The USA should be de-militarized and all munitions turned over to the UN. 0 0%

US military action should be strictly defensive (on US territory) in character. 3 7.50%

Military action outside US borders should only occur when UN-sanctioned. 9 22.50%

Limited action outside US borders is permissible as a direct counter-attack only. 6 15.00%

In coordination with NATO, the USA should have free reign using its military in the WOT. 6 15.00%

The USA should have free reign using its military in the WOT. 16 40.00%

A second short poll, extending on another theme from the October poll.

Poll above: please feel free to extend on your answer below.

Reply

Its our milatary and we can use it how we please.
Saying this if are trully commited to bringing freedom in the wrold there were probably more deserving countries than Iraq *cough* Genocide in Sudan *Cough* But I refuse to let some asians frogs and an african tell us how to run our country

Reply

The USA should have free reign using its military in the WOT.

Reply

We should have free reign, but (and here's the important bit) only when military force is the appropriate tool. You don't go chasing flies with a sledgehammer. There's an international law-enforcement angle that has been severely neglected. Not to mention, follow the money, follow the money.

I'm pretty confident that we're doing everything that can be done in terms of wire intercepts, cyber-snooping, etc. I wish we were doing half so much with infiltration and suborning of members.

Reply

As a foreign country, I would not be very happy if another went around spying on all of my citizens, in my country, w/o speaking w/ me first. So, to me, the concept of "free reign" seems cloudy here. And w/ the NATO option it is unclear if we ought to work w/ NATO, or that we may only have "free reign" when in cooperation w/ NATO. I interpreted it as we should work internationally, rather than not cooperating at all abroad.

Reply

More bombings less invasions though. There is nothing that can't be solved through the liberal use of explosives

Reply

Seems fair to me, thats what all countries should have to do.

Reply

I would have voted the bottom option, but it's not formulated properly and can be interpreted as supporting the way WOT has been fought so far, i.e. by attacking entire countries from which a few, now dead, terrorists came. So I won't vote in this poll.

Restricting the use of the US Army would be insane in many ways. If there, in the future, would be a way in which usage of the US Army would actually prevent rather than create terrorism, I'd fully support the usage of US Army forces for that task. They shouldn't need to ask the UN for permission.

Reply

the military is a tool for keeping the country safe, and how better to do that then to go to the enemies homes and grab um by the nuts, outr military should be weilded by a congress and senate of americans. how would WW2 gone if we were in a organisation like the UN, we would have entered the war immediatly when our military was still weak and the germans strong, we would have entered with no good reason in our eyes and no rally cry of Pearl Harbor. ui cannot predict how it would have went, but run it threw your head would it be better or worse if our military had had stock in another country.

Reply

I don't think the US should have the right to attack countries that it considers dangerous, and maybe falsifying their reasons for attacking harmless (or poor) countries *coughIraqcough* for reasons based on information that has not been confirmed.

Reply

I don't expect from the US anything else from the good old 'we do whatever we want, and we don't give a crap about your opinion'. But then it's up to them if they're hated for their action, and if they can't handle the mess they created.

Anyway, each country is IMO entitled to do whatever it wants with his army, as long as it's prepared to face the consequences.

Reply

The US has the right to do whatever it will with its army, that pretty much defines what a sovereign nation is. However, in the civilised West, unhinged aggression with little planning, forsight, intelligence or strategy will get you very little international support. Something that comes in really handy when you completely mess up... Because of this it is in everyones best interest if the international community cooperates and works together, not maverick style - each country doing whatever the hell they want with literally no considerations of the consequences. The same logic that binds small communities together on a small scale - property planning laws, local councils, residence groups, police forces, etc... applies equally on the international stage.

Reply

As a sovereign nation, the US can do whatever it damn well pleases with it's army-I'm not arrogant enough to dispute that. However, I feel an aggressive foreign policy serves no-one, and a unilateral approach only isolates the US. It's certainly not very ethical either. So, I went with what I would hope the US would use its military for-namely, the direct counter attack option.

Reply

Are these Hitler quotes:
"Its our milatary and we can use it how we please."

"The USA should have free reign using its military in the WOT."

"We should have free reign, but (and here's the important bit) only when military force is the appropriate tool." ?

Military action outside US borders should only occur when UN-sanctioned. This is the right answer; for the US as for any other country.

Reply