Yes, We Are the World’s Policeman

air_forceIn his speech to the nation on Syria last week, the president twice emphasized that America is not the “world’s policeman.” According to polls, most Americans agree.

Unfortunately, however, relinquishing this role assures catastrophe, both for the world and for America.

This is easy to demonstrate. Imagine that because of the great financial and human price the mayors and city councils of some major American cities decide that they no longer want to police their cities. Individuals simply have to protect themselves.

We all know what would happen: The worst human beings would terrorize these cities, and the loss of life would be far greater than before. But chaos would not long reign. The strongest thugs and their organizations would take over the cities.

That is what will happen to the world if the United States decides — because of the financial expense and the loss of American troops — not to be the “world’s policeman.” (I put the term in quotes because America never policed the whole world, nor is it feasible to do so. But America’s strength and willingness to use it has been the greatest force in history for liberty and world stability.)

This will be followed by the violent death of more and more innocent people around the world, economic disruption and social chaos. Eventually the strongest — meaning the most vile individuals and groups — will dominate within countries and over entire regions.

There are two reasons why this would happen.

First, the world needs a policeman. The world in no way differs from cities needing police. Those who oppose America being the world’s policeman need at least to acknowledge that the world needs one.

Which leads to the second reason: If that policeman is not the United States, who or what will be?

At the present moment, these are the only possible alternatives to the United States:

a) No one

b) Russia

c) China

d) Iran

e) The United Nations

The first alternative would lead, as noted, to what having no police in an American city would lead to. Since at this time no country can do what America has done in policing the world, the world would likely divide into regions controlled in each case by tyrannical regimes or groups.

China would dominate Asia; Russia would re-dominate the countries that were part of the former Soviet Union and the East European countries; Russia and a nuclear Iran would dominate the Middle East; and anti-American dictators would take over many Latin American countries.

In other words, a) would lead to b), c) and d).

Would that disturb those Americans — from the left to the libertarian right — who want America to stop being the “world’s policeman”?

Note well that Europe is not on the list. Europeans are preoccupied with one thing: being taken care of by the state.

As for e), the United Nations, it is difficult to imagine anyone arguing that the United Nations would or could substitute for the United States in maintaining peace or liberty anywhere. The U.N. is only what the General Assembly, which is dominated by the Islamic nations, and the Security Council, which is morally paralyzed by Chinese and Russian vetoes, want it to be.

Americans are retreating into isolationism largely because of what they perceive as wasted American lives and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan. But this conclusion is unwarranted.

It is leaving – not fighting in — Iraq and Afghanistan that will lead to failures in those countries.

Had we left Japan, what would have happened in that country and in Asia? Had we left South Korea, would it be the vibrant democracy and economic power that it is today — or would it have become like the northern half of the Korean peninsula, the world’s largest concentration camp? Had we left Germany by 1950, what would have happened to Europe during the Cold War? We did leave Vietnam, and communists imposed a reign of terror there and committed genocide in Cambodia.

American troops around the globe are the greatest preservers of liberty and peace in the world.

To return to our original analogy of cities without police: Thinking that we can retreat from the world and avoid its subsequent violence and tyranny is like thinking that if the police go on strike in Chicago, the suburbs will remain peaceful and unaffected.

We have no choice but to be the world’s policeman. And we will eventually realize this — but only after we, and the world, pay a terrible price.

In the meantime, the American defeat by Russia, Syria and Iran last week means that the country that has been, for one hundred years, the greatest force for good, is perilously close to abandoning that role.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Kukye

    No Dennis, we are the world’s policeWOMAN!

    Politically incorrect, morally obtuse, fiscally irresponsible nation. We once were MEN, but now we are just “MEN”INGLESS!

    • WW4

      Speak for yourself; I have no doubt in that case it’s true..

      • Kukye

        Well, well, look who’s talking. The man himself. Well, at least the last time he checked.

  • GH

    Give me a break: As if the US Army is a collection of philanthropists, only wanting to help others. Where was America when the Christians in Iraq were butchered? In Iraq – doing nothing to prevent it. Where is America when the Christians in Syria are being butchered? Arming their murderers.

    Foreign policy is a grand game of chess to protect the nation and acquire resources. I don’t blame the USA for fighting for USA, and I also agree that a world dominated by the USA is much preferable to a world dominated by China or Russia. But in the end, USA fights for USA and no one else.

