"Fear of punishment is what keeps honest people honest."

er, speak for yourself, I don't steal because I find it moraly wrong, its got nothing to do with being scared somones going to punish me if I do it.

Wo!wo!wo!.steady on here!
This debate seems to be between yanks and Brits.
I am a Brit.I consider Americans to be my friend along with Ausies,Kiwis,and Canadians(seal bashers).
I don't want to see the USA make the same mistakes as we did.Look at how we are veiwed around the world.Imperialism breeds resentment.Iam in some respects quite pleased the US is a superpower because we have shared values.
But if you think that taking you're bases out of the UK would worry me you wrong.
The only reason Europe is not a superpower is because of Britain loyalty and friendship with the US.We are the ones who put a break on an independent european military.But when you start rocking the world boat and bullying smaller nations it makes reasonable brits wonder.
I've read the posts of Lupe and Quiet one they like me are not extremists.I think that you just don't get an honest veiwpoint of what you're best friends in the world think.

its kind of off-topic but its a nice point:
america declared independance from britain in forming itself. it was a declaration against imperialism, and i say 'good for you'.
what america is doing today is just that: imperialism, and as such america cannot possibly win by going down this route.

- qo.

Plz opinions: WHy would it be stupid or not logical to assassinate Sadamm Hussein and place new leader and governemnt in his place?? PLEASE LOGICALLY ANZ

Impossibly difficult: not the kleast because of the problem of defining "America": the current administration, the nation regardless of Presidents, the people -which people? and so on.
In an ideal world, America would avoid win/lose situations: not everything is a boxing match or the toss of a coin.
However, if we take a very broad view of what's being said here, then it's hard to see how America could be in other than a no-win situation: histroy has no lessons to teach about being the ONLY super-power: America has to write the guidebook, on the hoof, as it were.
And there is the bully/tough guy analogy- be it never so tenuous: how can one win honourably when one is bigger and stronger than all the rest.
Also, America seems to be at something of a loss to define satisfactorily what "winning" would be: who exactly would have to lose, and what would that entail? How would a "victor" know he was a "victor" rather than the victor in just another battle?
One can imagine how "winning" the war of Independence, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War etc could be clearly - or clearly enough -defined; but how does one win a "War against Terrorism"?

Originally posted by John bull
Just a quick point.
I can not except that the USA could be directly attacked by Iraq with nucear weapons.It's doubtful(at best) that they even have them and they certainly do not have a delivery system with that range.

And it was doubtful that we could be attacked by a group operating from Afghanistan.

And, a couple years from now, after following such a spineless plan of not disarming Iraq and killing Hussein, after the weapon(s) of NBC nature are smuggled in and detonated across the country, we'll say that was very doubtful, too.

I'm fairly certain America will be attacked again.

I just know its far more likely to happen if you start a full scale war in the middle east than it would if you backed off and addressed the issues these countrys have with the US.

To the best of my Knowledge Al-Quaida have never tried to blow up large parts of Holland.

one has to wonder why.

Because "Holland" does not exist anymore?