[Brilliant]

The rest of the world doesn't seem to understand that the US policy change is a reaction to the failure of the rest of the world to deal with real security threats, like al Qaeda and Saddam. As pointed out by the American leftists, there are plenty more real security threats besides al Qaeda and Saddam, but we can't take them all on at once.

[goodnesswins]

"....but we can't take them all on at once."

HEH...HEH...HEH....but, we're making a list!

[meenie]

A move by the United States to look out for its interests instead of kow-towing to group interests as the UN represents is welcome. There seems to be a tendency for the US to stick its nose into too many foreign controversies, though. We cannot solve all the world's problems nor should we be trying to. Our financial resources cannot sustain the rate of intervention we have seen in the last couple of decades.

In order to sustain a strong defense capability, we cannot fritter our resources away like we have in the Balkans, Haiti, etc. We won the cold war by forcing the Russian Bear to overextend themselves. We now face the possibility of doing the same to ourselves. We cannot ignore the huge trade and government deficits we now see. Our military, due to high tech, has to have a strong financial base to support it.

[TheDon]

"The rest of the world doesn't seem to understand that the US policy change is a reaction to the failure of the rest of the world to deal with real security threats, like al Qaeda and Saddam."

Well said. The rest of the world seems to be lingering in the pre 9-11 world.

[LibKill]

but we can't take them all on at once.

You are right.

Now, remember how one eats a whole roast elephant.

One bite at a time.