    • Hass

      ” Where is America when the Christians in Syria are being butchered? Arming their murderers.”

      That’s because the last three Administrations have been romancing Muslims.

    • Chezwick

      I have great admiration for Dennis Prager, but the one aspect of this equation that no one seems to be talking about is financial. On foreign policy/defense//security issues, Dennis is making the same mistake that libs make on the social safety-net issues….he’s not acknowledging that we’re broke and we can’t go on with business as usual.

      I’m not suggesting that orchestrated retreat is necessarily GOOD security policy, I’m pointing out that beggars can’t be choosers. We can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman, just as we can no longer afford the myriad of social programs that bloat our deficit and debt. Unless we start acknowledging our fiscal problems and formulate policy accordingly, we’re just hastening the day when – to quote Jim Morrison – “the whole sh*thouse goes up in flames.”

    • lori

      just as Ernest responded I’m amazed that any one able to make $4056 in a few weeks on the computer. i loved this

      w­w­w.Y­a­d­7.c­o­m

      • gray_man

        up yours

    • Omar

      In order to make Russia democratic and pro-Western, force Putin out of power and replace him with a Yeltsin-like pro-Western leader who will follow our every command. The Brooklyn Nets NBA team owner would make an excellent choice for president of Russia. The United Russia Party needs to be outlawed at all costs.

  • 11bravo

    The commies here in our country don’t care Dennis. They want us to be subjugated; by them.
    The GOP establishment does not believe this. Were DOOMED!!

  • John B

    America…the greatest force for liberty and world stability. I hope you won’t mind me pointing out that Great Britain didn’t do so badly during our time in power.

    • Moa

      Britain was vastly better than what came before it. It was not as good as what came after it. The genocides of all colonial powers in Africa was shocking (research it).

      The US was too young to make the same mistake, and after its adventures against the Spaniards where Cuba and the Philippines were snatched the US has not been interested as a direct imperial power. The US meddles as a kingmaker for sure, but that is a much weaker thing than imperial annexation.

      Also, while Britain did what it did for its own perceived interests (I’ve no problem with that, it is what it is) the USA did a lot of things for what it believed was the common good (like bankrolling the defense of Western Europe for the last 70 years).

      Britain did a great job. The US did a better one – because the US did what it did quite often placing the benefit of the people it was helping (eg. Marshall Plan) over its own direct needs.

      I say this as someone from the Commonwealth (New Zealand) who has benefited directly from both great powers.

      The Americans had been so remarkably generous and benign to its allies that they were taken for granted – to the extent that those allies repeated the anti-US Cultural Marxist (false) memes while still having their hand out for the fruits of US largesse. Britain included.

      Nope, the US was not perfect, but before the Obama Administration at least its intention was liberty for all. No other country/civilization wanted that out of sheer principle.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    This is one of Prager’s most incoherent articles. He conflates our need for domestic law-enforcement with the internal affairs of foreign states. Our government’s laws apply to our jurisdiction. It works not merely because of our police force but because we share [the remnants] of a common culture.

    He introduces irrelevant utilitarian arguments to suggest it is our responsibility to prevent loss of life around the world. He conflates the internal oppression of populations with the conflicts across international borders, i.e. war. He implies that we’ve pursued a policy of “maintaining peace or liberty” even though most of the world lives with violence and oppression. He can’t face that the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan is due to Islam. He draws parallels from our nations-building after the complete destruction of Germany and Japan to other conflicts. He holds the 33,000 dead and 128,000 wounded in Korea as the one success-story of a post-WWII policy for the regime change and nations-building that he advocates.

    This is insane. Is this article written by the real Dennis Prager?

    • bluffcreek1967

      I agree! The last thing our war-weary country needs more of is to see itself as the world’s policeman – especially since it hasn’t worked and utterly wasted the lives of Americans and costs us billions.

  • WW4

    Guess what? You can’t root for Putin last week and root for this article, too. Pick one.

    This article exhibits all the reasoning of a very earnest middle school kid.

    We are responsible for mitigating violence all around the world? Huh?

    Yes, there is something to be said for stability.It beats instability. I’m as much as a realist as anyone. But we have tried the interventionist thing. It never works out–so keep trying it? Or ramp up the violence even more? But wasn’t violence the problem?

