Does the US need a strong leader to make it bad*** again?

[gambit]

Before I start, I am a proud American and I believe this is the greatest country in the world. I know we are also one of the most powerful and we deserve a degree of respect.

Now, everytime something idiotic happens, like the latest happening of the soldier shooting the Quran, our president and other government officials seem to think we need to start apologizing and basically kissing ass. Now I understand most of it may seem political but with all of the ass kissing, not to mention major increases in national security.

Is the US forgetting it's superpower position when dealing with things like terrorism? Why is it we have to be so ultra-sensitive to so many groups? I know diplomacy is very important, especially now, but it feels like America is losing it's 'macho-ness' when it comes to government and military. I feel like we need to blow something up again, because instead of respecting the US military most peoples seem to dislike it and disrespect it to a degree.

Do you think it's time we got a good old war-lovin (not war-mongering, just lovin) president? Think Patton but nicer and...a president. Your thoughts?

[Joker85]

We act in our interests as every country does. Do you think Bush really gives a about the koran? No. But he does rightfully care about the US winning in Iraq and keeping momentum we have gained since the surge. The apology is in order to secure our own interests and maintain the support of the Sunnis that have been fighting with us.

[JP226]

A war leader? I think it needs to be understood who's the boss. I know europe won't like it, nor the rest of the world but there has to be a leader in the world. It's not about kicking ass and invading countries, it's more about running a hardline deal of "this is how things are going to be." The best way to achieve it is to be aggressive economically IMO. Ultimately the rest of the world is going to have to conform and get in order. And in return providing such a line provides stability. It's when that line is crossed, and at times repetitively that happens. It's no wonder that in times of outright superiority there was stability, I point to the roman empire or the british empire and if we are too meek to play the role we have to, we shouldn't be a superpower in the first place.

[gambit]

A war leader? I think it needs to be understood who's the boss. I know europe won't like it, nor the rest of the world but there has to be a leader in the world. It's not about kicking ass and invading countries, it's more about running a hardline deal of "this is how things are going to be." The best way to achieve it is to be aggressive economically. The rest of the world is going to have to conform and get in order. And in return providing such a line provides stability. It's when that line is crossed, and at times repetitively that happens. It's no wonder that in times of outright superiority there was stability, I point to the roman empire or the british empire and if we are too meek to play the role we have to, we shouldn't be a superpower in the first place.

This was what I meant, not necessarily a leader who will jump to war but is willing to fight it and fight it hard. But in the end someone more agressive.

[Tiwaz]

So now, after your humiliating failures you want to pretend they never took place and make USA somehow again uncontested master of the world?

How stupid one would have to be to fall for it? USA had it's moment in the sun, now it is on decline. You guys trying to behave as if you are still at the peak of your position will only result in long term loss.

Force rest of the world to comply to US will economically or militarily? Militarily USA can't pacify Iraq. Even less world.

Economically, USA is extremely shaky. Trying to pretend that you are the boss could have unknown and undesirable effects. Like it or not JP and rest, USA is right now in no position to start playing bossgame.

If USA tried to force rest of the world submit to it economically, there is real risk that instead of propping your failing economy rest of the world would just let it fall.

"This is how it's going to be" is not an option for USA which relies on rest of the world to float it's failing economy. "Guys, there is problem and we think it should be solved. We have these ideas and want to hear your opinions" is much better option.


In short, world does not need leader. In fact, it needs anything BUT leader. Single leaders trying to use dictatorial power are the absolute worst solution on global scale. It will only lead to situation of everyone else vs self-proclaimed-leader. And that will kill the leader. You guys better get off your powertrip and accept that future of USA is not dictating, but negotiating. And that is not negotiating from position of power, but equality.

[Jimexander the Mighty]

So now, after your humiliating failures you want to pretend they never took place and make USA somehow again uncontested master of the world?

How stupid one would have to be to fall for it? USA had it's moment in the sun, now it is on decline. You guys trying to behave as if you are still at the peak of your position will only result in long term loss.

