Replies

I am confident that if Australia (or Europe) were attacked, America would come to their defense. And, the fact that we actually pay for and maintain a strong military force would be looked at as a positive. Our huge investment also allows our Allies to believe that military spending is not that crucial for them-- disretionary spending, really--, after all you have the US to bail you out if things "get scary".

But, when WE ARE ATTACKED, and it becomes time for the US to exercise our force to advance the cause of civilization, then we are looked at as provoking instability in the world.

President Bush is not what the World Media (who mostly hates America) portrays him. He is no cowboy. He is rational, in-charge, and ever mindful of the role that history has thrust on America while he is in charge. And "we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

..but, when WE ARE ATTACKED, and it becomes time for the US to exercise our force to advance the cause of civilization, then we are looked at as provoking instability in the world....

This is the other arm of the spin, the 'ungrateful world who won't support the US when the chips are down.' It's not true. Go and take a look at how many nations were involved in the attack on Afghanistan, even nations like France who invariably attract moronic scorn here on FR no matter what they do. A lot of conservative governments around the world will be risking their status because of their support for the US when this thing starts. This Iraq attack is a gift to the international Left- unless the president makes a clear unambivalent case for it. Over to you, GWB.