    We left reality long ago. I’d like to get back to it. I’d like to get back to stabilizing THIS nation–not anyone else’s. Look around–it’s time to put the focus back on us. There is a lot to face up to–how many decades must we put it off to pursue outside adventure? Quite frankly, if Quezburgistan turns Islamic and hostile–great! Then we have an actual enemy–not a shadow, not a faction out of many other factions whom you’re always wondering if they’re truly on our side. Aren’t you sick of it?

    • bluffcreek1967

      Didn’t our founding fathers urge us to not entangle ourselves in foreign affairs? Maybe they realized how whacky and deadly things could get if our nation tried to be “the world’s policeman”? I like Dennis Prager, but his suggestions are the last thing our country needs.

      http://www.ambrosekane.com

      • gray_man

        And yet we have been involved in well over 100 conflicts since the founding of our country. Including some of the “founding fathers”.

        • bluffcreek1967

          Some were unavoidable. The founders weren’t against all war, especially if U.S. interests were at stake. But clearly, in the past 50 years, we have went to extremes and engaged in a host of unnecessary conflicts.

          • gray_man

            I’m not necessarily dis-agreeing with you. I just get tired of the meme that America never goes to war, and our founding fathers abhorred all external disputes. It’s just nonsense.

          • Texas Patriot

            Thomas Jefferson didn’t abhor it, but he didn’t seek it either. It was only when the Ambassador of Tripoli informed him that according to the teachings of Mohammad that Muslims had a right to raid and plunder American shipping that he sent Old Ironsides and a contingent of marines to take care of business. Protecting American shipping in international waterways has always been a legitimate function of American foreign policy. Protracted land invasions that cannot possibly be won and are hugely costly in terms of of American “blood and treasure” are clearly not in American interests and should be avoided.

          • gray_man

            I understand perfectly the circumstances with Jefferson and the Barbary pirates. And I did not call for “protracted land invasions”. However as a world power (and we are the world’s super power, whether we like it or not), you never take “protracted land invasions” off the table.
            Frankly I like being the world’s super power.
            And yes I have served in combat, both as military and civilian, so I’ve put my money where my mouth is.

          • Texas Patriot

            It’s fine to be the world’s greatest military power. It’s not smart to waste “blood and treasure” on wars that cannot possibly be won in any meaningful sense. We’ve been there and done that, and we’re now $17 trillion in debt. It’s time to be a lot smarter about national security. As Teddy Roosevelt said, we need to speak softly and carry a big stick. And when we need to defang a wolf or kill a rabid dog or cut the heads off a swarm of snakes, we need to do it ruthlessly and quickly without unnecessarily wasting money or men. That’s how things need to change. Being the “world’s policeman” is a fool’s errand. We’re much better off making sure we’re the toughest kid on the block that nobody dares to fool with.

          • gray_man

            Any war we have with a muslim nation could be easily won, if we would go to war to win. We haven’t done that yet.
            We beat the 4th largest army in the world, twice. Both times in a matter of weeks.
            The military is not there to nation build, it is there to nation destruct.
            At that we are very good.

          • WW4

            What violence can accomplish in these particular countries, though, seems like a mixed bag at best. I’m not saying it doesn’t work. As much as I don’t agree with our use of the military in the last 10 years at least it 1. put some teeth in our foreign policy and 2. Helped us gain a lot of tactical intelligence. Just not enough not to know the difference between a “just cause” and a “fool’s errand.”

  • luckycat76

    The biggest difference between Japan, Korea, and Germany and current Mideast nations is that Korea and Japan embraced the West, and Germany, of course, was a nation of the West. You cannot hope to influence Mideast nations determined to fall backwards into the 7th century political theocracy that is Islam.

    • bluffcreek1967

      I think that’s a very important point. These people are stuck in the 7th century committed to their pedophile prophet and are unable to shake their fanaticism. It’s no wonder they live in huts and caves in the middle of the desert! We need to leave them alone, and stop trying to save them from their destructive and fanatical ways.

  • Certified Diversity Trainer

    We should only be involved with the internal affairs of other nations when our VITAL interests are involved. No, we are not, nor should we be the world’s policeman. The analogy of a municipal government not policing THEIR cities falls flat because these are not OUR cities or nations.

    America should, as much as possible, stay out of that primitive part of the world and keep them out of the West. Containment of the Islamians to their own nations is the better approach.

