Should The U.S. Be The World's Policeman?

I'm sitting here watching FNC's Bulls and Bears (I think), and I hear some twit asking if the U.S. really needs to be the world's policeman, specifically asking, "Do we need to be in Germany?"

As much as I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't be the "world's policeman," one question comes to mind when I hear someone make that statement - If not the U.S., then who?

What other nation has the power projection? What other country has the track record we do? Russia? China? If those nation's project their power, it's only to invade and occupy, or "annex," like Crimea.

The United States has been, is now, and will be the only global force for good in history. We are the only ones who can do it, and people who believe that it's not in our national security interests to do so are dangerously naive.

It's one thing to stay out of other nation's internal affairs when one political ideology is squabbling with another ideology, but when an ideology's stated goal is the destruction of western ideals and they've been willing to put action behind those thoughts, as is the case with Islamic terror groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS, then we are obligated, in my opinion, to take whatever actions are necessary to ensure our safety and the safety of our allies.

None of this means the U.S. needs to be involved in every brush war that pops up everywhere across the globe, nor does it mean we should be "nation building." It simply means that we can't hunker down, with our heads in the sand, and just wait for the problem to clear itself up, or worse yet, make its way to our shores before we act.

It's past time to stop worrying about what other nations think about the U.S. and start worrying about making sure we're safe. ~ Hunter

The Consequences Of Not Finishing What Was Started

By now, just about everyone in the world knows, or should know, that Iraq has been mostly overrun by islamic (lowercase for disrespect) radicals over the last several months. The islamic state of iraq and syria (again, disrespect) has gained control over vast swaths of territory. How did this happen?


Say what you want about the war in Iraq - we went in under false pretenses (we didn't), we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction (we did), Bush screwed up the war effort (he didn't - check the Rules of Engagement then versus now).


Whether or not you agreed with, or supported the war, the fact remains that we were there. We started something under President Bush, and while Bush definitely announced the end of major combat operations a tad.....prematurely, he certainly ran the war far better than King DingleBarry.


One conservative commentator recently said something to the effect that during the 2008 presidential campaign, all he remembers is Obama saying he would end the war in Iraq, but never once said anything about winning the war, and he was right. The Professional Prevaricator never said anything about winning. Well, he certainly accomplished that particular mission, as it were.


The problem with ending, but not winning a war, is that the ones who often pay the price for that failure are the ones who need help the most. The Iraqi "military" - although it hardly qualifies to bear that appellation, wasn't strong enough to turn back the tide they're now facing. Many units threw down their weapons, shed their uniforms, and ran away from the militants now taking control. They abandoned their own people to the mercies of those who have none.


Think about this for a minute or two - ISIS is so brutal and dangerous that even its "parent" organization of Al Qaeda - those terrorists responsible for the deaths of almost 3,000 of our fellow Americans - has disavowed them. That should tell you all you need to know about the "mercies" of ISIS.


The United States has nothing more than a token force left in Iraq, and a great many of those are private contractors, and last I heard, those contractors' positions were completely surrounded by the new enemy. I pray for them. They're going to need God to get out of the mess that the Constant Campaigner helped create.


We have a president who's so disconnected from reality that he doesn't even realize it. He actually thinks - no, believes - not only that pulling our troops out of Iraq, but announcing the timetable was a GOOD thing. It truly doesn't take a military genius the caliber of Alexander the Great to see announcing a troop withdrawal of an area that hasn't been properly pacified would only lead to disaster.


While certainly not identical in nature, what's happening in Iraq right now is eerily similar to the end of the United States' involvement in Vietnam, but it's worse. Much, much worse. After overrunning Vietnam, the communists were content with killing their own people. They stayed in Vietnam. After ISIS finishes taking Iraq, does anyone seriously believe - other than King DingleBarry, I mean - that they'll be content with staying in Iraq. I fear that a victory by ISIS spells trouble for the United States, right here on our own soil. I, for one, will point the finger of blame squarely at Obama, mainly because he did not finish what was started. ~ Hunter