Appropriate military action by USA

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.

[master of the puppets]

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.

[Zalmoxis]

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.

[Meneldil]

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.

[_Martyr_]

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.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

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.

[Geoffrey S]

As has been said, the US as a sovereign nation can do whatever it liked with its armed forces; I'd prefer to see them put to better use though, and deployed more sensibly than has been the case in recent years. I'd prefer to see them used mainly for policing actions rather than as an attacker, but it's probably unrealistic to hope for that too much.

[Kanamori]

That we can do as we please is totally irrelevant to the poll though. The question asks, "What is appropriate?" It is stupid to fight a war on international terrorism alone, and thank God we aren't fighting it alone.