Or any of the above would have done something….

As to Star Wars – it’s more than a movie, there’s a lot of tech which has come out of it for everyday usage. A few years ago the WSJ had an article – dentists use some of the stuff invented.

$100 billion – peanuts.

We have Marx,or at least his stiff stting on some prime redevelopment land in Highgate cemetary.I thought that if we sold bits of him of to the international marxist movement,similar to the way bones of saints were put in amulets in meaeival times.Nice little earner and it leaves the mausoleum open to development.

Thats the kind of Europe I’d like to embrace,well apart from that Angelina bird who’s an Italian model

Sartre

Peter, Peter, Peter, why on earth would you want to hold on to the musty idea’s of Cromwell,Chesterton,Hume, Locke, Smith and Churchill when you could embrace Satre,Nietzshe,Foucault,Marx and Chirac. You will feel much better when you submit,er, embrace the new european world. The French and Germans have always been so much better at government and compromising in a group, just look at history. Relax mate.

People blame the US for everything, you know that.

As far as our national interests were concerned we could have sat out two world wars.

We could have smacked the Japanese around for awhile and told Hitler to come and get us if he wanted us so damn bad. The Germans could not make it across the Channel much less the Atlantic.

But instead of a thanks for dropping by we got a what the hell took you so long from our allies.

We went into Africa to stop a famine because a madman was starving his own people and using a bunch of drugged up gunmen to do it. Not to mention the fact that Osama was involved in the region. The loss of face came about because Clinton did not let the military do its job. So what is new?

but when it was all said and done they got Aidid.

Exactly. No national interest was involved. Bush Sr was to blame for sending the troops but Clinton was the one who expanded their role and allowed the UN to take control. Once again, the problem with both Somalia and Lebanon was a US president sending troops to a country where no US national interests were at stake. When no national interests are at stake “uping” the ante against those who attack the troops becomes an exercise in saving face with no real geopolitical objectives.

Terrye – “But if we had not gone in there p[eople would be complaining that we just sat back and let people die”

If I recall correctly Bush Sr sent the troops to Somalia AFTER he lost the election to Clinton. There was no need to do so and I don’t recall anyone blaming the US for the famine – though if it were to happen today the rhetoric used to justify the Iraq war would be used against the US for not intervening to save lives. But even so, better to be accused of doing nothing than to send troops to a conflict with one hand tied behind their backs and a lack of political will to fight back if challenged. The loss of face was entirely unnecessary because the Somalia intervention itself was unnecessary. That Lebanon and Somalia were later used against the US by Bin Laden was the fault of US politicians for getting into fights that weren’t worth finishing.

Yes i know. I was surprised even then when Reagan did not go after them. I think he was so concerned with the USSR that he felt this was a problem that could be contained or ignored. wrong…..

Youíre right. Jimmy Carter started the mess. Unfortunately, Reagan exacerbated the situation by removing our troops from Lebanon. Both men unwittingly encouraged the Mid Eastern nihilists to increase their violence. Reagan, though, was considered a hard-liner. Bill Clinton could always say that he was merely following the example of the former Republican president.