Force rest of the world to comply to US will economically or militarily? Militarily USA can't pacify Iraq. Even less world.

Economically, USA is extremely shaky. Trying to pretend that you are the boss could have unknown and undesirable effects. Like it or not JP and rest, USA is right now in no position to start playing bossgame.

If USA tried to force rest of the world submit to it economically, there is real risk that instead of propping your failing economy rest of the world would just let it fall.

"This is how it's going to be" is not an option for USA which relies on rest of the world to float it's failing economy. "Guys, there is problem and we think it should be solved. We have these ideas and want to hear your opinions" is much better option.


In short, world does not need leader. In fact, it needs anything BUT leader. Single leaders trying to use dictatorial power are the absolute worst solution on global scale. It will only lead to situation of everyone else vs self-proclaimed-leader. And that will kill the leader. You guys better get off your powertrip and accept that future of USA is not dictating, but negotiating. And that is not negotiating from position of power, but equality.

I will give you a cookie if you tell me one country in the whole world that could do a better job in Iraq than the U.S. has.

[Rapax]

I will give you a cookie if you tell me one country in the whole world that could do a better job in Iraq than the U.S. has.

I'm sure Tiwaz gives you a box of cookies if you tell him what other country would have decided to invade Iraq in the first place.

[sirfiggin]

I will give you a cookie if you tell me one country in the whole world that could do a better job in Iraq than the U.S. has.

Iran, Turkey, China, possibly Russia, a coholition of Syria, Eygypt and Jordan....do I get a cookie now?

[mongrel]

I will give you a cookie if you tell me one country in the whole world that could do a better job in Iraq than the U.S. has.

Erm,.......... Saddam Hussein's regime.

A cookie easily earned

[LoZz]

A war leader? I think it needs to be understood who's the boss. I know europe won't like it, nor the rest of the world but there has to be a leader in the world. It's not about kicking ass and invading countries, it's more about running a hardline deal of "this is how things are going to be." The best way to achieve it is to be aggressive economically IMO. Ultimately the rest of the world is going to have to conform and get in order. And in return providing such a line provides stability. It's when that line is crossed, and at times repetitively that happens. It's no wonder that in times of outright superiority there was stability, I point to the roman empire or the british empire and if we are too meek to play the role we have to, we shouldn't be a superpower in the first place.

my god. you really think you guys are the world police dont you:?? and i bet you wonder what it is you did to bring 9/11 apon yourselves ( though 9/11 can not be justifyed)

american doesnt need a strong war leader, its needs a stong leader who will focus on fixing the many deep problems of america, rather then the worlds. it needs a leader who isnt afraid to critize america, it needs a leader who will sort out the 3 million americans on foodstamps and the 40 million americans who have no access to healthcare. a leader who will help american familes struggleing to make ends meat, help families with childcare as many many homes are now forced to not only have both parents working but working 2 or even 3 jobs each just to put food on the table, i watched abc news last night, you guys dont even have maternity leave! one women gave birth thursday and went back to work monday, and she had no choice otherwise her family would starve!!!!

there are bigger and more important problems for american to sort out within its boarders.

[Kiljan Arslan]

A war leader? I think it needs to be understood who's the boss. I know europe won't like it, nor the rest of the world but there has to be a leader in the world. It's not about kicking ass and invading countries, it's more about running a hardline deal of "this is how things are going to be." The best way to achieve it is to be aggressive economically IMO. Ultimately the rest of the world is going to have to conform and get in order. And in return providing such a line provides stability. It's when that line is crossed, and at times repetitively that happens. It's no wonder that in times of outright superiority there was stability, I point to the roman empire or the british empire and if we are too meek to play the role we have to, we shouldn't be a superpower in the first place.

And the best way to be aggressive economically is to get rid of like Free trade.

[k995]

A war leader? I think it needs to be understood who's the boss. I know europe won't like it, nor the rest of the world but there has to be a leader in the world. It's not about kicking ass and invading countries, it's more about running a hardline deal of "this is how things are going to be." The best way to achieve it is to be aggressive economically IMO. Ultimately the rest of the world is going to have to conform and get in order.

