[KellyAdmirer]

The key is to simply not care about "world opinion." The world wants us to do nothing and accept being attacked. Anything else, and we are "hated" and receive high "negative" ratings because we "interfere" or are "imperialists." The rest of the world does not like anyone that can impose its will on others in any way. This is something the liberals do not seem to understand - they think we can be strong and loved globally at the same time. That is an impossibility.

To be strong and secure, it is necessary to disregard world opinion. I'm sure the Romans were far from loved when they instituted the Pax Romana and would have suffered from high global "disapproval" ratings if such were available then, but Rome sure benefited from its strength.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

You are so right about world opinion. We have a major US party (and the press) siding with the "world" over the US Constitution. Much is being asked of our few pro-American media outlets. (Thank goodness for Al's invention).

Hillary Clinton Attacks Bush, U.S. Intelligence Services in Overseas Interview

[Cacophonous]

I'm sure the Romans were far from loved when they instituted the Pax Romana and would have suffered from high global "disapproval" ratings if such were available then, but Rome sure benefited from its strength.

So are you advocating empire? If so, it would validate the Bush critics' claims that the war was just about oil, or water rights, or protection of the dollar. Are the President's critics wrong, then?

If we are to be an empire, let's do it right. No empire, ever, ever, ever conquered for altruistic reasons; it was strictly for glory, land and riches.

If President Bush is going to become an emperor, for God's sake, he should go out and declare himself so, as Caesar did in Rome.

[Cacophonous]

I'm sure the Romans were far from loved when they instituted the Pax Romana and would have suffered from high global "disapproval" ratings if such were available then, but Rome sure benefited from its strength.

So are you advocating empire? If so, it would validate the Bush critics' claims that the war was just about oil, or water rights, or protection of the dollar. Are the President's critics wrong, then?

If we are to be an empire, let's do it right. No empire, ever, ever, ever conquered for altruistic reasons; it was strictly for glory, land and riches.

If President Bush is going to become an emperor, for God's sake, he should go out and declare himself so, as Caesar did in Rome.

[Cacophonous]

I'm sure the Romans were far from loved when they instituted the Pax Romana and would have suffered from high global "disapproval" ratings if such were available then, but Rome sure benefited from its strength.

Pax Romana was not a policy "instituted" by the Romans, except that it was a direct result of their having kicked the shit out of everyone around them. It faded when the Empire faded. As all empires do.

[Cacophonous]

Further, Pax Romana actually began when Octavian (Augustus) defeated his rivals in the Triumvirate (Antony and Lepidus) and became emperor by proclamation of the Senate. Is that what you suggest for Bush?

As an aside, during the Pax,Rome (a superpower in its day) put the development of its citizens ahead of conquest. This was enabled by active defense of its borders. Will Bush do this?

Its neighbors benefited from the Pax Romana as much as did Rome, in large part because those that Rome did not conquer knew they could be conquered.

[A_perfect_lady]

This is something the liberals do not seem to understand - they think we can be strong and loved globally at the same time.

No, I think they know that. That's why they try to weaken us at every turn, try to sabotage our economy, decimate our military, and draw us down into the stagnant Marxist vortex that has swallowed the might of Europe. They know we can't be strong and be loved, and they chose to try and be loved.