    Oh, but that would be RAAAAAACIST…

    • Aurelius

      The Equality Occultists have been in control of immigration policy for quite awhile now. I expect their handywork to result in many more Major Assans, many more Boston Marathons, many more Woolwich beheadings, etc. etc.

      How much sense does it make to allow the immigration of millions of Muslims into the West when at any time anyone of them could become “radicalized” and take up the Jihadi warpath, killing untold numbers of innocent civilians?

      Aren’t our governments culpable in this? Not even a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration has been considered.

      • Kathleen R

        In effect, we have millions of ticking time-bombs that could go off at any time. The radical-in-chief sees no problem here. Move along, move along…. nothing to see here.

  • YoshiNakamura

    In general, this is a good article about the necessary role of America in helping to keep peace in the world. However, Iraq and Afghanistan are not at all analogous to Japan and Germany because the populations in Afghanistan and Iraq are are guided by the doctrines of Islam which prevent their societies from ever becoming peaceful and democratic, no matter what we do or how long we stay there. After overthrowing Saddam in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, we should have left immediately. All the American blood and treasure we expended there was wasted! Any analysis of the situation in a Moslem country which fails to take into account the doctrines of Islam is bound to be wrong. Denis Prager should know better.

    • TienBing

      We keep peace in the world (if that is truly our place or duty) by making those who contemplate causing us grief tremble at the prospect of the sure, swift, and merciless retribution that will ensue.

  • TienBing

    The idea of the US taking up the “White Man”s Burden” (Rudyard Kipling) dates to the rise of progressive imperialism at the turn of the 20th century. Every intervention was justified by some iteration of McKinley’s rationale for retaining control of the Phillippines:

    “…there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them,…”.

    True progressives of course dropped the requirement to introduce the savages to the “opiate of the masses”, and substituted “democratize them”; all for the good of the world naturally. Anyone who questions the rectitude of this noble endeavor is of course an “isolationist”.

    Kicking the (word of your choice) out of those who attack us is not only justified but highly recommended as a basis of foreign policy. Sticking around to build their nation, or intervening in their internal squabbles is asinine. If Syrian chem war stocks or Iranian nukes are really a threat to the US then take them away from them. If necessary kill them all and salt the earth where they once lived. But please – enough with the progressive bs about making the world safe for democracy, or the moral imperatives for meddling, duty to police the world, etc..

  • Thomisticguy

    The analogy between American failing to police the world, and a city failing to police its citizens appears flawed. A city ought indeed to police its citizens. What it ought not to do is interfere in the business of other cities by attempting to police them, too. A state that is virtuous provides a context in which its citizens can develop virtue, work in occupations for which they are suited, and contribute freely to the common good of the state. A state ought not to undermine its first duty: to provide that context in which its citizens can flourish as virtuous citizens working together for the common good. Being the policeman of the world undermines the state’s ability to meet its first and primary responsibility to its own citizens. It takes resources from them, thus reducing its ability to meet its moral duty to its own citizens, in order that it can attempt to perform the duty another state has for its own citizens. Only when a state is in imminent danger, such that it will not be able to provide a peaceful environment in which they can contribute to the common good, does it have a duty to defend itself by means of engaging in a just war. Short of this, a nation has no business policing or paying the water bills of other states, while its own citizens are thirsty. Likewise, Denver should police its citizens, but not deplete its resources to do so by attempting to police Cleveland, New York and Los Angeles at the same time.

  • lischelle

    It is stupid/absurd to compare global policing to any city in America since the majority of the world does not operate their legal or judiciary system without also including their religion in it as well

  • fcasencion

    Reality is that the “policeman” cannot be everywhere at all times. But America’s willingness to use force (when necessary) at great expense and sacrifice assures the liberty and relative peace in the world.

  • Omar

    I have a great idea. Why don’t we force regime change in Russia. Force Putin out of power via coup (as well as throw him and his United Russia Party cronies in jail-preferably Guantanamo Bay) and replace him with a pro-Western leader whose politics are very similar to that of Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin was a great leader who worked hard to restore democracy in Russia before and after the fall of the Soviet Union. The only mistake he made-and it was a big one-was that he decided to appoint Putin to be his successor to the Russia presidency when he left office in 2000. The owner of the Brooklyn Nets NBA team would make a great president for Russia. Then, maybe we can convince him to ban all Communist signs and materials from Russia and have that country join the West. Then China will be all alone in the UN Security Council.

