Tom,

>>Yeah.. Personally I think it's about as stupid as it gets. Makes one wonder just what the Chi-Coms had on Clinton. <g> Those folks aim to take over the world. ***They have a very long term plan and are the epitomy of patience.***
>
>Doug;
>
>The part with *** - I could not agree more!

Well, I did see an escalation under Clinton of giving to the Chinese information that allowed them to move their ICBM targeting forward some 30-40 years.

>
>As we all know, this began with action from Jimmy Carter, signing over the rights of the Panama Cannel to Panama. It would happen sooner or later - just like Hong Kong - the date was set for action and the world was looking. Are you familiar with the history of Panama, going back to first the British and French in that area? Very interesting! At one time there was no such place as Panama - until interest was given in digging a cannel.

Actually, I think it all started with Nixon. At some point one moves from the arena of confidence into the arena of arrogance in thinking that we can change the behavior of others - especially that of nations. I think Mr. Nixon made this error. As an aside and as someone who has studied Biblical prophetical issues for some 30 years I can assure you that the rise of China at this point in history is no fluke.

>
>When I was in the Air Force, I said our nations moto was "Peace Through War". My thinking on this subject has not changed - in fact it has been reinforced. In order to preserve our way of life we must impose our values upon other nations. Is this morally correct? Depends upon your value system. In truth it is not moral but sure beats having another nation dictate to you. Might makes right and all that. We are far from a perfect nation but at least you have a good chance at living in this country and doing something constructive with your life.
>
>Tom

Well, I think that to a large degree you are correct. Nations are all about power, not morality (though they do reflect the prevailing moral positions of their day), which is sad IMO as ours at one point did have a larger moral component than these days. Still, the issues of when it is 'right' or 'wrong' for a nation to determine to intervene has to be a hugely difficult proposition. A lot of what you are describing I suppose has historically been not much more than an exercise in the political and military expression of the kind of excess testosterone levels required in those who strive to reach those high offices. <g> Let's be candid.. A lot of this is not much more than a glorified version of "King of the Hill" we all played as kids.. <g>

Clinton sure used military power for dumb reasons.

OTOH, yes, I do believe at times it is proper to militarily intervene in other areas of the world.t do not claim to always know when. Just as I would not as a Christian let an intruder attack my wife, I also would not hesitate to defend her. So, in that case I would think that force would be necessary. Sadly so I might add, but necessary.