Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

Well-founded patriotism is not childish nor is it
old-fashioned. What is childish is the brand of national pride
many countries practice far in excess of their
accomplishments. Were it not for the United States and Great
Britain, there would be no free Europe today. Were it not for
the United States standing almost alone, western Europe would
have been overrun by the Warsaw Pact. And today, were it not
for the United States there would be no effective military
to counter modern style agression.

What I haven't seen is the US using it's military very
effectively in recent times. They've gone all soft. I can't
believe you actually gave Hussein a trial!

If you mean Iraq, I'd agree that our military hasn't been used
effective. But, the initial war in 2003 was over in only 3 weeks.
And, I take great umbrage to foreigners who have no stake in this
disparaging the brave men and women who wear our uniforms in the
defense of freedom everywhere so I don't appreciate people who
say we've gone soft.

I judge by the tone of your reply that you're a foreigner. Fine.
Now, how about discussing your country's recent successes and
failures in the War on Terror. At best, no country in the
coalition has deployed more than 5-10% of the US presence. As to
Saddam, it is necessary for our allies and those who are neutral
in the region to know that we stand for democracy and we stand
for fairness. To have sumarily executed Saddam, which many of us
would have preffered, would only serve to lower the United
States to the level of its enemies. You may recall that a great
deal of effort was taken by the Allies in WWII at both Nuremburg
and in trials for the Japs. That is necessary for countries that
want to claim that they are fair even to their enemies.

As to the rest of the world's military, outside Russia and China,
and maybe North Korea, the Western democracies have all gutted
their armies, navies, and air forces in order to save money and
divert it into social programs they deem more important. What I
wonder about is what would happen if the Eiffel Tower or Big Ben
were destroyed as was the World Trade Center. France and Great
Britain no longer have long-range strategic armed forces to
counter such a threat which leads most observers to think that
they can rely on the United States.

If Sen. McCain is elected president in November, there's a chance
our allies could count on us to help them if they're attacked but
if Sen. Obama becomes president, I think we can rely on him
gutting the military by tens of billions of dollars, recalling
troops from all over the world, and attempting to talk our
enemies down. Again, like Europe's Socialist states, Obama would
do this - and he has promised to do so for over a year - and he
would attempt to pay for his Big Government cradle to grave
programs with the presumed savings from gutting our military.

If history has shown us anything at all, it is that maintaining a
strong military is of paramont importance to deterring attacks or
major agression either on the United States per se or in any of
the world's hot spots.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet