Rei wrote:United States does not have the capabilities to do the things that you are talking about in this thread
You mean be the main peacekeeping force of the UN....because that is the OP.
The OP brings up a simple set of points. Not associated with your little tangent, that you pulled from a very short and simple reply, outside of the OP.
If I considered your harassment, as anything other than what it is....I would have been happy to engage you.
As it is, what is there to say?
YOU, created the question.
YOU answered that same question. In my name no less.
YOU then attacked me for said answers.
YOU congratulated yourself.
Well, when one looks at it like that... it really is not any different than any other thread you participate in.
Now, out of fairness. I will ask one more time....
Would you like to ASK questions and or make statements that DO NOT INCLUDE ANSWERS IN MY NAME?
Should you want to do that, within the confines of the OP, I would be happy to engage you.
RC wrote:I don't think that having a UN sanction would change what the aftermath of a military invasion is like.
I think that we can have it both ways. We stimulate our economy with the military, and they're real jobs instead of some of the stuff people come up with when conducting economic stimulus. If we never use it to its full extent then we should be thankful for that.
Under those circumstances, the aftermath would also be on the UN, not America.
It seems out of balance when, on one hand, Americas entire infrastructure is based on war time pursuits and on the other hand, the populace curbs away from war time activities.
A great many public and private sector companies depend on the military aspect of our economy, as they fail, it brings the economy down as well.
So how can we "have it both ways" within those parameters?