John Glen said the following:

I did not expect you to agree with John Glenn; I am not NAÏVE enough to think that you would agree with anything that doesn’t fit into your own belief system. Nor did I expect that you would be kind to me either; seldom many of you are. But, I simply put it there for discussion purposes, to show that there are some intelligent people who think the way I do – since I am consistently called stupid because of my beliefs (reference maddan’s latest post). Yes, I believe those countries were “liberated” – no - I know they are. I think it’s just foolish to say they are not. It’s a denial of the facts to say that. You may argue that they have other problems; I agree with you, but they are both now democracies (struggling yes)and they have been “liberated” from dictatorships. Democracy does not come easy, especially when coming from dictatorship. Look back at the problems the United States of America had before democracy took hold in this country, and there were no enemies on its borders. History says about 14 years after the war for independence, but many argue even longer. Democracy has always come at a very high cost, but most of us believe the cost was worth it. I don’t think that the United States could ever have succeeded under the standards you put on it today. We would have quit and returned to the kings rule long before the war ended, and then again in our struggle to develop self-rule. There is not “anarchy” in either of these countries. You might be able to say there is civil war, if some dissent – especially coming from outsiders – can really be called civil war. Also, if you consider dissent coming from the Taliban as proof that there is no liberation, you have set a very high bar for your definition of the word liberation, and I can hardly argue intelligently against you on those grounds. Of course you know the Taliban will fight against any nation, especially in the Middle East, that does not set its government up as a Moslem Theocracy or something very close to that, so you have to argue that no government other than that kind will ever be free of Taliban attacks. Under your definition also, you must say that Israel is in anarchy because there is still terrorism in that country. Even England and the United States have to fall under your definition of anarchy. Also, think about it; how can you have both anarchy and civil war?

If that is true, Francis, then I suppose yours has just begun since it seems you have just entered your 15 minutes. I am anxious to read your argument since it seems you have not yet made one.

Oh stop it andrewjames. You read my posts didn't you? You even replied to them, rather unkindly I might add. Why should I leave? Yours was a stupid statement since I am the one who started this forum. You leave if you don't care to talk to me and don't even enter if you don't want to read me. Don’t you think that would make more sense? You are allowed, though, to enter and just make a rude comment if you wish to and I guess that is what you just did. However, it does bring to mind the butt chewing I received when I once forgot myself and was rude to a fellow poster. I don’t suppose you will read any of those kinds of posts for your rudeness though.

There is no anxiety, Francis. Frankly, I am enjoying this. Aren't you having fun? Please, comment away.

Brooosh I suppose that is one point of view. It is yours because you said so, but I wonder what the world would be like if "America" just stayed out of "things" completely - or England too for that matter. It seems to me that there would be more communism, more dictatorship, certainly there would be no Israel. There would be far less freedom, I'd think. But I don't know if the world would be better if our two nations just remained passive. I wonder if we would even still be free. But we will never know for sure I suppose. So, your comment that you made as a statement of fact is really just a theory. An interesting one, to be sure, but hardly provable if you don't really know how things would be if America and England just left everything develope with out getting involved. As for your statement that America’s (and England’s) involvement in Iraq has made the world a lot more dangerous, I suppose you are right in the short run anyway. But in the long run, what would it be like if we just didn’t involve ourselves in helping those who are oppressed or those who suffer from tyranny and terror? How long would it be until the greater part of the world would be enveloped under the control of those who would enslave it by force? How much more embolden would the terrorists be if we just let them do as they wished without any intervention? You look at things the way they are now and say American is “bad”. Have you considered what the world would be like if we did nothing to combat terror and tyranny? Are you saying we should just stand by and do nothing, say no to those who plead for our help? Where would England, France, Poland and other nations be if we listened to those who argued your side of the issue in 40’s? There were many in this country arguing your side then. We don’t really know how things will end up until it’s over, but we have a pretty good idea how they would be if we just stayed out of it. You might be right, Brooosh, but for the love of God, I’d hate to find out that you were wrong if we just did nothing. I think we have to help the oppressed nations of the world. I guess you just don’t feel that way, so we will just have to agree to disagree for now. P.S. You know what I meant, Francis.

You make a fundamental mistake in assuming that America's interventions have been to help oppressed people. America intervenes first and foremost to safeguard the interests of corporate America and its oil supply. (That is a statement of opinion, not fact - I just disagree.) If oppressed people are involved so much the better, because it gives the warmongers a pretext. (What!? I can't believe that you really believe that. How can people not comment on that statement as sharply as they do on mine - I will standby and see if they do. But, of course, I will not hold my breath. That is another opinion - a wild one at that.) Face facts, American foreign policy these past 50 years has been an unmitigated disaster. Almost every intervention by America has proved counterproductive. (Yes, unfortunately you are right. If we had more help and more bold actions (and what I would consider right thinking) on behalf of the rest of the free world (and from the opposition in our own country - and from the U.N.) things might have turned out better. Thank God for England in the present battle. But you comment on the facts - that is always good to do, of course, but tell me what you would think things would be like if we didn't help at all. Do you really think things would be better? I guess you do, but would it be "right" not to TRY to help the oppressed?) As for Bush crippling Al Qaeda, that really is the most delusional thing I have ever read. (You make another good point. But I don't think delusional is the right word really. I think he meant that Al Qaeda does not have anything close to the free ride they did before our involvement, and that we did knock off a whole lot off the top of their organization and have killed a great number of there warriors (not that they are having much trouble replacing them, of course). But I agree with you somewhat in the present - but the struggle continues and I think it must or how can we live with ourselves if we just don't try. That's all I'm saying. We might loose big time. We might fall flat on our face and look even worse in the eyes of the world. But I believe that we have to do whatever we can to fight these oppressors. It is certainly a shame that we made so many mistakes, I can't argue with you there.) Since Bush invaded Iraq recruitment to Al Qaeda has accelerated. Bush's interventions in the Middle East have been the best thing that ever happened to that organisation. (Yes and no. We just don't know this to be true, yet. If we end it now, you will be right. Do you want to be right?)

markbrown: What do you make of the text you quoted? I'd rather have a debate with someone rather than a big straw man, limbs delicately rustling in the summer breeze. My comment at the beginning was "John Glenn said this, and it should make us think." This is what I "make of the text I quoted". That's all.

bukharinwasmyfa: They made me think that the US has made some huge foreign policy mistakes in the past and should've known better this time. Well, you do have me there. I can't argue with that. You are obviously right. I have stated before that we made some bad mistakes. That's no secret, it is clear indeed. I too wish we had done some things differently. All I'm saying is that we just can't do nothing - we have to do what we can to fight against terror.

YES!!!! Camilla, you have made my point exactly, and you have done it much more skillfully. Thank you.

I don't think that it is so difficult to come to those determinations, 2Lou. At least I don't have a problem coming to a decision most of the time. I think a consensus is hard to come by. I think that the World War II analogy is used because it seems to apply very legitimately to the issue of the terrorists and their (and our) point of view.

What is that easy way and why - bollocks? You are not very engaging here.

2LOU, you may be missing the point. John Glenn started by saying: "There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January." This is what the press and the ‘people’ jump on all the time. He then goes on to point out what has occurred in the past. He is, I think, making a comparison to the way things are today (worse, in his opinion) and the way things were when we were more (I think – and John Glenn, it seems) resolved to fight against evil. He is obviously pointing out that our struggle against terror today is far less costly in lives spent than any other war we have fought in the past, and yet it seems we are not near as willing to fight it. I think the underlining question is - Is that good? As for our decision to go into Iraq – that we may argue over. I think John Glenn’s point is that the reasons given for why we should not have gone in is the death figures. That is why he points to history and even the local death tolls of everyday life in our cities. What disturbs me, when I try to make the argument that we were right (and John Glenn to, from other things he has said) to go into Iraq seems never to even be heard, or at least it seems to be ignored. That argument is a sound one – but (as John Glenn ends his statement) “No one wants to talk about that!” The reasons for going in are moral ones. I suppose you have to ask yourself a few questions: Is it right to stand by and watch as Saddam kills helpless people in his own country by terror, tyranny and chemical weapons, and do nothing? Is it okay for Saddam to thumb his nose at one Security Council Resolution after another? Should we stand by and allow him to pay $25,000 to parents who will strap bombs on their children to kill other innocent women and children? I could point out many attrosoties that he and his sons and cohorts had committed, like holding men over wood chippers and slowly lowering them feet first, grinding them into bloody pulp in front of their wives and children. Camilla makes the point so clear in her post when she said: “Interesting to wonder what would happen if the UK and the USA did nothing on the world stage. We all still remember the horrors of the Holocaust.Should we really have done nothing?” But, as John Glenn said, “No one wants to talk about that!”