    • Erudite Mavin

      It matters what type of person is U.S. President. One that can be respected and a Putin who knows we are not afraid to stand by our allies.
      Or
      An Obama who has taken apart our system and enabled radical Islam to spread through out the Middle East and Africa and who Putin knows Obama is a tool and a joke.
      I wonder if those who voted for Obama or enabled his election by sitting home or voting third party can live with themselves.

  • Erudite Mavin

    Prager is spot on.

    Wars are more costly in lives and funds when countries such as the U.S.
    sit back as in the 1930s when Hitler was pulling his power together,
    taking over countries, rounding up Jews.
    If this could have been stopped at the beginning, millions of lives would have been saved and for those worried about money, far less cost.
    The radical Left and Libertarians use the word World Police as a pejorative.
    Their sorry as* would not be around to whine if it was not for taking on an enemy who has attacked us, taking on others which spreads to the point, we are next.

    • WW4

      Sorry. We can’t keep going back to WWII as the sine qua non of American involvement. Yes, it holds valuable lessons we should never forget. But so does the Korean conflict, so does Vietnam, so does the Iraq War. In WWII, we went up against an imperial political power with plainly-stated aims. We were not trying to affect the outcome of another nation’s internal conflicts. They had real soldiers who wore uniforms you could shoot at. We used the military for what it is meant.

      • Erudite Mavin

        I know only too well how the enemy operated in the Korean & Nam
        war and how it operates now.
        The game the isolationist play, it doesn’t concern us (when in fact it more than ever does) or the enemy doesn’t wear a uniform thinking, we must only fight WWII type of wars when that is long gone.
        3 of the 4 killed at Benghazi are from my city and their families live here. Isolationists & the Radical Left can continue to look the other way until they are next.

  • monostor

    Someone said that this article isn’t written by the real Dennis Prager and I think that he/she is right. The real Dennis Prager would’ve acknowledged that a multi-civilizational world cannot have one policeman only. Some civilizations want to live in peace some don’t. Some are living by very different value systems, different from ours. Some are outright hostile. Employing one policeman only the world has to decide which way it wants to be policed: fireman-style continuouosly putting out small fires, or SWAT-team-style fighting gangs of enemies who enjoy non-stop provocations.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Americans are retreating into isolationism largely because of what they perceive as wasted American lives and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan. But this conclusion is unwarranted.

    Isolationism isn’t the answer, but the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were about as fantasy-based as it gets and were destined to fail even before they were ever implemented. What we need is sane leadership and right now I don’t see anyone sane in either the Republican or Dhimmicrat parties. They are all oblivious, especially when it comes to Islam.

    It is leaving – not fighting in — Iraq and Afghanistan that will lead to failures in those countries.

    That’s utterly incorrect. We should never have been there in the first place. Indeed, Islam is not a “religion of peace” being hijacked by radical Muslims. That’s absurd. The reality is all Muslims in the world are our eternal mortal enemy, since the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through violent and non-violent jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law.

    Furthermore, Islam is not even a faith-based religion. Instead, it’s a very totalitarian cult that also sees any and all manmade laws as abominations that must be obliterated, thus all democracies throughout the world are fair game for jihad. It’s amazing that after all these many years of nothing but failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, that this writer still doesn’t have the first clue.

    Had we left Japan, what would have happened in that country and in Asia?

    The biggest difference between our war against Japan in WWII and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan today, is the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan today are incredibly fantasy based, and the war in Japan was based on solid footing. Nevertheless, it’s still very hard for me to comprehend this kind of dysfunctionality the writer exhibits when it comes to Islam.

    Had we left South Korea, would it be the vibrant democracy and economic power that it is today

    If this writer believes that democracy is even remotely possible in the Islamic world, then I have some beautiful swampland for sale in Arizona that I need to sell him. Damn…talk about naivety.

    American troops around the globe are the greatest preservers of liberty and peace in the world.

    I can agree with that, but not with the sheer utter lunacy and incredible naivety with respect to Islam, especially after all these many years. When will he ever wake up?

    We have no choice but to be the world’s policeman

    I don’t like to phrase it that way. Instead, I like to say that the only thing that stands between a world that is dominated by tyranny and totalitarianism and a world that is dominated by freedom and liberty is the US’s military might. However, our military, like the country as well, is in steep decline thanks to both Bush’s idiocy and Obama’s Marxism, and while the writer is an incredibly naive loon when it comes to Islam, he’s right on most of his other points.

