HELL YEAH we kill Taliban.

And it's focus and commitment that shapes world events.

> The Dragon Agh wrote:

> Americans aren't allowed to go into other countries to kill people.
Dunno how anyone can defend that...

wrong,  the marines can deploy to anywhere in the world for 30 days with no approval from anyone.

hmm i thought it was exclusively marines.. oh well my mistake

>>Says the USA president... it doesn't mean that any other country in the world will accept it, and thus it's not allowed.
Sounds kinda idiotic.<<

Oh well if its not allowed...

maybe we should put up signs LOITERING AND TERROR ATTACKS STRICTLY PROHIBITED CC 1940.33

Um, BW, I don't get your post at all.
Ofc you wouldn't be against any troop deployement from your country in any other country. I never though you would be against your own country even if it blew up the entire world. Too much of patriotism is never good.

Your attitude that your country can do whatever it wants if your president says so is what bothers me.
If any other country would do or even SAY the same thing then you'd go crazy about it.

For example, Russia went into Georgia, you go "they are evil!" or whatever. Saying that "Georgia is a sovreign country!". And then when your country does much worse... your patriotism comes in the way of any kind of critisism abt it.

I love my country. but i also recognize who has the power and authority in that country.  I give them respect accordingly.  "respect to whom respect is owed honor to whom honor is owed." "the authorities are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. would you have no fear for the one who is in authority?"patriotism for a piece of land is foolish.  the land can do nothing for you.  but those you serve are your protectors and are the ones that deserve the patriots.

The land has nothing to do with it. Patriotism is for the ideals that are the foundation.

Watch this. This is what patriotism truly is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF2iX2VG6e4

@ Dragon....

Oh no, If my President invited Arafat to the Whitehouse, I would be EXTREMELY PISSED.

If my President decided to "Unilaterally speak to the leader of Iran" to hash out and discuss our differences.....I would be pissed at him.

If my president "Talked" and "discussed" the issues with Hitler, then proclaimed, "We have peace in our time."   I would be very upset at my leader.

My comments, Dragon, were in answer to yours.
What you expect, or dont expect of me is of no matter here.

Your comments were very uneducated, and so illogically broad in its confounded theory, that it takes a sane individual to point out your flaws.......that you still cling to.

War is the last step of diplomacy.
Not only that, most of the time, war is Good, because it eliminates, for the most part and eventually, the bad forces that counter freedom.

Wake up, its a real world out there, with real problems.

Oh mr. Taliban, wont you come out and play mr. Taliban? Why do you stay in your cave, shaking with fear mr. Taliban? Is it the Marines, the Army, the Air Force, the bombs, the artillery, the helicopters, the pissed off women who hate your chauvinistic ways?

Or is it because your mad we killed your lovers, ms Camel and ms Sheep?

Where is the influence upon the world mr Taliban? Where are those mighty islamic armies you were going to raise? What laws do you manage to enforce now? mr Taliban you seem to miss the power, the influence, the ability to destroy relics of other religions, so why do you not show yourself so we can play with you?

This is a somewhat of an aside note on the talking-to-kind-of-enemies point. First, I don't know if it should be called 'talking-to-enemies point... You can call it that too.

It can have various purposes. One is to put respect to the authority the US leader will be talking with to. So that a visiting leader X will get some recognition. This is, in my ingorant opinion, one of the most used so far within US foreign relations, apart from the connections-standpoint.

But would you think this is the only reason for talks? There could be other purposes too, if you are looking for them. Did Ahmunajad come to NYC last year to talk how great it would be for the US to talk to Iran and say how great they are? Not really. Well, imagine a situation in which a US official goes to Iran and tells them how worthless their economy is, because of the sanctions that are imposed? You have noticed how some people could be swayed - some of them are easy to pursuade. Maybe compare it to the thriving economies of UAE, Saudi A and Bahrain? Ok, the last speech would not be easy to make, but the point is: the policy makers think of talks as a purely recognition stand point, but it does need to be.

And my opinion is: I would not be offended if the US president invites someone to the White House. I would be offended if the president would *listen* to that someone and I would be offended if the president would easily trust him. I don't think either one of the candidates would make this mistake... Ok, look, I am glad I am not dealing with it in real life.

And don't forget that a lawyer can fight with a pen in his hand. I used to think that a handgun can do more damage than a letter, but I am slowly revising my attitudes.

@BW
"MINIMUM has a point of view that can be negotiated, or again at a minimum, is close to your position"

No, I am not assuming that. I can talk with someone that I don't trust. I would not have to roll out the red carpet for some glamorous presentation, but I can use the talks to my advantage at some point or another, as long as I am not naive about it.