[bytor2112]

Originally Posted by a-train

But here lies the problem. We have an American leadership that has endorsed an unapologetic bully foreign policy. It openly characterizes nations as "rogue" and uses threats of sanctions, invasion, and warfare to promote action. Such a policy has been long proven to be a path to war and sorrow.

The process also breeds division among the American populace itself, while certain groups paint those who do not endorse such a policy as "soft on terror", or "weak on foreign policy", or even "unpatriotic". In the most nasty examples, those who do not buy this policy are considered as sympathizers of terrorists or even familial with their cause.

-a-train

We have characterized nations as rogue or as state sponsers of terrorism long before Bush and we were gearing up for a military response to 911. Previous administrations had been soft spoken and done nothing with regard to the growing terrorist threat. A little tough talk aimed at nations that encourage terroristic aggressions is way over due.A policy of doing nothing will yield results such as 911 and the attack on the Cole. Th threat of terrorism is real and should be dealt with as aggressively as possible and the nations labeled by past and present administrations should be warned of impending consequences if corrective actions aren't taken. The argument over patriotic or unpatriotic is distasteful to me and is a lot of hype and political posturing on both sides of the aisle. Burning the President of the United States in effigy and some of the ridiculous slanders that are presented by so-called anti-war groups are nothing more than an attempt to divide our country. Take a hard look at some of protest groups and see who they really are and what they really represent.....