I would be weary of those who think there is nothing worth fighting for either.

Well, I do not fall in that group. I strongly endorsed Bush's actions in Afghanistan, up to the point when he turned his back of finishing the job there to pursue his Iraq obsession. War is a reality of our world. But it should be our last, last resort...

Yes I would be weary of anyone who think we should fight at the drop of the hat but I would be weary of those who think there is nothing worth fighting for either.

Not sure what you mean by "preventative war". You can’t prevent war in itself by conducting war. However you “can” prevent a war with a particular entity by going to war and winning against a different entity. Also you can choose to engage in a war that is unavoidable prior to your opponent being ready or strengthening their position so you will win instead of them.

People who seem to be genuinely eager to go to war, yet will not have to do any the fighting deserve to be called on it, in my view. Bit is one such.

Of course anyone is welcome to comment on the subject. How do you feel about men who have never had to fight, but seem to get very excited by the thought of others doing some fighting? It is understandable in a 20 year old perhaps, but I don't think any of us fall in that category.

It is also worth noting that most of the neocon hawks never served, much less saw combat. I leave you with Gen. Eisenhower's thought on "preventative war"

"I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."

However, I;m concerned about the consequences of not responding in terms of being trsted again in world affairs, particularly with those we sign treaties with.

Only an idiot trusts the sovereignty of their country to a treaty.

See, there are only two types of people involved with this conversation. Those who geniunely fear war, for varied degrees, and those who fear victory.

There is no reason a person can't fear both or neither. I would suggest that smart people fear both.

That's the question that many people have been asking since the US tried to get them membership. I agree that those who supported membership should support intervention now (which is also what James argues). If keeping Georgia safe from Russia was important 2 months ago, it should still be important now, regardless of treaties.

And I tend to agree, here.
I'm willing to allow that the administration may ahve reasons of it's own for not responding... even past the pure logistics of the situation. However, I;m concerned about the consequences of not responding in terms of being trsted again in world affairs, particularly with those we sign treaties with.

Those of you who go around screaming “Chicken hawk” are nothing but a bunch of “Chicken Sh*ts”.

Sorry, had to throw that in.

Don't be. It's quite accurate.

I tend to take Anjin here, with a grain of salt.He's revealed his hand a long time ago.

See, there are only two types of people involved with this conversation. Those who geniunely fear war, for varied degrees, and those who fear victory.

Those of you who go around screaming “Chicken hawk” are nothing but a bunch of “Chicken Sh*ts”.

Sorry, had to throw that in.

Russia simply lacks the manpower and resources to expand its borders by force.

Damn it. You should ask first, does Russia want it at all or not!! It's your but not Russia's own native american prerogative! It's surely hard to imagine for you, but there are nations in the world that don't want to rule it and crash anyone on their way! Look into history, and you'll assure. Russia never had a goal to invade and seize new colonies, only to defend it's own territory and people. But you won't stop at doing anything to live at the expense of others lives or deaths! You'll nether be ashamed to attack any retard or weak country yelling hundreds of reasons for that except the true one. Or drop an atomic bomb on the one with which you have no advance. Explain please, what the hell are you doing in iraq? Look what your government have done commanding georgia to crash a tiny province! They trampled children by tanks, dropped grenades to the basements full of civilians, they rounded up women to the fold and burned alive, shot away a cars with the refugees. But 1st their "peacemakers" bombed out their russian and ossetian colleagues! But should i tell? Guess it looks like a new bloody entertainment for you? And the bribed EU govs said it's russia's attack on georgia!! Russia just couldn't refuse to protect it's people. But one day ppl doing these things get their reckoning.

Russia simply lacks the manpower and resources to expand its borders by force.

Damn it. You should ask first, does Russia want it at all or not!! It's your but not Russia's own native american prerogative! It's surely hard to imagine for you, but there are nations in the world that don't want to rule it and crash anyone on their way! Look into history, and you'll assure. Russia never had a goal to invade and seize new colonies, only to defend it's own territory and people. But you won't stop at doing anything to live at the expense of others lives or deaths! You'll nether be ashamed to attack any retard or weak country yelling hundreds of reasons for that except the true one. Or drop an atomic bomb on the one with which you have no advance. Explain please, what the hell are you doing in iraq? Look what your government have done commanding georgia to crash a tiny province! They trampled children by tanks, dropped grenades to the basements full of civilians, they rounded up women to the fold and burned alive, shot away a cars with the refugees. But 1st their "peacemakers" bombed out their russian and ossetian colleagues! But should i tell? Guess it looks like a new bloody entertainment for you? And the bribed EU govs said it's russia's attack on georgia!! Russia just couldn't refuse to protect it's people. But one day ppl doing these things get their reckoning.

