[Demidog]

In your view, when is the use of military force warranted against a foreign sovereign?

Only when they pose an eminant threat against the U.S.

[johniegrad]

Only when they pose an eminant threat against the U.S.

Actually, the term is "imminent threat". Nonetheless, can you clarify what constitutes an imminent threat? How would you define it and who would determine it?

[abraxas_sandiego]

BOOYAAA!!

[sheltonmac]

It should be pointed out that a threat to the U.S. is not the same thing as a threat to "U.S. interests." Saddam Hussein hardly posed a threat to the U.S. directly but his invasion of Kuwait threatened-- at least according to the federal government-- U.S. interests. In my opinion, it's this loose definition of "U.S. interests" that has put us in the position we are today. If we want to be consistent, perhaps we should change the soldier's oath to read, "I solemnly swear to uphold and defend the rights of all citizens of the world, and to follow all orders given by my commander in chief, no matter how unconstitutional those order may be..."

[motexva]

Afghanistan was harboring the architect of 9/11. We asked the Taliban to give him up. They refused. We removed the Taliban from power. We continue to search Afghanistan for bin Laden and his cronies. When we have captured/killed them all we will leave. It's pretty easy, surprised you don't get it. You can pretty it up, call them terrorists or Islamic fanatics, but all al Queda is a transnational criminal organization. It must be destroyed. In the course of the US' investigation/eradication, some nation-states may seek to impede us. If they do, they will be blasted out of the way. Bush has outlined this policy fairly clearly and simply. Seems like only the "peace at all costs" group of leftos don't get it - I didn't think you were a member of that clique but I guess you are.

Doesn't really matter - there's so few of your ilk, you guys have all the prestige and power of a Flat Earth Society.