Cerek, I'll go further than you and note that our efforts in Afghanistan have been a huge success, but one that takes lots of efforts and baby steps -- If you haven't read my "Updates from Afghanistan" on Oasis, provided by a senior member of my firm working with USAID to help establish the rule of law in Afghanistan, I encourage you to do so. Nevertheless, I still encourage you to review my rebuttal to the "gentle giant" characterization, as posted above.

Davros and Donut Mr. High Pastry, I've acknowledged the "De Nile" pun at least thrice on this very forum. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 11-11-2004, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

<font color=plum>And I still stand by my assertion that the "Bully Label" is based as much (or more) on fear as it is actual historical accounts. We've already seen the DoomsDay predictions asking "Which country will Dubya invade next? Iran, North Korea, Cuba?" When the fact is that America has shown no interest in invading and "taking over" ANY of these countries.

I've outlined my own reasons for opposing the Bully label as it has been applied. The argument about tariffs and other penalties was rebutted by yourself and it was correctly pointed out that these financial penalties are standard procedure for ALL countries. So that just leaves us with accounts of America acting with force against the wishes of the U.N. or international community - and those examples aren't nearly as numerous as the hysteria critics would lead us to believe.

The bottom line is that other countries realize there isn't much they could do to STOP the U.S. if we DID decide to pursue a full-scale agenda of pre-emptive strikes...and they are basing their "bully label" as much on fear of the potential invasions we could accomplish as they are any actual conflicts we have engaged in. Yet the U.S. has NOT shown the desire to act in as prolific a manner as has been suggested.

Iraq was invaded because Saddam Hussein had been on the Presidential "To Do" list since Bush, Sr. was in office and perhaps even before then. Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish that, but the U.N. wouldn't allow him to. I think that played as much a factor in Bush, Jr's decision as anything. Slick Willie certainly never gave Saddam much concern. Instead, he made huge cuts in military spending that effectively ham-strung our military and prevented them from being capable of taking such an initiative against Iraq (or any other country for that matter).

Well, I'm done arguing about it. You can agree with the critics if you wish. I don't. Simple as that.</font>

I was excepting you TL - I knew u gnu 2 [img]smile.gif[/img]

And on others! ;)

Did you acknowledge the "sticky R's" pun? :D

[ 11-12-2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Donut ]