[ElricMorlockin]

Originally posted by Rikard_OHF: Do you think the United States is being very dimplomatic?

A great and fair question IMO! I think yes. If we have not been at all diplomatic, we wouldn't have wasted our time with... nineteen..... count them *nineteen resolutions! Eighteen of which were to enforce a cease fire agreement. Now think about that! Reasonable people usually talk first, then act. Unreasonable ones never want to do anything other than talk or act then talk from a believed position of authority.
What if your house was on fire? Would you want the firefighters standing around debating the most meritous way of fighting said problem, or get their asses in gear to fight the blaze and save your life? Basically this problem boils to this simple concept. At what point are we considered bastards from tiring of the endless nonsense that is occuring, and at what point are the Frances, Russia's and Germany's bastards for again asking us to talk some more?
Its like lending someone you know money, who is basically irresponsible. At what point are you a bastard and say "NO MORE!" and at what point are they the bastard for continually asking you for more?

For now they are attacking Regimes that are obviously dangerous to worldpeace But what about the future? I'm afraid that once Bush thinks that this method of getting allies is the right one, and I'm afraid he'll end up abusing it

A decent point. However, if we knew hadnt gotten into war with Hitler for the very same reasoning, would that have been a bigger danger to world peace? We can all argue to we are blue in the face about which of the allies are the ones who "took the Nazi's out". But the real answer is that no ones armies did so per se, the American Manufacturing capability was the deciding factor. Both of our then allies benefitted immensely from this fact. In fact, it was the deciding factor from both losing at extremely critical moments in the earlier parts of the war. Could Britain have won at El Alemein without the Lee and Stuart tanks wearing Rommels army down? Could the Russians have won without the food, ammunition, clothing, planes etc. given to them under lend lease, when their backs were against the wall?
The fact is, anyone who has ever been our ally, were allies of convienence, with the possible exception of the UK in the post WWII era. For instance, The French aided us in our Revolution, in order to tie up the British whom they were just beginning to go to war with (this whole era could truly be considered a world war if you look at the events happening in the late 1700's.). The Russians were our allies against the Nazi's then became our greatest foes.
This is the reason why you dont try to find permenent allies if you are the US. Its a misnomer to believe that you can keep them indefinitely. You find allies of convienence with like aims and goals for each circumstance. If this is false, look at what our so called allies have been trying to do to us for some time now. That is, long before Bush was even wading around in the Republican primaries... even before this mind you! In many instances there was hardly an air of friendship and cooperation, in some others there was. We can't bank on allies to do what is best for ourselves, quite simply its a suicidal idea.

my question to you is
Do you think the US is using the correct method, to convince nations to help them?
And if you do think so, Can you take away my fair for The Bush Regime (I hope you can)[/QUOTE]