  • Texas Patriot

    Some ideas are so obviously and inherently absurd that their mere statement as an objective premise constitutes an absolute self-negation. Such is the case with this article, and I think we should all thank the author for saving us the trouble.

    • gray_man

      Which means you can’t refute it.

      • Texas Patriot

        There’s no need to refute it. It’s self-refuting.

        • gray_man

          Bless your heart, keep telling yourself that.

          • Texas Patriot

            Bless your heart too. The idea is completely absurd. Where in our founding documents, i.e. our Declaration of Independence or Constitution, does it call for America to be the “world’s policeman”? Where in any Act of Congress are we called to be that? Where in any U. N. Resolution does it say that? Who appointed us world policeman? Who’s paying us to be world policeman? The whole concept so completely absurd as to be absolutely laughable.

          • gray_man

            Where in the Declaration or the Constitution does it say that we should not pursue American interests in the rest of the world?
            In order to pursue those American interests, we provide security.
            Quite simple really, bless your little heart.
            Oh, and by the way, the first run in with islam this country faced was by pursuing our interests in other parts of the world.
            Maybe you should study some history.

          • Texas Patriot

            “Quite simple really, bless your heart.”

            I’m sure you mean that sarcastically, but I don’t mind it. ;-)

          • gray_man

            Well, I hope we can all be friendly here, even if we disagree on some details.

          • Texas Patriot

            I think we can be. As I’ve already pointed out to Daniel Greenfield, and I think he agrees with me, Israel can take care of herself and she doesn’t need America to fight her battles. All she needs to do is get aggressive with those who attack her. Giving back captured territories should be out of the question at this point. Instead, Israel should take decisive action in response to every external attack by requiring forfeiture of lands and expulsion of all those who attack her. In that way, either the attacks would cease or eventually Israel would reconquer all of the original Promised Land and form a perfect “buffer” between the perpetually warring Shia to the north and the perpetually warring Sunni to the south. Makes perfect sense, right?

          • gray_man

            I’m certainly not against Israel pursuing her own interests.
            As far as being a buffer between two entities that want to destroy her, I’m not sure that would be wise. Multi front wars seldom turn out well.

          • Texas Patriot

            Israel has no alternative. She is strategically situated between the Shia to the north and the Sunni to the south, and there is no denying that. Being a buffer is an inevitable consequence of that inescapable fact. If the external attacks against her cease, fine. Otherwise, she might as well acquire more land so she can do a better job of keeping the Shia and Sunni from slaughtering each other. Think about it. You’ll get used to the idea. And you’ll like it. It’s better than the alternative of giving up land and becoming an easier and easier target. Face it. Israel will be a buffer or a bullseye. She’s much better off in the role of a buffer.

          • gray_man

            I understand israel has no choice. Maybe I should have been more clear. I am all for Israel taking over the entire region if she could. But I am also for USA supporting Israel, when / if she needs it. I am totally against every islamic country in the world. Islam is a blight on humanity.
            I know it won’t happen but I would be perfectly happy if the Shia and the Sunni slaughtered each other to the last man. But both Sunni and Shia will put the caliphate first, and the destruction of Israel over their own disputes.

          • Texas Patriot

            God loves everybody. Maybe someday the Shia and the Sunni will wake up and stop wanting to kill each other. Until then, Israel will be caught in the middle, and she will need to defend herself. If she needs America’s help, fine. But I think she will be able to handle the situation very nicely if we just leave her alone and let her take care of business. It’s a difficult situation, but not an impossible one.

          • gray_man

            God does love everybody, but he only puts up with so much. Israel is God’s chosen people, whether muslims like it or not. Islam will be broken when the Messiah returns.

          • gray_man

            “she doesn’t need America to fight her battles”. What she needs is for America to stop trying to tell her everything, and get out of her way. But that doesn’t mean we can’t support her. Of all the countries we pour money into, Israel is the only one that we demand some sort-of capitulation of her self interest.

          • Texas Patriot

            We meddle too much in the affairs of other countries. It’s really none of our business how they handle their affairs. Israel can take care of herself. We just need to step back and let her do it.

  • Ross

    For a bot of light(?) relief, read this from Indonesia!

    http://rossrightangle.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/obama-putin-saviours-of-miss-world/