In response to:

Will Obama Shun 'Perpetual War'?

Paulus Textor Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 11:38 AM
IF Obama actually did manage to disengage the US from its role as policeman of the world, that would be good. Unfortunately, Democratic presidents do not have a very good record in that regard. My prediction is that Obama will continue destroying the US economy, and eventually turn to war as a way of "sealing a legacy." The war or wars could break out any time, at any place: Kashmir, Taiwan, Syria, Iran, Georgia, Mali--you name it. At that point, if Obama remains true to presidential form, he will make the devil's calculus that he can "save the economy" by going on a war footing. A false premise, of course, but one that power-hungry politicians of BOTH major parties rely on.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 6:45 PM
If Comrade Hussein succeeds in weakening the US and our military,war may -find us- first.

IMO,Comrade BHO is setting the US up for a fall. He IS the muslim Manchurian Candidate.
Reginald10 Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 4:13 PM
If we do not "police" the world, who will? Or will thugs and dictators run rampant?

Judging by what we see in northern Africa, the latter. . .
Paulus Textor Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 8:13 PM
How about letting the rest of the world sort things out for themselves? Whenever the US intrudes and tries to play den-mother, things just get incomparably worse.
Midway through his inaugural address, Barack Obama proclaimed, "A decade of war is now ending." A cynical listener might respond: "And a new decade of war is about to begin." Obama sounded pacific notes Monday. But it will be a huge surprise if he can get through four years without going to war.

Military force should not be a frequent recourse for our leaders. For the first century or so of the republic, it wasn't. Leaving aside the intermittent war against the Indians, wars were few and widely spaced.

Beginning with World War II, though, American presidents grew much more inclined to send...