drive Iraqi troops out of Kuwait and nothing more.

And whenever the U.N. has intervened in other troubled hot-spots, American troops are usually the first ones called to man the front lines.

So let's take a different look at your Big Bully analogy.

Suppose you have this kid in high school who is much larger than everybody else, but doesn't go around bullying the other kids (like one might expect). So the other kids form an organization for keeping peace in the school and they tell the Big Kid he must pay dues to the organization and be available to help them whenever they need him, but he can ONLY intervene in the skirmishes THEY approve of AND he must STOP fighting when they tell him too. The Big Kid decides that he will go along with the Student Force since he IS big enough to help resolve most conflicts and he has the money to pay the dues. But after awhile, he goes to the Student Force leaders and says "There are some guys in this classroom over here that keep calling me names and saying they are going to attack me, but I won't know when it's coming. I haven't done anything to them, but they keep yelling at me and saying they hate me and want to beat me up. I would like the members of the Student Force to help me with them."

"No, I'm sorry. We can't do that. We told you when you joined that WE would be the ones to decide when and where you can fight. You can't go off fighting battles on your own."

The Big Kid isn't happy about that, but he decides to let it slide since he did agree to the rules of the Student Force when he joined.

This pattern continues on. Whenever the Student Force needs help, they expect the Big Kid to be front and center and intervene as they direct. But when other kids pick on him or insult him and threaten him, the Student Force will not let him retaliate. They DO eventually check into the claims, since the Big Kid says he has reason to believe the other kids are carrying weapons they plan to use when they attack him. So the Student Force approaches these other kids and demand to look through their lockers. The kids agree, but tell the Student Force they can't look in the lockers immediately, they will have to wait a couple days before they can have access to the lockers. The Student Force has no choice but to comply with the kids delay.

This pattern continues on and on some more. Finally, the Big Kid wakes up one morning and says "WAIT A MINUTE! Why should I put up with other people calling me horrible names and threatening to beat me up? And why should I just sit back and take it simply because the Student Force won't back me up or allow me to fight my own fight. Why do I need their approval anyway? After all, I AM the biggest kid in the school. WHY should I take any grief from ANYBODY? Damn it, I've had enough of this crap. If the Student Force won't back me up, then I'll do it without their help. And if they don't like, they can kiss it. After ALL I've done for them, the least they could do is back ME up when I need it. Well, whether they like it or not, I'm not going to let ANYBODY push me around anymore."

Now all the OTHER kids in the school were glad the Student Force kept the Big Kid "reigned in", because (deep down) they had always been afraid the Big Kid would turn into the Big Bully. But the Big Kid never planned to do that. But after being threatened, insulted and ridiculed over and over and not being allowed to do anything about it, he finally decided enough was enough and he wasn't going to put up with it anymore. From now on, if anybody messed with him, then he would show them just how big a mistake that was.

Now you can agree with that analogy or not, as you like. But THAT is how a LOT of Americans feel about international affairs and that is another reason Bush was re-elected. Because a lot of American are tired of having our troops used as internation police when it suits the U.N., but not being allowed to go after our own perceived enemies because the U.N. wouldn't let us. And many WERE glad when President Bush finally had the kahunas to say "Hey listen, we don't NEED your approval OR your help. You can help us if you want, but we can do it without you if you don't. After all the support we have given the U.N. over the years, it only seems fair that you should return some of that support. But if you don't want to, that's fine. We'll do it ourselves. And don't come crying to us the next time YOU want to put OUR troops in harms way for YOUR objectives.

As for Iraq becoming the new Vietnam, that's bullpucky. The reason we lost in Vietnam is because LBJ wouldn't let the military fight a military battle. The objectives in Vietnam were never clearly defined and the troops would fight tooth and nail to gain a key piece of property, only to turn around and lose it again because the powers on the Hill wouldn't let them go after the enemy full-force. They tried to fight a "restrained war" and that just doesn't work. They also were not allowed to go after key locations in North Vietnam.

In Iraq, however, the objective was clearly defined from the beginning and was accomplished in a minimum amount of time because Bush DID let the military go in wide open and is continuing to allow them to use as much force as necessary to maintain what they have won. We will not be over there years and years. Bush is already working on an exit strategy and implementing a government run by the Iraqi's. It is true that his exit strategy will probably take longer than Kerry's would have, but I think Kerry would have pulled out too soon and Bush will keep troops over there long enough to ensure that the new Iraqi government IS established and has a chance of running on it's own.

And the accusations of Bush planning to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea and/or Cuba NEXT is an equal amount of horse-shit scare tactics. Aside from the lack of military size, Congress will NOT be giving approval to any more pre-emptive strikes unless bin Laden does manage to launch another successful attack on the scale of the World Trade Centers....and the chances of that happening are much slimmer than they were 3 years ago.

Even if Bush DOES want to invade Iran or any of these other countries, he is going to find a huge LACK of support from Congress this time around and from the American people themselves. The American public (for the most part) agreed with the pre-emptive strike against Iraq. But the public and Congressional support will NOT be there for any more invasions unless something dramatic happens to justify it.</font>