I think that oversteps a bit. Obviously, Russia does.... I tend to agree with the idea that Russia wouldn't deploy nukes in that condition... but that furthers my question about why the objection to taking action?

Russia doesn't care about Georgia, just what Georgia can do for them (or, if they're pessimists, against them).

If my rook is about to take your pawn, it's not because I care about your pawn, it's because I want the position I will get by taking it. Likewise, if you move your bishop to counter, it's not because you care about your pawn, it's because you want to deny me the place it holds.

Well, again, why Nato, then?

That's the question that many people have been asking since the US tried to get them membership. I agree that those who supported membership should support intervention now (which is also what James argues). If keeping Georgia safe from Russia was important 2 months ago, it should still be important now, regardless of treaties.

That happens, invariably in war. Of course, what too often does not get considered is the longer term loss of these things as a result of not responding to aggression early enough to make a difference.As my German expansionism comparison shows.

But there are also times when doing nothing was more cost effective than doing something. We can't generalize all future choices because of Germany.

That happens, invariably in war

Yea, the neocon mantra. "This is war, men die". Just not the cheerleaders like you who stay at home.

Look to the American left, and heir actions for these faults, Anjin. The war wasn't the cause of these, but the left's reaction to it.

So we lost our moral leadership when the left said "we think torture is bad, America should not do it"?

As my German expansionism comparison shows.

Well, an educated person might rebut that, back in the 60's the domino theory postulated that if we did not stop the communists in Vietnam, communists would go on to conquer all of Southeast Asia. We did not stop the communists in 'Nam, they did not conquer all of Southeast Asia, and today, Communist Vietnam is a solid business partner to the USA, just as is Communist China. Go figure. All that your comparison shows is sloppy thinking on your part. A single example does not prove a rule.

We would ignore it, unfortunately, as we already ingore heir incursions into the oil fields down there.

Right. Have you seen any UFO circling the Chinese oil fields there?

why the objection to taking action?

Because its an incredibly bad idea?

I assume not driving China out of Tibet is also a defeat for the US?

Depends. Do we have strategic interests there?

I don't think the lack of western response was entirely due to concerns about nuclear weapons. Like I said, Russia wouldn't deploy nukes just because we were kicking them out of Georgia. Mostly it was because nobody really cared about Georgia in the first place.

I think that oversteps a bit. Obviously, Russia does.... I tend to agree with the idea that Russia wouldn't deploy nukes in that condition... but that furthers my question about why the objection to taking action?

wouldn't consider them as part of our sphere of influence

Well, again, why Nato, then?

Well, China can just as easily announce that Cuba is part of it's "sphere of influence" tomorrow. I wonder how well that would go down.

We would ignore it, unfortunately, as we already ingore heir incursions into the oil fields down there.

Lost lives, lost national treasure

That happens, invariably in war. Of course, what too often does not get considered is the longer term loss of these things as a result of not responding to aggression early enough to make a difference.As my German expansionism comparison shows.

lost credibility, lost moral leadership, lost trust of allies

Look to the American left, and heir actions for these faults, Anjin. The war wasn't the cause of these, but the left's reaction to it.

The recent improvements in the tactical situation in Iraq do not make it a win at this point

Ever hopeful, aren't you?

That problem becomes worse when we don't respond to attacks inside our sphere of influence, which like it or not includes Georgia.

Hmmm. Well, China can just as easily announce that Cuba is part of it's "sphere of influence" tomorrow. I wonder how well that would go down.

You're still trying to sell Iraq as a loss? Amazing.

Lost lives, lost national treasure, lost opportunities, lost credibility, lost moral leadership, lost trust of allies. Balanced against what? One less dictator in the world? There are plenty more where he came from. Less aggression in the world? Not really. A stable democracy in Iraq. Might happen, might not.

The recent improvements in the tactical situation in Iraq do not make it a win at this point. It just increases the chance that it may eventually become a win. Bottom line is still that we are trying to dictate an outcome which will severely test the limits of our power and its ability to dictate the outcome, especially considering that we are dealing with a culture that we do not understand.

That problem becomes worse when we don't respond to atatcks inside our sphere of influence, which like it or not includes Georgia.

I wouldn't consider them as part of our sphere of influence. They certainly haven't been historically. We were trying to make them part of it, yes, but they have been a part of Russia's sphere for quite a while, and there was no reason to think their recent western leaning was a permanent societal change.