I doubt that. You seem to forget why the US became a super power in the first place. WW1 and WW2 seriously weakened western europa . US and USSR replaced europa. US was able to keep control of europe because of the cold war threat . WHen thet was gone and with the arrival of EU, and of large trade nations like japan, south korea and china the US superpower status has been slowly eroding the last decades.

If the US tries to reasert that power, I doubt the world will follow, why would they? The US cant win a economic war against the rest of the world, I doubt it can even win against EU for that matter. Ad even more important it would hurt the US just as bad as anyone it tried to take control of so what is the point?

And in return providing such a line provides stability. It's when that line is crossed, and at times repetitively that happens. It's no wonder that in times of outright superiority there was stability
I point to the roman empire or the british empire and if we are too meek to play the role we have to, we shouldn't be a superpower in the first place.

I would suggest you check again that "stability". Problem is its such large periods you just look ovet the unrest parts.

[JP226]

Until another economy produces on order of 13 trillion plus, your nonsense Tiwaz is just nonsense.

[Tiwaz]

Until another economy produces on order of 13 trillion plus, your nonsense Tiwaz is just nonsense.

Nonsense? Yeah, you produce 13 trillion. And if you are not continuously propped up by rest of the world your economy will die like snowball in hell.

You guys are overspending. Your budgets rack up record deficit after another, your economy is already shaking with housing bubble partially bursting, you rack up more debt daily.

USA has impressive numbers, but only because rest of the world is willing to put lots of money into USA to keep it floating. If you try to strongarm rest of the world, you will have dollars dumped, making it about as valuable as toilet paper and radical reduction in investments to USA.

Total, economical, crash.

World economy would take a dip, but US economy would crash and burn.
That is why you guys can't afford to play big boss. You are living on other peoples money. If they don't give you money...


As for Iraq. How many of those claimed 40 countries would have gone to Iraq without lead imbecile USA?

And yeah, those 2 icelandic explosives specialists really were huge contribution. I think they might have taken over Baghdad between the two of them.

Or others... Moldova, Kazakhstan, Dominican republic, Azerbaijan... Omigosh! Mongolian horde is there too!

[Rapax]

Do you think it's time we got a good old war-lovin (not war-mongering, just lovin) president? Think Patton but nicer and...a president. Your thoughts?

That's great, your president unilaterally invades another country, has 2 wars on his tally in all, yet you somehow feel you need a more badass leader. So what do you expect of your ideal president? Maybe a nuke if someone gives him lip?

[Heinz Guderian]

That's great, your president unilaterally invades another country, has 2 wars on his tally in all, yet you somehow feel you need a more badass leader. So what do you expect of your ideal president? Maybe a nuke if someone gives him lip?

freakin lol man.

[Red_Praetoria]

Im an American but I completely disagree. We dont need to get all tangled up in the worlds problems or try to dictate to the world what we want done. We need to solve the problems we are facing right now.

We need to speak softly and carry a big stick.

[Last Roman]

We need to speak softly and carry a big stick.

indeed

I'm tired of being the world's police. damned if we do, damned if we don't.

We can continue to be a influential and strong country without having to be the world's superpower.

[Twfan55]

indeed

I'm tired of being the world's police. damned if we do, damned if we don't.

We can continue to be a influential and strong country without having to be the world's superpower.

The supreme law of the land (The Constitution) meant for us to protect liberty here at home, not go around, overthrow regimes, "liberate" people and force democracy (Which really isnt a good form of government anyway) at gunpoint.

(I do support the Democratic Process for electing representatives and officials although)

[Sher Khan]

Do you think it's time we got a good old war-lovin (not war-mongering, just lovin) president? Think Patton but nicer and...a president. Your thoughts?

Why didn't we have a Patton as president in the first place?

Because this Hollywood-esque America you believe in never happened.